Reply to DOI:10.1029/EO081i045p00532-02
Reply [to “Comments on “Which one is correct, 2000 or 2001? How about 1995?’”]
Article first published online: 3 JUN 2011
©2000. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.
Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union
Volume 81, Issue 45, page 532, 7 November 2000
How to Cite
2000), Reply [to “Comments on “Which one is correct, 2000 or 2001? How about 1995?’”], Eos Trans. AGU, 81(45), 532–532, doi:10.1029/EO081i045p00532-03.(
- Issue published online: 3 JUN 2011
- Article first published online: 3 JUN 2011
- Cited By
Reply to Randalls comment: The millennium argument occurs mostly because people ask different questions, one based on numerology (start from 1, add 2000 and get 2001), and the other based on measuring years from the time that Christ was born. The people who base their arguments on numerology invariably refer to the absence of a year zero. That suffices to get 2001. If that is the issue, then there is no arguing against 2001. But in my mind, that is not the issue. So John Randall and I are answering different questions. The arguments used by the numerologists are based on the assumption that the rest of us don't know how to count. They really ought to consider the fact that a different question may be more to the point.