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

[Brady_to_Moss]

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

Only if you're a Gregorian...

 

[Frezo]

Only if you're a Gregorian...

This sounds like a Steven Wright routine.

When I was 1 month old and somebody asked, How old are you?", I'd say, "I'm -11 but I'm going to be -10."

 

[fair catch fryar]

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.

Fine. Believe what you want. But when the International Organization for Standardization, a scientific body & community that keeps tabs on the precision of the year based on mathematical equations and up-to-date scientific data calculates and creates the year "0" within the Gregorian calendar I'll take their word for it over yours.

 

[Ron Sellers]

Good gawd, I cannot believe people are debating when a decade starts and begins yet again. What is this, the 100th time in the last two years this has happened on this forum?

What a decade technically is or is not is a moot point.

Team of the decade is a mythical title.

The mythical title is based on what the vast majority consider to be a decade.

The vast majority consider 197x to be the '70's, 198x to be the '80's, etc.

An incredibly small minority apparently think 1970 was part of the '60's.


But what everybody seems to be missing is that the debate is about the teams, not the years.


If people want to argue for the sake of arguing or to try and show they are intellectually superior, may I suggest the political forum or the pub?

These 'team of the decade' topics are discussions about the teams of that era and which one is best - end of story. Why is it that one or two people feel compelled to hijack these threads whenever they appear?

 

[Wax Frog]

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

Don't you mean BCE and CE?