This user has not filled out their profile yet.

Surveydaddy
Check out Surveydaddy, the most easy-to-use survey software around. Start creating beautiful online surveys today.

Create an Online Survey

I'll go with: (Poll Closed)

  • "Twenty ten."
    67%
    541 votes

     
  • "Two thousand ten."
    33%
    261 votes

     

Posted 2 years ago.

8 Comments

  • Thomas Handy - 2 years ago

    Let's see...1810 was "eighteen ten;" 1910 was "nineteen ten;" so why is this even an issue? I agree consistency (Hobbes' foolishness aside) suggests "twenty ten." By the way, I'm still reeling from the whole redundantly redundant "year 2000" phrase. As opposed to what? The hat size 2000? The salad dressing 2000? I can't wait for the 2100s, everything will be so much easier.

  • Simon - 2 years ago

    Agree with Heather, Leo and Seth. "Twenty" is the only way, the other way is nonsense.

  • Seth - 2 years ago

    We refer to 1920 as "Nineteen twenty," and the 1960s as the "Nineteen-sixties," so why change what we call years in the new century?

  • Pete - 2 years ago

    That may have been the most absurd argument I've ever heard!! I was born about thirty years before Leo, so in a different generation, but I agree with him...I never, ever told anybody, anywhere, that I was born in one thousand nine hundred forty four!! Pretentious hardly covers this man's ridiculousness! Robert should have asked him when he was born! :)

  • Leo - 2 years ago

    For those who suggested that two thousand ten is the adult way...I would love to ask them when they were born. If they are like me, they are born in 1974. That is nineteen seventy four, not one thousand nine hundred seventy four. Or ask them when the Declaration of Independence was signed. Seventeen Seventy Six or one thousand seven hundred seventy six. Fighting for two thousand ten seems a bit pretentious.

    Also for those of you who want to say two thousand ten...please note that in American English it is proper to say two thousand ten, not two thousand and ten (unless your from Britain). If you are going pretentious might as well go all the way.

  • Frank - 2 years ago

    Just ten. We won't need the first two digits for the next ninety years, so why not go for efficiency. Few people reading this will be alive then, and they can decide on what to call the next century's "y2k" problem.

  • Kim - 2 years ago

    I'm for saving time- but I never really consider the question before. Sort of left it up to individual preference. Be sure to post the results so we can all start the movement.

  • Heather - 2 years ago

    We didn't walk around saying One Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety Nine...

Leave a Comment

0/4000 chars


Submit Comment