First off, I apologize to those who may find this boring, or inappropriate.
I promise this will be the LAST I post to this group on this silly subject...

>All the people going on about "it doesn't start until next year" are just
>taking offence for the sake of it.

sigh...

OK, one last time.  

It is not simply being argumentative of taking offense.  And for the most
part we are arguing at cross-purposes.  Your points are well-taken: a
millenium is simply defined as "1000 years".  If you want to start
numbering them at 0 and go to 999, then that _is_ a millenium.  And by that
count, the period beginning at year 1000 and ending in 1999 is also a
millenium.

BUT (and it's a big one) it is not THE millenium.  The beginning and end of
THE millenium was determined for us, 1,999 years ago.  When the calendar
makers (whose creation we still follow) decided to start numbering the
years at 1, they locked in the end dates of the milleniums.  The first one
ended in December 1000, the second one will end in December 2000.  

None of your otherwise cogent arguments address this simple fact.  When
Christ was born is of no importance to this question (We don't know the
exact date anyway).  And while going from 1999 to 2000 is undeniably more
exciting than going from 2000 to 2001, that isn't what we're talking about
either.  Excitement is great, but it isn't scientific.  

And so, when I raised my glass tonight (well, my 4th or 5th glass
actually...) I was not saluting the millenium, but the new year.  Next
year...well, I will probably salute the new year again.  Because I don't
really CARE about the start of the new millenium.  But I do like to see
people speak accurately instead of passing on media-trained inaccuracies.

>You're a much better sort than that, Kevin, stop being so depressing!  ^_^

<chuckle>  Sorry, guy...not intending to be depressing...or even
adversarial - much.

>Sam the man
>(wins by right of numbers due to billions of people around the world having
>declared that the new millennium has already begun, and due to the solidity
>of the cricket bat)

Since when has the support of the masses equalled correctness?  Now that
cricket bat...hmmm.  That's a fairly compelling argument ;-)