Stop using B.C.E. and C.E. you cretins!

Hey, no need to take such desperate measures… I'll let you borrow Tf for a while.







No way, he's mine, all mine, mine, mine.
 
So, what happens if after decades of painful readjustment to the new dates someone finds an even older calendar? Kill us? Him? Someone?

Simple, do what people have been doing already: just dismiss the archeological evidence it as some kind of temple or ritual altar.
 
Seems a new "era" started 1945.10.24 ... Charter of the United Nations went into force.

That would basically only exclude observer states (Vatican City State, etc).
About as "common/vulgar" as the modern world gets.
 
Oh hell no. Over my dead body do we use the beginning of the UN as a new calender.
 
Oh hell no. Over my dead body do we use the beginning of the UN as a new calender.
Construction of the first super carrier then? :D
 
I like it!! Apparently, the term was first used for the HMS Ark Royal in 1938, though my personal definition would really only include big honkin' NUCULAR powered ones. So let's go with the Big E, eh? Commissioned November 25th, 1961! There we have it. Our new day 1, year 1.
 
If we're using Enterprises as the rule of measure, and we're trying to make this acceptable to the whole world, it seems we are in the year 233 Pre-Enterprise.
 
scottbakula.jpg

I think he looks sad.
 
Sorry Park, but Sill is right. If we're going Star Trek, the NX-01 launched in 2151. But what do we use? A.E. and P.E. (AnteEnterprise and Post Enterprise?)
 
Not A.E. - it's a bugger to say because of the two totally different vowel sounds. :)
 
Going by Star Trek events of more interstellar significance, you could place us in the year 149 BF. If you wanna do a sci-fi calender though, I'd say it's best say we're in 1339 BSC, since that's actually used in-universe in the Ender series.
 
Bakula's ship wasn't the first Enterprise in Star Trek (in fact, I don't even consider that series to be legitimate Star Trek). In ST IV, when Chekov and Uhura were searching for the "nuclear wessels," the one they found was the Enterprise.
 
I get that Enterprise had its flaws (although I'd make the case that many fans underrate it), but why shouldn't it be considered legitimate Star Trek?
 
Why're so many people trying to put year zero so near to us? That requires a host of negative numbers for most of history!

El_Mac, posting 13.7 billion years after the Big Bang, year 2012 of the Common Era
 
Why're so many people trying to put year zero so near to us? That requires a host of negative numbers for most of history!

El_Mac, posting 13.7 billion years after the Big Bang, year 2012 of the Common Era
This is for YOUR benefit, El Mac! If we can be in negative numbers now, you will be able to tell your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-repeat 100 more times-grandchildren that, yes, you were in fact alive before year zero (which the new calender will have.) You -will- still be alive then, I assume...
 
I get that Enterprise had its flaws (although I'd make the case that many fans underrate it), but why shouldn't it be considered legitimate Star Trek?
Because the first Captain of the Enterprise was Robert April, and his First Officer was Sarah Poole (whom he later married). This was established in the early '70s, in the Animated Series episode "The Counter-Clock Incident."
 
Because the first Captain of the Enterprise was Robert April, and his First Officer was Sarah Poole (whom he later married). This was established in the early '70s, in the Animated Series episode "The Counter-Clock Incident."

A series which has long been established as not being canon.
 
Back
Top Bottom