Games Of The Millennium Poll
Travis Hamer
Quatoria, er, BrotherGrimm, er, Nevermind... wrote in message ...
>In the swirling mists of history, on Fri, 31 Dec 1999 17:25:48 +1100,
>"Scott" <squa...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
>
>>What is the best game of all time? Perhaps the old but still classical
>>Tetris in your mind is, or the modern, action and giblet packed Quake III
>>Arena may appeal to those seeking slightly more blood.
>>
>>Visit this site to participate in the ULTIMATE games poll, to decide the
>>greatest computer games of the millennium.
>>
>>URL: http://www.labyrinth.net.au/~squat/
>>
>
>I dunno. How about we wait until next year, since that's the end of
>the millennium, ya dumbass?
>
>Quatoria
>--
>In the pursuit of knowledge,
>every day something is added.
Actually, the end of the Millenium, if you are going off the birth of Christ
as the starting point, would be closer to 1996, or 1997, smart ass.
Travis
>In the practice of Tao,
>every day something is dropped.
>Less and less do you need to force things,
>until finally you arrive at non-action.
>When nothing is done,
>nothing is left un-done.
>
>-Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching
Quatoria, er, BrotherGrimm, er, Nevermind...
"Scott" <squa...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
>What is the best game of all time? Perhaps the old but still classical
>Tetris in your mind is, or the modern, action and giblet packed Quake III
>Arena may appeal to those seeking slightly more blood.
>
>Visit this site to participate in the ULTIMATE games poll, to decide the
>greatest computer games of the millennium.
>
>URL: http://www.labyrinth.net.au/~squat/
>
I dunno. How about we wait until next year, since that's the end of
the millennium, ya dumbass?
Quatoria
--
In the pursuit of knowledge,
every day something is added.
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
> I dunno. How about we wait until next year, since that's the end of
> the millennium, ya dumbass?
People don't care about that, they just care about when the numbers
roll around.
--
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen <to...@multinett.no>
This line intentionally left cluttered. dfgjksdfdghsdknfgsjksngskj
Quatoria, er, BrotherGrimm, er, Nevermind...
Iver Wilhelmsen <to...@multinett.no> wrote:
>Quat...@bellsouth.net (Quatoria, er, BrotherGrimm, er, Nevermind...) writes:
>
>> I dunno. How about we wait until next year, since that's the end of
>> the millennium, ya dumbass?
>
>People don't care about that, they just care about when the numbers
>roll around.
I know. They care about the Milleni-O...when they get to see a bunch
of O's. And I don't correct people about it elsewhere, because it's
pointless and stupid, but I do expect people smart enough to put up a
website to have enough brains to know when it's actually the
millennium.
Eric Harding
>Quat...@bellsouth.net (Quatoria, er, BrotherGrimm, er, Nevermind...) writes:
>
>> I dunno. How about we wait until next year, since that's the end of
>> the millennium, ya dumbass?
>
>People don't care about that, they just care about when the numbers
>roll around.
>
That's becuase they majority of people are stupid, and therefore, should be
killed.
Eric
Eric Harding
So of course, I have a typo in my previous message. I'm next! *BLAM*
Eric
JSB
Baseball player of the decade (Griffey or Bonds?)
Oh wait I guess I should wait till next year to decide. <g>
Quatoria, er, BrotherGrimm, er, Nevermind... <Quat...@bellsouth.net> wrote
in message news:u7VsOBgYAx4ddl...@4ax.com...
> In the swirling mists of history, on 31 Dec 1999 14:07:44 +0100, Tor
> Iver Wilhelmsen <to...@multinett.no> wrote:
>
> >Quat...@bellsouth.net (Quatoria, er, BrotherGrimm, er, Nevermind...)
writes:
> >
> >> I dunno. How about we wait until next year, since that's the end of
> >> the millennium, ya dumbass?
> >
> >People don't care about that, they just care about when the numbers
> >roll around.
>
Quatoria, er, BrotherGrimm, er, Nevermind...
ome...@att.net (Eric Harding) wrote:
>In article <84j11f$itu$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>, ome...@att.net (Eric Harding) wrote:
>>In article <wkiu1fp...@mail.multinett.no>, Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
>> <to...@multinett.no> wrote:
>>>Quat...@bellsouth.net (Quatoria, er, BrotherGrimm, er, Nevermind...) writes:
>>>
>>>> I dunno. How about we wait until next year, since that's the end of
>>>> the millennium, ya dumbass?
>>>
>>>People don't care about that, they just care about when the numbers
>>>roll around.
>>>
>>
>>
>>That's becuase they majority of people are stupid, and therefore, should be
>>killed.
>>
>>Eric
>
>
>So of course, I have a typo in my previous message. I'm next! *BLAM*
>
>Eric
Two, actually.
Quatoria, er, BrotherGrimm, er, Nevermind...
"Travis Hamer" <tr...@bobcats.net> wrote:
>Actually, the end of the Millenium, if you are going off the birth of Christ
>as the starting point, would be closer to 1996, or 1997, smart ass.
Which you know, of course, because you were there.
Travis Hamer
Quatoria, er, BrotherGrimm, er, Nevermind... wrote in message ...
Which I know, of course, because Jesus was born during the reign of King
Herod, who died in 4 B.C., as a matter of historical record.
Travis
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
> Which I know, of course, because Jesus was born during the reign of King
> Herod, who died in 4 B.C., as a matter of historical record.
The authors of the New Testament wrote that he was born then. Not
exactly birth certificate quality.
--
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen <to...@multinett.no>
I hope I live to see the day
The Pope gets high - Robbie Williams
Travis Hamer
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen wrote in message ...
His birth is the beginning of the current AD timeline, and the accuracy of
the bible is irrelevent. King Herod's death is historically proven to be in
4 B.C. Since Jesus was born in his reign, we would at least be born before 4
B.C. the monk who came up with the modern Calender just started it in the
wrong year. So, the new Millenium, two thousand years after the birth of
christ, would have started sometime in the mid nineties. However, you can
say that the dating system, even if it is innacurate, states that the
Millennium starts in 2001. I agree, however, since the starting point is now
(in that case) totally arbitrary, I'll just start counting from 1 B.C., and
enjoy the beginning of this new Millennium.
Even China celebrated the new Millennium, and their new years isn't on
January 1st. The point is, there are about 150,000 stuck up Mathemeticians
and eggheads who are going to be hooping and Hollering about the new
millennium a year from now, while the rest of the world will be seeing just
another year go buy. However, if it makes you feel smarter than the rest of
the world, then by all means, please continue.
All I know is that I saw the world come together yesterday (except the
eggheads), to celebrate a milestone in Human history. It actually gave me
hope.
Travis
Damocles
er, BrotherGrimm, er, Nevermind...) wrote:
>In the swirling mists of history, on Wed, 29 Dec 1999 22:21:39 -0600,
>"Travis Hamer" <tr...@bobcats.net> wrote:
>
>>Actually, the end of the Millenium, if you are going off the birth of Christ
>>as the starting point, would be closer to 1996, or 1997, smart ass.
>
>Which you know, of course, because you were there.
>
>Quatoria
People think 2000 is the start of the new millenium so it's the start
of the new millenium. The calender is a totally arbitrary thing, after
all...not to mention that for billions of people around the world the
date didn't mean jack.
Joe62
>People think 2000 is the start of the new millenium so it's the start
>of the new millenium. The calender is a totally arbitrary thing, after
>all...
While you are right, at the same time I think most people DO know
about the "zero year thing". They just aren't so anal-retentive as to
give a damn.
Joe McGinn
_________________________
GA-Sports Writer
http://www.ga-sports.com/
Damocles
wrote:
>phae...@yahoo.com (Damocles) wrote:
>
>>People think 2000 is the start of the new millenium so it's the start
>>of the new millenium. The calender is a totally arbitrary thing, after
>>all...
>
>While you are right, at the same time I think most people DO know
>about the "zero year thing". They just aren't so anal-retentive as to
>give a damn.
>
But as has been pointed out, Jesus almost certainly wasn't born on the
fixed date of 1 AD anyway, so we've already passed the historical
second millenium startup.
John Secker
<tr...@bobcats.net> writes
>Which I know, of course, because Jesus was born during the reign of King
>Herod, who died in 4 B.C., as a matter of historical record.
>
What we do know is that our current calendar started (nominally) at the
beginning of Year 1, so the second millennium is complete at the end of
the year 2000. We aren't celebrating Jesus' millennium, since as you
rightly say we don't know when that was.
--
John Secker
Travis Hamer
John Secker wrote in message ...
Year one what? A.D., as in the Year of Our Lord. It would start the first
year he was born, then. That is the millennium Christianity would be
celebrating. Everyone else is just celebrating an arbitrary milestone, the
rolling over of the date, most of the people celebrating the change of the
Millennium (IE India,China, Pakistan, etc..) could care less about When (or
if) Jesus was born.
Travis
John Secker
<phae...@yahoo.com> writes
>On Sat, 01 Jan 2000 05:55:19 GMT, Quat...@bellsouth.net (Quatoria,
>er, BrotherGrimm, er, Nevermind...) wrote:
>
>>In the swirling mists of history, on Wed, 29 Dec 1999 22:21:39 -0600,
>>"Travis Hamer" <tr...@bobcats.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Actually, the end of the Millenium, if you are going off the birth of Christ
>>>as the starting point, would be closer to 1996, or 1997, smart ass.
>>
>>Which you know, of course, because you were there.
>>
>>Quatoria
>
>of the new millenium. The calender is a totally arbitrary thing, after
>date didn't mean jack.
>
mille and annum, meaning a thousand years. Spelt your way it would come
from mille and anum, and mean a thousand arseholes. Seems appropriate
somehow.
--
John Secker
John Secker
<tr...@bobcats.net> writes
>>So the date of Jesus' birth, assuming he existed at all, is unknown.
>>What we do know is that our current calendar started (nominally) at the
>>beginning of Year 1, so the second millennium is complete at the end of
>>the year 2000. We aren't celebrating Jesus' millennium, since as you
>>rightly say we don't know when that was.
>>--
>>John Secker
>
>Year one what? A.D., as in the Year of Our Lord. It would start the first
>year he was born, then. That is the millennium Christianity would be
>celebrating. Everyone else is just celebrating an arbitrary milestone, the
>rolling over of the date, most of the people celebrating the change of the
>Millennium (IE India,China, Pakistan, etc..) could care less about When (or
>if) Jesus was born.
>
from 1999 to 2000. However if they want to talk about "two millennia"
then they are talking about 2000 years (of that calendar) and that has
not elapsed until 1/1/01. Jesus' birth is irrelevant to the calendar we
use now, except in the sense that the people who originally set it up
were trying (unsuccessfully) to match his birth with 1 AD.
--
John Secker
Quatoria, er, BrotherGrimm, er, Nevermind...
John Secker <jo...@secker.demon.co.uk> wrote:
I think I love you, John.
Travis Hamer
John Secker wrote in message <+KcnhdAO...@secker.demon.co.uk>...
We are going in circles here, and missing eachother's points. Enjoy your new
Millennium when it rolls around.
Travis
Andrew J. Grall
happy, because any game from 1990-1999 would qualify.
--
Andrew J. Grall
Ph.D. Candidate at University of Michigan
"An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a
very narrow field." - Niels Bohr
"JSB" <soft...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:#LHann8U$GA.308@cpmsnbbsa03...
> So I guess the game of the decade won't cut it either.
>
> Baseball player of the decade (Griffey or Bonds?)
> Oh wait I guess I should wait till next year to decide. <g>
>
>
>
> Quatoria, er, BrotherGrimm, er, Nevermind... <Quat...@bellsouth.net>
wrote
> in message news:u7VsOBgYAx4ddl...@4ax.com...
> > In the swirling mists of history, on 31 Dec 1999 14:07:44 +0100, Tor
> > Iver Wilhelmsen <to...@multinett.no> wrote:
> >
> > >Quat...@bellsouth.net (Quatoria, er, BrotherGrimm, er, Nevermind...)
> writes:
> > >
> > >> I dunno. How about we wait until next year, since that's the end of
> > >> the millennium, ya dumbass?
> > >
> > >People don't care about that, they just care about when the numbers
> > >roll around.
> >
> > I know. They care about the Milleni-O...when they get to see a bunch
> > of O's. And I don't correct people about it elsewhere, because it's
> > pointless and stupid, but I do expect people smart enough to put up a
> > website to have enough brains to know when it's actually the
> > millennium.
> >
James Dusek
> Even China celebrated the new Millennium, and their new years isn't on
> January 1st. The point is, there are about 150,000 stuck up Mathemeticians
> and eggheads who are going to be hooping and Hollering about the new
> millennium a year from now, while the rest of the world will be seeing just
> another year go buy.
That depends on if your a software or hardware person. For
software people the new Millennium started this year, for hardware people
it's next year, enjoy.
James Dusek
Knight37
> That depends on if your a software or hardware person. For
>software people the new Millennium started this year, for hardware
>people it's next year, enjoy.
It depends on if you're a programmer or a human. Programmers start
counting with 0, while humans, on the other hand, start counting with
1. :)
--
Knight37 (a programmer)
"This is your life.
Good to the last drop.
Doesn't get any better than this.
This is your life,
and it's ending one minute at a time." -- Tyler Durden
Neil Harrington
news:MPG.12dd6007d...@news.cig.mot.com...
> In article <s6siu0l...@corp.supernews.com>, tr...@bobcats.net says...
> > Even China celebrated the new Millennium, and their new years isn't on
> > January 1st. The point is, there are about 150,000 stuck up Mathemeticians
> > and eggheads who are going to be hooping and Hollering about the new
> > millennium a year from now, while the rest of the world will be seeing just
> > another year go buy.
That's all that just happened this January 1, for that matter.
Those "stuck up mathematicians and eggheads" of yours will be more or less correct,
though I doubt they'll be whooping and hollering.
>
> That depends on if your a software or hardware person. For
> software people the new Millennium started this year, for hardware people
> it's next year, enjoy.
>
> James Dusek
Now how in the world do you arrive at that? Or am I just missing a joke, something in
the line of hard-disk megabytes vs. memory megabytes?
The first millennium started with the year I. Of course no one celebrated it in that
year, since it wasn't until a couple of hundred years later that someone decided to
start a calendar with the supposed birth year of Christ, which we now know to be off
a few years--not that that really matters anyway. The millennium is really a calendar
thing, not a time-period-from-some-historical-event thing.
That first millennium ended with the year M, and the second millennium started with
the beginning of the year MI. There were zeroes by that time, but practically no one
in the western world was using 'em--they were all still using the zero-free Roman
numeral system. I think Arabic numerals and zeroes started to come in about the XIIth
century.
So this millennium (still the second, folks, regardless of celebrations to the
contrary) will end with the end of the year 2000. And the third millennium will start
with the year 2001.
*When* in the year 2001 is the knotty question that almost no one is even asking yet.
March 15, probably, but arguments can be made otherwise.
Neil
Stevie
Neil Harrington <nos...@this.net> wrote in message
news:850liv$dm4$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net...
"Millennium" doesn't mean 1000 years anymore. It's just a symbolic label
given to the time between "x000" and "(x+1)000". The new "millenium started
on Jan. 1, 2000 regardless of math controversy. If someone insists on
making it a mathematical argument, then lets just say that the first
millenium only had 999 years in it in order to correct a creative oversight.
And yes, we can do that (we reset watches every once in a while too).
John Secker
<nos...@this.net> writes
>*When* in the year 2001 is the knotty question that almost no one is even asking
>yet.
>March 15, probably, but arguments can be made otherwise.
>
calendar jumped 14 days, March 21st shifted to April 4th, which is why
the fiscal year still ends then.
--
John Secker
Darren Chriest
> I dunno. How about we wait until next year, since that's the end of
> the millennium, ya dumbass?
I don't want to get into another millennium argument but he is right.
2000 is the last year of the 20th century and the 2nd millennium.
Darren Chriest
> Even China celebrated the new Millennium,
Wrong. Some residents of Hong Kong celebrated the new year which isn't
really surprising because they were British subjects up until a few
short years ago. They still don't use the Chinese calendar, and probably
never will. China as a whole (all 3 billion citizens) didn't give a rats
ass about the western celebration of the new year.
Try again
Darren Chriest
> Actually, the end of the Millenium, if you are going off the birth of Christ
> as the starting point, would be closer to 1996, or 1997, smart ass.
Actually, dumbass, the calendar we currently use starts with A.D. 1
(The 1st Year Of Our Lord Jesus Christ). It was set as that year in
A.D. 523 and we have been using it without change since. The actual
date of Christ's birth has nothing to do with it at all. The calendar
simply marks the number of our orbits around the sun, not how many
birthdays Jesus Christ would have had or how old he would be if he
were still alive.
1 + 2000 = 2001. That is the first year of the 3rd millennium and
the 21st century.
Darren Chriest
> That depends on if your a software or hardware person. For
> software people the new Millennium started this year, for hardware people
> it's next year, enjoy.
How do you figure? What the hell does software (or programmers for
that matter?) care about "millenniums"?
Darren Chriest
> It depends on if you're a programmer or a human. Programmers start
> counting with 0, while humans, on the other hand, start counting with
> 1. :)
Wrong.
Darren Chriest
> "Millennium" doesn't mean 1000 years anymore. It's just a symbolic label
> given to the time between "x000" and "(x+1)000".
The word "millennium" LITERALLY means One Thousand (unless my Latin
is horribly off).
The new "millennium started
> on Jan. 1, 2000 regardless of math controversy.
There is absolutely no "math controversy" whatsoever. The controversy
is whether the calendar started with a zero (0) or a one (1) year and
whether you start counting things with a 0 or a 1. Ever hear of "The
Year A.D. 0"? didn't think so
> If someone insists on
> making it a mathematical argument, then lets just say that the first
> millenium only had 999 years in it in order to correct a creative oversight.
> And yes, we can do that (we reset watches every once in a while too).
That's absolute idiocy. You're just rationalizing your flawed logic.
Try this. Go to the library. Look up some old newspapers from
say... 1900. Read anything about any "turn of the century celebrations?
No? Ok, try 1901. There you go! That's when they celebrated the change
from the 19th century to the 20th century. Why do you suppose that is?
Darren Chriest
> We are going in circles here, and missing eachother's points. Enjoy your new
> Millennium when it rolls around.
No, you're going in circles and missing the point entirely. Our
calendar does nothing more than count our planet's orbits around
the sun. The calendar was started at an arbitrary year (1) and we
have been counting continously ever since.
Darren Chriest
> People think 2000 is the start of the new millenium so it's the start
> of the new millenium.
And many, many people are very, very mistaken.
Darren Chriest
> But as has been pointed out, Jesus almost certainly wasn't born on the
> fixed date of 1 AD anyway, so we've already passed the historical
> second millenium startup.
There is no such thing as "the historical second millenium startup".
Quatoria, er, BrotherGrimm, er, Nevermind...
Darren Chriest <dchries!NOSPAM!@home.com> wrote:
Wow. I must be seeing things. Didn't you just spend eight posts a
couple of minutes ago explaining that the last millennium was
celebrated in 1901, not 1900, that a millennium literally means a
thousand years, and that our counting began with the year 1? Am I
insane, or would that mean 1-1001, 1001-2001, 2001-3001, et al, into
infinity?
cccp1
news:3883E339...@home.com...
>
> That's absolute idiocy. You're just rationalizing your flawed logic.
>
> Try this. Go to the library. Look up some old newspapers from
> say... 1900. Read anything about any "turn of the century celebrations?
> No? Ok, try 1901. There you go! That's when they celebrated the change
> from the 19th century to the 20th century. Why do you suppose that is?
They were as anal retentive as you are? That, plus they didn't have
odometers and therefore did not grow up experiencing the profound joy of
being shoved in Dad's Buick at midnight just to watch the numbers all roll
over at once. Wheee!!!
cccp1
> In the swirling mists of history, on Tue, 18 Jan 2000 03:29:42 GMT,
> Darren Chriest <dchries!NOSPAM!@home.com> wrote:
>
> >Quatoria, er, BrotherGrimm, er, Nevermind... wrote:
> >
> >> I dunno. How about we wait until next year, since that's the end of
> >> the millennium, ya dumbass?
> >
> > I don't want to get into another millennium argument but he is right.
> >2000 is the last year of the 20th century and the 2nd millennium.
>
> Wow. I must be seeing things. Didn't you just spend eight posts a
> couple of minutes ago explaining that the last millennium was
> celebrated in 1901, not 1900, that a millennium literally means a
> thousand years, and that our counting began with the year 1? Am I
> insane, or would that mean 1-1001, 1001-2001, 2001-3001, et al, into
> infinity?
>
Not that I in any way, shape or form support this sort of hair-splitting,
but I think he said the turn-of-the-millenium was celebrated on the last
night of 1900/first morning of 1901 (which I'm not even sure it was...didn't
they like round numbers too?). Besides, the first period of your list is
1001 years long. Wouldn't it appear instead as 1-1000, 1001-2000,
2001-3000, etc?
Geoffrey Tobin
...
> Some residents of Hong Kong celebrated the new year which isn't
> really surprising because they were British subjects up until a few
> short years ago. They still don't use the Chinese calendar,
> and probably never will.
Considering that the years of the native Chinese calendar
measure the reign of the Emperor, probably not. :)
The twelve-year cycle is a Buddhist introduction
and i don't know that it has a starting point.
> China as a whole (all 3 billion citizens)
Try 1.2 billion. With 3 billion, China would be starving.
> didn't give a rats ass about the western celebration of the new year.
Well, no, because it's not a Rat year, is it?
However, the large number of traditional performers on the Great Wall
seemed to be enjoying the event thoroughly.
--
Best wishes!
Geoffrey Tobin
Email: G.T...@latrobe.edu.au
WWW: http://www.ee.latrobe.edu.au/~gt/gt.html
Quatoria, er, BrotherGrimm, er, Nevermind...
"cccp1" <idono...@greeneggsand.ham> wrote:
>Besides, the first period of your list is
>1001 years long. Wouldn't it appear instead as 1-1000, 1001-2000,
>2001-3000, etc?
Um... last I checked
1
+
1000
---------
1001
Has math changed that radically while I've been out of high school?
John Dilick
(Quatoria, er, BrotherGrimm, er, Nevermind...) proclaimed:
>In the swirling mists of history, on Tue, 18 Jan 2000 22:16:12 GMT,
>"cccp1" <idono...@greeneggsand.ham> wrote:
>
>>Besides, the first period of your list is
>>1001 years long. Wouldn't it appear instead as 1-1000, 1001-2000,
>>2001-3000, etc?
>
>Um... last I checked
>1
>+
>1000
>---------
>1001
>
>Has math changed that radically while I've been out of high school?
Er, I hate to break it to you, but you're committing what programmers call
a "fencepost error".
1+1000 = 1001, true, but that contains 1001 discrete integers, because you
have to count the end numbers as well.
--
John Dilick dili...@home.com
If at first you don't succeed, cheat. Cheat until caught, then lie.
Quatoria, er, BrotherGrimm, er, Nevermind...
dili...@home.com (John Dilick) wrote:
>
>1+1000 = 1001, true, but that contains 1001 discrete integers, because you
>have to count the end numbers as well.
Right. That's exactly my point, John. The millennium would begin when
the thousand years are over..IE, in the *beginning* of 1001, the end
of 1000.
Jussi Mattila
: Right. That's exactly my point, John. The millennium would begin when
: the thousand years are over..IE, in the *beginning* of 1001, the end
: of 1000.
The only thing that matters even a little is that the numbers
changed from 1999 to 2000. Who cares when a new millennium starts?
At least now there were some major issues because of the change.
Anyway, the current year is what it is because someone before us decided to
keep track of time and ended up picking a year to start counting from. If I
could, I'd change the year to 4532 so I wouldn't have to listen to this
sensless debate.
BTW, I don't think you can spend the last year of the millennium
(yes yes, year 2000, but like I said, who cares) any worse than
trying to enlighten people about when a new millennium starts...
I'll happily accept a mathematically incorrect version of
a millennium just to get it over with! (Since nobody really gives
a shit, including me)
- Jussi
PS. This was my first and last post about this subject, ever.
I'll now crawl back into the hole I came from... ;)