Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [cerebus] Re: (now OT about...) Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol

Expand Messages
  • Ryan Dunne
    2009/12/31 LarryTheIllini ... Interesting, but am somewhat disappointed that there s not a Calendar Boy post on the end of a decade
    Message 1 of 28 , Jan 1, 2010
      2009/12/31 LarryTheIllini <larrytheillini@...>
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In cerebus@yahoogroups.com, Margaret <cerebusfangirl@...> wrote:
      > >
      > > A special Christmas episode of CerebusTV!
      > > Dave Sim reads Charles Dickens' A
      > > Christmas Carol:
      > >
      > > http://cerebustv.com/
      > >
      >
      > Interesting, because I just took my 8-yr-old to see a version of "A Christmas Carol" a few days ago, and got wrappped up in the story again moreso than I was expecting. It's never been one of my favorite Dickens books (that honour goes to "A Tale of Two Cities"), and I was mostly burned out on "Carol" a long time ago. But maybe it was the fact of seeing it through the eyes of a child again, because it really got to me this time.
      >
      > It also occured to me (Hi, Chris and Jeff T if you're still alive) that "A Christmas Carol" is the antidote to Ayn Rand. I'm seriously trying to put together a version where a dying John Galt is visited by...well, "spirits" might not work here, but some sort of images demonstrating the harm his effing cocksure self-righteousness inflicted upon the world. All I've got so far is the "ghost of Atlas past" reminding him of why Dagny left him (sex without intent to procreate being as unsatisfying as eating without purpose or as fixing the sidewalk without connecting it to a transcontinental railroad).
      >
      > None of which directly relates to Dave--hence the OT.
      >
      > - Larry Hart


      Interesting, but am somewhat disappointed that there's not a
      Calendar Boy post on the end of a decade and some factoids thereof
      ;-). Many Happy Returns, everyone!

      --
      ryan

      "Give thanks to God for His glorious Vestments (and His mercy endureth forever)"
    • LarryTheIllini
      ... Well, I did have the LAST post of the aught-aughts, didn t I? ;) Since you ask... Steven Grant over at Comic Book Resources is the latest I ve seen to
      Message 2 of 28 , Jan 1, 2010
        --- In cerebus@yahoogroups.com, Ryan Dunne <cerebusboy@...> wrote:
        >
        > Interesting, but am somewhat disappointed that there's not a
        > Calendar Boy post on the end of a decade and some factoids thereof
        > ;-). Many Happy Returns, everyone!
        >

        Well, I did have the LAST post of the aught-aughts, didn't I?

        ;)

        Since you ask...

        Steven Grant over at Comic Book Resources is the latest I've seen to lament the dumbing down of society exemplified by thinking the century began in 2000 instead of 2001, and that (therefore) this new decade begins in 2010 instead of 2011.

        While I agree with him on the first observation, I disagree that the second has anything to do with it.

        Consider...

        The "first century" implies the first 100 years on the calendar, which is the years 1-100 (everybody and his uncle knows by now that there was no year 0). Therefore the second century was 101-200, etc. The twentieth century was 1901-2000, and the 21st century SHOULD have begun in 2001. For similar reasons, the third millennium began in 2001, not 2000.

        Decades are named differently, though. The decade I grew up in was not called the "197th Decade" or even the "7th Decade of the 20th Century". It was called the "1960s". To me, that means 1960-1969. It makes no sense to insist that the "1960s" goes through 1970. Likewise, the "aught-aughts" ended with the last year in which someone could wear those silly glasses with the eye-holes being the two 0's in the middle of the year designation.

        It means the decades and the centuries don't exactly line up. So what? We've lived this far with the WEEKS and the years not exactly lining up. It doesn't especially bother me.

        - Larry Hart (calendar boy)
      • ctowner1@gmail.com
        ... I think there s a difference between the sixties and the 6th decade of the 19th century Technically, the 6th decade does go from 1961 through 1970.
        Message 3 of 28 , Jan 1, 2010
          On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 11:34 AM, LarryTheIllini <larrytheillini@...> wrote:


          --- In cerebus@yahoogroups.com, Ryan Dunne <cerebusboy@...> wrote:
          >
          >   Interesting, but am somewhat disappointed that there's not a
          > Calendar Boy post on the end of a decade and some factoids thereof
          > ;-). Many Happy Returns, everyone!
          >

          Well, I did have the LAST post of the aught-aughts, didn't I?

          ;)

          Since you ask...

          Steven Grant over at Comic Book Resources is the latest I've seen to lament the dumbing down of society exemplified by thinking the century began in 2000 instead of 2001, and that (therefore) this new decade begins in 2010 instead of 2011.

          While I agree with him on the first observation, I disagree that the second has anything to do with it.

          Consider...

          The "first century" implies the first 100 years on the calendar, which is the years 1-100 (everybody and his uncle knows by now that there was no year 0).  Therefore the second century was 101-200, etc.  The twentieth century was 1901-2000, and the 21st century SHOULD have begun in 2001.  For similar reasons, the third millennium began in 2001, not 2000.

          Decades are named differently, though.  The decade I grew up in was not called the "197th Decade" or even the "7th Decade of the 20th Century".  It was called the "1960s".  To me, that means 1960-1969.  It makes no sense to insist that the "1960s" goes through 1970.  Likewise, the "aught-aughts" ended with the last year in which someone could wear those silly glasses with the eye-holes being the two 0's in the middle of the year designation.

          It means the decades and the centuries don't exactly line up.  So what?  We've lived this far with the WEEKS and the years not exactly lining up.  It doesn't especially bother me.

          - Larry Hart (calendar boy)>>

          I think there's a difference between "the sixties" and "the 6th decade of the 19th century"  Technically, the 6th decade does go from 1961 through 1970.  It's just that colloquially, it's easier to think of "the sixties" as the decade whose years begin with a "6" - and why shouldn't we? It's not a question of pinning down the exact 6th decade, it's a question of identifying easily a specific time period.

          e
          L nny
        • longshanks
          ... Actually, the 6th decade goes from 1951 to 1960. Ed Wilson -- -- Reality is not enough; we need nonsense, too. Drifting into a world of fantasy is not an
          Message 4 of 28 , Jan 1, 2010
            ctowner1@... wrote:
            Technically, the 6th decade does go from 1961 through 1970.

            Actually, the 6th decade goes from 1951 to 1960.

            Ed Wilson
            -- 
            -- Reality is not enough; we need nonsense, too. Drifting into a world 
            of fantasy is not an escape from reality but a significant education 
            about the nature of life. And reality is not an escape from nonsense.
            Our education goes on everywhere. - Edmund Miller
            -- For the best in misanthropic rantings, visit Cottsweb:
            http://briancotts.tripod.com/
            -- Stories and essays in prose, scripts, video, comics and audio; it's
            Fishclock: http://fishclock.ca/
            -- Gayleen Froese, Writing and Music: http://www.gayleenfroese.com/
            
            
          • ctowner1@gmail.com
            oops...right! Thanks for the correction. e L nny
            Message 5 of 28 , Jan 1, 2010
              oops...right!  Thanks for the correction.

              e
              L nny

              On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 12:33 PM, longshanks <longshanks@...> wrote:


              ctowner1@... wrote:
              Technically, the 6th decade does go from 1961 through 1970.

              Actually, the 6th decade goes from 1951 to 1960.

              Ed Wilson 
            • LarryTheIllini
              ... I m not really disagreeing with you. Any 10-year period is *A* decade. I m just saying that the decades we tend to talk about as a culture are slightly
              Message 6 of 28 , Jan 1, 2010
                --- In cerebus@yahoogroups.com, ctowner1@... wrote:
                >
                > > Decades are named differently, though.
                > > The decade I grew up in was not
                > > called the "197th Decade" or even the
                > > "7th Decade of the 20th Century". It
                > > was called the "1960s". To me, that means 1960-1969.
                >
                > I think there's a difference between "the sixties"
                > and "the 6th decade of
                > the 19th century" Technically, the 6th decade does go from
                > 1961 through
                > 1970. It's just that colloquially, it's easier to
                > think of "the sixties" as
                > the decade whose years begin with a "6" - and why shouldn't we?
                > It's not a
                > question of pinning down the exact 6th decade, it's a question of
                > identifying easily a specific time period.
                >

                I'm not really disagreeing with you. Any 10-year period is *A* decade. I'm just saying that the decades we tend to talk about as a culture are slightly different from the centuries we tend to talk about. Since we commonly say "twentieth century" or "twenty-first century", the strict definition would force those two to start in 1901 and 2001 respectively. I agree with Steven Grant et al that there's a certain sloppiness in forgetting that.

                However, I DON'T think that the tendency to consider this new year to be the start of a decade (the tens or the teens or whatever) indicates that same sloppiness. I think it's a more natural result of the fact that we talk about decades as "the sixties" or "the nineties". The only way I'd truly agree with him is if people were saying that "the second decade of the twenty-first century" began today. Then I'd say no, you have to wait a year. But I'm fine with "the twenty-tens" beginning today. Just saying.

                - Larry Hart (calendar boy)
              • ctowner1@gmail.com
                ... But you re being inconsistent! If you want to go by what we commonly do - then we commonly think of the century as beginning on 1/1/00, NOT 1/1/01. Just
                Message 7 of 28 , Jan 1, 2010
                  On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 1:27 PM, LarryTheIllini <larrytheillini@...> wrote:


                  --- In cerebus@yahoogroups.com, ctowner1@... wrote:
                  >
                  > > Decades are named differently, though.
                  > > The decade I grew up in was not
                  > > called the "197th Decade" or even the
                  > > "7th Decade of the 20th Century".  It
                  > > was called the "1960s".  To me, that means 1960-1969.
                  >
                  >  I think there's a difference between "the sixties"
                  > and "the 6th decade of
                  > the 19th century"  Technically, the 6th decade does go from
                  > 1961 through
                  > 1970.  It's just that colloquially, it's easier to
                  > think of "the sixties" as
                  > the decade whose years begin with a "6" - and why shouldn't we?
                  > It's not a
                  > question of pinning down the exact 6th decade, it's a question of
                  > identifying easily a specific time period.
                  >

                  I'm not really disagreeing with you.  Any 10-year period is *A* decade.  I'm just saying that the decades we tend to talk about as a culture are slightly different from the centuries we tend to talk about.  Since we commonly say "twentieth century" or "twenty-first century", the strict definition would force those two to start in 1901 and 2001 respectively.  I agree with Steven Grant et al that there's a certain sloppiness in forgetting that.

                  However, I DON'T think that the tendency to consider this new year to be the start of a decade (the tens or the teens or whatever) indicates that same sloppiness.  I think it's a more natural result of the fact that we talk about decades as "the sixties" or "the nineties".  The only way I'd truly agree with him is if people were saying that "the second decade of the twenty-first century" began today.  Then I'd say no, you have to wait a year.  But I'm fine with "the twenty-tens" beginning today.  Just saying.

                  - Larry Hart (calendar boy)>>

                  But you're being inconsistent!  If you want to go by what we "commonly" do - then we commonly think of the century as beginning on 1/1/00, NOT 1/1/01.  Just as we think of the 7th decade as starting on 1/1/60, and NOT 1/1/61. 

                  SO the Century & Decade thing is the exact same thing here.

                  e
                  L nny
                • longshanks
                  ... But, they re not the same thing. The 60s includes 1960 to 1969, but the 20th Century runs from 1901 to 2000, and it doesn t matter what people
                  Message 8 of 28 , Jan 1, 2010
                    ctowner1@... wrote:
                    If you want to go by what we "commonly" do - then we commonly think of the century as beginning on 1/1/00, NOT 1/1/01.  Just as we think of the 7th decade as starting on 1/1/60, and NOT 1/1/61. 

                    SO the Century & Decade thing is the exact same thing here.

                    But, they're not the same thing.  "The 60s" includes 1960 to 1969, but "the 20th Century" runs from 1901 to 2000, and it doesn't matter what people commonly think is the last year of the 20th Century.  And I've never commonly thought of a century starting with '00 rather than '01.

                    Ed Wilson
                    -- 
                    -- Reality is not enough; we need nonsense, too. Drifting into a world 
                    of fantasy is not an escape from reality but a significant education 
                    about the nature of life. And reality is not an escape from nonsense.
                    Our education goes on everywhere. - Edmund Miller
                    -- For the best in misanthropic rantings, visit Cottsweb:
                    http://briancotts.tripod.com/
                    -- Stories and essays in prose, scripts, video, comics and audio; it's
                    Fishclock: http://fishclock.ca/
                    -- Gayleen Froese, Writing and Music: http://www.gayleenfroese.com/
                    
                    
                  • LarryTheIllini
                    ... I knew you, of all people, would push this, but no, I don t believe I really AM being inconsistent. ... Your second statement is wrong. No one commonly
                    Message 9 of 28 , Jan 1, 2010
                      --- In cerebus@yahoogroups.com, ctowner1@... wrote:
                      >
                      > > The only way I'd
                      > > truly agree with him is if people were saying that
                      > > "the second decade of the
                      > > twenty-first century" began today.
                      > > Then I'd say no, you have to wait a
                      > > year. But I'm fine with "the twenty-tens" beginning today.
                      >
                      >
                      > But you're being inconsistent!
                      >

                      I knew you, of all people, would push this, but no, I don't believe I really AM being inconsistent.


                      > If you want to go by what we "commonly" do -
                      > then we commonly think of the century as beginning on 1/1/00,
                      > NOT 1/1/01.
                      > Just as we think of the 7th decade as starting on 1/1/60,
                      > and NOT 1/1/61.
                      >

                      Your second statement is wrong. No one "commonly" thinks of the seventh decade at all. They think about "the sixties" or "the aught-aughts". Period. Which is why I'm ok with starting those decades wherever anyone wants to.

                      Your first statement is at best incomplete. Sure these days (though not at the turn of the last century) people tend to think of the year 2000 as the rollover year for the century. If it went only that far, I wouldn't have a problem. But people ALSO tend to refer to the century as the "twenty-first century". My thinking is that "twentieth century" and "twenty-first century" have precise meanings which are not subject to popular convention. Those centuries begin respectively in 1901 and 2001, end of discussion. If someone wants to argue that the hundred years beginning in 2000 is also *A* century, and that that's what is currently in vogue to recognize, I have no problem with that. Just don't call it the twenty-first century. Call it something else.

                      Since the decades ARE commonly called something else (absolutely NO one thinks in terms of "seventh decade of the twentieth century), I don't have a problem with that either.

                      I'm only incosistent if one has a problem talking about decades that don't quite fit into centuries. I DON'T have a problem with that, any more than I do with weeks that don't quite fit into years, or with seasons that don't quite fit into years.

                      - Larry Hart
                      > SO the Century & Decade thing is the exact same thing here.
                      >
                    • John L
                      ... What I want to know is is it okay to start calling this decade the teens now orr do we have to wait until 1/1/2013? John L
                      Message 10 of 28 , Jan 1, 2010
                        On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 1:27 PM, LarryTheIllini <larrytheillini@...> wrote:


                        --- In cerebus@yahoogroups.com, ctowner1@... wrote:
                        >
                        > > Decades are named differently, though.
                        > > The decade I grew up in was not
                        > > called the "197th Decade" or even the
                        > > "7th Decade of the 20th Century".  It
                        > > was called the "1960s".  To me, that means 1960-1969.
                        >
                        >  I think there's a difference between "the sixties"
                        > and "the 6th decade of
                        > the 19th century"  Technically, the 6th decade does go from
                        > 1961 through
                        > 1970.  It's just that colloquially, it's easier to
                        > think of "the sixties" as
                        > the decade whose years begin with a "6" - and why shouldn't we?
                        > It's not a
                        > question of pinning down the exact 6th decade, it's a question of
                        > identifying easily a specific time period.
                        >

                        I'm not really disagreeing with you.  Any 10-year period is *A* decade.  I'm just saying that the decades we tend to talk about as a culture are slightly different from the centuries we tend to talk about.  Since we commonly say "twentieth century" or "twenty-first century", the strict definition would force those two to start in 1901 and 2001 respectively.  I agree with Steven Grant et al that there's a certain sloppiness in forgetting that.

                        However, I DON'T think that the tendency to consider this new year to be the start of a decade (the tens or the teens or whatever) indicates that same sloppiness.  I think it's a more natural result of the fact that we talk about decades as "the sixties" or "the nineties".  The only way I'd truly agree with him is if people were saying that "the second decade of the twenty-first century" began today.  Then I'd say no, you have to wait a year.  But I'm fine with "the twenty-tens" beginning today.  Just saying.

                        - Larry Hart (calendar boy)

                        What I want to know is is it okay to start calling this decade the "teens" now orr do we have to wait until 1/1/2013?

                        John L
                      • LarryTheIllini
                        ... To quote Monty Python: Let s not call them anything. Let s just ignore them. - Larry Hart
                        Message 11 of 28 , Jan 1, 2010
                          --- In cerebus@yahoogroups.com, John L <cerebus87@...> wrote:
                          >
                          >
                          > What I want to know is is it okay to start calling this decade
                          > the "teens"
                          > now orr do we have to wait until 1/1/2013?
                          >

                          To quote Monty Python:

                          Let's not call them anything. Let's just ignore them.

                          - Larry Hart
                        • ctowner1@gmail.com
                          ... Maybe we call it the tweens?? e L nny
                          Message 12 of 28 , Jan 1, 2010
                            On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 6:16 PM, John L <cerebus87@...> wrote:




                            On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 1:27 PM, LarryTheIllini <larrytheillini@...> wrote:


                            --- In cerebus@yahoogroups.com, ctowner1@... wrote:
                            >
                            > > Decades are named differently, though.
                            > > The decade I grew up in was not
                            > > called the "197th Decade" or even the
                            > > "7th Decade of the 20th Century".  It
                            > > was called the "1960s".  To me, that means 1960-1969.
                            >
                            >  I think there's a difference between "the sixties"
                            > and "the 6th decade of
                            > the 19th century"  Technically, the 6th decade does go from
                            > 1961 through
                            > 1970.  It's just that colloquially, it's easier to
                            > think of "the sixties" as
                            > the decade whose years begin with a "6" - and why shouldn't we?
                            > It's not a
                            > question of pinning down the exact 6th decade, it's a question of
                            > identifying easily a specific time period.
                            >

                            I'm not really disagreeing with you.  Any 10-year period is *A* decade.  I'm just saying that the decades we tend to talk about as a culture are slightly different from the centuries we tend to talk about.  Since we commonly say "twentieth century" or "twenty-first century", the strict definition would force those two to start in 1901 and 2001 respectively.  I agree with Steven Grant et al that there's a certain sloppiness in forgetting that.

                            However, I DON'T think that the tendency to consider this new year to be the start of a decade (the tens or the teens or whatever) indicates that same sloppiness.  I think it's a more natural result of the fact that we talk about decades as "the sixties" or "the nineties".  The only way I'd truly agree with him is if people were saying that "the second decade of the twenty-first century" began today.  Then I'd say no, you have to wait a year.  But I'm fine with "the twenty-tens" beginning today.  Just saying.

                            - Larry Hart (calendar boy)

                            What I want to know is is it okay to start calling this decade the "teens" now orr do we have to wait until 1/1/2013?

                            John L >>

                            Maybe we call it the tweens??

                            e
                            L nny 
                          • Matt Dow
                            ... No it doesn t. The 6th decade of the NINETEENTH century is 1851 to 1860. Schmuck. Matt Dow
                            Message 13 of 28 , Jan 2, 2010
                              On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 10:58 AM, <ctowner1@...> wrote:


                              On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 11:34 AM, LarryTheIllini <larrytheillini@...> wrote:


                              --- In cerebus@yahoogroups.com, Ryan Dunne <cerebusboy@...> wrote:
                              >
                              >   Interesting, but am somewhat disappointed that there's not a
                              > Calendar Boy post on the end of a decade and some factoids thereof
                              > ;-). Many Happy Returns, everyone!
                              >

                              Well, I did have the LAST post of the aught-aughts, didn't I?

                              ;)

                              Since you ask...

                              Steven Grant over at Comic Book Resources is the latest I've seen to lament the dumbing down of society exemplified by thinking the century began in 2000 instead of 2001, and that (therefore) this new decade begins in 2010 instead of 2011.

                              While I agree with him on the first observation, I disagree that the second has anything to do with it.

                              Consider...

                              The "first century" implies the first 100 years on the calendar, which is the years 1-100 (everybody and his uncle knows by now that there was no year 0).  Therefore the second century was 101-200, etc.  The twentieth century was 1901-2000, and the 21st century SHOULD have begun in 2001.  For similar reasons, the third millennium began in 2001, not 2000.

                              Decades are named differently, though.  The decade I grew up in was not called the "197th Decade" or even the "7th Decade of the 20th Century".  It was called the "1960s".  To me, that means 1960-1969.  It makes no sense to insist that the "1960s" goes through 1970.  Likewise, the "aught-aughts" ended with the last year in which someone could wear those silly glasses with the eye-holes being the two 0's in the middle of the year designation.

                              It means the decades and the centuries don't exactly line up.  So what?  We've lived this far with the WEEKS and the years not exactly lining up.  It doesn't especially bother me.

                              - Larry Hart (calendar boy)>>

                              I think there's a difference between "the sixties" and "the 6th decade of the 19th century"  Technically, the 6th decade does go from 1961 through 1970.
                               
                               
                              No it doesn't. The 6th decade of the NINETEENTH century is 1851 to 1860.
                               
                              Schmuck.
                               
                              Matt Dow

                            • Matt Dow
                              ... So, the TWENTIETH century ends in 1999? Matt Dow ... thing.) ((Schmuck.))
                              Message 14 of 28 , Jan 2, 2010
                                On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 12:33 PM, <ctowner1@...> wrote:


                                On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 1:27 PM, LarryTheIllini <larrytheillini@...> wrote:


                                --- In cerebus@yahoogroups.com, ctowner1@... wrote:
                                >
                                > > Decades are named differently, though.
                                > > The decade I grew up in was not
                                > > called the "197th Decade" or even the
                                > > "7th Decade of the 20th Century".  It
                                > > was called the "1960s".  To me, that means 1960-1969.
                                >
                                >  I think there's a difference between "the sixties"
                                > and "the 6th decade of
                                > the 19th century"  Technically, the 6th decade does go from
                                > 1961 through
                                > 1970.  It's just that colloquially, it's easier to
                                > think of "the sixties" as
                                > the decade whose years begin with a "6" - and why shouldn't we?
                                > It's not a
                                > question of pinning down the exact 6th decade, it's a question of
                                > identifying easily a specific time period.
                                >

                                I'm not really disagreeing with you.  Any 10-year period is *A* decade.  I'm just saying that the decades we tend to talk about as a culture are slightly different from the centuries we tend to talk about.  Since we commonly say "twentieth century" or "twenty-first century", the strict definition would force those two to start in 1901 and 2001 respectively.  I agree with Steven Grant et al that there's a certain sloppiness in forgetting that.

                                However, I DON'T think that the tendency to consider this new year to be the start of a decade (the tens or the teens or whatever) indicates that same sloppiness.  I think it's a more natural result of the fact that we talk about decades as "the sixties" or "the nineties".  The only way I'd truly agree with him is if people were saying that "the second decade of the twenty-first century" began today.  Then I'd say no, you have to wait a year.  But I'm fine with "the twenty-tens" beginning today.  Just saying.

                                - Larry Hart (calendar boy)>>

                                But you're being inconsistent!  If you want to go by what we "commonly" do - then we commonly think of the century as beginning on 1/1/00, NOT 1/1/01.  Just as we think of the 7th decade as starting on 1/1/60, and NOT 1/1/61. 

                                SO the Century & Decade thing is the exact same thing here.

                                e
                                L nny


                                 
                                 
                                So, the TWENTIETH century ends in 1999?
                                 
                                Matt Dow
                                (I suppose that makes sense what with your whole:
                                "the 6th decade of the 19th century"  Technically, the 6th decade does go from 1961 through 1970.
                                thing.)
                                 
                                ((Schmuck.)) 
                                 
                              • rlsharer@yahoo.com
                                1961-1970 would actually be the SEVENTH decade of the TWENTIETH century... TTM Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry ... From: ctowner1@gmail.com Date: Fri,
                                Message 15 of 28 , Jan 6, 2010

                                  1961-1970 would actually be the SEVENTH decade of the TWENTIETH century...

                                  TTM

                                  Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry


                                  From: ctowner1@...
                                  Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2010 11:58:23 -0500
                                  To: <cerebus@yahoogroups.com>
                                  Subject: Re: [cerebus] Re: (now OT about...) calendar boy on the end of a decade

                                   

                                  On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 11:34 AM, LarryTheIllini <larrytheillini@ yahoo.com> wrote:


                                  --- In cerebus@yahoogroups .com, Ryan Dunne <cerebusboy@. ..> wrote:
                                  >
                                  >   Interesting, but am somewhat disappointed that there's not a
                                  > Calendar Boy post on the end of a decade and some factoids thereof
                                  > ;-). Many Happy Returns, everyone!
                                  >

                                  Well, I did have the LAST post of the aught-aughts, didn't I?

                                  ;)

                                  Since you ask...

                                  Steven Grant over at Comic Book Resources is the latest I've seen to lament the dumbing down of society exemplified by thinking the century began in 2000 instead of 2001, and that (therefore) this new decade begins in 2010 instead of 2011.

                                  While I agree with him on the first observation, I disagree that the second has anything to do with it.

                                  Consider...

                                  The "first century" implies the first 100 years on the calendar, which is the years 1-100 (everybody and his uncle knows by now that there was no year 0).  Therefore the second century was 101-200, etc.  The twentieth century was 1901-2000, and the 21st century SHOULD have begun in 2001.  For similar reasons, the third millennium began in 2001, not 2000.

                                  Decades are named differently, though.  The decade I grew up in was not called the "197th Decade" or even the "7th Decade of the 20th Century".  It was called the "1960s".  To me, that means 1960-1969.  It makes no sense to insist that the "1960s" goes through 1970.  Likewise, the "aught-aughts" ended with the last year in which someone could wear those silly glasses with the eye-holes being the two 0's in the middle of the year designation.

                                  It means the decades and the centuries don't exactly line up.  So what?  We've lived this far with the WEEKS and the years not exactly lining up.  It doesn't especially bother me.

                                  - Larry Hart (calendar boy)>>

                                  I think there's a difference between "the sixties" and "the 6th decade of the 19th century"  Technically, the 6th decade does go from 1961 through 1970.  It's just that colloquially, it's easier to think of "the sixties" as the decade whose years begin with a "6" - and why shouldn't we? It's not a question of pinning down the exact 6th decade, it's a question of identifying easily a specific time period.

                                  e
                                  L nny
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.