Rant: Time and Date Errors

I'm just feeling the need to go "Andy Rooney" for a minute:
There are several common mistakes that people make with dates and times that are either slightly annoying or slightly amusing to me, depending on the mistake.
One is what I call the "noon problem." It seems that many of us have forgotten whether noon is 12 a.m. or 12 p.m. Consider the following statement, "The store will be open on Christmas Eve from 8-12 a.m." Now, I think we all know what that means. The store will be open from 8 a.m. until noon. However, that's not what the statement says. Noon is not 12 a.m. Midnight is. Noon is 12 p.m. So, the statement is really saying that the store will be open from 8 a.m. until midnight on Christmas Eve. I don't think those hours are going to be popular with most of the staff....
While the "noon problem" is more amusing than annoying, the "misplaced year modifier problem" is more annoying than amusing because it shows an ignorance of how our calendar system is set up. The problem manifests itself something like this: "He was born in 5 B.C. and died in 50 A.D." The problem? Our calendar system was set up in such a way that the split between B.C. and A.D. is the year of the birth of Jesus Christ. (Now, the guy who calculated the year was off by about 5 years, but hey, cut him some slack. He did the best he could with what he had.) B.C., thus, stands for "Before Christ," and A.D. stands for "Anno Domini," which is Latin "Year of our Lord." B.C. modifies the year by sitting after the number, e.g. 5 B.C. means 5 years Before Christ. A.D., however, modifies the year by sitting before the number, e.g. A.D. 50 means in the Year of our Lord (number) 50. It doesn't make much sense to put it the other way, e.g. 50 A.D., since that would mean 50 in the year of our Lord. When thought of that way, the second options is quite confusing. 50 what? And what year, precisely is this "Year of our Lord?" Sadly, we no longer teach the meaning of the phrase A.D., and so it has wound up misplaced after the year instead of before.
Of course, there are some, primarily historians, who realize full well what B.C. and A.D. stand for. They seem uncomfortable with this knowledge, however, and that leads to a third "error," one that is particularly infuriating to me. Here's how it works. In an effort to remove any references to Christ from their calendars, some historians call every date that would normally be designated "A.D." as "C.E." meaning "Common Era" or "Christian Era." Likewise, "B.C." becomes "B.C.E." or "Before Common Era." The numbering stays the same. Now, hopefully, you're seeing the absurdity of this. The dividing point, the birth year (albeit slightly miscalculated) of Jesus Christ, is still the same. But the reference to the cause of the dividing line has been removed. It's like people were afraid that if they used references to Jesus as a real, historical person that they might actually have to believe in Him.
It's also intellectually disingenuous for two reasons. First, there's no such thing as "Common Era" because many cultures use different calendars with different starting and ending dates. Secondly, the "Christian Era" could not begin at A.D. 1 because "Christians" did not really exist, yet. (Christ would only have been about 6 at the time and wouldn't have had too many disciples.) The "Christian Era" probably should not be held to begin until later, perhaps as late as Constantine's "Edict of Milan" in A.D. 313. So, the whole point of the designations is not for some valid historical reason; rather, it's simply an attempt to avoid the references to Christ in the year naming system. Yet this point is not acknowledge by proponents of the system. They somehow feel more "enlightened" for having removed from their system the reference to its origin in the first place.
So, the next time you plan on sending the e-mail out about your Christmas party, be sure to say that it runs "From 7 p.m. to 12 a.m." (not 7 p.m. to 12 p.m. That would be one long party!) and that it is on "December 21, A.D. 2007" (not 2007 A.D.). And please, don't even dare try to say, "2007 C.E." Somehow, the idea of a Christmas party in a year designated "C.E." just seems a little too much like mockery to me.
End of rant.