BC/Ad or BCE/CE

[Adora]

Personally I think BC/AD is a crock of shit and I much prefer BCE/CE (or, for kicks "BVE/VE"), but there seem to be a lot of people I know who are sticklers for tradition as much as those in Australian who clung to the old Pound system even while it was in its last days of being phased out.

Which do you use?

[Crumb]

You have BCE/BC in your title. It confused me greatly.

There is also BP. BCE/CE is obviously superior, though.

[Abdul Alhazred]

I'm ideologically indifferent on this subject. It's just a convenient label.

Let 'em call it the year of their lord.

We've got to number our years from something arbitrary anyhow.

If we're going to use the Christian system, why not 'AD'?

[The Lone Ranger]

I use BCE/CE myself.

Cheers,

Michael

[alphamale]

I'm ideologically indifferent on this subject. It's just a convenient label.

Let 'em call it the year of their lord.

We've got to number our years from something arbitrary anyhow.

If we're going to use the Christian system, why not 'AD'?

It's more PC bullshit by the anti-religious elite, and like most PC-invented words, ridiculous. BCE = before common era .... what? Islamists believe that there is something starting before 1 A.D. that they have in common with anybody? Buddhists? Hindus? What BS. Here's another PC idiocy: "Native Americans" instead of indians. The word indian of course has it's origin in demographic confusion, but so what? "America" came from an italian cartographer. The Star Spangled Banner's melody is from an english drinking song - who cares? By the way, I've heard that referring to one's self as english in the UK is non-PC - wonder if that's correct.

[The Lone Ranger]

I use the terms BCE ("Before the Common Era") and CE because I'm not a Christian, and so I find the term AD "Anno Domini" distasteful.

Cheers,

Michael

[alphamale]

I use the terms BCE ("Before the Common Era") and CE because I'm not a Christian, and so I find the term AD "Anno Domini" distasteful.

Cheers,

Michael

I'm not either, but I'm also not part of the bigots' crusade against religion, so I use the terms AD and BC. Anyone who would make an issue over the historical religious connection is full of politically correct shit.

[Trojan]

I use the terms BCE ("Before the Common Era") and CE because I'm not a Christian, and so I find the term AD "Anno Domini" distasteful.

Cheers,

Michael

I'm not either, but I'm also not part of the bigots' crusade against religion, so I use the terms AD and BC. Anyone who would make an issue over the historical religious connection is full of politically correct shit.
Ahh for the Good Old Days when "PC" didn't exist. Alph could again openly refer to blacks as niggers, Jews as kikes. He could resume mocking the disabled and elderly! Mock and beat retards! He and his righteous white power punks could refer to all women as bitches! Ohh if only we could return to the Good Old Days, before "PC" forced rightwing motherfuckers to treat people with respect. Your defense of pussy Christians is hilarious! Please keep your trolling and baited threads! It's refreshing to have someone around to giggle at!! :wave:

[Johnny Pneumatic]

I use BCE/CE, not sure what made me switch, if it was the atheism or it's just used in science and just about every textbook now. If I don't watch it though I might drop an AT(After Tranquility moon landing, O.A. (www.orionsarm.com)'s dating system) sometime.

[livius drusus]

If I were writing formally -- like a school paper or something -- I'd make a point of using BCE/CE. Informally, I still use BC/AD out of habit. Oh, and I actually like Anno Domini; it's sounds like a sword and sandal movie to me.

[Dingfod]

It's no big deal to me. I don't hate religion enough to care.

[cappuccino]

I go either way, habit compells me to write BC/AD but I've used BCE/CE plenty of time.

Personally, I don't like either of the dating system because the division between BC/AD and BCE/CE is right at when Jesus is supposed to be born, a date which isn't even actually known for sure. I don't think it's really a fair dating scheme and there's a connotation that civilizations and people who lived in the BC era are "primitive" compared to those who lived in the AD era, a notation which is completely false. Not to mention there's the irritating problem with no 0AD or 0CE.

I came across this idea of Civilization Time (CT) which start dating from 10,000 years ago, when civilization is said to have started. I like that idea becase it places the origin reasonably far back enough to encompass all the critical events and place historical events on an equal footing with unecessary arbitrary divisions between them.

So, year 2005AD would become year 12005 CT, we won't really even have to change our daily conventions since we can still refer to 2005 or '2005 and still know it means 12005 CT

[Godless Dave]

I use BC and AD. I have no problem calling today Tuesday even though I don't believe in Tyr. They're just words.

[LadyShea]

If I were writing formally -- like a school paper or something -- I'd make a point of using BCE/CE. Informally, I still use BC/AD out of habit. Oh, and I actually like Anno Domini; it's sounds like a sword and sandal movie to me.

I am similar, except I really never do any formal writing. Basically, if I am discussing with other informed people (like online), I use BCE/CE as that seems to be the preference of scientists, etc. If I am talking with just "most people" like family and acquaintances, many of whom have no clue what BCE/CE even are, I use BC/AD for clarity.

[Leesifer]

I use BC and AD. I have no problem calling today Tuesday even though I don't believe in Tyr. They're just words.

:yup:

[Godless Dave]

BTW, I cannot count the number of Christians I've met who don't know what A.D. stands for.

[LadyShea]

BTW, I cannot count the number of Christians I've met who don't know what A.D. stands for.

Most people I have had the opportunity to ask think it means "After Death"

[Roland98]

BTW, I cannot count the number of Christians I've met who don't know what A.D. stands for.

Most people I have had the opportunity to ask think it means "After Death"

Even worse, I remember being taught that in school--4th grade social studies. Don't remember when I learned what it really stood for--at least high school.

[TomJoe]

Your defense of pussy Christians is hilarious!

Goliath? Is dat you?

[Crumb]

I came across this idea of Civilization Time (CT) which start dating from 10,000 years ago, when civilization is said to have started.
This is cool. :1thumbup:

[TomJoe]

I came across this idea of Civilization Time (CT) which start dating from 10,000 years ago, when civilization is said to have started.

...

So, year 2005AD would become year 12005 CT ...

Uhh, no. Year 2005 would be 10000 CT, since as you said in the first quoted sentence, civilization started 10,000 years ago.

Right?

[TomJoe]

Found this little tidbit on CT. Right here. (http://www.kxol.com.au/ct.htm)

Funny how they use B.C. as a reference point here. (Which also shows that the claim that civilization started 10,000 years ago was incorrect ... according to them civilization started 12005 years ago, with 10,000 BC as the reference point ... which seems a bit arbitrary, much more arbitrary than the BC/AD method, IMNSHO). Actually it's not funny ... rather, it's kind of fucking stupid if you ask me. They want to pitch the BC/AD stuff, but base their "New and Improved CT Calendar" on it. Damn friggin retarded.


1CT (10 000BC)

Beginning of civilization (time) -- no national boundaries.

Stephen Hawking, to name but one reference, in his acclaimed 'A Brief History of Time' (p.8), notes that "the end of the last Ice Age, about 10,000 BC, is when archaeologists tell us that civilization really began".

This epochal event allowed the beginning of sedentary living styles -- the beginning of farming, specialization of labour, i.e. some of the population could now focus on improving 'quality of life'.

[cappuccino]

I came across this idea of Civilization Time (CT) which start dating from 10,000 years ago, when civilization is said to have started.

...

So, year 2005AD would become year 12005 CT ...

Uhh, no. Year 2005 would be 10000 CT, since as you said in the first quoted sentence, civilization started 10,000 years ago.

Right?

Er, I made a boo boo, that should be 10,000 years before the nonexistant 0CE which is roughly around the time agriculture started developing jjust an uniform undifferentiated historical background to start dating from.

[cappuccino]

Found this little tidbit on CT. Right here. (http://www.kxol.com.au/ct.htm)

Funny how they use B.C. as a reference point here.(Which also shows that the claim that civilization started 10,000 years ago was incorrect ... according to them civilization started 12005 years ago, with 10,000 BC as the reference point ... which seems a bit arbitrary, much more arbitrary than the BC/AD method, IMNSHO). Actually it's not funny ... rather, it's kind of fucking stupid if you ask me. They want to pitch the BC/AD stuff, but base their "New and Improved CT Calendar" on it. Damn friggin retarded.


Obviously choosing a reference point has to be arbitrary to some degree, there's no getting around that. The nearest thing to a nonarbitrary reference point would be the Big Bang, but it's not useful for dating human civilization events.

The idea is to ditch the specific religious and cultural rationale for basing both BC/AD and BCE/CE systems on. Sure, the CT system picks a date that allows us to keep the numbering in the BC/AD system for obvious backward compatiblity reasons, since people are loath to relearn an entire different system. I don't think CT's a stupid system, it attempts to give historical events as much equal standing as much as possible and recognizes that no matter how hard we may try, we really can't escape from the Western dating system entirely due to historical entrenchment.

[TomJoe]

The idea is to ditch the specific [/i]religious and cultural[i] rationale for basing both BC/AD and BCE/CE systems on. Sure, the CT system picks a date that allows us to keep the numbering in the BC/AD system for obvious backward compatiblity reasons...

Which means the CT system is no different than the BCE/CE system. It just has a much bigger number.

PS: Demosthenes, I'm a bit grouchy today, so please don't take my comments personally.

[Crumb]

Which means the CT system is no different than the BCE/CE system.
Excepting that all historical events are numbers that can be easily compared and the flow in the same direction and don't flip around an arbitrary date for no particular reason. You seem to see the compatibility with BCE/CE as a weakness, when it was specifically designed as a strength of this system.

[TomJoe]

Excepting that all historical events are numbers that can be easily compared and the flow in the same direction ...

Yes, because people really are friggin morons and can't be bothered to do some quick calculations.

[JoeP]

The dawn of civilisation is pretty much useless for dating since we don't know when it was and even if we could time-travel and check, it's not one sharp event. I propose a year zero based on some event that affected (or not) everybody in the world equally. Something like the precession of the equinoxes. Year 0 = greatest inclination of the earth's axis or something. Wasn't the Mayan calendar based on that kind of thing?

/me rushes off to not bother researching this at all

[TomJoe]

While we're at it ... can we reinvent the wheel?

[JoeP]

Ask a Dalek.

[livius drusus]

Do I look like Santa Claus to you?
:dalek:

[godfry n. glad]

The idea is to ditch the specific [/i]religious and cultural[i] rationale for basing both BC/AD and BCE/CE systems on. Sure, the CT system picks a date that allows us to keep the numbering in the BC/AD system for obvious backward compatiblity reasons...

Which means the CT system is no different than the BCE/CE system. It just has a much bigger number.

Yeah... Just 10,000 more years.

They should have picked a year in which the full moon and the winter solstice fell on the same day and use that as a starting point. Anything would be fine, and just as arbitrary as Dionysus Exiguus' BC/AD dating system (...we could call them "before Claudius" and "after Dennis").

Also, since the whole christian system is predicated upon a Jewish system, why aren't we using the Jewish calendar? The one their supposed Jesus used, instead of something some confused monk manufactured using contradictory sources centuries later?

I use BCE/CE. That's because I deal with traditions other than christian and I then don't have to explain that my terminology references in terms of a specific phoney savior figure.

[livius drusus]

Surely traditions other than Christian would find the whole negative/no zero/positive scale of BCE/CE perplexing without an understanding the reference to Jesus, no? I mean, the reference isn't just in the BC/AD acronyms, but in the entire shebang.

[TomJoe]

Don't the Chinese have a calendar with it's own dating, which was entirely independent of the West?

For me, the BC/AD works just fine. For people who have an aversion to "all things Christian" use the Chinese calendar.

[TomJoe]

Surely traditions other than Christian would find the whole negative/no zero/positive scale of BCE/CE perplexing without an understanding the reference to Jesus, no? I mean, the reference isn't just in the BC/AD acronyms, but in the entire shebang.

I imagine most people just give a shit that we're currently in year 2005 and could probably care less what happened in year 1000 BC. So it's not that it's perplexing for them when trying to figure out the system, it's just that for them it's a moot point.

Besides, what is the benefit of ditching the old system and settling on a new system? Is it so some people are not confused? Seems like education would fix that up ... and would be a lot less work than renumbering everything using the current standard.

[Shake]

So, 1969 would be 0 AT, then? That's not bad, and I wouldn't mind having a system based off the year I was born (making this 35 AT), but how about something even more momentus than landing on the moon? Something without which, landing on the moon would have taken much longer.

I'm talking about the invention of the transistor (http://www.pbs.org/transistor/) in 1947.
"The Transistor was probably the most important invention of the 20th Century, and the story behind the invention is one of clashing egos and top secret research."
- Ira Flatow, Transistorized!
We'd call it AQ, since Q is the electronic identifier for a transistor. (R for resistor, C = capacitor, T = transformer, Y = crystal oscillator, CR = diode, etc.) So, this would be 48 AQ.

[MonCapitan2002]

I use BCE/CE.

[lpetrich]

And taking a broader view, there have been numerous other temporal landmarks used in calendars. A common one has been when the current leader has come to power; this would make this year:

US George Walker Bush 5
CA Paul Martin 3
UK Tony Blair 9
AU John Howard 10
NZ Helen Clark 8
...

But this system has clear inadequacies, like having to keep track of all the leaders and who followed who and who came to power while who was ruling. Which is why more general temporal landmarks have been invented. What this year is in them:

The 1st year of the 696th Olympiad
After the original Olympic Games, which were held every 4 years, starting in 776 BCE.

Seleucid Era 2317
After Seleucus, one of Alexander the Great's generals, who had taken over the Middle Eastern part of Alexander's empire; it starts in 312 BCE.

Anno Urbis Conditae 2758
"In the Year of the Founding of the City". After when Rome was founded, as calculated by Marcus Terentius Varro; it starts in 753 BCE.

Republican Era 19 Brumaire 214
After the French Revolutionary calendar; it starts in 1792 CE.

Jewish calendar 7 Heshvan 5766
After a calculation of the date when the Universe was created; it starts in 3761 BCE.

Islamic calender 7 Shawwal 1426
After the Hegira, which is when Mohammed fled from Mecca to Medina; it starts in 622 CE, and each year has exactly 12 lunar months, making it shorter than the usual sort of year.

Etc.

I used Calendar Converter (http://www.fourmilab.com/documents/calendar/) to get some of the dates here; I've also used Calendar era (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar_era) and Epochs and Eras (http://www.ortelius.de/kalender/era_en.php).

[ceptimus]

I occasionally use BC.

I hardly ever have to write AD or CE (does anyone?) so the question doesn't bother me much. On the rare occasions I have to make it clear, I tend to use AD, as that was/is the commonest system here. If the commonest usage changes to CE, or anything else, I'll swap to that.

Unless you're discussing dates more than a thousand years ago (which would usually be obvious by the context) then there's no need to put either set of letters - everyone knows you mean either AD or CE - whichever set of letters they prefer.

Even when discussing things that happened BC, I would usually avoid using a date, by saying something like 'about five thousand years ago.' I supose the letters for this would be BP (before present).

[Godless Dave]

While we're at it ... can we reinvent the wheel?

It's been reinvented before. Other civiliations used different year-numbering schemes in the past and they will use different ones in the future.

[Adora]

AU John Howard 10
Sweet mother of fuck! He's been in that long? Oh fucking hell. I think I need to now go find my old anti-depressant prescription.

Sometimes, I really fucking hate my country.

[alphamale]

AU John Howard 10
Sweet mother of fuck! He's been in that long? Oh fucking hell. I think I need to now go find my old anti-depressant prescription.

Sometimes, I really fucking hate my country.

Go live in iran then.

[Adora]

Oh, do grow up, you scum-sucking wannabe neo-con wanker. Just because you dislike the hippy elements in your own country, are you going to run off and move to Saudi Arabia? No. Grow a brain. There's a difference between a rigged election system run by a theocratic bunch of clerics and a democracy working as it should and serving the needs of the selfish population. Then again, you're not the kind to be able to wrap your pea-brained mind around grey areas, so I don't expect you to give an actual proper response to this.

Go back and play with your science textbooks, little boy.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

So, 1969 would be 0 AT, then? That's not bad, and I wouldn't mind having a system based off the year I was born (making this 35 AT), but how about something even more momentus than landing on the moon? Something without which, landing on the moon would have taken much longer.

Close enough, the start of the year is on the 21st of July, the date they landed.
After Transistors would be another good one, but within OA, landing on the moon is more of a noteworthy mile stone since that's the first time beings left the Earth and landed on another world; even though sentient computers more vast than Dyson spheres in scale exist in the setting..... Hmmm, maybe I should bring it up, it's not like they'd have to change the letters, just what they mean.

[CaDan]

AU John Howard 10
Sweet mother of fuck! He's been in that long? Oh fucking hell. I think I need to now go find my old anti-depressant prescription.

Sometimes, I really fucking hate my country.

See how useful it is? ;)

That's a good system!

[godfry n. glad]

So, 1969 would be 0 AT, then? That's not bad, and I wouldn't mind having a system based off the year I was born (making this 35 AT), but how about something even more momentus than landing on the moon? Something without which, landing on the moon would have taken much longer.

Close enough, the start of the year is on the 21st of July, the date they landed.
After Transistors would be another good one, but within OA, landing on the moon is more of a noteworthy mile stone since that's the first time beings left the Earth and landed on another world; even though sentient computers more vast than Dyson spheres in scale exist in the setting..... Hmmm, maybe I should bring it up, it's not like they'd have to change the letters, just what they mean.

Excuse me, but that's July 20, not 21.

[alphamale]

Oh, do grow up, you scum-sucking wannabe neo-con wanker. Just because you dislike the hippy elements in your own country, are you going to run off and move to Saudi Arabia? No. Grow a brain. There's a difference between a rigged election system run by a theocratic bunch of clerics and a democracy working as it should and serving the needs of the selfish population. Then again, you're not the kind to be able to wrap your pea-brained mind around grey areas, so I don't expect you to give an actual proper response to this.

Go back and play with your science textbooks, little boy.

I think 5 years in saudi arabia would do wonders for a slut like you! :D

[TomJoe]

:deepsigh:

Dip and Dope.

[alphamale]

:deepsigh:

Dip and Dope.

And a dork.

[Adora]

I think 5 years in saudi arabia would do wonders for a slut like you! :D
Actually, it would. Whatever ignorant ideas you have about Saudi Arabia obviously don't extend to the reality. There's a massive underground subculture of youth (because, like most backward Muslim countries, they had that pesky problem of early population control) who do nothing except fuck, take drugs and party on their paren't money for most of their time when they're not in school. Would be a nice holiday for me right now after finishing my degree. But keep thinking you've got the stereotype down, bub. I'm sure it makes you feel safe in your stupidity.

[alphamale]

I think 5 years in saudi arabia would do wonders for a slut like you! :D
Actually, it would. Whatever ignorant ideas you have about Saudi Arabia obviously don't extend to the reality. There's a massive underground subculture of youth (because, like most backward Muslim countries, they had that pesky problem of early population control) who do nothing except fuck, take drugs and party on their paren't money for most of their time when they're not in school. Would be a nice holiday for me right now after finishing my degree. But keep thinking you've got the stereotype down, bub. I'm sure it makes you feel safe in your stupidity.

OK, how about Afghanistan? No massive slut culture there! :D

[Adora]

I love the way you equate having a sexuality and having fun with being a slut. You don't get out of the house much, do you?

[godfry n. glad]

It seems to me that those dealing with very ancient dates, like palentologists and anthropologists, use BP. Before Present...

Why couldn't we just use the current year as year zero? Every New's Year's would ring in the new year 0 and the old year would be 1 BP.

And, while we're at it, why not change to thirteen 28-day months and an annual intercalary day (or two, as needed)? Can we make the New Year something reasonable, like winter solstice or spring equinox?

ETA:(ooops, sorry antipodeans...let's make that a solstice or an equinox, eh?)

[JoeP]

We're gonna party like it's 0 BP!

Thinking of intercalary days, did you know those uptight Brits (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4420084.stm) are resisting (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article326058.ece) American proposals to do away with (http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/leapsecs/) pesky Leap Seconds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second)? There's one coming up at the end of this year. The time will be 23:59:60.

[ceptimus]

Why couldn't we just use the current year as year zero?It would make it very difficult to write a history book, they'd all have to be republished each year...

And how would you remember your date of birth? It would change every year... :chin:

[ceptimus]

We're gonna party like it's 0 BP!

Thinking of intercalary days, did you know those uptight Brits (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4420084.stm) are resisting (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article326058.ece) American proposals to do away with (http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/leapsecs/) pesky Leap Seconds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second)? There's one coming up at the end of this year. The time will be 23:59:60.It will take about six hundred years till the time drifts away from solar time by about half-an-hour, so it's not a big deal for us or our children. In six hundred years time, we'll probably be using some other time system anyway - by then there may be colonies on the moon and on Mars, who will have different natural time to us anyway.

It's a pain for astronomers though. The positions of astronomical objects are directly related to the current time by a fairly simple formula at present. If this new time is adopted, they'll have to add in an ever increasing kludge factor (this is the number of leap seconds that would have occurred if the old system had been kept).

The best solution is obviously to keep the Earth's rotation in sync with the atomic clocks - that way everyone is happy. We can do this by having giant cannons mounted around the equator, pointing west, and fire massive projectiles up into space when required to top-up the earth's spin. We could also push some mountains into the ocean which would speed up the spin by the conservation of angular momentum. Either of these projects would also stimulate the world economy! :yup:

[godfry n. glad]

Why couldn't we just use the current year as year zero?It would make it very difficult to write a history book, they'd all have to be republished each year...

Maybe, but then I don't think it would really hobble any textwriter. I mean, some of the history books I had to work with were vastly out of date, anyway. Plus, it'd have the benefit of creating more employment for historical, proofreading and publishing types.

And how would you remember your date of birth? It would change every year... :chin:

That's actually easier... The year of your birth would be the same as your age. We'd cut from two numbers to remember (year of birth and age) to one.

[alphamale]

There's no good reason to depart from the AD/BC year system, and the only real reason is PC anti-christian religious bigotry.

[alphamale]

I love the way you equate having a sexuality and having fun with being a slut. You don't get out of the house much, do you?

Actually we and you have something in common - girlfriends! I didn't say anything about sexuality or having fun, I just said you are a slut who needs an extended stay in afghanistan.

[Adora]

Honey, a blow-up doll with a picture of Hilary Clinton does not equal a "girlfriend".

[alphamale]

Honey, a blow-up doll with a picture of Hilary Clinton does not equal a "girlfriend".

SURE it does sweetie - you just keep your "friend" until you get a human gf! :roflmao:

[wei yau]

First "your mother" jokes and now "I know you are but what am I"...I expected so much more from you.

[godfry n. glad]

Is that purposely ambiguous, eldar?

[lpetrich]

This thread makes me think of an odd thing. If we continued to name years by the leader-reign system, we'd have such oddities as:

George Bush 3: The Gulf War
George Walker Bush 3: The Iraq War

This suggests some future historian mixing up the two Presidents and stating:

In George Bush's third year, he fought Iraq, first driving the Iraqis out of Kuwait, and then conquering their country.

Complete with getting confused as to whether Bill Clinton's Presidency occurred before or after this conflated Bush's Presidency.

[Citizen of Earth]

I use Before Cretaceous and After Dinosaurs. It works.

[Odysseus]

At uni we are supposed to write bce/ce. Just because its a multifaith university. I dont mind it really. But if i was saying it id still say ad.

[alphamale]

At uni we are supposed to write bce/ce. Just because its a multifaith university. I dont mind it really. But if i was saying it id still say ad.

It's so absurd - they're still ticking it off from the birth of Christ. None of the impulse for this nonsense comes from the people who are supposed to be insulted by it - it comes from anti-Christian western liberal elite bigots. Stand up for yourself and reject the PC bullshit.

[justaman]

BCE/CE, but old habits die hard heh.

What is BVE/VE?

[Adora]

Before Vulgar Era/Vulgar Era. A term used for the same purposes (to avoid false religious connotations) back when "Vulgar" didn't necessarily mean "bad" but simply "common".

[Ari]

It's so absurd - they're still ticking it off from the birth of Christ. blah liberal blah poopy blah head
Considering many scholars don't believe Jesus was born on 1CE, no they are not ticking it off from the birth of Christ.

[Odysseus]

At uni we are supposed to write bce/ce. Just because its a multifaith university. I dont mind it really. But if i was saying it id still say ad.

It's so absurd - they're still ticking it off from the birth of Christ. None of the impulse for this nonsense comes from the people who are supposed to be insulted by it - it comes from anti-Christian western liberal elite bigots. Stand up for yourself and reject the PC bullshit.

As much as i would like too its academically preferable. And im not as petty as to claim small victories by writing bc or ad in an essay. Im more interested in getting my essays done quick and out of the way.

I can also see theology getting dropped next academic year.