Started By
Message
1
Posted on 7/18/16 at 10:39 am to TheSandman
I'm just taking the piss. It's an impressive feat by any measure. 
NYC will still want to debate, though.
NYC will still want to debate, though. Posted on 7/18/16 at 10:41 am to JuiceTerry
Actually, I would argue that decades Anno Domini should start on years ending in "3" based on unorthodox resurrection-adoptionist theology, so that the first "Year of the Lord" wouldn't have started until after the resurrection in (hypothetically) 33 CE
ETA: 
ETA:
This post was edited on 7/18/16 at 10:42 am
Posted on 7/18/16 at 10:46 am to TheSandman
Interesting. So it's really 1983? Yall should really try and beat Texas this time!
Posted on 7/18/16 at 10:46 am to TheSandman
quote:
Dude he's right, give it up
not in terms of decades in our terminology . 1990 was not part of the 80's
quote:
a period of ten years beginning with a year whose last digit is zero: the decade of the 1980s.
quote:
The decade of the 1920s runs from January 1, 1920 to December 31, 1929.
quote:
referenced interval is based on the tens digit of a calendar year, as in using "1960s" to represent the decade from 1960 to 1969
This post was edited on 7/18/16 at 10:50 am
Posted on 7/18/16 at 10:51 am to JuiceTerry
quote:
I'm just taking the piss. It's an impressive feat by any measure. NYC will still want to debate, though.
Well you were incorrect, so...
Posted on 7/18/16 at 10:51 am to NYCAuburn
Bruh
Posted on 7/18/16 at 10:52 am to JuiceTerry
would you like anymore references? decades start in the zero, not the 1
Posted on 7/18/16 at 10:53 am to TheSandman
quote:
Bruh
Sorry bruh, I was right, your op is correct.
3 decades in a row
Posted on 7/18/16 at 10:57 am to NYCAuburn
So which decade only had 9 years in it? That must have sucked.
Posted on 7/18/16 at 11:00 am to JuiceTerry
I mean, technically we would've had two, the first BCE and CE
Which, even by adding a Year Zero you're only solving one of those problems. You'd need 0 BC and 0 AD to pull off a nice even system
Which, even by adding a Year Zero you're only solving one of those problems. You'd need 0 BC and 0 AD to pull off a nice even system
This post was edited on 7/18/16 at 11:02 am
Posted on 7/18/16 at 11:02 am to JuiceTerry
quote:
So which decade only had 9 years in it? That must have sucked.
Your counting skills lack.
Starting at jan 1 year zero, what day did the completion of year 10 happen?
All those quotes were from websters, wiki, dictionary.com. There are more yet do your still believe you initial statement is true?
This post was edited on 7/18/16 at 11:05 am
Posted on 7/18/16 at 11:03 am to NYCAuburn
omg decade definition is arbitrary, stop feeding
Posted on 7/18/16 at 11:06 am to TheSandman
quote:
omg decade definition is arbitrary
Not really, there are two definitions in terms of years.
A group of ten years or in terms like we are discussing where it starts at year zero
Posted on 7/18/16 at 11:33 am to NYCAuburn
quote:
starting at jan 1 year zero
Posted on 7/18/16 at 11:46 am to NYCAuburn
Please find me a synopsis on the historical events in Year 0 of the Gregorian Calendar
This post was edited on 7/18/16 at 11:50 am
Posted on 7/18/16 at 11:47 am to NYCAuburn
quote:
They almost lost a few times to bad teams, they werent as good as people say they were. They get a lot more hype after the fact because of how well some players have done in the NFL
This.
No team has appeared 100% unbeatable in my lifetime, save the 1995 Cornhuskers (and even they only won by 14 over a 3-8 team).
Posted on 7/18/16 at 11:54 am to NYCAuburn
quote:
not in terms of decades in our terminology . 1990 was not part of the 80's
You're both right in this.
2001, for example, is the real "first year of the new millennium", not 2000 - but if you say, "the 2000s" then the year 2000 IS part of that.
So, it depends on the wording.
If you say "The eighties" then you're not going to include nineteen NINETY and preclude nineteen EIGHTY. That's just silly.
Really, though, is this worth this much effort?
Posted on 7/18/16 at 12:05 pm to skrayper
for Oklahoma, it would be be the 1940s and 1950s:
1949: (11-0), #2 AP
1954: (10-0), #3 AP and UP
1955: (11-0), Unanimous National Champions
1956: (10-0), Unanimous National Champions
1949: (11-0), #2 AP
1954: (10-0), #3 AP and UP
1955: (11-0), Unanimous National Champions
1956: (10-0), Unanimous National Champions
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News