No no no no no!!  The new millenium does not begin on January 1, 2001. It
begins when it begins - January 1, 2000!!!!

The first year of the first millenium (AD) had to be the year 0000.  Call
it "zero."  It began with no weeks, no months, and no year. Zero.
Zero-zero-zero-zero.

That year, 0000, started the calendar as we know it, whatever tale this
sixth century "scholar" fellow Dioniyissiiius Exigeus tells Linda (and if
he wants to come on the list to argue his point, I'm prepared to take him
on!!!  His handlers can contact mine - they know my email.)

Consider:  The first month was January, 0000.  The first month couldn't
have been January, 0001, because year 0001, moving on 0002, had not yet
been achieved - it took twelve months to go from 0000 to 0001!  Ya gotta do
the months to get the years, Dioniyissiiius!  (He must've been an ugly kid
- otherwise, why did his parents give him this name?  Part of his problem?)

Of course, they could have fractionalized the first year.  Something like
000&1/12th.  But no, that would have been too much work, slicing all those
little beads on their abacuses.

The problem, it seems pretty clear now, was that in those days, people were
just trying to do things TOO FAST!!!!  Dioniyissiiius's - my digits are
fatiguing, so let me call him Dion from now on - obviously had a popular
predecessor, about two dozen generations earlier, a kind of guru among the
marketing types back at the BC/AD turn, who was taking the short cut to
what promised to be a more lucrative future, knocking out an ENTIRE YEAR
called "0000".  (Some historians argue that he had been bought out by the
merchants in the bazaar, the money-lenders, the camel-traders, so that they
wouldn't have to deal with the year 0000!!  I mean,you can understand why -
doesn't 0000 look suspicious, kind of foreboding, on a check?  And how,
VISA argued, could a current BC cardholder tell the merchant that his card
was expiring in "1-0000 AD?")

All those letters and numbers!  Y2K would pale by comparison.

And then there were some people around who were projecting - I think their
name was Fox - a "big picture" deal for a future century.

One final convincing point, somewhat redundant but at this stage who cares
(then I really have to go).  Linda says "the first day after Christ was
considered January 1, 1, the second January 2, 1, and so on...  As a
result, the new millenium (or 3rd millenium) starts on January 1, 2001."
Linda, how could "1,1" have been achieved without first going through the
twelve months that add up to "1,1?"  Hence, it was "January 1, 0," not "1,
1."  Or, it was "January 0, 1/12th," to be precise.

And finally again ("finallys" may be used more than once over a span of 20
centuries), Linda reasons, apparently to explain OUR confusion, not Dion's,
"Just consider (that) we are currently in the 20th century (in the
1900s)."  Well, that proves the point!  Years 0000-0099 were the first
century, so isn't it logical that years 1900-1999 are the 20th century?"

Linda, I hope you realize that you are being duped and manipulated!  So if
you have the email address of that Dion Exigeus fellow, please forward this
message to him. You are too valuable to the list to be lost! So tell
Exigeus I AM READY!!! any place, any weapon ... and any time - my calendar,
of course.

                                Bob Dolezal




At 11:08 PM 1/5/99, Linda wrote:
>These two posts I received from another list.  I found them very
>interesting. Hope this helps.
>
>Linda  cg  Ben 69/5
>[log in to unmask]
>
>
>>>US Naval Observatory:
>http://psyche.usno.navy.mil/millennium/whenIs.html
>When Is the New Millennium?
>mil*len*ni*um \ \ n, pl -nia or -niums: a period of 1000 years
>The end of the second millennium and the beginning of the third will be
>reached
>on January 1, 2001.  This date is based on a now globally recognized
>calendar
>established by the sixth-century scholar Dionysius Exiguus, who was
>compiling a
>table of dates of Easter.  Rather than starting with the year ZERO, years in
>this calendar begin with the date January 1, 1 Anno Domini (AD).
>Consequently,
>the next millennium does not begin until January 1, 2001 AD.
>
>>>The MILLENIUM issue!
>While many people consider the year 2000 the start of a new millenium, this
>is
>not the case... In actuality, the new millenium begins in the year 2001.
>The
>current millenium has its' last second tick at precisely 11:59:59 on
>December
>31, 2000.
>Why is this the case you ask??    GOOD QUESTION!!
>The year 2000, also known as 2000 A.D. (informally) or A.D. 2000 (formally),
>or
>even anno Domini 2000, is a year based on the Christian religous calendar.
>It
>refers specifically to the time after Christ (obviously why B.C. refers to
>before Christ).
>While there have been several calendars since that time, the current one
>being
>the Gregorian calendar, this doesn't make much difference.  While no
>calendars
>using the Gregorian method was around back then, essentially (and
>effectively),
>the first day after Christ was considered January 1, 1, the second January
>2, 1,
>and so on...
>As a result, the new millenium (or 3rd millenium) starts on January 1, 2001.
>You could also apply this to the new century (the 21st century) which starts
>on
>January 1, 2001, and the new decade (the 201st decade) which starts on
>January
>1, 2001.  WAIT!!  You ask what about the new year??  Well, the new year (the
>1998th year) starts January 1, 1998. Or perhaps you meant the 2000th year
>which
>starts January 1, 2000...
>Still a little confused on how things start in 2001???  Consider this -- the
>first millenium was from January 1, 1 - December 31, 1000 (one thousand
>years),
>the second millenium was from January 1, 1001 - December 31, 2000, and the
>third
>millenium will be from January 1, 2001 - December 31, 3000.  You can apply
>this
>to centuries and decades as well (ie: 1st century:  January 1, 1 - December
>31,
>100, 2nd:  January 1, 101 - December 31, 200, etc.)
>Head spinning a little still??  One more time... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,..., 1000 =
>one
>thousand years.  Therefore, January 1, 1 - December 31, 1000 = one thousand
>years = one millenium.
>How come is not 999 or 1999 or 2999??  Well, have you ever heard of a year
>labeled as the year 0??  Of course not!  Wouldn't it sound a little weird to
>say
>March 17, 0 ??  That's the only way, however, you could have one thousand
>years
>end at 999 or 1999 or even 2999...
>So why is it that everything is refered to as they are??  One word:
>CONVENIENCE!!  It's easier to think of 1990-1999 as a decade (the 90's) or
>2000-2999 as a millenium or 1900-1999 as a century.  Just consider the fact
>the
>we are currently in the 20th century (in the 1900s).  Then ask yourself when
>life in general isn't confusing, and how many things are done to make it
>seem
>less confusing...