Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Gingerbeer Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Bah! Lack of forgiveness creates emotional

> baggage. My personal preference is one small

> carry-on per person.



My forgiveness is precariously stored in the overhead locker which means it could fall on anyone - Good Luck to all for the New Year!

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Main thing about 2013 is the fact that it brings

> the first teenagers born in 21st century


You sure about that? If the century began on January 1st 2001 wouldn't someone born that year be 12 this year?

KidKruger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> AM, the century began on 01/01/2000.

> Hence all the end-of-millenium parties the night

> before.


AM and I seldom agree - but he is right, despite the many millions of people transfixed by a change of number on 31 Dece 1999. There wasn't a "Year Zero" so the end of AD 1 was 31 December 0001 and the second millenium came to an end at the end of the 2,000th year - ie 31 December 2000.


Therefore the 3rd millenium and new century began on 1 January 2001.

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hmmm, strictly speaking there weren't any years

> between 1AD and 525AD, and only a few doughty

> enthusiasts experienced 526AD to around 800AD.



Yeah but - in terms of calendar and number logic ...........

Indeed! I've been reading that the actual AD 1 year was chosen because it meant that there would be a gloriously convenient conjunction of the planets in exactly AD 2000 - neatly facilitating the end of the world.


However, the fact that the Bible was clear that Jesus was 30 during some Roman Emporer's notable moment meant that Jesus could only have been born around 4 or 5 BC.


But then I also understand that none of the Churches seem to give much of a fig about that, so we probably shouldn't either.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • In what way? Maybe it just felt more intelligent and considered coming directly after Question Time, which was a barely watchable bun fight.
    • Yes, all this. Totally Sephiroth. The electorate wants to see transformation overnight. That's not possible. But what is possible is leading with the right comms strategy, which isn't cutting through. As I've said before, messaging matters more now than policy, that's the only way to bring the electorate with you. And I worry that that's how Reform's going to get into power.  And the media LOVES Reform. 
    • “There was an excellent discussion on Newscast last night between the BBC Political Editor, the director of the IFS and the director of More In Common - all highly intelligent people with no party political agenda ” I would call this “generous”   Labour should never have made that tax promise because, as with - duh - Brexit, it’s pretending the real world doesn’t exist now. I blame Labour in no small part for this delusion. But the electorate need to cop on as well.  They think they can have everything they want without responsibilities, costs or attachments. The media encourage this  Labour do need to raise taxes. The country needs it.  Now, exactly how it’s done remains to be seen. But if people are just going to go around going “la la laffer curve. Liars! String em up! Vote someone else” then they just aren’t serious people reckoning with the problem yes Labour are more than a year into their term, but after 14 years of what the Tories  did? Whoever takes over, has a major problem 
    • Messaging, messaging, messaging. That's all it boils down to. There are only so many fiscal policies out there, and they're there for the taking, no matter which party you're in. I hate to say it, but Farage gets it right every time. Even when Reform reneges on fiscal policy, it does it with enough confidence and candidness that no one is wringing their hands. Instead, they're quietly admired for their pragmatism. Strangely, it's exactly the same as Labour has done, with its manifesto reverse on income tax, but it's going to bomb.  Blaming the Tories / Brexit / Covid / Putin ... none of it washes with the public anymore  - it wants to be sold a vision of the future, not reminded of the disasters of the past. Labour put itself on the back foot with its 'the tories fucked it all up' stance right at the beginning of its tenure.  All Lammy had to do (as with Reeves and Raynor etc) was say 'mea culpa. We've made a mistake, we'll fix it. Sorry guys, we're on it'. But instead it's 'nothing to see here / it's someone else's fault / I was buying a suit / hadn't been briefed yet'.  And, of course, the press smells blood, which never helps.  Oh! And Reeve's speech on Wednesday was so drab and predictable that even the journalists at the press conference couldn't really be arsed to come up with any challenging questions. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...