Re: A83: (no subject)

To: <assembly-83@lists.ticalc.org>
Subject: Re: A83: (no subject)
From: "Bryan Rabeler" <rabelerb@pilot.msu.edu>
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1999 13:58:05 -0500
References: <0.367c3355.2595cc74@aol.com>
Reply-To: assembly-83@lists.ticalc.org

It all depends on where you start.  Obviously humans have been around this
earth much longer than 2 millennia.  According to the Bible at least, its
somewhere more like 4 or 5 millennia.  I believe the Gregorian calendar
attempted to start when Jesus was born, however there was no year 0.  It
goes right from 1 BC to 1 AD.  However, now most scholars I believe think
that Jesus was born sometime like 4 BC.  So our calendar is really screwed
up. :)

--
Bryan Rabeler
rabelerb@pilot.msu.edu
http://www.msu.edu/~rabelerb/

"The last thing we want is a "cover-up."  ...there's no reason to take out
intelligent and purely speculative posts. Even if they're true." - Chris
Dornfeld, 4 November 1998

----- Original Message -----
From: <AtmaZ@aol.com>
To: <assembly-83@lists.ticalc.org>
Sent: Saturday, December 25, 1999 2:29 AM
Subject: Re: A83: (no subject)

>
> In a message dated 12/24/99 9:46:25 PM Mountain Standard Time,
> snoborder420@yahoo.com writes:
>
> << i also had 1 other thaught
>  how come everyone who asks to be taken off the list is
>  from aol??(im not saying _all_ aol'ers are dumb, just
>  a lot) >>
>
>
> I don't know.  Maybe it's just the way the world works.  And I've seen a
lot
> of Yahooligans ask to be taken off the list...
>
>
> Anyway, it's interesting to see how everybody is basing their date
> calculations off of the Gregorian calendar.  We all know that time existed
> before that arbitrary point known as "Christ's birth" (viz. Greek
> civilization); so where does that come into play when dealing with how
many
> millenia have passed?
>
>     --d.
>     When you aren't enumerating quantities, spell out the stupid number.
>
>

References:

Re: A83: (no subject)

From: AtmaZ@aol.com