FOM: (no subject)

[Kanovei]

>From: JoeShipman at aol.com
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 10:20:19 EST

>I am allowed to regard the year "1 B.C." as having the alternate name "0", the year "2 B.C." as having the alternate name "-1", and so on, since neither notation has the sanction of having been used contemporaneously 

Since while ago this is the system accepted in the history 
of astronomy

>there is no reason I can't say that the "1st century" consisted of the years 0-99 rather than 1-100 and "the 3rd millennium" began in 2000.

This contradicts traditions of counting. 
This also contradicts the whole meaning of the description 
"anno domini", meaning the era after a certain event. 
(Be it given in terms of the bible or in terms of the Roman 
history.) 
After all, the initial year of someone  Joe Shipman
is called FIRST year. 

>"Tertio Millennio adveniente" on November 10, 1994, declaring the entire year 2000

The Pope is mathematically correct calling the 2000th year 
year number 2000 anno domini.