> On Tuesday, Bernie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> typed: > > ] Chad A. Fernandez wrote: > ] >The 90's are over, because we already had 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, > ] >97, 98, 99, 10 years in all. > ] > ] But if we take it from the start wasn't the 00's the years > ] 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 and 10? > ] And is the 00's the correct name (if we ignore when they start)? I would think that the "1's" would be the correct name. We don't have a zero digit in math...ones, tens , hunderds, thousands, ten thousands, but no Zero's place :-) Chad A. Fernandez To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message. Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies.
- [SURVPC] way OT y2k? nadda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Re: [SURVPC] way OT y2k? nadda Ben A L Jemmett
- Re: [SURVPC] way OT y2k? nadda Or Botton
- Re: [SURVPC] y2k? nadda Bernie
- Re: [SURVPC] y2k? nadda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Re: [SURVPC] y2k? nadda socket7
- Re: [SURVPC] y2k? nadda Bernie
- Re: [SURVPC] y2k? nadda Per Backman
- Re: [SURVPC] y2k? nadda Bernie
- Re: [SURVPC] y2k? nadda Ben Hood
- Re: [SURVPC] y2k? nadda socket7
- Re: [SURVPC] y2k? nadda Bernie
- Re: [SURVPC] y2k? nadda Bernie
- Re: [SURVPC] y2k? nadda Ben A L Jemmett
- Re: [SURVPC] y2k? nadda Ben Hood
- Re: [SURVPC] y2k? nadda Bernie
- Re: [SURVPC] y2k? nadda Per Backman
- Re: [SURVPC] y2k? nadda Brent Reynolds
- Re: [SURVPC] y2k? nadda Per Backman
- Re: [SURVPC] y2k? nadda Brent Reynolds
- Re: [SURVPC] y2k? nadda Bernie
