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

[seven]

Part of my stirred anger at this point derives from Peter King's lovely little shot
at Ben and the Steelers in hi MMQB this week.
It is him promoting an item in SI this week.
Quoting Goodell

"Goodell said he "doesn't feel any connection'' with Ben Roethlisberger. Not too surprising there.

"The one thing I take a little bit of issue with is when guys tell me they're being screwed,'' Goodell said. "[Most often] they're not recognizing they have a role in it.'' Regarding Roethlisberger, Goodell said when he was investigating what to do with the quarterback, he talked to "I bet two dozen [Steeler] players ... Not one, not a single player, went to his defense. It wasn't personal in a sense, but all kinds of stories like, 'He won't sign my jersey.' '"

He politely drops this lovely little bomb the week of the Super bowl.
It reminded me of the little creep Tomase. So I am currently on a slow burn.

Journalists are pro back stabbers, I know. They get paid to do what they love.
I should get over it, i know.

Later in the article, King gets in another dig, and a reminder on Ben:
"Like Vick, Roethlisberger will to have to prove it over time. A long time."

Great.
It is not clear from the context when Goodell dropped this gem on King.
Kings perfect sense of timing evidently caused him to decide to put it out there now.

Obviously, I am not a Steeler fan, but this just has made me ballistic.
Goodell has proven over and over again, he does not belong in that job,
I really believe he needs to go.

King? Just another a journalist being a journalist.
Professional creep.
Goodell? I don't know WTF he is.
********
Hey Tomase, here, one more for you.
Creep. Why do you still have a job in Boston?

Because for some reason, we allow these professional creeps to do their darndest, as long as they can call it a story. Like some GD public service.
They pat each other on the back for this, hand out prestigious awards for the dirtiest of the dirty work.

But how is it there was not a mass Mass march to march Tomase to Omaha, or some other place, as long as it is elsewhere?

Bafflement.

I need to chill.
Going to watch 45-3 Jesters in the blender again.
/Rant out.

 

[Wax Frog]

1 BC* really should be redefined as Year Zero. It would save a lot of grief and confusion...

*The only folks bothered by this would be the academic/BCE/apatosaurus crowd, and who cares about them? :rocker:

 

[Julius]

What is with all the Steeler hate? Their success does not diminish the Patriots accomplishments. Face it, the Steelers are a first class organization. They have a classy owner, hall of fame coach(Lebeau) and a old school defense.

And they just kept the Jets out of the Superbowl which is more than the Patriots can say.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

What is with all the Steeler hate? Their success does not diminish the Patriots accomplishments. Face it, the Steelers are a first class organization. They have a classy owner, hall of fame coach(Lebeau) and a old school defense.

And they just kept the Jets out of the Superbowl which is more than the Patriots can say.

Precisely!

The Patriots need to change their beta male approach to playoff football so apologist fanboys don't need to contrive excuses for their performance. Win more SBs and all these arguments become moot. More craptastic one and done playoff appearances and it's also moot.

 

[PATSNUTme]

GAME OVER!

Count on your fingers, count on your toes, no matter how you count, it comes out the same. Until next year at the beginning of the season when some mediot will try to stir the pot again.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Simple, the new mediot paradigm will shift to "Team of the 21st Century" encompassing more than just a puny decade. Words will be written touting the new team of the century. I've already read articles crowning Rogers and GB with the next 2 SBs. And so it begins.

 

[PATSNUTme]

Simple, the new mediot paradigm will shift to "Team of the 21st Century" encompassing more than just a puny decade. Words will be written touting the new team of the century. I've already read articles crowning Rogers and GB with the next 2 SBs. And so it begins.

It depends on if they use the Aztec calender or the Figi calender.

 

[mcgraw_wv]

There was no such thing as Year 0... So a decade is 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10

This was the same story when we had had the year 2000. The REAL start of the new millennium was 2001, as in the first year of the next decade.

 

[PATSNUTme]

There was no such thing as Year 0... So a decade is 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10

This was the same story when we had had the year 2000. The REAL start of the new millennium was 2001, as in the first year of the next decade.

So, there was no year 2000? Then forgetting my wife's birthday back then, never happened.

 

[mcgraw_wv]

So, there was no year 2000? Then forgetting my wife's birthday back then, never happened.

If you start with year one being the first year, and counting in increments of 10, you would see that the year 2000 was the last year of that decade, with 01 starting this most recent one.

I have no care how you define a decade, but you have to then admit that the first decade only had 9 years in it.

 

[Dufflebagz]

I have no care how you define a decade, but you have to then admit that the first decade only had 9 years in it.

2000 was the new millennium....so I guess the 1st decade only consisted of 9 years...case closed

 

[fair catch fryar]

There was no such thing as Year 0... So a decade is 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10

This was the same story when we had had the year 2000. The REAL start of the new millennium was 2001, as in the first year of the next decade.

I actually posted this to another quote in this thread, but here goes again:
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. ************ 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".

 

[Deus Irae]

I actually posted this to another quote in this thread, but here goes again:
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. ************ 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".

This is incorrect. There was no year "0". There was 1 B.C. and 1. A.D..

 

[fair catch fryar]

This is incorrect. There was no year "0". There was 1 B.C. and 1. A.D..

When the calendar was created the "church" didn't include a year "0", but since the advancement of astronomy and according to modern astronomical notation there is a year "0" placed between 1 B.C and 1 A.D. So technically, it is correct and there was a year 0.

 

[Deus Irae]

When the calendar was created the "church" didn't include a year "0", but since the advancement of astronomy and according to modern astronomical notation there is a year "0" placed between 1 B.C and 1 A.D. So technically, it is correct and there was a year 0.

No, there is no "technically" about it. Our calendar has no year "0". "Technically", you're trying to use an inapplicable argument to pretend that something nonexistent exists. Given that you, yourself, were the one pointing to the Gregorian calendar, you know precisely the sleight-of-hand you're attempting.

 

[fair catch fryar]

No, there is no "technically" about it. Our calendar has no year "0". "Technically", you're trying to use an inapplicable argument to pretend that something nonexistent exists.

History of astronomical usage

In 1849 the English astronomer John Herschel invented Julian dates, which are a sequence of numbered days and fractions thereof since noon 1 January −4712 (4713 BC), which was Julian date 0.0. Julian dates count the days between two instants, automatically accounting for years with different lengths, while allowing for any arbitrary precision by including as many fractional decimal digits as necessary. The modern mathematical astronomer Jean Meeus no longer mentions determining intervals via years, stating:[8]

The astronomical counting of the negative years is the only one suitable for arithmetical purpose. For example, in the historical practice of counting, the rule of divisibility by 4 revealing the Julian leap-years no longer exists; these years are, indeed, 1, 5, 9, 13, ... B.C. In the astronomical sequence, however, these leap-years are called 0, −4, −8, −12 ..., and the rule of divisibility by 4 subsists.
—Jean Meeus, Astronomical algorithms

In 1627 the German astronomer Johannes Kepler first used an astronomical year which was to become year zero in his Rudolphine Tables. He labeled the year Christi and inserted it between years labeled Ante Christum (BC) and Post Christum (AD) on the mean motion pages of the Sun, Moon, and planets.[9] Then in 1702 the French astronomer Philippe de la Hire used a year he labeled Christum 0 at the end of years labeled ante Christum (BC), immediately before years labeled post Christum (AD) on the mean motion pages in his Tabulæ Astronomicæ, thus adding the designation 0 to Kepler's Christi.[10] Finally, in 1740 the French astronomer Jacques Cassini (Cassini II), who is traditionally credited with the invention of year zero,[11] completed the transition in his Tables astronomiques, simply labeling this year 0, which he placed at the end of years labeled avant Jesus-Christ (BC), immediately before years labeled après Jesus-Christ (AD).[12]
[edit] ISO 8601

ISO 8601:2004 (and previously ISO 8601:2000, but not ISO 8601:1988) explicitly uses astronomical year numbering in its date reference systems. Because it also specifies the use of the proleptic Gregorian calendar for all years before 1582, some readers incorrectly assume that a year zero is also included in that proleptic calendar, whereas that is unusual. The "basic" format for year 0 is the four-digit form 0000, which equals the historical year 1 BC. Several "expanded" formats are possible: -0000 and +0000, as well as five- and six-digit versions. Earlier years are also negative four-, five- or six-digit years, which have an absolute value one less than the equivalent BC year, hence -0001 = 2 BC. Because only ISO 646 (7-bit ASCII) characters are allowed by ISO 8601, the minus sign is represented by a hyphen-minus.

If you say so.

 

[Deus Irae]

History of astronomical usage

In 1849 the English astronomer John Herschel invented Julian dates, which are a sequence of numbered days and fractions thereof since noon 1 January −4712 (4713 BC), which was Julian date 0.0. Julian dates count the days between two instants, automatically accounting for years with different lengths, while allowing for any arbitrary precision by including as many fractional decimal digits as necessary. The modern mathematical astronomer Jean Meeus no longer mentions determining intervals via years, stating:[8]

The astronomical counting of the negative years is the only one suitable for arithmetical purpose. For example, in the historical practice of counting, the rule of divisibility by 4 revealing the Julian leap-years no longer exists; these years are, indeed, 1, 5, 9, 13, ... B.C. In the astronomical sequence, however, these leap-years are called 0, −4, −8, −12 ..., and the rule of divisibility by 4 subsists.
—Jean Meeus, Astronomical algorithms

In 1627 the German astronomer Johannes Kepler first used an astronomical year which was to become year zero in his Rudolphine Tables. He labeled the year Christi and inserted it between years labeled Ante Christum (BC) and Post Christum (AD) on the mean motion pages of the Sun, Moon, and planets.[9] Then in 1702 the French astronomer Philippe de la Hire used a year he labeled Christum 0 at the end of years labeled ante Christum (BC), immediately before years labeled post Christum (AD) on the mean motion pages in his Tabulæ Astronomicæ, thus adding the designation 0 to Kepler's Christi.[10] Finally, in 1740 the French astronomer Jacques Cassini (Cassini II), who is traditionally credited with the invention of year zero,[11] completed the transition in his Tables astronomiques, simply labeling this year 0, which he placed at the end of years labeled avant Jesus-Christ (BC), immediately before years labeled après Jesus-Christ (AD).[12]
[edit] ISO 8601

ISO 8601:2004 (and previously ISO 8601:2000, but not ISO 8601:1988) explicitly uses astronomical year numbering in its date reference systems. Because it also specifies the use of the proleptic Gregorian calendar for all years before 1582, some readers incorrectly assume that a year zero is also included in that proleptic calendar, whereas that is unusual. The "basic" format for year 0 is the four-digit form 0000, which equals the historical year 1 BC. Several "expanded" formats are possible: -0000 and +0000, as well as five- and six-digit versions. Earlier years are also negative four-, five- or six-digit years, which have an absolute value one less than the equivalent BC year, hence -0001 = 2 BC. Because only ISO 646 (7-bit ASCII) characters are allowed by ISO 8601, the minus sign is represented by a hyphen-minus.

If you say so.

I do. As I pointed out, you're attempting a sleight-of-hand maneuver, as you well know. You'll notice that you started with Gregorian, which is the calendar in use, and jumped elsewhere. It's amusing to watch, though.

But this has been discussed multiple times over the years, so there's really nothing to be gained here.

 

[fair catch fryar]

I do. As I pointed out, you're attempting a sleight-of-hand maneuver, as you well know. You'll notice that you started with Gregorian, which is the calendar in use, and jumped elsewhere. It's amusing to watch, though.

But this has been discussed multiple times over the years, so there's really nothing to be gained here.

And I'll stick to using the Gregorian Calendar which has been modified and improved by the advancement of science. Call scientific proof a "sleight-of-hand" maneuver and amusing all you want, but it does prove that there "technically" is a year 0 which sets up a decade as beginning in the year 0.

 

[Frezo]

So on my 56th birthday when I declare to be 56, I'm really only 55??? COOL

 

[Deus Irae]

And I'll stick to using the Gregorian Calendar which has been modified and improved by the advancement of science. Call scientific proof a "sleight-of-hand" maneuver and amusing all you want, but it does prove that there "technically" is a year 0 which sets up a decade as beginning in the year 0.

Again, it proves no such thing, as you already know. Seriously, this was amusing about the first 100 times people tried it, and it's amusing when someone makes the first attempt at it in a new discussion. After that, it's just tedious.