Re: 1999 !

New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

Angus Dorbie (dorbie++at++sgi.com)
Mon, 04 Jan 1999 12:05:59 -0800


No, just 2001, it's *the* basis for it not being 2000.

Cheers,Angus.

Michel Chamberland wrote:
>
> actully wouldnt that report it to 2002 or 2003?
>
> > But the first decade only had 9 years, so the year 2000
> > is really the turn of the millennium...
> >
> > (Heck if you are _really_ picky Jesus was not born in year
> > 1 (or 0) anyway.)
> >
> > ;-)
> >
> > ken

-- 
"Only the mediocre are always at their best." -- Jean Giraudoux 

For advanced 3D graphics Performer + OpenGL based examples and tutors: http://www.dorbie.com/


New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Mon Jan 04 1999 - 12:06:03 PST

This message has been cleansed for anti-spam protection. Replace '++at++' in any mail addresses with the '@' symbol.