[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Don't want to start a year 2000 debate, but...
T.A. Curtis ended his recent message with:
"Jan. 1, 2001 is the new millennium-not 2000!!! "
Not all historians agree. A recent documentary on the
controversy brought out that some experts argue that
the most straightforward way to look at this is to regard
the 1st century as anamoly having only 99 years (year 1
through 99 inclusive). That way, subsequent centuries
would begin at 100, 200, 300, etc. while still having
100 years each. Thus the new century would indeed begin
at 2000. This makes sense to me.