NY

[geoff]

It's the next decade here already. All the best for everybody everywhere
for 2020.

cheers

geoff

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 01:36:01 +1300, geoff >
wrote:

>It's the next decade here already. All the best for everybody everywhere
>for 2020.
>
>cheers
>
>geoff

You're a year early. AD decades began with year 1.

d

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 12/31/2019 8:57 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
> You're a year early. AD decades began with year 1.

"Scholars differ on this issue." And, besides, some of us can't wait
for this decade to be over. ;)

--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 09:06:32 -0500, Mike Rivers >
wrote:

>On 12/31/2019 8:57 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
>> You're a year early. AD decades began with year 1.
>
>"Scholars differ on this issue." And, besides, some of us can't wait
>for this decade to be over. ;)

If any scholar can come up with a year zero I will change my mind.
You're dead right about wanting this one to be over though.

d

[Tobiah]

On 12/31/19 5:57 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 01:36:01 +1300, geoff >
> wrote:
>
>> It's the next decade here already. All the best for everybody everywhere
>> for 2020.
>>
>> cheers
>>
>> geoff
>
> You're a year early. AD decades began with year 1.
>
> d
>


We had the same problem at the turn of the century.
After all was said and done, we (as a people) just decided that
the real excitement was in seeing three zeros in the year number.
Nothing else mattered.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 12/31/2019 8:57 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
> You're a year early. AD decades began with year 1.

I'm afraid you're just going to have to accept mass media's version of
this, right or wrong. The Washington Post says this is the start of a
new decade, as does National Public Radio, and even the MIDI
Manufacturer's Association.

You just can't fight social hall, but start campaigning early for the
next decade beginning in 2031.


--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 21:19:04 -0500, Mike Rivers >
wrote:

>On 12/31/2019 8:57 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
>> You're a year early. AD decades began with year 1.
>
>I'm afraid you're just going to have to accept mass media's version of
>this, right or wrong. The Washington Post says this is the start of a
>new decade, as does National Public Radio, and even the MIDI
>Manufacturer's Association.
>
>You just can't fight social hall, but start campaigning early for the
>next decade beginning in 2031.

I fear the 2031 event will be someone else's problem. :(

d

[Tobiah]

On 12/31/19 6:19 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 12/31/2019 8:57 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
>> You're a year early. AD decades began with year 1.
>
> I'm afraid you're just going to have to accept mass media's version
> of this, right or wrong. The Washington Post says this is the start
> of a new decade, as does National Public Radio, and even the MIDI
> Manufacturer's Association.
>
> You just can't fight social hall, but start campaigning early for the
> next decade beginning in 2031.
>
>

We also group decades by saying the 20's, 30's.. I'd hate to have to
remember that a song written in 1960 was really part of the 50's.

[[email protected]]

Tobiah wrote:

>We also group decades by saying the 20's, 30's.. I'd hate to have to
>remember that a song written in 1960 was really part of the 50's.

That's alright. There's always what I term 'decade lag' - the tendency for cultural
styles(in attire, music, industrial design - automotive, etc.). IE: a lot of popular
songs as late as 1962 still had a late-fifties style/tone to it.

Bell bottoms did not completely depart along with the Hostage Crisis of 1980.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 09:41:33 -0800, Tobiah > wrote:

>On 12/31/19 6:19 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
>> On 12/31/2019 8:57 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
>>> You're a year early. AD decades began with year 1.
>>
>> I'm afraid you're just going to have to accept mass media's version
>> of this, right or wrong. The Washington Post says this is the start
>> of a new decade, as does National Public Radio, and even the MIDI
>> Manufacturer's Association.
>>
>> You just can't fight social hall, but start campaigning early for the
>> next decade beginning in 2031.
>>
>>
>
>We also group decades by saying the 20's, 30's.. I'd hate to have to
>remember that a song written in 1960 was really part of the 50's.

Well, the sixties didn't begin until 1963. Before that it was
definitely still the fifties. Culture is not beholden to numbers.

d

[Trevor]

On 3/01/2020 4:41 am, Tobiah wrote:
> On 12/31/19 6:19 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
>> On 12/31/2019 8:57 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
>>> You're a year early. AD decades began with year 1.

Each decade (or any time period) begins any time you choose it to! You
do realise the calendar has changed more than once since then?



>> I'm afraid you're just going to have to accept mass media's version
>> of this, right or wrong. The Washington Post says this is the start
>> of a new decade, as does National Public Radio, and even the MIDI
>> Manufacturer's Association.
>>
>> You just can't fight social hall, but start campaigning early for the
>> next decade beginning in 2031.
>>
>>
>
> We also group decades by saying the 20's, 30's..Â* I'd hate to have to
> remember that a song written in 1960 was really part of the 50's.

Any mathematician will tell you numbers begin at zero, NOT end at zero.

[Tobiah]

>> We also group decades by saying the 20's, 30's.. I'd hate to have to
>> remember that a song written in 1960 was really part of the 50's.
>
> Any mathematician will tell you numbers begin at zero, NOT end at zero.

As a programmer, I'm a subscriber to that view. So 1960 was the zeroth
year of the 60's :) The 60's was a decade that began Jan 1st 1960, and
ended just before Jan 1st 1970. The birth of Jesus has nothing to do
with it. No one said that we are starting the 202nd decade since then.
It's that we are starting a new decade that if of note to many people.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 08:55:04 -0800, Tobiah > wrote:

>
>>> We also group decades by saying the 20's, 30's.. I'd hate to have to
>>> remember that a song written in 1960 was really part of the 50's.
>>
>> Any mathematician will tell you numbers begin at zero, NOT end at zero.
>
>As a programmer, I'm a subscriber to that view. So 1960 was the zeroth
>year of the 60's :) The 60's was a decade that began Jan 1st 1960, and
>ended just before Jan 1st 1970. The birth of Jesus has nothing to do
>with it. No one said that we are starting the 202nd decade since then.
>It's that we are starting a new decade that if of note to many people.

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.

d

[Tobiah]

> 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?

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 08:46:26 -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.

d

[None]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
>> 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.

The decade of the 2020's began in January, 2020. The 2020's are a decade.
That's the decade people mean when they refer to the decade that began
recently. There is also some ordinally-numbered decade that begins in 2021.
Nobody really cares about ordinally-numbered decades of the modern era.

The modern (aka Christian) era has a number line of years that is full of
anomalies and inconsistencies. It began in the years numbered in the several
hundreds, based on back-calculating from an origin that was arbitrary and
miscalculated. The rules regarding leap years have changed multiple times.
The timeline has been spliced and hacked multiple to accommodate errors and
anomalies. The date of the year's beginning has shifted. And in most usage,
it has no "year zero" (although many astronomers do use a year zero).

For these and other reasons, the reckoning of ordinally-numbered decades (or
centuries) seems to be of use only for pedantic posturing. These pedant's
decades have little use in the real world, where decades are much more
likely to be reckoned as beginning from years with numbers ending in zero.
The 2020's just began earlier this month. That's a decade. The "203rd decade
of the modern era" is a decade that nobody cares about.

[Trevor]

On 9/01/2020 6:11 am, Don Pearce wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 08:55:04 -0800, Tobiah > wrote:
>
>>
>>>> We also group decades by saying the 20's, 30's.. I'd hate to have to
>>>> remember that a song written in 1960 was really part of the 50's.
>>>
>>> Any mathematician will tell you numbers begin at zero, NOT end at zero.
>>
>> As a programmer, I'm a subscriber to that view. So 1960 was the zeroth
>> year of the 60's :) The 60's was a decade that began Jan 1st 1960, and
>> ended just before Jan 1st 1970. The birth of Jesus has nothing to do
>> with it. No one said that we are starting the 202nd decade since then.
>> It's that we are starting a new decade that if of note to many people.
>
> 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.



Friday, 15 October 1582 for the Gregorian Calendar!

[Jason[_15_]]

In article >, says...

> Friday, 15 October 1582 for the Gregorian Calendar!


Speaking of which... Years ago, at IBM, I saw a presentation by
a programmer there, Bruce Ohms, who devised a system for computing
the number of days between dates.

From Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilian_date

"Lilian dates can be used to calculate the number of days between any
two dates occurring since the beginning of the Gregorian calendar. It is
currently used by date conversion routines that are part of IBM Language
Environment (LE) software."

This is a pretty big deal for some computations involving financial
instruments that date back hundreds of years.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 14:27:11 -0500, "None" > wrote:

>"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
>>> 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.
>
>The decade of the 2020's began in January, 2020. The 2020's are a decade.
>That's the decade people mean when they refer to the decade that began
>recently. There is also some ordinally-numbered decade that begins in 2021.
>Nobody really cares about ordinally-numbered decades of the modern era.
>
>The modern (aka Christian) era has a number line of years that is full of
>anomalies and inconsistencies. It began in the years numbered in the several
>hundreds, based on back-calculating from an origin that was arbitrary and
>miscalculated. The rules regarding leap years have changed multiple times.
>The timeline has been spliced and hacked multiple to accommodate errors and
>anomalies. The date of the year's beginning has shifted. And in most usage,
>it has no "year zero" (although many astronomers do use a year zero).
>
>For these and other reasons, the reckoning of ordinally-numbered decades (or
>centuries) seems to be of use only for pedantic posturing. These pedant's
>decades have little use in the real world, where decades are much more
>likely to be reckoned as beginning from years with numbers ending in zero.
>The 2020's just began earlier this month. That's a decade. The "203rd decade
>of the modern era" is a decade that nobody cares about.
>

I've just been listening to More or Less, a BBC programme about
numbers, statistics and general misconception. They had an article
about exactly this question. They had a statement from The Royal
Observatory in Greenwich, the official home of time on Earth. The
message stated unequivocally that millennia, centuries and decades
start on the year ending in a one.

End of discussion.

d

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 1/10/2020 12:00 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
> End of discussion.

For you, maybe. Others will be discussing this for the next 50 years.

[John Williamson]

On 10/01/2020 17:00, Don Pearce wrote:

> I've just been listening to More or Less, a BBC programme about
> numbers, statistics and general misconception. They had an article
> about exactly this question. They had a statement from The Royal
> Observatory in Greenwich, the official home of time on Earth. The
> message stated unequivocally that millennia, centuries and decades
> start on the year ending in a one.
>
> End of discussion.
>
If you listen to the excerpt that is on line from the ten year old
programme they mentioned in this show, they admit there are two sides to
the story, and either is acceptable. Imagine that 1940 was in the 1930s,
for instance....


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[None]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

> They had a statement from The Royal
> Observatory in Greenwich, the official home of time on Earth. The
> message stated unequivocally that millennia, centuries and decades
> start on the year ending in a one.

> End of ...

There are decades beginning all the time. The decade of the 2020's is indeed
a decade, and it's a decade that is widely recognized, worldwide. The Royal
Observatory's sweeping claim can only apply to millennia, centuries, and
decades that start on the year ending in one. There are many other kinds of
millennia, centuries, and decades in use, which are relevant and useful in
various reckonings.

If the Royal Observatory supposes that the decade of the 2020's is not a
decade, the Royal Observatory is a ass -- a idiot.

The official keeper of time on earth, International Atomic Time, is the
International Bureau of Weights and Measures in France. The Royal
Observatory in Greenwich is one of many important participants in that
effort.

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Trevor wrote:
> On 3/01/2020 4:41 am, Tobiah wrote:
>> On 12/31/19 6:19 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
>>> On 12/31/2019 8:57 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
>>>> You're a year early. AD decades began with year 1.
>
> Each decade (or any time period) begins any time you choose it to! You
> do realise the calendar has changed more than once since then?
>
>
>
>>> I'm afraid you're just going to have to accept mass media's version
>>> of this, right or wrong. The Washington Post says this is the start
>>> of a new decade, as does National Public Radio, and even the MIDI
>>> Manufacturer's Association.
>>>
>>> You just can't fight social hall, but start campaigning early for the
>>> next decade beginning in 2031.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> We also group decades by saying the 20's, 30's..Â* I'd hate to have to
>> remember that a song written in 1960 was really part of the 50's.
>
> Any mathematician will tell you numbers begin at zero, NOT end at zero.
>
>
>
>
>

The mathematicians had a nasty habit of numbering inductive sets ending
in ALEPH_0 starting with 1. There's a chronic fear of zero in the world.

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 08:55:04 -0800, Tobiah > wrote:
>
>>
>>>> We also group decades by saying the 20's, 30's.. I'd hate to have to
>>>> remember that a song written in 1960 was really part of the 50's.
>>>
>>> Any mathematician will tell you numbers begin at zero, NOT end at zero.
>>
>> As a programmer, I'm a subscriber to that view. So 1960 was the zeroth
>> year of the 60's :) The 60's was a decade that began Jan 1st 1960, and
>> ended just before Jan 1st 1970. The birth of Jesus has nothing to do
>> with it. No one said that we are starting the 202nd decade since then.
>> It's that we are starting a new decade that if of note to many people.
>
> 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.
>
> d
>

It was Roman, so no zero. One.

--
Les Cargill

[Bart Candlewick[_3_]]

On 1/10/2020 12:00 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 14:27:11 -0500, "None" > wrote:
>
>> "Don Pearce" wrote in message
>> ...
>>>> 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.
>>
>> The decade of the 2020's began in January, 2020. The 2020's are a decade.
>> That's the decade people mean when they refer to the decade that began
>> recently. There is also some ordinally-numbered decade that begins in 2021.
>> Nobody really cares about ordinally-numbered decades of the modern era.
>>
>> The modern (aka Christian) era has a number line of years that is full of
>> anomalies and inconsistencies. It began in the years numbered in the several
>> hundreds, based on back-calculating from an origin that was arbitrary and
>> miscalculated. The rules regarding leap years have changed multiple times.
>> The timeline has been spliced and hacked multiple to accommodate errors and
>> anomalies. The date of the year's beginning has shifted. And in most usage,
>> it has no "year zero" (although many astronomers do use a year zero).
>>
>> For these and other reasons, the reckoning of ordinally-numbered decades (or
>> centuries) seems to be of use only for pedantic posturing. These pedant's
>> decades have little use in the real world, where decades are much more
>> likely to be reckoned as beginning from years with numbers ending in zero.
>> The 2020's just began earlier this month. That's a decade. The "203rd decade
>> of the modern era" is a decade that nobody cares about.
>>
>
> I've just been listening to More or Less, a BBC programme about
> numbers, statistics and general misconception. They had an article
> about exactly this question. They had a statement from The Royal
> Observatory in Greenwich, the official home of time on Earth. The
> message stated unequivocally that millennia, centuries and decades
> start on the year ending in a one.
>
> End of discussion.
>
> d
>
From Wikipedia: A decade is a period of 10 years. The word is derived
(via French and Latin) from the Ancient Greek: δεκάς, romanized: dekas,
which means a group of ten. Decades may describe any ten year period,
such as those of a person's life, or refer to specific groupings of
calendar years.

And: The 0s cover the first nine years of the Anno Domini era, which
began on January 1st, 1 AD and ended on December 31st, 9 AD. It is one
of the two cardinal timespans that contain 9 years, but is not
considered a decade [Y0, 1 AD).

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Trevor wrote:
> On 9/01/2020 6:11 am, Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 08:55:04 -0800, Tobiah > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>> We also group decades by saying the 20's, 30's..Â* I'd hate to have to
>>>>> remember that a song written in 1960 was really part of the 50's.
>>>>
>>>> Any mathematician will tell you numbers begin at zero, NOT end at zero.
>>>
>>> As a programmer, I'm a subscriber to that view.Â* So 1960 was the zeroth
>>> year of the 60's :)Â* The 60's was a decade that began Jan 1st 1960, and
>>> ended just before Jan 1st 1970.Â* The birth of Jesus has nothing to do
>>> with it.Â* No one said that we are starting the 202nd decade since then.
>>> It's that we are starting a new decade that if of note to many people.
>>
>> 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.
>
>
>
> Friday, 15 October 1582 for the Gregorian Calendar!
>
>
>


Meh. They went broke.

https://kfor.com/2018/12/05/8-million-sale-of-st-gregorys-to-hobby-lobby-finalized/

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Jason wrote:
> In article >, says...
>
>> Friday, 15 October 1582 for the Gregorian Calendar!
>
>
> Speaking of which... Years ago, at IBM, I saw a presentation by
> a programmer there, Bruce Ohms, who devised a system for computing
> the number of days between dates.
>
> From Wikipedia:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilian_date
>
> "Lilian dates can be used to calculate the number of days between any
> two dates occurring since the beginning of the Gregorian calendar. It is
> currently used by date conversion routines that are part of IBM Language
> Environment (LE) software."
>
> This is a pretty big deal for some computations involving financial
> instruments that date back hundreds of years.
>

It is; one of the things I did in my first job was wrestle with this.

It's a big job, but it's eminently doable. I had fun with it.

--
Les Cargill

[geoff]

On 11/01/2020 6:00 am, Don Pearce wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 14:27:11 -0500, "None" > wrote:
>
>> "Don Pearce" wrote in message
>> ...
>>>> 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.
>>
>> The decade of the 2020's began in January, 2020. The 2020's are a decade.
>> That's the decade people mean when they refer to the decade that began
>> recently. There is also some ordinally-numbered decade that begins in 2021.
>> Nobody really cares about ordinally-numbered decades of the modern era.
>>
>> The modern (aka Christian) era has a number line of years that is full of
>> anomalies and inconsistencies. It began in the years numbered in the several
>> hundreds, based on back-calculating from an origin that was arbitrary and
>> miscalculated. The rules regarding leap years have changed multiple times.
>> The timeline has been spliced and hacked multiple to accommodate errors and
>> anomalies. The date of the year's beginning has shifted. And in most usage,
>> it has no "year zero" (although many astronomers do use a year zero).
>>
>> For these and other reasons, the reckoning of ordinally-numbered decades (or
>> centuries) seems to be of use only for pedantic posturing. These pedant's
>> decades have little use in the real world, where decades are much more
>> likely to be reckoned as beginning from years with numbers ending in zero.
>> The 2020's just began earlier this month. That's a decade. The "203rd decade
>> of the modern era" is a decade that nobody cares about.
>>
>
> I've just been listening to More or Less, a BBC programme about
> numbers, statistics and general misconception. They had an article
> about exactly this question. They had a statement from The Royal
> Observatory in Greenwich, the official home of time on Earth. The
> message stated unequivocally that millennia, centuries and decades
> start on the year ending in a one.
>
> End of discussion.
>
> d
>

Statistical conciseness aside surely only the most pedantic would argue
that the year 2020 was not part of the decade known as the (20)20s ?

geoff

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 21:16:45 +0000, John Williamson
> wrote:

>On 10/01/2020 17:00, Don Pearce wrote:
>
>> I've just been listening to More or Less, a BBC programme about
>> numbers, statistics and general misconception. They had an article
>> about exactly this question. They had a statement from The Royal
>> Observatory in Greenwich, the official home of time on Earth. The
>> message stated unequivocally that millennia, centuries and decades
>> start on the year ending in a one.
>>
>> End of discussion.
>>
>If you listen to the excerpt that is on line from the ten year old
>programme they mentioned in this show, they admit there are two sides to
>the story, and either is acceptable. Imagine that 1940 was in the 1930s,
>for instance....

He didn't really. He just acknowledged that the other side existed.

d

[Scott Dorsey]

John Williamson > wrote:
>On 10/01/2020 17:00, Don Pearce wrote:
>
>> I've just been listening to More or Less, a BBC programme about
>> numbers, statistics and general misconception. They had an article
>> about exactly this question. They had a statement from The Royal
>> Observatory in Greenwich, the official home of time on Earth. The
>> message stated unequivocally that millennia, centuries and decades
>> start on the year ending in a one.
>>
>> End of discussion.
>>
>If you listen to the excerpt that is on line from the ten year old
>programme they mentioned in this show, they admit there are two sides to
>the story, and either is acceptable. Imagine that 1940 was in the 1930s,
>for instance....

What do they know at Greenwich? The official prime meridian for time
reference should be Paris, and it's only the fault of that damned Wellington
that anyone has accepted the Greenwich reference.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On 11 Jan 2020 08:10:43 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>John Williamson > wrote:
>>On 10/01/2020 17:00, Don Pearce wrote:
>>
>>> I've just been listening to More or Less, a BBC programme about
>>> numbers, statistics and general misconception. They had an article
>>> about exactly this question. They had a statement from The Royal
>>> Observatory in Greenwich, the official home of time on Earth. The
>>> message stated unequivocally that millennia, centuries and decades
>>> start on the year ending in a one.
>>>
>>> End of discussion.
>>>
>>If you listen to the excerpt that is on line from the ten year old
>>programme they mentioned in this show, they admit there are two sides to
>>the story, and either is acceptable. Imagine that 1940 was in the 1930s,
>>for instance....
>
>What do they know at Greenwich? The official prime meridian for time
>reference should be Paris, and it's only the fault of that damned Wellington
>that anyone has accepted the Greenwich reference.
>--scott

Wellington? He was just doing his job. Blame Napoleon.

d

[Chuck[_11_]]

On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 22:47:23 -0600, Les Cargill
> wrote:

>Trevor wrote:
>> On 9/01/2020 6:11 am, Don Pearce wrote:
>>> On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 08:55:04 -0800, Tobiah > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> We also group decades by saying the 20's, 30's..* I'd hate to have to
>>>>>> remember that a song written in 1960 was really part of the 50's.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any mathematician will tell you numbers begin at zero, NOT end at zero.
>>>>
>>>> As a programmer, I'm a subscriber to that view.* So 1960 was the zeroth
>>>> year of the 60's :)* The 60's was a decade that began Jan 1st 1960, and
>>>> ended just before Jan 1st 1970.* The birth of Jesus has nothing to do
>>>> with it.* No one said that we are starting the 202nd decade since then.
>>>> It's that we are starting a new decade that if of note to many people.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> Friday, 15 October 1582 for the Gregorian Calendar!
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>Meh. They went broke.
>
>https://kfor.com/2018/12/05/8-million-sale-of-st-gregorys-to-hobby-lobby-finalized/
That's too bad. I saw the most amazing collection of gold jewelry
owned by the Catholic Church there about 20 years ago.

[Peter Irwin]

Scott Dorsey > wrote:
>
> What do they know at Greenwich? The official prime meridian for time
> reference should be Paris, and it's only the fault of that damned Wellington
> that anyone has accepted the Greenwich reference.
> --scott
>
I think it had a lot more to do with the extreme usefulness of The
Nautical Almanac.

Peter.

[Trevor]

On 11/01/2020 4:00 am, Don Pearce wrote:

> I've just been listening to More or Less, a BBC programme about
> numbers, statistics and general misconception. They had an article
> about exactly this question. They had a statement from The Royal
> Observatory in Greenwich, the official home of time on Earth. The
> message stated unequivocally that millennia, centuries and decades
> start on the year ending in a one.
>
> End of discussion.

There is no such thing as end of discussion when people are all talking
about different concepts, and that's before you even start arguing
linguistic definitions which is the cause of more internet arguments
that anything as far as I have seen.

[Tobiah]

>>> 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.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

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

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

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.

d

[Gregory Allen]

On Tuesday, December 31, 2019 at 12:36:09 PM UTC, geoff wrote:
> It's the next decade here already. All the best for everybody everywhere
> for 2020.
>
> cheers
>
> geoff

Back in the day this was a pro audio newsgroup :)

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 05:49:21 -0800 (PST), Gregory Allen
> wrote:

>On Tuesday, December 31, 2019 at 12:36:09 PM UTC, geoff wrote:
>> It's the next decade here already. All the best for everybody everywhere
>> for 2020.
>>
>> cheers
>>
>> geoff
>
>Back in the day this was a pro audio newsgroup :)

Were it not for off-topic, this group would have closed. Don't knock
it.

d

[Gregory Allen]

On Friday, January 17, 2020 at 2:18:48 PM UTC, Don Pearce wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 05:49:21 -0800 (PST), Gregory Allen
> > wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, December 31, 2019 at 12:36:09 PM UTC, geoff wrote:
> >> It's the next decade here already. All the best for everybody everywhere
> >> for 2020.
> >>
> >> cheers
> >>
> >> geoff
> >
> >Back in the day this was a pro audio newsgroup :)
>
> Were it not for off-topic, this group would have closed. Don't knock
> it.
>
> d

I'm just poking his badger :)

[Tobiah]

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.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

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

[Tobiah]

>> 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.


The original post said:

> It's the next decade here already.

This fits with all three of the definitions I pasted here.
The only reason I can see to force a count from year one,
is to highlight the fact that one understands a mathematical
technicality.

[Ralph Barone[_3_]]

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.

[geoff]

On 18/01/2020 6:17 am, Tobiah wrote:
>>> 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:
>>> Â*Â*Â* 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.
>
>
> The original post said:
>
>> It's the next decade here already.
>
> This fits with all three of the definitions I pasted here.
> The only reason I can see to force a count from year one,
> is to highlight the fact that one understands a mathematical
> technicality.

Maybe I should have said "It's the decade of '20s here already". Unless
somebody wants to claim 2020 is really still in the decade of the '10s
.... ;-O

geoff

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

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

[None]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

> 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.

In the context we were discussing, the OP was clearly discussing the decade
of the 2020's, which began on the first inst. In a year ending in zero. A
decade whose start was marked and celebrated worldwide. In the context we
were discussing, we know exactly which decade we were discussing. The one
that began at the beginning of this year, which ends in zero. Nobody is
slipping in a nine-year decade, although you seem to be trying, and reveling
in your failure, having vanquished a straw man of your own device.

It was you who promptly _changed_ the subject to decades beginning in years
ending in one. Such decades have no practical use other than pedantic
posturing. When such a decade begins next January 1, it will only be marked
by the posturing pedants. Nobody else will care.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 11:08:49 -0500, "None" > wrote:

>"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
>
>> 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.
>
>In the context we were discussing, the OP was clearly discussing the decade
>of the 2020's, which began on the first inst. In a year ending in zero. A
>decade whose start was marked and celebrated worldwide. In the context we
>were discussing, we know exactly which decade we were discussing. The one
>that began at the beginning of this year, which ends in zero. Nobody is
>slipping in a nine-year decade, although you seem to be trying, and reveling
>in your failure, having vanquished a straw man of your own device.
>
>It was you who promptly _changed_ the subject to decades beginning in years
>ending in one. Such decades have no practical use other than pedantic
>posturing. When such a decade begins next January 1, it will only be marked
>by the posturing pedants. Nobody else will care.

Too boring.

d

[Ralph Barone[_3_]]

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.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

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

[Ralph Barone[_3_]]

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...

[None]

"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.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

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

[John Williamson]

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.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

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