So your in the year 500 ce.... island in the sea of time time!

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by Vesayen


I am not ADAMANTLY against it but given the choice, I prefer to discuss my chronology not in refference to Christs fictitious birth(not that he was not born he was, just proboably VERY likley not in 0 ce heh).

Your "preference" is duly noted.

[MikeH]

Originally posted by Japher
What's an ignorant American thing?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Cyclotron


You're funny.

You're still referencing Christ's birth, whether you call it CE, AD, or ADHD.

CE means common era, or Christian era, and is a reference to the fact that this is agreed upon conventionally (hence Common) as the period for dating, or is that used by Christians (which is a historical and sociological fact)

AD means year of OUR LORD, which is not true for anyone who doesnt consider Christ their lord, and is particulary inappropriate for the dating the history of pagans, Jews, muslims and other non-Christians.

[RGBVideo]

You're still referencing Christ's birth, whether you call it CE, AD, or ADHD.

No he's not. Jesus wasn't born on either the year 0 or 1.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
CE means common era, or Christian era, and is a reference to the fact that this is agreed upon conventionally (hence Common) as the period for dating, or is that used by Christians (which is a historical and sociological fact)

AD means year of OUR LORD, which is not true for anyone who doesnt consider Christ their lord, and is particulary inappropriate for the dating the history of pagans, Jews, muslims and other non-Christians.

It doesn't matter what you call it. You're still using the supposed date of Christ's birth as year 0. It is equally appropriate for dating the history of anybody, actually, because it's just a dating convention, and a widely accepted one at that.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by VJ

No he's not. Jesus wasn't born on either the year 0 or 1.

When people made this dating system, they thought he was.

[lord of the mark]

Re: So your in the year 500 ce.... island in the sea of time time!

Originally posted by Vesayen
.....stipulations for this situation:


When you first read this message you and everything within 50 feet of you find yourself in the year 500 CE.

If you would not be on land or inside solid rock, or fall to your death etc, you are on the nearest stable land. We also assume you speak whatever the dominant language of the area.

The suggested course of action is to conquer the world but that is hard.....

So, WHAT DO YOU DO?



Note; I recind my comment a few months ago that I could proboably build a radio.

A couple of dozen office workers stuck with some Indians who probably dont even have corn yet. I think there was some agriculture, (gourds, sumpweed?) among the eastern indians, but Id bet the ones here made their living as hunter gatherers. They almost certainly dont have sufficient food surpluse to keep us alive, despite our many silly trade goods (jewels, colored cloth, etc) Simply in order to survive we will have to disperse, and fairly quickly at that. and then simply go native. Probably some of us have enough smarts to help the indians in SOME way (like suggesting washing to avert disease, or something like that - though I dont know any of us knows how to make soap) I doubt we could do much to add to the food supply more than marginally. And unfortunately none of the books within 50 feet document anything useful to hunter gatherers. Oh, if we have any seeds of plants they dont have that might help - got to check the fridge, and hope somebody has like a poppy seed bagel or something.

So world conquest is most unlikely, and even real historical impact will probably be limited (at best, when corn makes it here from Mexico, we'll have a SLIGHTLY more advanced, more hygenic, group of indians)

[RGBVideo]

You're still referencing Christ's birth, whether you call it CE, AD, or ADHD.

When people made this dating system, they thought he was.

It doesn't matter what you call it. You're still using the supposed date of Christ's birth as year 0. It is equally appropriate for dating the history of anybody, actually, because it's just a dating convention, and a widely accepted one at that.

So basically you admit that you were wrong? You admit that Vesayen is, in fact, perfectly correct when he refuses to use "before christ" since it doesn't really mean years "before christ"?

Wtf are you whining about, then?

[RGBVideo]

You're still using the supposed date of Christ's birth as year 0.

And no, the supposed date of the birth of Jesus is in the year 1. The "year 0" doesn't exist according to either Julian or Gregorian calendars.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Cyclotron


It doesn't matter what you call it. You're still using the supposed date of Christ's birth as year 0. It is equally appropriate for dating the history of anybody, actually, because it's just a dating convention, and a widely accepted one at that.

Im using the date, but not saying who is or isnt my lord.

Its like saying this is the 230th year of American Independence, vs saying this is the 230th year of My Beloved Country.

Get the difference?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Cyclotron


When people made this dating system, they thought he was.

when people made this dating system, a handful of monks thought he was. Most Christians had no idea (what year is this - A. Its 10th year of the reign of my lord Oddo von Boddo, long may he live or B. Duh, I dunno. Its a couple a years after I got married I guess - I gotta get back to my plough) and certainly most non-Christians had no idea.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Cyclotron


It doesn't matter what you call it.

Great. So call it CE, BCE, and be done with it.

[Richelieu]

@ this

[MikeH]

If it doesn't matter why change what everyone's been calling it for thousands of years? Pointless change for no good reason.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by VJ
So basically you admit that you were wrong? You admit that Vesayen is, in fact, perfectly correct when he refuses to use "before christ" since it doesn't really mean years "before christ"?

Wtf are you whining about, then?

What are you on about, anyway?

I prefer to discuss my chronology not in refference to Christs fictitious birth(not that he was not born he was, just proboably VERY likley not in 0 ce heh).

My point was that using CE and BCE doesn't change this; they're still based off the same, apparently ficitious date given for the birth of Christ.

And no, the supposed date of the birth of Jesus is in the year 1. The "year 0" doesn't exist according to either Julian or Gregorian calendars.

Duh, I knew that, my mistake.

when people made this dating system, a handful of monks thought he was. Most Christians had no idea (what year is this - A. Its 10th year of the reign of my lord Oddo von Boddo, long may he live or B. Duh, I dunno. Its a couple a years after I got married I guess - I gotta get back to my plough) and certainly most non-Christians had no idea.

This is irrelevant.

Great. So call it CE, BCE, and be done with it.

Why should I, when AD and BC seem to work just fine?