🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <01bc7ba5$65d96ea0$b3db0a26@elnnharrington>, Neil Harrington
<nharr...@earthlink.net> writes
>> But, calculating it  based upon traditional methods of identifying
>> anniversaries, I believe it to be correct!
>
>Better redo those calculations, Bill.

Hiya Neil, I've snipped a lot to save space!

I honestly think you've forgotten the point of this discussion. It's NOT
to determine precisely WHEN the second Millennium is specifically born,
as we have always agreed that happens at the end of the year 2000.

Rather it's to establish when any celebrations to commemorate that
'Millennium' should take place.

Can you recall? Some folk suggested that celebrations immediately after
midnight Dec 31st 1999 would be appropriate, other folk suggested that
celebrations immediately after midnight Dec 31st 2000 would be
appropriate.

You apparently support the latter group.

In formulating 'my' belief I draw a parallel with ancient tradition
which determines that we always celebrate  anniversaries, prior to the
actual timing of the original event.

For example, we dont wait until our 'birthday' has ended prior to
celebrating it do we? No! that would be daft!;

We dont wait until our 'wedding anniversary' has ended prior to
celebrating it do we? No! that would be daft!;

We dont wait until 'Christmas day' has ended prior to celebrating it do
we? No! that would be daft!;

We dont wait until the Millenium has ended prior to celebrating it do
we?............ Erm.......... according to your view, Yes!

And that would be daft!

Like I explained in my last posting; should you attend a friends
birthday party at....lets say 8pm on the evening of his birthday, you
will be celebrating his birthday PRIOR to midnight at which time his
'birthday' terminates.

Gottit? You would be celebrating PRIOR to the end of the birthday
anniversary!!

So, how do YOU justify changing established tradition when contemplating
celebrating the Millennium?

'Tis an inconsistent approach you adopt methinks!

Cheers!
-- 
Bill Newton