Slitherine

Genuine typo/mistranscription p 51 Immortal Fire...Bar Kokhba revolt date given as BC when it should be AD (..or CE, as it was a Jewish revolt...)

Martin

ps....there is also a double "a" in the final sentence of p 51

Bugger CE, we use AD

nikgaukroger wrote:Bugger CE, we use AD

Too right!

WhiteKnight wrote:Genuine typo/mistranscription p 51 Immortal Fire...Bar Kokhba revolt date given as BC when it should be AD (..or CE, as it was a Jewish revolt...)

Well spotted, that man.

What's with the hostility agaainst BCE/CE...most of the world ain't Christians, tho' to be fair they nearly always understand BC/AD. I guess fewer of us understand the Islamic or Jewish calendar systems. Also, our fave civilisations according to this forum seem to have been Hellenic and Roman. Maybe we should give dates in AUC? I have no idea how the Hellenes dated their years, though!

Firmly tongue in cheek

Martin

The hostility is towards bloody PC idiots that want to take existing, working systems and remove any hint of anything that "MIGHT" offend someone, somewhere, sometime. As an older American inundated with this crud on a daily basis I applaud wiser heads who refuse to buy into it. Grumble, grumble, mutter, mutter, rant, ......

Grognard in the original meaning

Admittedly BC/AD is still a widely used dating convention in the Christian-dominated western world. However, it hasn't always been that way, just arbitrarily decided upon by some Christian conventicle way back and those with power to do so made sure it was adopted!

The groat, florin, crown and the farthing were existing, working systems of currency but we still abandonned them.

We've got no special evidence that Jesus was born in the said year, anyhow, so CE/BCE might actually be more accurate nomenclature.

Nothing to do with PC/non PC, just historical precision, then?

Still tongue lodged in cheek

Martin

based on world populations we may end up using the chinese calander. at lease we won't have to worry about bc/ad/bce/ce

WhiteKnight wrote:We've got no special evidence that Jesus was born in the said year, anyhow, so CE/BCE might actually be more accurate nomenclature.

More accurate? Yeah sure! Common Era? Before Common Era? What makes this a Common Era? Why is it any more Common than the preceding one?

What separates those so-called eras? Why it's the supposed or traditional year of the birth of Christ. BCE/CE are still BC/AD but with PC labelling.

BCE/CE......utter codswallop!

Well done Martin, you've hooked your fish!

Go to any business setting anywhere in the world and try and use CE as your dating system. Computer systems don't use it, calendars don't use it, NO ONE uses it except academia - and even they don't ALL use it. Common Era my left .....

Back on subject - good call on the catch for the Bar Kokhba revolt.

Draka wrote:The hostility is towards bloody PC idiots that want to take existing, working systems and remove any hint of anything that "MIGHT" offend someone, somewhere, sometime. As an older American inundated with this crud on a daily basis I applaud wiser heads who refuse to buy into it. Grumble, grumble, mutter, mutter, rant, ......

Grognard in the original meaning

I absolutely agree. I am not a christian but I don't care if someone wants to reference Jesus. It doesn't offend me and even if it did so what. No one has the right to never be offended. I'm simply tired of everyone worrying so much about who gets offended by what. That is where all the hostility with BCE/CE is coming from.

WhiteKnight wrote: The groat, florin, crown and the farthing were existing, working systems of currency but we still abandonned them.

Yeah but the groat, florin, crown, and farthing weren't abandoned because someone decided you were descriminating against them because they didn't like the look of crowns and were offended with your monetary system and demand that it be changed.

Go to any business setting anywhere in the world and try and use CE as your dating system. Computer systems don't use it, calendars don't use it, NO ONE uses it except academia - and even they don't ALL use it. Common Era my left .....

Couldn't agree with you more.

regards
Paul

WhiteKnight wrote:What's with the hostility agaainst BCE/CE...most of the world ain't Christians, tho' to be fair they nearly always understand BC/AD. I guess fewer of us understand the Islamic or Jewish calendar systems. Also, our fave civilisations according to this forum seem to have been Hellenic and Roman. Maybe we should give dates in AUC? I have no idea how the Hellenes dated their years, though!

Firmly tongue in cheek

Martin

I'm not good with the Jewish calendar but I'm OK with AH

nikgaukroger wrote:

WhiteKnight wrote:What's with the hostility agaainst BCE/CE...most of the world ain't Christians, tho' to be fair they nearly always understand BC/AD. I guess fewer of us understand the Islamic or Jewish calendar systems. Also, our fave civilisations according to this forum seem to have been Hellenic and Roman. Maybe we should give dates in AUC? I have no idea how the Hellenes dated their years, though!

Firmly tongue in cheek

Martin

I'm not good with the Jewish calendar but I'm OK with AH

I believe the Greeks dated years from the first Olympiad, AH sounds good to me. Ought to help keep the site safe from Islamic fundamentalists, at least until the Arab Conquest list with the exploding suicidal IC option appears .

AH it is then...we'll certainly not have to be bothered with BC/AD or BCE/CE again, here in the fifteenth century...welcome to 1429!

Martin

I always like to think of Caesar's Gallic Wars as beginning in 695 AUC, during the consulship of Lucius Calpurnius Piso and Aulus Gabinius.

Cheers,
Scott