🚀 go-pugleaf

Geeezzz Bill,

What a bunch of intellectual hooey. The fact is that the end of the
millemium is December 31, 2000. People are only celebrating it in the
Year 2000 because of the change of the number as well as thousands of
events have been planned and paid for already. It's political, not
accurate.

Your argument about celebrating birthdays for  someone born at 11:59pm
on June 1  starting at 12:01am June 1 and ending at 12:00 midnight June
2 is correct. It is not, however, scientifically accurate - nor does
stating it is  *tradition* make it a fact. Tradition does not
necessarily have anything to do with fact.

The Year 2000 issue does not involve a day, but an entire year. Again,
people are excited about the change in NUMBER, not the scientific fact.

The first year AD was Jan 1, 0001, not 0000 (excusing the fact that
12/25 was Christs' supposed birthday) The new millenium starts on Jan 1,
2001. Period. End of BS.

Besides, the Year 2000 will not change anything, as many people suspect.
I will bet there are more suicides in the Year 2000 than any other year
documented. People are expecting the change to make their lives better.
Well, it wont. If your life was crap before 2000, it will be crap in
2000. This whole enigma of celebrating a New Year is because people
expect that a New Year will be better for them, but they do not take any
responsibility and change their lives. So the New Year is just as shitty
as the past year.

Personally, what I like to do on New Years Eve, is watch a good movie on
TV with my wife and then watch the news about all the people arrested
for drunk driving or firing guns in the air.

We, as a species, are a sad bunch - choosing to believe the imaginary
rather than the fact if the imaginary *feels* or *sounds* better

Sorrry about the philosophy in this newsgroup. I couldn't resist.

Bruce Tyler

** PLEASE REMOVE THE ASTERISK FROM THE EMAIL ADDRESS WHEN REPLYING **

Any advertisers:

Please consider this as notification not to send any mail
under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA)
47 USC Section 227. Details are provided in the Code of Federal
Regulations 47 CFR Section 64.1200.



Bill Newton wrote:

> In article <01bc7ad8$6fcd9580$a6db0a26@elnnharrington>, Neil
> Harrington <nharr...@earthlink.net> writes
>
> Bill Newton wrote:
> >> So I actually ENTER my 'birthday' 23 hrs and 59 minutes before the
> >> actual time of my birth.
> >
> >Not exactly, and irrelevant anyway. It's a birthDAY, not a
> birthminute or a
> >birthsecond. A birthday is an anniversary, nothing more. It doesn't
> >precisely measure any period of time.
>
> THAT'S precisely the point I'm making. The exact time of birth IS
> totally
> irrelevant.  But tradition determines that a 24 hour span i.e. one
> day, is
> nominated as a 'birthday' to celebrate, commemorate, call it what you
> will,
> that 'instant' of birth.
>
> Furthermore that 24 hour span will in future 'begin', regardless of
> actual
> birthtime, at 00.01hrs on the anniversary of the 'birthday'
>
> In other words if somebody is actually born at one minute to midnight
> (23.59) hours on....lets say June 1st, the anniversary of  their
> birthday in
> the future will be recognised as commencing immediately after midnight
>
> (00.01 hours) May 31st and ending immediately after midnight (00.01
> hours) of June 1st.
>
> I'm sure you can now see that,( unless the precise moment of birth is
> actually 00.01 hrs on any given day) birthdays are ALWAYS recognised
> (and generally celebrated) in advance of the precise birthtime
> anniversary.
>
> This could of course be as much as 23hours and 59 minutes in advance,
> and that's what tradition dictates.
> >
> >Not really. Your birthday is the anniversary of the date of your
> birth, and
> >it lasts all day and that's that. A millennium isn't an anniversary
> of any
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >kind. It's a period of time.
>   ^^^^
> Yes it is! In the same way that many homo sapiens celebrate...lets say
>
> the anniversary of New Years  day every year, the anniversary of a
> Millennium is identified ( and likely celebrated ) every 1000 years.
>
> Try looking at things this way . Homo Sapiens celebrate their
> birthdays
> annually i.e. in simple terms once every 365 days (units), to
> commemorate their birth.
>
> One full day (unit) is traditionally allocated to celebrate that
> instance of
> birth.
>
> A 'Millennium' is a span of a thousand years (units), accordingly, and
>
> based upon our ancient tradition of allocating one (unit) to
> celebrate,
> commemorate etc, it's natural that we allocate one unit (year) for our
>
> celebrations, commemorations, whatever, regarding the Millennium.
>
> Now I dont really expect that we all plan to celebrate, commemorate or
>
> party for a full year. But in applying the same formula used
> traditionally to
> designate homo sapiens 'birthday ' you can surely see that the
> 'birthyear'
> of the Millennium will commence immediately after midnight of December
>
> 31st 1999.
>
> This means that one can legitimately celebrate the birth of the second
>
> Millennium any time 'during the year 2000. And what better time than
> immediately after midnight on December 31st 1999!?
>
> >No. The year 2000 is the last year of the second millennium. As you
> >yourself have correctly noted, it's not a millennium until a thousand
> years
> >have passed. The present millennium ends when the year 2000 ends.
>
> Look, suppose you have a friend who was born at ...lets say 23.59
> hours
> on .....lets say June 1st.  You receive an invitation to attend your
> friends
> 21st birthday party, a function to be held at.... lets say 20.00
> hours,
> naturally on June 1st .
>
> Presumably you would disagree with this 'timing' of your friends
> birthday
> party, because your view is that he wouldn't actually be 21 years old
> until
> 23.59 hours on the June 1st , and therefore shouldn't celebrate being
> 21
> years old at 20.00 hours!
>
> Because only AFTER that time would YOU recognise him as being 21
> years old.
>
> A pedantically correct view, but one that would be laughed out of the
> house if you tried to apply it!
>
> To fall in line with YOUR thinking would necessitate your friend
> holding
> his 21st birthday party the 'day after ' his traditionally recognised
> birthday i.e AFTER 23.59 hours on June 1st. In other words, on June
> 2nd!
>
> Is that what you really mean?
>
> I suspect not.
>
> But whether you recognise it or not, that is precisely the formula
> you're
> suggesting should be used to identify the second Millennium
> celebrations.
>
> You're stating that 2000 years must have passed prior to any
> Millennium
> celebration. Yet that is contrary to the well established and
> traditional
> formula utilised by all and sundry in identifying 'anniversaries' for
> homo
> sapiens.
>
> One needs to think very clearly and logically to understand the
> principle of
> the foregoing, and I would guess that most folk dont care one way or
> the
> other.
>
> But, calculating it  based upon traditional methods of identifying
> anniversaries, I believe it to be correct!
>
> Cheers :-)
> --
> Bill Newton



--