| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
The Great Crep'er
2% Spambot
|
Posted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:36 pm Post subject: 1 |
|
|
According to the forums, the new year starts in about an hour and a half! May the new year for you be filled with joy, prosperity, the love of family and friends, and the occasional good post!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Samadhi
+1
|
Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2010 12:16 am Post subject: 2 |
|
|
ALL THESE WORLDS ARE YOURS—EXCEPT EUROPA.
ATTEMPT NO LANDINGS THERE. _________________ And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Lepton*
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Courk
Daedalian Member
|
Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2010 8:52 am Post subject: 4 |
|
|
What are you calling it? Twenty-ten? Two thousand ten? Something else?
My leaning is currently two thousand ten.
Merry New Year! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Samadhi
+1
|
Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2010 9:12 am Post subject: 5 |
|
|
More importantly, are we in a new decade or not?
And on another note, there's not much interesting about the number 2010. It's an order higher in roundness than usual (logn log 2 ), 16 factors vice 4. The rest that's of note is equally bland. It's the 16th 21 gonal number which is cool but doesn't exactly make you go "neat!" _________________ And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Scurra
Daedalian Member
|
Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2010 10:12 am Post subject: 6 |
|
|
I'm in the Twenty-Ten group. At some point we are going to change to the Twenty- usage, and although I know that the American counting system doesn't include the word "and" thus making it less of an issue, I think that even just Two Thousand Eleven is going to sound silly.
I just read a fun article which argues that the 20th Century actually only had 99 years in it - that although people clearly considered that it started on 1 January 1901 (as can be seen from newspapers at that time), it also very clearly ended on 31 December 1999, no matter what the pedants said (and I'm one of them!) _________________
still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The Great Crep'er
2% Spambot
|
Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2010 7:52 pm Post subject: 7 |
|
|
I'm with courk, I mean, that's how you'd say the number if you were counting up to it. And it's not like there's a number after 2 that takes a bit more effort for it to roll of the tongue. I'd say more people would start saying twenty in the year 2100 and onward, and then there's the year 3000 but I'm betting by then people will have evolved far beyond the use for tongues or voiceboxes.
Of course I was planning on calling it something else like 'Arnold' but I doubt people will have any idea of what I'm talking about. _________________ Potato. Belgium. Eight. Random Lynch # Mafia awaits. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The Great Crep'er
2% Spambot
|
Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2010 7:55 pm Post subject: 8 |
|
|
| Is zero not a valid starting point? I mean when Christ was born at midnight on December 31st were we not then starting A.D.? Is there a need to spill over into the next marked century/decade/ etc.? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The Ragin' South Asian
Head Poncho
|
Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2010 9:27 pm Post subject: 9 |
|
|
| Twenty Ten for me |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Zag
Unintentionally offensive old coot
|
Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2010 9:47 pm Post subject: 10 |
|
|
| Courk wrote: |
What are you calling it? Twenty-ten? Two thousand ten? Something else?
My leaning is currently two thousand ten.
Merry New Year! |
Same to you!!
But 'two thousand ten'? Really? Twelve years ago did you say 'one thousand nine hundred ninety-eight'? Or even 'nineteen hundred ninety-eight'? I'm guessing that you said 'nineteen ninety-eight' like the rest of us, which makes 'twenty ten' correct. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The Great Crep'er
2% Spambot
|
Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2010 10:38 pm Post subject: 11 |
|
|
There's no correct way of saying it, it's a matter of opinion. _________________ Potato. Belgium. Eight. Random Lynch # Mafia awaits. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Trojan Horse
Daedalian Member
|
Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 5:37 am Post subject: 12 |
|
|
| Zag wrote: |
| But 'two thousand ten'? Really? Twelve years ago did you say 'one thousand nine hundred ninety-eight'? Or even 'nineteen hundred ninety-eight'? I'm guessing that you said 'nineteen ninety-eight' like the rest of us, which makes 'twenty ten' correct. |
"Nineteen ninety-eight" is short for "nineteen hundred ninety-eight". "Twenty ten" would be short for "twenty hundred ten".
It makes sense to say, "this computer costs nineteen hundred ninety-eight dollars." But I've never heard someone say, "this computer costs twenty hundred ten dollars." They'd say "two thousand ten dollars" instead.
This is the year two thousand ten. Deal with it.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sessie
Saucy Chica
|
Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 5:55 am Post subject: 13 |
|
|
Happy New Year!
My $.02: Most people pronounced "2009" as "two thousand nine," and not "twenty oh nine." However, I hear "1909" pronounced "nineteen oh nine" rather than "one thousand nine hundred nine." So who knows? I guess it's just whatever sounds less awkward to you personally. I don't like "twenty ten" and I'm too lazy to keep saying "two thousand ten," so I think I'll continue the whole "oh seven," "oh eight," "oh nine" thing and go with "oh ten" just because I feel like being contrary. _________________ "I have an everyday religion that works for me: love yourself first, and everything else falls into line." --Lucille Ball |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
MNOWAX
0.999... of a Troll
|
Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 6:06 am Post subject: 14 |
|
|
| Trojan Horse wrote: |
| Zag wrote: |
| But 'two thousand ten'? Really? Twelve years ago did you say 'one thousand nine hundred ninety-eight'? Or even 'nineteen hundred ninety-eight'? I'm guessing that you said 'nineteen ninety-eight' like the rest of us, which makes 'twenty ten' correct. |
"Nineteen ninety-eight" is short for "nineteen hundred ninety-eight". "Twenty ten" would be short for "twenty hundred ten".
It makes sense to say, "this computer costs nineteen hundred ninety-eight dollars." But I've never heard someone say, "this computer costs twenty hundred ten dollars." They'd say "two thousand ten dollars" instead.
This is the year two thousand ten. Deal with it.  |
i have hard that "X" costs thirty four hundred.... _________________ The Man The Myth The Legend
MNOWAX |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 2:26 pm Post subject: 15 |
|
|
I think we should start calling the years by the pronunciation of their Roman numeral representations. So this year would be "mmx" (pronounced like 'mimics')
Yes, I'm a "solutions" kind of guy. _________________ All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Quailman
His Postmajesty
|
Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 3:12 pm Post subject: 16 |
|
|
| Trojan Horse wrote: |
| Zag wrote: |
| But 'two thousand ten'? Really? Twelve years ago did you say 'one thousand nine hundred ninety-eight'? Or even 'nineteen hundred ninety-eight'? I'm guessing that you said 'nineteen ninety-eight' like the rest of us, which makes 'twenty ten' correct. |
"Nineteen ninety-eight" is short for "nineteen hundred ninety-eight". "Twenty ten" would be short for "twenty hundred ten".
It makes sense to say, "this computer costs nineteen hundred ninety-eight dollars." But I've never heard someone say, "this computer costs twenty hundred ten dollars." They'd say "two thousand ten dollars" instead.
This is the year two thousand ten. Deal with it.  |
So if you drop the "hundred" from "nineteen hundred ninety-eight", why not drop the "thousand" from "two thousand ten" and just call it "two ten"? Yeah, that's the ticket! I'll start calling it two-ten and see if it catches on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 3:13 pm Post subject: 17 |
|
|
| I plan to call it "this year" for awhile, then "last year", then "a couple of years ago", then "a few years ago", then "several years ago". That should last out my life expectancy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Courk
Daedalian Member
|
Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 3:15 pm Post subject: 18 |
|
|
| Quailman wrote: |
| So if you drop the "hundred" from "nineteen hundred ninety-eight", why not drop the "thousand" from "two thousand ten" and just call it "two ten"? Yeah, that's the ticket! I'll start calling it two-ten and see if it catches on. |
teehee. It sounds like "tootin'"  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Death Mage
Raving Lunatic
|
Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 3:32 pm Post subject: 19 |
|
|
Twenty-ten. We may not be technically in a new decade, but we ARE out of the... aughts, the o's, the zeros, the zeds, the naughts, the nulls, the mills, whatever they decide to call it. _________________ * These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!] |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
LordKinbote
Daedalian Member
|
Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 11:38 pm Post subject: 20 |
|
|
| Zag wrote: |
| Courk wrote: |
What are you calling it? Twenty-ten? Two thousand ten? Something else?
My leaning is currently two thousand ten.
Merry New Year! |
Same to you!!
But 'two thousand ten'? Really? Twelve years ago did you say 'one thousand nine hundred ninety-eight'? Or even 'nineteen hundred ninety-eight'? I'm guessing that you said 'nineteen ninety-eight' like the rest of us, which makes 'twenty ten' correct. |
No, but ten years ago, we called it the year "two thousand," not the year "twenty" nor the year "twenty hundred". One year later, we were calling it "two thousand one"...perhaps the Clarke book and Kubrick movie trained us to do so.
I think people will continue to call the year whatever they feel most comfortable with, and there is no "correct" way to do it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Scurra
Daedalian Member
|
Posted: Sun Jan 03, 2010 12:52 am Post subject: 21 |
|
|
| LordKinbote wrote: |
| I think people will continue to call the year whatever they feel most comfortable with, and there is no "correct" way to do it. |
Now, if we could just persuade people that this is true for practically anything that involves an "opinion"
I heard people on the radio today referring to "twenty oh-nine" because they were using "twenty ten" for the current year. I imagine they thought that using two different styles would be confusing, but I actually found that to be slightly more confusing instead... _________________
still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The Great Crep'er
2% Spambot
|
Posted: Sun Jan 03, 2010 1:08 am Post subject: 22 |
|
|
| Quailman wrote: |
| Trojan Horse wrote: |
| Zag wrote: |
| But 'two thousand ten'? Really? Twelve years ago did you say 'one thousand nine hundred ninety-eight'? Or even 'nineteen hundred ninety-eight'? I'm guessing that you said 'nineteen ninety-eight' like the rest of us, which makes 'twenty ten' correct. |
"Nineteen ninety-eight" is short for "nineteen hundred ninety-eight". "Twenty ten" would be short for "twenty hundred ten".
It makes sense to say, "this computer costs nineteen hundred ninety-eight dollars." But I've never heard someone say, "this computer costs twenty hundred ten dollars." They'd say "two thousand ten dollars" instead.
This is the year two thousand ten. Deal with it.  |
So if you drop the "hundred" from "nineteen hundred ninety-eight", why not drop the "thousand" from "two thousand ten" and just call it "two ten"? Yeah, that's the ticket! I'll start calling it two-ten and see if it catches on. |
'Cept you're forgetting the 0 after 2. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
wordcross

|
Posted: Sun Jan 03, 2010 1:53 am Post subject: 23 |
|
|
I think you're missing the point after his post. _________________ Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
referee
June 21st, 2004 Member
|
Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 7:04 pm Post subject: 24 |
|
|
| The Great Crep'er wrote: |
| Is zero not a valid starting point? I mean when Christ was born at midnight on December 31st were we not then starting A.D.? Is there a need to spill over into the next marked century/decade/ etc.? |
It's just that it started with 1 AD, not with 0 AD. You can argue if they were right or wrong starting it with 1 AD, but won't change the fact that that's what they did.
Which means that now the starting point is 1. If everyone is accepting that the twentieth century was in the second millenium, but the twenty-first century is in the third millenium, why is it so hard to accept that 2010 is in the first decade (of the 21st century), and 2011 will be in the second decade? _________________ Jan 21st, 2008: The pillaging continues.
Mar 4th, 2008: Rest in Peace, Gary Gygax. May your dice always roll a natural 20 wherever you are.
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The Great Crep'er
2% Spambot
|
Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 10:25 pm Post subject: 25 |
|
|
It's not really, it just kind of makes things sort of lopsided and uneven. Y'know it's like how some people dress soppily but you can't really tell them what to do. I suppose this goes for all the years of the 20th century as well. Sort of hard to believe 1970 being in the sixties, 1980 being in the seventies, 1990 being in the eighties, etc, etc.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 10:45 pm Post subject: 26 |
|
|
| The sixties were the years 1960 to 1969. The 197th decade was from 1961 to 1970. That's easier than accepting that the first decade had only nine years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The Great Crep'er
2% Spambot
|
Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 10:58 pm Post subject: 27 |
|
|
Well, the 201st decade isn't so bad, although I doubt anyone not basing some good amount of attention to the number will be counting.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
MatthewV
Daedalian Member :_
|
Posted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 10:44 pm Post subject: 28 |
|
|
| The best thing about 2010 is that when you start to write "09" in the date, you can stop at the zero and sneak a one in front! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|