Comments on: Hung over? Read on -

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 04 Jan 2005 18:52:37 +0000

I dont dispute your reasoning or indeed your arithmetical abilities. But whose choice was it anyway to base all this on the assumption that a carpenter and his wife had a child in a barn because the pub was shut?!

What I mean is, I’m pretty sure, whatever the theological reasons, that no-one went around 2000 years ago saying, “Yeah, welcome brethren to this, the year of our lord, 5 anno domini!”

NOTE: I’ve just done a little (and i stress little) bit of research into this and discovered that the modern system was not even concieved of until at least 500 years after the effect! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini

Basically if you want to find out the straight dope on the christian era way of counting years then whip out your trusty old ouija board and get in touch with Dionysius Exiguus who should be able to resolve your queries, assuming your ouija board can translate from latin!

Personally I consider this year AH 25 (anno hollybaggus). Being the twenty fifth year of my own personal existence. All the rest is just bunkum!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 04 Jan 2005 18:29:07 +0000

The reader’s always write! lol

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 03 Jan 2005 21:29:10 +0000

no, 1st century bc stopped at year 1 because the 1st century ad picks up at year 0. i don’t know why you keep referring to this as counting numbers. they are dates, this is how they are measured. are you trying to say that century 0-99 is called century 0? that would mean that we are in the 20th century and not the 21st. stop being a tard.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 03 Jan 2005 14:03:20 +0000

i hear the electrolytes in pedialite help you out, mainly because you’re dehydrated and also because you need them…

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 03 Jan 2005 14:01:52 +0000

so, therefore, the first century bc is 99bc to 0 (which isnt either), and then the first century is 0 to 99, so therefore, year 0 is in two different centurys, and you happen to suck at counting, correct?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 03 Jan 2005 02:36:44 +0000

good advice Doctor P2P…

lol

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 02 Jan 2005 10:25:03 +0000

Guess what’s in those PMS tablets and everything else suggested? Tylenol (Paracetamol).

Please stick with the cures that *don’t* run risk of sudden and painful death by liver failure a week later. (Small amounts of ibuprofen/aspirin are probably safer, you “only” risk horrible bleeding ulcers, which are at least treatable.)

My personal trick is a megadose (1333% USRDA or so) of vitamin C with plenty of fluids in the morning, which is only a GI irritant and a possible carcinogen. Enough nonalcoholic fluids before bed and you might not even need it, though.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 02 Jan 2005 04:15:45 +0000

sure-fire way to alleviate hangover is to smoke a little herb…for those that do

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 02 Jan 2005 03:21:34 +0000

it really doesn’t matter which way YOU count. we are talking about the date, which means you have to count 0. it’s the year 2005, but it is the 6th year of this century.

when you talk about the year 2000, do you say the year before the 1st year? no. you say the 1st year.

just like how this is the 21st century, not the 20th, even though the date is 2000. get it?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 02 Jan 2005 00:44:14 +0000

im too hung-over to decide whos right. hehe

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 02 Jan 2005 00:32:06 +0000

no, it is the 5th, do you count 0 to 99 or 1 to 100? if it is the 6th year to you, you count 0 to 99. i don’t.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 01 Jan 2005 22:53:05 +0000

technically, this is the sixth year of the 21st century, the year 2000 counts as number one.

also, caffeine dehydrates the body only in high doses. so go ahead and have a few cups, it won’t change a thing.