"one year too late"

Jerry said Newman's party would be one year too late, he must have meant one year early. He had just finished explaining to Newman that Dec. 31, 1999 was not the end of the millennium, that Dec. 31, 2000 was, because "there was no year 0"

[email] (Stephen D. Galvin) wrote:

I assume that Newman wanted to have his party on 12/31/99. If so, he booked the place one year too late (for 12/31/00). If that's the case, then "one year too late" is correct.

You can also look at it another way. If Newman wanted to have his party on the true millenium, but planned it for 12/31/99, then his party would be "one year too early."

On Sat, 03 May 1997 01:07:50 GMT, [email] (debbie) wrote:

What is this? Alt.tv.arithmetic-impaired? I would have thought that this NG would be abuzz with this blooper, but apparently many here are arithmetic-impaired! Here's an explanation:

Newman said he was going to have his party 12/31/99 (remember, it's 2 and 1/2 half years from now: May 97 --Dec 97 == 1/2 yr; Jan98--Dec 98 == 1 yr; Jan 99 -- Dec 99 == 1 yr; 1 yr + 1 yr + 1/2 == 2 and 1/2 yr.

Jerry said the millenium was at end of the year 2000, so Newman's party would be " one year too late." However, as the accepted use of the word "late" means something that comes *after* it should. Newman's would be come *before* Jerry thought it should (exactly one year!), therefore the word he should have used is "early," and not "late."

Back to what you said earlier:

How the hell do you figure "too late"? 12/31/99 is one year earlier (before!) 12/31/00. Jerry's quote of "one year too late" is obviously incorrect. The Seinfeld writers are probably laughing their asses off right now. Guess they're getting a good gauge of the intelligence level of this NG.

This issue of what year is the millenium is another issue entirely and have nothing to do with this discussion. We are talking about arithmetic here and the meaning of the word "late" and nothing else. Jerry may well have meant that he thought the millenium fell on 12/31/2000, and he may well be right--there are two schools of thought there. But the issue is if Newman holds his party on 12/31/1999 and Jerry thinks the Millenium falls on 12/31/2000, then he is wrong when his says Newman's party will be "one year too late." Newman's party would be one year too *early* (if Jerry is right and the millenium falls on 12/31/2000). Randy Cryonics: Gateway to the Future? http://members.wbs.net/homepages/c/r/y/cryofan1.html ***********************************

In the spirit of your post, Randy, let me just say that you are obviously one of the more slow-witted people on this newsgroup.

Here's the verbatim transcript from the scene in question. Now pay attention:

Jerry: "When you booked the hotel did you book it for the millenium new year?"

Newman: "As a matter of fact I did."

Jerry: "That's interesting because as everyone knows since there was no year zero, the millenium doesn't begin until the year 2001 which would make your party one year late...and thus, quite lame."

Newman *thought* his party was going to be on 12/31/1999, but he actually booked it for the "millenium new year", or 12/31/2000. His party will not be late for start of the true millenium, but it will be one year late for the false millenium--the one that really counts, since that's when all the cool parties are going to take place anyway. How else will we be able to, in the immortal words of Prince, "party like it's nineteen ninety-nine"?

.....PimpBot5K out

On Sat, 3 May 1997 01:42:12 -0500, "PimpBot5K" wrote:

No, my post was not in the same spirit as yours, which I can only can describe as smartass. If Newman booked his hotel for the millenium, then he booked it for Dec 31, 1999, as that is the commonly understood beginning of the millenium. Now shut up or I'll cut yo tin ass and turn yo ass out! Randy Cryonics: Gateway to the Future? http://members.wbs.net/homepages/c/r/y/cryofan1.html ***********************************

Quoth [email] (Randy): :

"Commonly understood" or not, based on the dialog, Newman (unintentionally) booked his party for 12/31/00. To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, "Calling the wrong date the millenium does not make it the millenium."

I have to agree with PimpBot5K, for what it's worth (and that isn't much, since this millenium thing is a tempest in a teapot). I watched the episode, and my take on the conversation was that Newman intended to book his party for 12/31/99, wrongly assuming that that was the end/beginning of the millenium. Jerry points out to Newman that since he, Newman, booked it for "the millenium New Year", his party was actually scheduled for 12/31/00. I think everybody can agree up to this point.

The reason Jerry said Newman's party would be "one year late" was that it would be one year after all the other big parties. The people who mistakenly celebrated a year early would steal Newman's thunder. So, ironically, by being on time, Newman screwed himself (much to Jerry's obvious delight).

So, arithmetic wise, Newman's party would be on time. But "party of the century/millenium"-wise, it would be late.

**********

To reply by email, delete the *NO_SPAM* from my email address.

Randy wrote in article ...

Wrong. The whole exchange was to show that Newman booked it on the wrong date. Face it, if he booked it for 1999, no one would view it as lame. Even though they would be wrong, most of the big parties are being set for then and not 2000.

Randy wrote in article <>

But there is only one right school...the millenium starts on 1/1/2001.