A Audio and hi-fi forum. AudioBanter.com

Go Back   Home » AudioBanter.com forum » rec.audio » Pro Audio
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

NY



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old January 19th 20, 12:59 AM posted to rec.audio.pro
Ralph Barone[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 45
Default NY

Don Pearce > wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 19:32:09 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
> > wrote:
>
>> Don Pearce > wrote:
>>> On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 19:19:05 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Don Pearce > wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 08:34:32 -0800, Tobiah > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/17/20 1:38 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 09:10:38 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 13:28:05 -0800, Tobiah > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So what was the first year of the first decade in our current CE
>>>>>>>>>>>> reckoning? No need to bring mythical figures into it - straight
>>>>>>>>>>>> question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The first year was year 1, making the first decade span the years
>>>>>>>>>>> 1 through 10, the second decade starting at year 11. Or is there
>>>>>>>>>>> a trick to your question?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No trick. You make my point perfectly. Decades start on the year that
>>>>>>>>>> ends in a 1, not a 0.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So when I was 10 years old, I had not lived a decade, because
>>>>>>>>> "Decades start on the year that ends in a 1" whereas
>>>>>>>>> my first decade started with a year that ended in 6.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm just saying that when someone refers to the 50's say, it's
>>>>>>>>> as arbitrary as saying "the evens". It's a description that
>>>>>>>>> we can use to group some of the past years together so we can
>>>>>>>>> easily agree on which ones we're talking about.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I blame the schools lousy maths skills. When you were ten years old
>>>>>>>> you had lived a decade. Just you were one year old you had lived a
>>>>>>>> year.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> d
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And that is what happens when you post before you are awake. Let me
>>>>>>> try again...
>>>>>>> I blame the schools for lousy maths skills. When you were ten years
>>>>>>> old you had lived a decade, just as when you were one year old you had
>>>>>>> lived a year.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are reiterating my point. I may have failed to convey the irony in my
>>>>>> earlier reply. The first decade of our current calendar may have ended on
>>>>>> the first day of year 11, but a decade per se has an arbitrary start point.
>>>>>> I'd even venture to say that it need not begin at the start of a calendar
>>>>>> year.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One popular dictionary's entry:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) a period of ten years: the three decades from 1776 to 1806.
>>>>>> 2) a period of ten years beginning with a year whose last digit is zero:
>>>>>> the decade of the 1980s.
>>>>>> 3) a group, set, or series of ten.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, decade is a word with many usages - those are just some of
>>>>> them. But in the context we were discussing we know which it was: A
>>>>> defined period of ten years beginning with a year that terminates with
>>>>> a one. The first decade is the years 1 to 10 - continue counting from
>>>>> there. And at no point do you get to slip in a nine year decade.
>>>>>
>>>>> d
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Considering how mankind has royally f$#*ed up calendars over the ages,
>>>> including the estimation of when Jesus was born, I don’t see why we
>>>> couldn’t slip a 9 year decade in there somewhere. After all, September,
>>>> October, November and December aren’t the 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th months
>>>> anymore.
>>>
>>> Jesus? Well if you are going to try to use the fictional birth of a
>>> mythological being, then yes, all bets are off.
>>>
>>> d
>>>

>>
>> OK, so we all agree that the transition from BC to AD was so bolloxed up
>> that starting decades on the zero is just fine now.

>
> However ********ed up it may have been, we still recognise it as
> starting at one, so no.
>
> d
>


For certain values of “we”, sure...

Ads
  #52  
Old January 19th 20, 05:36 AM posted to rec.audio.pro
None
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 90
Default NY

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
> However ********ed up it may have been, we* still recognise it as
> starting at one, so no.


* For extremely small values of "we."

Nonetheless, we're in the 2020's, a decade that began less than three weeks
ago. It's a real decade, as were the 1960's, the 1920's, and the 1890's. You
can choose do deny that, of course.

  #53  
Old January 19th 20, 08:53 AM posted to rec.audio.pro
Don Pearce[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,313
Default NY

On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 00:36:08 -0500, "None" > wrote:

>"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
>> However ********ed up it may have been, we* still recognise it as
>> starting at one, so no.

>
>* For extremely small values of "we."
>
>Nonetheless, we're in the 2020's, a decade that began less than three weeks
>ago. It's a real decade, as were the 1960's, the 1920's, and the 1890's. You
>can choose do deny that, of course.


Now stop! I've already pointed out that the 1960s did not start until
1963.

d
  #54  
Old January 19th 20, 11:21 AM posted to rec.audio.pro
John Williamson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,681
Default NY

On 19/01/2020 08:53, Don Pearce wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 00:36:08 -0500, "None" > wrote:
>
>> Nonetheless, we're in the 2020's, a decade that began less than three weeks
>> ago. It's a real decade, as were the 1960's, the 1920's, and the 1890's. You
>> can choose do deny that, of course.

>
> Now stop! I've already pointed out that the 1960s did not start until
> 1963.
>

(Sorry, politics. Feel free to ignore.)

And in the UK, the great depression of the 2020s will start on the 31st
of January at 23:00 GMT when we leave the EU.



--
Tciao for Now!

John.
  #55  
Old January 19th 20, 11:34 AM posted to rec.audio.pro
Don Pearce[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,313
Default NY

On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 11:21:43 +0000, John Williamson
> wrote:

>On 19/01/2020 08:53, Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 00:36:08 -0500, "None" > wrote:
>>
>>> Nonetheless, we're in the 2020's, a decade that began less than three weeks
>>> ago. It's a real decade, as were the 1960's, the 1920's, and the 1890's. You
>>> can choose do deny that, of course.

>>
>> Now stop! I've already pointed out that the 1960s did not start until
>> 1963.
>>

>(Sorry, politics. Feel free to ignore.)
>
>And in the UK, the great depression of the 2020s will start on the 31st
>of January at 23:00 GMT when we leave the EU.


Sadly true. But Johnson, Rees-Mogg, Farage and co can feel smug right
up to the point where they file for bankruptcy.

d
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.