Cup win every decade record still possible

As this is the official last year of this decade, with this being the “Year of the Cat?, and taking into consideration our winning a Grey Cup every decade record (stands at nine in a row), what else could possibly be deduced other than that they might as well just cancel the season, engrave our names, and just give us the Cup now! :wink:

(Apology if this is a repeat...now bring it on) :stuck_out_tongue:

I think it might be a threepeat.

Very true... but try telling this to the billions of people who celebrated the new millenium a year ealy on Jan. 1, 2000.


By the way Kiwi.... are you sure there are no Ti-Cat fans in Tonga or Samoa? Just wondering. :wink:

We (my friends/family) celebrated the new millennium a year after the ill-informed masses (these are the same ones who once thought the world was flat :wink: ), and it was cheaper and less crowded! As for Tonga/Samoa, they are amongst the last in the world to see the sun (wrong side of the line). So, yes we are the first country to see the sun, but also have the highest rates of melonoma too :frowning: ! Thats why summer is my least favorite season here, but it was my least favorite in Hamilton too, love autumn (Ticat weather) !

So, like I said, this is without a doubt “The Year of the 'Cat” :thup:

now wait a second Kiwi… while I’m with you on the date issue, are you SURE you’re not bending the truth a bit on the date line?
This is what Wiki says… “To travel from Tonga to Samoa by air, for example, takes approximately two hours but involves crossing the International Date Line, causing passengers to arrive the day before they left.”

So, I was wrong on Samoa but I think that Tonga lies east of you but on your side of the line. Nevertheless— you ARE very likely the Ti-Cat fan upon whom the sun shines first!

Oh… notice that all the people from this Board who a year ago were bemoaning the end of the cup-win-a-decade pace are now quiet?

The masses are not ill informed. They are correct. the decades start at 0. So does the millennium. When ten years have passed since your birth you are ten not one year later. When you are nine you are in your tenth year. Get the logic smarty pants? The string is over

Just havin' a bit 'o fun :slight_smile: , but FYI:

  • Yes, we (NZ) are the first country to see the sun and the new year, but like everything, people will debate, but we like to think (know) it’s us. :wink:

...and as for when the new millennium started, relax, how about we’re both right (again debateable) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium . But while there was a lot of speculation about which country would be the first to see the sunrise on the new millennium, most people still had the date wrong. The Gregorian calendar starts with the year 1AD, so 2000 years passed as the clock ticked into 2001.The standard by which all World Time is set was agreed at the 1884 International Convention in Washington DC, with Greenwich, England established as the Prime Meridian (Zero Longitude).The third millennium officially started on 1st January 2001, at Greenwich -- Year 2000 was another good excuse for another millennium party, and we did (didn’t you?) :stuck_out_tongue:

Now can we make nice? And I'll continue to embrace the fact that the nine decade run of championships will be maintained (as obviously insane as that may be :stuck_out_tongue: ) with a win this year. I mean, why not! :thup:

No, they are not. There is no Year 0. The first year was 1, then 2, etc. With birthdays you aren't born 1-years-old. Your first anniversary is a year after you are married not the day of your wedding. See the difference, smarty pants? The string is still alive.

LOL..so put THAT in your smoke and pipe it!!

:lol: :lol:

A great many people mistake opinions for thoughts. :wink: I too am LOL... and I give up...Go 'Cats :smiley:

This all sounds logical..........that is, until discussing your wife's age right?.........I mean, it's never wise to tell your wife/girlfriend on her 49th birthday that she is actually in her 50th year now......

......sometimes logic is best not to be discussed .......a 49 yr old woman is 49 years old......illogical or not :wink:

Sorry folks but you aren't one until the end of the first year (which happens to be year 0000). After the end of the tenth year (which happens to be 0009)you are ten. Yes there is a year zero, it started the day Jesus was born. He wasn't born at one year old.

You are incorrect. There was no Year 0. Scholars from around the world spent the better part of a year trying to tell people that the millennium new year was January 1, 2001, not January 1, 2000. The Year 0 does not exist.

I will refrain from talking about Jesus because, let’s be honest, most religious discussions end badly. I will say that his birth is disputed, and has been marked back as far as 6 or 4 BC.

Sorry you have to talk about Jesus in the discussion because its his birth date that decides BC or AD. Religion has nothing to do with that fact. BTW I don't agree with the scholars logic. There is a year 0. You never start anything at 1. You start from zero

Agree or not, men and women much smarter than you or I, whose job it is to know this stuff out, went over this time and again and concluded that there was no Year 0 and that 2001 was the millennium New Year. When you start to count you don't say "0, 1, 2, 3" you say "1, 2, 3." Why would start counting with 0 for a calendar? That doesn't make any sense. Also, the first day of the month is 1, not 0. According to what you believe, that would mean the "first day" would be January 0, 0. Do you see why that doesn't make any sense? Also, the calendar system we use in Canada is the Gregorian calendar. According to that system 1BC was directly followed by 1AD. There was no Year 0.

Sorry I just don't buy the logic. That calender was introduced in 1582. In fact there was no 1581

What's not to buy? The argument is not only valid, but correct. Who are we to argue with someone whose life work revolved around topics like this? You wouldn't tell a doctor or a lawyer how to do their job, you'd defer to their expertise. Why is this any different?

Sorry but I don't believe its correct. The experts are full of stuff on this one. If I believed a doctor to be wrong I'd sure stop listening to him and find another but the relationship between the 2 argument is nonexistent

But if you went to 5 doctors and they all told you the same thing, you'd listen. While this isn't entirely the same, the scholar community accepts it, whereas the masses don't. It's mostly because the masses don't understand. I'm not saying that about you, just as a general statement. There was a lot of excitement around all four numbers changing on the calendar so the voices that were saying, "Wait, hold on. You're a year early" couldn't be heard over the masses that were screaming "YEAH! NEW MILLENNIUM!"

If you choose to disregard, that's fine. We can agree to disagree. One point I think we will agree on is, decade streak or not, we're hoping to be celebrating championship #16 in November.

The doctor argument is silly. There is no life threatening reason for me to consider in numbering decades. Sheesh. The experts are wrong. They wasted their life if all they accomplished was stirring up controversy. Its really unimportant really. Your are correct that the only important thing is the drive for 16.