 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi everybody,
I wanted to make a nice "happy-newyear"-image and post in binaries.images,
but I didn't have enough time. You'll have to do without an image (maybe
next year ;-).
Anyway:
HAPPY NEWYEAR to everyone (well, actually it's 33 minutes to early here, but
that's just a detail ;-)
ZK
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Actually, I was just watching the new-year's fireworks :)
A happy New Year to y'all!!!
Margus
Hendrik Knaepen wrote:
>
> HAPPY NEWYEAR to everyone (well, actually it's 33 minutes to early here, but
> that's just a detail ;-)
>
> ZK
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hendrik Knaepen wrote:
>
> I wanted to make a nice "happy-newyear"-image and post in binaries.images,
> but I didn't have enough time....
Much more time to make something really amazing for 2000!
Hey, that would make a nice little contest - images for "Happy Year
2000", the deadline of course being 1999 Dec 31.
--
Daren Scot Wilson
dar### [at] pipeline com
www.newcolor.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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. If the world gets
this wrong, we'll be the first generation of people in history to short
change time by a year...
Or did you mean Happy Year 2000 as being the last year of the current
millennium, so that's why we should celebrate it?
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
You realize of course your quest for correctness is doomed to failure.
I cannot imagine that anyone will care about that technicality when 2000
rolls around. The symmetry of the number makes it too good to pass
up... oh well...
Steve
Lance Birch 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. If the world gets
> this wrong, we'll be the first generation of people in history to short
> change time by a year...
>
> Or did you mean Happy Year 2000 as being the last year of the current
> millennium, so that's why we should celebrate it?
>
> --
> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
