What kids will learn in History class

[boomyak]

I wasn't associating YOU with the United States. I was speaking for the United States as a whole, hence "we". Since I'm not a beer drinker, I judge the quality of beer by the quality of its commercials. Labatt Blue wins hands down. I want a giant pez dispenser that puts out beer!

everything is always YOU YOU YOU!@ what about us? our women may be uptight and our military a joke, but damnit can't we get a little piece of the cake? wet our beaks? with all respect, and all due consideration. if you want. you know what, forget i asked, have a nice day.

 

[Steve]

actually, 1 A.D is called 1 A.D because it was the year christ was BORN. A.D means "anno dommini" which means "the year of the lord" if B.C meant that it was before christ, and christ died in 1 A.D, wouldn't that leave a thirty year gap in time? Therefore, Christ died somewhere around A.D 30. And our calculations were wrong, and he was born around 4 B.C.

(edit, nevermind, some other guy beat me to it)

Well, actually, I always assumed that there WAS a thirty year gap. I'm silly...

 

[Burn]

year 0 : birth of Jesus Christ
476 : fall of the Roman Empire
1492 : discovery of America
1789 : French Revolution
1945 : end of second World War
1998 : RELEASE OF HALF-LIFE
2003 : September the 30th....
2004 : RELEASE OF HALF-LIFE²

 

[Acert93]

Wow, you've got some flaws in there, buddy. There was never a year 0 (because you don't start counting at 0, you start counting at 1) and 1 A.D. was when Jesus died. Wasn't the Roman Empire called the Byzantine Empire by 476? Okay, end of my asshole rant.

Give the poor guy a break Jesus did not die in 1 C.E. (Common Era, also known as A.D.) either, so your both wrong. Scholars conjecture it was somewhere between 27-36 C.E. when he died, and most likely between 30-33 C.E. (We are not certain). His birth was most likely 7-3 B.C.E., yet again we are not 100% sure. There is a debate about whether there needs to be an innercolated year for the zero year. Some feel yes, some no. Some count as:

3 BCE, 2BCE, 1BCE, 1CE, 2CE, 3CE...

Others as:

3 BCE, 2BCE, 1BCE, 0, 1CE, 2CE, 3CE...

The former is most common (i.e. no 0 year) but some have argued for it (I think they are wrong, but it is a counting method use by some). In some ways it is irrelevant because the 0 year was the invention of some monk who did not even know the date of the birth of "the Christ"--it was a guess, and a wrong one at that. That is why most scholars use BCE and CE now instead of the BC/AD. Like Christmas (which was not Jesus's birth day), we like to guess at a day of an event and then make it special. Funny how modern society counts the years off of an event that did not even happen in the said year Traditions die hard with man.

Moral of the story: If you are gonna correct someone, be accurate first With this we end our history lesson.

 

[Steve]

Jeez, guys...i've already apologized for all of the errors in my post! Leave me alone now! Gaaa!

 

[Ravioli]

lol, im sitting here masturbating (spelling?), looking at pics of Alyx, and i am waiting to party later, i will HAVE THE BEST FU¤KING PARTY EVER

 

[Steve]

lol, im sitting here masturbating (spelling?), looking at pics of Alyx, and i am waiting to party later, i will HAVE THE BEST FU¤KING PARTY EVER

Brilliant first post.

 

[cadaveca]

Give the poor guy a break Jesus did not die in 1 C.E. (Common Era, also known as A.D.) either, so your both wrong. Scholars conjecture it was somewhere between 27-36 C.E. when he died, and most likely between 30-33 C.E. (We are not certain). His birth was most likely 7-3 B.C.E., yet again we are not 100% sure. There is a debate about whether there needs to be an innercolated year for the zero year. Some feel yes, some no. Some count as:

3 BCE, 2BCE, 1BCE, 1CE, 2CE, 3CE...

Others as:

3 BCE, 2BCE, 1BCE, 0, 1CE, 2CE, 3CE...

The former is most common (i.e. no 0 year) but some have argued for it (I think they are wrong, but it is a counting method use by some). In some ways it is irrelevant because the 0 year was the invention of some monk who did not even know the date of the birth of "the Christ"--it was a guess, and a wrong one at that. That is why most scholars use BCE and CE now instead of the BC/AD. Like Christmas (which was not Jesus's birth day), we like to guess at a day of an event and then make it special. Funny how modern society counts the years off of an event that did not even happen in the said year Traditions die hard with man.

Moral of the story: If you are gonna correct someone, be accurate first With this we end our history lesson.

you got massive helping of useless knowledge instead of balls, eh?

Just had to throw that in there. Like....who cares? That you know more? Trying to intellectual flame someone trying to come up with an original topic just shows how much less of a life you have over the rest of us.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

 

[Eg.]

Wow, you've got some flaws in there, buddy. There was never a year 0 (because you don't start counting at 0, you start counting at 1) and 1 A.D. was when Jesus died. Wasn't the Roman Empire called the Byzantine Empire by 476? Okay, end of my asshole rant.


Cute idea.

um, 0 is when jesus was born,he died later at liek 33ish

the roman empire in the was fell at 476, the byzantine fell a 1000 years later to muslisms,

 

[Homer]

Thinking back to my history classes...

1776 THE US STARTS OPPRESSING MINORITIES
1864 THE US CONTINUES OPPRESSING MINORITIES
1946 THE US OPPRESSES MORE MINORITIES, THE GREATEST HORROR EVER IS COMMITED BY THE US
1967 THE US OPPRESSES MINORTIES ALL OVER THE WORLD
2004 THE US CONTINUES OPPRESSING EVERY MINORITY IT CAN(and hl2 comes out, leading to much oppression)

Goddamn liberal school system.

 

[Acert93]

you got massive helping of useless knowledge instead of balls, eh?

Just had to throw that in there. Like....who cares? That you know more? Trying to intellectual flame someone trying to come up with an original topic just shows how much less of a life you have over the rest of us.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

Someone needs to go back to the beginning of the thread.

My post was not to the person who started this thread at all--I thought the thread was original and I got a good laugh

My reply was to someone (He_Who_Is_Steve) flaming the original post for posting inaccuracies. While flaming he made similar errors, even though he admitted, "Okay, end of my asshole rant.". All I did was point it out, nicely, and that it is best to be nice I have no problem with Steve or the original poster, I was showing that when correcting someone we can be nice

Obviously, you wish to continue the flames... oh well. If I remember correctly, you are the guy who likes to post inaccurate info in an effort to share "truth". Whatever floats your boat :/

He_Who_Is_Steve: Sorry, I was posting while someone else replied. Not trying to rub it in, just trying to remind people to keep it nice

 

[cadaveca]

LoL. I agree.. but there's no reason to go making someone look stupid. It's not very gentlemanly. Oh, i forgot..you're just a boy. I actually think it great you post the info, but your pompous attitude sucks dude.

 

[shapeshifter]

to entire thread.

 

[Steve]

He_Who_Is_Steve: Sorry, I was posting while someone else replied. Not trying to rub it in, just trying to remind people to keep it nice

It's all gravy, baby...

 

[Korgoth]

You guys forgot Poland!!!!

 

[Kabukiavenger]

i predict nude alyx models/skins by day 4


whose with me? :E