1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10

[JohnK]

You might be technically right - but no one cares, certainly not from a pop and sociocultural pov. (no offense mate, this particular issue just gets my grind in a big way due to the number of geeks going on and on about it)

Geeks? Why not just celebrate everyday (and forget about life) as that day only comes along once in a lifetime?

To some peoiple milestones are extremely important and calling them geeks is totally naive and very insensitive. Let's leave it at that as there is no point going any further as you clearly do not understand and do not care. Just keep partying....

 

[swissbignose]

Is now the time to bring up that there's a theory that Jesus Christ was born 4 years before it was reported that he was born?

That would make it 2014 this year.

It's all relative.

Until it isn't.

 

[medhead]

Is now the time to bring up that there's a theory that Jesus Christ was born 4 years before it was reported that he was born?

That would make it 2014 this year.

It's all relative.

Until it isn't.

Great time to bring that up. I heard it was 3 years difference.

 

[medhead]

Geeks? Why not just celebrate everyday (and forget about life) as that day only comes along once in a lifetime?

To some peoiple milestones are extremely important and calling them geeks is totally naive and very insensitive. Let's leave it at that as there is no point going any further as you clearly do not understand and do not care. Just keep partying....

It's ok JohnK technically I don't even make geek status. Whoops, there I go getting technical again

Perhaps I should offer QF009 a nice glass of champagne. I just can't decide which champagne to offer; Jacobs creek or great western, or perhaps some passion pop?

 

[oz_mark]

To some peoiple milestones are extremely important and calling them geeks is totally naive and very insensitive. Let's leave it at that as there is no point going any further as you clearly do not understand and do not care. Just keep partying....

The term geek was used over the definition of the milestone, rather than the milestone itself. However, the geeks, in this case, are wrong. Without context of which decade, they can't say the others are wrong.

The decade called the 2000's ran from Jan 1, 2000 and ended Dec 31, 2009 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000s_(decade)). Arguments otherwise are incorrect.

 

[straitman]

As JohnK says, Who cares :!:

 

[Keith009]

Perhaps I should offer QF009 a nice glass of champagne. I just can't decide which champagne to offer; Jacobs creek or great western, or perhaps some passion pop?

Ugh the champagne/sparkling wine debate is another one I don't get (missed that in your earlier post). Which is why I've tended to refer to them as simply 'bubbly.' As long as it's 1) tasty; 2) has bubbles; 3) is alcoholic - who cares?! Granted, there's methode champenoise that makes champagne champagne, but a lot of the distinction in naming is simply a heap of legal fiction. Give me a Tasmanian sparkling cuvee anyday over overpriced Moet non vintage, apart from the inherent snob factor in toasting to the latter as it's "French Champagne" (hence you'll only see cheapest and ghastliest Moet served free at fashion shows for instance) - the former tastes so much nicer. Belle Epoque 1995 is a completely different story of course...

 

[Keith009]

The term geek was used over the definition of the milestone, rather than the milestone itself. However, the geeks, in this case, are wrong. Without context of which decade, they can't say the others are wrong.

The decade called the 2000's ran from Jan 1, 2000 and ended Dec 31, 2009 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000s_(decade)). Arguments otherwise are incorrect.

Thanks for expressing what I have been trying to say far more eloquently.

 

[oz_mark]

As JohnK says, Who cares :!:

Enough people to have a debate

 

[JohnK]

The decade called the 2000's ran from Jan 1, 2000 and ended Dec 31, 2009 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000s_(decade)). Arguments otherwise are incorrect.

Not quite correct. The 2000's and the first decade of the 21st century are two totally different things.

Millennium

 

[oz_mark]

Not quite correct. The 2000's and the first decade of the 21st century are two totally different things.

Millennium

I never said they were the same thing.

 

[Flashback]

Well now you’ve brought it up :-|

No pun intended, right?

 

[samh004]

No pun intended, right?

I wish I was that witty!

 

[codash1099]

We recognise the correct naming/counting when we name the centuries.

1901 - 2000 is called the 20th century, not the 19th and this century is the 21st not the 20th.

QED

 

[medhead]

Sorry for the late reply, I've been without private internet for the best part of a week and had to be locked away last night (-not literally) as well.

The term geek was used over the definition of the milestone, rather than the milestone itself. However, the geeks, in this case, are wrong. Without context of which decade, they can't say the others are wrong.

The decade called the 2000's ran from Jan 1, 2000 and ended Dec 31, 2009 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000s_(decade)). Arguments otherwise are incorrect.

Umm, actually, there is a context of which decade. As I noted once or twice - "new" decade.

[I might have also noted the following that other posters have picked up in their replies: we are still in the 201st decade (noting that we don't normally count decades using ordinal numbers). The fact that 2000 to 2009 was also 10 years does not change the fact that we are still in the same decade.]

Ugh the champagne/sparkling wine debate is another one I don't get (missed that in your earlier post). Which is why I've tended to refer to them as simply 'bubbly.' As long as it's 1) tasty; 2) has bubbles; 3) is alcoholic - who cares?!

Agreed 100%. I tend to refer to fine french bubbles. It is the fine-ness of the french bubbles that makes it special

BTW I have a lot to learn from you, as I don't mind Moet NV - fine, delicate bubbles (Veuve NV is preferred). But do like tasmania bubbles especially at half the price.

 

[oz_mark]

Umm, actually, there is a context of which decade. As I noted once or twice - "new" decade.

The "new" what decade?

2010 is the start of the decade called the 2010's.
2011 is the start of the 202nd decade.

A decade is simply a period of ten years, and has to be named to be able to state where it starts. new is not a name.

 

[medhead]

The "new" what decade?

2010 is the start of the decade called the 2010's.
2011 is the start of the 202nd decade.

A decade is simply a period of ten years, and has to be named to be able to state where it starts. new is not a name.

Exactly. New is not a name, but it is a description that marks a transition from the old to the new. Therefore, you are talking about different decades and one of them is a new decade and one of them is not a new decade.

In order to get a new decade the old decade has to be finished. That situation can only happen at the end of every consecutive 10 years. We are current in the 201st new decade, it has been preceeded by 200 distinct groups of ten years (decades). The next new decade will start in 2011. If you wish to say the 2010s is a "new" decade, then that means that 2010s decade was preceeded by 199 decades and an odd 9 years. That left over 9 years means that the 2010s can't be a new decade, that 2010 can't mark the start of a new decade, as the old, previous decade, is not finished.

This is a fundamental principle of counting, it is called order and we are counting years here not just making up groups of 10 years. You can see this by how the years are named, in order 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, ....