OT: Identical twins born a decade apart on New Year's at Florida's Tampa General Hospital
Hoodoo
General Hospital
By Soraya Roberts
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Saturday, January 2nd 2010, 11:27 AM
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/01/02/2010-01-02_florida_twins_born_a_decade_apart_at_tampa_general_hospital_on_new_years.html
Normally twins are born only minutes apart, but on New Year's Eve a
Florida set was born with a decade between them.
The Velasco twins were born at Tampa General Hospital during an
emergency surgery, Tampa Bay Online reported.
Marcello was delivered at 11:59:37 p.m., the last baby born at the
hospital in 2009. Brother Stephano was delivered about a minute later at
12:00:02 a.m. on January 1, 2010. He was the first baby born at the
hospital this decade.
"We never think that we would be the first of the year, or the last of
the year, nothing like that, "the twins' father Juan Velasco told TBO.
"But I'm really happy."
The twins were born six weeks premature and were sent to the hospital's
neonatal intensive care unit, Catherine Lynch, the doctor who delivered
them, told the outlet.
The duo is expected to remain there for about eight weeks.
Lynch said the babies were delivered early because one of the twins was
not getting adequate nutrition from the placenta.
"So they'll always be twins, but now they each have their own special
day," Lynch said.
--
"Think with your dipstick, Jimmy."
Look up the word 'dive' in the dictionary.
After the initial definitions regarding
aquatic and aeronautical topics, you'll
see a photo of this joint.
MWB
They were born minutes apart in different years, not a decade.
Obviously this was a sea-section and planned for a multiple year birth. Too
bad the parents will lose the tax write off on one child.
My twins had to come out of the oven, because Mikey wasn't doing very well.
They told us to be there at 0800 and they will deliver them at 1100. Mike
was born at 1103 and Mark 1104.
GO PATRIOTS
Mark
Kris Baker
"Hoodoo" <hoo...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:4B3FBE49...@spamcop.net...
> Identical twins born a decade apart on New Year's at Florida's Tampa
> General Hospital
>
> By Soraya Roberts
> DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
> Saturday, January 2nd 2010, 11:27 AM
> http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/01/02/2010-01-02_florida_twins_born_a_decade_apart_at_tampa_general_hospital_on_new_years.html
>
> Normally twins are born only minutes apart, but on New Year's Eve a
> Florida set was born with a decade between them.
>
> The Velasco twins were born at Tampa General Hospital during an emergency
> surgery, Tampa Bay Online reported.
C-sections and planned birth make these "events" into non-events.
Kris
Brad Ferguson
wrote:
> They're off a year.
No, they're not.
This nonsense really has to stop. If it doesn't, the Yankees will go
10-for-10 in the World Series this decade. Mark my words.
Kathi
>Identical twins born a decade apart on New Year's at Florida's Tampa
>General Hospital
My mother, a teacher, had an instance like this back in the mid '70s.
One twin was born Dec. 31, 1969 and the other was Jan. 1, 1970.
Brian
<thir...@frXOXed.net> wrote:
>No, they're not.
>
>This nonsense really has to stop. If it doesn't, the Yankees will go
>10-for-10 in the World Series this decade. Mark my words.
Do you start with zero when counting? For example, how many pairs of
socks; 0,1,2 etc.?
Kris Baker
"Brian" <drmorri...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:pt72k55gvll3phao3...@4ax.com...
When you were born, were you already one?
We're counting time, not socks.
Tim J.
No, but he *was* in his first year of life.
>We're counting time, not socks.
And there was no Year Zero.
Larc
Exactly! As our calendar system retroactively determined the setup, 1 BC was
immediately followed by 1 AD. So unless there is a decade somewhere in AD with
only 9 years, those twins weren't born in separate decades. :)
Larc
Brad Ferguson
<la...@notmyaddress.com> wrote:
No, not at all. This is not the century argument all over again. We
didn't see out the 201st decade last week. We saw out the the 2000s.
The 1990s and the 2000s and the 2010s and so on are examples of the
ten-year periods we observe as decades. And you all know that already,
so enough from me -- and, yes, I do know how to count from 1, thanks.
Have fun.
Larc
| > | And there was no Year Zero.
| >
| > Exactly! As our calendar system retroactively determined the setup, 1 BC was
| > immediately followed by 1 AD. So unless there is a decade somewhere in AD
| > with
| > only 9 years, those twins weren't born in separate decades. :)
|
|
| No, not at all. This is not the century argument all over again. We
| didn't see out the 201st decade last week. We saw out the the 2000s.
| The 1990s and the 2000s and the 2010s and so on are examples of the
| ten-year periods we observe as decades. And you all know that already,
| so enough from me -- and, yes, I do know how to count from 1, thanks.
| Have fun.
I agree that is the generally accepted system, but it's mathematically
incorrect. 1 AD through 10 AD were the 1st decade AD. The 2nd decade AD didn't
start until 11 AD started. Since then a new set of 10 years has begun with each
year ending in "1."
Larc
xine
can start counting at any point and so long as you count 12 full
months (including affected leap years) for 10 consecutive years you'll
have a decade. Therefore, any two siblings born more than 1 second
apart can said to be born in different decades if you start counting
the decade the second after the first of them was born.
All of this is irrelvant in the case of these twins, since they
weren't born a decade apart, but only 25 seconds apart.
Ha, I started typing this note in a prior decade.
Xine
Brad Ferguson
<la...@notmyaddress.com> wrote:
Please re-read what I posted. We were not observing the passing of
"the 201st decade," which is what you've been talking about. We were
observing the passing of the 2000s. The 2000s <> "the 201st decade,"
which AFAIK no one has ever observed or commemorated, or even referred
to, in any way until several days ago.
The 2000s ran from 2000 to 2009, and there is nothing mathematically
incorrect about that. There is, however, something mindboggling wacko
about the idea that the 2000s did not include the actual year 2000 but
do include the year 2010. That makes no sense at all.
David Carson
I agree with you.
Do you think people in the 1950's - or even the 1980's - argued over
this? I don't think they did. The fact that this is an argument today
is yet another reason why I say the internet has brought out the crazy
in people.
And back to the twins in the OP. None of this matters as to whether
they were born "a decade apart". They weren't. They were born minutes
apart.
David Carson
--
Why do you seek the living among the dead? -- Luke 24:5
Who's Alive and Who's Dead
http://www.whosaliveandwhosdead.com
rob cibik
>
> And back to the twins in the OP. None of this matters as to whether
> they were born "a decade apart". They weren't. They were born minutes
> apart.
>
few would read an article that claimed twins were born "minutes
apart"; many will read an article claiming the twins were born "a
decade apart" and not question it (unless, of course, the reader was
an astute A.O.er).
Brad Ferguson
<da...@neosoft.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 14:59:28 -0500, Brad Ferguson
> <thir...@frXOXed.net> wrote:
>
> >The 2000s ran from 2000 to 2009, and there is nothing mathematically
> >incorrect about that. There is, however, something mindboggling wacko
> >about the idea that the 2000s did not include the actual year 2000 but
> >do include the year 2010. That makes no sense at all.
>
> I agree with you.
>
> Do you think people in the 1950's - or even the 1980's - argued over
> this? I don't think they did. The fact that this is an argument today
> is yet another reason why I say the internet has brought out the crazy
> in people.
I'd never heard this argument before, either. It strikes me as aimless
pedantry -- and, in this case, it's flatly wrong. Nobody's been
talking about "the 201st decade."
I can tell you for a fact that the beginning of 1950 was popularly seen
as the start of the second half of the twentieth century, because there
were all sorts of TV specials about what had happened from 1900 to 1949
(especially WW2) and what might be coming next. (Short answer: space
travel. Lots and lots of it.) There wasn't even a hint of that kind
of programming at the start of 1951. From this I gather that, right or
wrong, setting 1950 as the start of the second half of the 20th century
was not controversial at all.
> And back to the twins in the OP. None of this matters as to whether
> they were born "a decade apart". They weren't. They were born minutes
> apart.
Exactly right. Unfortunately, that fact got lost when it haphazardly
wandered into the swamp of this nonsense.
Louis Epstein
[CORRECTED SUBJECT LINE]
Like it or not,you're falling into the same obtuseness that
treats "the 1900s" and "the 20th century" as synonymous even
as you are making the point that they're not.
"The first decade of the 21st century" is not over,
but "the 2000s decade" is.The 1990s ended a year before
the 21st century started.
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Matthew Kruk
news:ZZqdnQLgN_9RH9_W...@speakeasy.net...
> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 15:57:53 -0800, Terry del Fuego
> <t_del...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>some kind of screwed up in vitro thing.
>
> I'm surprised someone hasn't posited that's what really happened, and
> the
> story we read is a lie concocted by Dick Cheney, Hillary Clinton,
> and/or
> Ryan Seacrest.
>
> Stupid internet.
Dumbest headline I've read in a line time. Never saw this kinda stuff
when I worked on an IBM Selectric.
Matthew Kruk
news:SKv0n.3748$er1....@en-nntp-07.dc1.easynews.com...
You could also scroll back, use whiteout and change "line" to "long"
even after you carriage return.