OP i just read another thread you expressed the fault in the original 2012 date was because the zero was used in their calculations.

The way he wrote it made sense, for he recalculated using zero. He also gets your same date.

Now you say,

"The whole Dec. 21st, 2012 date was bunk because of the stupid error from researchers not realizing there is no such thing as 0 year."

The way you word this statement seems to contradict his statements.

I think what you really trying to say here is, "the stupid error from researchers not realizing that .......

is they did not account for zero, not as you say

there is no such thing as zero.

You imply there is no zero with your statement and ...well was that not the reason for the earlier researchers making the error in date?

Maybe its just wording.