Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
That's right, on April 9, 1999 a lot of couples will be making a lot of noise during the night for the race to have a baby on January 1st, 2000, or even better, on the first stroke of Midnight, January 1st, 2000.
A lot of hogwash if you ask me, I don't see why so many people want to try for that goal. But then again, I'm basically single, and have no plans for having any children in the near future.
I've heard that some governments are offering prizes to these so called "Millenium Babies". Expect a HA-UGE peak in births around that date. Not only that, expect a decline of births about a month before or a month after that date.
------------------ I can resist anything....... Except Temptation
posted
Well, whoever has the first baby will surely have their 15 minutes of fame. And maybe a couple covers on magazines. And perhaps some kind of deal with a diaper-manufacturer or something...that kind of thing happens every day here
------------------ "Some people call me the Space Cowboy. Yeah! Some call me the Gangster of Love. Some people call me Maurice. Whoo hoo! 'Cause I speak of the Pompatus of Love!" - Steve Miller Band's The Joker
posted
And the funniest part will be that all these people will have their kids at the beginning of 2000, and they'll miss the third millennium by an entire year! *LOL*
------------------ "I fart in your general direction!" -John Cleese, Monty Python and the Holy Grail
posted
Actually, isn't the whole system out by 4 or 7 years? (it's one of the two, I can't remember which). There's debate over just when they started keeping track of the ADs and when Jesus' birth supposedly was... Thus, the true millenium could still be several years away. =P
Of course, seeing how 90% of the population is so dense that they won't even consider this sort of thing, it won't make any difference whatsoever... If they WERE smart, they could say that 2000 is a transitional year between the 2 centuries/millenia and party all the way through 12.31.99 to 01.01.01... I'm sure some ppl would agree to a year-long party. =]
------------------ Lyta Vorlon: "Our great mistake. Our failing. And now your failing. The error is compounded." Delenn: "What mistake?" Lyta Vorlon: "The first one, the one from which all mistakes proceed: The error of Pride..."
posted
I have to side with the Vorlon on this. I'm gonna party like it 1999, 2000, and 2001!
------------------ "Some people call me the Space Cowboy. Yeah! Some call me the Gangster of Love. Some people call me Maurice. Whoo hoo! 'Cause I speak of the Pompatus of Love!" - Steve Miller Band's The Joker
posted
but Wouldn't it suck if you were born a minute before or a minute after midnight!?! What if the parents take it out of them for the rest of their lives!?! - We didn't get the cover of Women's Day cause YOU had to be born 25 seconds late!?!
posted
Y'know, I think I'd rather be a pedantic who knows it starts in 2001 than a moron who thinks it starts in 2000...
And the calender, if you want to base it on the birth of Jesus, could be off anywhere from four to six years (by my understanding), but it's the other way. If we shifted the calender, we'd already be three to five years into the third millennium. And, besides, if the calender were recalculated to Jesus' birth, we'd probably have to move New Year's to a completely different season.
As it stands, the calender most of us use places the beginning of the CE/AD period one thousand, nine hundred, and ninety-eight years and eighty-nine days ago, on January 1, 1. Add two thousand years to January 1, 1, and you get January 1, 2001. That's the way the calender works. It's an indisputable fact. Saying that the third millennium starts in 2000 is like saying that this year started on a Tuesday, when it started on a Friday. You can't just assign arbitrary properties to the calender. If you do, why even bother having one?
------------------ "I'll bite your legs off!" -Terry Gilliam, Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
The 2000/2001 debate is another reason why I call this hogwash. There is exactly no point. And when this does happen, all the hospitals will be maxxed out. Good thing I'm not going to be a doctor.
I guess people think more of 2000 because it is a nice, even number, and also that it is the first year that features a 2 as the first digit.
------------------ I can resist anything....... Except Temptation
Right, anyone here (mainly the Brits, cause the Americans wouldn't know a party if it came up and pooped in their trousers) going to stand around in December this year, when everyone is having a good time, and start shouting 'No, the millenium starts this year, because there wasn't a year 0, the first century would have then been 1-100, the second...hey, you've spilled beer on my cardigan!'? Nope? There's a difference in saying that it starts in 2000 because you're a moron, and just going with the flow because you don't want to be a pedantic arse that doesn't get invitied to parties because you'll spend you're whole time telling everyone that they're getting the rules of 'fuzzy duck' wrong.
Tahna said it best. 1999-2000 changes 4 digits. 2000-2001 changes 1. Since the actual millenium has no relevence to anything ANYWAY, that's use the excuse that all those cheques that have 19__ written on them will be useless in 9 months.
Oh, and why would we have to move New Year's if we recalculated the millenium cause of Jesus. I can understand moving Christman, but New Year's?
------------------ 'It's okay to only know three chords but God, put them in the right order' -Hank Hill
Printer-friendly view of this topic
