[Hankie]

Doc, that group has only 175 thousand more kids than Texas does.

You'd need to add a fourth state.

[zlopikanikanzax]

Really, no need for every Israeli to do it. She'll be just fine on her own.

QFT

[Gintovtosik]

Because it's his alternate desperation subject. Whining about Texas.
It doesn't matter that Texans don't like it. He's going to jump on the chance to whine.

[sestomosi]

I don't really care, other than it gets boring. I know a simpleton like you doesn't need much.

[nAKMzyBN]

Because it's his alternate desperation subject. Whining about Texas.
It doesn't matter that Texans don't like it. He's going to jump on the chance to whine.

Will you stop whining about people who whine?


And let me know when you can back up the accusation you made about me earlier in the thread - dumbass.

[DianaDrk]

Will you stop whining about people who whine?


And let me know when you can back up the accusation you made about me earlier in the thread - dumbass.

You back it up all the time, all by yourself, dumbass little punk.
Have you managed to go around town by yourself yet, or do you still tremble in your shoes at the thought? Mouthing off from a PC hundreds of miles away doesn't really gird you for the task. You have to actually go.

[ReneCM]

Slowwhand is the definition of irony.

[somamasoso]

I don't particularly care if Texas wants to do wacky **** to its school curriculum.

If it is indeed true, however, that text book publishers just print whatever Texas says to print, then this is concerning. The solution is probably what Dr. Strangelove suggests - get a coalition of New England states together with NY (or some other similar conglomeration) and out-weight Texas.

-Arrian

[iouiyyut]

There's nothing quoted that qualifies as "wacky".

[BrodiKennedy]

Anyone who therefore objects because it hurts their religious feelings for academics or Jews or what have you to use them instead of A.D./B.C. can suck my balls.

You got another new mattress recently, Boris?

[QvhhbjLy]

It doesn't change the fact that that is why the particular date was chosen and it is ridiculous to say otherwise.

JM

1. Nobody is saying otherwise. Using CE/BCE isn't meant to deny the reason the Gregorian Calendar was devised. Who has ever claimed that?

2. The only people who care why it was chosen are Christians whose feelings are hurt by the change, and I don't see why that should matter to scholars, who are free to use whichever nomenclature they wish, since both are commonly accepted in academia.

[Buildityrit]

1 A.D. = After Death, not birth date.

[VonErmad4]

Besides, the A.D./B.C. nomenclature is, if anything, wrong. Nobody accepts that Jesus, if he existed, was born in the year 1.

BCE/CE has the exact same problem, you tard. It's exactly the same as BC/AD, expect for the stupid PC name change. And WTF does "common era" even mean? How does it have the same problem? If anything, it's the recognition of the very problem. Except for a mistake by religious folks, there's no real reason to distinguish between BC and AD. But since the Gregorian calendar does dominate, it wouldn't be feasible to institute some mass change of the year numbering system.

That doesn't change the very real problem for a Jewish rabbi saying "In the Year of Our Lord" by using "A.D." If Christians were expected to use an abbreviation that actually meant "Praise be to Allah," I am pretty sure they'd throw a fitabout it, no matter how old it was.

"Common Era" was derived from "Vulgar Era," which was the first usage of this kind of nomenclature.

It doesn't change the fact that that is why the particular date was chosen and it is ridiculous to say otherwise.

Exactly. One point for JM. Which, as I said, only matters to Christians who get all whiney that not everyone uses the nomenclature they want. Boo-hoo-hoo, get the sand out of your vagina.

[Gogogo]

Yeah, already answered those points.

The fact that anyone gets worked up over BC/BCE vs. BC/AD is in and of itself retarded. Why should people care which one is used? Only an idiot wouldn't be able to understand what was being talked about, so it's not as if it's a barrier to communication. The only people I see worried about it are the types who bemoan the "secularization" of society in general and feel Christianity deserves some sort of special status. BC/BCE has been used for quite a long time in scholarship, so *****ing about it is pointless. It's become a perfectly acceptable nomenclature, it's always going to be around... so too bad, so sad.

[Jackson]

Oh ****ing hell Sloww, are you kidding us?

Pretty much, yeah.

[raspirator]

I'm agreeing with Drake in this thread.

[echocassidyde]

Besides, the A.D./B.C. nomenclature is, if anything, wrong. Nobody accepts that Jesus, if he existed, was born in the year 1. Just as everyone accepts that Rome was founded in 753 BC?

Quibbling over 1 AD vs 4 BC makes about as much sense as quibbling 758 and 753. The point is still the same. The date symbolises the birth of Christ.