Survey posted 2000-01-02 04:11 by Andy.

Contribute ideas to surveys by sending a mail to survey@ticalc.org.

Well, I spent the evening from 7:15 until 2:00 am at church, for the closing of the old year services, and for midnight Mass. The whole ceremony was in Latin, and very beautiful. Afterwards, I came home, went online and read about the "Millenium TI" and then went to bed.

not me i got wasted and woke up in the middle of a field the next day w/ my shirt missing and my pants unzipped. I wish i could remember it though.... I really wonder what happened to me. Oh well... IT KICKED A S S ... o h yeah... and visit http://www.dre.cjb.net

Right, let's get this sorted out for once and for all. Everybody has an opinion on when the millennium started/wil start. Everyone knows that they are right, and can justify their opinion to themselves, and NOBODY CARES about anyone elses opinion, so let's all just shut the f**k up, safe in the knowledge that we are right and that anyone whose opinions differ from our own is an ignorant fool.

In Celebration of the new Millennium, Millenium, Century, Decade, Year, Month, Fort-Night, Week, and Day. (That was just to keep all you time keeper happy) I Fixed my calculator up, now it has a tinfoil outer and colored buttons. Happy New __________!
a) Millennium
b) Millenium
c)Century
d)Decade
e)Year
f)Month
g)Fort-Night
h)Week
i)Day

Hello, have we forgotten that millenium is not a word. This whole Microsoft thing or whatever with millenium with one "n" is bull. Face the damn fact that the new Millennium starts on 01/01/2001 at 00:01. I am sick of people trying to prove that it just started.

Thanks, that's what I've been waiting to read all day

You forgot "score", defined as a period of 20 years, and really only used in the Gettysburg Address by Abe Lincoln ("Four score and seven years ago..." to denote 87 years, the time between 1776 and the Gettysburg Address I think)

While it is true that under our current system the milennium won't start until 2001, the fact remains that our current system is retarded and shold be changed. Think, by doing some quick mental math, you can tell that the distance between 1B.C. (-1) and 1A.D. (1) is
*two* not one, so the first milennium should start in the year zero, and the third in 2000. What we need is to establish a metric date system, in which rules of math actually work. So, technically, I celebrated the metric milennium on the new year.

Taking your analogy, it still doesn't work. The year 1 was the year christ was born (allegedly), so 1 BC and the hypothetical year zero are the same thing, and 1 BC is not -1 but 0. Actually it is a non-issue, our calender in its current iteration was deduced more than a thousand years after the fact and many historians now believe it was several years before the year 1, in which case the millennium began several years ago. But that still leaves the question of why it has any significance, the only answer to which is the human fascination with powers of 10 and round numbers.

That just proves my point that we need a new dating system, one that treats zero and -1 as seperate numbers. While we're at it, we might as well just make it so that there are no negative years, the whole BC-AD thing has always bugged me. Any suggestions for what should be the year zero of human history?

Right On!
I have a rather interesting argument.
Also with our year numbers we have B.C. and A.D. (Before Christ and After Death) The B.C. part of our year-counting system ended when Christ was born. Right now is 2000 A.D. Christ was written to be dead circa 33 A.D. Point being is that how can there be, like 24 A.D., when Christ hasn't yet died? So taking this into account shouldn't the new millennium start in 2033 A.D.?

Well, it's because A.D. stands for, "anno Domini," not "after death." Read my fake news article for all the info on that and such.

Many people don't /believe/ me, which offends me because I did do some research before writing the article. :)

Well now I feel (and look) like an ass! Ok so that argument goes down the drain. But I've good arguments that seems to prove that 2000 is the new millennium

~Brandon

Y2K BFD!!

The term "AD" doesn't stand for "After Death", it stands for "Anno Domini", which is a term very important to those of the Christian faith (me) because it means (translated to English) "in the year of our Lord".

In Old Testament history, the dates were reset whenever a new king ascended the throne (thus centuries and millennia were non-existant as no king ever reigned that long). For example, Saul reigned over Israel for 42 years, so an official document might be dated "In the year 36 of King Saul" or "In the year 17 of King Saul". Needing a much more standardized system in this world, (and as most of the world was Christian at the time), we adopted Christ, the King of the Universe, as the standard, and thus the term AD is used.

However, the man who did the work (forgot his name) made an error, which we now know as being possibly as far as 43 years off.

Funny thing... we spent new years eve at the house of a family from our church, then started home at about 11:30. Well, we walked in the door, and I sat down to check my email. At 11:56, our power went out. A collective "Aw, just great!" went up from the entire family. We lit candles, had a short prayer, then locked the doors and loaded the guns. We were still scampering around the house at 12:07, when the lights came back on. Upon turning on the news, we were told that a transformer had caught on fire, and about 40 local homes lost power. What a bummer....it passed when we weren't even paying attention. :-)

I don't know if anyone knows this, but it's a neat fact. The year 2000 was actually back in about 1994. If we are counting years since Jesus' death, that is. I read/heard somewhere that Jesus was born during a certain king's reign (I forget which), and that king died around 4 BC, making Jesus 6 years old when the year 1 AD actually came around. So really, there shouldn't be any hype, because we missed it by about 6 years.

That's just a fact I read/heard. No flames if you disagree. I am in *NO WAY* trying to go against anyone's religious beliefs.

Although Jesus was born around 4 BC, he would have only been *four* years old in AD 1, since he would turn 1 in 3 BC, 2 in 2 BC, 3 in 1 BC, and 4 in AD 1.

>>Although Jesus was born around 4 BC, he would have >>only been *four* years old in AD 1, since he would >>turn 1 in 3 BC, 2 in 2 BC, 3 in 1 BC, and 4 in AD 1.

wtf....b.c. means BEFORE CHRIST so, 4 B.C. would be 4 yours BEFORE Christ...so he can't be born 4 years BEFORE he exists...

That king was Herod, I believe. Also, it's not counting the years since the death of Jesus Christ but the birth of Jesus Christ.

This is a responce to both above comments:

To the first one: I didn't say he was born the day the king died, he was born during that king's reign.

To the second one: I meant birth, not death. Sorry for confusion, it was late :)

You're way off there. Nobody would count a calendar by Herod (the governor of Judea) but rather by the reign of Ceasar Augustus, the reigning Emperor of Rome at the time of Jesus' birth, who was in year ~35 at the time of the event (he reigned for nearly 50 years).

Jesus was crucified during the reign of Ceasar Tiberius.

Rome had a total of six "Julian" ceasars, that is, those related to Julius Ceasar, the last of which being Nero, one of the most evil and the one who was Ceasar at the time the Apostle Paul was hanged. I could tell you a lot more about this, but I won't. E-mail me if you're curious.

BTW: the word "cerca" means "near to". FYI.

>BTW: the word "cerca" means "near to". FYI.

Now wouldn't the word be circa, rather than cerca?

I just posted a comment above regarding this. We actually might be as far as 43 years off.