We both believe what we believe and it looks like we won’t change one another’s mind. No need to waste more time arguing when we always end up back at the same spot.
Let’s worry about things that are really important, like that rebuilt Winnipeg offense that will apparently crush us in every conceivable way. According to Bomber fans, we’ll be lucky to get to the playoffs, let alone worry about whether we have a decade streak or not.
We lost our streak, but look at the bright side....THE HABS DID TOO!!!!
all I know is this, when we won the cup in 1999 Danny Mac on an interview said we had to win this cup this year (1999) to keep the streak alive...not 2000...1999. So, based on that and that alone....the streak is over.
On this 107th day of the 10th year of this new millenium, I offer this in support of my beliefs:
http://www.timeanddate.com/counters/mil2000.html(Point 4 is a pretty good one, related to "year zero!")
AKT-
If you check our calendars (yes, they were finalized in the middle ages but we use them now so they are what we are takling about), the years are listed as ...4 BC, 3 BC, 2 BC, 1 BC, 1 AD, 2 AD, 3 AD... there IS no year zero. Could be if the system had been created that way but isn't.
We could create a system using the logic that you propose, and it would be fine and would be easy to follow... but it's just not the actual system that we are using. There IS no year zero in the system of dates that we use. Could be.... but isn't.
It's like saying that the CFL could use 3 downs, but doesn't. It uses 4. Right now you are arguing NFL rules to discuss a CFL system.
Man alive, sorry I picked at this scab...but I still "believe" that we will win the Cup in this the year of the cat, preserving our streak. So there! 
...so how many sleeps till camp, we are beggining to lose it, but I love the passion! :lol:
In Taiwan it is only 1999.
They use a yearly calendar system here that starts October 10, 1911. This is when the Republic of China (R.O.C.) came into being after they split from China. There has been a lot of talk about changing this because it is quite confusing to the rest of the world but for now it is still 1999. Depending on where you want to calculate the year from we still have lots of time to win the Grey Cup in the decade 2000 - 2009.
Kiwi Canuck may see the sun rise first but I'm still living in the 90's.
Go Cats
Man… I’m still in the 60’s!
The calendar used in our society was invented by a monk named Dionysius Exiguus, and was originally intended to reliably reckon what day Easter should be celebrated each year.
There is a great explanation of how the meaning of the "AD" and "BC" labels relate to counting in the book "Marking Time: The Epic Quest to Invent the Perfect Calendar" by Duncan Steel
Mathematicians distinguish between cardinal and ordinal numbers. Cardinal numbers are simply labels for quantities, like one, two, three. Ordinal numbers refer to position in a sequence, such as first, second, third. Our year-counting scheme employs ordinal numbers. Thus A.D. 1 implies the first year of the life of Jesus Christ (as reckoned from the traditional date of his naming and circumcision, on January 1 in that year). The previous year is termed 1 B.C. because it was the first year before A.D. 1(i.e., an ordering is implied). In such a system, clearly the concept of a year zero has no meaning: one cannot have a year which was zero years before or after an event. The astronomers' system of numbering years (-3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3) only makes sense because cardinal numbers are used.To paraphrase: A.D. 1 refers to the one year period that immediately followed Christ's naming and circumcision, and 1 B.C. refers to the one year period that immediately preceded Christ's naming and circumcision. These are "the first year of Christ" and "the first year before Christ". There was no year in between.
Anno Domini is translated as "in the year of the Lord". The first anniversary of Christ's naming and circumcision occurred AFTER the passage of his first year of life. That first year of his life (before the first anniversary) is what "A.D. 1" refers to in Dionysius Exiguus' system. So the END of the first year of Christ's life marks the end of A.D. 1, and the beginning of A.D. 2. That is, the beginning of A.D. 1 marks the beginning of Christ's life, not the end of his first year of life.
The religious "correctness" of the calendar is a separate issue, as the numbering of the years represented Dionysius Exiguus' ATTEMPT to estimate the year of Christ's birth relative to the calendars already in use at the time. It is widely believed that Dionysius Exiguus was incorrect and that Christ's actual birth year was earlier than the year Dionysius Exiguus labeled "A.D. 1".
If anyone is still awake, there's also some interesting info on the topic here:
http://www.tondering.dk/claus/cal/node3.htmlIn about AD 523, the papal chancellor, Bonifatius, asked a monk by the name of Dionysius Exiguus to devise a way to implement the rules from the Council of Nicaea (the so-called ``Alexandrine Rules'') for general use.Dionysius Exiguus (in English known as Denis the Little) was a monk from Scythia, he was a canon in the Roman Curia, and his assignment was to prepare calculations of the dates of Easter. At that time it was customary to count years since the reign of emperor Diocletian; but in his calculations Dionysius chose to number the years since the birth of Christ, rather than honour the persecutor Diocletian.
Dionysius (wrongly) fixed Jesus' birth with respect to Diocletian's reign in such a manner that it falls on 25 December 753 AUC (ab urbe condita, i.e. since the founding of Rome), thus making the current era start with AD 1 on 1 January 754 AUC.
How Dionysius established the year of Christ's birth is not known (see section 2.14.1 for a couple of theories). Jesus was born under the reign of King Herod the Great, who died in 750 AUC, which means that Jesus could have been born no later than that year. Dionysius' calculations were disputed at a very early stage.
When people started dating years before 754 AUC using the term ``Before Christ'', they let the year 1 BC immediately precede AD 1 with no intervening year zero.
Note, however, that astronomers frequently use another way of numbering the years BC. Instead of 1 BC they use 0, instead of 2 BC they use -1, instead of 3 BC they use -2, etc.
I should have more accurately said that the Anno Domini system, as used in the Gregorian Calendar we use, was invented by Dionysius Exiguus.
Doesn't year zero refer to a communist movement in Cambodia in the 1970's?
On a different note, let's go Cats! :rockin:
And also for interest sake, BC and AD are no longer used. We now use BCE (before Christian Era) in place of BC and CE (Christian Era) in place of AD. This change is because the calendar we use has been adopted/forced on many countries that aren't chrisitan. Since marking the passage of time is a scientific endevour and there is no hard evidence surrounding ANY religion, moving to a more impartial method was decided.
Common Era and Before Common Era, but yes.
Wrong BC and AD are still used. There is a push to use CE especially from the Lefty NDP types, its like the push to eliminate or hide Christmas and stop people from saying Merry Christmas because we might insult someone who doesn't celebrate Christmas.
AD means in the year of our lord (Jesus) and we have used that term for 2,000 years.
If you have been to Israel for instance they use CE - COMMON ERA because they don't recognize AD or Christianity. Most of the world does use AD and that will not change you will only see CE in Mid East countries.
As much as I agree the whole year 0 thing, here is how I look at it. The Cats won the Grey Cup in the 10's, 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's and the 90's. But did not win in the 00's. Therefore the streak is over.
I agree. And, that IS the streak that was always talked about. So, let's start a new one by going with this statement, which is fact..... "Hamilton first played in a Grey Cup game 100 years ago (Grey Cup II in 1910) and we've won the Cup, at least once, in every decade since."
(The definition of "a decade" is "a period of 10 years." The decades in this case are:
1911-1920, 1921-1930, 1931-1040, 1941-1950, 1951-1960, 1961-1970, 1971-1980, 1981-1990, 1991-2000
And, a G.C. Championship this coming season would keep this statement true.)
...and now this thread is dead, thanks for coming, tip your server, drive safely, bye! :lol:
spin the streak how ever you want, the streak is dead.
10 year period. 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009. No Championship. Streak over. Thanks for coming out, tip your waitress, blah blah blah.
Glovesave- by your logic the streak would have been over if we had won in 1972 and then not again until 1986. Oops.... that's what happened.
You are right if you are saying that the streak is composed of a win every 10 years. However, the title of the thread defines the streak as being a win in "every decade." I think we may hang around at the table, have another coffee, and argue about sports for awhile longer. 