Stupid, silly, mediots (and others)!!!!

[PATSNUTme]

Ok, it's Monday and I've had it with these clowns already.

What is it about the term "decade" that people in the media don't understand? A decade is a 10 year period. A period of 10 years beginning with the number "0" begins a decade.
Decade | Define Decade at Dictionary.com

So how can these people in the media write and say that a Steeler win in the SB would bring into dispute the Patriots being the "team of the decade"?

If there are people of the media reading this, start counting to ten on your fingers including the year 2000. If you find yourself reaching for your fly after 2009, you have gone too far.

During the period from 2000-2009 NFL season, the Patriots have won 3 Super Bowls, 4 AFC Championships, and more games including playoffs than any team during that period. It's not even close. Game, set, match,- IT's OVER!

The lastest is normally a good writer, Ian Rapoport, in his article today. Ian must have had some space to fill in for this article and ran out of things to say.

IF, and I don't think they will, the Steelers win this years SB, they will be the first team to win one in the new decade beginning with the 2010 season. The same with the Packers, who will win it.

Do you guys get it now?

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

Re: Stupid, silly, mediots!!!!1

Umm...

there was never a year 0, so it is accurate that the first decade was 0001-0010, the second was 0011 to 0020, and so on.

December 31, 2010 was the end of the 201st decade of the Julian calendar (modified by the adoption of the Gregorian calendar which recognizes that 365.25 days is off a little too, with the years really being about 11 minutes shorter than that).

Of course all date-keeping methods are arbitrary.

 

[DarrylStingley]

Re: Stupid, silly, mediots!!!!1

That the Pats were the team of the last decade doesn't make me feel any better about how craptastic their playoff start was to this one.

 

[PATSNUTme]

Re: Stupid, silly, mediots!!!!1

Umm...

there was never a year 0, so it is accurate that the first decade was 0001-0010, the second was 0011 to 0020, and so on.

December 31, 2010 was the end of the 201st decade of the Julian calendar (modified by the adoption of the Gregorian calendar which recognizes that 365.25 days is off a little too, with the years really being about 11 minutes shorter than that).

Of course all date-keeping methods are arbitrary.

Umm- did you click on the link provided, which defines a decade? Please provide something,anything credible that renders that definition incorrect and I'll stand corrected.

 

[Pats-PwNfOrLeSs]

Re: Stupid, silly, mediots!!!!

So why did the end of the millinium come at 1999 and not 2000. Why do the decades go from 60-69 and not 61-70... And so on. The patriots decade was from 2000-2009.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Re: Stupid, silly, mediots!!!!

So why did the end of the millinium come at 1999 and not 2000. Why do the decades go from 60-69 and not 61-70... And so on. The first patriots decade was from 2000-2009.

I prefer my version.

 

[Ron Sellers]

Countdown till Deus responds for 92nd debate on this forum over the past year or two on what a decade is in 5 . . . 4 . . . 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . .


While there may possibly be some merit due to the "there was no year zero" logic, for all intents and purposes the common usage and meaning of the term decade is based on the first three digits: 197x is known as the 70's, 198x is the 80's, etc. More than 99.999% of the people look at a decade that way and less than 0.001% consider, for example, 1990 to be part of the 80's of for 2001 to be the first year of the 21st century.

So why are some suddenly looking at decades in this manner now? First, to stir debate; that is their job. The more their audience discusses whatever it is they bring up, the more ad revenue is generated; it's strictly business.

The other reason is for someone with an agenda looking for stats to back their position. In this case it would be Steeler fans and/or Pats haters who so desperately want to claim for Pittsburgh to claim the mythical title of team of the decade.



=====

Edit: PATSNUTme, is this the article you are referring to? - Hot topics going into hype storm - BostonHerald.com

Reason I ask is because it seems kind of ambiguous if Rapoport is or is not trying to say this Super Bowl would be considered part of the past decade; I took it to mean that he is saying that if the Steelers win the SB then they (rather than the Pats) might be considered the NFL's best current example of prolonged success.

4. Can the Steelers, not the Patriots, emerge as the NFL’s most dominant force?

The Patriots were the team of the last decade, with endless wins and three Super Bowl rings to prove it. Yet, they’ve won zero since the 2004 season, despite finishing 2007 with a perfect regular-season record. Meanwhile, the Steelers have closed to within one. Roethlisberger’s hard-nosed unit can win their third Super Bowl title in six seasons, nearly matching the Pats’ run of success in the early part of the 2000s. Does that make them the NFL’s best example for prolonged success? Roethlisberger can match Brady’s three rings with a win Sunday, but can his team seize the unofficial mantle?

 

[PittPatriot]

Ok, it's Monday and I've had it with these clowns already.

What is it about the term "decade" that people in the media don't understand? A decade is a 10 year period. A period of 10 years beginning with the number "0" begins a decade.
Decade | Define Decade at Dictionary.com

So how can these people in the media write and say that a Steeler win in the SB would bring into dispute the Patriots being the "team of the decade"?

If there are people of the media reading this, start counting to ten on your fingers including the year 2000. If you find yourself reaching for your fly after 2009, you have gone too far.

During the period from 2000-2009 NFL season, the Patriots have won 3 Super Bowls, 4 AFC Championships, and more games including playoffs than any team during that period. It's not even close. Game, set, match,- IT's OVER!

The lastest is normally a good writer, Ian Rapoport, in his article today. Ian must have had some space to fill in for this article and ran out of things to say.

IF, and I don't think they will, the Steelers win this years SB, they will be the first team to win one in the new decade beginning with the 2010 season. The same with the Packers, who will win it.

Do you guys get it now?

I agree with your point...but per the definition you cited, the #1 definition is "a period of 10 years." In that case, a new decade finishes every year. This SB will be the end of the 2001-2010 decade.
Yes, the Pats were the Team of the Decade (2000-2009)...but the Steelers would tie them for SB victories in the 2001-2010 decade. If "recent accomplishments" enter the criteria, then the Steelers will have won 3 SB's since our last one.

 

[Real American Hero]

A few other ways of looking at things, the league that eventually became the NFL was founded in 1920 so therefore we should stick to decades as we commonly accept them.

Or - with this being SB 45 we are in the middle of the 5th decade of the SB era and the Steelers are in their second appearance of the 5th decade as SB 40 was the finale to the 4th.

Really there just aren't many cases in the Steelers favor not to mention that they haven't actually played the damn game yet.

 

[PATSNUTme]

Countdown till Deus responds for 92nd debate on this forum over the past year or two on what a decade is in 5 . . . 4 . . . 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . .


While there may possibly be some merit due to the "there was no year zero" logic, for all intents and purposes the common usage and meaning of the term decade is based on the first three digits: 197x is known as the 70's, 198x is the 80's, etc. More than 99.999% of the people look at a decade that way and less than 0.001% consider, for example, 1990 to be part of the 80's of for 2001 to be the first year of the 21st century.

So why are some suddenly looking at decades in this manner now? First, to stir debate; that is their job. The more their audience discusses whatever it is they bring up, the more ad revenue is generated; it's strictly business.

The other reason is for someone with an agenda looking for stats to back their position. In this case it would be Steeler fans and/or Pats haters who so desperately want to claim for Pittsburgh to claim the mythical title of team of the decade.



=====

Edit: PATSNUTme, is this the article you are referring to? - Hot topics going into hype storm - BostonHerald.com

Reason I ask is because it seems kind of ambiguous if Rapoport is or is not trying to say this Super Bowl would be considered part of the past decade; I took it to mean that he is saying that if the Steelers win the SB then they (rather than the Pats) might be considered the NFL's best current example of prolonged success.

Ok, if his point is the Steelers have been good for a while, that's OK. But why bring in the the Patriots? The Patriots were the team of the decade and that is it.

I know that there are some who will try dispute if water is wet. But it is and those who try to dispute it just look silly.

 

[Bill B.]

Is there a trophy for "Team of the Decade"? Do you get to hang a banner? It is mostly opinion and since there is no official definition for "Team of the Decade", what does it matter? This is one of those arguments that have no other real meaning except for bragging rights.

But if the Steelers did win, I would still say the Patriots are the "Team of the Decade" simply because they beat the Steelers on their wayto two SBs and the Steelers never bet the Patriots on their way to any of theirs.

 

[PATSNUTme]

Is there a trophy for "Team of the Decade"? Do you get to hang a banner? It is mostly opinion and since there is no official definition for "Team of the Decade", what does it matter? This is one of those arguments that have no other real meaning except for bragging rights.

But if the Steelers did win, I would still say the Patriots are the "Team of the Decade" simply because they beat the Steelers on their wayto two SBs and the Steelers never bet the Patriots on their way to any of theirs.

I never heard the comment "what does it matter" when dicussing the 49'ers or the Cowboys as teams of their decade. I've never heard any dispute about it, when it came to those teams.

Actually some of the responses to this thread from Patriots fans are very odd.

 

[Mogamedogz]

Our fanbase is by far the most insecure bunch i have ever seen...in any sport.

It's just not healthy folks.

 

[USCPatriot]

Is there a trophy for "Team of the Decade"? Do you get to hang a banner? It is mostly opinion and since there is no official definition for "Team of the Decade", what does it matter? This is one of those arguments that have no other real meaning except for bragging rights.

But if the Steelers did win, I would still say the Patriots are the "Team of the Decade" simply because they beat the Steelers on their wayto two SBs and the Steelers never bet the Patriots on their way to any of theirs.

This.

I never heard the comment "what does it matter" when dicussing the 49'ers or the Cowboys as teams of their decade. I've never heard any dispute about it, when it came to those teams.

Actually some of the responses to this thread from Patriots fans are very odd.

Why does it matter? Let the media say what it wants to say, they follow 1 game to write a story about a team, the media has no idea about any team unless they live and breathe that team, which would give them some credibility. The people that have posted are right, who cares?!? Do you want other fans to agree with you saying "oh yea, the media sucks!" or "wow, great point, media blows it yet again". I am sure most fans are concerned about one thing and thats the upcoming draft.
Just because people don't agree with you about this ridiculous thread doesn't make them odd. It makes the people here look honest and not afraid to tell the truth.

 

[fair catch fryar]

Re: Stupid, silly, mediots!!!!1

Umm...

there was never a year 0, so it is accurate that the first decade was 0001-0010, the second was 0011 to 0020, and so on.

December 31, 2010 was the end of the 201st decade of the Julian calendar (modified by the adoption of the Gregorian calendar which recognizes that 365.25 days is off a little too, with the years really being about 11 minutes shorter than that).

Of course all date-keeping methods are arbitrary.

Technically, Anno Domini is Latin for the "Year of Our Lord" and the Acronym for A.D. The Vatican had the Gregorian calendar created based on the original Roman "Julian" calendar like you said, but ************ was supposedly 32 years old when he died, and the calendar began when he was born. When a person is born by our cultural standards they are not one year old at birth. By this definition then the decade began in the first year starting at "0". Which means there was a year "0".

 

[PATSNUTme]

This.



Why does it matter? Let the media say what it wants to say, they follow 1 game to write a story about a team, the media has no idea about any team unless they live and breathe that team, which would give them some credibility. The people that have posted are right, who cares?!? Do you want other fans to agree with you saying "oh yea, the media sucks!" or "wow, great point, media blows it yet again". I am sure most fans are concerned about one thing and thats the upcoming draft.
Just because people don't agree with you about this ridiculous thread doesn't make them odd. It makes the people here look honest and not afraid to tell the truth.

Thanks for your thoughts on this. It follows in line with the other thoughts you posted.

Some of us can walk and chew gum at the same time.

 

[Ron Sellers]

Ok, if his point is the Steelers have been good for a while, that's OK. But why bring in the the Patriots? The Patriots were the team of the decade and that is it.

I know that there are some who will try dispute if water is wet. But it is and those who try to dispute it just look silly.

I think the reason Rapoport brought up the Patriots was because he was trying to say that with a win the Pats would no longer be the team others point to when discussing how to have continuous success in the NFL; the Steelers would then be the NFL's poster child for that unofficial title. However, he could done a better job writing that paragraph as it should have been much clearer what he was trying to say:

"The Patriots were the team of the last decade, with endless wins and three Super Bowl rings to prove it. Yet, they’ve won zero since the 2004 season, despite finishing 2007 with a perfect regular-season record. Meanwhile, the Steelers have closed to within one. Roethlisberger’s hard-nosed unit can win their third Super Bowl title in six seasons, nearly matching the Pats’ run of success in the early part of the 2000s. Does that make them the NFL’s best example for prolonged success? Roethlisberger can match Brady’s three rings with a win Sunday, but can his team seize the unofficial mantle?"

Our fanbase is by far the most insecure bunch i have ever seen...in any sport.

It's just not healthy folks.

Right; because it's so much healthier to simply be full of negativity and criticize almost every aspect of the team while declaring anything short of a championship to be a complete failure instead.

 

[capetide]

I agree with your point...but per the definition you cited, the #1 definition is "a period of 10 years." In that case, a new decade finishes every year. This SB will be the end of the 2001-2010 decade.
Yes, the Pats were the Team of the Decade (2000-2009)...but the Steelers would tie them for SB victories in the 2001-2010 decade. If "recent accomplishments" enter the criteria, then the Steelers will have won 3 SB's since our last one.

Oh, c'mon now. So maybe the Packers will be the team of the 2002-2111 decade and the Colts the 2005-2014 decade, and the Jags the 2009-2018 decade? Now the argument is getting just plain stupid.

 

[PATSNUTme]

I'll try to make this as clear as I can.

The media can go ahead and shower all the love and affection on the Steelers or any other team all they want. Much of it is deserved.

They can sing the praises of Rapistberger or any other QB all they want. Much of that is deserved.

But when they stupidly start trying to bring the Patriots into the conversation and try to diminish their great run, then this Patriots fan will call them stupid and silly. And I'm surprised at other Patriots fans attitude on this.

What the Romans or early Christians did with their calenders matters not. We all know what is going on.

 

[seven]

I am really in a lousy mood.
With the SB looming, and our guys golfing, just ....


I like to imagine all of this crap going into BB helpful little scrapbook for next year, to emphasize to the guys how much they completely suck, how much they need to prove it, on and on.
I expect them to come out next year with flames coming out their ears.


God, I wish it were next year already.
/Rant