Well the calendar skipped a whole 11 days in 1752 making the month of September, the year or 1752, the 18th century and that whole millennia somewhat shorter. However I bet you’d be happy enough to consider the period of 1st Jan 1001 to 1st Jan 2001 as a “millennium” even though it only had 999 full years in it.
I’d be inclined to round up in any event. 
A survey in the UK in Aug 1998 found that 73% of people believed tbat 1st Jan 2000 was no different from any other New Year’s Day. Most of those who thought otherwise were Catholics who were aware that the Pope had declared the Year 2000 to be a ‘Jubilee Year’, a celebration of the last year of tbe 2nd Millennium. During 1999 there was a change in people’s thinking with regard to the significance of 1st Jan 2000. What brought this about? Why did it spread throughout the world to the point where the governments of almost all countries went along with it? What was going on?
I’m going with Chthulhu.
Soviet Era orbital mind control lasers were hacked by the clandestine groups Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow and the Boy Sprouts. They were unable to follow through with phase 3 of their plan due to the actions of the Secret Masters of Fandom.
cite?
I agree. Perhaps being a C programmer helps me see things clearly. 
I don’t have a problem with people who prefer the 2001 convention. Potato, Potawto. But I am always infuriated by the sanctimonious stick-up-their-asses who aren’t content to practice their fetish in silence, but need to whine and preach that us 2000’ers are deluded ignoramuses.
It’s so useful to have two different names for slightly different 100-year periods.[sarcasm] Perhaps we need a special name for the 1857-1956 century as well?
Confession: I am a hypocrite. In a recent thread it was convenient for me to call Millard Fillmore (1800-1874) a “President not born in the 19th century.” I felt slightly soiled by this fib, but consoled myself that, since SDMB has more than its share of sanctimony, the claim would probably be fervently accepted by the other participants.
Lord Tanlaw speaking in the House of Lords, 4th Mar 1998
As the Government are aware, 1st January 2001 is the real beginning of the third millennium, but most people have indicated that they wish to celebrate the occasion from 1st January 2000. I do not argue with that because I shall be joining them. The difference in dates is historic rather than scientific and was recognised as such at the beginning of this century. The newspapers of the period reported that the 20th century was to be publicly recognised as starting on 1st January 1901, not 1900. That was because the official date of Christendom should have been 0 AD not 1 AD. The first year of the new Christian calendar, which I think was designated by Pope John I, was 1 AD–anno domini, in the year of the Lord–rather than 0 AD because the zero was not available in Europe until about 200 years later
A keen amateur horologist, Lord Tanlaw is a Fellow of both the Royal Astronomical Society and the British Horological Institute. In 2005, he introduced the Lighter Evenings (Experiment) Bill, which would move the United Kingdom’s time zone forward by one hour, to UTC+1 in the winter and UTC+2 in the summer. The bill had its second reading in the House of Lords on 24 March 2006. The government had already rejected the proposal the previous year.
Lord Tanlaw persists in pressing his case for a change of time zone. Most of his last appearances in the House of Lords was to argue for lighter evenings, which he did when there was only the most tenuous link to the topic being debated in the chamber. Such did his reputation become that other Lords were able to predict when the issue was to be raised by Lord Tanlaw’s appearance in his usual seat on the cross-benches.
Again, cite please. Another survey (me and my mates) says that’s complete nonsense. I was living in London at that time, and people were thinking years ahead about where they were planning to be for this “once in a lifetime” event.
And would you care to explain what actual point you’re trying to make with either the above comment or your subsequent appeal to Lord Tanlaw’s authority?
‘Don’t be an April Fool over sex’
Note that the date 1st Jan 1999 in this article should be 1st Jan 2000.
I feel I also have to quote from a distinguished member of rock nobility. Who clearly stated nearly 2 decades before the fact
“Two thousand zero zero
party over
oops!
out of time.
So tonight I’m going to party like it’s 1999”
That leaves us no doubt that the 1999/2000 change was a (funkily) significant moment in time.
Another cite.
Planning started in 1994. Opened to the public on 1st Jan 2000. Closed to the public on 31st Dec 2000, since nobody but misguided Senior Citizens were trying to celebrate anything on 1st Jan 2001.
If the question is simply on which date to have a big party, then the solution was obvious: Have two big parties.
Just now, browsing in my library, I picked up
A History of the English-Speaking Peoples
Volume II: The New World
I opened the Volume to
Book IV: Renaissance and Reformation
Chapter I: The Round World.
The very first sentence was decisive:
I trust you all share my satisfaction and relief that this matter can finally be laid to rest.
Because of an obscure book you found on your shelf? Okay.
That’s just what Kang and Kodos are relying on.
:smack: Uhhh … My post was tongue-in-cheek, but if you think A History of the English-Speaking Peoples is “obscure” you might want to inform the Swedish Academy for the Nobel Prize in Literature which cited works like that when it awarded Sir Winston its highest prize.
But thanks for playing.
Point is, there’s a right way and and a wrong way of demarcating centuries, and most of us use the wrong way. C’est la vie. You may be 46 years old, but you’re currently in your 47th year of living. You haven’t lived a decade until a full ten years have passed. We are in common parlance in our third millennium, 21st century, and 18th year of the new century and new millennium, which began on January 1, 2001, and January 1, 2017 respectively.