gfreitag at GREATBATCH.COM
Tue Jan 4 14:24:43 MST 2000
TomMatiska at compuserve.com writes:
>I've used their time hacks and cel alamanacs many a time, but what we are
>talking about is an otherwise meaningless popculture issue that has
>to do with the accuracy of their atomic clock (their real reason for
>Simple math tells us that positive one and negative one are two numbers
>apart. Any way we cut it, the year 1 B.C. and 1 A..D. are not two years
>apart. We need a zero year in there, and considering that the best guess
>of a 6th century scholar was probably a few years late, we should simply
>adjust the BC calendar by one and stop messing around with the calendar
>that we currently use.
>Happy _new_ millenium<g>
I have always wondered why people get so excited over particular years
ending in zero (and sometimes 5). As I can see no real useful purpose of
defining a millennium beyond popculture and commercial hype, I suppose it
isn't worth the effort of debate. However, it has only been 1999 years
since the start of A.D.
I know many people on this list prefer to be true to the facts, no matter
how disappointing the result may seem. These same people (myself include)
are also most likely strong supporters of proper grammar and spelling,
despite language being full of inconsistencies. While double negatives
may be acceptable to many, I prefer to at least attempt to be correct
regardless ( not 'irregardless') of how natural it is to use them. I
would love to spell phonetically with a 'f'.
I find it so appropriate in this age that we would disregard the 'fact'
because the 'feeling' is of more importance. Maybe there is some social
commentary in that observation.
More information about the Rushtalk