Just 8 weeks left of this decade!

[Lizard]

Funny you should say that, I'm 23% Jewish, I also have elastic ethnicity, and can gargle with onions, but I'm not puttin meself on u-tube.

[Sam Slater]

[quote]The noble Lords discussing this in 1998 all accepted that the 1/1/01 would be the first day of the new centrury. You've been sussed out badly. ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.....[/quote]


Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha....not really. Point out where I've argued with you over the start of the century. I haven't. I've argued with you over when the millennium should be*, when it actually was celebrated** and how decades are counted***.

* I said that the beginning of the Gregorian calendar should have started at year zero. Astronomers also believe so and thus add it in. The 'noble Lords' in that link you provided also admit it so the real millennium should have been on 01/01/2000.

** We actually had the celebrations on 01/01/2000 and we're all eye witnesses to that, so Max's statement that it will be exactly a decade since that date on 01/01/2010 is correct.

*** A decade is just 10 years long and can start anywhere. A decade from 1763-1773 would consist of the years, '63, '64, '65, '66, '67, '68, '69, '70, '71 and '72 because it's up to '73 but does not include it. So, the decade 2000-2010 would end at 00:00:00 01/01/2010. Pretty easy really.

If you can't argue against my points just say so instead of making things up.

A century, like a decade, can start wherever you want it to. Now, if you're talking of the 20th century then you're using BC/AD which you said you don't take seriously. Because AD started at year 1 then the 20th century would have to include the 20th hundred. I have no problem with that.

Yours and Steve's whole point when trying to be pedantic was that the millennium should have been celebrated at 00:00:00 01/01/2001, correct? But what are you basing 'should' on? I've clearly explained why the millennium should have been celebrated at 00:00:00 01/01/2000 but you're 'should' can only be based on how BC/AD was cobbled together (which, again, you said you don't take seriously).

Please let me know what your 'should' is based on if it isn't BC/AD and then I might be able to understand how you feel the real millennium should have been at 00:00:00 01/01/2001

[Sam Slater]

The scientific definition of time is that there should be a year zero. It's you who seems to be going against this, not me.

[Sam Slater]

[quote]I think I'll go with the Lords on this one. Nobody actually dis-agreed with the idea that 1/1/01 was the real start of the century.[/quote]

Again, I have not disagreed with you over when the century started. Bringing it up, then, is pointless.

[quote]The Lords did not 'admit' that the date of the new millenium should be at the end of 2000, they said that popular opinion would mean that it would be celebrated at that time,[/quote]

They 'admitted' that there should have been a year zero. That is the same as admitting the millennium should have been at the start of the year 2000 because the extra year would bring all future millennia 1 year forward.

[quote]According to the Bishop quoted in Hansard in my link, he said the birth of Christ was 4-7BC and we should have been celebrating in the mid 1990s in fact. This is why nobody takes the AD/BC argument very seriously.[/quote]

I already alluded to the birth of Christ being wrong well before you provided that link so you must know my views on this already. If you don't take the BC/AD thing seriously then you don't take a 01/01/2001 millennium seriously either because it's wholly based on BC/AD. That you cannot refute.

[quote]My 'should' argument has got nothing to do with BC/AD, it's about counting to 10. Nobody except astronomers use a year zero, we are talking about the civil calendar here.[/quote]

It has everything to do with BC/AD and counting to 10 doesn't prove anything when you can start counting at any number you want. Numbers are abstract after all and -5 is as important as +5.

As for nobody using zero apart from astronomers: well, you're wrong. We use zero as a reference point for a new day every day....all of us. And as for the civil calendar: most people by celebrating the new millennium at the start of 2000 accepted a year zero, whether they realised it or not. That's a whole lot of zeros used and not an astronomer in sight!

[quote]Sorry where was I making things up exactly, you usually say that when you are going into full bullshit mode Dr Slater.[/quote]

Here: "The noble Lords discussing this in 1998 all accepted that the 1/1/01 would be the first day of the new centrury. You've been sussed out badly."

Those two sentences strongly implied I disagreed with you over the start of the century. I didn't and I challenge you to find any point in our exchanges where I did.

[Sam Slater]

There should be a year zero, logically.

If you're born in 1990 you turn 20 years old in 2010. If you're born in 10BC you turn 20 in 11AD. You see how that's not consistent with all dates after Christ's birth? Maths cannot be inconsistent.