Look, we should probably go easy on Sam. After all, he's obviously infatuated with Kim to the point that he can't help but lash out in an effort to displace his repressed longing. As if being confused by his sexual identity wasn't enough, Sam's miserable state is compounded by an intelligence quotient that is off the bottom of the charts. The result is a sort of Tourette's syndrome where Sam can't help but comlulsively spew diarrhea of the mouth... inane staments and assertions that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, but are sure to exasperate everyone else on the list.

Emotional retardation + intellectual retardation = Sam Catalino = One unluncky SOB.

We must not hate Sam. We must pity him for the hell is very existence must be. On the other hand, we must not shirk from our duty to try and condition Sam to make his way in society at large through positive and, if need be, negative reinforcement. Verbal shock therapy, if you will.

I will make the first attempt at positive reinforcement:

There, there Sam... buck up, l'il buddy. How'd you like a nice, shiny Pokemon card? Would that make you less cranky? Awww, look... he's drooling on it. That's so adorable.

Christian

I know there's an orderly with large net around here somewhere! Calling the Orderly!

Kim,

Simple math, just simple. Year zero not needed to prove my point...

You are born, then time passes, right? How old are you? You are in your first year of life, right? You are not one, until you reach your birthday,right? So just apply that if you are 49 years old, you are in your 50th year of life; therefore, you are in your fifth decade of life....Answer this one, Mr kinder and gentler Thompson, who made up the AD stuff?

Any more questions? I find that those who mind their English aren't that great when it comes to math. Welcome to the 21st century, Kim. And to the third mill as well....

Christian,

I find that the best way to deal with uneducated morons is to ignore them. Consider yourself ignored henceforth.

Sam

FOE

A 49-year-old is indeed living in his fifth decade, Sam. (So is a 41-year-old.) But what's confused you is this: Year 1 is Year 1 the minute Year 1 begins, but a human being is one year old only after the end of his first year of life (i.e., when Year 2 begins) -- except in China, I think.

Let's say someone is born January 1, Year 1. He is 0 years old, living in Year 1. On January 1, Year 2 he is now 1 year old, living in Year 2.

This is why someone who turned 50 has just BEGUN his sixth decade, but 2,000 is the END of the second millennium. The numbering systems work differently.

Anyone disagree with this?

Not me, Kim. I have banged my head against this proverbial wall innumerable times, trying to get knotheads to understand this. I've gotten a few Fundamentalist-types to affect a degree of comprehension by pointing out that we are currently in the year of Our Lord 2000, using the Christian calendar; we will reach the end of 2 millenia on December 31, 2000...2000 complete years.

I can't believe that there are still some dim bulbs out there that can't get this, but...that's Sam for you.

Now let's all cover our ears and take cover...there's an explosion coming, and it's going to blow up real good...

Kim,

Same principle applies in Y2K. When we were in year one, (based on assumption of year one AD), year one was incomplete. You were still in the first year although it was not complete. Care to answer my question on how this A D stuff ever got started?

Why then is it different for one and not the other? I am afraid you are not making any sense. We are in the third mill and are in the 21st century.

TIME isn't on our side contrary to what the Rolling Stones sang.

Buck,

So that explains why you are so punch drunk, banging your head [img]http://207.69.158.95/ubb/wink.gif[/img]

Sam

damn.

"Same principle applies in Y2K. When we were in year one, (based on assumption of year one AD), year one was incomplete. You were still in the first year although it was not complete."

I don't know if you realize it Sam, but this statement makes Kim's point, not yours. Saying we were in year one even though the year was incomplete is the same as saying we're in the second millennium, even tho' the millennium is incomplete.

Millennium One - Jan 1st 0001 to December 31st 1000

Millennium Two - Jan 1st 1001 to December 31st 2000

I'm with you, Kim, Buck and Bill. Here's an example of how we count, okay?

When we have children, we don't say they are 0 years old in their first year of life, right? (Well, only on any such offcial forms that would require us too, like a Census...) When we bring 'em home from the hospital the child is say 2 or 3 DAYS old. Then later on, the kid is 4 or 5 MONTHS, right? Still with me? He IS 0 years old, because if we start counting years, he's not one year old until he's twelve months old, right? As parents we start marking off time right away, in terms of hours and days and weeks and months until the child is 1 year old. The commonality of the whole thing is that when we start counting, we start with the number 1, yes? Because if we've got zero, we've nothing to count, right?

So yes, I agree that the third millenium AD does not start until January 1, 2001, and the previous post explaining decades and such does certainly apply. We are in the first year of the decade 00, (the Naughties, I call 'em!) but we started counting with the first day of the first month, not with zero. And this decade is not yet one year old. The only zero on our modern calendar comes AFTER 1'S, 2'S and 3'S within a given month.

------------------
Jason Arnett
Jackleg Writer
jack_leg@hotmail.com

Of course not, but I try to keep it in the Gutters. I don't derail threads that are actually about comics by ranting about my personal feuds or the gregorian calendar.