# 2010, beginning or end of a decade?

Category: Let's talk

## Post 1 by Blue Velvet (I've got the platinum golden silver bronze poster award.) on Tuesday, 29-Dec-2009 20:06:39

Hi all
I keep getting pissed off at people in the media referring to next year, 2010, as the beginning of a new decade. I was taught to count to 10 starting with 1 and ending with 10. But some people seem to think you start with 0 and end with 9. I also remember people referring to the year 2000 as the beginning of the 21st century, but I believed at the time, and still do, that it was the last year of the 20th century and that 2001 was the beginning of the 21st century. I was discussing this with a friend who has a 10-year-old daughter who informed her that you count starting with 0, not 1. Is this what they're teaching kids in elementary school these days?
So, I guess I just want to know who believes 2010 is the beginning of a new decade and who believes it is the last year of the current decade.

## Post 2 by Stevo (The Established Ass) on Tuesday, 29-Dec-2009 20:13:46

I guess that depends on whether or not you believe in the year 0. Personally, though, I'm one of the annoying people who thinks of it as the first year of the next decade, not for the reasons you gave but simply because it's easier. Go back 20 years, it would have been much easier to think that 1990 was the start of the 90's than to think of it as the last year of the 80's. That's just my simplistic view of it.

## Post 3 by Blue Velvet (I've got the platinum golden silver bronze poster award.) on Tuesday, 29-Dec-2009 21:11:35

I know saying 1990 is the last year of the 80's is weird, but I still believe in counting from 1, not 0. If I didn't want to say 1990 was the last year of the 80's, I'd simply say it's the last year of the decade.

## Post 4 by Shadow_Cat (I've now got the silver prolific poster award! wahoo!) on Tuesday, 29-Dec-2009 21:19:16

I tend to think of 2010 as the beginning of the new decade as well, just as I thought of Y2K as the beginning of a decade, etc. What you're saying does make technical sense, Becky, but I think, as Steve has said, it's easier to think of it this way. Most people, myself included, don't think of it in the technical terms you've put it in here. Maybe that makes us simple-minded. LOL.

## Post 5 by Harp (I've now got the bronze prolific poster award! now going for the silver award!) on Wednesday, 30-Dec-2009 0:08:14

Becky it is an interesting point you raise, and one that I too have pondered from time to time during quiet moments. The trouble all stems from the fact that we have done something mathematically unusual with zero when dealing with years. Namely giving it a value. Ordinarily this isn't the case. Technically speaking zero isn't a number because numerically speaking on it's own it is nothing.
If it makes you feel any better about things then I am firmly in your camp. I understand the logic of the 90's argument but never the less, on a fundamental level, it doesn't compute with me. one to ten is a set of ten, not zero to nine. I have had to come to terms with things being this way. But I know logically it is wrong and there will always be a little part of me that thinks that way.
Of course to balance this criticism somewhat I should also say that the alternatives to the current system would be equally messy. Imagine a system in which we dropped the zero at the start of the decade and see where we would be, they wouldn't be decades for a start. Or alternatively to, as was suggested above, start considering the 0 as the last year in the decade instead of the first. But then of course 1990 would be the last year of the decade that we know as the 80's, and that equally doesn't sit well with me.
On a some what connected note, I recently read a series of books that charted twentieth century British history. They took the decidedly novel approach of starting the century at 1901, but ended it at 1999. So they gave us a ninety nine year long century.
Perhaps we're just thinking about this stuff far too much though and it really isn't a big deal. lol. Still in your camp though.
Dan.

## Post 6 by rdfreak (THE ONE AND ONLY TRUE-BLUE KANGA-KICKIN AUSIE) on Wednesday, 30-Dec-2009 0:26:03

Becky, i've also been pondering this lately myself. i agree with you for sure, and can't understand any different.

## Post 7 by wildebrew (We promised the world we'd tame it, what were we hoping for?) on Wednesday, 30-Dec-2009 0:41:15

I agree with Harp and Becky, though I should also point out that since we have a system based on the birth of Jesus (apparently) it must've started in the year 0, he was not a year old when he was born, hence the beginning of that era was 0, so it'd be kind of weird to say the first decade of AD really started only at year 1, than what was that first year.
Also more number change from 1999 to 2000 or 2009 to 2010 so it may look like more of a change if you look at the number itself.
But, nevertheless, I still feel 2001 to 2010 is a decade and 2011 represents a new decade.

## Post 8 by Blue Velvet (I've got the platinum golden silver bronze poster award.) on Wednesday, 30-Dec-2009 1:14:09

All this is giving me a headache. LOL. Why the hell did I bring it up? I think as Dan suggested, those of us who are bothered by this are just thinking about it too much. But it still upsets my sensibilities when I hear 2010 referred to as a new decade and newspaper articles that make lists of the best movies, best books, best music, etc. of this decade, I want to scream out that you can make those lists next year because it's not the damn end of the decade yet.

## Post 9 by Nem (I just keep on posting!) on Wednesday, 30-Dec-2009 6:02:56

What bothers me is that Becky posted twice in the same topic, but she has the same number of posts. How'd that work. It's the Y2 K bug I tell ya.

## Post 10 by turricane (happiness and change are choices ) on Wednesday, 30-Dec-2009 12:56:30

Libra lady what difference does it make? really and truly in the vast panoply of our experiences who cares?
both camps are correct. my daughter was born in 1990 and she will be 20 in 2010. that is because the year extending from 1990 to 1991 is one year.
it makes a hell of a lot more sense to say the we are in the teens because 10 is a double digit number.
however ms. libra lady, you can count however you want. new years is still a meaningless and pointless holiday.
Who cares that a ball falls down? Big whoop that people drink too much and eat too much and act stupid.
I'm glad to be alive, but I feel that way every day. jPlease oh please someone tell me why i should care?

## Post 11 by laced-unlaced (Account disabled) on Wednesday, 30-Dec-2009 15:40:59

2010 is for sure the start of a new deckade. what we're going to call the new deckade, who knows.

## Post 12 by Harp (I've now got the bronze prolific poster award! now going for the silver award!) on Wednesday, 30-Dec-2009 17:08:33

Nemoy you buffoon. That number goes up one every time you post. It has nothing to do with the specific number of a post. So for example this will be my 1594th post to the boards, and every single post of mine that you should care to search out, will reflect that number. Until I post again. lol.
Turricane, I don't believe that LibraLady at any point suggested that you should care. These are the boards, a place where people come to talk about things. They might be big things, they might be little things. Perhaps things that you care deeply about, perhaps things that tickle your interest bud not a jot. As for your question of who cares, several of us have posted meaningful responses to the topic so there you go, we care. Just because you apparently don't doesn't in any way invalidate it as a topic.
Dan.

## Post 13 by Senior (I've now got the bronze prolific poster award! now going for the silver award!) on Wednesday, 30-Dec-2009 17:13:59

I think 2010 is the start of the new decade.
When I was born, I was 0 years old. I wasn't 1 until I had lived 1 year. When I had lived 10 years I had lived a decade, which lasted from me being 0 years old to me turning 10. When I became 10-years- old, the second decade of my life began.
On January 1st 2000, the current decade began. It will end when 2010 begins. When it ends, the next decade will begin.

## Post 14 by chelslicious (like it or not, I'm gonna say what I mean. all the time.) on Wednesday, 30-Dec-2009 17:27:55

well said to the last poster. my thoughts exactly.

## Post 15 by Blue Velvet (I've got the platinum golden silver bronze poster award.) on Wednesday, 30-Dec-2009 20:16:07

To Dan, thank you for understanding.
To Turricane, there have been dozens, no hundreds, of posts on the boards that I don't care about. Not everyone is going to care about everything. But like Dan said, we have the right to post our thoughts and concerns here on the boards. That is what they are for.
And to everyone else, I am seeing both here on this thread and in conversations I've had about this with many people that perhaps the majority of people do see 2010 as the beginning of a new decade. That doesn't mean I have to agree or like it. I started this topic not to try to make people see things my way, but merely to gather information on how other people felt about it.

## Post 16 by chelslicious (like it or not, I'm gonna say what I mean. all the time.) on Wednesday, 30-Dec-2009 20:39:48

a decade is 10 years...that's all there is to it.

## Post 17 by turricane (happiness and change are choices ) on Thursday, 31-Dec-2009 9:14:19

libra lady I have to point out that I was not saying I don't care about you or your post. I just think new years is a dumb holiday. I guess i didn't express myself correctly. I'm really sorry to have been offensive.

## Post 18 by jessmonsilva (Taking over the boards, one topic at a time.) on Thursday, 31-Dec-2009 10:22:08

well from a mathamatical standpoint if you look at a number line whether we acknowledge it or not 0 starts the beginning of the positive number line even if technically speaking 0 is neither positive or negative, it's simply 0. I can see where becky is coming from but because your single digits are 0 to 9, then 10 starts them double and so on and so forth, that's how I personally count things. Ever since I was little I never counted from 1 to 10, well let me rephrase that, I did like when I was in kindergarten but once I hit the third grade our math teachers started telling us to incorporate 0 and that it should be 0 to 9 and not 1 to 10.
I'm not also saying people should agree, I'm just saying why people, including myself, might count the decade the way we do now than the way you mentioned.

## Post 19 by Blue Velvet (I've got the platinum golden silver bronze poster award.) on Thursday, 31-Dec-2009 13:01:02

Thanks for explaining, Jessica. It does make sense. But either my teachers never told us that or I just don't remember, because I have always started with 1. But like I said, I am finding more people disagree with me than agree, so I'm accepting that this is the way things are whether I like it or not. *smile*
Turricane, I figured you might not have meant to come across as harshly as I perceived your original remarks since I don't usually find you to be someone who makes personal attacks on the boards. So thanks for explaining and apologizing.

## Post 20 by turricane (happiness and change are choices ) on Thursday, 31-Dec-2009 15:37:18

thanks to the person with the zero on the number line argument. my former boss rants about this every time there is a decadal change. he uses some astronomy argument that I'm not nearly smart enough to repeat or refute. so the number line will serve me well. bravisimo!!!!

## Post 21 by Sword of Sapphire (Whether you agree with my opinion or not, you're still gonna read it!) on Thursday, 31-Dec-2009 18:41:41

I wholeheartedly agree with posts 13 and 18.
Also, Becky, look at it this way. Is 6 o'clock the beginning of the six o'clock hour or the end of the five o'clock hour? And how can 2001 be the beginning of the 2000's?
This is very similar to the argument of whether the week starts on Sunday or on Monday, when Sunday is in fact part of the weekend.
So here is my belief:
this decade began in year 2000, and this century began with 2000.
Zero has always been a number, and without it, we'd be missing a tenth of our numbers. It's the beginning of the number line, it can be an answer to a math problem, it's a digit in years, time, phone numbers, zip codes, and so on. To say that zero is not a number and should not be counted is just downright stupid. How can you not accept the truth when it is constantly thrown in your face?

## Post 22 by Blue Velvet (I've got the platinum golden silver bronze poster award.) on Saturday, 02-Jan-2010 13:01:03

I'm not discounting the number 0,, and I resent being called stupid because I choose to believe that years ending in 0 are the end rather than the beginning of the decade.
Now here is something else I choose to believe...I have made my point and you all have made yours. I will not be checking this topic any longer to see who else disagrees with me and wants to call me stupid.

## Post 23 by LeoGuardian (You mean there is something outside of this room with my computer in it?) on Saturday, 02-Jan-2010 22:25:37

0 is 0 and not false or NaN or nil, it is 0 sorry t use tech speak but I imagine others on here who use the 0 as start of line argument are also programmers so I'm with you on that. When I was helping my daughter with math when she was really little and they wanted her to do even numbers they said something odd about whispering something, I just said start at 0 and you always get pairs, where 0 is the first even, then odd then even then odd ... just drop the 0 for them at school if they want it. I don't remember if that worked or helped her; her mom's an actual teacher and I think took over that situation but when you think in pairs go from 0 to 9 and then 10 (0 on right 1 shifted) you get 10 - a new decade, even makes sense from a bit arithmetic standpoint.