HOME | DD
kris-wilson — Arms
Published: 2004-11-06 22:15:52 +0000 UTC; Views: 118403; Favourites: 2106; Downloads: 1632
Redirect to original
Description
shokyewtRelated content
Comments: 264
lol its all gone, but the other stuff between us and ratface is still there
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I belive it is time to turn to Wikipedia... I'm terribly sorry, but here's an extract for you to read, perhaps this will persuade you.
'Some writers like to point out that since the common calendar starts from the year 1, its first full decade contained the years from 1 to 10, the second decade from 11 to 20, and so on.'
As you can see, this extract illustrates what I am trying to say, I hope you'll see now that I'm only expressing what I know to be true!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm afraid its still wrong. Lets look at the christian calender for example. Year one is the year jesus was born, starting point zero, into year 11 was the tenth year, but it was year 10. January 1st 2000 was ten years ago from janury 1st 2010, so she did comment in a new decade.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm afraid you've lost me...
Are you trying to say that Jesus was born in year 1, and year 11 was year 10..? I'm not sure I understand, I'm sorry!
However, to look at your ending, 'January 1st 2000 was ten years ago from janury 1st 2010, so she did comment in a new decade.' is to see that although January 1st 2000 -is- ten years from January 1st 2010, this is not a new decade, because we measure decades from 2001-2010, and she commented in 2004, which is in the same decade as 2010.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
According to the Christian calender, the year Jesus was born was year on B.C, but it wasnt a complete year yet, so was zero. We measure a decade from 2000-2010, not from 2010, because that is nine years. January 1st 2001, to january 1st 2010 is only nine years. And the girl you commented on commented this year, but she did it through leech, the comment she leached from was made in 2004.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If we look at the first -full- decade, then we see it is from year 1 to year 10. So mathematically, the correct decade would be from 2001-2010. However, to make it easier, people generally see it as from 2000-2010, though this is incorrect.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
There is a reason we call the 2000s the 21st century, and not the twentieth, the first decade started from 0-10, just like all years. A year has to end before it becomes 1 whole year.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I see that this is going nowhere, and that we obviously aren't likely to convince each of the other's argument, I'm afraid. Perhaps we should retire?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm sorry, it was lovely to talk, sort of! XD
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
... next decade comment!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
<= Prev |