Didn't the ?Roman's? add in days to the calendar along the way when it
started to get abit out of whack(and didn't someone add in a whole month
somewhere along the line?) ? So isn't the whole idea of counting out exactly
2000 years somewhat flawed to start with? I'm sure I read somewhere that if
you take into account for the extra days etc that have been added in there's
about six years difference...

Stephen & Tara
ste### [at] lexiconnetnospam
"All that glitters has a high refractive index."



Bob Hughes wrote in message <36E32879.8E78F7AB@aol.com>...
>Umm... there is no year 0 A.D. ;]
>Reason the year 2001 is actually 2000 years since year 1. And no, second
>1 of minute 1 of hour 1 of day 1 of year 1 does not have a whole zero
>year hiding in there somewhere. Goes immediately to year 1 B.C.
>according to Greg. Let's blame him if anyone.
>You do realize that zeroes weren't even in use in the ancient
>civilization, right? Invented by mathematicians I believe. Okay, let's
>blame them instead.
>Oh, and Happy New Year 2000! just in case I miss it later.
>
>
>Alan Kong wrote:
>>
>>   We've already got more than two thousand years of human history under
our
>> belts, Ken. The clock started tickin' before the year 0 A.D.
>>
>
>--
> omniVERSE: beyond the universe
>  http://members.aol.com/inversez/POVring.htm
> mailto:inv### [at] aolcom?PoV

Post a reply to this message