Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Don't Ask Rambi -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JF Quinnelly who wrote (44413)	1/2/2000 1:41:00 PM
From: Edwarda	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71178

Hey, was that necessary? I was joking with a pal....

To: JF Quinnelly who wrote (44413)	1/2/2000 4:53:00 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71178

Oh, come on, Freddie. You know once 12/31/00 rolls around, everyone's gonna party like it's 1999 all over again. Collective amnesia will set in. All the magazines that printed "Special Millennium Issues" will do it again. You guys are just jealous because WEWEWE will have TWO millennium parties, and you won't.

To: JF Quinnelly who wrote (44413)	1/3/2000 3:38:00 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 71178

During the New Year's Eve buildup, some anchor talked to Stephen Jay Gould about the 2000-2001 debate. I really liked him--- He said that the calendar is all arbitrary anyway in its starting dates and people just like the sound of this nice round number, 2000, so who cares if they want to celebrate it as the millennium. That it could also make sense to consider the 1 as a 0, (revisionist dating?)asw 0 was nonexistent. Well, anyway, I certainly felt better heading off to a Millennium party, I tell you, knowing that a great scholar had granted absolution for any millennial breaches of etiquette I was committing.