Discussion: View Thread

Hi,
I'm probably in the minority here but I'm getting fed up to the eye
teeth with all of this ballyhoo about December 31, 1999 being the last
day of this millenium. I'm afraid next year (being the real last year of
the 2nd millenium) will be totally ignored - or that there is going to
be twice as much ballyhoo - so I'd like to contribute one small piece of
sanity before the entire world goes to the dogs.

I have a number of friends here who urgently need to read a posting that
came out about a year or so ago. I can't remember who posted it (or I'd
contact them direct) but it was along the lines of a set of questions
asking what are we really celebrating on that date. Is it, for example,
the anniversary of something exceptional that happened 2000 years ago?
(No.) Is it the start of a new millenium? (No.) and so on.

The author said that he/she had posted it not long before and found it
to be a real conversation stopper - and Lord knows there are plenty of
conversations out here that really need stopping (or am I just being a
cynical party pooper?).

Does anyone remember this posting or, better still, does anyone still
have a copy of it? If so, could you repost it privately to me (unless
others wish to also have a copy of it)?

Thanks heaps

Phil Rutherford

Phil Rutherford wrote:

> Hi,
> I'm probably in the minority here but I'm getting fed up to the eye
> teeth with all of this ballyhoo about December 31, 1999 being the
> last
> day of this millenium. I'm afraid next year (being the real last year
> of
> the 2nd millenium) will be totally ignored - or that there is going to
>
> be twice as much ballyhoo - so I'd like to contribute one small piece
> of
> sanity before the entire world goes to the dogs.
>
> I have a number of friends here who urgently need to read a posting
> that
> came out about a year or so ago. I can't remember who posted it (or
> I'd
> contact them direct) but it was along the lines of a set of questions
> asking what are we really celebrating on that date. Is it, for
> example,
> the anniversary of something exceptional that happened 2000 years ago?
>
> (No.) Is it the start of a new millenium? (No.) and so on.
>
> The author said that he/she had posted it not long before and found it
>
> to be a real conversation stopper - and Lord knows there are plenty of
>
> conversations out here that really need stopping (or am I just being a
>
> cynical party pooper?).
>
> Does anyone remember this posting or, better still, does anyone still
> have a copy of it? If so, could you repost it privately to me (unless
> others wish to also have a copy of it)?
>
> Thanks heaps
>
> Phil Rutherford

Steven J. Gould put this one to bed within the last year, too. In his
column in the New York Natural History Museum's monthly magazine. All
of which is pushing water up hill. This January 1 will have a more
interesting looking number than the next one. Let's celebrate that.

Jay
--
Jay Warner
Principal Scientist
Warner Consulting, Inc.
4444 North Green Bay Road
Racine, WI 53404-1216
USA

Ph: (414) 634-9100
FAX: (414) 681-1133
email: quality@a2q.com
web: http://www.a2q.com

The A2Q Method (tm). What do you want to improve today?

Some thoughts:

The millennium will start, when it starts, at the Greenwich meridian (since
it appears to be the official standard for time these days). But the event
is supposed to commemorate something that happened '2000 years' ago in
Palestine, on a different meridian.

Arguments based on sunrise are, thus, basically irrelevant. The millennium
will start at whatever time it is in your time zone when it is midnight at
Greenwich.

The event that was supposed to have happened 2000 years ago was the birth of
Christ, which is celebrated a week before the New Year celebration -- odd.
Further, there are academics who believe the actual birth date (based on
astronomical records of falling stars, etc.) was in September (the 17th?) in
6(?) BC.

The calendar that is used to calculate the 2000 years was the Gregorian
Calendar, which was invented 30 or 40 years before the Birth of Christ, mmm.
The calendar in question started from 0 so the end of the first year was the
end of year 0 -- by extension, the end of the second millennium, the 2000th
year is the end of the year 2000.

Finally, almost every Roman Emperor and Pope since has adjusted the
calendar -- in some cases by more than a few years. Even in modern times we
adjust the calendar frequently -- last year had a leap second added!

We're left with an arbitrary time structure, reinvented as required; with
which we calculate when to celebrate an event (which few fully understand)
which happened at some other time that no-one is absolutely positive about;
and, if we were to celebrate this event properly it should not involve
copious amounts of purely personal gratification anyway. And having
calculated when to celebrate it with our faulty calendars -- we ignore our
calculation and make it midnight (or dawn) wherever we happen to be
regardless.

Arthur C Clark suggested that if we don't want to celebrate the millennium
(whatever it is) whenever the rest of the world wants to, we'll be missing a
great party -- which is about the most that can be said about it ...

Postscript: today, the world's GPS satellites went through their own version
of a millennium (from year 19 to year 0, I think). Now there's an excuse
for a party -- no-one got lost in the change-over!

Bevis England.

-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Rutherford <robnphil@OZEMAIL.COM.AU>
To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU <MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
Date: Sunday, 22 August 1999 15:21
Subject: Help wanted to get rid of the year 2000 blues


>Hi,
>I'm probably in the minority here but I'm getting fed up to the eye
>teeth with all of this ballyhoo about December 31, 1999 being the last
>day of this millenium. I'm afraid next year (being the real last year of
>the 2nd millenium) will be totally ignored - or that there is going to
>be twice as much ballyhoo - so I'd like to contribute one small piece of
>sanity before the entire world goes to the dogs.
>
>I have a number of friends here who urgently need to read a posting that
>came out about a year or so ago. I can't remember who posted it (or I'd
>contact them direct) but it was along the lines of a set of questions
>asking what are we really celebrating on that date. Is it, for example,
>the anniversary of something exceptional that happened 2000 years ago?
>(No.) Is it the start of a new millenium? (No.) and so on.
>
>The author said that he/she had posted it not long before and found it
>to be a real conversation stopper - and Lord knows there are plenty of
>conversations out here that really need stopping (or am I just being a
>cynical party pooper?).
>
>Does anyone remember this posting or, better still, does anyone still
>have a copy of it? If so, could you repost it privately to me (unless
>others wish to also have a copy of it)?
>
>Thanks heaps
>
>Phil Rutherford
>

Phil Rutherford,

Sounds like you want to make us all rational and reasonable. What's
more, you want us to THINK!

Well, that's not likely, at least not on a grand scale. But you're doing
your part toward those ends. I didn't read the message you seek, but it
does sound rational.

Join the psychohistory list for exploration of group fantasies, which is
what this fear of 12/31/99 is. It's a lot of people believing something
that makes it happen the way they expect.

Another group fantasy is the belief that prisons have and can stop crime,
and this is just as resistant to logic as the Y2K belief. No amount of
logic and reasoning and facts can change a group fantasy. Actually, I
don't know HOW to change one, except by not believing it and not giving
it any energy.

Edryce

At 10:25 PM 08/22/1999 +1200, Bevis England wrote:
>Some thoughts:
>
>The millennium will start, when it starts, at the Greenwich meridian (since
>it appears to be the official standard for time these days).

All dates are arbitrary. The thill that people experience is the same as
when you automobile's odomiter turns 50000 (or any other zero laden
number). It's all a matter of perception.

Mitchell

Dear Edryce,
The best way to counteract a group energy I know of is to start one in the
opposite direction. In other words I suggest using the same methodology.

Peace and Love,

Harry


On Sun, 22 Aug 1999, Edryce Reynolds wrote:

> Phil Rutherford,
>
> Sounds like you want to make us all rational and reasonable. What's
> more, you want us to THINK!
>
> Well, that's not likely, at least not on a grand scale. But you're doing
> your part toward those ends. I didn't read the message you seek, but it
> does sound rational.
>
> Join the psychohistory list for exploration of group fantasies, which is
> what this fear of 12/31/99 is. It's a lot of people believing something
> that makes it happen the way they expect.
>
> Another group fantasy is the belief that prisons have and can stop crime,
> and this is just as resistant to logic as the Y2K belief. No amount of
> logic and reasoning and facts can change a group fantasy. Actually, I
> don't know HOW to change one, except by not believing it and not giving
> it any energy.
>
> Edryce
>

Harry J. Bury, Ph.D.
Baldwin Wallace College
275 Eastland Road
Berea, OH 44017-2088

Tel: (216) 826-2395
Fax: (216) 826-3868

E-Mail: hbury@bw.edu

Greetings, Phil.
Millenium...shlaminium. Consider this whole millenium hoax to be a part of
Madison Avenue's need to milk the end of this millenium and the start of
the next with the most amount of hype possible.

In January of 2000, the hypsters won't even say, "Ooops, the new millenium
hasn't started yet." Instead they'll view it as a "wrap," using cinema
jargon. Don't be surprised if you hear it said, "2000, it's a wrap."
Afterall, wraps have found a niche in our popular culture's food ways, auto
ways, clothing ways, etc. It's a natural extension that can easily be
exploited.

Then of course when the real millenium begins on Jan. 1, 2001, the Madison
Avenue hypsters will have a chance to dust off all this year's material and
spoon feed it to us again.

Ciao,

Andreas Horaites

Jackson Education Service District
101 N. Grape Street
Medford, OR 97504
(541) 776-8520

Bevis,
Trust a Kiwi - thanks for the laugh. You're right. All that's going to happen at
midnight (in various locations and on various days) this New Year is that a
whole bunch of people are going to be having a top party. Good on them - but why
do they need to make up a reason - especially a reason that even I can see is
blatently incorrect? Why not just have a party and be done with it? Too much of
the cynical rationalist in me I think.

Phil



Bevis England wrote:

> Some thoughts:
>
> The millennium will start, when it starts, at the Greenwich meridian (since
> it appears to be the official standard for time these days). But the event
> is supposed to commemorate something that happened '2000 years' ago in
> Palestine, on a different meridian.
>
> Arguments based on sunrise are, thus, basically irrelevant. The millennium
> will start at whatever time it is in your time zone when it is midnight at
> Greenwich.
>
> The event that was supposed to have happened 2000 years ago was the birth of
> Christ, which is celebrated a week before the New Year celebration -- odd.
> Further, there are academics who believe the actual birth date (based on
> astronomical records of falling stars, etc.) was in September (the 17th?) in
> 6(?) BC.
>
> The calendar that is used to calculate the 2000 years was the Gregorian
> Calendar, which was invented 30 or 40 years before the Birth of Christ, mmm.
> The calendar in question started from 0 so the end of the first year was the
> end of year 0 -- by extension, the end of the second millennium, the 2000th
> year is the end of the year 2000.
>
> Finally, almost every Roman Emperor and Pope since has adjusted the
> calendar -- in some cases by more than a few years. Even in modern times we
> adjust the calendar frequently -- last year had a leap second added!
>
> We're left with an arbitrary time structure, reinvented as required; with
> which we calculate when to celebrate an event (which few fully understand)
> which happened at some other time that no-one is absolutely positive about;
> and, if we were to celebrate this event properly it should not involve
> copious amounts of purely personal gratification anyway. And having
> calculated when to celebrate it with our faulty calendars -- we ignore our
> calculation and make it midnight (or dawn) wherever we happen to be
> regardless.
>
> Arthur C Clark suggested that if we don't want to celebrate the millennium
> (whatever it is) whenever the rest of the world wants to, we'll be missing a
> great party -- which is about the most that can be said about it ...
>
> Postscript: today, the world's GPS satellites went through their own version
> of a millennium (from year 19 to year 0, I think). Now there's an excuse
> for a party -- no-one got lost in the change-over!
>
> Bevis England.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phil Rutherford <robnphil@OZEMAIL.COM.AU>
> To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU <MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
> Date: Sunday, 22 August 1999 15:21
> Subject: Help wanted to get rid of the year 2000 blues
>
> >Hi,
> >I'm probably in the minority here but I'm getting fed up to the eye
> >teeth with all of this ballyhoo about December 31, 1999 being the last
> >day of this millenium. I'm afraid next year (being the real last year of
> >the 2nd millenium) will be totally ignored - or that there is going to
> >be twice as much ballyhoo - so I'd like to contribute one small piece of
> >sanity before the entire world goes to the dogs.
> >
> >I have a number of friends here who urgently need to read a posting that
> >came out about a year or so ago. I can't remember who posted it (or I'd
> >contact them direct) but it was along the lines of a set of questions
> >asking what are we really celebrating on that date. Is it, for example,
> >the anniversary of something exceptional that happened 2000 years ago?
> >(No.) Is it the start of a new millenium? (No.) and so on.
> >
> >The author said that he/she had posted it not long before and found it
> >to be a real conversation stopper - and Lord knows there are plenty of
> >conversations out here that really need stopping (or am I just being a
> >cynical party pooper?).
> >
> >Does anyone remember this posting or, better still, does anyone still
> >have a copy of it? If so, could you repost it privately to me (unless
> >others wish to also have a copy of it)?
> >
> >Thanks heaps
> >
> >Phil Rutherford
> >

Andreas,
Or what about "The Millenium - the early days", or "Millenium - the people's
choice", or "Those parties you all asked to see again", or "Return to the
Planet of the Millenium", or "Escape from the Planet of the Millenium", or "The
Millenium - where it all started" - all brought to you by the makers of Star
Wars. We could have champagne mugs and party-going dolls. Face masks and
T-Shirts. And what about (oh, shut up!)

Why don't we just silently toast each other on midnight of this year and wish
ourselves a happy and prosperous new year. Then steel ourselves for 365 days of
bah humbug.

Phil



Andreas Horaites wrote:

> Greetings, Phil.
> Millenium...shlaminium. Consider this whole millenium hoax to be a part of
> Madison Avenue's need to milk the end of this millenium and the start of
> the next with the most amount of hype possible.
>
> In January of 2000, the hypsters won't even say, "Ooops, the new millenium
> hasn't started yet." Instead they'll view it as a "wrap," using cinema
> jargon. Don't be surprised if you hear it said, "2000, it's a wrap."
> Afterall, wraps have found a niche in our popular culture's food ways, auto
> ways, clothing ways, etc. It's a natural extension that can easily be
> exploited.
>
> Then of course when the real millenium begins on Jan. 1, 2001, the Madison
> Avenue hypsters will have a chance to dust off all this year's material and
> spoon feed it to us again.
>
> Ciao,
>
> Andreas Horaites
>
> Jackson Education Service District
> 101 N. Grape Street
> Medford, OR 97504
> (541) 776-8520

Hi, Harry,

Thanks! I agree!

Edryce


On Mon, 23 Aug 1999 09:02:19 -0400 Dr Harry J Bury <hbury@BW.EDU> writes:
>Dear Edryce,
>The best way to counteract a group energy I know of is to start one in
>the
>opposite direction. In other words I suggest using the same
>methodology.
>
>Peace and Love,
>
>Harry
>
>
>On Sun, 22 Aug 1999, Edryce Reynolds wrote:
>
>> Phil Rutherford,
>>
>> Sounds like you want to make us all rational and reasonable. What's
>> more, you want us to THINK!
>>
>> Well, that's not likely, at least not on a grand scale. But you're
>doing
>> your part toward those ends. I didn't read the message you seek,
>but it
>> does sound rational.
>>
>> Join the psychohistory list for exploration of group fantasies,
>which is
>> what this fear of 12/31/99 is. It's a lot of people believing
>something
>> that makes it happen the way they expect.
>>
>> Another group fantasy is the belief that prisons have and can stop
>crime,
>> and this is just as resistant to logic as the Y2K belief. No amount
>of
>> logic and reasoning and facts can change a group fantasy. Actually,
>I
>> don't know HOW to change one, except by not believing it and not
>giving
>> it any energy.
>>
>> Edryce
>>
>
>Harry J. Bury, Ph.D.
>Baldwin Wallace College
>275 Eastland Road
>Berea, OH 44017-2088
>
>Tel: (216) 826-2395
>Fax: (216) 826-3868
>
>E-Mail: hbury@bw.edu

Phil,
I will toast you as well on New Wrap Year's Eve.

Ciao,

Andreas Horaites

Jackson Education Service District
101 N. Grape Street
Medford, OR 97504
(541) 776-8520