🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <01bc7c0e$5e450820$2edb0a26@elnnharrington>, Neil Harrington
<nharr...@earthlink.net> writes

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

That could explain a lot of things;-)

>> 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.

Neil, it simply is true as illustrated below.
> 
>> 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!;
>> 
>No one has suggested celebrating the *old* millennium anyway, as far as I
>know. Talk of celebration always refers to the new millennium.

The 'new' Millennium will be the second Millennium, not the third!

> 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
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I've never disagreed with that although you continue to repeat it ad
nauseam:-) You keep charging on talking about the arrival time of the
Millennium whilst I am talking about the time at which it should be
celebrated!

I get the impression that you've had your blinkers on all the time and
'on' they're staying!                       
>,
>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.

Then may I respectfully suggest that you remove blinkers and read
earlier posts?

>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.

Its not meaningless Neil, you appear unable to grasp the concept that
I've explained as best I can.
>
>You continue to insist on confusing anniversaries with time periods.

An anniversary IS a time period. How would you suggest an anniversary
could be identified if we didn't use time periods?

>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.

Well Neil, you're scraping the bottom of the barrel now in writing stuff
like this, I really wish you hadn't posted 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.

And that's when it will terminate!

Well Neil, it's been an interesting if somewhat frustrating discussion
however I think we've both explained our points of view as clearly as we
can but neither of us has convinced the other.

Might I suggest we conclude posting via the newsgroup on this particlar
subject and await events. ( e-mail if you have more to say )

Look forward to crossing swords with you again in the future!

Best Regards.

-- 
Bill Newton