"Peter Saxton" wrote
You cannot say with any authenticity which of those two dates *was* "the start of the new millenium", without having an authoritative definition of "millennium" (as a period of time, not simply as a duration).
Why do you think 1 January 2001 is any "more correct" than 1 January 2000?
Also, do you think that the year 2000 was the last year of the decade "the (nineteen)nineties"?!
"Peter Saxton" wrote
Peter, have you forgotten who started this sub-thread by bringing up the word "statutory"? Looking back...
"Peter Saxton" wrote on 14/08/2006 at 18:11
This sounds like a cue for Keith to come in and say that something is either correct or not, and can't be "more correct".
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
;-) I did put it in quotes! ;-)
But anyway, surely whether something is "correct" or "not" depends on your set of axioms; in some "worlds" something may be correct, which is *not* correct in other "worlds". Hence, something can be "more correct" if it is "correct" in more "worlds" than it is *not* correct in!
What is the relevance of that?
I'm saying there is nothing wrong with using the term statutory accounts. If you don't want to use that term don't.
If you're objecting to me using the term then I'm sorry but I'm continuing to use it.
What's the difference between a period of time and a duration?
Are you arguing that every fraction of a second is a new millenium?
I would say the first ten years AD were 1 to 10 (the first decade) I would say the first 100 years were 1 to 100 (the first century) ! would say the first 1,000 years were 1 to 1000 (the first millenium)
No
"Peter Saxton" wrote
The relevance is that the person using the term (in the first instance) was *you*, not me, so your comment for me "not to use it" is meaningless.
"Peter Saxton" wrote
But if *you* want to you the term, then you need to qualify it so that your audience know which version of "statutory" to which you refer!
"Peter Saxton" wrote
There is no problem in using it, as long as you indicate which version you are using.
"Peter Saxton" wrote
Do you really need to ask that question?!
A "period of time" has a start time and an end time; for instance,
12:00am 1st January 1990 to 12:00am 1 January 2000.A "duration" is simply the length of a "period of time" - for instance 10 years in the above example. See?
"Peter Saxton" wrote
Why on earth would I even try to argue that?!!
"Peter Saxton" wrote
But our (current) calendar began long after the year which *would* have been called 1AD. [Someone didn't wake up on the first day of "1AD" and decide "let's start to count years from now, starting at 1"!]
So the year numbers we use now are "relative" representations of which year it is, not "absolute" representations from a special year called 1AD.
"Peter Saxton" wrote
But you think that 10AD *is* part of the first decade (and that 100AD is part of the 1st century, etc). If this were continued for each 10 year period, you'd get :-
11AD - 20AD is a decade; 21AD - 30AD is a decade (the "twenties"?!); 31AD - 40AD is a decade (the "thirties"?!); ... 1971AD - 1980AD is a decade (the "seventies"?!); 1981AD - 1990AD is a decade (the "eighties"?!); 1991AD - 2000AD is a decade (the "nineties"?!);Or what would *you* call the last decade shown above?
"Peter Saxton" wrote
Rubbish. You can easily decide on the list of letters *before* putting words to each letter!
"Peter Saxton" wrote
Whether-or-not you call the "group of letters" ("GOL") an 'acronym', before you decide on the actual "list of words" ("LOW"), doesn't stop you writing down and using the GOL (before the LOW is known) in any place and in any way that you could after you've decided on the LOW.
Suppose someone wrote a document using a GOL *before* the LOW had been decided upon, and then later someone read that document *after* the LOW had been decided.
Would the GOL then be an "acronym" (because the LOW was known at the time of reading)?
Or *not*, because the LOW was
*un*known at the time of writing?
I disagree. You are talking rubbish. I repeat - if you don't like the term don't use it.
Every accountant knows what the term statutory accounts means in accountancy usage. The term was used before abbreviated accounts were thought of. Hence, the full accounts are called statutory accounts and the abbreviated accounts are called abbreviated accounts.
Isn't it obviou? If I say statutory accounts and abbreviated accounts then it is obvious I mean full accounts and abbreviated accounts. Nobody calls abbreviated accounts statutory accounts. Would I be meaning statutory accounts and statutory accounts?
No, you are talking rubbish. If you have a list of letters without them referring to words then it is not an acronym.
It's not an acronym before you have the words.
I repeat - it's not an acronym before you have the words.
Yes
Noun 1. period of time - an amount of time; "a time period of 30 years"; "hastened the period of time of his recovery"; "Picasso's blue period"
I thought you were saying a millennium can start any time. If it cannot start any time then tell me when you think a millennium can start.
Irrelevant.
Irrelevant.
Yes
It's a decade but not the twenties -.I never gave that impression.
You are making the above up as well.
I would call it the 200th decade if you want to give it a name. I would call the nineties 1990-1999.
You appear to have great difficulty thinking logically. I would surmise that it's due to your need to argue about everything.
"Peter Saxton" wrote
What *is* it?
"Peter Saxton" wrote
"Peter Saxton" wrote
That sentence is ambiguous, though... Do you mean that the GOL shown in the earlier document will *never* be "an acronym", because it was written before the LOW was considered -- or do you think that the GOL shown in the earlier document magically
*becomes* an acronym when the LOW is decided later?
"Peter Saxton" wrote
"Peter Saxton" wrote
All of the above are consistent with requiring a start and an end to define the "period of time"; in fact, the last two definitely *do* have a start and an end!
"Peter Saxton" wrote
Look further down the definitions:-
Noun 3. duration - continuance in time; "the ceremony was of short duration"; "he complained about the length of time required"
See how they are the *length* of a "period of time", without specifying the start or the end?
"Peter Saxton" wrote
Eh? My definitions even correspond to *your* own chosen dictionary!
"Peter Saxton" wrote
You appear to "think" wrongly, quite often!
"Peter Saxton" wrote
Of course a millenium can start at any time! Just like a decade can...
But when people talk about which decade is "current", they talk about the "nineties", the "eighties" etc. Similarly, when they talk about "the" millenium, they usually mean the one encompassing the current decade, and encompassing the current century, and therefore which ends 31st December 1999 or starts 1st January 2000 (etc).
"Peter Saxton" wrote
Howso? You seem to consider that the calendar definitely "started" in year 1 AD, and *not* in year 0 AD. Of course, it didn't start in either.
Your argument as to whether the "current" millenium started on 1st January 2000 or
1st January 2001, seems to rely wholely on the premise that "the calendar starts with 1 AD", which I showed to be a misconception. In that respect, it can hardly be "Irrelevant"!"Peter Saxton" wrote
Again, see above - it is rather crucial to the discussion.
"Peter Saxton" wrote
"Peter Saxton" wrote
You profess that "the start of the new millenium was 1 January 2001" (and *not* 1 January 2000), yet the end of the last decade could be 31 December 1999? Isn't that rather inconsistent?!
"Peter Saxton" wrote
That's rich! Would you care to (try to) put forward a
*logical* argument as to why the millenium cannot, and should not, start on 1 Jan 2000?"Peter Saxton" wrote
If you continue to insist that only "your view" can be true, then I would surmise that it's due to your need to be stubborn!
A list of letters.
It's nothing to do with magic. When a GOL refers to a LOW it's an acronym.
"Peter Saxton" wrote
Ah, but when that GOL was written, it *didn't* "refer to" any specific LOW. So do *you* consider that GOL (in the early document) *never* to be an acronym?
I've explained the situation. Read what I say again.
Why should it start then? If someone wants it to start then it could start any time. The argument for why it starts on 1 January 2001 is that millennia are consecutive.
I have explained the case. You have not.
"Peter Saxton" wrote
Unfortunately, you are (either deliberately or accidentally) being ambiguous...
You said: "When a GOL refers to a LOW it's an acronym." Well, the GOL in the document *did* refer to a LOW, from the start (altho' the LOW was yet to be decided upon).
But you've already said that you don't consider the GOL to have been an acronym at the time of writing. Do you think that the usage within that early document becomes an acronym when the LOW is decided upon, or not?
"Peter Saxton" wrote
I have never said that it *should* start then!
But, of all the possibilities, it is the one which is most consistent with common usage for the naming of decades & centuries.
"Peter Saxton" wrote
Can you not see that the following millenia are *also* "consecutive"? :-
1 January 0 AD - 31 December 999 AD 1 January 1000 AD - 31 December 1999 AD 1 January 2000 AD - 31 December 2999 AD"Peter Saxton" wrote
*I* haven't suggested that *any* particular date for the start of the millennium is "correct". But *you* have. *I*'m not trying to impose my view on others, but *you* are.So I think it needs to be *you* that convinces everyone else!
BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.