Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC Action News)   Identical twins born in fraternal decades   (abcactionnews.com) divider line 85
    More: Florida, Tampa General Hospital, birth certificates, Isa Marie Duran, Times Square, Zurina Valentina Vazquez, first child, hallways, New Years  
•       •       •

15073 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Jan 2010 at 9:49 AM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



85 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-01-03 01:20:05 AM  
Is this going to be one of those "the new decade hasn't started yet" threads?
 
2010-01-03 09:24:33 AM  
olddeegee: Is this going to be one of those "the new decade hasn't started yet" threads?

No, it's vindication for me after I was vilified in, of all places, a football discussion thread.
 
2010-01-03 09:56:22 AM  
Just as 1910 through 1919 were the "teens decade" of the 20th century, we are now in the "teens decade" of the 21st century.

/the anal retentive mama's boys are wrong.
 
2010-01-03 09:56:57 AM  
From TFA:"It was hard because I felt her coming, but we really wanted a New Year's baby so I had to hold her in," Duran said, "But it worked."

What?!?!

You "held" your baby in because you wanted 2010 on the farking birth certificate?

Wow.
 
2010-01-03 09:59:54 AM  
Transpogue: From TFA:"It was hard because I felt her coming, but we really wanted a New Year's baby so I had to hold her in," Duran said, "But it worked."

What?!?!

You "held" your baby in because you wanted 2010 on the farking birth certificate?

Wow.


I... I just have no words.

These people are why I hate our species so farking much.
 
2010-01-03 10:00:04 AM  
FTFA: "It's a mix of feelings because anyways, it was high-risk pregnant, and always was the risk and the babies."

This is what passes for journalism these days. Of all the quotes, this is the best they could come up with.
 
2010-01-03 10:00:45 AM  
Transpogue: From TFA:"It was hard because I felt her coming, but we really wanted a New Year's baby so I had to hold her in," Duran said, "But it worked."

What?!?!

You "held" your baby in because you wanted 2010 on the farking birth certificate?

Wow.


But in her defense, she also thought she wouldn't get pregnant in the first place if she jumped up and down after sex.

/It is FL after all.
 
2010-01-03 10:02:00 AM  
olddeegee: Is this going to be one of those "the new decade hasn't started yet" threads?

A decade is a grouping of ten years. A decade can start with any year you like.

To say "the first decade of the 21st Century is over" is incorrect, as there was no year 0, so the decades (and centuries) start in years ending with 1.

However, the non-specific, "the decade is over", is not incorrect, nor is saying "the century is over" in 2000. It's only when you tie it to a definition that relates it to the AD/BC change where you enter the realm of correct or incorrect.

The natural tendency is to group centuries by the last three digits, and decades by the last two. That's fine, to a point.
 
2010-01-03 10:02:17 AM  
episteme.arstechnica.com
 
2010-01-03 10:03:49 AM  
olddeegee: Is this going to be one of those "the new decade hasn't started yet" threads?

Not from me. I've given up that argument. But now I have a new piece of worthless trivia.

/Did you know the first decade AD was only 9 years long?
 
2010-01-03 10:05:16 AM  
Has anybody stopped in to mention that like "1 CE was the first year because there was no year 0" or "Jesus was actually born in 4 BCE" yet?
 
2010-01-03 10:05:58 AM  
Do the parents have green cards?
 
2010-01-03 10:08:44 AM  
Held it in.

I see.

Did the nice doctor do a radical hysterectomy so you can't hold in any other babies? We can only hope.
 
2010-01-03 10:09:42 AM  
A new decade can be whenever you want it to be. A decade is just 10 years in time, not necessarily a defined 10 year increment on the calendar. In fact an infinite number of new decades have occurred between the time I wrote this post and when you are now reading it.
 
2010-01-03 10:09:50 AM  
i23.photobucket.com
 
2010-01-03 10:10:24 AM  
2wolves: Held it in.

I see.

Did the nice doctor do a radical hysterectomy so you can't hold in any other babies? We can only hope.


Should have wanted the kid to be born before midnight so you can take that fat-ass tax deduction for 2009.

Course that only applies if you pay taxes...
 
2010-01-03 10:11:19 AM  
Not only wasn't it a new decade based off of the first year of the calendar, it wasn't a blue moon either. It was an extra moon in a month, not an extra moon in a season.
 
2010-01-03 10:12:25 AM  
YRThereSchool: Has anybody stopped in to mention that like "1 CE was the first year because there was no year 0" or "Jesus was actually born in 4 BCE" yet?

Larry Mahnken took care of that...
 
2010-01-03 10:15:36 AM  
Someone tell me which decade since the year 1 only had 9 years in it and I'll agree that this decade has just now ended.
 
2010-01-03 10:17:15 AM  
Good to see the media tradition of useless news continues in 2010
 
2010-01-03 10:17:43 AM  
95629: A new decade can be whenever you want it to be. A decade is just 10 years in time, not necessarily a defined 10 year increment on the calendar. In fact an infinite number of new decades have occurred between the time I wrote this post and when you are now reading it.

occured? don't you mean ended...occured would imply it took ten years to read your post.
 
2010-01-03 10:19:06 AM  
GoatEwHelenWate:Should have wanted the kid to be born before midnight so you can take that fat-ass tax deduction for 2009.

Course that only applies if you pay taxes...


Damn you, I spit out my Lucky Charms.
 
2010-01-03 10:20:34 AM  
allthebetter: 95629: A new decade can be whenever you want it to be. A decade is just 10 years in time, not necessarily a defined 10 year increment on the calendar. In fact an infinite number of new decades have occurred between the time I wrote this post and when you are now reading it.

occured? don't you mean ended...occured would imply it took ten years to read your post.


This might be the case for some Farkers.
 
2010-01-03 10:22:08 AM  
Holy Crap: Transpogue: From TFA:"It was hard because I felt her coming, but we really wanted a New Year's baby so I had to hold her in," Duran said, "But it worked."

What?!?!

You "held" your baby in because you wanted 2010 on the farking birth certificate?

Wow.

I... I just have no words.

These people are why I hate our species so farking much.


THIS

I stopped watching the video as soon as the mother started talking about how they struggling due to the economy, and having to live with her mother, and there she is having kids...fark her, fark Florida, and fark ABC for exploiting this bullshiat of a story
 
2010-01-03 10:24:01 AM  
"It was hard because I felt her coming sp, but we really wanted a New Year's baby so I had to hold her it in," Duran said, "But it worked."

the editor must be taking a day off. :)
 
2010-01-03 10:26:32 AM  
austin_millbarge: Someone tell me which decade since the year 1 only had 9 years in it and I'll agree that this decade has just now ended.

1750-1759
 
2010-01-03 10:28:04 AM  
32-year old Juan Velasco admitted he was nervous waiting for his wife Margarita to deliver by C-section, 10-weeks ahead of time.

For the fathers who actually pay taxes, we would have her pushing that baby out in December.
 
2010-01-03 10:29:23 AM  
Dicky B: austin_millbarge: Someone tell me which decade since the year 1 only had 9 years in it and I'll agree that this decade has just now ended.

1750-1759


You mean 1751-1759... There's ten years in 1750-1759..
 
2010-01-03 10:31:40 AM  
FTA: "They had 13 deliveries within a five hour stretch of the new year... Maybe it was the blue moon, or the fact that it was New Year's eve. Or maybe it was the storms that rolled into Tampa Bay late last night."

Or maybe there wasn't much else to do in late March 2009.
 
hej
2010-01-03 10:31:53 AM  
olddeegee: Is this going to be one of those "the new decade hasn't started yet" threads?

I really hope so.
 
2010-01-03 10:32:19 AM  
Epistax: Dicky B: austin_millbarge: Someone tell me which decade since the year 1 only had 9 years in it and I'll agree that this decade has just now ended.

1750-1759

You mean 1751-1759... There's ten years in 1750-1759..


Not really.
 
2010-01-03 10:32:39 AM  
ecx.images-amazon.com

Julius Benedict: My name is Julius and I am your twin brother.

Vincent Benedict: Oh, obviously! The moment I sat down I thought I was looking into a mirror.
 
2010-01-03 10:38:30 AM  
Transpogue: From TFA:"It was hard because I felt her coming, but we really wanted a New Year's baby so I had to hold her in," Duran said, "But it worked."


Denied by the vagina right from the get-go. That's a bad omen.

Oh wait, that's the girl that was born down the hall.

I stand by my statement.
 
2010-01-03 10:41:05 AM  
Holy Crap: Transpogue: From TFA:"It was hard because I felt her coming, but we really wanted a New Year's baby so I had to hold her in," Duran said, "But it worked."

What?!?!

You "held" your baby in because you wanted 2010 on the farking birth certificate?

Wow.

I... I just have no words.

These people are why I hate our species so farking much.


Sure, a married couple delivering twins, and saved taxpayers $1600 bucks by holding one back so it could not be claimed as a dependent on '09 taxes.
You have no words, because you have no brain. Take a look at the next article, a sheriff and his family accused of protecting a drug ring, and offering murder for hire. That is much more worthy of such a comment over a mother holding a baby in the womb for 30 seconds, which thoughtfully provided for each child to have it's very own day of birth to celebrate.
 
2010-01-03 10:52:53 AM  
MEH
 
2010-01-03 10:58:31 AM  
idiot. now she cant claim the baby on her taxes.
 
2010-01-03 11:01:02 AM  
likesass: Holy Crap: Transpogue: From TFA:"It was hard because I felt her coming, but we really wanted a New Year's baby so I had to hold her in," Duran said, "But it worked."

What?!?!

You "held" your baby in because you wanted 2010 on the farking birth certificate?

Wow.

I... I just have no words.

These people are why I hate our species so farking much.

Sure, a married couple delivering twins, and saved taxpayers $1600 bucks by holding one back so it could not be claimed as a dependent on '09 taxes.
You have no words, because you have no brain. Take a look at the next article, a sheriff and his family accused of protecting a drug ring, and offering murder for hire. That is much more worthy of such a comment over a mother holding a baby in the womb for 30 seconds, which thoughtfully provided for each child to have it's very own day of birth to celebrate.


Eh, he sorta had a point in that I don't like superstitious people either. I highly doubt she was thinking about the additional money, if any, she would be gifting to the United States of America.

She was "holding it in" because she believed that 12:00:00 AM, January 1, 2010 was somehow more auspicious than 11:59:59 PM, December 31, 2009. She probably takes Chinese restaurant zodiac placemats seriously too.
 
2010-01-03 11:04:36 AM  
YRThereSchool: Has anybody stopped in to mention that like "1 CE was the first year because there was no year 0" or "Jesus was actually born in 4 BCE" yet?

No, not yet. You may be the first.

The comments in TFA point this out quickly, though.
 
2010-01-03 11:14:12 AM  
Larry Mahnken:

To say "the first decade of the 21st Century is over" is incorrect, as there was no year 0, so the decades (and centuries) start in years ending with 1.


There has to have been a year zero.

Three points:

You don't count from -1 to 1. There is a zero in between. Counting from -1 to 1 is as absurd as counting from 3 to 5.

-1 is 1 BC. The year Before Christ. This would be the first full year becore Christ was born.

1 is 1 AD - anno domini, the Year of our Lord. It's the first full year that Christ was alive.

Therefore, year 0 - a year that I have pointed out has to exist mathematically - is the actual year that Christ was born.

(Well, aside from how we now know it was closer to 4 BC)
 
2010-01-03 11:18:13 AM  
I thought the one that was held in was the one down the hall, not one of the twins.
 
2010-01-03 11:18:47 AM  
Well, this was NOT at all what I was expecting, what a letdown.

For a while now I've wondered, what if you do IVF, one of the embryos splits into identical twins, but you only implant ONE of them, and freeze the other?

Then a few years later, implant the other embryo for a second kid.

You'd have two kids, genetically identical, but with different birth years.

indylaw: She was "holding it in" because she believed that 12:00:00 AM, January 1, 2010 was somehow more auspicious than 11:59:59 PM, December 31, 2009. She probably takes Chinese restaurant zodiac placemats seriously too.

Usually it's more about hurrying things along to squeak under the wire of birthing the kid on 12/31, so you can deduct it on THIS year's taxes...!
 
2010-01-03 11:22:10 AM  
OK for the last time (unlikely). Two Solstices and two equinoxes are measurable siderial events as is a full moon or local noon. The year is merely a civil designation. As in there is no Chinese, Roman, Julian, or Mayan alternative to the Winter Solstice. Therefore the year is just an odometer with an arbitrary origin. The changing of the digits from right to left signifies year, decade, century, millenia. There is no reason to make it any more complicated with that.

/Has his own sextant
 
2010-01-03 11:24:27 AM  
Mister Peejay: Therefore, year 0 - a year that I have pointed out has to exist mathematically - is the actual year that Christ was born.

There was no Year 0. Christ was 0 years-old on his day of birth and 1 year-old on his first birthday, denoting the end of Year 1 AD. Furthermore, his 10th birthday would have been at the end of the first decade AD, 0010 AD, not 0009 AD.
 
2010-01-03 11:37:14 AM  
Mister Peejay: 1 is 1 AD - anno domini, the Year of our Lord. It's the first full year that Christ was alive.

You proved yourself wrong right there.

There is no such thing as a zeroth place or a zeroth year. You never hear anyone saying, "it's been zero years since last I saw her" Why? Because years are counted in natural numbers.

Which is why the proper title on the Julian and Gregorian Calender is the two thousand and tenth year of our Lord. There is no zeroth year of our Lord.
 
2010-01-03 11:45:20 AM  
Mister Peejay: Larry Mahnken:

To say "the first decade of the 21st Century is over" is incorrect, as there was no year 0, so the decades (and centuries) start in years ending with 1.


There has to have been a year zero.

Three points:

You don't count from -1 to 1. There is a zero in between. Counting from -1 to 1 is as absurd as counting from 3 to 5.

-1 is 1 BC. The year Before Christ. This would be the first full year becore Christ was born.

1 is 1 AD - anno domini, the Year of our Lord. It's the first full year that Christ was alive.

Therefore, year 0 - a year that I have pointed out has to exist mathematically - is the actual year that Christ was born.

(Well, aside from how we now know it was closer to 4 BC)


1 second after Mr Bubbles was born, it was the 1st year of Mr Bubbles. We don't need to wait a year for it to be the 1st year. Imagine the New Years countdown like that...

5!.. 4!.. 3!.. 2!.. 1!.. 0!.. Happy New Year!
 
2010-01-03 11:53:29 AM  
The decade/century/whatever starts with the year 0.

1: We start days at 00:00:00, Not 00:00:01. And end at 23:59:59.
2: We refer to decades as 40's, 50's, etc. These go from 1940-1949, Not 1941-1950.
3: Babies aren't born 1 year old. You count up to their first birth day.

You could say a baby learned how to walk during year 1 of it's life, but you wouldn't say it was 1 year old until its first birthday had arrived.

/I agree with a post above, A decade is a contiguous collection of 10 years. 1953-1962 is a decade, etc. However, we typically refer to decades by their major number, 20's, 30's, etc and it will always be this way. Just like we refer to the 1800's, 1900's as 1800-1899 and 1900-1999. Factually incorrect? Maybe, but that's the way it is.

Get over yourselves and realize that no matter what you think is "correct", we as a people will always refer to 2010-2019 as the 2010's decade.
 
2010-01-03 11:59:01 AM  
FTFA: "It was hard because I felt her coming, but we really wanted a New Year's baby so I had to hold her in," Duran said, "But it worked."

Here's what you do:

1: Have the baby
2: Say she was born in 2010
3: Profit

/That 10-20 minutes isn't going to matter in 18 years...
 
2010-01-03 12:07:21 PM  
itazurakko:
For a while now I've wondered, what if you do IVF, one of the embryos splits into identical twins, but you only implant ONE of them, and freeze the other?

Then a few years later, implant the other embryo for a second kid.

You'd have two kids, genetically identical, but with different birth years.


Here's something close to it:

My-twins-born-16-years-apart.
 
2010-01-03 12:10:43 PM  
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10

11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20

/pretty simple to figure out
 
2010-01-03 12:30:55 PM  
The obvious problem here is that the year zero is being incorrectly referred to as 1 BC.

Saying there "is no year zero" is clearly wrong. The year zero is the year before the year 1.

Now that we have found the year zero, deciding when centuries and such begin and end should be easy.

You're welcome.
 
Displayed 50 of 85 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report