Re: 1999 !

New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

ken sartor (sartor++at++visidyne.com)
Mon, 04 Jan 1999 15:03:03 -0600

If you say so. But i was conceived 9 months earier
and became viable somewhat earlier than my birth.
Counting is somewhat arbitrary... I think i was born
on the second Sunday of march but my birthday is
celebrated on the 13th - which is really correct?

ken

And keep in mind that there was no year 1. It was relabeled
hundreds of years later. Kind of like if you buy a car
(or are born now) and i tell you in 20000 miles (or 20 years)
when to begin counting. And i am wrong by a few hundred miles
(or weeks) to boot...

At 02:48 PM 1/4/99 , you wrote:
>ken sartor wrote:
>>
>> Finally, why be so rigid on a matter that is so inconsistant
>> with most peoples idea of reasonable? Heck who thinks that
>> their 41st birthday is special?
>
>Your 40th birthday IS your 40th birthday. The count starts from 0
>0 the day you are born. It's totally different.
>
>Cheers,Angus.
>
>--
>"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 - 12:56:09 PST

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