Subject: Re: Really Abitrary Points<br/>
Date: Aug 10, 2001 @ 20:48<br/>
Author: bjbutler@bjbsoftware.com (bjbutler@...)<br/>
<a href="3553.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="3563.htm">Next</a>&emsp;[<a href="topic2961.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="3557.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="3559.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-872731105">Just getting ready for Y3K.<br/>
BJB<br/>
<br/>
--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., &quot;Grant Hutchison&quot; &lt;granthutchison@c...&gt; <br/>
wrote:<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; &gt; AD (anno domini) is, I <br/>
&gt; &gt; think, a possesive (the lord&#39;s year), and one is not one when one <br/>
&gt; is <br/>
&gt; &gt; in one&#39;s first year, nor 2000 in AD2000.<br/>
&gt; Sure - that&#39;s a perfectly good reason to celebrate a new millennium <br/>
&gt; at the start of 2001. It&#39;s a logical interpretation of AD <br/>
 </span></blockquote>numbering. <br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; But a logical interpretation of the astro calendar&#39;s &quot;start&quot; in <br/>
 </span></blockquote>Year <br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; 0 is to celebrate in 2000, if the arbitrary turn of a thousand <br/>
 </span></blockquote>years <br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; from something-or-other-chosen-as-a-starting-point is your thing.<br/>
&gt; So, sorry if I seemed to be putting down 2001-celebrators - I <br/>
 </span></blockquote>wasn&#39;t. <br/>
<blockquote><span title="qreply"> &gt; I was just bemoaning the narrow-mindedness of the &quot;purists&quot; who <br/>
&gt; seemed to flock to an imaginary logical high ground towards the end <br/>
&gt; of 1999.<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; Grant<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; PS. Do we now hold some sort of record for the most belated <br/>
&gt; discussion of this topic? </span></blockquote></div>