BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive?

Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 04 Oct 11 - 01:26 PM

We could start a new, absolute, year count which should satisfy beleaguered Christians at least. Start the years from 4003BC - that's the first full year after Creation. We'll call this AC- After Creation. That makes this year (2011+4003-1) 6013AC. Events older than that (or at least before the previous October 23rd) couldn't have happened of course, but if they did we can refer to them as Pre- Creation, which should mollify the PC brigade.

Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive?
From: Lighter
Date: 04 Oct 11 - 07:57 AM

I'm not aware that anybody made extortionate Viking-style demand on English-speaking archaeologists to start using BCE/CE.

It seems to have been their own reasoned choice.

Furthermore, it didn't spread - AFAIK - because of any anti-Christian pressures. It spread beyond archaeology because the idea appealed to more and more people.

That sort of thing isn't legislated. It just happens. Remember when all of the UK was routinely referred to as "England"? Same principle.

Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive?
From: Gurney
Date: 03 Oct 11 - 11:16 PM

Lighter; why should people's feelings be spared at the expense of other peoples feelings, the 'other people' being practising Christians, reference to who's religion is being removed gradually but continuously, and in nominally Christian countries.

Yes, it is necessary, because if you pay Danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane. In other words, the Dane (the Vikings) just keep coming back for more. So, either de-reference all religions or none of them.

I should mention that I practise no religion, but I do not believe in appeasing tyrants.

Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive?
From: autolycus
Date: 03 Oct 11 - 06:21 PM

As I said before, and note the first words - 'some people'.

some people get, or claim to get, offended rather too easily in many cases, imo.

It's a sort of emotional blackmail. It's a method of controlling others. It often works. it's where there is no real feeling of offence; it's more a thought disguised in the terminology of feelings.

comedians,... make a living partially thru offending.

Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive?
From: Lighter
Date: 03 Oct 11 - 03:28 PM

What's wrong with sparing people's feelings when it can be done easily and for free?

Is reciprocity necessary in this case?

If so, why exactly?

Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive?
From: Gurney
Date: 03 Oct 11 - 02:39 PM

Another move to wipe out all reference to Christianity was on the news this morning.
Thomas the Tank Engine. They have removed Christ from Christmas, and there are now 'decorated trees' and 'December holidays,' apparently for the American market!! This after changing The Fat Controller to 'Sir Topham Hat' in case fat people were hurt.

Has anyone noticed any reciprocation elsewhere? Removing references to Mohammed or Buddha, that sort of thing?

Wonder how long it will take to remove the 'Rev.' from the writer's name.

Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 03 Oct 11 - 02:32 PM

I tend to refer to things as "years ago" and ignore the BCE thing completely. That means every 100 years I would have to update my teaching materials, but that's OK with me...

Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive?
From: autolycus
Date: 03 Oct 11 - 05:18 AM

Thanks, Don.

Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive?
From: autolycus
Date: 03 Oct 11 - 05:16 AM

Like this?

Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive?
From: Lighter
Date: 02 Oct 11 - 03:52 PM

Never mind. I figured it out.

Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive?
From: Lighter
Date: 02 Oct 11 - 03:50 PM

So, er, what do you do for "BC/BCE" dates?

Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Oct 11 - 02:12 PM

Billion is a pretty ambiguous term. It may refer to 1,000,000,000,000 , one million million, in the "long scale" formerly used in most countries, or to 1,000,000,000 (number), one thousand million, in the short scale originally restricted to the USA, but now more generally used.

Of course many people find this change offensive in itself...

Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 02 Oct 11 - 01:53 PM

4.55 ± 0.05 Billion

=

4 550 000 000 ± 5 000 000 =

between 4 555 000 000 and 4 545 000 000,

so what I meant was

4 550 002 011 (or, 2011 for short)

is well within rounding error. I thought it was 1.4 billion, not 4.5 billion, for some reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive?
From: GUEST,Uncle_DaveO
Date: 02 Oct 11 - 01:08 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Oct 11 - 08:35 AM

Using the horizontal V brackets (shift+comma, and shift+period)

bracket b close bracket, then your sentence, bracket /b close bracket.... will put your sentence in bold

substituting letter b with i = italic, u = underline.

Don T

Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive?
From: autolycus
Date: 02 Oct 11 - 07:53 AM

Here's an interview saying the banning story is false

http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2011-10-02/bbc-head-of-religion-hits-back-at-bcad-ban-claims

Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive?
From: autolycus
Date: 02 Oct 11 - 03:28 AM

Sorry, it's not letting me make a blue clicky at the moment.

Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive?
From: autolycus
Date: 02 Oct 11 - 03:27 AM

Astronomy 161:
An Introduction to Solar System Astronomy
Prof. Richard Pogge, MTWThF 2:30

Lecture 27:
Deep Time: The Age of the Earth
Key Ideas:
The Earth is 4.55 ± 0.05 Billion Years old, determined from radioactive dating of meteorites.


taken from

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Unit5/deeptime.html

Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 01 Oct 11 - 04:26 PM

Bert, I got it, and was reading down to say LOL, realizing that I was the only person... oh well, I am also amused by those who spend time posting about why not to post here, unless it's TIC.
Anyway, the basic diff is that BCE and CE are inclusive, and AD and BC exclude the non-Christian 2/3 of the world that still has to use those dates to use Microsoft, basically. That's why I just consider 2011 to be short for 1402011, which to me is a fair estimate of the age of the planet.
There is a permathread on html. Click List of all permathreads to find out a lot of shitstuff.

Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive?
From: Gurney
Date: 01 Oct 11 - 04:17 PM

Q, XP, Firefox. Can't find any 'font' button, and never have. Usually go into Office if I want italics that badly.
It is just that quotation marks look more emphatic, and possibly aggressive, than is my usual intention.

Mind you, I've never read the Mudcat instructions.....

Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 01 Oct 11 - 04:07 PM

i in those direction brackets, the words, then /i in direction brackets (the ones over the , and . on the keyboard). Maybe a clone can give the instructions.

Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 01 Oct 11 - 04:03 PM

Dang! Put it together.

Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 01 Oct 11 - 04:00 PM

Stop complaining? I find that offensive !

Gurney, What system do you have? Most will take the mudcat protocol.


Followed by words to be italicized


(Hmmm. Wonder if that will post as I did it or will it be put together and italicized?)

Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive?
From: Gurney
Date: 01 Oct 11 - 03:44 PM

JohniK, it isn't Arabs working in 'our' country that change things. It is sickly liberal do-gooders who agitate to change things, just in case some fundamentalists are offended.
Totally ignoring the fact that the vast majority of Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, and other faiths are not 'working' in 'our' country, they have immigrated here to get away from the s*it that they have to put up with where they came from. Or, as the SLD-Gs put it, 'to make a better life for themselves.'

When I immigrated to NZ, the attitude I found, should I make the smallest complaint, was "If you don't like it here, you Pommie bastard, you know what you can do!"
It rubbed off on me.

Wish I could use italics in these posts without going to another program.

Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive?
From: BTNG
Date: 01 Oct 11 - 03:16 PM

No one's forcing you to contribute nor read the said thread, Q, so stop complaining

Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 01 Oct 11 - 03:10 PM

Another long thread without content.

Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive?
From: Edthefolkie
Date: 01 Oct 11 - 12:08 PM

The start of "Ben-Hur" isn't going to look as good with a "Christian Era" title replacing "Anno Domini". Oh yeah, Hugh Griffith's gonna have to go too cos he's browned up and has a Welsh accent!

Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive?
From: ranger1
Date: 01 Oct 11 - 12:05 PM

This whole thread reminds me of an old Bloom County comic strip>

I'm Offended

Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 01 Oct 11 - 07:54 AM

Can you see Saudi Arabia changing their islamic calendar so as not to offend Christians living and working there???

Do you expect Arabs working in your country to make their appointments according to your calendar?

The origins of the change came about at a time when much of the archaeological research in the period where BCE or CE matters much was in an area that once was (perhaps?) significantly Xtian but then (and now) was/is also largely Muslim. The older terms, particularly the "church language" "AD," was and is offensive to Muslims in their own countries, especially when a bunch of pompous asses come poking around in their desert and hauling off their history.

While colonialism prevailed, the offense to the locals could be ignored, but once the "superiority of the crown(s)" was challenged, and the "suppression by force" of dissent lessened, it was necessary to "lessen the offense." It was (mostly) a very large desert, in which offending the locals could result in mysterious mishaps, including the disappearance of "explorers" who wondered too far from their 9mm tools, or ran out of fuel for them.

At the same time that the need to "get along" a little better with those particular locals appeared, it was recognized that academic confusion would be best avoided by using a single set of terms universally, even where pompous bigots unmindful of the sensibilities of the rest of the world had their vast museums of (stolen?) artifacts.

There is no loss of intelligibility in using the newer terminology, and it slightly reduces the insult to a large part of the world's population.

BCE (Before the Christian Era) is less offensive to non-Xtians only in the sense that it would be less offensive to say "before the Pope had a pimple on his ass." An event, with an agreed on date, without quite so strong an implied religious significance, is sufficient. Even that slight improvement has permitted many archaeologists to gain access to sites they might otherwise not have been permitted to explore - and has sometimes been helpful in allowing them to survive to write their papers.

If the older terminology had not been sufficient insult to interfere with access to archaeological sites where it offended, those who objected would quite likely have been ignored. By minimizing the insult, and by entering into cooperative research with all of those who share the history and the ancestors of the regions involved, the research - after some significant suspensions - has proceded, to the benefit of all the descendants of the peoples and civilizations being studied.

Whether it was decided to be more polite only because "they" had something "we" wanted isn't of too much significance; although we'd have been "nicer" had we recognized the offense sooner "just because we cared."

John

Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive?
From: autolycus
Date: 01 Oct 11 - 07:09 AM

Where's the Inquisition when you need them? As innoffensive a bunch as anyone could wish for. Or at least Thatcher and Reagan. They never offended anybody.

Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Oct 11 - 07:05 AM

Centigrade? Fahrenheit!

Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive?
From: Musket
Date: 01 Oct 11 - 07:04 AM

I still have a set of Whitworth spanners in the garage....

Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive?
From: Gurney
Date: 01 Oct 11 - 06:06 AM

Isn't it strange that, when the sensitive, lily-livered t*ats want a change so as 'not to offend (someone,)' they always offend someone else!

Usually they want not to offend some religious fundamentalists, but manage to offend Christian fundamentalists, and even ordinary grumpy people like me.
Bring back Centigrade, PSI, MPG, foot-pounds, and double-sentences for firearms offences, that's what I say! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive?
From: Lighter
Date: 30 Sep 11 - 07:42 AM

As I heard it, around 1960, the joke went like this:

A lecturer is discussing the age and fate of the solar system. He points out that the sun is expected to burn itself out in three billion years.

An old lady stands up and asks excitedly, "How long did you say?"

"Three billion years, madame."

"Oh, Thank God! I thought you said three *million*!"

Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive?
From: autolycus
Date: 30 Sep 11 - 06:26 AM

P.S. This from another talkboard on this theme. Then I'll leave it.

"I suspect too that the mods aren't always best placed to judge that - a given set of words between one pair of posters may be their usual banter, and the same words between a different pair may be a serious issue; the mods can't possibly track all those relationships and dynamics."

Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive?
From: autolycus
Date: 30 Sep 11 - 03:38 AM

Please forgive me for not seeing the joke. [Lengthy defence/explanation follows. None of it is intended to offend anyone. Nor is it intended to be a major bit of thread-drift. Oh no.]

This may well sound rather ppo-faced, but there's a perpetual problem about joking online.

It takes time to get the hang of each person's character and mode of expression. Seeing that a stranger is joking is so often simply not self-evident [except to the joker and their acquaintances.]

On another talk site, I've been warned aainst 'taking notes.] And the drier a person's sense of humour, the harder it is to tell they're joking.

Also it's not a subject for which i have the best memory in the world, to keep track of each person's joking mode.

What also complicates matters is that there are plenty of posters all over the shop, some of whose views can seem some sort of odd to some others, [present company excepted :-)].

And some of us [i.e. me] can intermittently be rather thin-skinned.

A-a-a-a-a-and the chances in general of misunderstanding another, online and off-, are tremendously high.


Two chaps in a Budapest chess cafe were discussing the age of the universe.

One said the universe was 30 billion years old, at which point a nearby chess-player whipped round and snapped, "What did you say?"

The speaker repeated the assertion. The chess-player replied, "Thank goodness. I thought you said 3 billion years!!"

Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive?
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 29 Sep 11 - 02:38 PM

'some idiot group will be offended when they hear a foreign language...' I read that Bartrum's have ruled that Eastern Europeans working for them in the UK must NOT talk to eachother in their own language while working, only on their break. The reason given was that English-only speakers might feel intimidated!

Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive?
From: Bert
Date: 29 Sep 11 - 12:12 PM

I know but Autolycus didn't seem to get it.

Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive?
From: BTNG
Date: 29 Sep 11 - 11:06 AM

that's a joke that's older than........never mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive?
From: Bert
Date: 29 Sep 11 - 11:01 AM

Anno domimi - the year dot. That was supposed to be a joke. Sorry you didn't get it.

Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive?
From: BTNG
Date: 29 Sep 11 - 10:54 AM

"Otherwise, the physicists on Mudcat could have a field day debating a start point for time...... "

and just about all the other self-proclaimed "experts" as well, witness this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive?
From: TheSnail
Date: 29 Sep 11 - 10:08 AM

No problem - Julian Day

As far as I know, nothing of any significance to any religious or cultural group happened on January 1, 4713 BC. It still might upset the creationists though.

Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive?
From: artbrooks
Date: 29 Sep 11 - 08:54 AM

All the dates on the official Saudi website, http://www.the-saudi.net/saudi-arabia/government.htm, are in CE numbers.

Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Sep 11 - 07:12 AM

Aren't people tired of being afraid of offending some group or another all the time? This is so stupid, it is beyond belief! The soviets did the same thing, and it was equally as stupid! Next thing you know, some idiot group will be offended when they hear a foreign language, and decide that all languages should be standardized!
BC/AD is merely a way of marking time from a given event...if you have a 'problem' with that event, then too fucking bad! Grow up!

Never mind...this is dumb!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive?
From: Musket
Date: 29 Sep 11 - 07:01 AM

Perhaps Saudi Arabia, for all its awful faults, sees "not wishing to offend" as patronising and condescending to the other person.

I was in UAE during Ramandan the other year. Nobody expected me to fast during the day. After all, I wasn't a Muslim. To be fair, when it is 40 deg. C in the shade, it wouldn't be nice for me to stand in the street guzzling down a bottle of water either, so some cafes and bars were open but with screens across so those fasting don't have to torture themselves seeing we infidels eating and drinking.

I find a pragmatic approach such as this based on mutual respect to be far better than our weird "piss everybody else off by constructing laws to ensure we don't offend" approach.

I'm glad Paul Burke mentioned a "virtual" origin. Otherwise, the physicists on Mudcat could have a field day debating a start point for time......

Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive?
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 29 Sep 11 - 06:31 AM

Can you see Saudi Arabia changing their islamic calendar so as not to offend Christians living and working there???

NO YOU CAN'T!!!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive?
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 29 Sep 11 - 06:00 AM

I agree entirely with Don. If people are indeed offended, they are perfectly capable of expressing it themselves, they don't need patronising by politically-correct agitators complaining 'on their behalf'. It's obvious we need a standard time-base, and one which the majority understand. Why must things be changed at the behest of a vociferous few? And the BBC are NOT the Government of this country. (They sometimes think they are!)

Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 29 Sep 11 - 01:58 AM

It would have helped if Richard had looked up (Wikipedia is as good as anything) the origins of the BCE/ CE dating system before starting a divisive thread and involving the usual squitmob. It's been in use for over 150 years, and WAS used because people (Jews) did not wish their non- Christian history to be defined by another, hostile, religion. Much the same as if all history books used Islamic years (it's currently 1433), and I'm sure the venom of the boneheads is because they think it's a concession to Moslems.

There has to be a virtual origin, because the present is always moving. Though BP (before present) is the form in which carbon 14 datings are initially stated.

Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 06:42 PM

First of all, its all dumb...just so long as you get to the gig on time!
Besides, 'It's all one big day!!'

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 Sep 11 - 05:58 PM

Good point MGoH.

The fact that they don't celebrate it, doesn't mean, or even imply, that they are offended by it.

Some people make unwarranted assumptions about the likely attitude of certain groups, and choose to feel offended on their behalf.

It is a form of racism, and extremely patronising, because it assumes that they need assistance if they don't themselves take offence.

Don T.