Nope. No “0” on my clock. No negative numbers, either.
(And, the answer is–the horta, by a KO.)
from Dave Barry:
JANUARY 1, 1000
This was the historic day that humanity celebrated the dawn of our current millennium. The occasion was marked by feasting, dancing, and the public beheading of a whiny, tedious group of people who would not stop insisting that, technically, the new millennium did not begin until January 1, 1001.
read more at www.miamiherald.com barry section
No negative numbers on the calendar, either. Or do you think “1 BCE” and “-1 CE” mean the same thing? Who the hell counts that way?
“It’s my considered opinion you’re all a bunch of sissies!”–Paul’s Grandfather
Hey, now, pl, careful waving that phaser around. It just might go off.
Kilgore Trout: of course the 3rd millenium begins 2001.
but does it start at 12:00am, or 12:01?
12:00. That’s when everyone yells “Happy New Year!”
You could argue with smaller and smaller time units (12:00:00 vs. 12:00:01; 12:00:00.00000 vs. 12:00:00.00001). The limit as these time units gets smaller is 12:00:00 period.
so anyway, could the mugato have beaten the horta?
The Horta was a pile of rocks. It’d win hands (or boulders) down!
Not helping this debate was the last episode of “ER”.
One of the nurses was arguing that the 1960’s were the years 1961-1970, and hence the next millennium started in 2001.
Now, the 197th Decade (AD) was 1961-1970. That an ordinal term like 20th Century (1901-2000) and 2nd Millennium (1001-2000).
But “The 60’s” means 1960-1969: the years that had “sixty” in their name. Likewise “The 1900’s” have “nineteen hundred” in their name.
Getting these nomenclatures mixed up is the whole problem. Hopefully, I won’t live to 135 to hear this whole debate again in my golden years.
I looked in the mirror today/My eyes just didn’t seem so bright
I’ve lost a few more hairs/I think I’m going bald - Rush
Nope, no calendar to celebrate year 1…that one was an abstract idea although it would be fun to count down to the year rather than up.
There is probably a long long lecture of what year was selected as year one for us.
Well, people, if the start of the year celebrates his birth, why then is his birth celebrated on Dec. 25th? haha.
handy: Well, people, if the start of the year celebrates his birth, why then is his birth celebrated on Dec. 25th? haha.
Because it wouldn’t be proper for people to get drunk the night before Jesus’ birthday. 
I looked in the mirror today/My eyes just didn’t seem so bright
I’ve lost a few more hairs/I think I’m going bald - Rush
“Nerds”… “Who the hell counts this way”… Why do those who mistakenly believe that the next millenium is only 10 days away feel so defensive and rely on name-calling instead of logical arguments?
In my case, you have it exactly backwards. I know the “next millennium” doesn’t start until 2001. I can’t imagine why anyone is confusing the Big Odomoter Rollover for anything else.
“It’s my considered opinion you’re all a bunch of sissies!”–Paul’s Grandfather
You have a point, there, dlv. I should not have used such language, and I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to any nerds and Trekkers whom I might have offended by unfairly comparing them to “2001 millennialists.”
Not only is the number nice and round, but the Y2K thing adds a special thrill to it all…
Everyone got water and guns? Partay!!!
It’s Douglas Adams vs. Cecil Adams. This is a tough call… The World’s Smartest Human vs. the World’s Smartest Smart-ass.
See Pedants - a timeline of century celebrations throughout the years.
Whoops! Blew the link. Here it is:
Pedants.
I’ve concocted an HTML table to illustrate the profound absurdity of the “Y2K Millenial Phallacy”:
<table align=“center”>
<tr><td>Number line:</td>
<td><hr></td>
<td>-2</td>
<td><hr></td>
<td>-1</td>
<td><hr></td>
<td>0</td>
<td><hr></td>
<td>1</td>
<td><hr></td>
<td>3</td>
<td><hr></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Calendar:</td>
<td>…</td>
<td> :)</td>
<td>Year 2 BCE</td>
<td> :)</td>
<td>Year 1 BCE</td>
<td> :)</td>
<td>Year 1 CE</td>
<td> :)</td>
<td>Year 2 CE</td>
<td> :)</td>
<td>…</td>
</tr>
</table>
</body>
The :)'s denote New Year’s parties. Have a great one for Y2k, and an even better one in a year, when the new millenium begins.
The first decade only had 9 years.
The first century only had 99 years.
The first millenium only had 999 years.
OR
The first decade includes 0 AD, commonly called 1 BC.
The first century includes 0 AD, commonly called 1 BC.
The first millenium includes 0 AD, commonly called 1 BC.
Either way, the next millenium begins on Jan 1, 2000 :D.
It is too clear, and so it is hard to see.
is there anyone who understands the above poster’s nonsense?
what is essential is invisible to the eye -the fox
I’m sure anyone who was successfully duped into paying extra for overpriced junk they didn’t need because it was “the last sale of the millenium” understands and agrees.
*ZenBeam:
The first decade only had 9 years.
The first century only had 99 years.
The first millenium only had 999 years.
OR
The first decade includes 0 AD, commonly called 1 BC.
The first century includes 0 AD, commonly called 1 BC.
The first millenium includes 0 AD, commonly called 1 BC.
Either way, the next millenium begins on Jan 1, 2000 .
Kilgore Trout: is there anyone who understands the above poster’s nonsense? *
Hopefully, ZB is being facetious.
The only way 1000-1999 was the 2nd Millennium AD would be if the 1st was 0-999 (or 1BC - 999AD). Or if the first was only 999 years long, against the definition of what a millennium is.
I looked in the mirror today/My eyes just didn’t seem so bright
I’ve lost a few more hairs/I think I’m going bald - Rush
Yeah, that was a troll. Sorry :(.
It is too clear, and so it is hard to see.