Don't want to start a year 2000 debate, but...

[paleo@ix.netcom.com (Glen J. Kuban)]

T.A. Curtis ended his recent message with: 

"Jan. 1, 2001 is the new millennium-not 2000!!! "

Not all historians agree.  A recent documentary on the 
controversy brought out that some experts argue that 
the most straightforward way to look at this is to regard 
the 1st century as anamoly having only 99 years (year 1 
through 99 inclusive).  That way, subsequent centuries 
would begin at 100, 200, 300, etc. while still having 
100 years each.  Thus the new century would indeed begin 
at 2000.  This makes sense to me.

Glen Kuban