OT: There is nothing wrong with millennium celebrations 1/1/2000
char...@my-deja.com
intelligence and/or plain and simply be called stupid?
Then just mention that you are going to celebrate the new millennium
this New Year's Eve. Some party-pooper is sure to tell you, "The new
millennium doesn't start until 2001".
Well, I'm here to tell you it's OK to have a millennium party and say
"Happy new millennium!" at Midnight this year!
Before we get into that, let's look at why some people are trying to
spoil the fun:
Imagine you have three boxes, labeled '1st millennium', '2nd
millennium' and '3rd millennium.' Imagine you also have a bunch of
blocks labeled 1 AD, 2 AD, 3 AD, and so on. Each of the boxes holds
exactly 1000 blocks. If you put the blocks in the boxes in order, the
box labeled '1st millennium' be filled with the first 1000 blocks:
labled 1 AD through 1000 AD. The box labeled '2nd millennium' will be
filled with the second 1000 blocks: 1001 AD - 2000 AD. The first block
to be put in the box labeled '3rd millennium' is the block labeled
'2001 AD.' This illustration shows why the 3rd millennium doesn't start
until 2001.
But that still doesn't mean you can't have your millennium party this
year: the millennium 'the 2000s' starts on 1/1/2000; celebrate the
start of the millennium instead!
But be prepared! If you mention to a spoilsport that you are
celebrating the millennium this year, they are sure to point out that
the 3rd millennium doesn't start until 2001.
If they are reasonable, all you'll have to ask them is: "Since the
decade of the 1990s started on 1/1/1990, when do you think the
millennium of the 2000s starts?" Occasionally, you will run across a
partypooper that immediately recognizes the reasonableness of this and
that is the end of it.
But I've been through this many, many times around the office
watercooler, at parties, in Internet chats and Usenet newsgroups and
have found there are many partypoopers that are so intent on raining on
the parade they take more convincing.
Sometimes they just require a more detail explanation of how it works:
There are (at least) two accepted and recognized ways of dividing the
timeline into eras.
For the ordinally described eras (20th Century, 3rd Millennium),
milestones are placed at points a round number of years from 1 AD.
People celebrate when milestones are reached because they signify the
end of one era and the start of another.
- Example 1: 1/1/1901 is the milestone that marked the end of the 19th
Century era and the start of the 20th Century era.
- Example 2: 1/1/2001 is the milestone that marks the end of the 2nd
Millennium era and the start of the 3rd Millennium era.
For the cardinally described eras (the 1700s, the 1990s, the 2000s)
milestones are place at points where the digits of the year are round
numbers. People celebrate when milestones are reached because they
signify the end of one era and the start of another.
- Example 1: 1/1/1990 is the milestone that marked the end of the 1980s
decade/era and the start of the 1990s decade/era.
- Example 2: 1/1/2000 is the milestone that marks the end of the 1000s
millennium/era and the start of the 2000s millennium/era.
But you'll hear the same objections over and over again:
"But there was no year zero!"
That only affects the ordinally described eras. If the powers-that-be
decided, for whatever reason, to start the calendar with the year 123
(3 BC, 2 BC, 1 BC, 123 AD, 124 AD, etc.) the decade 'the 1990s' would
still be the years from 1990 - 1999 and the millennium 'the 2000s'
would still be the years from 2000 - 2999. It doesn't matter whether
the first year is 0, 1 or 123.
"But that means the first millennium only has 999 years!"
Well, since a millennium by definition has 1000 years, that obviously
can't be. Thus 'the 0000s' isn't a millennium. But that doesn't affect
the fact that the 2000s IS 1000 years long and therefore a millennium,
a new millennium or that it is the next millennium after the 1000s.
"OK, but technically ANY 1000 year period is a millennium!"
While this is true, it kind of misses the point: The reason that the
start of the millennia in question (both the 3rd Millennium and the
2000s) are considered significant and their start is being celebrated
is not that they are just another 1000 year period but that they are
recognized eras.
"The words 'the millennium' mean the 3rd millennium and not the 2000s!"
Even if it is generally accepted that the words are accepted mean the
3rd millennium (which is debatable; just look around at all the
references to 1/1/2000 and 'millennium') that doesn't mean they can
ONLY mean the 3rd millennium. For example, 'last year' and 'next' or
'new year' by themselves are generally understood to refer to calendar
years. But, in the proper context, the could refer to a school year, a
sporting season, a fiscal year or a number of other things. Reasonably
intelligent people can generally figure out what is being referred to
by the context in which they are used.
To illustrate, this fall many newspapers and magazines carried a quote
from the Columbine principal along the lines of, "We want to put last
year behind us and focus on the new year ahead." While it would not be
unreasonable, when reading that quote outside of any context, to assume
that 1998 and 2000 were being referred to, in the context of an article
about the students returning to school, people were able to determine
that it was the previous and new school years being referred to and not
calendar years.
By the same token, when hearing a statement that refers to 1/1/2000 and
'new millennium' it is more reasonable to assume the 2000s are being
acceptably referred to rather than assuming they are incorrectly
referring to the 3rd millennium. Why assume an error?
Or, as someone on one of the Usenet newsgroups put it (paraphrasing
Lewis Carroll):
'There's the millennium for you!' said Humpty Dumpty
'I don't know what you mean by "the millennium",' Alice said.
'I mean "there's a nice New Third Millennium for you"'. Humpty Dumpty
said.
'But "millennium" doesn't mean "a nice New Third Millennium",' Alice
objected.
'When I used a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, 'it
means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.'
If, after all that, they are still not convinced, give up. They are so
intent on spoiling the fun nothing will convince them.
But, I think you'll find most people don't even require that much
convincing. Offer them a reasonable explanation and most people will me
more than to celebrate this year AND next year.
So don't let the partypooper ruin your fun. Have a millennium party and
say "Happy new millennium!" to celebrate the start of the 2000s this
year and to celebrate the start of the 3rd millennium next year!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jeroen ;-}
> If they are reasonable, all you'll have to ask them is: "Since the
> decade of the 1990s started on 1/1/1990, when do you think the
> millennium of the 2000s starts?" Occasionally, you will run across a
> partypooper that immediately recognizes the reasonableness of this and
> that is the end of it.
Be aware that they say it isn't, because you start counting with 1 and not
with 0.
So with the same reasoning the '90s started at 1/1/1991.
Happy new years eve. Cheers. :)
Jeroen ;-}
pulgao
>Well, I'm here to tell you it's OK to have a millennium party and say
>"Happy new millennium!" at Midnight this year!
Screw it. I'm having mine tonight and baffling *everyone*.
-- Steve Lopez
The Chess Kamikaze Home Page: http://www.geocities.com/ludekdudek/
The Chess Kamikaze Club: http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/chesskamikazes
Glenn
If you need an excuse to party, then you aren't invited to any of mine.
---
"We have uniformly rejected all letters and declined all discussion
upon the question of when the present century ends, as it is one
of the most absurd that can engage the public attention, and we
are astonished to find it has been the subject of so much dispute,
since it appears plain. The present century will not terminate
till January 1, 1801, unless it can be made out that 99 are
100... It is a silly, childish discussion, and only exposes the
want of brains of those who maintain a contrary opinion to that we
have stated"
The London Times, 26 December 1799
Glenn
>char...@my-deja.com was alleged to have uttered:
>>Well, I'm here to tell you it's OK to have a millennium party and say
>>"Happy new millennium!" at Midnight this year!
>Screw it. I'm having mine tonight and baffling *everyone*.
I had my millennium party on Aug. 21st, 1997.
King Herod dies in 4 B.C. so Christ had to have been born in 4 B.C. or
earlier. Furthermore, Christ was born approximately in late August.
The 21st seemed liked a good date for astronomical reasons (the equinoxes
and solstices occur around the 21st of the appropriate month).
So I celebrated Aug. 21st, 1997 because it was the 2000'th anniversary
of the birth of Christ. Too bad you all missed the end of millennium. :-)
Note: The late summer, early fall time frame of Christ's birth was
known when the calendar was established in the 6'th century. Since
an exact date was (and is) unknown, the date of celebration was chosen
for symbolic reasons. December 25'th was the date of winter solstice
in the Roman calendar. By choosing the shortest day of the year,
Christ's "birth" would coincide with the days getting longer which
was supposed to symbolize a reawakening. By this time however, the
calendar had slipped out of phase with the seasons by about 4 days
so the equinox occurs around the 21st of December. (The slippage
of the calendar with respect to the seasons was not corrected until
the Gregorian reform of 1582. In 1582, ten days were skipped to
bring the calendar back into alignment with the astronomical year.
Also, the leap year rule was corrected to prevent future slippage over
the course of centuries, and "New Year's Day" was set to January 1st.)
John Hickman
millennium, up to 1000 was broken (it had a day missing). So come end of
this December, go and celebrate the first complete Millennium!
John.
Ed Seedhouse
First? Heck why didn't we celebrate the "complete millenium" that
started on Jan. 1, 999 and ended on Dec. 32, 1998? Or the "complete
millenium" that began on Jan. 2, 999 and ended on Jan 1, 1999, or the
... well you get the idea I hope.
On the other hand, if you want to celebrate the beginning of the next
millenium of our current actual, internationally accepted, calendar,
you'll do so at midnight on Dec. 31, 2000.
Even calling this the "third millenium" of our calendar is innacurate
of course, because there is no such thing. Our actual calendar
extends backward in time with no limit, so the millenium that went
from Jan. 1, 1000 B.C.E. to Dec. 31, 1 B.C.E is just as real as the
next one that went from Jan. 1, 1 C.E. to Dec. 31, 1001 C.E., and
there are any number of millenia in our calendar depending on how long
you want to follow it back.
Ed Seedhouse
"NoMorphy" on F.I.C.S..
CFC Rating: 2050
char...@my-deja.com
eseed...@home.com wrote:
In article <385a5afd.382007189@news>,
eseed...@home.com wrote:
>
> First? Heck why didn't we celebrate the "complete millenium" that
> started on Jan. 1, 999 and ended on Dec. 32, 1998? Or the "complete
> millenium" that began on Jan. 2, 999 and ended on Jan 1, 1999, or the
> ... well you get the idea I hope.
>
> On the other hand, if you want to celebrate the beginning of the next
> millenium of our current actual, internationally accepted, calendar,
> you'll do so at midnight on Dec. 31, 2000.
Only if you limit the definition of 'next millennium' to the 3rd
millennium (something no dictionary I have access to supports).
The 2000s start on 1/1/2000 and are the 'next millennium' after the
1000s according to "our current actual, internationally accepted
calendar".
And don't go saying, "Well, a millennium starts every year!"
The EXACT same thing could be said about the start of the 3rd
millennium: "Why celebrate? A millennium begins every year."
As I said in my original post:
While this is true, it kind of misses the point: The reason that the
start of the millennia in question (both the 3rd Millennium and the
2000s) are considered significant and their start is being celebrated
is not that they are just another 1000 year period but that they are
recognized eras.
>
> Even calling this the "third millenium" of our calendar is innacurate
> of course, because there is no such thing. Our actual calendar
> extends backward in time with no limit, so the millenium that went
> from Jan. 1, 1000 B.C.E. to Dec. 31, 1 B.C.E is just as real as the
> next one that went from Jan. 1, 1 C.E. to Dec. 31, 1001 C.E., and
> there are any number of millenia in our calendar depending on how long
> you want to follow it back.
Except that '3rd millennium' is generally understood to be "shorthand"
from '3rd millennium of the AD portion of the timeline.'
char...@my-deja.com
"Jeroen ;-}" <jimva...@wxs.nl> wrote:
>
> > If they are reasonable, all you'll have to ask them is: "Since the
> > decade of the 1990s started on 1/1/1990, when do you think the
> > millennium of the 2000s starts?" Occasionally, you will run across a
> > partypooper that immediately recognizes the reasonableness of this
and
> > that is the end of it.
>
and not
> with 0.
> So with the same reasoning the '90s started at 1/1/1991.
>
Anyone that says that is confusing the 1990s with the 200th decade. It
just shows that they don't understand the difference between how the
ordinally described eras (20th century, 3rd millennium) and the
cardinally described eras (1700s, 1990s, 2000s) are determined. Where
the calendars start has absolutely nothing to do with when the 90s are
because it is based on the digits of the year and not the number of
years since the beginning of the timeline. By that thinking, if, for
whatever reason, the AD timeline started with, say, 123 ( 2 BC, 1 BC,
123 AD, 124 AD, etc.) then 2014 would be considered to be in the 1990s.
Absurd!
Besides not dictionary supports such a definition. The usually say
something like "The decade from 1990 - 1999" (For example:
http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=nineties ).
Some people just don't get that there is more than one way to divide
the timeline into eras.
Ed Seedhouse
>> First? Heck why didn't we celebrate the "complete millenium" that
>> started on Jan. 1, 999 and ended on Dec. 32, 1998? Or the "complete
>> millenium" that began on Jan. 2, 999 and ended on Jan 1, 1999, or the
>> ... well you get the idea I hope.
>> On the other hand, if you want to celebrate the beginning of the next
>> millenium of our current actual, internationally accepted, calendar,
>> you'll do so at midnight on Dec. 31, 2000.
>Only if you limit the definition of 'next millennium' to the 3rd
>millennium (something no dictionary I have access to supports).
I haven't seen any dictionary that says anything about the word other
than the meaning of the word itself, i.e. a period of 1000 years.
When a "millenium" starts has nothing to do with the definition of the
word.
>The 2000s start on 1/1/2000
Fine
>and are the 'next millennium' after the
>1000s according to "our current actual, internationally accepted
>calendar".
But if this is true then we are left with the conclusion that the
first "millenium" was only 999 years long and now who's disregarding
the dictionary?
You can have all the other millenia you want, but when you say "the
third millenium" you are referring to the third millenium of the
common era of our actual calendar, and if you say that it begins on
any other date than Jan. 1, 2001 you are simply factually incorrect.
>And don't go saying, "Well, a millennium starts every year!"
Well, that is what his whole argument is based on. He wants to make a
special millenium of the period 1000-1999 but that isn't anything more
special than the milleniums 999-1998 or 998-1998 and so on. The only
"special" millenium (the second one of the common era) is 1001 to 2000
and it is only "special" because it happens to be an actual observable
*fact* that the common era of our calendar started on Jan 1, 1 C.E.
and not on Jan. 1, 0 C.E. for the reason that there *is* no 0 C.E. in
our calendar.
>Except that '3rd millennium' is generally understood to be "shorthand"
>from '3rd millennium of the AD portion of the timeline.'
There is no "AD" in our current calendar. But even so if you say this
third millenium starts on Jan. 1, 2000 you are committed to claiming
either that a millenium (the first one), in flat contradiction to the
meaning of the word, can have 999 years not 1000, or to having the
first millenium of the common era beginning before the start of the
common era. Both notions are obviously absurd.
Looney
>The 2000s start on 1/1/2000 and are the 'next millennium' after the
>1000s according to "our current actual, internationally accepted
>calendar".
You are confusing the "2000's" with the "Third Millenium." They are not the
same thing. The 2000's are a grouping of all years beginning with the numeral
"2", spanning the years 2000 and 2999. The third millenium is the third
thousand year segment of time as marked from the year 1 A.D. which begins
1/1/2001. A fine line, yes, but an accurate one using the CIAC (Current
Internationally Accepted Calendar... so many people are using the phrase I've
decided to shorten to make this easier. Of course, I've completely squandered
the benefits of such abbreviation by this extended explanation, but I believe
my suffering, and yours in reading this, will benefit future generations who
will have free use of this acronym...)
The only question I have is... Does it begin at 12:01, 12:00:01,
12:00:00:00:00:00:01, or whatever :-)
Anthony "Looney" Toohey
Yehoota on chess.net/FICS/Yahoo
_______________________________
If I see one more quote of that stupid
bathing gnat drowning elephant thing...
char...@my-deja.com
eseed...@home.com wrote:
> char...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >> First? Heck why didn't we celebrate the "complete millenium" that
> >> started on Jan. 1, 999 and ended on Dec. 32, 1998? Or
the "complete
> >> millenium" that began on Jan. 2, 999 and ended on Jan 1, 1999, or
the
> >> ... well you get the idea I hope.
>
> >> On the other hand, if you want to celebrate the beginning of the
next
> >> millenium of our current actual, internationally accepted,
calendar,
> >> you'll do so at midnight on Dec. 31, 2000.
>
> >Only if you limit the definition of 'next millennium' to the 3rd
> >millennium (something no dictionary I have access to supports).
>
> I haven't seen any dictionary that says anything about the word other
> than the meaning of the word itself, i.e. a period of 1000 years.
> When a "millenium" starts has nothing to do with the definition of the
> word.
>
>
>
> >and are the 'next millennium' after the
> >1000s according to "our current actual, internationally accepted
> >calendar".
>
> first "millenium" was only 999 years long and now who's disregarding
> the dictionary?
You are getting confused about the way the cardinally described eras
work. Unlike the ordinally described eras, they are not required to all
be the same length (the ordinnally described eras, by definition,
always are).
The cardinally described eras of the AD period based on the 1000s digit
run:
0000s, 1000s, 2000s, 3000s, etc.
The fact the at the 0000s is only 999 years does not invalidate the
series, does not mean the 2000s doesn't qualify to be called
millennium, that it isn't new or that it isn't the next millennium
after the 1000s.
Your objection basically boils down to "It doesn't work the same as the
ordinally described eras." Well, it's not supposed to and it doesn't
matter.
>
> You can have all the other millenia you want, but when you say "the
> third millenium" you are referring to the third millenium of the
> common era of our actual calendar, and if you say that it begins on
> any other date than Jan. 1, 2001 you are simply factually incorrect.>
>
I stated that the 3rd millennium starts on 1/1/2001 several times in my
original post and have repeated it in almost every post in this thread.
What thread are you reading?
That has nothing to do with the fact that the 2000s starts on 1/1/2000
and some of the millennium celebrations you are hearing about are
celebrating the start of that millennium and not the 3rd millennium.
>And don't go saying, "Well, a millennium starts every year!"
>
> Well, that is what his whole argument is based on. He wants to make a
> special millenium of the period 1000-1999 but that isn't anything more
> special than the milleniums 999-1998 or 998-1998 and so on.
No more special? Are the 1990s no more significant than a randomly
chosen 10 year period? Are the 1700s no more significant than a
randomly chosen 100 year period?
Who gets to decide which periods are significant? You?
> The only
> "special" millenium (the second one of the common era) is 1001 to 2000
> and it is only "special" because it happens to be an actual observable
> *fact* that the common era of our calendar started on Jan 1, 1 C.E.
> and not on Jan. 1, 0 C.E. for the reason that there *is* no 0 C.E. in
> our calendar.
And why is the start of the 3rd millennium special? Because it is 2000
years (Ooo! Look at all the pretty zeros!) from a day on which nothing
happened? Why is being a round number of years from an essentially
arbitrary starting make it a "special" day?
Look, the bottom line is whether one should celebrate the start of the
3rd millennium, the 2000s or any new year at all is strictly a matter
of opinion. There is no right or wrong about it. If you don't want to
celebrate the start of the 2000s, fine. But that doesn't mean other
people are wrong to do so. If you don't celebrate Christmas, does that
mean I am wrong to do so?
>
> >Except that '3rd millennium' is generally understood to
be "shorthand"
> >from '3rd millennium of the AD portion of the timeline.'
>
> There is no "AD" in our current calendar. But even so if you say this
> third millenium starts on Jan. 1, 2000
Go back and read for comprehension this time. I have never said such a
thing and, in fact, stated repeatedly that the 3rd millennium starts on
1/1/2001. You must be thinking of someone else's posts.
> you are committed to claiming
> either that a millenium (the first one), in flat contradiction to the
> meaning of the word, can have 999 years not 1000,
No. I have never said that the 0000s is a millennium. But it does not
need to be for the 2000s to be a millennium. If you have three cartons
of eggs and the first one only has 11 eggs, does that mean the others
aren't a dozen even if they contain 12 eggs?
> or to having the
> first millenium of the common era beginning before the start of the
> common era. Both notions are obviously absurd.
Again, you are trying to apply the characteristics for the ordinally
described eras to the cardinally described ones.
There are (at least) two accepted and recognized ways of dividing the
timeline into eras.
For the ordinally described eras (20th Century, 3rd Millennium),
milestones are placed at points a round number of years from 1 AD.
People celebrate when milestones are reached because they signify the
end of one era and the start of another.
- Example 1: 1/1/1901 is the milestone that marked the end of the 19th
Century era and the start of the 20th Century era.
- Example 2: 1/1/2001 is the milestone that marks the end of the 2nd
Millennium era and the start of the 3rd Millennium era.
For the cardinally described eras (the 1700s, the 1990s, the 2000s)
milestones are place at points where the digits of the year are round
numbers. People celebrate when milestones are reached because they
signify the end of one era and the start of another.
- Example 1: 1/1/1990 is the milestone that marked the end of the 1980s
decade/era and the start of the 1990s decade/era.
- Example 2: 1/1/2000 is the milestone that marks the end of the 1000s
millennium/era and the start of the 2000s millennium/era.
Would you say that the decade of the 1990s is not 1990 - 1999 because
1 - 9 AD is only 9 years? Because I can point you to many dictionaries
that disagree with you.
char...@my-deja.com
wilyk...@cs.comkillspam (Looney) wrote:
> char...@my-deja.com
>
> >The 2000s start on 1/1/2000 and are the 'next millennium' after the
> >1000s according to "our current actual, internationally accepted
> >calendar".
>
> They are not the
> same thing.
>The 2000's are a grouping of all years beginning with the numeral
> "2", spanning the years 2000 and 2999. The third millenium is the
third
> thousand year segment of time as marked from the year 1 A.D. which
begins
> 1/1/2001. A fine line, yes, but an accurate one using the CIAC
(Current
> Internationally Accepted Calendar... so many people are using the
phrase I've
> decided to shorten to make this easier. Of course, I've completely
squandered
> the benefits of such abbreviation by this extended explanation, but I
believe
> my suffering, and yours in reading this, will benefit future
generations who
> will have free use of this acronym...)
??????
How am I confusing them? I have said that the 3rd millennium starts on
1/1/2001 and the 2000s starts on 1/1/2000.
Which part of that leads you to believe I am confusing them?
No, it seems to me that the confusion lies on your part. You seem to be
confusing 'next millennium' to be only allowed to be used in reference
to the 3rd millennium.
Even if it is generally accepted that the words are accepted mean the
3rd millennium (which is debatable; just look around at all the
references to 1/1/2000 and 'millennium') that doesn't mean they can
ONLY mean the 3rd millennium. For example, 'last year' and 'next'
or 'new year' by themselves are generally understood to refer to
calendar years. But, in the proper context, the could refer to a school
year, a sporting season, a fiscal year or a number of other things.
Reasonably intelligent people can generally figure out what is being
referred to by the context in which they are used.
To illustrate, this fall many newspapers and magazines carried a quote
from the Columbine principal along the lines of, "We want to put last
year behind us and focus on the new year ahead." While it would not be
unreasonable, when reading that quote outside of any context, to assume
that 1998 and 2000 were being referred to, in the context of an article
about the students returning to school, people were able to determine
that it was the previous and new school years being referred to and not
calendar years.
By the same token, when hearing a statement that refers to 1/1/2000
and 'new millennium' it is more reasonable to assume the 2000s are
being acceptably referred to rather than assuming they are incorrectly
referring to the 3rd millennium. Why assume an error?
>
> The only question I have is... Does it begin at 12:01, 12:00:01,
> 12:00:00:00:00:00:01, or whatever :-)
Does what start?
Ed Seedhouse
>How am I confusing them? I have said that the 3rd millennium starts on
>1/1/2001 and the 2000s starts on 1/1/2000.
OK so far.
>No, it seems to me that the confusion lies on your part. You seem to be
>confusing 'next millennium' to be only allowed to be used in reference
>to the 3rd millennium.
Well speaking of a "next millenium" implies a current millenium.
Speaking of a current millenium implies a previous millenium. If the
next millenium is the 2000's the current millenium would be the 1000s,
and the previous millenium the 0000's. But wait! The "millenium" of
the 0000's, since 0000 was not actually there, has only 999 years in
it! So talking about the millenium of the 2000's requires logically
that a millenium can have only 999 years. This sort of seems like a
logical contradiction to me.
Ed Seedhouse
"NoMorphy" on chess.net
CFC Rating: 2050
char...@my-deja.com
There is no logical contradiction. Basically you are saying "In the
ordinally described eras all units are the same length but in the
cardinally described eras they are not. Therefore the cardinally
described eras are illogical."
Would you say the 1990s shouldn't be called 'decade' or 'next decade'
because 1 - 9 AD are only 9 years (if you do, I can point you to many
dictionaries that disagree with you.)
The ordinally described eras are always, by definition equal length
eras. The cardinally described eras might or might not be; it doesn't
matter one way or another. Even if, for whatever reason, the powers-
that-be decided to start the calendar with, let's say, 123 ( 3BC, 2 BC,
1 BC, 123 AD, 124 AD, etc.) 1990 - 1999 would STILL be the 1990s,
eligible to be called 'decade' and considered the next decade after the
1980s and 2000 - 2999 would STILL be the 2000s, eligible to be
called 'millennium' and considered the next millennium after the 1000s.
The fact that the years 1 - 122 are missing don't affect this at all.
Again, basically you are saying that because it works differently than
the ordinally described eras it is invalid. That is just not true.
Ed Seedhouse
>> Well speaking of a "next millenium" implies a current millenium.
>> Speaking of a current millenium implies a previous millenium. If the
>> next millenium is the 2000's the current millenium would be the 1000s,
>> and the previous millenium the 0000's. But wait! The "millenium" of
>> the 0000's, since 0000 was not actually there, has only 999 years in
>> it! So talking about the millenium of the 2000's requires logically
>> that a millenium can have only 999 years. This sort of seems like a
>> logical contradiction to me.
>There is no logical contradiction. Basically you are saying "In the
>ordinally described eras all units are the same length but in the
>cardinally described eras they are not. Therefore the cardinally
>described eras are illogical."
I'm not saying any such thing. You are in logical contradiction and
remain so.
>Would you say the 1990s shouldn't be called 'decade' or 'next decade'
>because 1 - 9 AD are only 9 years (if you do, I can point you to many
>dictionaries that disagree with you.)
Show me a dictionary that says a decade is anything other than 10
years long.
>The ordinally described eras are always, by definition equal length
>eras. The cardinally described eras might or might not be; it doesn't
>matter one way or another. Even if, for whatever reason, the powers-
>that-be decided to start the calendar with, let's say, 123 ( 3BC, 2 BC,
>1 BC, 123 AD, 124 AD, etc.) 1990 - 1999 would STILL be the 1990s,
>eligible to be called 'decade' and considered the next decade after the
>1980s and 2000 - 2999 would STILL be the 2000s, eligible to be
>called 'millennium' and considered the next millennium after the 1000s.
>The fact that the years 1 - 122 are missing don't affect this at all.
>
>Again, basically you are saying that because it works differently than
>the ordinally described eras it is invalid. That is just not true.
Say it until you are blue in the face. You won't be any more correct
than you are now, which is not correct at all. Argument by assertion
may convince you, but to the rational it just shows that you are
unable to reason.
char...@my-deja.com
eseed...@home.com wrote:
>
> >There is no logical contradiction. Basically you are saying "In the
> >ordinally described eras all units are the same length but in the
> >cardinally described eras they are not. Therefore the cardinally
> >described eras are illogical."
>
> I'm not saying any such thing.
Sure you are. You said, "the 0000's, since 0000 was not actually there,
has only 999 years in it! So talking about the millenium of the 2000's
requires logically that a millenium can have only 999 years. This sort
of seems like a logical contradiction to me."
That could be interpreted as one of two ways:
Because not all eras qualify to be called 'millennium' (the 2000s does,
the 0000s doesn't) the entire sequence is illogical. As I just said, in
the ordinally described series (2nd millennium, 3rd millennium) all
eras are by definition the same length. In the cardinally described
series (1000s, 2000s) they are not all. Just because one series has
equal length eras and the other one doesn't does not invalidate either
series.
Or it could be interpreted as saying something along the lines of (my
words here), "Because the 000s is only 999 years long, the 2000s can't
be a millennium." That is like saying that if you have 3 cartons of
eggs and one of the only has 11 eggs, the other can't be called a dozen
even if they have 12 eggs.
>You are in logical contradiction and
> remain so.
What is the logical contradition, EXACTLY?
The basis for determining the cardinally described eras based on the
thousands digit is SOLELY: all years with the same digit in the 1000
place. This results in (for the AD portion of the timeline):
0000s, 1000s, 2000s, 3000s, ...
If there is a "logical contradiction", it escapes me.
So it must that:
0000s = 999 years = can't be called millennium
1000s = 1000 years = millennium
2000s = 1000 years = millennium
Hmmm, can't find it there either.
You'll have to explain where the logical contradition is.
>
> >Would you say the 1990s shouldn't be called 'decade' or 'next decade'
> >because 1 - 9 AD are only 9 years (if you do, I can point you to many
> >dictionaries that disagree with you.)
>
> Show me a dictionary that says a decade is anything other than 10
> years long.
??????
Who said there is a decade 9 years long? Certainly not me!
Or are you saying that by calling 1990 - 1999 the decade of the 1990s
means that you are also calling 1 - 9 AD a decade? You'll have to
explain that logic to me. Why would calling 1990 - 1999 a decade (or
the 2000s a millennium) mean that you are also calling 1 AD - 9 AD a
decade (or 1 AD - 999 AD a millennium)?
>
> >The ordinally described eras are always, by definition equal length
> >eras. The cardinally described eras might or might not be; it doesn't
> >matter one way or another. Even if, for whatever reason, the powers-
> >that-be decided to start the calendar with, let's say, 123 ( 3BC, 2
BC,
> >1 BC, 123 AD, 124 AD, etc.) 1990 - 1999 would STILL be the 1990s,
> >eligible to be called 'decade' and considered the next decade after
the
> >1980s and 2000 - 2999 would STILL be the 2000s, eligible to be
> >called 'millennium' and considered the next millennium after the
1000s.
> >The fact that the years 1 - 122 are missing don't affect this at all.
> >
> >Again, basically you are saying that because it works differently
than
> >the ordinally described eras it is invalid. That is just not true.
>
> Say it until you are blue in the face. You won't be any more correct
> than you are now, which is not correct at all.
So which part is not correct? Are you saying that if the calendar
started with the year 123 AD that 2114 AD would be considered to be in
the 1990s? Or are you saying that the 2000s isn't 1000 years long or
that it is the next in the series after the 1000s?
> Argument by assertion
> may convince you, but to the rational it just shows that you are
> unable to reason.
Wait a minute! I've explained my thinking every step of the way while
many of your arguments consist of nothing but you saying "You are
wrong" with no explanation whatsoever (see the one immediately prior to
this paragraph for a perfect example). I think you are confused about
which one of us is "Argu[ing] by assertion."
Ed Seedhouse
>In article <38691a82.73388577@news>,
> eseed...@home.com wrote:
*Sigh*. I'm not going to reply directly to this last post since
"charkane" seems to be committed to his "cover up sense with length"
tactic and I just ain't got the time to deal with that.
What the astronomers at the Greenwich Royal Observatory say about
this subject is in http://www.rog.nmm.ac.uk/leaflets/new_mill.html,
and here's a short quote:
=========================================================
"3. When do the 3rd Millennium and the 21st Century start?
A millennium is an interval of 1000 years and a century is an interval
of 100 years. In the Gregorian Calendar, which we use, there is no
year zero and the sequence of years near the start runs as follows;
..., 3BC, 2BC, 1BC, 1AD, 2AD, ...
Because there is no year zero, the first year of the calendar ends at
the end of the year named 1AD. By a similar argument 100 years will
only have elapsed at the end of the year 100AD. Since 2000AD is the
2,000th year of the Christian calendar, it will be the last year of
the Second Millennium. So the 3rd Millennium and the 21st Century will
begin at the same moment, namely zero hours UTC (commonly known as
GMT) on January 1st 2001. "
=========================================================
So, the 1900's and the 1990's and the millenium for which all years
begin with a "1", will end on Dec. 31, 1999 at midnight. The
twentieth century, the twenty-ninth decade, and the third millenium,
however, will end on Dec. 31, 2000 at midnight.
Next Friday night I hope everyone takes time to mark and enjoy the
"big rollover" as someone at the C.B.C. called it. Then, next year, I
hope everyone enjoys equally the ending of the third millenium. Both
mark events that will not happen again for a thousand years. Both are
well worth marking and making a fuss about. But, they are not, and
never will be, the same things.
Paul Onstad
> What the astronomers at the Greenwich Royal Observatory say about
> this subject is in http://www.rog.nmm.ac.uk/leaflets/new_mill.html,
> and here's a short quote:
> =========================================================
> "3. When do the 3rd Millennium and the 21st Century start?
>
> A millennium is an interval of 1000 years and a century is an interval
> of 100 years. In the Gregorian Calendar, which we use, there is no
> year zero and the sequence of years near the start runs as follows;
>
> ..., 3BC, 2BC, 1BC, 1AD, 2AD, ...
>
> Because there is no year zero, the first year of the calendar ends at
> the end of the year named 1AD. By a similar argument 100 years will
> only have elapsed at the end of the year 100AD. Since 2000AD is the
> 2,000th year of the Christian calendar, it will be the last year of
> the Second Millennium. So the 3rd Millennium and the 21st Century will
> begin at the same moment, namely zero hours UTC (commonly known as
> GMT) on January 1st 2001. "
> =========================================================
And here's the other side of the coin, from the U.S. Naval Observatory,
which keeps time for the U.S.
> Thus anyone who wishes, for whatever reason, to celebrate the start of the new
> millennium on 1st January 2000 has entirely good and rational grounds for doing so,
> namely, (i) the adoption of the astronomical system for numbering years, combined
> with (ii) the convention of beginning millennia with years whose numbers end in
> "000" and beginning centuries with years whose numbers end in "00."
Pope Gregory's convention has a competitor.
-Paul
Mike S.
> (...) Then, next year, I hope everyone enjoys
> equally the ending of the *third* millenium. (...)
Ed,
since you are my absolute millennium guru, I'm totally confused now...
Btw., I read a good idea at CCC where somebody suggested (not quoted
exactly), let's say that only the *first decade* was incomplete and had
only nine years - ok, of course this would not be a decade then - and
therefore the 2nd decade started with the year 10 already etc., so that
we wouldn't have to keep this inconvenience for all ages to come. I like
this way to look at it even better than my own idea of counting the year
1 BC twice (as 1 BC and zero at the same time, which nobody adopts).
I wonder if all the other ng's also were "invaded" by the millennium
threads?
Happy New Year!
M.Scheidl
Ed Seedhouse
>Ed Seedhouse schrieb:
>> (...) Then, next year, I hope everyone enjoys
>> equally the ending of the *third* millenium. (...)
>since you are my absolute millennium guru, I'm totally confused now...
Whatever kind of a guru I may be I'm definitely not a typing guru.
Typos appear about as frequently in my messages as elementary tactical
oversights in my chess games - far too frequently!
>let's say that only the *first decade* was incomplete and had
>only nine years - ok, of course this would not be a decade then
Well calling something that is not a decade a decade seems rather
strange to me. Remember the old shiboleth "If you call a tail a leg
how many legs does a sheep have? Answer: four - calling a tail a leg
doesn't make it one."
>- and
>therefore the 2nd decade started with the year 10 already etc., so that
>we wouldn't have to keep this inconvenience for all ages to come. I like
>this way to look at it even better than my own idea of counting the year
>1 BC twice (as 1 BC and zero at the same time, which nobody adopts).
Why not just recognize the facts as they are? Why must the millenium
begin with a year that has three zeroes in it's label? Our ancestors
didn't know about zero and we keep their system as kind of a quaint
historical overhang and perhaps mainly because we are too lazy to go
back and reprint all history books with corrected figures! I mean,
once the metric system finally takes over in the U.S.A. maybe we can
take the time and energy to fix the calendar system. first things
first!
char...@my-deja.com
eseed...@home.com wrote:
> char...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >In article <38691a82.73388577@news>,
>
> > eseed...@home.com wrote:
>
> *Sigh*. I'm not going to reply directly to this last post since
> "charkane" seems to be committed to his "cover up sense with length"
> tactic and I just ain't got the time to deal with that.
It is debatable which is worse: explaining your position in too great
of detail, as you think I do, or simply saying "That's wrong" without
any explanation whatsoever, as you do. Especially since it increasingly
seems that you use that "complaint" as a tactic to avoid answering
every single direct question asked of you.
[snipped a bunch of stuff explaining why the 3rd millennium doesn't
start until 2001]
You still don't get it. When the 3rd millennium starts has never been
in question. I stated it starts on 1/1/2001 in the original post
(multiple times) and have repeated that in every single response
(multiple times).
THIS is the position which you have called "completely
wrong", "illogical" and "not correct at all":
While the 3rd millennium doesn't start until 1/1/2001, many millennium
celebrations on 1/1/2000 are celebrating the start of the 2000s and it
is not wrong to do so.
As someone else pointed out, even the Naval Observatory agrees with
that this statement is not incorrect: "[A]nyone who wishes, for
whatever reason, to celebrate the start of the new millennium on 1st
January 2000 has entirely good and rational grounds for doing so" but
you persist in saying it is a "logical contradiction" with no
explanation of why.
As I've asked before:
Do you disagree with this because you don't believe the 2000s starts on
1/1/2000 or that you don't think it is 1000 years long?
Reysha
wrong with celebrating the Millennium on January 1, 2000.
In response to the question 'Why', I ask 2 questions of my own:
1) Is time relative?
2) Is time a continium?
POINT #1 - The Relativity of Time
If you agree that time is in fact relative, then you have no choice
but to agree that January 1 2000 is the beginning of the new
milleninum relative to the previous 1000 years.
Technically, it *MAY* not be the beginning of the new millennium
relative to the Gregorian calendar... but so what (see the following
point)?
POINT #2 - The Intent of The Law
Just like you can get lost following the 'letter of the law' instead
of the intent, so it is with calendars. The intent of the calendar is
to assist Man in measuring time. If considering the milleniumm as
begun on January 1, 2000 will facilitate that (which seems to be the
case since the commonly accepted practice is to celebrate decades,
centuries, and millenniums in the years beginning with zeros) then
such should take precedence. And it's not like the Gregorian calendar
is a (relatively) exact and accurate measurement tool to begin with
(compare to the Mayan calendar) - therefore, it seems that some
subjectivity/relativity is inherent.
POINT #3 - Time is a Continium
If time is a continium, then how can there NOT be a 0? In any
continium, does not 0 precede 1? Does it matter if that (logical)
year 0 is called 'the year of the dragon', or 'the year of Zeek', or
'the year 1 BC?'
POINT #4 - Relativity (again), Perception, Majority Rule, and Äm I a
Butterfly Dreaming I am a Man?"
Again, with something as arbitrary as a calendar, man's feeble attempt
to measure the unmeasurable, it's seems absurd and egotistical to
think that we can define it so finitely. The God's are certainly
having their laugh at our folly. Time is what we make of it, what we
(as a society) decide it is, how we perceive it, and agree to measure
it. Nothing more, nothing, less. I would suggest that it is more
abstract than most of us believe. It has meaning only to us, and we
decide what that meaning is. From one perspective, it's really just a
language tool to aid in communication, like a word. Words change, and
so do their meanings over time... they adapt to the needs of society.
Why not time?
- Reysha
On Sat, 01 Jan 2000 02:15:27 GMT, eseed...@home.com (Ed Seedhouse)
wrote: