Re: What are we going to do with our clocks at 2000 AD?

[rubywand@swbell.net]

Nathan Mates writes ...
> 
> ....
>
>    Bzzzzt! There was no year 0 ('AD' is the abbreviation of 'In the
> year of our Lord', ie.e Jesus. AD 1 was (well, supposed to be, but the
> monk couldn't do math right) the first year of Jesus's life, and the
> first year in the system), so while you may get to see a bunch of
> zeros, the new century and milennium does not start until 2001.
>

     This notion appears to overlook an important feature of year dates. 
They are not merely designations; they are counts.

     1 A.D., for example, is "the 1st year of our Lord". There is no year 
0 A.D. because 0 = nothing, i.e. a non count. (Would we teach little 
Betty to count on her fingers beginning with zero? Naturally, not. She 
would grow up wondering why all of her friends have ten fingers whereas 
she has only nine.)

     Happily, the coming millenial event is not the first. We can look 
back to the year which people of that time recognized as 1001 A.D., the 
1001st year of our Lord. Did the Pope, bishops, monks, alchemists, 
nobles, merchants, thralls, and peasants flock joyously into the faire 
grounds to celebrate the millenium when 1001 A.D. dawned? No! they did 
not. Everyone had already welcomed the millenium with the start of the 
1000th year of our Lord.

     Thus, both the application of logic and the record of established 
convention serve to bring enlightenment and, with it, peace. You can be 
sure that the dawning of the first day of the 2000th year of our Lord 
will, indeed, usher in a new millenium!


Rubywand