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

Reply via email to