SR - Alisandre's nothing tutu

[Amanda Lewanski]

Amanda will be happy to field Dennis' reply, as I presume Lyonel would never
speak thus to any lady, however confused he may think she be.

Many things my posting may have been--hard to read due to the capitals,
overzealous with its exclamation points, even incorrect. But although cranky and
venting, I do not believe I was personally rude. Thank you for correcting the
oversight.

Pax, Daniel, your eloquence in another missive has conquered me and I will be
quiet now.

--Amanda

Dennis Grace wrote:

> Salut cozyns,
>
> Lyonel aisai. Commo?
>
> Well, since Lyonel believes this to be the year 1386, Dennis had better
> field this one?
>
> Alisandre responds to -
>
> > > Please excuse the bandwith...
> > > FYI - A NEW CENTURY & A NEW SOUTHERN REGIONAL CHRONICLER!!!!
>
> - with:
>
> >Please excuse the shouting...
> >THIS IS NOT A NEW CENTURY!!!!! AAAAAGH!!!! 2000 IS NEITHER A NEW CENTURY
> >NOR A
> >NEW MILLENNIUM!!!! 2000 IS THE LAST YEAR OF THIS CENTURY AND THIS
> >MILLENNIUM!!!!
> >2001 IS THE FIRST YEAR OF THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY!!! WHY DO YOU ALL THINK
> >ARTHUR C. CLARKE PICKED 2001 AS A TITLE ANYWAY?
> ><pant, pant>
> >Sorry, but I'm just so tired of hearing this. It starts to grate.
>
> Well, no, I do not excuse the shouting.  Nor do I excuse the gratuitous
> applications of exclamation points.  What utter nonsense.  If you are going
> to deliberately make your postings difficult to read, why bother typing
> them?
>
> Second, I understand how you feel.  I'm having similar reactions to the
> opposite end of the issue.  I'm sick of hearing how upset a tiny minority
> become over hearing the rest of the world refer to the year 2000 as a new
> century and a new millennium.
>
> When a counter goes from 1999 to 2000, the entire dial changes.  Our brains
> have a tendency to work along similar lines.  The year 2000 resonates in our
> minds as a milestone.  Thus, the number 2000 has a resonance that the number
> 2001 will be unable to match.  Remember all those big celebrations around
> the world a few days ago?  Do you think anyone will do the same next year?
> Not likely.
>
> As for factuality, the Gregorian calendar numbering system is, itself,
> somewhat arbitrary.  The standard argument from mathematicians and trivia
> collectors is that the lack of a year 0 makes this the 1999th year.
> Poppycock.  What you call the year 1 BC will work just fine as an arbitrary
> year 0, but who cares?  Even if the calendar had begun on the year 23, the
> world would have been celebrating the 2000 mark.  The year 2000 is the first
> year of the 21st century and of the third millenium.  Most of us are happy
> about this.  We like round numbers.
>
> Of course, if you really enjoy being upset by the majority disregard for
> your knowledge of trivia, this year will provide you ample opportunities to
> raise your ire.  Newscasters will refer to recurrant events (especially big
> ones like the Super Bowl and the US Presidential election) as the "first of
> the new millenium."  You may want to get your blood pressure checked before
> embarking upon so hazardous a journey.
>
> As for your signature line -
>
> >--Alisandre, still firmly in the 20th century
>
> - don't sweat it.  You'll catch up.  Some people are just naturally slow.
>
> Responding from the third millennium,
> Dennis
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
> ============================================================================
> Go to http://lists.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.

============================================================================
Go to http://lists.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.