Attempting To Be Impartial, The BBC Angers Christians

[HonestJoe]

I love the "tl:dr" they tacked onto the end:

"The BBC said last night: 'The BBC has not issued editorial guidance on the date systems.
'Both AD and BC, and CE and BCE are widely accepted date systems and the decision on which term to use lies with individual production and editorial teams.'"

What a story! *snort*

Quoted for truth.

The entire article is based on a lie. The Daily Mail had some space to fill so decided to invent a new controversy (presumably they could find any immigrant statistics to misrepresent, complex medical studies to spin in to something causing or curing cancer or anything worth lifting word-for-word from a regional paper).

 

[Alceste]

Quoted for truth.

The entire article is based on a lie. The Daily Mail had some space to fill so decided to invent a new controversy (presumably they could find any immigrant statistics to misrepresent, complex medical studies to spin in to something causing or curing cancer or anything worth lifting word-for-word from a regional paper).

It was quite a feat of journalism, that's for sure. "Christians outraged over new BBC editorial policy that doesn't exist!!!!"

They got quotes and everything. It's like the Onion.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

One reason for the change: people just don't use "AD" correctly. Even in that article, they use "525 AD" instead of "AD 525".

AD goes on the front, CE goes on the end. If you're going to insist on putting the letters after the word, then no AD for you.

Yeah - I was wondering if the article was a joke, but other newspapers printed the story.

 

[Alceste]

Yeah - I was wondering if the article was a joke, but other newspapers printed the story.

Are they all Murdoch papers?

 

[Engyo]

I personally believe that it is wrong to put Jesus out the picture like this.

Ismaila - What if the paper being written has nothing to do with Christianity or a part of the world in which that history figures? Would you still object? Just curious.........

 

[YmirGF]

Yeah - I was wondering if the article was a joke, but other newspapers printed the story.

Heh. Even if the article is intended to be serious, it is still a joke.

Much ado about nothing, in my part of paradise.

 

[T-Dawg]

Hmm. I have an idea:

We should use the New Millennium calendar that I just made up, and have it start at 2000 CE/AD (0 NM). People are already used to writing their years as -11 anyway, so it won't be too hard to adapt to.

It would be better than both the Christian system and the politically correct system that just so happens to use the same dates as the Christian system.

 

[9Westy9]

I don't want to live on this planet anymore

 

[LuisDantas]

I personally believe that it is wrong to put Jesus out the picture like this.

In which way does the naming of years remove Jesus? People won't disbelieve Jesus or respect him less simply because the calendar doesn't reference him.

Or to put it in another way, surely there is far more to belief in Jesus than just the calendar references.

 

[jarofthoughts]

I believe we should have a calandar using the glorious year CE 1540 as the start of the the new era. This was the year the first recorded reference to the the Norsk fish dish, Lutefisk---jellied cod,* ---was made. The only fish to be eaten with a spoon.

Mmmmm good!

​

"While some enthusiasts claim the dish has been consumed since the time of the Vikings, most believe that its origins lie in the 16th-century Netherlands. It is generally agreed that the first reference to "lutefisk" is in a letter by Swedish king Gustav I in 1540, and what seems to be a description of the preparation process in the Swedish archbishop Olaus Magnus's (1490–1557) personal writings from 1555."
Source: Wikipedia
​

This change would make this year AL(After Lutefisk) 471. Years prior would be designated BL.

*Lutefisk is made from dried whitefish prepared with lye in a sequence of particular treatments.

1) The first treatment is to soak the stockfish in cold water for five to six days (with the water changed daily).

2) The saturated stockfish is then soaked in an unchanged solution of cold water and lye for an additional two days. The fish swells during this soaking, and its protein content decreases by more than 50 percent producing a jelly-like consistency.

3) When this treatment is finished, the fish (saturated with lye) has a pH value of 11–12 and is therefore caustic.

4)To make the fish edible, a final treatment of yet another four to six days of soaking in cold water (also changed daily) is needed. Eventually, the lutefisk is ready to be cooked.​

Normally I'd be all for something like this but I actually hate lutefisk...

For the record I consistently use CE and BCE when teaching my pupils.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Whatever, let's just get out of CE, I'd like to be a part of the label "NCE: New Common Era"... You know, then I can be a robot.

 

[Me Myself]

I personally believe that it is wrong to put Jesus out the picture like this.

He is not out of the picture, he is in his proper place:


Anywhere where he is ACTUALLY meant to be referenced, not in more, not in less.

 

[Skwim]

Normally I'd be all for something like this but I actually hate lutefisk...

Whaaat?!? What kind of Scandihoovian are you any way? Shame on you! :slap:

 

[jarofthoughts]

Whaaat?!? What kind of Scandihoovian are you any way? Shame on you! :slap:

I'm the kind of Scandinavian who prefer salty lamb ribs for my Jule-dinner.
It's called "pinne-kjøtt" (I think a direct translation would be 'stick-meat') and it is absolutely awesome!

 

[Madhuri]

I personally believe that it is wrong to put Jesus out the picture like this.

I think the change is in line with secularism. Are you against secularism?

 

[Panda]

BCE and CE are extremely common already. Still this is a bit of a non-story according to the BBC.

 

[Panda]

525 AD is the way the majority of people use it.
If the majority of people use it that way, then is it not correct?

It's like saying "this group the number and THEN the currency, they're doing it wrong". Are they really? I don't think so.

Things don't become right because the majority of people think that is the way to do it.

 

[Me Myself]

I personally believe that it is wrong to put Jesus out the picture like this.

Oh and now that I remember:

BC and AD are completely inacurate anyways.

How can Jesus been born BC? you do know that he was born before CE("BC") right?

 

[Breathe]

Things don't become right because the majority of people think that is the way to do it.

I think that's something we disagree on, then.

Naturally not everything - if everyone says 2+2=5, it doesn't make it so, but things like this, well, they're pretty minor, not bound by any laws or rules, really. Unless we go back to studying Latin, a placement before or after don't seem to make much difference in being correct or incorrect, IMHO.