|
|
|
|||||||||||||
| 11.13.2009 I had some comment about Wales that I'm archiving for possible later recall if he continues his opposition to facts. But for now today below having contents I have to move off my first-page for his broadening misnomer attitude that I wish you to visit here and scan all these misnomers he categorizes on down the page such as "A Millennium", Ordinal, Cardinal, "debate over millennium celebrations", arbitrarity (which isn't even a word though could be he misspelled arbitrarily), viewpoint 1: x001-y000 and popular approach.
Here Wikipedia defines the FIRST DECADE of the last century as being from January 31, 1901 to December 31, 1910 how it is supposed. Somewhere along path though it appoints some decade during this last 100 years as having nine years but hasn't yet said which. Mouse over George Washington! 
Smart Tip On Page!Twelve Newsletter Issues Email Formated On Page With $10 One Time Tipjar Contribution But Requires a Tip Only So Visit Or Tip The Page Often For Update Message! Misnomer: Dictionary Defined - "A name wrongly or unsuitably applied to a person or an object." Object: Defined (Grammar) "A noun, pronoun, or noun phrase that receives or is affected by the action of a verb within a sentence." Page contention simply put is that "it is an alphabetized noun or moniker of a decade's name that is majorly important and not numerical" succession, alpha-numeric reference or ordinal code. Anyone can count! Particularly to 10 or 20. As 1960's does not include the year 1960 and so it becomes a misnomer, yes it is a bit perplexing for awhile but the two opening definitions proclaim relatively a theme referring to names and or nouns and NOT NUMBERS even if next for related matter "alpha-numeric" connection comes onto the scene. Timeline: 6-25-2005 By Randy Frushour - The Wikipedia has paged up our "decade name" query in a patch job by deciding that the first decade and its predecessor only have 9 years and I presuppose so to box or square off the historical anachronism for appearance' sake. I can see doing a box job on centuries as so they did on a "decade" search result but not decades as it would have to include fair and considerable dialog, forum or discussion as to a descriptive term if not an alpha-numeric reference such as "leap decade; - a decade that only has nine years because there was no year AD 0 and or because counting to ten is too cumbersome or difficult." If counting 20 (twenty) zeroes is too much trouble try instead counting twenty circles and even then modify them to O's. There conveniently is a big fat O at and in the ending of "Z E R O s," or did we miss it- z e r O s. 20 of them now counting from 2001 through 2010. Not 21 zeroes as Wikipedia would guess, as is from 2000 through 2009. Obvious to me is it's all a misinterpretation of the subject matter!  UPDATE -
In fairness to Wikipedia while this page is going unchanged of literary design, the online encyclopedia deserves credit with some mention they "subsequently, of my two recent exchanges with serious rebuttals" as for their neglect at outset of a search "return material" for "decade" and "2000s," disappointed though having expositions or definitions lexicographically incorrect.
My original page edits at Wikipedia I assumed would not alter Wikipedia's design for
squaring up an accurate account of the "years of our decade," our century and this our next millennium and so a week later and further during June of 2005 I involved to forward them an email with correct references as posted here throughout this website "which they should read," and included the above page materials even for them the evening I pasted this page, as I was deeply disturbed their editors do not expressly describe a quarter-century long debated forum about the year 2000 and an "alpha-numeric name search" for the decade ahead, but only spouted that - and I disagree - that it could literally be possible to label the year 2000 "a leap year" if even year AD Zero was considered a leap year though it wasn't a year or a number and even that only because these bumbling speculators refuse to do the immutable math - for the sake of squaring off our decade and "they instead (supposedly) infer there is nine years in the first decade of years 1AD through AD 10 or as they state "through AD 9," such so that year 10AD become the first year of the "Tens" decade and so on infinitely or indefinitely "every decades last year" would coincide with the titled alpha-numeric name of its decade giving our whole decade an inference as a leap decade.
This, to me as I stated "I felt were false and misleading statements."
Because the alphabetized noun of a decades name highlights also a previous decade's
ending year doesn't describe that whole year as being included in the next decade. It's plainly a misnomer but that is all!July 1st, 20O5 - Now for the record to date, this morning during review I scanned and located a curious update Wikipedia has posted and with Google's assistance positioned my platform rather sufficient though as plainly not exact for (their) a correction as would stand but as an arm or platform categorized beside or, on top of its preliminary post "decade" (or 2000s) query result as possibly "they are faltering to enigmatic syndrome of course recently a global phenomenon," or as I state "branching out some additional commentaries" as "is mine" during this review. While it is a simple matter when you stay the course counting from one to ten, it is a complicated puzzle most assuredly when we can't or don't. Todays revision at Wikipedia for our 20 Zeros platform recognition of the decade name story and view my email of June to them on page below. previous definitions still there. Here is boxed their lexicographically correct chart as pleasantly squared for the (category) 21st Century where in June also they had this chart as without the space for year 2000 but empty and only proceeding up to the year 2009 as with the top line posting years 1 - 9AD and the second line and second decade beginning with year 10 (through 19) and here they conclude that year 2000 belongs to the 20th century. So I guess that would make it ancient as belonging also to the last millennium. Randy 2000s click and scroll to the very last link item on bottom of page to "Category: 2000s" and again click where you'll view following (which I submitted them in June) now our commentary as they approved for edit: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Articles and events specifically related to the decade beginning with the year 2001 and ending with the year 2010. Note that the year 2000 is actually a part of the 1990's and also the 20th century. My Email Date: 2005-06-26T21:45:17.0000000-00:00 To: Wiki@wiki.com From: frushour,randy J Wales, Revision here includes the complete forum update for your lexicographers. Your Comments welcome. Truly, Randy Frushour United States Publisher Timeline: July 2nd 20O5 This morning I sent Encyclopedia Britannica this email - HAPPY 4th - Randy! Sender: "frushour,randy" frushour@atlanticbb.net Subject: TWENTY ZEROS Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2005 10:05:58 -0400 To: contact@eb.com Dear Adviser, My platform work has placed me and my version of our first decade of the new millennium and 21st century into record of Wikipedia and I feel now is an appropriate time to submit to Britannica for format on (precisely) the alpha-numeric name of this "Twenty Zeroes" decade. Would you advise me to call an 800 number listed at your web site and begin dialog or is there a department figurehead who refiles information such as that I am providing you above whom I may email? Truly Yours, Randy Frushour United States Publisher Search Google TwentyZeros.com Timeline: 08.07.2005 - No response and no reply yet. 10.16.2005 - The following revision was scanned at Wikipedia as an "edit revision to this" account but note that it may soon again be edited over once again as much of the course Wikipedia's material is quickly outdated for purposes whether or not political. I suppose better search databases as Yahoo! will record for "historical fact" much of their obstructing and all of comments for archive. .... Talk: 2000's Talk:2000s From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Jump to: [edit] What to call it? Allow me to explain this in a way that makes sense to me: The 2000's (Two-Thousands) - a decade - are in the 21st Century, just as the 1900's (Nineteen-Hundreds) - a decade - were in the 20th century. The names 20th Century and 1900's are in fact, not interchangeable any more than the 1960's are. Would you refer to the entire 20th century with the name of a single decade? That's what you're doing when you call that century the 1900's - which happens to be the name of a decade. That brings us to today. Don't be a fool - think about it. The name of this decade is 2000's (Two-Thousands), and it is in the 21st Century. The name of this decade is officially the Two-Thousands. Let's all get together on this before the decade is over. I know it's hard to cope with, but the first ten years of every century don't have a cool name that starts with a 20 like in all the movies where they say years like 2030 (Twenty-Thirty). I don't know when that will start, maybe 2010, or 2020, but one thing's for sure, not yet. P.S. ZDecade, what's the deal man? Don't edit over what I say, respond to what I say. You have your own website to make your case, don't you? Let me make my case, and let my words remain my words. Just because you can do it, doesn't give you the right to. Have some respect for what others say, because other than our genetics and our names, that's all we have. Thank you. Response: ZDecade (me) announced himself or herself above with entitled edit privileges within previous posts on page above and which the above editor at Wikipedia does not or will not yet individually do so. Nobody is acting foolish to redress the anachronism surrounding the difficult matter which curiously few have yet hurdled over. For some it may be a high while for others a low hurdle. End While out front as one issue yes it is an alpha-numeric title we look for but more importantly at this phase for the general public sake, it seems a general grasp of epochal understanding in vernacular and for speech idiom a broader scope is needed to involve oneself academically. In vernacular the masses use "nineteen hundreds" to refer also to the 20th century. "Nineteen" representing "the hundred of years milestone" as since from the beginning of post BC/AD (2000+ years ago) and next with some correct use of lexicography, "hundreds" does represent, for the two-word term a double digit figure and assists pinpointed some reference to the subject completely. In consideration of the primary editor's concern for pitch role with text edit above and herein, this editor participant will remain anonymous but will privately document the script for larger but later on forum exchange. Best of luck however with forging somewhere ahead. Stop Wikipedia Corruption Sign the petition. |
 Sign Guestbook |
 View Guestbook |
| United States Publisher |
 |
  |
|
. |
| Visitors: 00225 |
| zerOs home | Beginner Forum | Genuine Unies Viewer Zeb | Dictionary Comment | Wikipedia Misnomer | Last Half First Decade | Exposition | Multiparty |