Issues : The Millenium

Thanks to all the users who replied to my previous post. The Millenium issue still doesn't sit too well with me - I have a snippet here of the script here:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
JERRY: By the way Newman, I'm just curious. When you booked the hotel, did
you
book it for the millennium New Year?

NEWMAN: (smug) As a matter of fact, I did.

JERRY: Oh, that's interesting, because as everyone knows, since there was no year zero, the millennium doesn't begin until the year two-thousand and one. Which would make your party, one year late, and thus, quite lame.

Newman absorbs the logic of Jerry's argument. His face twitches as he realises his error.

JERRY: Aww!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

I can interpret this in 2 ways . . . . .

(i) Newman booked the hotel for 31 Dec 99, and Jerry wrongly assumes when he writes the script that people will leave the celebrations until 31 Dec 00, and the script should read "one year early, and thus, quite lame".

(ii) Newman booked the hotel for 31 Dec 00, and his party will be one year later then everybody elses, considering everyone else is celebrating on 31 Dec 99, however Jerry telling him that everybody knows the millenium doesn't begin until 2001 is an illogical thing to say, as he is confirming Newman was right all along.

I think scenario (i) is more plausible. Am I seeing it wrong?

Clint.

Everyone knows that the millenium began on 1 Jan 2001, thus booking for the millenium new year's eve party is really booking for 31 Dec 2000. However despite 2001 being the _real_ millenium, the bigger celebration was when the year 2000 came (and a lot of people thought _this_ was the new millenium year too). Jerry's celebration was booked for 31 Dec 1999 (for the 2000 new year). Hence Newman's party was a year after Jerry's, after everyone's already celebrated the "new millenium" and are over it, and thus 'quite lame'.

I hope this clears things up: you're thinking about it too much.

1999                             2000                              2001
2002
------------------------|------------------------|------------------------|

Dec 31 1999 - when most                                  Dec 31 2000 - the
actual new millenium eve,
 people think it is new                                          which
Newman books for
  millenium (but it is not really)                              and the
booking agency knows

this is the actual new year, so this is

when Newman's party will be: a year after

everyone else has celebrated

(albeit technically the wrong year). -Lame.

no

one.

Whoops! That time line looked alright when I did it. Silly of me to think everyone would view in the same format. Oh well... "Pending" wrote in message news:9ms3qe$s9u$[email]...

the

the

new

|

did

was

when

00,

year

31

Newman

In article , "Clint Dempster" wrote:

I believe that the idea is that the hotel booking agent for Newman's party used the literal definition for the millenium, and booked the party for the proper date, one year later than when everyone else would be celebrating, thus making Newman's party "quite lame".

As Jerry says, 'there was no year zero'. The first year was 1 and then the second 2. even though only 1 year had taken place and that basicly boils down to the year 2000 being the completion of 1999 years.

I find this "real millennium" argument to be really naive and nothing more than pseudo-intellectual banter. My opinion has nothing to do with any posters in this particular group. The whole general fad of claiming that the new millennium starts on January 1st, 2001 is short-sighted at best.

January 1st, 2000 can be recognized as the first day of the this new millennium. Yes, we can just declare it as such! It's not the start of a "third" millennium, but who cares what ordinal it is.

Let the previous millennium be comprised of January 1st, 1000 to December 31st, 1999.

"What about the years 1 to 999?"

What about them? There were only 999 years so they cannot be considered as a "millennium".

The point is to return the error of not starting the count with a 0 year back to where it came from... the past.

So, this new millennium that started on January 1st, 2000 will end on December 31st, 2999. The day after that a nother millennium will commence.

It's time to get the count back on track to its logical start date and send the error back to the past where it belongs!

                            -Ray.

"Ray Goudie" wrote in :

Hmmm, actually it's more logical to start counting from year 1 than year 0, because there's no month 0 or day 0. So the first day of our time system is 01.01.0001 and not 01.01.0000. Do you agree with the logic?

-jani

Well, at the risk of getting into a "whole big thing", the entire system is fairly arbitrary. I mean, it's not like people suddenly said, "Okay, this is it! We're resetting the calendar, and today is Year One!" I think that since the date was determined over 500 years later (and quite inaccurately--roughly 4-8 years off from the actual year of the birth of Jesus), the whole millennium debate is rather pointless.

Personally, I think the changeover from 1999-2000 was the "big event", and only because of the change in digits. Like a car odometer hitting 100,000. Any other significance assigned to it seems rather silly to me.

"John Twernbold" wrote in message news:_Y5l7.18295$[email]...

Hello, John.

I agree! That is why I just want people to stop with this January 1st, 2001 thing. Just let the start of this new millennium be the day celebrated by the world last year and let's get on with life.

                            -Ray.

2001

I propose we decide to dump the whole idea of years and come up with a competing system, yet not quite as good (Thinking along the line of 'Festivus' here, people)

Jani Kivisola wrote in message ...

This is a discussion I've avoided for years, because I can 'see' both sides and both are reasonable.

However.. since we're talking logic and not pragmatism...
    You've got to 'finish' a year before you start the next one...
    .. and, you've got to 'finish' a millenium before you start
    the next.

When the first year is done.. [year 0] you start year 2, right? When the first millenium is over.. [1,000 years] you start the 2nd.

Makes logic to me...

homerr.. bachelor#3

"We have uniformly rejected all letters and declined all discussion upon the question of when the present century ends, as it is one of the most absurd that can engage the public attention, and we are astonished to find it has been the subject of so much dispute, since it appears plain. The present century will not terminate till January 1, 1801, unless it can be made out that 99 are 100... It is a silly, childish discussion, and only exposes the want of brains of those who maintain a contrary opinion to that we have stated"

-- The Times, 26 December 1799

"Jani Kivisola" wrote in message news:[email]...

system

Hello, Jani.

The start date is rather arbitrary, as another post stated. My argument is more with letting January 1st, 2000 be the start of this millennium rather than what date to use as the first date.

                            -Ray.

"Ray Goudie" wrote in :

But why?

-jani

"Jani Kivisola" wrote in message news:[email]...

The whole idea of insisting on January 1st, 2001 is silly. That bothers me. I can't help but be just as silly and insist on January 1st, 2000.

Look at it this way: this is a thread about nothing.

                            -Ray.

"Ray Goudie" wrote in :

Hehee, you're quite right.

-jani

Ray: <<<<The whole idea of insisting on January 1st, 2001 is silly. That bothers me. I can't help but be just as silly and insist on January 1st, 2000.>>>>

I find the whole idea of "insisting" silly. What is "insisting, anyway....some
kind of conversational trump card?   "I don't want to see "Dude, Where's My
Car'  tonight."   "I'm afraid I insist."   "OK, since you insisted...."   Is it
like a grown-up versin of double-dog-daring someone? A real-life equivalent of
the "Wild Draw Four" card in UNO? Nothing can top it? I'd like to know.

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-

"Always after me lucky charms...." Old Irish Adage

Oh, but there's a definite time and place for insisting. By which I mean the concept of insisting is not, in and of itself, a silly thing.

See, that's the wrong time and place. For the most part, insisting is simply a refusal to yield. When this refusal is backed by a legitimate purpose, it's entirely acceptable.

No, because a simple insistance can be blocked, whereas a double-dog dare, as to which anyone who's every been 10 years old can attest, has no defense. (And I don't wanna hear about no sick twisted mutant varieties like quadruple-dog *pound* dares and such, I haven't the -insert uppity noun of your choice-. <waving hand dismissively>)

Ahhh.

Huh? Oh, it was a question. Sorry, I was just tripping back, lost in the memory of summer camp in Ft. Lauderdale in 1977. They would make us sit on the blacktop in 97 degree heat and play UNO until our vision blurred from accumulated dripping forehead sweat. I fancied myself an admirable competitor but, alas, I lacked the dominant eyebrow growing genes that provided some others with a distinct advantage in the later rounds.

Ahhh. But when you're 9, *nothing* in the world can beat a timely played Draw Four...

Yeah.

Oh.

What was the question again?

Dave (what? scroll up and read it? <waving hand dismissively>)

"Art Vandelay" wrote in message news:[email]...

bothers

anyway....some

My

Is it

equivalent of

I'm going to build me an igloo.

                                -Ray.

On Sun, 2 Sep 2001 11:11:06 +1000, "Clint Dempster" wrote:

I know it is a bit confusing but I will try to explain it again. Let's pretend we are listening into the conversation Newman had when he booked the room:

Newman calls the Hotel Desk (or whatever): NEWMAN: I would like to book a room for the Millennium New Year's Eve please. [Note Newman does not specify the date]

CLERK: Yes sir. Clerk looks through his book and knowing that since there was no year zero and the next Millennium starts January 1, 2001, he dutifully marks Newman's reservation on December 31, 2000.

CLERK: All set sir.

NEWMAN: Thanks. Newman hangs up.

Scene.

See what happened? Newman thinks he booked the day December 31, 1999 [the day everyone will (did) party] but he did not specifically say that date and instead said "Millennium New Year's Eve" which caused his booking to be December 31, 2000, or a year too late (as Jerry says).

Please note: it doesn't matter when *you* think the millennium began. For the joke to work, all that matters is what Jerry and the theoretical Clerk Newman spoke to think.

Any other jokes you would like me to dissect and rip out what little humor they may have, please send them along :-)

Scott

"Scott P" wrote in message news:[email]...

<snip>

I can relate to this thread.

It reminds me of a question previously asked in this NG about how many times Jerry's fridge door was opened. Of course, having nothing better to do, I have perused all the episodes and come up with my final answer;

54-Total Openings, comprising;

41-Opened and object taken out. 8-Opened (but NO take-out!) 5-Peeks 7-Bluffs* (Hand on door-Not opened)

• Bluffs not included in Total Openings..

Yeah, well, numbers are all well and good, but this *is* alt.tv.seinfeld. We hold ourselves to a somewhat more stringent standard here.

Please detail the 54 openings for the group, including the episode titles, the names of the openers/peekers/bluffers. Also include the 41 taken-out objects.

Thank you.

Dave

"Dave" wrote in message news:[email]...

    Ummmmm, errr,....I..........did.......have........all.....those..details
.....here.........somewhere.................NO, must have thrown it out,
oh well, numbers will have to do!

"Clint Dempster" writes:

I think you should just accept that Jerry knows everyone will be partying on dec 31st 1999 and that Newman intended to make a reservation for that date too. Jerry tells him that he got it one year too late. Anything more would be too conceived, and a party doesn't have to be on the correct date to be good.

R