I've seen the term "Millennials" seeming to catch on too, Kevin. Usually, it's written with a lower-case initial m though.


Here's a way to sum up recent generations and subgenerations from Silents through Millies.

First wave Silent
"Civilized Conformists"
Include the frustrated Mrs. Robinsons, the Hugh Hefners, the sad and slightly sleazy suburban cocktail party circuit, the corporate wives, the "dirty old men" Austin Powers types of the Awakening. They are probably the most financially well-off Americans overall and are in remarkably good health.

Last wave Silents
"Subversive Radicals"
Many were beatniks and some of the youngest were hippies or instigators of Boomer rebellion (Abbie Hoffman, The Weathermen); they have aged into peaceful academically-minded oldsters who are still happily ensconced in careers in academia or government, or showering attention on their Millie and New Silent grandchildren (to make up for what they did to their own Xer offspring).

First wave Boomers
"Agitators and Pundits"
"Optimistic Idealists"
Need I say more?
They can be either liberal or conservative, but whatever they are, they are RIGHT!

Last wave Boomers (Gen Jones, "Baby Busters" as per Anthony '58)
"Pessimistic Idealists"
Enough here has been said about them on this thread! Basically, they're a sort of Boomer-Xer hybrid (with quirks and traits of their own) and are VERY confused.

First wave Xers (sometimes Gen Jones, sometimes Boomers if you buy the 1948-1964 demographic birthyears, which I don't)
"Pessimistic Realists"
"Sensible and Settled"
Comfortably settled into domestic and family life far more than Boomers, they are aging gracefully and gratefully, but are still pretty "cool" just the same.

Last wave Xers (Gen Y)
"Death-defying Adventurers"
"Optimistic Realists"
Currently seen as "cool" by the media. Not all are into Xtreme sports or raves, but most are still taking risks in diccovering themselves. (then again, doesn't everyone do that?)

Millennials
"Anarchists and Team-players"
Millennials , at least first wavers, seem to be about evenly split into two camps--the S&H style group-oriented Boy and Girl Scouts and the rebellious anarchist types that seem like a cleaned-up version of hippie Boomers in the Awakening (albeit emplying more cooperation and team effort within their radical agenda). Some of this type dress more like Xers, but act like Boomers.

On 2002-01-20 20:47, Stonewall Patton wrote:

Well, that is karma for you. Anthony, I inadvertently grossed out some of the ladies with my earlier post and now you have successfully grossed me out with this one! I guess I never noticed the "hair" situation with Stallone because I cannot even recall what he looked like in these movies. I remember that he went shirtless throughout Rambo but I could not tell you whether he had shaved his chest or not. And this is what you are getting at, right?

Do you see a pattern with this conforming to generational/saecular boundaries? There seems to be one with women so anything is possible.

In the November 1993 issue of Vanity Fair it was clear and obvious that Stallone had shaved his entire body! Remember that Fox "tabloid TV" show Front Page? Well they had a weekly feature entitled "Heroes and Zeroes," and Sly was awarded a most emphatic "Zero" for doing that spread.

A few years later, a little blurb in an entertainment column in SF Weekly (an "alternative" newspaper) alleged that Stallone shaves his armpits as well - citing a particular sequence in First Blood, Part 2. The next time that movie was on cable, I checked it out - and sure enough they were right (never would have noticed such a thing otherwise!)

As for the generational aspects of all this stuff - there used to be these two men's fitness magazines called Burn and Gym (they were published by the same company, and I assume they are now out of business since I have not seen either of them in any stores for the past few months). Anyway, they used to do articles every once in a while on what the best methods are for men to shave off their body hair, and these magazines were completely Gen-X oriented; and did you know that Nair has recently come out with a "Nair For Men" cream depilatory?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Anthony '58 on 2002-01-25 00:58 ]</font>

One of the most difficult challenges I faced when reading Generations for the first time, back in 1998, was getting a handle on the notion that I was a "Baby Boomer." The problem was, having been born in 1956, my being lumped in with the 60's crowd, or first wavers.

My simple question for Buzzard44 is, being a '44 cohort "cusper", did you have any problem with generational id? For example, I have a hard time seeing any difference, aside from intelligence, between, say Abbie Hoffman and Angela Davis.

Could you help me out here, Buz?

p.s. She wins, btw, hands down! :smile:






<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc S. Lamb on 2002-01-26 09:58 ]</font>

Ms. Susan theorizes...

Here's a way to sum up recent generations and subgenerations from Silents through Millies.

First wave Silent
"Civilized Conformists"
Include the frustrated Mrs. Robinsons, the Hugh Hefners, the sad and slightly sleazy suburban cocktail party circuit, the corporate wives, the "dirty old men" Austin Powers types of the Awakening. They are probably the most financially well-off Americans overall and are in remarkably good health.

Last wave Silents
"Subversive Radicals"
Many were beatniks and some of the youngest were hippies or instigators of Boomer rebellion (Abbie Hoffman, The Weathermen); they have aged into peaceful academically-minded oldsters who are still happily ensconced in careers in academia or government, or showering attention on their Millie and New Silent grandchildren (to make up for what they did to their own Xer offspring).


First off, Austin Powers has always struck me a spoof on Matt Helm. Helm's character was played by Dean Martin, a very Government Issue kinda guy.

Secondly, The Beat Generation was a very "hobo" GI (Jack Kerouac, b. 1922) into Silent (Allen Ginsberg, b. 1926) movement, that eventually evolved into the Boomer "hippie" of the mid-late sixties.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc S. Lamb on 2002-01-26 11:59 ]</font>

Marc:
I'll answer your question right off. Then, if you will bear with me for awhile, perhaps I can make some sense of a few other things which are related-and perhaps not.

We did not have any problem with "generational id" for the simple reason that we were truly first wave. That meant that we were unique and we knew it. When I say "we" I mean only the kids that I knew personally of knew about personally. (And we were kids then and for a long time afterwards). We stood by ourselves and made the rules as we went along. In general, we had no self-esteem problems (those came later). We were breaking out. We were invincible.

The difference between people like Abbie Hoffman and Angela Davis was obvious to us. We were true flower children. Therefore, to peace-niks like us Hoffman was too militant and aggresive. Which is not to say that we took either one that seriously. Both of them were mostly distractions from our real business,--that being loving the world, exploring our erotic feelings and probing the depths (and heights) of consciousness. To be frank, they embarrassed us a bit. But we mostly accepted them as part of us along with Eldridge Cleaver, Marin Luther King, Timothy Leary et. al. even though we now know them to be silents.

No, having said that, we can get down to it. To us, Baby Boomer and Boomer were synonymous. But only to us. As we progressed through the grades in school, there were workmen madly building classrooms to contain us. By the time I reached High School we attended in triple session classes. There were three times the number of students as there were classrooms. We became used to the idea that God made lots of us. We were a breaking wave that carried everything before it. Then the wave passed.

A few years ago I ran into a classmate from my high school. One of the things she told me was that our school had been closed due to lack of students. Marc, you are a boomer. S&H said so. But you were never a baby boomer.

Also, I must say here that many of us did not take our ques of model our behavior after those who were well known and/or were portrayed in the media. We were just cantankerous that way I guess. I will also say that to most of us the awakening ended when we became tired, dis-illusioned of just plain bored. Believe it or not this happened in the mid'70's. You heard it here first.

At that point we trully "dropped-out". Some of us didn't make it alive past that point. Others of us, battered and tired went into a kind of hibernation where we stayed, gowing old but never really growing up.

Until now.

What I posted on another thread was not just some trivial vomit. One by one we (the first wave boomers) are waking up. I see it. I feel it personally. Again I say, God help us. For, you see, my dad always told me never to tell someone to do something if I wasn't willing to do it myself. My job may be to die. If so it will be in the same trench as a millenial. Then too I believe that those trenches will be dug right here in the U.S.A. I can see boomers fighting each other. But fight we will.
---------
Buz Painter-Never for a long time have I been this confused.

A fascinating response to my query, Buz. The sheer intensity of it gives a lot of pause. Especially in regards to notions of how special you thought of yourself and your peers. I saw the same notion in my older brother (born 1950), of whom I loathed back then, btw*.

Yet so much of this stuff can, as you noted, end up on the alter of 'self-esteem': the post-modern Freudian/Jungian et al couch. And that's not where I wish to go.

I am curious about a few things you wrote, Buz:

"A few years ago I ran into a classmate from my high school. One of the things she told me was that our school had been closed due to lack of students."

This is a little baffling. Could you explain why, if growth had been such an issue, you make this observation?

"Believe it or not this happened in the mid'70's. You heard it here first."

Nah, I was there and saw it actually happen. This is when I, like you in 1964, came of age. I wrote, in late 1975 post-Vietnam, the following observation:

World War one, and so soon another?
When will man stop killing his brother?

I note this here, Buz, because it was going back and re-reading the things that I wrote back then, the things I had thought back then, that I came to grips that I was just like them (the "Baby Boomers") when I came of age in 1975. :smile:

"What I posted on another thread was not just some trivial vomit. One by one we (the first wave boomers) are waking up. I see it. I feel it personally."

But, taken in a historical context, this may prove to be a false fear. As you know, Buz, those damn Missionaries peaked seven years before the CRASH. And, as many as you may think are out there, we ain't peaked yet. :smile:

Otherwise, I would love to hear you elaborate on just what you mean by "waking up?" Is Todd Gitlin gonna rise up and start smashing the machine again, or what?



* Note: By 'loath,' I am refering to the clash of conscious-speak: That notion, such as my brother held, that to rebel for rebellion-sake was an end uto it"self".

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc S. Lamb on 2002-01-26 22:56 ]</font>

Marc: When I mentioned that our school had closed for lack of students, it was merely to show that the baby boom wave had passed. Incidentally, the school has recently re-opened for (you guessed it), millenials. IN any case, it was not an issue of growth just a glob of kids.

A common trait among first wave boomers was scepticism about politics and government in general. I recall that we would say things like, "Jesus had a good thing going until his teachings were codified whithin a church". Of course when that happened, his teachings were corrupted. Our politics were our feet and our government was consenus. Whenever a band wagon got too crowded we would jump off. How rational this was is open to debate. Looking back, it doesn't seem to bad.

What we are waking up to is a political and social awareness outside ourselves. I guess you could perhaps equate waking up with growing up. Truth be told, we still didn't much trust anyone over thirty even though it meant not trusting ourselves. So now we are forced to realize like Pogo that we have met the enemy and they are... Well, You know. When we finish waking up-er growing up, a great potential will be released.

--Just let me interject a thought here--
You sound like you're standing on a banana peel in a great wind. You think we will peak while riding wheelchairs? Remember S&H's gray champion standing in the road? He didn't send a kid out there. He did it himself.
--Ok, back to story--

The potential released will be a grown-up potenial. The tearing down and smashing in the awakening was kid stuff. Adults can do better-I hope. I always have hope. I predict that even though you make a convincing arguement "by the numbers" to wit we remain 3T, events will overtake us with lightning speed. We ain't peaked yet, but tomorrow...?

( I fear that I have been rambling again. When my wife and I go out functions she is always admonishing me to "Have a nice conversation and don't start preaching or making proclamations". She knows me too well.
--------
Buz Painter-Never for a long time have I been this confused.

Ramble on, Buzzard. It is enlightening.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: cbailey on 2002-01-27 10:35 ]</font>

On 2002-01-26 17:44, buzzard44 wrote:
To us, Baby Boomer and Boomer were synonymous. But only to us. As we progressed through the grades in school, there were workmen madly building classrooms to contain us. By the time I reached High School we attended in triple session classes. There were three times the number of students as there were classrooms. We became used to the idea that God made lots of us. We were a breaking wave that carried everything before it. Then the wave passed.

A few years ago I ran into a classmate from my high school. One of the things she told me was that our school had been closed due to lack of students. Marc, you are a boomer. S&H said so. But you were never a baby boomer.

Buz Painter-Never for a long time have I been this confused.

Um, like Marc, I was a 1956 cohort (that's probably why he and I lock horns so frequently!). Given that the number of births kept going up throughout the fifties until peaking in 1957 I always knew I was part of a crowd. I grew up going to schools that were always having construction underway to accommodate the ever growing masses of baby boomers. No Buzz, Marc, like myself, is a Baby Boomer!

One thing that may be going on is that typically when a new development is built, the people who move in are families with children. Twenty years later, the neighborhood is full of empty-nesters and the schools are empty. Meanwhile, the families with kids are moving into what used to be cornfields and everyone is scrambling to build schools to accommodate the new kids. Thus, you can have Buzz's friend's school closing in 1975, when the very numerous Joneser cohorts were still filling the Junior and Senior High Schools. These kids were in further-out suburbs.

Yes, I find it enlightening as well. As to the question about schools, I guess it was too obvious for me to understand that you were talking about the birth BOOM! But I remember those those growth pains myself. And how we moved out to the GI 'burbs in the early sixties too. And how this was the "happening thing." Everything seemed so clean and pristine-like. So well ordered (at least to a kid).

But gosh, those first wavers, like Buz and my brother, man you guys were just nuts in my eyes. It got so bad, that when the scene really started to 'rage' in 1968, that any kind of music that appealed to my brother (like the Beatles White Album, Jefferson Airplane etc...) I would hate with a passion! Only later did I realise how much I missed, during those years, that was really good.

"A common trait among first wave boomers was scepticism about politics and government in general. I recall that we would say things like, "Jesus had a good thing going until his teachings were codified whithin a church". Of course when that happened, his teachings were corrupted. Our politics were our feet and our government was consenus. Whenever a band wagon got too crowded we would jump off. How rational this was is open to debate. Looking back, it doesn't seem to bad."

This is a very keen observation. This is the untogether of a movement that preached love, peace and "come together over me."

But it was much more important than all that "hype" displayed as reality. The very real reality was a breaking apart of the e pluribus unum, the 'well ordered society" (I loved as a child), the "we" into the me, that Wolfe got so very right speaking of the '70s.

It was a time, Buz, of the 'prophet without honor', and like you point out, many of yours suffered greatly in it's wake. Jules Whitcover does a great job of laying out the truth of this in, his otherwise boringly retelling of, 1968: The Year the Dream Died.

"The potential released will be a grown-up potenial. The tearing down and smashing in the awakening was kid stuff. Adults can do better-I hope."

Well, thanks to S&H, we can look at history's lesson on that score. Here are two blasts from the past that may repeat:


AMERICA, circa 1931

"I saw men standing on the sidewalks clapping their hands in a queer way, obviously just to be doing something. I saw men talking to themselves, walking around, stopping, looking into shop windows, walking again.

For several minutes I watched an elderly man who stood on a deserted corner near the enormous and idle Everett Mills in the posture of an undotted question mark. He did not see me. Every now and then he swung his arms, not because it was cold, but no doubt because he wanted activity other than walking around, which he probably had been doing for years in a vain effort to get a job. He mumbled to himself. Then, suddenly, he stepped off the curb and picked up a long piece of string from a pile of rubbish, and his big, work-eager hands began to work with it, tying and untying feverishly. He worked with the string for several minutes. Then he looked around and, seeing me, dropped the string, his haggard, hollow face coloring a little, as though from a sense of guilt or intense embarrassment. He was shaken and confused and stood there for several seconds, looking down at the rubbish heap, then up at me. His hands finally dropped to his sides. Then his arms swung in a sort of idle reflex motion and he turned, hesitated a while as if he did not know where to go and finally shuffled off, flapping his arms. I noticed that his overcoat was split in the back and that his heels were worn off completely." -- Writer Louis Adamic, wandering through what he called the "tragic towns," told of the idle men he saw in Lawrence, Massachusetts


Conservative Cultural Warrior, circa 1931

"Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate. It will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people." -- Andrew Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury (advice followed by Hoover)


Liberal New God, circa 1933

"The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.

Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort. The joy and moral stimulation of work no longer must be forgotten in the mad chase of evanescent profits. These dark days will be worth all they cost us if they teach us that our true destiny is not to be ministered unto but to minister to ourselves and to our fellow men." --Franklin D. Roosevelt, First Inaugural Address (March 4, 1933)


Many, within these threads, seem to be looking forward to the fourth turn.

I often wonder, why?


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc S. Lamb on 2002-01-27 18:27 ]</font>

Jenny: It is true that birth numbers grew through the 50's. To make my point about a moving wave front I may have gotten a little carried away. When this happens again just hose me down and I'll be fine. You are a "Baby Boomer".

Also your description of the demographic upheaval of the time is quite correct. Only I would replace cornfield with desert. In Tucson where I was raised (almost said "grew up Marc) another phenomonan was also taking place. During that time the U.S. saw a large internal migration of populations. For quite a while Tucson was the fastest growing city in the country. So what was happening with boomers across the country, was doubly happening there. And perhaps a bit sooner. I attended part of 1st grade in a brick school some 50 yrs. old. Then we moved to Tucson as part of the beginning migration. The last part of 1st grade was spent in a quenset hut set up beside the main school.

Marc: I too have wondered about this seeming to be looking forward the the fourth turning. Mostly because I have felt this in myself. In analyzing my own feelings I have come up with a couple of things. I read T4T in '97. I then knew that a fourth turning was coming. As years passed, a sense of anticipation begins to grow, even at times becoming (rationally or not) a longing. On top of that, having an idea of what a crisis can mean I find myself wanting to get it over with. Like removing a well stuck band-aid, make it fast. Let me get some more sleep.

College freshmen more liberal

"More college freshmen today describe themselves as politically liberal than at any time since the Vietnam War, according to a nationwide survey by researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles."


Now before all you libs go gettin' all jazzed by this study... read it closely.

All the issues surveyed are liberal all right, liberal cultural values!

Andrew Mellon, FDR and Hoover (Edgar, that is)would not be pleased. :smile:

Supreme Court justice to launch morals program

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Dismayed by what he called a lack of "moral outrage" among some high school students following the September 11 terrorist attacks, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has created a program to teach students about "fundamental values and universal moral precepts."


One must realise that Prohibition was aimed as much at the young G.I.s coming of age in 1920, as it was toward Lost doughboys returning from Europe.

Is 1958 a "Baby Boomer?" I think probably not, since the peak year for birth rates was 1957.

On 2002-01-28 12:05, Susan Brombacher wrote:
Is 1958 a "Baby Boomer?" I think probably not, since the peak year for birth rates was 1957.

Welcome back, Susan! :grin:

LOL! :lol: What a weak-willed sap I am! Less than a day and I'm already back. *rolls eyes* It's an addiction! Maybe there should be a 12-step program for us--Fourthturners Anonymous!!!

But I still have to back off a bit. I may be introverted, but this forum allows me to exercise my E function. I think the only real difference between Introverts and Extraverts isn't so much in their desire or ability to communcate with others, but in the method that they use to communicate. It's hard for IN types to communicate in person because as Robert Reed puts it, it takes extra effort for them to filter it through an E function (speaking in person or to many people at once), and hard for E types to communicate in written words, as it takes extra effort for them to filter it through the I function (communicatin online, in writing, etc.) The internet has been a real boon (and a curse!) to introverted intuitives everywhere.

On 2002-01-28 12:23, Susan Brombacher wrote:
LOL! :lol: What a weak-willed sap I am! Less than a day and I'm already back. *rolls eyes* It's an addiction! Maybe there should be a 12-step program for us--Fourthturners Anonymous!!!

:lol: Remember when Tristan said that he would back off a bit? I guess it is hard for I(S/N)TJs too. Maybe you should consult with Barbara, who was able to cool down a little after feverishly posting on this board.

But I still have to back off a bit. I may be introverted, but this forum allows me to exercise my E function. I think the only real difference between Introverts and Extraverts isn't so much in their desire or ability to communcate with others, but in the method that they use to communicate. It's hard for IN types to communicate in person because as Robert Reed puts it, it takes extra effort for them to filter it through an E function (speaking in person or to many people at once), and hard for E types to communicate in written words, as it takes extra effort for them to filter it through the I function (communicatin online, in writing, etc.) The internet has been a real boon (and a curse!) to introverted intuitives everywhere.

I agree totally. While I might appear more extraverted on this forum, I would appear totally differently in realspace. In fact, in realspace, very few people know about me beyond my name.

When I communicate in realspace, my Ne kinda takes over, and filters my Ti thoughts. I can only sustain this state for so long, and it seems like talking and listening uses a lot of energy. Talking is a waste of energy to me. Socializing is a waste of energy. But for some reason, I can actually go into an extroverted state when speaking to other N types. Since I went to a math, science, and technology magnet high school, there were a lot of N types. In fact, the school seemed to be divided between N and S types. For the medicine majors, it seems like the S types dominated. For computer science and math, the N types dominated. Because the NT population at my school was large, I was much more extraverted, and actually was voted most talkative in my senior class, as a result. There is nothing better than a crowd of computer hacking (boy did I have a reputation in school!), Magic: The Gathering playing, Quake playing, Anime watching, RPG playing geeks. But even so, I still kept to myself often.

Typing and reading, however, is much easier. I can only hold about one conversation when speaking, but numerous conversations on different topics when chatting (and write code at the same time too). Speaking and listening seems to occupy a lot of mindspace. Maybe that's why I always tend to drift off of Earth. But typing and reading do not use much mindspace at all. As a result, I can do this much more efficiently, tackle many different things at once in my conversations online.

I know exactly what you mean. I can be very extraverted with other IN types even in person, doesn't matter if they are INF or INT. I communciate equally well with both types. It seems to take a lot less mental energy to communicate with them, no matter what the mode of communication may be. It's actually empowering and can lead to even more extraversion as I get to know them better.

But with ES types I totally clam up. With these types socializing becomes a chore, something I really have to *work* at. It saps my energy and I just want to go off and be alone.

Unfortunately, ES types appear to be the most common type off the internet, and are given empowerment by our ES society, which does not especially value the artistic, creative, intellectual, and scientific contributions of the IN type of personality.

I can think of no better description of the difference between extroversion and introversion than "socializing is a waste of energy". The way some of you have said you can lose track of time when immersed in a project - well, I can do that when hanging out with my friends - next thing I know it's 2 am! :lol:

[quote]
On 2002-01-28 13:23, allybear '62 wrote:
...
The way some of you have said you can lose track of time when immersed in a project - well, I can do that when hanging out with my friends - next thing I know it's 2 am! :smile:]) for most of the day. After going to bed, I kept on getting back up with each new idea. So I ended up coding this application until about 2:30 AM, about which time I decided that it was time to REALLY sleep.

Susan: I defined "Baby Boomer" in my own specific way. If you want to be a baby boomer, be one. after all, S&H said that if you are unsure as to what cohort in which to put someone, just ask them. They will tell you.

Until a few days ago I didn't know what INF or INT was. But I now understand what is going on with this forum. I am 57yrs. old and have lived in this mind set for my whole llife. Of course what makes this forum happen is a common interest and a common awareness. What happens after that is-I guess- inevitable.

As allybear said, "Socializing is a waste of time". We aren't just passing the time of day here. Real stuff is coming down. To an introvert it must be "worth it". I believe that we see each other as diverse reflections of ourselves.

But don't quote me on this. I'm just an old buzzard.

On 2002-01-28 17:36, choselh wrote:

I have also been wondering how all you guys with hundreds of posts find the time to write them all!!! I can barely keep up with these threads.

You might buy some cattle...it works for me. Start with something small like Jerseys and work your way up. HTH

Or pigmy goats and a large pack of dogs.

On 2002-01-28 17:36, choselh wrote:
Buzz, I would love to run into someone like you at a party. I'm so sick of so-what-do-you-for-a-living conversations when the person asking really has no interest in the answer but simply has no idea of how to start a discussion about anything more meaningful. Even talking about current events is usually boring, because people are so afraid to say anything controversial. I'm usually the one who breaks the mold ... sometimes it works, but sometimes I just get strange looks.

I hate trivial party conversations too, which is why I avoid them. The best conversations I've ever had have been right here, on this board. Where else could I ever hope to find so many other INFs and INTs?? It's my idea of heaven.

I have also been wondering how all you guys with hundreds of posts find the time to write them all!!! I can barely keep up with these threads.

Easy. Have a lot to say and type it fast!


_________________
Labels tell you where the box is coming from and where it is headed and are quite helpful. They do not tell you what's inside though they might indicate "fragile", "handle with care", "this is not a Bill", "magnetic medium", etc.--VIRGIL K. SAARI

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Susan Brombacher on 2002-01-29 16:38 ]</font>

iNtuitives may have diverse interests, a lot of knowledge, and a lot to say-but few outlets. Heck, they may have a back log. Also, while they may be argumentive with each other, they are communicating on the same wave length.