Really?
Says who?
Even if you are right,and there is no way to be sure one way or the other…Never the less the decade is from 2000-2009
If he is right and I believe he is (starting at year one making the decades 1-10, 11-20), if you say the decade is from 2000-2009 (regardless if it started in year one), which decade was only 9 years long?
Here are some links showing that the new time era started in 1 A.D. Also showing that milleniums are the years 1-1000, 1001-2000, 2001-3000, centuries are 1-100, 101-200, ...., 2001-2100, and from this logic it is easy to see decades are 1-10, 11-20, ..., 2001-2010.
http://www.astronomyboy.com/millennium/ http://www.timeanddate.com/counters/mil2000.html http://www.enigmar.com/2001/If it started with 1 then I would agree but there is no way to be sure one way or the other. It shold have started with 0
Most of the world conciders a decade to be from 1-9
What roughy? We’re asking for logic now? Did I miss the memo??
A decade is suppose to be 10 years long. Having a decade from 1-9 is only 9 years. But if you read the links I provided you, you would see that the year started in year one because people back then didn't have a concept of 0 or negative numbers. Therefore making the decades 1-10, 11-20 and so on.
Sorry I thought I cc’ed you on that. Yes the cfl.ca forums is now asking for logic to be used in postings.
meh.
Its all speculation if you ask me.
If they can be off by a couple of years as to when it they should have started, they can have the first decade 9 years long as well
Oh man were down to this? Slow in the off season! What next argue about color of socks? ha ha ha ha
Um, sadly, I think you might be right!
Seriously though, I think Applyby is right. Right now, the biggest rival is Calgary. I've noticed last year on game days, there seemed to be more "Electricity" in the air when the Stamps came to town. A few years ago, I would have said the Riders.
It couldn't be EGO?
What World are you living in?
Think of it like getting a first down, you need 10 yards. To be a decade you need 10 years. So far in one thread you have failed, math, history, spelling and, english. You’re fortunate that physics and chemistry don’t apply.
Actually ro1313, looking at the MOD list I see you are from Montreal. Perhaps System Metrique does use a 9 year decade, so your World may be different.
Agreed, the 9 year decade thing makes no sense, there is just as little sense in saying that a decade goes from 2001-2010. Roughyfan, not once does any of your three articles mention anything about a decade, you know, the thing you guys are arguing about?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decade http://www.thefreedictionary.com/decadeThink about it, you wouldn’t include the year 2000 in the definition of the 1990s would you? The sixties ended in 1969, not 1970. So what if there was no year zero, that was over 200 decades ago when they didn’t even know what a decade was. Therefore, BC lions are the best, thus far, of this decade for two championships, and all 7 seven years in the playoffs.
As for the actual topic, I think the Roughriders are BC’s biggest rivals in recent times. From pre-game brawls, to the 2004 OT game, to BC’s hatred of Taylor Field (Screw mosaic stadium, long live Piffles) to the close and not so close five games in 2006. Calgary is our whipping boy, and Edmonton… we just hate Edmonton.
I realize the articles don't say anything about decades, only about centuries and milleniums, that is why I said LOGIC would then dictate a decade to be 1-10, 11-20, ...., 2001-2010. Would you include 2000 in the 1900's, but the year 2000 was the final year in the 20th century. Why is this so hard to understand?
By the way you can sway me over to your side of the argument by simply telling me what decade was 9 years long.
The CFL doesn't start for almost another 6 months, wow.
Notwithstanding the decade thing, the question of who is the most dominant team if it comes down simply to Grey Cup wins is a draw. I would suggest that despited only winning one Cup, Montreal has been the most dominant team of this decade. No matter what year it started.
Hmm, that’s actually a good point, cfleskfan, they have been amazingly dominant under the Don, so it’ll be interesting to see if Popp can keep it up.
But I gotta win this…
By the way you can sway me over to your side of the argument by simply telling me what decade was 9 years long.Alright... the year 977 AD doesn't exist, that decade was only nine years long because people back then didn't believe in the number 977.
Okay, but seriously, it’s hard to understand what you’re talking about because you keep referring to milleniums and centuries when we’re having a demented debate about decades. It’s very simple, just answer me this,
Does the year 1990 belong to the eighties or the nineties?
I agree, the year 2000 is part of the 20th century, but it is also part of our current decade. I can see why it would make little to no sense, but it makes a lot more sense than saying 2000 is part of the nineties. You don’t need logic to derive the definition of a decade when it is already defined:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decade http://www.thefreedictionary.com/decadePlease visit these sites before pointlessly refuting again.
And hey, you can sway me if you can give me one viable source that says a DECADE is from 2001-2010.
http://www.unac.org/peacecp/decade/ , the UN agrees with me,
and from wikipedia
Counting years
Ordinal
The original method of counting years was ordinal, whether 1st year A.D. or regnal 10th year of King Henry VIII. This ordinal numbering is still present in the names of the millennia and centuries, for example 1st Millennium or the 20th century, and sometimes in the names of decades, e.g. 1st decade of the 21st century.
Cardinal
In recent years, most people have moved to expressing individual years as cardinal numbers, for example 1945 or 1998. The usage 1999th year A.D. is no longer found. This follows scientific usage, for example astronomical year numbering. As a result, some other calendar names have also moved to cardinals, e.g. 1980s is an acceptable name for a particular decade. However, 1600s could be understood as either a decade or a century.
Ranges
A change from ordinals to cardinals is incomplete and might not ever be completed; the main issues arise from the content of the various year ranges. Similar issues affect the contents of decades and centuries.
Those following ordinal year names naturally choose
* 2001-2010 as the current decade
* 2001-2100 as the current century
* 2001-3000 as the current millennium
Those following cardinal year names equally naturally choose
* 2000-2009 as the current decade
* 2000-2099 as the current century
* 2000-2999 as the current millennium
link: Answers - The Most Trusted Place for Answering Life's Questions
So it can be both ways.
As far as the year 1990 being in the eighties or nineties, that's different. If you define a decade by calling it that, the first decade of the A.D. era had 9 years, years 1-9, then after that you had the 10's.
It can be both ways? Awwwww, that's lame. Although, that is interesting, the whole ordinal/cardinal thing. However, I am still adamant in my position that the definition of a decade is, indeed, related to the time period it is defined by, such as "the nineties." Saying that the last decade went from 1991-2000 just seems too bizarre for me. But I'll still respect your position, as I can see a logic to it.
So I follow the cardinal way of thinking, eh? This has been... enlightening. Well, anything can happen in the CFL, and apparently the same goes for CFL.ca.