Yeah, I know, but hey, it was worth a try wasn't it?  :-)

The so called "millennium" bug (Y2K) doesn't help my cause either...

--
Lance.


---
For the latest MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 3 Jan 1999 09:52:09 +1000, "Lance Birch"
<zon### [at] satcomnetau> wrote:

>Why 2000?  It's not the start of the new millennium... You should make it
>for 2001, so the deadline will be 2000 Dec 31.
>
>Let's all get this right this time, the new millennium DOES NOT start on the
>year 2000!!!  It starts on the year 2001, 2000 is the last year of the
>current millennium not the first year of the new one.  

Hear, hear!  But you know, nobody will listen to reason on this, so I
propose that we join the rest of the mathematically challenged in
celebrating 2000, then have a big millenium bash a year later for
2001.  That way everybody wins, twice.

Post a reply to this message

I have a feeling the first party may be more fun.. just a hunch:)

Steve


"Ronald L. Parker" wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 3 Jan 1999 09:52:09 +1000, "Lance Birch"
> <zon### [at] satcomnetau> wrote:
> 
> >Why 2000?  It's not the start of the new millennium... You should make it
> >for 2001, so the deadline will be 2000 Dec 31.
> >
> >Let's all get this right this time, the new millennium DOES NOT start on the
> >year 2000!!!  It starts on the year 2001, 2000 is the last year of the
> >current millennium not the first year of the new one.
> 
> Hear, hear!  But you know, nobody will listen to reason on this, so I
> propose that we join the rest of the mathematically challenged in
> celebrating 2000, then have a big millenium bash a year later for
> 2001.  That way everybody wins, twice.

Post a reply to this message

I'm staring a bit of a campaign about the whole thing now.  I've written to
Seiko and complained about their misinformation on the subject... (they have
a "millennium" counter that counts to 2000).

I think that the Olympic Committee made a big mistake saying that the 2000
Sydney Olympics were the first of the new millennium!  Gee, you'd think
they'd get it right!

Oh well, two parties it is... :)

--
Lance.


---
For the latest MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone

Post a reply to this message

Lance Birch wrote:

> I'm staring a bit of a campaign about the whole thing now.  I've written to
> Seiko and complained about their misinformation on the subject... (they have
> a "millennium" counter that counts to 2000).
>
> I think that the Olympic Committee made a big mistake saying that the 2000
> Sydney Olympics were the first of the new millennium!  Gee, you'd think
> they'd get it right!
>
> Oh well, two parties it is... :)
>
> --
> Lance.
>

I don't get it. When new years day rolls around won't 2000 years
of human history have passed or not. Of course it will have.
Give it a rest and party on dude.

--
Ken Tyler

tyl### [at] pacbellnet

Post a reply to this message

>I don't get it. When new years day rolls around won't 2000 years
>of human history have passed or not. Of course it will have.
>Give it a rest and party on dude.

No, it's this kind of thing that gets everyone confused.  There was no year
0, so the year 2000 must be completed before 2000 years would have passed.
So the new millennium doesn't start until 1 January 2001...

--
Lance.


---
For the latest MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone

Post a reply to this message

Lance Birch wrote:

> >I don't get it. When new years day rolls around won't 2000 years
> >of human history have passed or not. Of course it will have.
> >Give it a rest and party on dude.
>
> No, it's this kind of thing that gets everyone confused.  There was no year
> 0, so the year 2000 must be completed before 2000 years would have passed.
> So the new millennium doesn't start until 1 January 2001...
>
> --
> Lance.

I'm not confused sonny boy. I said 2000 years will have passed
regardless of the starting point. Got ya !

--
Ken Tyler

tyl### [at] pacbellnet

Post a reply to this message

Lance Birch wrote:
> 
> No, it's this kind of thing that gets everyone confused.  There was no year
> 0, so the year 2000 must be completed before 2000 years would have passed.
> So the new millennium doesn't start until 1 January 2001...


The Christian calendar is arbitrary -- so what?  The big digit is changing
from 1 to 2.  Meanwhile, our Gates-infested technology will grind to
a violent halt.... these are reasons enough to celebrate :).

2001 is just another LSD shift.

Dan

Post a reply to this message

Dan Connelly wrote:

> The Christian calendar is arbitrary -- so what?  The big digit is changing
> from 1 to 2.  Meanwhile, our Gates-infested technology will grind to
> a violent halt.... these are reasons enough to celebrate :).
>
> 2001 is just another LSD shift.
>
> Dan

 :)

Boy I hope Pov is Y2K compliant.

--
Ken Tyler

tyl### [at] pacbellnet

Post a reply to this message

Ok ok, but I'm sick of everyone else saying that the year 2000 is the
starting point for the second millennium AD.

(oh, and the century too)

--
Lance.


---
For the latest MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone

Post a reply to this message