🚀 go-pugleaf

Bill Newton <Bi...@notwen.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<hcZVKPA8...@notwen.demon.co.uk>...

> 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.

First time I've seen you say so, Bill. But I probably did enter this thread
late, and missed a good deal.
 
> 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.

Bill, that simply is not true, as explained in previous posts.
 
> 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!;

Those are all *dates*, Bill. Obviously you celebrate a date on the date. A
millennium is not a date.
 
> We dont wait until the Millenium has ended prior to celebrating it do
> we?............ Erm.......... according to your view, Yes!

No one has suggested celebrating the *old* millennium anyway, as far as I
know. Talk of celebration always refers to the new millennium. That doesn't
arrive until the old millennium has ended; and, as you have now said, "we
have always agreed that happens at the end of the year 2000." If "we have
always agreed" that, that pretty much closes the case, and I don't
understand why you're continuing to argue otherwise. The new millennium
arrives right after the end of the year 2000. You now agree with that,
whether you did or did not previously. Ergo, the end of the year 2000 is
the proper time to celebrate the new millennium. What your continuing
difficulty with this is, I cannot understand.

> 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!!

Of course. You celebrate *any* anniversary on the anniversary, not
afterward. The anniversary itself *means* that a year (or whatever time
period) has passed. Time of day doesn't matter, Bill. You're all hung up on
this perfectly meaningless item. For at least the fifth time, an
anniversary is simply a calendar date, nothing more. 

You continue to insist on confusing anniversaries with time periods. This
has already been gone over so many times there's just no point in repeating
it all. My suggestion is that you re-read the previous posts which have
thoroughly explained all the points that you are confused about. 

Look, you can celebrate anything whenever you like. You can celebrate the
third millennium next Tuesday, if you like, and the fourth millennium on
Wednesday. You can celebrate Christmas in July, and Easter in September.
None of those would make much sense, but there's no law against it. The
*appropriate* time to celebrate the arrival of the new millennium will be
midnight on Dec. 31, 2000. That's when it will arrive.

Neil