Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Try again.. That sentence makes no f-n sense to me whatsoever...

I do the best I can, but should I say I'm wrong, just so you don't get upset at me for sticking with my opinions?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

And what a boring topic it is. ...

Maybe boring for you.

Originally Posted by Eric

I also consider it an aspect of the shaming on social media reported on PBS tonight.

Now that is interesting, IMO. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Eric

Noone on here has any business telling others how to behave. Noone here is any better than others. Don't put yourself on such a pedestal. You'll just fall off. ...

So Eric, why are you telling other people how to behave?
Come to think of it, if you actually stopped telling other
people how to behave(and how they oughta be thinking),
what on earth would you even be able to post about?

(By the way, thanks for putting me on a pedestal.
Now I can see why you seem to like it so much.
Wow! The view from here is really 'amazing'*! )

Originally Posted by Eric

... That it was.

Probably so. Although considered typical of Xers.

See above comment i/r/t the view from the pedestal.


Prince

PS: Eric, any 'guilt' you may feel is your own.
--------------------------
* 'total bullshit'!

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Maybe boring for you.

Who else would I be speaking for, Sir Cat?

So Eric, why are you telling other people how to behave?
Come to think of it, if you actually stopped telling other
people how to behave(and how they oughta be thinking),
what on earth would you even be able to post about?

oughta be thinking, perhaps; not how to behave. At least, "oughta be thinking," as far as I know; the facts and the truth, as I know it. Exchange of ideas is interesting. Not that other stuff.

(By the way, thanks for putting me on a pedestal.
Now I can see why you seem to like it so much.
Wow! The view from here is really 'amazing'*! )

You put yourself there. Accountability, remember? You like that

See above comment i/r/t the view from the pedestal.

Communication? Really? This comment makes no sense, and is not intended to.

PS: Eric, any 'guilt' you may feel is your own.
--------------------------
* 'total bullshit'!

I haven't made you feel guilty yet? Oh well, I keep trying At least, you don't like the view where you put yourself.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

'Just Do It!' is not, I repeat, not an Xer slogan.

That is correct, Herr Kat.

It's a marketing slogan used by Nike to sell a bunch of shoes.
Not only was it not created by a Gen Xer, it's original source isn't from a Gen Xer(or the Nomad Archetype).

Speaking of shoes, when will the next one fall on this crap-sack economy of ours?

Originally Posted by Eric

Probably so. Although considered typical of Xers.

Actually, it's just using the verb, "do" as a neo instrumental case in the English language that's Xer derived.

Do drugs, do sex, do vandalism , etc. are examples. Normally the end of such sentences is understood well enough that it can just be dropped.

Ie. [noun[s]] Do drugs [to get high]. The noun following "do" is the instrument to achieve [x] "Use" in theory could be use, but it has a broader context. Xer's know about stuff like "used cars" which makes the use of "use" muddled.

I'm trying to figure out how the "slacker" generation can also be the "just do it" generation.
A lot of this generation stuff is just marketing bullshit.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Who else would I be speaking for, Sir Cat?


oughta be thinking, perhaps; not how to behave. At least, "oughta be thinking," as far as I know; the facts and the truth, as I know it. Exchange of ideas is interesting. Not that other stuff.


You put yourself there. Accountability, remember? You like that


Communication? Really? This comment makes no sense, and is not intended to.



I haven't made you feel guilty yet? Oh well, I keep trying At least, you don't like the view where you put yourself.

Ugh! Back in the freakin' 'quagmire'!


Prince

PS: I was going to post some stuff, but I believe you'd just perceive it as me giving
you advice on how to better communicate, and you've stated that you don't like to
be given advice, so ... basically, have a nice life. Seriously. Have fun!

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Ugh! Back in the freakin' 'quagmire'!

Uh, no; up on your pedestal....

It IS windy up there. Ugh!

PS: I was going to post some stuff, but I believe you'd just perceive it as me giving
you advice on how to better communicate, and you've stated that you don't like to
be given advice, so ... basically, have a nice life. Seriously. Have fun!

I will have some fun, Prince. And my best to you too.

I certainly don't consider posters here to be experts on how to better communicate, but I do know some.... it's a good thing to learn. Do you know some such advisors, prince?

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

I'm trying to figure out how the "slacker" generation can also be the "just do it" generation.
A lot of this generation stuff is just marketing bullshit.

Generations are not monolithic and simple; people are complex.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

I'm trying to figure out how the "slacker" generation can also be the "just do it" generation.

LOL! I was going to say the same thing!
(not to mention the 'risk-aversion'-thingy).

Originally Posted by NM

A lot of this generation stuff is just marketing bullshit.

There might be something to it, but at the same time, people are people,
so I don't really see how stereo-typing helps for other than marketing,
and/or understanding i/r/t different communication-techniques.


Prince

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

That is correct, Herr Kat.

Speaking of shoes, when will the next one fall on this crap-sack economy of ours?

Why did you ask the Prince? That's my sort of question.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Uh, no; up on your pedestal....

It IS windy up there. Ugh!



I will have some fun, Prince. And my best to you too.

I certainly don't consider posters here to be experts on how to better communicate, but I do know some.... it's a good thing to learn. Do you know some such advisors, prince?

Eric, are you seriously asking for my advice?


Prince

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

...

Speaking of shoes, when will the next one fall on this crap-sack economy of ours?

...

You'll have to be a little more specific. Are you basically referring to the S&P(et al)? If so,
it's rather complicated, and I don't follow it as closely as I used to. You may want to have
a chat with Jordan Goodspeed. But generally speaking, you said 'when' and I'm not into
that kind of speculation. Plus, I don't believe that's a very good idea for a number of reasons.
It would be more productive to be prepared for any serious move lower by recognizing the
correct 'signals', and that's kind of a 'I know it when I see it' sorta thing, IME.

So, I don't think I can really be of any assistance in that regard, Rags.


Prince

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Eric, are you seriously asking for my advice?


Prince

No, I was (not quite seriously) suggesting that you could ask for some, as could I; from someone qualified to give it (no-one here is). In a private session or classroom setting, not a public forum.

Now, is that clear?

Communication is a two-way street and requires the participation of both parties involved.

We're now 150 posts away from the topic of the thread. Maybe it's dead.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

We're now 150 posts away from the topic of the thread. Maybe it's dead.

Poke it with a stick and see if it twitches?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

We're now 150 posts away from the topic of the thread. Maybe it's dead.

I was just gonna say that....

It's time to end this thread.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

You'll have to be a little more specific. Are you basically referring to the *S&P(et al)? If so,
it's rather complicated, and I don't follow it as closely as I used to. You may want to have
a chat with Jordan Goodspeed. But generally speaking, you said 'when' and I'm not into
that kind of speculation. Plus, I don't believe that's a very good idea for a number of reasons.
It would be more productive to be prepared for any serious move lower by recognizing the
correct 'signals', and that's kind of a 'I know it when I see it' sorta thing, IME.

The above cross matches my intuitive hunch. That is sufficient.

So, I don't think I can really be of any assistance in that regard, Rags.

Prince

Oh but you were.

Originally Posted by Eric

Why did you ask the Prince? That's my sort of question.

His reply was unpretentious , [not saying your stuff is, but your stuff invokes woo-woo.] Woo-woo has its place of course but then again, for everything there is a place and everything is in its place in Ragsland.

*markets = locations real or virtual [computers] where people exchange assets for other assets. Usually , in the US folks use the US dollar as the frame of reference asset. All other assets change value in a fractal pattern in relation to the fixed asset. Thusly, this of course means all assets move in their own fractal pattern. I can just as easily use gold as my reference asset and give playwrite a coronary by doing that. Next, we have to consider statistics. Normally, asset prices follow a bell curve in short term price changes. However, given proper conditions like excess liquidity or leverage, asset prices can move in such a manner to produce "Labrador Retriever tails". These are more commonly known as "fat tails". These are bad since they involve a low probability , high impact price movement that induces market chaos.



Above is a pic of a Labrador Retriever tail. They are also known as "otter tailed" *dogs.

*You may now proceed with woo-woo that involves Canis Major.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

The above cross matches my intuitive hunch. That is sufficient. ...

Sufficient. Yeah, baby! Now that's what I call a compliment! Thanks, Rags!

Originally Posted by Rags

... Oh but you were. ...

Of utmost service.

------- Prince

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

No, I was (not quite seriously) suggesting that you could ask for some, as could I; from someone qualified to give it (no-one here is). In a private session or classroom setting, not a public forum.

Now, is that clear?

Crystal.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I was just gonna say that....

You were? Huh. I thought that might be something you'd classify as being
along the lines of internet-shaming for the purpose of controlling behavior.


Prince

PS:

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

It's time to end this thread.

<chuckle!> Man, this just keeps getting better.

I agree that the topic is dead. Very few people on this forum give a flying F about presidential elections anymore.
But why shut down the thread? None of the posts are offensive, and people who don't like them can stop reading whenever they like.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I do the best I can, but should I say I'm wrong, just so you don't get upset at me for sticking with my opinions?

That's better. It makes sense to me now.

A thread on the 4TF that actually discusses S&H's generational theory? Huh! This atrocity must be stopped!

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

This isn't specifically S&H generational theory, but it was inspired by the presidential list in the Appendix of "Generations":

A list of the ages of the 1st term, non-incumbent winners on election day since 1932 (DOB; Election Day):

Reagan 69 yrs, 8 mos, 29 days (b. 6 FEB 1911) (4 NOV 1980)
Bush 64 yrs, 4 mos, 21 days (b. 12 JUN 1924) (2 NOV 1988)
Ike 62 yrs, 0 mos, 21 days (b. 14 OCT 1890) (4 NOV 1952)
Nixon 55 yrs, 9 mos, 27 days (b. 9 JAN 1913) (5 NOV 1968)
Bush 54 yrs, 3 mos, 29 days (b. 6 JUL 1946) (4 NOV 2000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carter 52 yrs, 1 mo, 1 day (b. 1 OCT 1924) (2 NOV 1976)
FDR 50 yrs, 9 mos, 1 day (b. 30 JAN 1882) (1 NOV 1932)
Clinton 46 yrs, 2 mos, 15 days (b. 19 AUG 1946) (3 NOV 1992)
JFK 43 yrs, 6 mos, 3 days (b. 29 MAY 1917) (1 NOV 1960)

Truman, LBJ, and Ford aren't included, since their "1st term" came upon taking office to complete their POTUS's term; when they ran for president, they were already incumbents (and Ford lost anyway).

The "R's" are all of the old guys, the "D's" are all of the young guys.

A long time ago, I remember it being said that Americans vote for old "R's" & young "D's", but I haven't heard it recently...

DOBs for candidates on election day, 4 NOV 2008:

Paul 73 yrs, 2 mos, 15 days (b. 20 AUG 1935)
McCain 72 yrs, 2 mos, 6 days (b. 29 AUG 1936)
Thompson 66 yrs, 2 mos, 16 days (b. 19 AUG 1942)
Giuliani 64 yrs, 5 mos, 7 days (b. 28 MAY 1944)
Kucinich 62 yrs, 0 mos, 27 days (b. 8 OCT 1946)
Romney 61 yrs, 7 mos, 23 days (b. 12 MAR 1947)
Clinton 61 yrs, 0 mos, 9 days (26 OCT 1947)
Richardson 60 yrs, 11 mos, 20 days (b. 15 NOV 1947)
Hunter 60 yrs, 5 mos, 4 days (b. 31 MAY 1948)
Edwards 55 yrs, 4 mos, 25 days (b. 10 JUN 1953)
Huckabee 53 yrs, 2 mos, 11 days (b. 24 AUG 1955)
Obama 47 yrs, 3 mos, 0 days (b. 4 AUG 1961)

FWIW, according to this pattern, the "R's" are all easily "old" enough, except Huckabee; if elected, [he] would be the youngest "R" on the list, but still older than any of the "D's".

Obama, far from being "too young", is actually center-mass to be elected as a "D"; Edwards might actually be a bit too "old" (even tho' he looks like he's 12), while the other "D's" are "dinosaurs".

I don't know how race or sex might play on this. Blacks don't normally live as long as whites (making Obama slightly "older"), while women usually live longer than men (making Clinton "younger"); on the other hand, women might get gigged for age more than men (making Clinton"older").

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

Now that it's Senator Obama vs. Senator McCain, I think I'll dredge this back up, with additions...

Unless the 4T brings a new paradigm ("Old Ds" and "Young Rs"), and even if women get "bonus years" for increased longevity, then Clinton blew her last chance to win the presidency in her own right (assuming she wasn't already too old this time around); her only chance to be president now would be to get in as VP, and then wait for the POTUS to die or resign (like Truman or LBJ; Ford lost).

...the same would be even more true in 2016. Clinton's only hopes are:

1) A 4T shift in the paradigm;

2) Being picked up as VP, and then having the president croak, be thrown out, or resign.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Like I said, I have my doubts about S&H, and the biggest is their conclusions. The way they characterized the generations and turnings that were in the future when they wrote is not looking very good. A theory without good predictive power is highly suspect. So in order to conceptualize these generations and turnings taking place within their general framework, you basically have to acknowledge a 4T unlike anything they predicted, and a Millenial generation unlike they predicted...

-Examples of their poor predictive power?

Their dead-on predictions in Generations (1991), which I didn't read until 2006, was one of things that attracted me to the theory. The only thing I can think of where they seem to have completley missed the boat so far is in their prediction that the Millenials would be "smart." But the 4T is not over, and the Millenials are still "growing."

Some of your reading of the Millenials might be a little off, as well as your interpretation of S&H's predictions. For "social issues," Millenials are far more hostile to second and third trimester abortions than their elders, largely due to the miracle of ultrasound. In some of the other cases, you have a point, but I think the problem is not with S&H's theory per se, but with the interpretation of the specifics of their own theory. For example, yes, Civic Heroes "conform" to social norms, but only after the 4T, when they've defined what those norms are. So, the "norm" for abortion, post-4T, might have first term abortions legal nationwide, third term abortions illegal nationwide, and second term abortions up to the states. We'll see.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

...In the last 1T, that was seen most clearly in an about-face to the far left, in the form of communism at home and abroad. The peace of the 1T was then eventually shattered when a relatively moderate, anti-communist "Hero" president was assassinated by a communist..

...an oft ignored point, and not by accident. Most of the nutcase conspiracy theories of the past 50 years have been designed to blame everyone under the sun for JFK's assasination except for a Castro-loving Marxist named Lee Harvey Oswald.

Originally Posted by millennialX

...does the progressive side always win the 4T? I say yes, but what is "Progressive?"

-The US Constitution was designed to limit the power of arbitrary government. The Founding Fathers were the Anti-Progressives. If you doubt that, just wait for the Proggies to start screaming how "awful" the FFs supposeldy were, and how wonderful Canada (where the Loyalists fled to) is-- they know their own.

As for the ACW, the most cogent arguments in favor of slavery are the same anti-free market stuff heard today (e.g., George Fitzhugh).

"Property is the fruit of labor...property is desirable...is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built."

-A. Lincoln

I really don't see Elizabeth Warren accepting Lincoln as a running mate, unless he convinced her that he was 1/32nd Cherokee. She'd probably want a minority on the ticket. Besides herself, of course!

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

His reply was unpretentious , [not saying your stuff is, but your stuff invokes woo-woo.] Woo-woo has its place of course but then again, for everything there is a place and everything is in its place in Ragsland.

*markets = locations real or virtual [computers] where people exchange assets for other assets. Usually , in the US folks use the US dollar as the frame of reference asset. All other assets change value in a fractal pattern in relation to the fixed asset. Thusly, this of course means all assets move in their own fractal pattern. I can just as easily use gold as my reference asset and give playwrite a coronary by doing that. Next, we have to consider statistics. Normally, asset prices follow a bell curve in short term price changes. However, given proper conditions like excess liquidity or leverage, asset prices can move in such a manner to produce "Labrador Retriever tails". These are more commonly known as "fat tails". These are bad since they involve a low probability , high impact price movement that induces market chaos.



Above is a pic of a Labrador Retriever tail. They are also known as "otter tailed" *dogs.

*You may now proceed with woo-woo that involves Canis Major.

Fractals, hmmmmmm. Based on the same principle as astrology. As above, so below. The lesser reflects the greater.