Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Identical Fla. Twins Born In 2 Separate Decades (Neat)
cbsnews.com ^ | Saturday , January 02, 2010

Posted on 01/02/2010 3:56:23 AM PST by rawhide

Identical twin boys in Florida will get to celebrate their birthdays individually after they were born in separate decades.

Margarita Velasco delivered the twins by cesarean section at Tampa General Hospital.

Marcello was delivered just before midnight. His twin, Stephano, was delivered just as the new year began.

Their father Juan says it'll be good for each boy to have his own birthday party.

The twins are in intensive care because they were born about 10 weeks early.

(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...


TOPICS: Health/Medicine; Local News
KEYWORDS: 0through9is10; 9yearsisnodecade; born; decade; healthcare; immigration; poindexteralert; twins; whopaysforit
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last
As a twin, I say this is neat. They not only get to celebrate on different days, but different years. One twin will always seem to be 1-yr younger, because of the year he was born.

Added from another news source:

The first is Marcello, who was delivered at 11:59 p.m. Dec. 31. The second is Stephano, who arrives just after the stroke of midnight. It's Jan. 1, 2010. Marcello is 2 pounds, 4 ounces and 15 1/2 inches long. Stephano is 2 pounds, 4 ounces and 15 inches long.

1 posted on 01/02/2010 3:56:25 AM PST by rawhide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: rawhide

Neat that they are twins, but this decade will end December 31, 2010. There are ten years in a decade and we just completed the ninth.


2 posted on 01/02/2010 4:01:12 AM PST by paguch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: paguch

Actually that doesn’t work for decades. The 20s were 192X, not 1930. If you were to say this is the 200th decade, you might have a point. But ti doesn’t work like centuries, mainly because we are referring to the date when we say “the sixties” and not “counting” them.


3 posted on 01/02/2010 4:12:31 AM PST by TN4Liberty (My tagline disappeared so this is my new one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: paguch

I see your point, but there is many who argue over this point. The neat thing is that they were born in different years.


4 posted on 01/02/2010 4:14:41 AM PST by rawhide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: paguch

2000 to 2009 ?


5 posted on 01/02/2010 4:21:49 AM PST by Squantos (Be polite. Be professional. But have a plan to kill everyone you meet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rawhide
Not only were they born in different millenia but their weight was just shy of a tonne and their lengths were within a half mile of a light year.

As a certified tax preparer, I no that the family will only be able to claim one of them for the 2009 tax year BUT they will be able to claim the whole dependent tax credit of 750 Gazillion dollars give or take a penny!

...but what do I know. I'm not the Count!

6 posted on 01/02/2010 4:29:50 AM PST by Young Werther ( ("Quae Cum Ita Sunt - Julius Caesar "Since these things are so!"))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: paguch

Just curious as to which decade you would assign January 2nd, 2000 to?


7 posted on 01/02/2010 4:35:15 AM PST by rawhide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rawhide

Exvept pf cpurse they weren’t since 10 is still part of the decade


8 posted on 01/02/2010 4:37:33 AM PST by the long march
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rawhide

The decade will not end until Dec 31st 2010.


9 posted on 01/02/2010 4:45:48 AM PST by Perdogg ("Is that a bomb in your pants, or you excited to come to America?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TN4Liberty

You must have 10 years in a decade and there is no year zero. For example, The last year of the 70s was 1980, because we cannot have 197010. Mark Davis got it all wrong.


10 posted on 01/02/2010 4:48:22 AM PST by Perdogg ("Is that a bomb in your pants, or you excited to come to America?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Just curious as to which decade you would assign January 2nd, 2000 to?


11 posted on 01/02/2010 4:49:26 AM PST by rawhide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: rawhide
The year 2000 was the last year of the twentieth century therefore the last years of the 90s. Again you do not have year zero and you cannot have 199010.
12 posted on 01/02/2010 4:50:02 AM PST by Perdogg ("Is that a bomb in your pants, or you excited to come to America?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Why can’t Jan 1st, 2000 be the first day of a new decade?


13 posted on 01/02/2010 4:54:04 AM PST by rawhide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: rawhide
Marcello was delivered just before midnight. His twin, Stephano, was delivered just as the new year began.

both are anchor babies...Resident zer0 declares them citizens...

14 posted on 01/02/2010 4:56:45 AM PST by Vaquero (BHO....'The Pretenda from Kenya')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rawhide

because there was no year 0.


15 posted on 01/02/2010 5:00:21 AM PST by Perdogg ("Is that a bomb in your pants, or you excited to come to America?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: paguch

Call it what you want, but for the next TEN years, the date will end with 201_, beginning yesterday, and THAT’s a fact.


16 posted on 01/02/2010 5:03:58 AM PST by Canedawg (The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: paguch

It’s surprising how many people I have to explain that to.


17 posted on 01/02/2010 5:04:16 AM PST by Disciplinemisanthropy (III III IV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Wouldn’t Dec 31st, 0000 be considered the last day of the first year?


18 posted on 01/02/2010 5:07:31 AM PST by rawhide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: rawhide

It would have been if there had been a year 0, but there was no year 0.


19 posted on 01/02/2010 5:13:25 AM PST by Perdogg ("Is that a bomb in your pants, or you excited to come to America?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

So what decade do you put day 12-31-00 into? It has to be considered the last day of the first year of the first decade of the first century. (Do not confuse my argument with the years BC and the years AD). I am making the arguemnt as if the beginning of time began on 1-1-00.


20 posted on 01/02/2010 5:20:35 AM PST by rawhide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Disciplinemisanthropy

It’s surprising to me that anyone would attempt to convince someone that the end of the 60’s is something other than 12/31/69 or that 12/31/1960 is not part of the sixties. That’s kinda what “the 60s” means.

Decade designators are different than centuries purely by how we define them. Centuries are counted. Decades are “named” based on their number in the tens place. Like it or not, that is the way it is. It is not a math problem. It is a communication method. If communicating with reasonable people is not your goal, you have lots of good options on how you define terms. Technically, every day starts and ends a decade, which is merely a ten year period.

There is a difference even in different ways of defining centuries. I’ll agree that June 1 1900 is in the nineteenth century. It is also true that it is part of the 1900s. To say otherwise would be silly.

I’m not at all surprised that you have to explain it to people. I’m equally unsurprised that they don’t argue with you about it. :)


21 posted on 01/02/2010 5:23:12 AM PST by TN4Liberty (My tagline disappeared so this is my new one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: rawhide

the decade of the 90s. Since you cannot have 199010.


22 posted on 01/02/2010 5:25:53 AM PST by Perdogg ("Is that a bomb in your pants, or you excited to come to America?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

I do not agree with the point you are making, but let’s leave it at that. We’ll call it a FRiendly disagreement. Gotta go.


23 posted on 01/02/2010 5:31:07 AM PST by rawhide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: TN4Liberty

The problem with your logic is that you cannot tell me what happened in year 0.

In fact, it would be hard press to try convice someone that 1960 had any relations, socially, to 1969.


24 posted on 01/02/2010 5:32:34 AM PST by Perdogg ("Is that a bomb in your pants, or you excited to come to America?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Squantos

2000 was in the last century


25 posted on 01/02/2010 5:33:55 AM PST by muir_redwoods (Obama: The Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rawhide

The whole problem is that there is no “year zero” in the calendars. The concept of zero, which was invented by Hindu mathematicians and transmitted to the western world by Islamic mathematicians through the use of Arabic numbers, was not applied to the western (Julian and then Gregorian) calendars. I don’t think it was applied to the Islamic (Hijri) calendar either. Now that I think further, the calendar was developed long before the concept of the zero. This may be a part of the confusion.


26 posted on 01/02/2010 5:35:01 AM PST by reg45 (Be calm everyone. The idiot children are in charge!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: rawhide
The neat thing is that they were born in different years.

What's so neat about two more anchor babies?

27 posted on 01/02/2010 5:54:42 AM PST by cowboyway ("The beauty of the Second Amendment is you won't need it until they try to take it away"--Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TN4Liberty
Actually that doesn’t work for decades. The 20s were 192X, not 1930.

Actually, it does work that way.

A decade is defined as a 10 year period.

According to your incorrect interpretation, the first decade of this, the 21st Century, would only be 9 years.

That's only 90% of a decade, can't be.

28 posted on 01/02/2010 6:08:16 AM PST by USS Alaska (Nuke the terrorist savages - In Honor of Standing Wolf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: paguch

Yeah, what’s with these “news organizations” that don’t know what a decade is? And we are supposed to trust everything they say? These people are really becoming a laughing-stock.


29 posted on 01/02/2010 6:11:14 AM PST by ThePatriotsFlag (http://www.thepatriotsflag.com - The Patriot's Flag)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TN4Liberty
There is a difference even in different ways of defining centuries. I’ll agree that June 1 1900 is in the nineteenth century.

If you can't even get Centuries correct, your shouldn't even attempt to impose your illogical ideas on decade.

June 1, 1990 was in the 20th Century and we are now in the 21st Century.

You need to rest, must have partied too much in the last decade.

30 posted on 01/02/2010 6:15:21 AM PST by USS Alaska (Nuke the terrorist savages - In Honor of Standing Wolf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: paguch; All
Neat that they are twins, but this decade will end December 31, 2010.

Sorry folks, but this is technically correct. Simple point of fact. You can argue against it all you want, but it does not change that fact.

What you CAN argue is that the public perception is that we are now in the new decade. That is largely correct, since about this topic, the general public is simply ignorant. Wouldn't be the first time... "irregardless", the babies were born in separate years, so thats cool...

31 posted on 01/02/2010 6:21:24 AM PST by Paradox (ObamaCare = Logan's Run ; There is no Sanctuary!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: USS Alaska
You need to rest, must have partied too much in the last decade.

I think you need to rest and re-read what I posted. I said nothing about 1990. I'm illogical from your perspective perhaps, but I'm at least literate.

32 posted on 01/02/2010 6:31:45 AM PST by TN4Liberty (My tagline disappeared so this is my new one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
The problem with your logic is that you cannot tell me what happened in year 0.

The problem with your logic is that you think that year zero matters in everyday language. It doesn't. If a child is born on July 17, 1970, I don't think anyone would say the child was born in the sixties. Do you? I will agree that he was born in the 196th decade AD, but that's an odd construct and not one conducive to communication.

33 posted on 01/02/2010 6:37:01 AM PST by TN4Liberty (My tagline disappeared so this is my new one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: TN4Liberty

Since your argument doesn’t make logical sense, I’m not surprised at you either.


34 posted on 01/02/2010 6:45:27 AM PST by Shimmer1 (Deja moo: The feeling you've heard this bull before)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: TN4Liberty

yes I do. 1970 was the last year of the 60s. We are not going to agree on this one, I don’t want to argue with a FRiend! :)


35 posted on 01/02/2010 6:49:54 AM PST by Perdogg ("Is that a bomb in your pants, or you excited to come to America?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Agreed. My point - my only point - is that it comes down to definitions and what one wants to do with them. A case can be made for either, depending on the audience and purpose of the definition.


36 posted on 01/02/2010 6:53:40 AM PST by TN4Liberty (My tagline disappeared so this is my new one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Shimmer1

Why so angry? Not just you, but others as well. Just curious. Seems an odd thing to get overly concerned about.

Did you ever stop to think that if we were born with twelve fingers (or eight) instead of ten, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation?


37 posted on 01/02/2010 6:58:44 AM PST by TN4Liberty (My tagline disappeared so this is my new one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods

Ok then.....back to school fer me !........:o)


38 posted on 01/02/2010 7:14:00 AM PST by Squantos (Be polite. Be professional. But have a plan to kill everyone you meet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg; TN4Liberty

You don’t have to argue. YOU ARE BOTH RIGHT!
Decade is defined as ‘a period of 10 years’, PERIOD! If you are referring to the decade of the 60’s then that is 1960 to 1969. If you are referring to the calendar decade it is 1961 to 1970. The FIRST year of the calendar began with year ONE.


39 posted on 01/02/2010 7:14:15 AM PST by smokeyb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: smokeyb

Thank you!


40 posted on 01/02/2010 7:15:25 AM PST by Perdogg ("Is that a bomb in your pants, or you excited to come to America?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: TN4Liberty
Did you ever stop to think that if we were born with twelve fingers (or eight) instead of ten, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation?

Sure we would. Except we'd be arguing about when the octade or whatever you call a period of twelve years ends.

41 posted on 01/02/2010 7:22:02 AM PST by Sherman Logan ("The price of freedom is the toleration of imperfections." Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: smokeyb

Thanks for the best resolution of this argument I’ve seen.

The 2000s ended a couple days ago.

The 201st decade ends in about 364 days.


42 posted on 01/02/2010 7:25:00 AM PST by Sherman Logan ("The price of freedom is the toleration of imperfections." Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: TN4Liberty

At least you’re aware of the difference, which is commendable.


43 posted on 01/02/2010 8:28:27 AM PST by Disciplinemisanthropy (III III IV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Canedawg

I’m on your side! The 0 decade started with 00 and goes through then end of 09. Decades means 10 years, and 00 through 09 is 10 years. To me it has to do with the way the years are numbered. In our counting system when you bump nine by one you replace it with a zero. Seems open and shut to me, but I can see how some would see it the other way too!

It’s like the old trick you play on a kid to prove that he you have 11 fingers. Hold up your left hand, fingers extended. Start with the thumb on that hand and number the fingers 10, 9, 8, 7, 6. Then hold up the 5 fingers of the other other hand “Plus 5 equals 11!” One of the neatest tricks in the book for kids and adults.

It has to do with the difference in counting and numbering. They are not the same!


44 posted on 01/02/2010 10:17:06 AM PST by jwparkerjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: jwparkerjr

yes, it’s like arguing six or a half dozen.

Enough of the sticklers who want to lecture about when a decade starts.

The odometer flipped to 201_ and will stay that way for ten years...which is basically a DECADE.

;-)


45 posted on 01/02/2010 12:30:07 PM PST by Canedawg (The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Squantos

we could all use a bit more study :)


46 posted on 01/02/2010 12:59:30 PM PST by muir_redwoods (Obama: The Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
It would have been if there had been a year 0, but there was no year 0.

There is considerable disagreement on your point.

From Wiki: "Some writers like to point out that since the common calendar starts from the year 1, its first full decade contained the years from 1 to 10, the second decade from 11 to 20, and so on. The interval from the year 2001 to 2010 could thus be called the 201st decade, using ordinal numbers. However, contrary to practices in referencing centuries, ordinal references to decades are quite uncommon."

From the Cambridge online dictionary: "a period of ten years, especially a period such as 1860 to 1869, or 1990 to 1999"

A decade can be broken down in two ways...and in common usage...its 0-9. That's 10 years. You're straining on a gnat...

47 posted on 01/02/2010 1:26:40 PM PST by NELSON111
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods
2000 was in the last century

What millenium is it in?

48 posted on 01/02/2010 1:30:32 PM PST by LoneRangerMassachusetts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: LoneRangerMassachusetts

12/31/2000 was the last day of the 20th century and the 2nd millennium


49 posted on 01/02/2010 1:39:56 PM PST by muir_redwoods (Obama: The Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods

Seems as I remember everyone celebrating the new Millenium on January 1, 2000.


50 posted on 01/02/2010 1:48:59 PM PST by LoneRangerMassachusetts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson