At 10:14 AM 1/6/99 , you wrote:
> There is a huge debate over this issue:
No there's not. The only debate is among those who either don't know or
won't accept facts.
>The simple fact is, there was never a year "0", or a year one.
You're right about no year zero, but no year 1??? Sez who?
> Instead, we have some folks who think they know math telling us that "Year
>1" was the start and therefore 2001 is the new millenium. Excuse me, they're
>saying that we went from 1 BC to 1 AD overnight at some time in the past? No
>year zero? What kind of math is that?
It's not math, it's time keeping. It's the same kind of "math" that goes
from 12:59 to 1:00. What, no hour zero?? When somebody asks you to count
to ten, do you start with zero? You're right about the calendar being an
abstract and being whatever we say it is, BUT, it also has to be
standardized. We can't have everyone going around keeping time and date
however they please (I know there are a few exceptions, but most of the
world is standardized). The powers that be have decided that the first year
of the first millennium was year one and therefore, the last year of this
millennium is year 2000. It's more confusing, not as intuitive and not as
easy to manage, but that's the way it is. No debate about it. Those who say
the new millennium starts on 1-1-2000 are wrong.
Mike Crumley 97 V6 Auto
mail to: mcrumley@airmail,net
The more you observe politics, the more you've
got to admit that each party is worse than the other.
--Will Rogers
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:11:53 EDT