...the decade doesn't really end for another year.
Do we count from zero to nine? No. We count from one to ten.
The current millennium (um, also, decade) didn't start until 2001, and the next decade won't start until 2011.
Just sayin'.
Edit: Apparently I'm a total buzz kill. What can I say? I have perfectionist tendencies.





There always has to be one...
Posted by: Mike | December 30, 2009 at 05:08
Dang, here I was wanting this decade to be over with already...
Posted by: meredith | December 30, 2009 at 05:21
Yeah, Mike, I know. Sorry. Call it my perfectionist tendencies!
Posted by: Alison | December 30, 2009 at 10:01
I had this same argument with people ten years ago. People please buy a clue. Thanks!
Posted by: Mari | December 30, 2009 at 10:49
Is that true?
Posted by: cassie-b | December 30, 2009 at 12:00
That's true!! The aughts continue.
Posted by: Margaret | December 30, 2009 at 12:08
I thought the same thing when I started seeing all those "best/worst of the decade" things...
Posted by: Suzy | December 30, 2009 at 21:31
Yes, but all of the big celebrations ten years ago were for going from 1999 to 2000; who cared about going from 2000 to 2001?
BTW I signed up to do NaBloPoMo in January. What did it do for you in November? (I did it once in November and I must admit it revived things a bit.)
Posted by: Betty C. | December 31, 2009 at 04:43
I was just thinking about how I scoffed at all the people who thought going from 1999 to 2000 was changing decades. That idea was EVERYWHERE back then. Now, I'm glad to say, I've heard very little about 2010 being a new decade.
Fingers crossed that people are learning. Now, on to tackle their/they're/there, your/you're, too/to/two, and so on.... ;-)
Posted by: Denise | December 31, 2009 at 09:12
Sadly, Denise, too many people still need to tackle the 'their, they're, there' so I'm not too hopeful about the decades. However, mistakes like this give some of us chuckles so...
In the interest of full disclosure, I am one of those who will remove errant apostrophes from deli signs and the like. My family doesn't take me out much, but I manage to have fun anyway.
Posted by: Ms. George | December 31, 2009 at 23:12
Um, actually, the decade was a year old in 2001. Kinda like you're birthday. You're not a year old until a year after you're born, but you don't say you're not a person of age till your birthday. You say one week, two months, 9 months, etc.
You are counting the whole of 2000 to 2001 and then on... So we are counting from one to ten.
So, yeah. Sometimes there has to be another one (Mike).
Posted by: ɹǝƃƃolquǝʞoʇ | January 01, 2010 at 00:07
Token, we're counting from one to ten. 2001 to 2010. :)
Posted by: Alison | January 01, 2010 at 02:06
Year 1 supposedly started with JC birth. If he ever lived, he died during year 34 at age 33. From then on, we are one year ahead when counting years, decades, centuries, and millenii from the day they start. We are just entering year 2010, meaning that the believers among us need to wait for Christmas 2010 to celebrate the 2,010th anniversary of the guy's birth.
Posted by: Jean | January 01, 2010 at 12:57
The argument that convinced me otherwise: was 1970 part of the sixties?
Posted by: Becky | January 01, 2010 at 22:48
You made me laugh! Whatever it is, wishing you all the best of it!
Posted by: Allison | January 02, 2010 at 11:21
Agreed.
My so not educated self.
Posted by: jay | January 03, 2010 at 18:12
Tough thing to think about after years of working in base-16. The first "position" or number is always zero, not one. Just sayin'.
Posted by: bhd | January 03, 2010 at 19:28