Dogs first team to pass 100 wins this century

[Sea Eagle Scuba]

IF you keep tugging it, it will fall off :crazy:

:lol: One of the best of the day, by a mile! :lol:

 

[bluesbreaker]

You won a 1/5th of those on an illegally assembled roster. Any team with an extra mill on the salary cap would be up there for 100 wins in the last century (which, as pointed out, is a fallacy in itself).

 

[mxlegend99]

BTW mxlegend, I'd prefer to believe wikipedia than you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21st_century

The 21st century is the present century of the Gregorian calendar. It began on 1 January 2001 and will last to 31 December 2100. Technologically it is different from the 20th Century mostly by changes brought about by the Digital Revolution of the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s.


Shove that one up ya ;-)

:lol:

That very same site says that year Zero if it existed, would be 1BC. Which means that 1AD is the first full year and so 2000 years later, 2000AD would make 2 complete milleniums. Not 2001.

Shove that up you. It's commonly accepted that the year 2000 was the 2000th year after christ. Given the inaccurate information of the birth of christ, it could infact be 2001 year after christ, to 2008 years after christ. Either way... it was at minimum, 2000 years.

The entire system we measure our dates on in flawed. The fact that we have no accurate information regarding our point of reference says it all really. Here ya go:

A year zero does not exist in the Christian Era and its Gregorian calendar or its anterior Julian calendar.
A year zero does exist in ISO 8601:2004 and in the astronomical year numbering with a defined year zero equal to 1 BC, as well as in some Buddhist and Hindu lunar calendars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_zero

The Roman numeral system has no symbol for null, but instead the Latin words nulla and nihil, which in normal speech meant nothing, were used. Nulla was used whenever zero was a member of a series of numbers, whether the other numbers were Roman numerals or Latin words

Given that it is based on numerals that don't even have zero in them... the system is just great

Since Bede, historians have not counted with a year zero. This means that between, for example, 500 BC, January 1 and AD 500, January 1 there are surprisingly only 999 years: 500 for the time taking place BC, and 499 for the part of AD. However astronomers, for whom ease of mathematical calculation is more important, have used for several centuries a defined leap year zero equal to BC 1 of the traditional Christian era.

Given that people of importance use both methods, it's an endless arguement. At the end of the day, which is widely accepted? That the year 2000 was the start of the new millenium. That 1990 was part of the 1990's, and that the year 2000 is part of this decade, not the 90's. If you want to have it ass backwards, by all means do that. The system is flawed if it goes from -1 to 1 without having Zero between.

edit

A mathematical explanation for "year zero" confusion
The Venerable Bede, like many historians, was using ordinal numbers (e.g. first, second, third, ...) to label years, centuries, and millennia, but scientists and Hindu and Mayan historians use cardinal numbers, which measure the elapsed time from a starting point.

When using ordinal numbers to label years, the first year after the starting point necessarily comes immediately after the first year before the starting point. Thus 1 AD comes immediately after 1 BC. On the other hand, when using cardinal numbers to measure elapsed time, then Year 1.0 begins exactly one year after the starting point. Thus, with cardinal numbers, the first year is Year 0.0 (meaning that zero years have elapsed since the starting point).

Normally there is no confusion between ordinal and cardinal numbers, but if we use the numeral 1 to stand for the first in a sequence, and "2" for the second, and so forth, then ambiguity and confusion are the result. There is no way to tell whether "Year 1" is ordinal (using 1 to mean "first"), or cardinal (using 1 to mean one year after the starting point).

Both ordinal and cardinal numbering systems are acceptable and correct. It is necessary to keep in mind that there are two kinds of numbers, ordinal numbers and cardinal numbers, and that they have different meanings. Ordinal numbers give a position in a sequence (e.g. first, second, third, ...) and cardinal numbers give elapsed time. Scientists prefer cardinal numbers because elapsed time is more often what is needed for time calculations.

A similar confusion occurs in numbering the floors of a building. In the British convention, the floor that is even with the ground is called the ground floor, and the next floor up is the first floor — these are cardinal numbers, measuring distance from the ground in floors. In the American convention, in contrast, the floor that one encounters first when entering a building is called the first floor, and the next floor up is the second floor — these are ordinal numbers, which count position in a sequence. See Floor numbering.

That supports both sides.

Including year 0 in the first positive millennium (0 to 999) while excluding it from the first negative millennium (−1000 to −1) would be inconsistent. But consistency produces unusual results: either year 0 separates the first positive millennium (1 to 1000) from the first negative millennium (−1000 to −1) or it is included in both (−999 to 0 to 999). The consistent solution is that any year zero must be defined "out of centuries". A Year Zero is a Year Zero. It does not belong to any millennia. With regards to the decades like "the 1990s", the year zero, if recognised, is both the first year of the years plus zeros and the first year of the years minus 0s. However, the 200th decade ends, like the 20th century and the 2nd millennium: 2000, December 31 at midnight.

 

[Timmah]

:|

The argument was "This century"

Wikipedia clearly states "This century" - the 21st century, as beginning on 1 January 2006. FFS mate, get a grip.

 

[innsaneink]

Cheating the cap may not have stripped the wins from the Dogs, but it makes whatever lame achievement this thread is proclaiming completely empty

They lost what those wins earnt them...the points. They should lose the wins too.

20 wins worth sfa .

20 wins that shouldnt be recorded in any register, but they will be, and for the rest of history there will be a * next to the dogs name, an eternal reminder of their cheating ways.

*
*
:lol:

 

[Timmah]

And beside 2004: Premiers Bulldogs.

;-)

 

[Master Rooster]

WHO CARES ABOUT WHEN THE CENTURY STARTS?

the fact is, the bulldogs supporter who started this thread included those wins from 2002, which had been stripped. so the refined figures clearly show that the bulldogs HAVENT been the dominant team OF the 21st Century OR since nrl existence!

so it kinda backfired on him!

 

[Crusher]

Most wins by a team that has not had any salary cap breaches since 1998.

...................

 

[mxlegend99]

:|

The argument was "This century"

Wikipedia clearly states "This century" - the 21st century, as beginning on 1 January 2006. FFS mate, get a grip.

It clearly states a lot of contradictive things mate:

ISO 8601:2004 and ISO 8601:2000, but not ISO 8601:1988, explicitly use astronomical year numbering in their date reference systems. Because they also specify the use of the proleptic Gregorian calendar for all years before 1582, some readers erroneously conclude that a year zero is always included in that calendar, whereas that is unusual. The "basic" format for year 0 is the four-digit form 0000, which equals the historical year 1 BC. Several "expanded" formats are possible: -0000 and +0000, as well as five- and six-digit versions. Earlier years are also negative four-, five- or six-digit years, which have an absolute value one less than the equivalent BC year, hence -0001 = 2 BC. Because only ISO 646 (7-bit ASCII) characters are allowed by ISO 8601, the minus signs are hyphens.

The fact of the matter is that the system is flawed. It's based on a system where Zero does not exist. Given you cannot go from -1 to 1 without passing Zero, the system i just quoted is the only system that makes any sort of sense.

That is unless you beleive that you can go from 1 year before christ, directly to the year after christ without hitting the year of christ. :crazy:

The world celebrated the year 2000 as the start of the new millenium. It is what is widely accepted. As the system in place that suggests otherwise, is clearly flawed. Using that same system to measure someones age, would have everyone being a year older then they really are.