The trouble with St. George Illawarra

[Dragon Blood]

 

[Saint_JimmyG]

FMD.... even you should be able to work that one out..

Well, you SHOULD be able to work out that all years ending with zero signify the end of any particular decade.

 

[Saint_JimmyG]

And the 1900s were also the 20th Century.

Sometimes I wonder why people can't work this out. Is it because you had a big party at midnight in 1999, thinking you were celebrating the start of the 21st Century, only to discover later that you shot your load one year too soon?

Blame the Y2K bug.

 

[muzby]

Well, you SHOULD be able to work out that all years ending with zero signify the end of any particular decade.

Not sure if you’re attempting to be funny or trying to reignite discussion but you’re failing on both counts.

 

[Saint_JimmyG]

Not sure if you’re attempting to be funny or trying to reignite discussion but you’re failing on both counts.

So says you.

 

[Willow]

It's all good @muzby

Frank agrees with you...

Nothing happened to 1 AD. 1 AD to 9 AD wasn't a decade, it was only 9 years.

 

[muzby]

I’m not sure if frank agreeing with me is a good thing or a bad thing...

 

[avocado]

So says you.

Hahahaaa. Post of the decade.

So to speak.

 

[Dennis Papaioannou]

Forwards are busted. Why are they busted?
1. Rep duties - nothing can be done about that
2. Bench - for much of the season only 3 of 4 players have been used
3. Tired and Injured - they’ve been allowed to play games when they should have been rested
4. Depth - not sure if we have it or not because the young blokes haven’t been given a go

Just on your point 4
I thought Leilua and Lawrie to a lesser degree did well in a badly beaten side. Leilua is growing in stature the more minutes he's allowed to play. Lawrie needs game time but looks very promising..
Once these young guys get acclimatized to the speed and physicality of FG, they will come in to their own.
Unfortunately, the only way Lawrie got a start was because of Vaughn's injury.
We have depth but you can't expect them to come out of reserve grade and perform without some kind of induction process.
Given your point 3. and the fact that we are getting poleaxed every week now, I really can't see the point in persevering with smashing our forwards to the point of no return without rotating them at least.
The only one to escape from yesterday's debacle with their reputation in tact was Graham.

 

[st penguin]

And the 1900s were also the 20th Century.

Sometimes I wonder why people can't work this out. Is it because you had a big party at midnight in 1999, thinking you were celebrating the start of the 21st Century, only to discover later that you shot your load one year too soon?

On midnight 1999 I celebrated the start of the 2000s.

On midnight 2000 I celebrated the start of the 21st century.

Really. Not. Hard.

Tell you what, since you pointed out we have strayed into “academic territory”. Here is an article from the scientific American that will help you distinguish the two concepts in the future.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-is-the-beginning-of/

 

[Willow]

On midnight 1999 I celebrated the start of the 2000s.

On midnight 2000 I celebrated the start of the 21st century.

Really. Not. Hard.

Tell you what, since you pointed out we have strayed into “academic territory”. Here is an article from the scientific American that will help you distinguish the two concepts in the future.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-is-the-beginning-of/

Ah, a link providing backup, thanks. Here's the opening excerpt...

The editors of Scientific American offer this explanation:

Years in the most popular calendar used today, the Gregorian calendar, are counted from the year A.D.1. There was no year 0. Before A.D.1 came the year B.C.1. Thus, the first century ran for 100 years from A.D.1 until the end of A.D. 100; the first millennium, from A.D.1 until the end of A.D. 1000; and so the current millennium will not end until December 31, A.D. 2000.

Looks like the good editors at Scientific American are in agreement. We've got still Frank and muzby to convince though.

 

[st penguin]

Yep proven. The 21st century and the third millennium definitely began in 2001 because they count forward from 1AD

Unfortunately you should have kept reading...

“But there is another millennium to celebrate: the millennium of the 2000s, the years that begin with a 2.”

Can you see now? There is a difference between the 2000s and the 21st century.

In fact, here is a useful list of all decades going back the 18th century bc. It helpfully shows where the decades sit within the centuries and millennia.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_decades

As frank rightly pointed out. Using the base 10 system for decades means that the first “decade” only has 9 years and isn’t really a decade at all.

Hope this clears up your confusion.

 

[Bests Golden Boots]

Ok, so if I’m reading this thread correctly, the “The trouble with St George Illawarra” is no one can agree on what effing year it is?

 

[muzby]

Ah, a link providing backup, thanks. Here's the opening excerpt...

The editors of Scientific American offer this explanation:

Years in the most popular calendar used today, the Gregorian calendar, are counted from the year A.D.1. There was no year 0. Before A.D.1 came the year B.C.1. Thus, the first century ran for 100 years from A.D.1 until the end of A.D. 100; the first millennium, from A.D.1 until the end of A.D. 1000; and so the current millennium will not end until December 31, A.D. 2000.

Looks like the good editors at Scientific American are in agreement. We've got still Frank and muzby to convince though.

Oh I’m convinced about the whole millennium thing in our calendar. that’s never been up for debate from my end.

But a decade? A decade is simply a 10 year period that is relative to when it started.

Eg we’re currently in the last year of the BPM decade.

(10 years of Bennett, Price & Mary coaching us).

 

[muzby]

Ok, so if I’m reading this thread correctly, the “The trouble with St George Illawarra” is no one can agree on what effing year it is?

Hopefully it’s Mary’s last year as coach.

 

[st penguin]

Oh I’m convinced about the whole millennium thing in our calendar. that’s never been up for debate from my end.

But a decade? A decade is simply a 10 year period that is relative to when it started.

Eg we’re currently in the last year of the BPM decade.

(10 years of Bennett, Price & Mary coaching us).

Yep. And we’re into the 2nd BPM.

hopefully starting with Bennett - probably starting with Barrett.

 

[Willow]

But a decade? A decade is simply a 10 year period that is relative to when it started.

Yes, and the first decade of this calendar ended on the last day of 10 AD. Surely, you can concede that much.

 

[Bests Golden Boots]

Is it just me that finds it strange that the Admin that rail against starting similar threads on rugby league and off topic conversations about league in general, have been arguing for a week about when decades started and did not?

 

[Willow]

Ok, so if I’m reading this thread correctly, the “The trouble with St George Illawarra” is no one can agree on what effing year it is?

It's more of a contest.than what we saw last Saturday.

 

[Willow]

Is it just me that finds it strange that the Admin that rail against starting similar threads on rugby league and off topic conversations about league in general, have been arguing for a week about when decades started and did not?

FYI, Threads going off topic have been happening since year one of these forums... or year zero if you are so inclined.