REPLY #3 TO
are parts of the original essay (or a subsequent reply) to which the respondent has directed his comments.
prefaced by (R) are those of the respondent and are presented unedited.
My replies appear under the respondent's comments in blue text
and are prefaced by my initials (MB)
(R) The reason for declaring the twentieth century to have 99 years (and not the first century) is that there are many statements in history books, annuals etc. that refer to things happening in such and such a century that will then be wrong. If we take a new start, this problem will not occur.
(MB) There are already numerous other errors in historical chronology that don't detract from the importance of historical events themselves. In fact, the B.C./A.D. system itself is based on a chronological error of history. When the system was established, the breakpoint was supposed to be the year of the birth of Jesus. However, the computation was in error with the result that the year of his birth ended up being 4 BC. Therefore, all "A.D." years are four years wrong.
In addition, Stephen J. Gould points out in his excellent "Questioning the Millennium" that the 20th century was generally considered to have begun in 1901 according to stories in all major newspapers and magazines of the time. This, by itself, should support 2001 as being the start of the next decade/century/millennium. All previous centuries have been reckoned in a similar manner. Why should we change this for the 20th century? If we just accept 2001 as the real start of the next century, there are no problems (important or not) to be corrected.