New Decade??

[chester Spartanpot]

Chester says "Not so fast"

'tis the season of "year end lists", but since its '09, we as a populace are getting deluged with "Best ____ of the Decade" or "Most ____ of the Decade", etc...

Chester is not happy. He believes that the new decade does not start on january 1st 2010, but rather on january 1st 2011... what say you?

[whitetrashgriz]

ha. weird question. but i disagree. '99 was the end of the millenium(sp?) so the decade began in '00. it's my undertanding that all decades end in the nines.

00 - 1
01 - 2
02 - 3
03 - 4
04 - 5
05 - 6
06 - 7
07 - 8
08 - 9
09 - 10

least that's how i've always thought it....

[wbtfg]

Chester says "Not so fast"

'tis the season of "year end lists", but since its '09, we as a populace are getting deluged with "Best ____ of the Decade" or "Most ____ of the Decade", etc...

Chester is not happy. He believes that the new decade does not start on january 1st 2010, but rather on january 1st 2011... what say you?

I guess that depends on when the very first "best of the decade" list came out. If it came out in year 9, then I guess we're right on track.

As an aside, I see that Tiger was named athlete of the decade. I'm not sure who the first athlete of the decade was, but I would venture to say the very first Associated Press "Person of the Decade" was probably Jesus...

[chester Spartanpot]

ha. weird question. but i disagree. '99 was the end of the millenium(sp?) so the decade began in '00. it's my undertanding that all decades end in the nines.

00 - 1
01 - 2
02 - 3
03 - 4
04 - 5
05 - 6
06 - 7
07 - 8
08 - 9
09 - 10

least that's how i've always thought it....

for that to be true... the beginning of the calendar would have to be year Zero (AD00). as far as i know, there wasn't a date such as march 2nd, 0000. the 1st year was 1AD... (1AD-2AD first year, ... 10AD-11AD would be the tenth year). Therefore the first year of a new decade or a new millennium has to end in xxx1. or in todays case... 2011.
Right??

[whitetrashgriz]

ha. weird question. but i disagree. '99 was the end of the millenium(sp?) so the decade began in '00. it's my undertanding that all decades end in the nines.

00 - 1
01 - 2
02 - 3
03 - 4
04 - 5
05 - 6
06 - 7
07 - 8
08 - 9
09 - 10

least that's how i've always thought it....

for that to be true... the beginning of the calendar would have to be year Zero (AD00). as far as i know, there wasn't a date such as march 2nd, 0000. the 1st year was 1AD... (1AD-2AD first year, ... 10AD-11AD would be the tenth year). Therefore the first year of a new decade or a new millennium has to end in xxx1. or in todays case... 2011.
Right??

true. but i think sometime along the way in the last 2,000 plus years someone decided to change it.

[Billings_Griz]

Gotta love that bobcat math.

[ChiOCat]

Gotta love that bobcat math.

Why, cause you don't get it at that other school

I think technically you're right Chester, but someone decided that it should go with the nice round zero years and it's not worth arguing with them!

[Grizlaw]

Chester says "Not so fast"

'tis the season of "year end lists", but since its '09, we as a populace are getting deluged with "Best ____ of the Decade" or "Most ____ of the Decade", etc...

Chester is not happy. He believes that the new decade does not start on january 1st 2010, but rather on january 1st 2011... what say you?

Well, if Chester wants to get technical (and he seems to), he should realize that by definition, a "decade" is just a ten-year period. It can be any ten-year period. If you really wanted to, you could say that December 31 of every year is the end of a decade (i.e., December 31, 1995 was the end of the decade that began on January 1, 1986).

Now...as others have pointed out, there is no year "00" in the Gregorian calendar, so it is correct to say that the "first decade A.D." began on January 1, 0001, and ended on December 31, 0010. By that same logic, it is also true that the "first century A.D." ended on December 31, 100, and that the "second millenium A.D." ended on December 31, 2000. That does not mean, however, that there is anything wrong with discussing "decades" that have occurred in the interim period (or will occur in the future) that might not necessarily begin and end on dates that match up with the beginning of the Gregorian calendar. For example, the fact that the "third milennium A.D." began on January 1, 2001 does not necessarily mean "the 1990s" had to have ended on December 31, 2000. "The 90's" began on January 1, 1990 and ended on December 31, 1999, and the fact that that particular ten-year period does not line up with the beginning of the Christian calendar is really not relevant to anything.

What does Chester think of those apples?

[ChiOCat]

Chester says "Not so fast"

'tis the season of "year end lists", but since its '09, we as a populace are getting deluged with "Best ____ of the Decade" or "Most ____ of the Decade", etc...

Chester is not happy. He believes that the new decade does not start on january 1st 2010, but rather on january 1st 2011... what say you?

Well, if Chester wants to get technical (and he seems to), he should realize that by definition, a "decade" is just a ten-year period. It can be any ten-year period. If you really wanted to, you could say that December 31 of every year is the end of a decade (i.e., December 31, 1995 was the end of the decade that began on January 1, 1986).

Now...as others have pointed out, there is no year "00" in the Gregorian calendar, so it is correct to say that the "first decade A.D." began on January 1, 0001, and ended on December 31, 0010. By that same logic, it is also true that the "first century A.D." ended on December 31, 100, and that the "second millenium A.D." ended on December 31, 2000. That does not mean, however, that there is anything wrong with discussing "decades" that have occurred in the interim period (or will occur in the future) that might not necessarily begin and end on dates that match up with the beginning of the Gregorian calendar. For example, the fact that the "third milennium A.D." began on January 1, 2001 does not necessarily mean "the 1980s" had to have begun on January 1, 1981. "The 80's" began on January 1, 1980 and ended on December 31, 1989, and the fact that that particular ten-year period does not line up with the beginning of the Christian calendar is really not relevant to anything.

What does Chester think of those apples?

A lawyer with a math background....can it get any worse? I guess he could be a Viking fan.

[whitetrashgriz]

Chester says "Not so fast"

'tis the season of "year end lists", but since its '09, we as a populace are getting deluged with "Best ____ of the Decade" or "Most ____ of the Decade", etc...

Chester is not happy. He believes that the new decade does not start on january 1st 2010, but rather on january 1st 2011... what say you?

Well, if Chester wants to get technical (and he seems to), he should realize that by definition, a "decade" is just a ten-year period. It can be any ten-year period. If you really wanted to, you could say that December 31 of every year is the end of a decade (i.e., December 31, 1995 was the end of the decade that began on January 1, 1986).

Now...as others have pointed out, there is no year "00" in the Gregorian calendar, so it is correct to say that the "first decade A.D." began on January 1, 0001, and ended on December 31, 0010. By that same logic, it is also true that the "first century A.D." ended on December 31, 100, and that the "second millenium A.D." ended on December 31, 2000. That does not mean, however, that there is anything wrong with discussing "decades" that have occurred in the interim period (or will occur in the future) that might not necessarily begin and end on dates that match up with the beginning of the Gregorian calendar. For example, the fact that the "third milennium A.D." began on January 1, 2001 does not necessarily mean "the 1980s" had to have begun on January 1, 1981. "The 80's" began on January 1, 1980 and ended on December 31, 1989, and the fact that that particular ten-year period does not line up with the beginning of the Christian calendar is really not relevant to anything.

What does Chester think of those apples?

A lawyer with a math background....can it get any worse? I guess he could be a Viking fan.

he probably already is. we're known as a very intelligent group of people.

[chester Spartanpot]

Well, if Chester wants to get technical (and he seems to), he should realize that by definition, a "decade" is just a ten-year period. It can be any ten-year period. If you really wanted to, you could say that December 31 of every year is the end of a decade (i.e., December 31, 1995 was the end of the decade that began on January 1, 1986).

Now...as others have pointed out, there is no year "00" in the Gregorian calendar, so it is correct to say that the "first decade A.D." began on January 1, 0001, and ended on December 31, 0010. By that same logic, it is also true that the "first century A.D." ended on December 31, 100, and that the "second millenium A.D." ended on December 31, 2000. That does not mean, however, that there is anything wrong with discussing "decades" that have occurred in the interim period (or will occur in the future) that might not necessarily begin and end on dates that match up with the beginning of the Gregorian calendar. For example, the fact that the "third milennium A.D." began on January 1, 2001 does not necessarily mean "the 1990s" had to have ended on December 31, 2000. "The 90's" began on January 1, 1990 and ended on December 31, 1999, and the fact that that particular ten-year period does not line up with the beginning of the Christian calendar is really not relevant to anything.

What does Chester think of those apples?

THANK YOU for that statement

Chester finds those apples tasty since you basically agreed with him
He is aware of the definition of "decade"... he really liked the decade of 1986-1996. Who did Rolling Stone give the Artist of THAT decade to?
Chester pointed out no year "00"
Chester is also happy that you hit his biggest annoyance... the entire "new millennium that started on 1.1.2000" crap. IT DID NOT and you attested, thanks.

Chester understands "the decade of the 90s" stuff and so forth and that is fine. Its cute and fuzzy to have stuff like "best one-hit wonder of the 90s", "Tiger woods... athlete of the decade", etc... His beef is that he finds it lazy on the part of the populace to buy into, as grizlaw points out (or so chester thinks lol), that in ACTUAL TIME we are leaving the decade of the Zero's. We are not, we still got a year left folks

as a side note. Chester finds the Christian calendar to be extremely relevant... so much so he challenges Grizlaw to write his next mortgage payment check with the Jewish year of 5770 or the Chinese year of 4707 on it... let Chester know what happens

[Grizlaw]

Chester understands "the decade of the 90s" stuff and so forth and that is fine. Its cute and fuzzy to have stuff like "best one-hit wonder of the 90s", "Tiger woods... athlete of the decade", etc... His beef is that he finds it lazy on the part of the populace to buy into, as grizlaw points out (or so chester thinks lol), that in ACTUAL TIME we are leaving the decade of the Zero's. We are not, we still got a year left folks

Grizlaw thinks Chester is still missing the point.

The "decade of the zeros" is actually ending this year. It began on January 1, 2000, and will end on December 31, 2009. The flaw in your thinking is that, while it is true that there was no year "00 A.D.," there was a year "2000 A.D." Thus, there is a decade that began on January 1, 2000, and will end on December 31, 2009. The fact that this decade did not begin on the same date as the "third millenium A.D." does not matter; it is still, by definition, a "decade."

as a side note. Chester finds the Christian calendar to be extremely relevant... so much so he challenges Grizlaw to write his next mortgage payment check with the Jewish year of 5770 or the Chinese year of 4707 on it... let Chester know what happens

I'd have to double check this, but as a legal matter, I suspect such a check would probably still be a negotiable instrument (though it may cause some poor teller at the bank some confusion). As long as a check is signed and the check-writer's intent can be discerned, a check is a legal document. (As a somewhat humorous illustration of this rule, my Contracts professor in law school told us a story from his law school days -- his roommate (who was responsible for paying their power bill) had a dispute with Consolidated Edison, the local power company in NYC, over payment of one of their bills. Unsatisfied with the outcome of the dispute, he expressed his dissatisfaction by making out all future checks to ConEd to be paid to the order of "Dirty Rotten Capitalist Motherf*ckers." The company never had a problem cashing any of his checks.)

[Cledus]

Chester, you'd be my hero if you can find a way to write a date the way this guy wrote the amount on his cell phone bill...

[chester Spartanpot]

Grizlaw thinks Chester is still missing the point.

The "decade of the zeros" is actually ending this year. It began on January 1, 2000, and will end on December 31, 2009. The flaw in your thinking is that, while it is true that there was no year "00 A.D.," there was a year "2000 A.D." Thus, there is a decade that began on January 1, 2000, and will end on December 31, 2009. The fact that this decade did not begin on the same date as the "third millenium A.D." does not matter; it is still, by definition, a "decade."

as a side note. Chester finds the Christian calendar to be extremely relevant... so much so he challenges Grizlaw to write his next mortgage payment check with the Jewish year of 5770 or the Chinese year of 4707 on it... let Chester know what happens

I'd have to double check this, but as a legal matter, I suspect such a check would probably still be a negotiable instrument (though it may cause some poor teller at the bank some confusion). As long as a check is signed and the check-writer's intent can be discerned, a check is a legal document. (As a somewhat humorous illustration of this rule, my Contracts professor in law school told us a story from his law school days -- his roommate (who was responsible for paying their power bill) had a dispute with Consolidated Edison, the local power company in NYC, over payment of one of their bills. Unsatisfied with the outcome of the dispute, he expressed his dissatisfaction by making out all future checks to ConEd to be paid to the order of "Dirty Rotten Capitalist Motherf*ckers." The company never had a problem cashing any of his checks.)

1.) Chester ain't missing no point (maybe its because we are typing thoughts and not speaking... that lost in translation thing?). Chester agrees there is a decade ending on 12.31.09. a decade also just ended this very instant and now this instant and WHOA... another one just ended as well. He is fully aware of a decade being any abstract 10 year period of time. But you know what, i know what and the american people know what we "commonly" refer a decade as being.

Wonderful... Chester now has to go into Lawyer-Speak: Would Grizlaw concede that the "common folk", in their everyday normal American Idol watching lives, see decades as periods of time relative to those being such as 1990-1999 and 2000-2009? And not a period of time, although definitionally correct, such as 3.15.1967 - 3.14.1977 (or whatever) that us Mensa Members hold to be true? Under that assumption, would he also concede, pursuant to this discussion, that in all actuality as it relates to the Gregorian Calendar, the actual decade that the "common folk" believes to be 2000-2009 is actually 2001-2010? Does Grizlaw stipulate??
Chesters head now hurts.

RE: ConED... i had maybe a similar experience. so my first college roommate in new york was, how do i say.... a burn-out?? yea, lets go with that. so he owed, as bob dylan coined, "Mr. Tambourine" some greenbacks. low on cash, he whipped out his checkbook, scribbled an amount and on the Memo line that read: BOWLing. funny, but the kid was still a loser... i moved across the hall at the first chance

[chester Spartanpot]

Chester, you'd be my hero if you can find a way to write a date the way this guy wrote the amount on his cell phone bill...

i saw that on the interwebs somewhere. awesome.
i could only imagine what the accounts receivables at Verizon and at Grizlaws ConEd example thought when they opened up the mail.

i thought i was your hero already Cledus????

[Grizlaw]

Wonderful... Chester now has to go into Lawyer-Speak: Would Grizlaw concede that the "common folk", in their everyday normal American Idol watching lives, see decades as periods of time relative to those being such as 1990-1999 and 2000-2009?

Agreed.

And not a period of time, although definitionally correct, such as 3.15.1967 - 3.14.1977 (or whatever) that us Mensa Members hold to be true?

Agreed.

Under that assumption, would he also concede, pursuant to this discussion, that in all actuality as it relates to the Gregorian Calendar, the actual decade that the "common folk" believes to be 2000-2009 is actually 2001-2010? Does Grizlaw stipulate??

No, this is the part I don't agree with. I don't think "common folk," as you say, actually give a crap when the "200th decade A.D." began. When they refer to "the 90's," they mean the godd@mn 90's...they don't mean 1991-2000. And there's nothing "wrong" about that. It's only people like you and me who over-think things like this and start debating things like whether the year 2000 should be considered to part of the 1990s, or whether the year 2010 should be considered part of the "00s" (or however this decade will come to be known).

The disconnect here is that you seem to think there is something "wrong" with the fact that most people consider, for example, "the 90s" to be a period of time which does not match up with the beginning of the Gregorian calendar. And my point is, that doesn't matter. "The 90s" can still be "the 90s," and "the 21st century" can still begin one year after "the 90s" ends. None of this will cause the universe to go off the rails.

[SonomaCat]

None of this will cause the universe to go off the rails.

Well I know who I will be blaming for the destruction of the universe on December 13, 2012.

[chester Spartanpot]

No, this is the part I don't agree with. I don't think "common folk," as you say, actually give a crap when the "200th decade A.D." began. When they refer to "the 90's," they mean the godd@mn 90's...they don't mean 1991-2000. And there's nothing "wrong" about that. It's only people like you and me who over-think things like this and start debating things like whether the year 2000 should be considered to part of the 1990s, or whether the year 2010 should be considered part of the "00s" (or however this decade will come to be known).

The disconnect here is that you seem to think there is something "wrong" with the fact that most people consider, for example, "the 90s" to be a period of time which does not match up with the beginning of the Gregorian calendar. And my point is, that doesn't matter. "The 90s" can still be "the 90s," and "the 21st century" can still begin one year after "the 90s" ends. None of this will cause the universe to go off the rails.

"Factually" wrong yes.

Chester likes to think about things . Chester knows the "commoners" don't give a crap and he knows the universe will continue and it doesn't matter like you said... thats why he stated its "lazy and annoying" to HIM. this annoyance stems back from the entire millennium fiasco (you know the one that was a year early ) on 12.31.1999... with the "lets watch the new millennium live in every time zone" and "what will this new millennium bring", etc... that was on every tv network from here to sydney for months. Fast forward to the present day: Chester is listening to the Detroit sports radio shows as they ask the listeners to call in with their "the best coach of the decade?" and "the worst Lion draft pick of the decade?", etc... Chester is like DUDE, there is still one more draft for the Lions to screw up!!! that talk gave him flashbacks to '99 and his annoyance was reborn.

[ChiOCat]

None of this will cause the universe to go off the rails.

Well I know who I will be blaming for the destruction of the universe on December 13, 2012.

Go with either the Mayans or Nostradamus.

[nevadacat]

None of this will cause the universe to go off the rails.

Well I know who I will be blaming for the destruction of the universe on December 13, 2012.

Go with either the Mayans or Nostradamus.

I thought it was supposed to be the 21st of December. BAC, are you still on the Julian calendar?