Re: New FAQ sites? (was Re: Nathan does it again!)

[pfg@yallara.cs.rmit.EDU.AU (Paul Francis Gilbert)]

nathan@visi.com (Nathan Mates) writes:

>In article <199710050854001610327@[195.4.198.252]>,
>Udo Huth <udo.huth@auge.de> wrote:
>>Owsw <owsw@aol.com> wrote:
>>> Why not?  Your claiming that 2000 is *still* the 20th century :)  So, what
>>>  books were you going to put on your web site anyway?
>>Yes, indeed it is. As there was no year 0 (zero, naught), but counting
>>started with year 1 (-2, -1, 1, 2, ...), the new century starts with
>>year 2001.

>   May I remind you that you're trying to argue with Charles Turley
>posting from aol. No matter how much the facts are, it remains that
>he's incapable of learning this or anything else. [And Turkey's
>cronies share the same level of incompetence in trying to deny the
>lack of a year zero precisely becasue it reminds them of their IQ]

>Nathan Mates

I'm reminded of a quote from Good Morning Vietnam.... "You know, you're in
more dire need of a blow job than any white man in history." But I at least
sort of agree with you on this. Starting to discuss the year 2000 issues is
drifting from the topic of the thread. As I mentioned earlier, people should
at least read some FAQs to clear their mind on the issue.

ie. The year 2000 is in the 20th century, and it is a leap year.

We now return to your regularly scheduled insult war ;-)


>--
><*> Nathan Mates http://www.visi.com/~nathan/      <*>
># This posting is copyright Nathan Mates, and may not be reprinted
># in full, partial, or quoted form on any archive site associated with
># Charles Turley. 
--
Paul Gilbert           | pfg@yallara.cs.rmit.edu.au
Bach App Sci, Bach Eng | The opinions expressed are my own, all my own, and
Year 4, RMIT Melbourne | as such will contain no references to small furry
Australia	       | creatures from Alpha Centauri.