Have any of you guys noticed that in the New Years Party tug of war episode, that when Jerry is telling Newman his party is lame because it is a year late, he is really supposed to say it is a year early? He tells Newman that everybody knows the millenium didn't start in the year 0, so the real millenium will be in 2000-2001 not 1999-2000(the year of Newman's party). Therefore, Newmans party is a year early, not late like Jerry says.

It's just something that has bothered me for awhile. Ok, carry on.

If the millenium didn't start until year 0, then the next millenium (1000 years) would be 1998-1999, making the party a year late.

There was NO year zero. So the original poster is correct. Jerry says it wrong.

That's always bothered me, too.

i was thinking abou this too tonight after the TBS episode.

I wonder if they wrote it wrong, or if Jerry just said it wrong and they didn't catch it in time.

I just watched that one on TiVo and caught it.

As I understood the scene, the original poster is right.

the original poster is definately right, and I've always thought that line from Jerry made no sense at all.

i guess Newman had the better party afterall.

Why do you guys keep saying "original poster?" It's Pennypacker *****ES! Of course, maybe I can market myself as THE Original Poster.

The wealthy industrialist interested in purchasing a silver mine in Peru is awfully testy.

You would be too if your store pricer/label maker/thingy didn't work either. And I have to find some place to store all of this New Years stuff too.

I wondered about that too before, but I think he meant this.

Newman asked the restaurant to book the millenium new year (2000-2001), but the real celebration was to be 1999-2000. Thus Jerry says, ....that would make your party one year late, and thus, quite lame.

That would be a great explanation except for the fact that Jerry prefaced his statement by saying that EVERYONE KNOWS the millenium didn't start in the year 0. so 1 + 1000 = 1001 + 1000= 2001.

[This message has been edited by H.E. Pennypacker (edited 2/3/2006 8:48a).]

Well, I'm sure it will all be explained in the DVD. What season is that episode? 7 or 8?

I noticed it too and agree Jerry says it wrong. He should say its a year early, not late, but my second question is "who cares?" 1999 is the new years ever where everybody would want to be partying, and that would be the night to have a big bash on. If you had a millenium near year party on new years eve 2000 everybody would think you were either a nerd for having it on the mathematically correct new year, or just wonder why you are having a party a year late.

I care dammit, because its still real to me!

It was "quite lame". does that help?

Kramer: "Well I must say, this all sounds capricious and arbitrary."

Dean Jones: "Your fly is undone."

My party was not lame

"What is a barometer anyway?"

"It's pronounced thermometer."

OA_02 and Jerry are right, kind of.
The implication was that Newman didn't reserve Dec 31st 1999, he told the hotel to reserve the turn of the Millenium. So if the hotel or whatever he reserved did their job correctly, they would have booked Dec 31st 2000 for him, thus making his party technically neither early or late but at the correct time, but late by the standard of revelers, calendar makers and IT departments.
www.dreams2.com/seinfeld/Kramer%20-%20Newmanium.mp3

^
|
|

what he said. Always thought that was the dumbest ending to an episode.

Yeah, cus I am sure most of the reservation people at hotels would have gone the mathematical route, instead of the obvious implication.

They botched the ending.

so do ya'll think Newman ever 'got with' elaine afterall?

probably, he IS merry

This used to confuse me too, but C&S's explanation is valid. Jerry was correct.

quote:

---

JERRY: By the way Newman, I'm just curious. When you booked the hotel, did you
book it for the millennium New Year?

NEWMAN: (smug) As a matter of fact, I did.

JERRY: Oh, that's interesting, because as everyone knows, since there was no
year zero, the millennium doesn't begin until the year two-thousand and one.
Which would make your party, one year late, and thus, quite lame.

---

Jerry was right. Newman's party would have been one year later than the numerous "Y2K" parties. That was the obvious implication, though not so obvious to some on this website.

AS Jim said above, they were asking us to assume many things to interpret it like that. I knew I preferred whiskey for a reason.

"Kramer, these balloons aren't going to stay filled 'til New Year's."

"Those aren't for New Year's. Those are my everyday balloons."