Message to the newsmedia: The decade isn't over!

Perdogg

[Perdogg]

I keep seeing all of the specials and news stories about the "Decade's best this.." and the "Decade's best that.." however, the decade is not over.

The new decade will not begin until January 1st, 2011.

You cannot have year 0.

[rickmichaels]

But you can have year 2000.

[ghost of nixon]

ou cannot have a year zero

unfortunately we just had a "year of the zero"...

[1rudeboy]

But if you include the 1999-2000 “Millenium” celebration, we’re simply still a year early . . . .

[Perdogg]

2000 is the last year of the 90s decade 90+10 = 100 hence 1990+10 = 2000.

[sono]

Technically, the twenty-first century did not begin until Jan 1 2001. 2010 marks the end of the first decade of the twenty-first century.

[smokingfrog]

ding ding ding - we have a winner!

[RGSpincich]

January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2009 = 10 years. Right?
The 1990’s decade ended on Dec 31, 1999.

[RushIsMyTeddyBear]

To the MSM libtards.......they now think in BO (before Obama) and AO (after Obama). ;-)

[12Gauge687]

Thank you for pointing this out. For the past week I have been saying exactly what you stated. A lot of blank stares was the usual response.

[Colonel_Flagg]

Correct. One reason we have a problem with government that finds it far too easy to count to a trillion is that they’re supported by media that isn’t smart enough to correctly count to ten.

[MozarkDawg]

I was ridiculed endlessly for refusing to celebrate 1999 as the end of the millennium, that when the clock struck and the calendar turned, we were not celebrating a whole new millennium, century, etc., etc. No matter how I explained, that we don't start counting from zero but from one, that the months have to pass before you can call the year, your own years of age, birthdays, etal, it didn't matter -- the world said that 2000 was the new millennium, so it was.

1980 ended the decade of the 70's, 1990 ended the decade of the 80's, Perdogg, you and I and a slight handful of others recognize this, why people can't comprehend the mathematical logic of the thing, well ... I've given up trying.

[MozarkDawg]

No.

[Arthur McGowan]

It depends on which decade you are talking about.

If you are talking about “the first decade of the 21st century,” you are correct.

If you are talking about the aughts, you are incorrect.

Are you going to argue that the “1920s” DIDN’T include 1920, and DID include 1930?

[TWfromTEXAS]

You will never explain this to the fools who think the millennium ended in 1999 and the new one started in 2000.

[eyeamok]

Stop trying to confuse people with Fact,(yes you are right) we all know it only matters how they feel. All kidding aside, this just goes to show what a fabulous job our Public Education system is working. 1+1= whatever feels good.

ps. What is difference between Santa Claus and Tiger Woods??

Santa stopped at three ho’s

[UCANSEE2]

[MozarkDawg]

I’m in need of that double-facepalm ‘bout now. ;)

[Perdogg]

yes. The first year has to be year 1 not 0.

[UCANSEE2]

It’s not easy being factually correct, when surrounded with archives to all previous articles, editors, specialists in the arts and sciences, a computer with internet access, and all the time in the world.