at the flounce and the "decade"

They've been talking about this end of the decade stuff on  fivelive this morning.


Best quote was "a decade is simply a period of ten years, it can start at any point, on any date and as long as it continues for ten years then it's a decade"

Works for me!

So every day is the start of a new decade! We should have fireworks nighly to celebrate.

I really do strongly and firmly believe that the start of the new decade (that we're in,) was 1st Jan 2010.  And I have never figured out why some seem to think it's 1st Jan 2011.  It puzzles me why anyone would think that, but I know some people do.  I just really can't figure out how or why people come to that conclusion. 

Today is the start of the second year of the second decade of the 21st century.  All the millenium celebrations were 31 December 1999/ 1st January 2000, so the beginning of the 'last' new decade was 1st January 2000.  Hence the beginning of this new decade was 1st January 2010.  I just can't fathom how people come to the conclusion that 1st jan 2011 is the beginning of a new decade.  

I'm not going to pretend that I know what has gone on with the above FM however he/she is absolutely correct.  This forum is at times a horrible place to be - the bullying of some FM is unbelieveable and far worse than any primary school playground.  If he/she wants to come back as a different person so what!!!!  If you don't like him/her ignore them just stop with all the bullying and down right nastiness - it's a new year how aboutsome people om here try and begin it with some chages in the way they treat people.

Ooops, I should learn to read threads properly. I just popped onto the last page and thought this was a debate about when the new decade started.  Just read through it a bit from the start and realise it was about something different.  I joined gagajoy last summer after looking for soap forums, and although i do read the boards once a week or so, (and I post on a couple of other boards as well as this,) I rarely post really...........

But I found when i introduced myself here (on this particular board,) last summer, the people here were quite welcoming, so i am sorry if someone has found the welcome here bad.  I don't know whats going on here so I will just reaffirm that i was welcomed quite warmly. 

But the 2nd millenium could only end after 2000 years had passed not after only 1999 years. There was no year zero. The first year was 0001, so the 2000th year was 2000, not 1999, which was only the 1999th year.

But when you specify " the first decade of the new century or Millenium then you are specifying when it started. and the new century/millenium started on 1/1/2001

Because there was no year zero!
The first decade ran from year 1 to year 10, not year 0 to year 9.

I think that's right Fluffy.
It's a matter of how specific one is being when referring to a decade.

As you said one can specify "the 1st decade of the century", and it is clear when that begins.
But one can also say that someone who died at 90 years old "saw nine decades" or "lived through 9 decades" without giving a specific date.

Just because the government set it up for the end of the 1999th year does not make a 2000th year miraculously materialise. The end of the 2000th year was 31/12/2000.

Its irrelevant ...   cos we all celebrated the Millenium on 31st Dec 1999 - 1st Jan 2000.   THAT was the night that everyone celebrated us going into the new century.  

So 31st Dec 2009 - 1st Jan 2010 was the beginning of the new decade.


If you carry on down this road you'll end up debating when exactly society started record keeping... when did we start cooking food with fire...   when was big bang (if in fact there was a big bang )

Your Millenium celebrations must have been a bit quiet then

I can't recall what they named this decade.Is the tens?or has it not got a moniker.It won't really sound ok again until the 20's start I suppose.

A decade always ends after the 9th year...the 60's didn't finish at the end of 1970 they finished at the end of 1969...

Most of my family and close friends celebrated the end of the millenium of 31 December 2000, and were a bit puzzled why it was celebrated the year before.

2000 is blatantly a new millenium, why would anybody celebrate a year before?

I can see it from their argument that there wasn't a year 0 so to speak.

There wasn't a year 0, but people are still 1 year old after 12 months of living, so the 0 does not matter.

Which is why I celebrated the new millenium on 1 January 2000

A decade to me = 10 years. A year being January 1st to December 31st.

Even though there wasn't a year 0, you still had to survive that 12 month period to reach 01.

Simples!

In my honest and humble opinion: The end of the millenium wasn't 31st December 2000/1st Jan 2001,  it was 31st December 1999/1st Jan 2000... Hence why virtually the whole word celebrated it then.  And a baby is already a year old when it hits 1.  Ergo, the AD years started at 0, not 1..  But I guess if people want to believe it started at year 1, then that is their right.  But I believe it to be 0.

People who believe that the AD years as we know them started *at* year 1, will always believe that the new millennium started Jan 1st 2001, and the people who believe the years started at year '0' will believe that the new millenium started on 1 Jan 2000, (and that THIS decade started 1 Jan 2010.)  So I guess we will all have to agree to differ.

I firmly and fervently believe though, that the new decade started 1st Jan 2010, but if people strongly believe that the AD years started on 1 January 01 and not 1 January 2000, and the new decade starts today, then that is up to them I guess.  But as it's already been pointed out. a person has already had a year of life when they hit 1: they don't miraculously become 2, a year after they are born do they? 

So although the believers who think that the new millenium started 1 Jan 2001, are entitled to believe what they want, I just ask, how do explain why a child isn't 1 when it's born and 2 after a year of life?  There 'was' a year zero, for us as there is for a baby.  But as I said, each to their own.  If people want to believe different, then that is their right.  I know what I believe though, that 1 Jan 2010 was the start of this decade.

It's so easy if I could just put it into words, but I'm skew whiff tonight, after a couple of bottles of wine. There was no zero, so we can't equate it to our birth and age. Logic goes out the window where somebody has designed a calendar.

Hi Cologne, As I said, I think it's a case of 'each to their own,' and if people wish to believe that the AD years began at year 1 and not year 0, then that's up to them.  But I really do believe that it started at year 0.   

I'd love to agree sparkles, but the Romans had no concept of the number 0, so I have to say it's save to say that 0 did not feature in any calendar.

Let's agree to differ.    Always the best option I think.

Because the government were stupid and  most everyone followed like sheep.
The Victorians, although they didn't have a millennium to celebrate, DID have a change of century to celebrate and they celebrated it on 31/121900 - 1/1/1901.
They knew that 1899 WAS NOT the 1900th year AFTER the birth of Christ, but that 1900 was, but our recent government, by making all authorities hold the millenium celebrations at the end of 1999 have pretty much fooled people into believing that the year 1999 was in fact the 2000th year AFTER the birth of Christ.
It wasn't. That's why it was called 1999, because it was the One Thousandth Nine Hundredth and Ninety=Ninth year AFTER the birth of Christ.

RE the 60s.
Yes they ran from 1960 to 1969, (they were called the sixties because they were the years with a 'sixty' in them, but the were not a specific decade as measured from the birth of Christ) which was a period of 10 years, but the 196th DECADE ran from 1951 to 1960 and the 197th decade ran from 1961 to 1970.
Our present calendar is measured from the birth of Christ. 1AD is the first year AFTER Christ and 2010AD was the Two Thousandth and tenth year AFTER Christ, not the Two Thousandth ans Eleventh.

Note: Adjustments to calendars throughout history are being ignored for these general purposes, otherwise who knows what the date really is and when Christ was born. Or if Christ was a person or just an idea!

So if the year after Christ was born was 1 AD and the year before he was born was 1 BC what was the year he was born in called? I think its been established that Christ was a real person...its the son of God (who?) that is debatable.

I can't speak for everyone who celebrated on 21st December 1999 Fluffs.... but I know I wasn't fooled and I couldn't have cared less about whether it was 1999 or 2000 years since the birth of Christ.....I was just excited about it changing from 19... to 2000.

I think that's probably why the whole world celebrated then. I don't think it was done through stupidity..... just driven by the notion of living in a year that started with 20! I remember when I was little working out how old I would be when it changed, and never being able to imagine myself that old!!   Celebrating at the end of 2001 just wouldn't have held the same appeal to me.

You are confusing a ten year period with a named decade. 

Which ever way, those that celebrated then were definitely early 

I was about to say

I party hard!

This is the funniest flounce thread detour ever btw

Vietnam.

In October.

 *high fives* Me too!!!



Isn't it just.  I imagine the flouncer is really upset that the attention got diverted to a 'when does a decade start and end' debate.

Somebody flounced? !

baaaaaaa

Humbug or baaaa black sheep?

It was my sheep impression...  

I object to being called a sheep for celebrating the Millennium on the logical date for it!