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

    • The fundamental problem at present is that the government has been given to belief that if they took it into public ownership, they'd have to pay all its billions of debts. This, oddly, is not a problem that's dogged any of its previous owners, and a very simple solution would be to fine it, say, £40bn for being useless and then pick it up for free. So that's possible. However one of the compelling arguments that got it privatised in the first place was that government-run operations aren't often very well run. They might promise 40 new reservoirs to get them through an election, but that's the last you'll hear of it till the water-rates bill arrives, and there's precious little in the way of economic "growth" to be had out of processing sewage. There are advantages, perhaps, to having an accountable hand on the tiller, but governments, and their agencies, tend not to very accountable. Last December, for example, the Office for Environmental Protection released a report detailing how DEFRA, the Environment Agency and Ofwat had all failed in their legal duties, but as the OEP's powers extend only to writing reports, that's as far as it went. An alternative might be to have it run as an autonomous business, with the government holding the only share. But that's what they did with the Post Office where any benefits of privatisation have become only a boondoggle for lawyers. Not that lawyers don't deserve the compulsory generosity of taxpayers, but their needs must surely be secondary to the Post Office's vital core missions of re-selling stamps, not handing out pensions and cooking the digital books. Which leaves us, I think, in need of a Third Way. That might seem a little too Blairite for some, but I think there's a way to add a Corbynish gloss by setting it up as a co-operative, owned not by the state but by its customers, who would have an interest in striking a balance between increasing bills, maintaining supplies and preserving their own environment, and who'd be able to hold the management to account without having to go through a web of five regulators by way of the office of a part-time representative with an eye on a job in the Cabinet. There are risks with that, of course, in that the shoutiest can exert the most influence, and the shoutiest are not often the most wise, but with everyone having an equal stake, the shoutiest usually get shouted down, which is why co-operatives tend to last longer than businesses steered by cliques of shareholders or political advisers. In other words, the optimum and correct path to take is tried and tested and sitting right there and I'll eat my hat if it happens.  
    • At least the situation with rail travel  is being addressed.
    • It would cost so much  now.  But pay off for us in the long run. Thatcher and her privatisation of public services.  It is a total disaster 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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