Please.... Enough.... I get enough off topic stuff as it is... John "W.H.Scholten" wrote: > Tim Coleman wrote: > > > > On Mon, Dec 27, 1999 at 08:14:40PM +0000, W.H.Scholten wrote: > > > Joseph Carter wrote: > > > > > > > > *WHACK* 21st century starts in 2001. > > > > > > > > > > No it doesn't and here's why: > > > > > > Whether or not the start of our era was put at the year 1 or 0 doesn't > > > matter as this date (ref. Christ) is off by about 4 years anyway, so we > > > can just put the start of the AD era at 0 (which will not change > > > anything ) > > > > So what you're saying is that the start of *your* new millenium is on > > January 1st. > > No. If someone says 2+2=5 do you accept that? I don't. > > > Personally, my new millenium starts on March 12th, 2007. > > Hmm. You miss the point entirely. > > > [...] > > > Note also that the AD timekeeping was installed after the fact so noone > > > 'experienced' the years upto the new date system as 'AD' years. This > > > makes it especially irrelevant to insist that 1 was the first year and > > > that a century ends at the end of year x00 (as 'counting from 1' for > > > time is bad, as I said above, bad, but worse, nobody actually did > > > that!). > > > > It most certainly does not. If the AD years had started at zero, this > > would be the year 1998, and it would still be another year until the > > year 2000. > > No. Think about this before you make such statements please. This would > NOT be the year 1998 as I don't shift the years, just put the start at 0 > (if you still don't get it, reread my first post again, carefully) > > > Anyhow, this is a silly discussion. > > Hmm. What's silly is people not questioning stupid/bad conventions. In > any event, what I made clear is that it's possible (and preferable) > without any consequences (no year shift!) to put the start of AD at 0 > and thus end a millenium at the end of x999. > > > Tim > > clubneon: > > > Just like 1 indexed arrays. ;P > > You probably have rulers start at 1 then ;-) I prefer my rulers to start > at 0 though :) > > Wouter
