 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
What's to celebrate? It's all a load of nonsense.
-----------
Andy
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Andrew Cocker wrote:
>
> What's to celebrate? It's all a load of nonsense.
>
> -----------
> Andy
It's human nature to do so. You can't take that away from us.
--
Ken Tyler
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote in message <36E### [at] pacbell net>...
> It's human nature to do so. You can't take that away from us.
Well then, I guess I'm inhuman. And I don't think that the human race has got a great
deal
to be proud of, except it's ability to paper over the cracks. Seriously though, I
realise
I have a particularly warped view when compared to that of the masses, but Y2K is
really
just another day like any other. Being totally non-religious also, I can't celebrate
for
those reasons either. Please don't think I begrudge anyone the right to have a good
time
and rejoice in being alive. You just dont need an excuse to do so.
Hope that cheered you all up.
------------
Andy
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Andrew Cocker wrote:
> Hope that cheered you all up.
> ------------
> Andy
All is sunny and unruffled with me.
--
Ken Tyler
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
It's amazing that we still hold on to so many pagan celebrations. But, then
too, I enjoy them all! :)
Explain to me again, what bunnies have to do with Easter? :)
The partiers up on campus (from when I was in school) all went into
advertising, so let's blame it all on their literacy! heh
GrimDude
vos### [at] arkansasnet
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
GrimDude wrote in message <36e36363.0@news.povray.org>...
>It's amazing that we still hold on to so many pagan celebrations. But, then
>too, I enjoy them all! :)
>
>Explain to me again, what bunnies have to do with Easter? :)
>
Easter == christian replacement of old pagan "beginning of the year/coming
of spring" celebrations, everything becomes fertile again -> bunny ==
fertility symbol (same goes for eggs), tadaa!
oh hell, you most probably knew that and in answering I just showed myself
as the tongue-in-the-cheek type, so:
[COMMAND: delete previous message from memory]
[PROCESSING................... brz!]
:-)
Joh.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Andrew Cocker wrote in message <36e304dc.0@news.povray.org>...
>
>Ken wrote in message <36E### [at] pacbellnet>...
>
>> It's human nature to do so. You can't take that away from us.
>
>
>Well then, I guess I'm inhuman. And I don't think that the human race has
got a great deal
>to be proud of, except it's ability to paper over the cracks. Seriously
though, I realise
>I have a particularly warped view when compared to that of the masses, but
Y2K is really
>just another day like any other. Being totally non-religious also, I can't
celebrate for
>those reasons either. Please don't think I begrudge anyone the right to
have a good time
>and rejoice in being alive. You just dont need an excuse to do so.
>
I agree that you don't need an excuse to party, rejoice, whatever.
The thing is: To do so, you need a certain state of mind (ever felt like
partying while standing in the rain, waiting for the bus at 7:00 am? hmmm,
probably, if you just spotted your new girlfriend coming your way ;-)
And for most people it is a lot easier to reach that "party-state" together
with many others: If everyone is in a festive mood, it's just simpler to
join.
And: For most people it is also a lot more fun to party together with as
many others as possible. The 2000-shift is just a very convenient signal to
coordinate the partying all over the globe :-)
Johannes.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen Brooker wrote in message <36e36973.0@news.povray.org>...
>Didn't the ?Roman's? add in days to the calendar along the way when it
>started to get abit out of whack
Yep, Julius Caesar (-> Julian Calendar)
(and didn't someone add in a whole month
>somewhere along the line?)
Yep, Pope Gregor (-> Gergorian Calendar)
>So isn't the whole idea of counting out exactly
>2000 years somewhat flawed to start with?
Nope, because:
The year is defined as the time the earth needs to complete one circle
around the sun (nowadays it is a bit more complicated though ;-)
It is *not* defined as being 365 days long (or whatever number).
The additional days were added for exactly this reason, because the time
around the sun is not 365 days but 365-point-something (go look it up
yourself ;-)
So, given that Jesus was really born on Dec. 24th, 1 A.D., and given that
the number of days added by first the Julian Calendar and then the Gergorian
Calendar was exact, then at New Year 2000, exactly 1999 years A.D. will have
passed: That means: 1999 complete circles of the earth around the sun, which
is not 1999*365 days, but 1999*365-point-something days.
Johannes.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
