And feeling my is that syntax English imposition of rules is, too! ;->

TL

************************************
Tom Love *
Dept. of Sociology/Anthropology *
Linfield College *
McMinnville, Oregon 97128 *
email: tlove at linfield.edu *
tel: (503) 434-2504 *
fax: (503) 434-2566 *
*
45N, 123W *
************************************

On Wed, 5 Jan 2000, Bob Mauritsen wrote:

> Roger,
>
> Well, actually my feeling is that holidays and celebrations are
> whenever we decide they should be. Celebrating 2000 feels right,
> so that's when it should be. In fact, 1/1/2000 is 1000 years from
> 1/1/1000 anyway. We don't seem to mind that February is shorter
> than the other months, so what difference does it make that the
> first "millennium" was technically a year short. The initial
> point was arbitrary anyway, and could just as well have been a
> year earlier. It's all arbitary. Some years have 366 days, but
> we don't mind that. The first millennium had 999 years. So what.
>
> My background is in math
> and stat and so, from my standpoint, the year 2000 is *really*
> arbitrary, since we could just as well have been counting in
> base 8 or 12 or 60, and any of those cases, the years with three
> zeros would definitely not have corresponded much with those for the
> base 10 counting system. In any case, most systems start out a
> bit sloppy and creaky. The date-counting system is no different.
> It's when it finally settles down to a reliable process that
> counts.
>
> Sorry this is off-topic. I'm just back from vacation and am
> having trouble adjusting to the "rules" of civilization again. :)
>
> bob mauritsen
>
> >
> >Bob
> >
> >Oddly enough the Gregorian calendar includes millennia in it that end in triple
> >zeros. Now if one wished to celebrate just those that occurred when all of those
> >zeros turned up are you saying they couldn't? I, myself, can hardly wait until
> >the year 10000. I hope my 'puter is Y10K compatible.
> >
> >Roger Craik
> >
> >Bob Mauritsen wrote:
> >
> >> Consider also that when the Gregorian calendar was instituted,
> >> there was a huge adjustment made in the date. So, if you are
> >> counting the absolute number of days that have transpired, then
> >> Jan 1, 2001, is not the actual start of a millennium, either. :)
> >>
> >> Bob Mauritsen
> >> Green Lake, Seattle
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Yes, everybody *does* understand the technical point, but hey,
> >> >vox populi has spoken pretty clearly here.
> >> >
> >> >Our system of time reckoning is completely arbitrary anyway,
> >> >and there's nothing magical about the number of laps the earth
> >> >has taken around the sun since we started counting -- other
> >> >cultures started counting at different times.
> >> >
> >> >No, what's really interesting is simply that leading digit in
> >> >front of the year, and it now says "2" instead of "1". You're
> >> >welcome to wait a year for your millennium, but ours started
> >> >yesterday...
> >> >
> >> >Jim McCoy
> >> >jfmccoy at earthlink.net
> >> >Redmond, WA
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >-----Original Message-----
> >> >From: Susi and Dale [mailto:susidale at home.com]
> >> >Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2000 9:55 AM
> >> >To: jfmccoy at earthlink.net; Pterodroma at aol.com;
> >> >tweeters at u.washington.edu; dipper at inch.com
> >> >Subject: Re: Y2K #001 - NORTHERN HAWK OWL
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Does everybody understand that the "new millennium" will not begin until
> >> >January of 2001? Sorry if it hurts any feelings, but the century/millennium
> >> >didn't change yet.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >----- Original Message -----
> >> >From: Jim McCoy <jfmccoy at earthlink.net>
> >> >To: <Pterodroma at aol.com>; <tweeters at u.washington.edu>; <dipper at inch.com>
> >> >Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2000 2:50 AM
> >> >Subject: RE: Y2K #001 - NORTHERN HAWK OWL
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> Congratulations, Richard! This is a terrific story. I had
> >> >> contemplated sending out a message asking after people's
> >> >> millennium birds, but never got around to it. I was mildly
> >> >> pleased to hear and subsequently see a flicker for my first,
> >> >> instead of the crow I was expecting, especially since it was
> >> >> one of my first favorites as a child. I knew somebody out
> >> >> there could surely do better than that, but I didn't dream
> >> >> anyone would come up with something so good as a northern
> >> >> hawk owl! If you could live long enough, you'd still be
> >> >> bragging about this one at the next millennium. ;)
> >> >>
> >> >> So, OK, anybody else out there have a good first bird for the
> >> >> new millennium? We'll have to concede the "#1 #1" to Richard,
> >> >> but let's have some honorable mentions...
> >> >>
> >> >> Jim McCoy
> >> >> jfmccoy at earthlink.net
> >> >> Redmond, WA
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>