Freelance IT consulting and tax - a question or two

"Peter Saxton" wrote

You aren't qualified to assert that, as it is not your example but mine; and in my example it is exactly as I stated... The author decided that (s)he would determine the LOW later, but that it would fit in with the GOL used in the document.

"Peter Saxton" wrote

Aha! - An answer at last...

OK, now suppose you are reading a document with a GOL in it. Suppose you don't know if the author has yet decided on the LOW. Now - do you think it is an acronym, or not?

"Peter Saxton" wrote

Well, it sounds like "when someone uses a GOL to refer to a LOW, then it is an acronym" -- but you already precluded that interpretation by saying that it wasn't an acronym when the author wrote the document in the above example...

It's not a question of what a person thinks it is. It's a question of fact.

It is what I said and not what you said.

There isn't a ) AD.

Think what you want. I am happy with my view. If someone wants to disagree it doesn't concern me.

"Peter Saxton" wrote

I presume you meant to write "There isn't a 0 AD". In that case, what do you call the year before 1 AD?

Whatever you want to call it, replace "0 AD" in my previous post with your name for it. Is that better for you?

Can you answer the question now?

... "Peter Saxton" wrote

Ah, good - so you finally agree that it is only **your view**, rather than "fact".

That's better!

"Peter Saxton" wrote

Will the GOL that you are reading mean anything different to you, depending on whether or not the author has yet decided upon the LOW? Even though you don't know whether (s)he did or not?

I did.

What is your definition of a fact?

"Peter Saxton" wrote

Hmmm - you may have answered it, but you appear to have forgotten to key it into your PC and send it to the newsgroup! Do you think you might be able to manage it now? ...

"Can you not see that the [above] millennia are *also* "consecutive"?"

"Peter Saxton" wrote

Something that can be demonstrated to be true is a fact.

You can't demonstrate that "the start of the new millenium was 1 January 2001" without having an authoritative definition of "millennium" (as I said at the top of the thread).

Yes but they start at the wrong time. What is the 1st millenium AD?

What is the 1st millenium AD?

"Peter Saxton" wrote

Good! You said at the top: "The argument for why it starts on [DATE] is that millennia are consecutive."

Well, as the millennia I quoted are consecutive, then your own argument says that the millennia I quoted are "correct"!

"Peter Saxton" wrote

That's just a *view*!

"Peter Saxton" wrote

What do you mean by that?

Says the one with "Ronald Raygun" as a Nom de Plume...

Pedant.

DSt.

"Peter Saxton" wrote

What is the millennium ending at the end of the "nineteen-nineties"?

You don't seem to understand basic logic.

A cow has four legs therefore everything with four legs is a cow

It's a question and is simple to understand.

It looks like that whenever you realise I've shown how obvious it is that you are wrong you ignore the question and ask a question of your own.

I am taking your refusal to answer my question as the end of this.

"Peter Saxton" wrote

That's not relevant to what I said. However, what you said can be paraphrased :-

Millennia are consecutive. The millennia in my list are consecutive, so my list is "correct". The millennia in your list are also consecutive, so your list is "wrong".

"Peter Saxton" wrote

Well I don't know exactly when years were first considered to be "AD" (they certainly weren't before around 30 AD!), so let's suppose 100 AD was the first time the letters "AD" were used. In that case, the "1st millenium AD" may have been :-

Do you happen to know when the letters "AD" *were* first used?

"Peter Saxton" wrote

You seem to think that the current calendar started on 1 January 1 AD. But it didn't!

Your question is just as irrelevant to the issue as my question.

"Peter Saxton" wrote

See other post if you really want an answer. But it is irrelevant to the issue!