Re: Countdown to the Millennium

[Todd <tdh@vbref.org>]

This discussion reminds me of a humorous countdown I saw in a usenet
.signature on an engineering newsgroup:


   "Just 536 days until people quit saying the "real millenium" hasn't
    arrived yet."







"mike_daly" <mike_daly@email.msn.com> writes:
> I agree that you should celebrate whenever you like, but know what you are
> celebrating for.  What would it be like to celebrate your 50th birthday a
> year early ;)  The people saying that this is the end of the millennium when
> it is not is a pet peeve of mine.
> 
> Doug O'Neal <doneal@cobweb.net> wrote in message
> news:01beced4$4ae283a0$1b5282d0@default...
> > mike_daly <mike_daly@email.msn.com> wrote in article
> > <#CnV8Etz#GA.328@cpmsnbbsa05>...
> > > Fun and all aside, the next millennium does not start until Jan. 1st
> > 2001.
> > > All the countdown that you have is to tell us when the year 2000 ends.
> > That
> > > is not the start of the next millennium.  Remember there is no year 0 in
> > the
> > > calendar.
> >
> > OK -- seriously off topic, but this is a slight pet peeve of mine.
> > Basically: it don't really matter; celebrate whenever you'd like.  Heck,
> > celebrate twice if you'd like.  The system of numbering years that we
> still
> > use wasn't set up until something like 500 AD, by a monk who looked
> through
> > historical records and attempted to count the years since Jesus' birth.
> He
> > was almost certainly off by a few years anyway.  So there may have been no
> > year 0, but there was no year 300 AD either, at least not for the people
> > living then.
> >
> > Doug
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > Asst. Prof. of Physics, West Liberty State College ... and Penn State fan
> > http://www.cobweb.net/~doneal
> >