|
26 Sep 11 - 09:59 AM (#3229225) Subject: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: Richard Bridge You must be fucking joking! (this might be iffy - my first handmade blue clicky - ) Mind you it is the Daily Mail |
|
26 Sep 11 - 10:00 AM (#3229226) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: Richard Bridge Hooray! It worked! |
|
26 Sep 11 - 10:11 AM (#3229237) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: saulgoldie "Offensive" is relative. However, the terms are obviously Christian-centric. And how much of the world is Christian? Saul |
|
26 Sep 11 - 10:50 AM (#3229275) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: Lighter I was told way back in the 1970s that these were "offensive." What that means is that if you think really, really hard about it, and ignore the fact that both are nothing but conventions, you might wonder whether somebody somewhere is or should be offended. I've noticed, however, that both "BC" and "AD" have pretty much disappeared from American academic writing over the last twenty years or so. "BCE" and "CE" are now standard. But still "offensive," if you get what I'm saying. Perhaps we should date everything from the Big Bang of about 14,000,000,000 years ago. (or "BP" as anthropologists and paleontologists call it: "before the present"). But that would be "offensive" to Creationists, who would date everything from October 23, 4004 BC. (They're OK with AD and BC, though.) The simplest thing, really, would be to assume that if it happened more than a few months ago, it just isn't important any more. |
|
26 Sep 11 - 10:52 AM (#3229278) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: GUEST,999 We were using the terms Before Common Era and Common Era thirty years ago in various university courses I took. This ain't news, but few newspapers today specialize in news anymore, Richard. I don't mind the term. However, because it's already a nightmare to set up a doctor appointment, I can't see that it will streamline things. |
|
26 Sep 11 - 11:10 AM (#3229294) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: Musket Ah well, two things here. One is The Daily M*il have pointed out the BBC commissioning editor is a Muslim. Shock, horror! The other is Bridge reading and quoting from The Daily M*il. There concludes the case for the prosecution M'lud. There has to be some arbitrary universal timeline and BC / AD or BCE / CE all point to the same mythical event point. Can't see how changing the wording without changing the date can help any concept of being offensive. Islam runs a dateline consistent with the coming of the Prophet for starters, and whilst I hear of weird idiots calling for a Caliph in The White House, not even those fundamentalists call for Rolex to bring out a new range? It's a story to sell tomorrow's fish & chip wrappers I suppose. Just rather bemused to see such a self confessed lefty fall for it and give it further publicity. |
|
26 Sep 11 - 11:13 AM (#3229298) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: GUEST,999 I understood from a few English friends that fish and chips are no longer allowed to be sold and wrapped in newspapers. ?? |
|
26 Sep 11 - 11:20 AM (#3229301) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: McGrath of Harlow The French tried doing something like this back in the days of the Revolution, dating things by the Era of Liberty, but it didn't really catch on. So long as the years stay the same there's a built in reference to Christianity - and anyway I'd imagine that most people hearing the relatively unfamiliar CE and BCE would assume that meant "Christian Era" and "Before Christian Era". I suspect that BC and AD will be with us for a long time. So will other dating systems, such as the Hebrew one - Happy New Year for the year 5572 on September 29th. (It's 1432 AH in the Islamic Calendar - and and 5111 in the Hindu Calendar...) |
|
26 Sep 11 - 11:22 AM (#3229302) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: Musket No, they aren't, you are quite right. They are metaphorically wrapped as such, although the paper used these days is more greaseproof and can withstand the vinegar better! The paper they use for the outer wrappings don't have to be plain though. A few enterprising companies are selling the shops paper that looks like newspaper, but assuming the ink is OK for foodstuff. In any event, calling a newspaper "tomorrow's fish & chips" is a time honoured way of saying their stories will be replaced with different ones tomorrow so stop worrying. |
|
26 Sep 11 - 11:28 AM (#3229306) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: Backwoodsman I would never insult my own intelligence by reading 'The Daily Mail'. Might as well read 'The Beano', it contains about the same amount of fact, and it's aimed at an audience with a somewhat higher IQ. |
|
26 Sep 11 - 11:54 AM (#3229335) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: GUEST,leeneia Something isn't offensive unless it's intended to offend. |
|
26 Sep 11 - 12:00 PM (#3229340) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: Jeri THAT is 100% wrong. People are offended by the stupidest things sometimes, things that are certainly not intended to offend. I knew a guy once who was offended by the Smurfs. Go figger... |
|
26 Sep 11 - 12:03 PM (#3229347) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: Lighter That used to be the case, before people found they could get air time by saying they were offended and that others should be offended too. But it's vital to claim that other people should be offended. You won't get air time if you admit it's only you. |
|
26 Sep 11 - 12:19 PM (#3229366) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: BTNG "people found they could get air time by saying they were offended and that others should be offended too." apparently people can get air time here, on Mudcat, too. There are far more import ant things, in this world, to get wound up about than terminology than really means little no matter which way you put it. it's that old saying, in action, again. If there wasn't something for people to get offended at, would they invent something? |
|
26 Sep 11 - 12:30 PM (#3229373) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: McGrath of Harlow Something isn't offensive unless it's intended to offend. Well, there is passing wind in public... The point about whether things are rightly objected to as offensive, and that is whether they actually do cause reasonable offence. So, in this case and similar (Chrisrmas celebrations etc), "Do the traditional terms or practices actually cause offence to religious minorities?" - and generally the answer is, they do not. The objections tend to come from people who are not in reality offended but have an agenda of their own. |
|
26 Sep 11 - 12:36 PM (#3229379) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: Little Hawk If I merely roll around, scream, and beat my fists on the floor over this latest OUTRAGE, will that suffice? ;-) Or should I engage in some concerted political action to overturn it? |
|
26 Sep 11 - 01:00 PM (#3229402) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: Paul Burke When they changed BC/AD to BCE/CE did they fix the Year Zero problem? Anyway, they should change it from AD to GD, and from BC to CC#, pronenouced the Melodeon Year 100, or Bosca Ceoil Year 1897. |
|
26 Sep 11 - 01:13 PM (#3229410) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: gnu Yeah, well it's stardate -311264.13565449003 here right now. Catch up to the new times eh? |
|
26 Sep 11 - 01:36 PM (#3229425) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: Richard Bridge Some clarification: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2011/sep/26/1?fb=native |
|
26 Sep 11 - 02:16 PM (#3229456) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: BTNG and then there's This |
|
26 Sep 11 - 02:40 PM (#3229479) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: GUEST,999 October 4 1582 was followed by 15 October 15, 1582. And without a single flash card! Yippee. |
|
26 Sep 11 - 02:47 PM (#3229480) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: GUEST,999 In other words, We have found that Thursday, October 4, 1582 (Julian) was followed by Friday, October 15, 1582 (Gregorian) Both from the www. A fellow I knew in university explained to me the troubles he had digging into papers from the time of the Fr Rev due to the date change. He was doing his master's and he said it was not only difficult to work with but also a SOB to footnote his thesis. |
|
26 Sep 11 - 05:34 PM (#3229603) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: Rapparee I'm starting a drive to completely redo the way we do the calendar. I think that it should start with 1945 (current reckoning) as year 0M. That's because that's the year I was born. Dates before that will be designated "BM" (Before Me) and "AM (After Me). Dates occurring during my lifetime will be designated "M" (Me). So the year that's called "1940" by current reckoning would become "5 BM", the year 1955 becomes "9 M" and there is nothing yet that can be called "AM". |
|
26 Sep 11 - 05:39 PM (#3229605) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: GUEST,Mrr at work Not offensive necessarily, just outdated. There is no need for everyone to relate to the birth of a mythical savior who may or may not have existed in historical reality. But we do have a commonality to using what used to be annos domini (I personally consider 2011 to be well within rounding error from 1.4 billion years, so I have no isse with using that year) so the terms BCE and CE - before the common era and common era - are more descriptive and do not make any assumptions about whether Jesus lived or whether he was Christ. |
|
26 Sep 11 - 06:13 PM (#3229614) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: Little Hawk Incredible idea, Rapparee! I hope you succeed in pursuading the world to adopt this timely change you have proposed. |
|
26 Sep 11 - 06:14 PM (#3229616) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: GUEST,999 And as a hush fell over the crowd a wee voice was heard from the back of the auditorium: Fu#k the date, what time is it? |
|
26 Sep 11 - 06:16 PM (#3229619) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: Little Hawk It's all relative. For instance, it's dark now in Japan. |
|
26 Sep 11 - 06:39 PM (#3229628) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: Dave the Gnome What I find offensive is someone calling me an arsehole. I mean to say - I'm far less usefull than that! I didn't even click the link, Richard. Is it tabloid wind up again? DtG |
|
26 Sep 11 - 07:02 PM (#3229634) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: Stilly River Sage I can see why Max sometimes says that the BS section here at Mudcat is a wasteland. This was an out-dated topic in a pointless thread. Instead of sitting at the computer looking for things to be bothered by, go outside, take a walk, read a good book, watch an old comedy television program. Take a nap. Or go sing a song. SRS |
|
26 Sep 11 - 07:36 PM (#3229652) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: John on the Sunset Coast I've been using the terms BCE and CE for nearly fifty years. Many historians specializing in Ancient Near Eastern History and NE Archaeology were already using that nomenclature, and has come into more and more use, although still not universally. I suppose it depends on your religious outlook whether or not these terms offend. Bible Believing Christians (whatever that means) seem to be the most offended when scholarly acronyms is substituted for BC and AD; in fact, it caused quite a dust-up in the popular magazine, Biblical Archaeology Reader, some years ago. I like the modern terminology. It can actually satisfy both Christians and non-Christians alike. Christians (and traditionalists) can use the acronyms to mean Before Christian Era and Christian Era, while scholars and others can use them to denote Before Common Era and Common Era. |
|
26 Sep 11 - 09:43 PM (#3229680) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: Rapparee What do you mean, 999, "what time is it?" Time is relative, and now that scientists think that they may have found a something that goes faster than light, it becomes even worse. "We don't serve your kind here," said the bartender. A neutrino walked into a bar. |
|
26 Sep 11 - 10:42 PM (#3229693) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: BTNG A young woman named Julia Bright, Who could travel faster than light, She left, one day, in a relative way, And returned on the previous night |
|
26 Sep 11 - 11:59 PM (#3229711) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: Richard Bridge "Fuck the date" - as I recall, that used to be the objective. |
|
27 Sep 11 - 12:11 AM (#3229715) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: Richard Bridge A propos, this is a current news story here in the UK, having been the subject of a number of very recent news media presentations. I must therefore reject Stilly River Sage's view above. |
|
27 Sep 11 - 01:10 AM (#3229721) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: GUEST,999 There has been a particle, one which phases in and out of reality/cognizance since the '60s. (Maybe earlier.) THAT ain't news, either. It goes faster than light sometimes, and slower than light at others. In terms of the sentence, Fuck the date, what is missing IS the subject. Obviously, it is the object that's left--or right from this view. :-) That said, no one has told me the time yet. And, no, time is NOT relative. Time is what everything else is relative to. That's why I want to know what time it is! :-) For example, it is 1:00 am. My computer says it's 1:09. SO, W'sTFT? |
|
27 Sep 11 - 02:11 AM (#3229729) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: Paul Burke The answer is that they didn't fix the year zero problem; 1BC(E) is followed by 1AD (CE). So the new nomenclature still means you have to remember to add 1 to all years 0 or earlier. So what we need is a new system, based on mathematical principles. We can't easily change modern years, but no one cares much what happened when a long time ago, so adding 1 to all BC years should be generally acceptable. But what we also need is an event that happened in 1 BC to mark the Year Zero. Wikipedia reveals the year as peculiarly uneventful. Ping of Han became Emperor of China. That's not earthshaking, it doesn't even rattle the crockery. Augustus of Rome sent Gaius to negociate a peace treaty with the Persians. Again, thoroughly worthy, but no turning point. Ovid wrote Ars Amatoria. That's the best we can do. Name the era after this. AA, BA- After Ars, Before Ars. And 0 AA becomes The Year Of The Ars. |
|
27 Sep 11 - 03:23 AM (#3229739) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: Keith A of Hertford Toynbee in Guardian wrote, "No, the BBC hasn't dropped the use of BC and AD, but one website editor decided that BCE/CE was more appropriate." Mail said yesterday,"(BBC) insisted the change was not a guideline and was the choice of individual production teams." However they gave a direct quote from the BBC's religion and ethics department, "As the BBC is committed to impartiality it is appropriate that we use terms that do not offend or alienate non-Christians." Using the terms BCE and CE does not change the inconvenient fact that the numbering system referred to is still based on the birth of Jesus. |
|
27 Sep 11 - 04:48 AM (#3229761) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: Richard Bridge May we take it that Stilly will withdraw? |
|
27 Sep 11 - 06:05 AM (#3229780) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: Bonzo3legs Does it really matter?? I will always use BC and AD because I always have done. I care nothing for PC claptrap. |
|
27 Sep 11 - 07:15 AM (#3229816) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: GUEST,Jim Knowledge I `ad that John in my cab the other day. `e`d just flown in from the Sunset Coast. `e said, "Hi there Jim, get me up to the `oliday Inn as fast as you like and I wanna get there this year". I said, "What, this year, 2011?". Attempting a bit of `yoomer`. `e said, "You got it. 2011 CE." I said, " What`s all this CE, then?" `e said, "Common Era." I said, "Never `eard of it. When did it start then?". `e said, "When Jesus was born." I said, "Why don`t you say so ,then??" Whaddam I Like?? |
|
27 Sep 11 - 07:17 AM (#3229819) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: GUEST,Patsy These days I use the term BMs or ABMs Before mobiles or After mobiles. |
|
27 Sep 11 - 08:00 AM (#3229843) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: MGM·Lion My cousin Martin who is not online or accessible by e.mail describes himself as BC = Before Computers... |
|
27 Sep 11 - 09:05 AM (#3229878) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: Rapparee "Time" is a human construct used to measure duration. Sometimes, like during Latin class, it goes more slowly than at others. Actually, we always live in the "Now." You might remember the past, but you do so in the Now. The Now is also being business defining the future. Time is only humanity's way of stopping everything from happening at once. |
|
27 Sep 11 - 09:15 AM (#3229884) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: Keith A of Hertford So thing's really aren't what they used to be? |
|
27 Sep 11 - 09:42 AM (#3229893) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: artbrooks BC/AD was well on its way out when I took my first history degree in 1968. Of course, we know that the UK, especially its stodgier elements such as the BBS, prefers to cling desperately to the past. :>) |
|
27 Sep 11 - 11:07 AM (#3229947) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: John on the Sunset Coast GUEST,JimKnowledge-- I almost recall that incident, but then I remember that I haven't flown in years, anywhere, and it has been even longer since I was in a cab (by which I understand you to mean a hired means of automobile transportation.) Finally, the only conversations I have with cabbies are where I want to go and 'Keep the Change.' I think, Jim, your recollection is apocryphal to make the point that you like things as they always were. But know this, too...if ever I do fly to your city, I will avail myself of your transportational service, and we can then have the conversation you report. |
|
27 Sep 11 - 11:39 AM (#3229958) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: autolycus We no more need a year zero than we need a 0th January between 31st December and 1st January. Calendar numbering is different from other numberings. When our calendar was being constructed in the 6th Century, the zero as a number had not yet arrived in Europe. So Dionysius Exiguus had our calenday go from 1B.C. to 1 A.D., just like in the months example above. Incidentally, people having used BCE/CE for upwards of only 50 years, it's no wonder the daily wail calls the terms 'obscure'. it's read by the wives of the people who run the country. |
|
27 Sep 11 - 12:13 PM (#3229977) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: Lighter > Calendar numbering is different from other numberings. Indeed. Quick, how many years between 2003 and 2013? How many between 3 BCE and 3 CE? |
|
27 Sep 11 - 12:24 PM (#3229980) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: Bert I thought that everyone knew that AD is short for Anno Domini which means "From the year Dot" As for a year zero; there is no such thing as zero so why should there be a year zero? |
|
27 Sep 11 - 12:28 PM (#3229982) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: autolycus Anno Domini means "The Year of Our Lord". I wasn't saying there's no such thing as zero. |
|
27 Sep 11 - 12:38 PM (#3229989) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: Stringsinger It wouldn't be so offensive if it weren't for the sudden spate of religious Christians imposing their views on others, today. "Before Christ" or "Anno Domini" has been a convention in discussions of history accepted without consideration of their origin. If it becomes a reference point historically, I see no cause to be offended. Christmas, for example, "Christ Mass" is a standard convention for a celebratory holiday without it having to be a reference for theology. It can be interpreted as a Pagan Holiday or a secular one which attempts to coerce the sun to come back and for people to light candles for this purpose, now exchanged for electric light bulbs. I don't personally use this designation for a historical reference but as a convention, it stands, inho, without being inherently offensive. |
|
27 Sep 11 - 04:29 PM (#3230136) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: Kenny B (inactive) Thank goodness I didnt take that degree in history i just coudlnt hand all the date changes. Could I suggest we use the term "BN by 2011" ( Before Now by 2011 years ) Didnt this date thingy all come about because in reality the calendar had just been invented and the number of days a year settled so people at the time could cont in days and years Just had a thought BC would be before calendar and AD would be After Date was invented Really no change is required then Cancel Para 2 Just a thought |
|
27 Sep 11 - 04:45 PM (#3230150) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: Rapparee I still think years should be BM, M, and AM...Before Me, Me, After Me. There is no AM and may never be. |
|
27 Sep 11 - 04:58 PM (#3230154) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: McGrath of Harlow Until relatively recently - a few centuries ago - dates were normally recorded in the form "in the 5th year of the reign of so and so", rather than on any larger scale. Must have got very confusing in the international context,m but I don't suppose people travelled that much. |
|
28 Sep 11 - 05:08 AM (#3230428) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: autolycus Also, 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. So I think any who are offended by BC and AD can, well, stay offended. Or they can use an alternative and see how they get on. I hope they get any pleasure at all from comedians, who make a living partially thru offending. |
|
28 Sep 11 - 06:14 AM (#3230444) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: Bonzo3legs Usually getting offended on behalf of others - they have nothing to do!!! |
|
28 Sep 11 - 06:25 AM (#3230450) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: MGM·Lion Indeed. A teacher of my acquaintance at a parents' evening asked a Muslim parent who was a well-known local community leader how his community would wish the December/January school holiday to be referred to. "Why, the Christmas holidays of course," he replied cheerfully; "What else!" ~M~ |
|
28 Sep 11 - 07:07 AM (#3230464) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: GUEST,Patsy Or BD (Before Dinosaurs, D (Dinosaurs), AD after Dinosaurs. |
|
28 Sep 11 - 07:18 AM (#3230471) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: MGM·Lion Hmmm, Patsy. We'll be going back about 65,000,000 years, then? |
|
28 Sep 11 - 07:24 AM (#3230472) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: Black belt caterpillar wrestler It was always claimed that the Bishop's Castle Railway was the oldest in the world. It had BC written on the carriages. |
|
28 Sep 11 - 09:07 AM (#3230518) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: GUEST,Jon It wouldn't be so offensive if it weren't for the sudden spate of religious Christians imposing their views on others, today. Odd. Going by Mudcat, the Christians are usually the quiet ones, generally expressing their beliefs only when questioned or challenged. |
|
28 Sep 11 - 11:42 AM (#3230601) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: McGrath of Harlow Muslims venerate Jesus as the greatest of the prophets before Muhammed. Why would they be worried about Christmas? |
|
28 Sep 11 - 05:58 PM (#3230772) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T 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. |
|
28 Sep 11 - 06:42 PM (#3230807) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity 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 |
|
29 Sep 11 - 01:58 AM (#3230920) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: Paul Burke 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. |
|
29 Sep 11 - 06:00 AM (#3230984) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: GUEST,Eliza 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!) |
|
29 Sep 11 - 06:31 AM (#3230994) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: Bonzo3legs Can you see Saudi Arabia changing their islamic calendar so as not to offend Christians living and working there??? NO YOU CAN'T!!!!!!!!! |
|
29 Sep 11 - 07:01 AM (#3231000) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: Musket 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...... |
|
29 Sep 11 - 07:12 AM (#3231002) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity 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 |
|
29 Sep 11 - 08:54 AM (#3231038) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: artbrooks All the dates on the official Saudi website, http://www.the-saudi.net/saudi-arabia/government.htm, are in CE numbers. |
|
29 Sep 11 - 10:08 AM (#3231083) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: TheSnail 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. |
|
29 Sep 11 - 10:54 AM (#3231103) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: BTNG "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. |
|
29 Sep 11 - 11:01 AM (#3231106) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: Bert Anno domimi - the year dot. That was supposed to be a joke. Sorry you didn't get it. |
|
29 Sep 11 - 11:06 AM (#3231112) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: BTNG that's a joke that's older than........never mind. |
|
29 Sep 11 - 12:12 PM (#3231146) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: Bert I know but Autolycus didn't seem to get it. |
|
29 Sep 11 - 02:38 PM (#3231208) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: GUEST,Eliza '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! |
|
30 Sep 11 - 03:38 AM (#3231506) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: autolycus 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!!" |
|
30 Sep 11 - 06:26 AM (#3231558) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: autolycus 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." |
|
30 Sep 11 - 07:42 AM (#3231591) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: Lighter 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*!" |
|
01 Oct 11 - 06:06 AM (#3232119) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: Gurney 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! ;-) |
|
01 Oct 11 - 07:04 AM (#3232127) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: Musket I still have a set of Whitworth spanners in the garage.... |
|
01 Oct 11 - 07:05 AM (#3232128) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: McGrath of Harlow Centigrade? Fahrenheit! |
|
01 Oct 11 - 07:09 AM (#3232130) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: autolycus 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. |
|
01 Oct 11 - 07:54 AM (#3232141) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: JohnInKansas 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 |
|
01 Oct 11 - 12:05 PM (#3232198) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: ranger1 This whole thread reminds me of an old Bloom County comic strip> I'm Offended |
|
01 Oct 11 - 12:08 PM (#3232201) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: Edthefolkie 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! |
|
01 Oct 11 - 03:10 PM (#3232272) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Another long thread without content. |
|
01 Oct 11 - 03:16 PM (#3232274) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: BTNG No one's forcing you to contribute nor read the said thread, Q, so stop complaining |
|
01 Oct 11 - 03:44 PM (#3232283) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: Gurney 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. |
|
01 Oct 11 - 04:00 PM (#3232292) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: Q (Frank Staplin) 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?) |
|
01 Oct 11 - 04:03 PM (#3232293) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Dang! Put it together. |
|
01 Oct 11 - 04:07 PM (#3232295) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: Q (Frank Staplin) 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. |
|
01 Oct 11 - 04:17 PM (#3232299) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: Gurney 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..... |
|
01 Oct 11 - 04:26 PM (#3232303) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: Mrrzy 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 |
|
02 Oct 11 - 03:27 AM (#3232479) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: autolycus 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 |
|
02 Oct 11 - 03:28 AM (#3232480) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: autolycus Sorry, it's not letting me make a blue clicky at the moment. |
|
02 Oct 11 - 07:53 AM (#3232537) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: autolycus 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 |
|
02 Oct 11 - 08:35 AM (#3232547) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T 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 |
|
02 Oct 11 - 01:08 PM (#3232640) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: GUEST,Uncle_DaveO |
|
02 Oct 11 - 01:53 PM (#3232658) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: Mrrzy 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. |
|
02 Oct 11 - 02:12 PM (#3232670) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: McGrath of Harlow 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... |
|
02 Oct 11 - 03:50 PM (#3232709) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: Lighter So, er, what do you do for "BC/BCE" dates? |
|
02 Oct 11 - 03:52 PM (#3232712) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: Lighter Never mind. I figured it out. |
|
03 Oct 11 - 05:16 AM (#3232930) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: autolycus Like this? |
|
03 Oct 11 - 05:18 AM (#3232931) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: autolycus Thanks, Don. |
|
03 Oct 11 - 02:32 PM (#3233162) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: Mrrzy 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... |
|
03 Oct 11 - 02:39 PM (#3233167) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: Gurney 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. |
|
03 Oct 11 - 03:28 PM (#3233195) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: Lighter 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? |
|
03 Oct 11 - 06:21 PM (#3233335) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: autolycus 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. |
|
03 Oct 11 - 11:16 PM (#3233431) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: Gurney 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. |
|
04 Oct 11 - 07:57 AM (#3233584) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: Lighter 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. |
|
04 Oct 11 - 01:26 PM (#3233762) Subject: RE: BS: Years 'BC' or 'AD' offensive? From: Paul Burke 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. |