To see a full-size view of the images posted, just click on them.

RULES FOR POSTING COMMENTS: This blog is meant to be interactive. Please utilize the comment feature to respond to posts that prompt a reaction. You do not have to agree with me to post, but I do ask that your comment pertain to the post itself. I also ask that "anonymous" guests attach some sort of name to their comments so readers can tell everyone apart. (If you cannot follow these simple rules, your post may be DELETED or at the very least mocked for the entertainment of those who can respect my guidelines.)

Friday, January 3, 2020

2020 Debate

The battle rages on.....or does it?

Thanks to everyone who responded to my last post. It was an interesting mix of answers and that was kind of what I was hoping for. And the best part for my loyal readers is that no one has to feel they were wrong!

As some pointed out, there are in fact different, yet legitimately rational arguments for each perspective. Traditional calendar-based formality, does dictate that decades are counted from 1 and not 0, because in the calendar, there was never a year 0. And for this method, the decade would begin next year.

Still, there is a very sound argument to be made that for colloquial clarity, there's a neatness to keeping decades within their general grouping of tens, twenties, thirties, etc.

I think we have a few options: 1: we can wrestle for it like the ladies above. Winner gets to decide when the decade begins while the loser......for this crowd.....has to not only concede the point, but get a spanking for arguing the other side.

2: We can leave it as a stalemate and rekindle the debate again next year and then again nine years after that.

3: Or we could acknowledge that since we would probably all LIKE to keep the decades neatly numbered, and since they now can begin with a zero, why not consider that the first CE decade to have simply lost a year? (I doubt anyone will miss it or complain they were shorted a year.) And If we can have a Lost Weekend......


......and even a 'lost decade'......


......what's the big deal about losing one measly year from a chunk of years that passed 2000 years ago? We make exceptions to rules all of the time. This one would actually give a nod to those who like to keep the facts straight about never having had a year 0 to start the count with, but recognize that it really is just simpler now to start with zeroes. 

               -------------------------------

As an aside, my beloved monster, Ana just left to go back to Pittsburgh for her next semester but.....not before handing over her slip for my year-end punishment. Next chance I get, I will review that discussion and a lot more.




11 comments:

  1. My final thought was the following:

    An argument of sorts from someone who loves music:

    When a radio station plays blocks of music from the 70's (for example) They play music from 1970 to 1979. 1980 is isn't included, because it's the 80's.

    When news stations talk about the 2000's they go from 2000 to 2009. 2010 is referred to as part of 2010's

    Finally, who gives a flying fuck about what any of us really feel?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are correct, decades are defined differently based on the context and parameters.

      As to your last question? I think that depends on the who and the us and the context. If you are a customer of a struggling store, they will care about what you think so they can stay in business. If you are a swing voter in a swing state, the candidates will care about what you think. otherwise? Probably not.

      Delete
  2. Your conversation is making my head hurt. Now something else to think about and before this was brought up I was so happy just waiting for my next spanking LOL
    archedone

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hope it was effective (the spanking!)

      Delete
    2. Well if my conversation is making your head hurt and your wife is going to make your butt hurt, you'll be throbbing on both ends!

      Delete
    3. Merry, I got the spanking last night and it was very effective she had me in three different positions.
      kdpierre, Thankfully my head quit hurting before the spanking which helped me enjoy the spanking more.
      archedone

      Delete
  3. We went to a private kinky event at a huge Victorian House in SF a long time ago. Emphasis was on spanking, but there was a ton of other stuff.

    There was a room with wall to wall mats for naked wrestling. It was all m/f, one duo at a time, and it was incredible to see.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Crimson Kid (C.K.)January 7, 2020 at 11:53 PM

    Actually, the wrestling part looks like fun, although I'd need to be a couple decades younger to handle those two young ladies separately, perhaps three decades younger to take them on together.

    I'm thinking of that scene in "Stripes," wherein John Candy's character goes against those two female wrestlers in the mud.

    I have to support the common wisdom that we're now in the decade of the 2020s, although personally I'd prefer going back to beginning the 1970s... --C.K.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, no actual wrestling for me either. My back would probably snap!

      I remember that scene..."mean, green, fighting machine!"

      I'd only go back to the 70's armed with what I know now. Otherwise I'll stay where i am. ;-)

      Delete
  5. Ahhhh, actually I'd probably botch another shot at the 1970s, which I enjoyed the first time around, if I had any foreknowledge from today--at least that's what the sci-fi movies and stories tend to indicate. (Since I was a collegiate wrestler back then, I would've had a decent shot at beating those two young ladies in the ring though.)

    It was "mean, LEAN, fighting machine," I believe, which of course made that expression rather ironic in reference to John Candy... --C.K.

    ReplyDelete