Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Should 2010 be considered part of a new decade? Should 2010 be considered part of a new decade?
View Poll Results: Should we call 2010 the start of a new decade?
Yes, because it's silly to carry over
126 73.68%
No, because I'm a nit about technicalities
25 14.62%
*****, you bastitch
20 11.70%

01-01-2010 , 02:53 PM
How is this even ****in question? How is it ever not a new decade?
Should 2010 be considered part of a new decade? Quote
01-01-2010 , 02:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Williams
Do you consider 2000 to be a part of the 1990's?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigPoppa
Making 1950 part of the 40's and 1990 part of the 80's is just ridiculous, so the answer is clearly yes.
I'm not arguing that 2010 should be part of the aughts, but there is a comical amount of begging the question going on itt
Should 2010 be considered part of a new decade? Quote
01-01-2010 , 03:28 PM
every year starts a new decade. 2010 starts the decade of 2010-2019.

the "no year 0" nits should jump in a grease fire since those years were arbitrarily labelled centuries after they happened. its not like jesus popped out and joseph flipped his calender to year 1.
Should 2010 be considered part of a new decade? Quote
01-01-2010 , 03:29 PM
People who are claiming that the answer is no because there was no year 0 are not just pedantic nits, but pedantic nits of the worst kind: pedantic nits who are wrong because instead of knowing what they're talking about, they heard about some obscure idea from someone smarter than themselves, and now they just want to brag about it by applying the concept in a place where it obviously does not belong.

We are not asking whether 2010 belongs in the 201st decade since the traditional placement of the birth of Jesus. We are asking whether 2010 belongs in a set of 10 years called the "2010s." Unless you are stupid, the answer is obviously yes.
Should 2010 be considered part of a new decade? Quote
01-01-2010 , 03:36 PM
Where exactly are these pedantic nits everyone's so steamed about? Certainly not in this thread.
Should 2010 be considered part of a new decade? Quote
01-01-2010 , 03:49 PM
How can 2000 start the decade and not the millennium?
Concede one to the rational.
Should 2010 be considered part of a new decade? Quote
01-01-2010 , 03:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATAT
Where exactly are these pedantic nits everyone's so steamed about? Certainly not in this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Didace
When you count ten items, do you start at 0 and end at 9?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JinX11
If you recognize that there was no year 0 and that the calendar went from 1 BC to 1AD, then no.

If you fail to recognize that there was no year 0 and that the calendar went from 1 BC to 1AD, then yes. Incidentally, you should also opt for the grease fire option.
Ummm
Should 2010 be considered part of a new decade? Quote
01-01-2010 , 03:58 PM
Fair nuff
Should 2010 be considered part of a new decade? Quote
01-01-2010 , 04:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammerhands
How can 2000 start the decade and not the millennium?
Concede one to the rational.
Ive never heard it didnt.

Quite the opposite in fact.
Should 2010 be considered part of a new decade? Quote
01-01-2010 , 04:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobman0330
People who are claiming that the answer is no because there was no year 0 are not just pedantic nits, but pedantic nits of the worst kind: pedantic nits who are wrong because instead of knowing what they're talking about, they heard about some obscure idea from someone smarter than themselves, and now they just want to brag about it by applying the concept in a place where it obviously does not belong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wL2MFYZXL6o#t=9m23s


This was a little obscure even for me, but the quoted post is pure crystallized correctness. They just remember how 2000 wasn't part of a new millennium.
Should 2010 be considered part of a new decade? Quote
01-01-2010 , 05:13 PM
These are my everyday balloons.
Should 2010 be considered part of a new decade? Quote
01-01-2010 , 09:30 PM
Jesus OOT is sucking this decade.
Should 2010 be considered part of a new decade? Quote
01-01-2010 , 09:33 PM
Where is the 'No, because it's not'.

Poll choices are skewed in favor of your opinion.
Should 2010 be considered part of a new decade? Quote
01-01-2010 , 10:12 PM
decade

/dekkayd/

• noun a period of ten years.

Every single second (or really any new time), a new decade starts.
Should 2010 be considered part of a new decade? Quote
01-01-2010 , 11:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebuyboy
decade

/dekkayd/

• noun a period of ten years.

Every single second (or really any new time), a new decade starts.
That's not even wrong.
Should 2010 be considered part of a new decade? Quote
01-02-2010 , 01:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by [Phill]
Ive never heard it didnt.

Quite the opposite in fact.
How old were you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium
Should 2010 be considered part of a new decade? Quote
01-02-2010 , 03:14 AM
**** thread imo
Should 2010 be considered part of a new decade? Quote
01-02-2010 , 03:25 AM
It makes sense that we haven't completed 2010 years until the end of 2010, just like year 3 of college takes place after only 2 full years have passed.

Of course, it's dumb to use that as an argument for how these numbers should be grouped.
Should 2010 be considered part of a new decade? Quote
01-02-2010 , 03:56 AM
All dates are completely arbitrary anyway and lumping 10-19 together as a decade is way more consistent with how we've been labeling decades than any other way, so ya that's it.
Should 2010 be considered part of a new decade? Quote
01-02-2010 , 12:20 PM
I hope when Skynet becomes operational (should be soon since 2010 is the future after all) they send a terminator back to rape whoever decided there'd be no year 0.
Should 2010 be considered part of a new decade? Quote
01-02-2010 , 04:55 PM
2010 starts a new decade but not the 201st decade (2011 starts it); just like the year 2000 starts a new millennium, but not the third one.

We can talk about the ninety's and refer to the period from 1990 to 1999; it is a decade so we can call it that, it's not the 199th decade though.

Language is ambiguous and op just discovered it. Yay!
Should 2010 be considered part of a new decade? Quote

      
m