[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Don't want to start a year 2000 debate, but...



At 09:16 AM 1/29/98 -0600, Glen J. Kuban wrote:
>"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.

   Given that the dawn of the new century was celebrated on Jan 1. 1901, it
would actually be the 20th century that would be shortchanged to 99 years.

   Since calendars are a human invention we can pretty much do whatever we
want.  Personally, I say this is year 230,000,000 DoD (day of the dinosaur).


** Dinosauria On-Line. Home of THE DINOSTORE ** "Those who trade a        **
** (Dino stuff for sale), Jeff's Journal of  ** little freedom for a      **
** Dinosaur Paleontology, Jeff's Dinosaur    ** little security will soon **
** Picture Gallery, and The DOL Dinosaur     ** find they have none of    **
** Omnipedia. http://www.dinosauria.com      ** either." -- Jeff Poling   **