Re: Ponte Alto Baronial Birthday

[Lance Harrop <lharrop@mrj.com>]

On Thu, 2 Feb 1995, Tanner Lovelace wrote:

> On Thu, 2 Feb 1995, Mario M. Butter wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 25 Jan 1995, John Strauss wrote:
> > 
> > > Of course, Ponte Alto is not actually entitled to have a Birthday 
> > > until next year, as their investiture was February 29th.
> > > 
> > > I am looking forward to Ponte Alto's FIRST Baronial Birthday in '96.
> > > They should make it a pretty big shindig, as it will be their first and
> > > they won't get a second one until 2004.
> > 
> > The second one will be in 2000. 2000 is also a leap year.
> > 
> > Corwyn
> > 
> ***bzzzt***  Sorry, but thank you for playing.  The year 2000
> is not a leap year.  Every now and then they have to skip one
> to get things back on track.  (Anyone want to better explain it?)
> 
****bzzzt*** Sorry, but thank you to Kendrick.  The century marks are 
skipped unless they are factorable by 400.  1900 was not a leap year, 
but 2000 will be.  And yes, a solar year is not quite 365.25 days, so 
we don't make 1700, 1800, and 1900 leap years.  For more details about the
Gregorian Calandar, visit a library please, 'cause I've just told you 
everything I remember about it.
 > Kendrick, who really needs more sleep... ;-)

Leifr, desperately hoping that he remembered it right ...;-)