On Dec 18, 2009, at 7:04 AM, José Trejos wrote:

> I guess I'm a pedant and I don't see any logic in that argument,
> anyway, the century that had 99 years was the 20th century, not the
> first, if in doubt you can check any newspaper of 1-1-1901.
> If you insist that centuries start in 00, then you must change the
> names of centuries (or at least the definition), currently to name a
> century you remove the 00 from its LAST year, maybe you want to
> redefine the way centuries are named this way: "To name a century
> remove the 00 from the first year of the next century".

Interesting. But did they have the number Zero in the very first year
of this calendar, or was it just empty?

Doug
--
This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/GoLive/Browse/
Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/GoLive/