On Aug 26, 8:54*pm, TJ wrote:
John wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 21:15:30 -0400, TJ wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 08:49:29 -0400, TJ wrote:

Now, if you can show me where the first
century started with year 0, I'll concede your point.
There wasn't ever a year 1 either, what's your point.?
The calendar we use was invented in the 15th century and missed the
birth of Jesus by about 4 1/2 years by the current best guess
It doesn't matter when it was invented, or whether they got the dates of
specific events correct. What does matter is how they started counting..
If they started with 1, then 2000 was the end of the 20th century. If
they started with 0, then 1999 was the end of the 20th century. I think
they started with 1, since only mathematicians, computer programmers,
and engineers start counting with 0.

However, if you can show me where they started counting with the January
1 that *followed* the date when they *believed* Christ was born, then I
will also concede the point.

The truth is, nobody really knows. I don't think Pope Gregory ever
thought he would be questioned on the matter. After all, you just don't
question the Pope's edicts.

TJ

Go down to the store and buy a dozen eggs - do you get 11 eggs - 0 -
11?? a loaf of bread - you get "0" loaves maybe?

My point exactly. So, if you are going to count 2000 years, why stop and
celebrate after number 1999? The first 2000 years is complete at the
*end* of year 2000, not the beginning of 2000. The next 100 years start
with the beginning of 2001.

The whole arguement is not even rediculas, it is simply stupid.

Yep. I read somewhere that most people in 1900 realized that that was
the last year of the 19th century. I guess that means that 20th century
man was stupider than 19th century man.

TJ- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I used the timer on the stove to time my steak tonight.. When the
timer said zero, there was one second left until the tone went
off...??? Oh my.. global taxing?