On 2002-01-22 17:22, Justin'79 wrote:
Ok.
GIaccording to SnH)
Early:Strom Thurmond (1902)LBJ (1908)
Middle:John F Kennedy (1917), Richard Milhous Nixon (1913)
Late:Bob Dole (1922) Jesse Helms (1920)
FICTIONAL:Grandpa Jock Ewing

Silentaccording to SnH)...

Hey this sounds like fun!

Let's answer who matches each category for this board . . .

GI: (according to SnH)...
Gene Girard

Silent: (according to SnH)...
David Krein, the "Pax" Guy

Boomer: (according to SnH)...
I want to say someone like Eric Meece here. Although Brian Rush, with that "I just KNOWWWWW I'm right about this" attitude, may come even closer. If you really, really want the most extreme Boomer on this board, I'll give it to you . . . Eddie Howard.

Gen-X: (according to SnH)...
jcarson71 (Jonathan Carson)

Millennial: (according to SnH)...
Michael Eliason

On 2002-01-30 15:42, Jesse Manoogian wrote:

Let's answer who matches each category for this board . . .

GI: (according to SnH)...
Gene Girard

Silent: (according to SnH)...
David Krein, the "Pax" Guy

Boomer: (according to SnH)...
I want to say someone like Eric Meece here. Although Brian Rush, with that "I just KNOWWWWW I'm right about this" attitude, may come even closer. If you really, really want the most extreme Boomer on this board, I'll give it to you . . . Eddie Howard.

Gen-X: (according to SnH)...
jcarson71 (Jonathan Carson)

Millennial: (according to SnH)...
Michael Eliason

There was there a GI on this board?
As for Millennial, I'd say Robert Reed is the most S&Hish
I totally agree about the Boomers, and as for the Xers, they're hard to categorize.

Hey guys! I just posted a plug for William Strauss and Neil Howe's book on the Peanut Gallery at the Baby boomer Headquarters. http://www.bbhq.com. They were discussing about, whether there were any generations named before the baby boomers? I thought I would get my two cents worth in.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Robbie Asbury on 2002-01-30 18:20 ]</font>

On 2002-01-30 18:17, Robbie Asbury wrote:
Hey guys! I just posted a plug for William Strauss and Neil Howe's book on the Peanut Gallery at the Baby boomer Headquarters. http://www.bbhq.com. They were discussing about, whether there were any generations named before the baby boomers? I thought I would get my two cents worth in.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Robbie Asbury on 2002-01-30 18:20 ]</font>

The Lost Generation were certainly called such by their elders, and by later generations as well. I don't know about whether the GIs were collectively called that by anyone other than S&H, but it seems to me I'd heard the term "Silent" applied to my parents' generation before I read The Fourth Turning.

Whoa there, Jesse

I sure don't FEEL like a typical xer...

Maybe it's because there's NO SUCH THING?? Nahh... :smile:

Before everybody starts jerking each other off I just wanted to give you a bit of a conversation I had with my friend.
(FYI Crackedvew was born on Feb 21 1980, Surreal on Nov 20 1979)


Crackedvew101: we're okay...its the next gen that scares me
Surreal79: why?
Surreal79: oh you mean "the next greatest generation"
Crackedvew101: they like limp bisquit
Crackedvew101: they are better on computers
Crackedvew101: hahaha
Surreal79: thats what CNN called them
Crackedvew101: cnn can suck my dick
Surreal79: bobbi battista can suck mine
Surreal79: hehe
Crackedvew101: dubya can eat my shiznit
Surreal79: "axis of evil" slow down Dub, youve had too many pretzels
Crackedvew101: chew dubya
Crackedvew101: chew
Surreal79: what planet is he from?
Crackedvew101: a planet we call texas

On 2002-01-30 21:31, Justin'79 wrote:
Before everybody starts jerking each other off I just wanted to give you a bit of a conversation I had with my friend.
(FYI Crackedvew was born on Feb 21 1980, Surreal on Nov 20 1979)

Uhhh......what was the point of this?

Crackedvew101: we're okay...its the next gen that scares me
Surreal79: why?
Surreal79: oh you mean "the next greatest generation"
Crackedvew101: they like limp bisquit
Crackedvew101: they are better on computers
Crackedvew101: hahaha
Surreal79: thats what CNN called them
Crackedvew101: cnn can suck my dick
Surreal79: bobbi battista can suck mine
Surreal79: hehe
Crackedvew101: dubya can eat my shiznit
Surreal79: "axis of evil" slow down Dub, youve had too many pretzels
Crackedvew101: chew dubya
Crackedvew101: chew
Surreal79: what planet is he from?
Crackedvew101: a planet we call texas

Justin, I think you've just invited another visit from "The Pervert".

_________________
Robert Reed III (1982)
---------------------------------------------
"Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings." -- Heinrich Heine
"Not to know is bad, but to refuse to know is worse." -- A Gambian Proverb



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: madscientist on 2002-01-30 21:51 ]</font>

On 2002-01-30 16:31, Susan Brombacher wrote:

On 2002-01-30 15:42, Jesse Manoogian wrote:

Let's answer who matches each category for this board . . .

GI: (according to SnH)...
Gene Girard

Silent: (according to SnH)...
David Krein, the "Pax" Guy

Boomer: (according to SnH)...
I want to say someone like Eric Meece here. Although Brian Rush, with that "I just KNOWWWWW I'm right about this" attitude, may come even closer. If you really, really want the most extreme Boomer on this board, I'll give it to you . . . Eddie Howard.

Gen-X: (according to SnH)...
jcarson71 (Jonathan Carson)

Millennial: (according to SnH)...
Michael Eliason

There was there a GI on this board?
As for Millennial, I'd say Robert Reed is the most S&Hish
I totally agree about the Boomers, and as for the Xers, they're hard to categorize.

Hey! I thought I was an anarchist Millie! :wink:

the purpose was to show that SnH's boundaries hold up.
thats the forum right

Justin, I knew you couldn't stay away!

yeah i needed to sequester some private messages from neisha and angeli before i left.
and allie bear.

On 2002-01-30 21:31, Justin'79 wrote:
Before everybody starts jerking each other off I just wanted to give you a bit of a conversation I had with my friend.
(FYI Crackedvew was born on Feb 21 1980, Surreal on Nov 20 1979)



Crackedvew101: cnn can suck my dick
Surreal79: bobbi battista can suck mine
Surreal79: hehe
Crackedvew101: dubya can eat my shiznit

be careful, Justin, or you'll wind up locking up this thread like I did in The Pervert's "circle jerk" discussion on another thread!

You rang?

On 2002-01-31 01:20, Susan Brombacher wrote:
be careful, Justin, or you'll wind up locking up this thread like I did in The Pervert's "circle jerk" discussion on another thread!

Oh, wow, I didn't get the blame for locking that up, you did! That's a first! Hah, hah. :wink: Still, I didn't start that one, and I was more interested in rim jobs than circle jerks (the name of a southern California punk band during the late 70s, BTW). Marc was the one interested in circle jerks.

Speaking of Angeli, I haven't seen much of her online since that thread was locked.

Now, what was the topic? :smile:

Nice to see that my reputation is developing here just as it did seven years ago. It was worth reviving it! Muah, hah, hah! :smile:

On 2002-01-30 21:35, madscientist wrote:
Justin, I think you've just invited another visit from "The Pervert".

Actually, no. I was going to ignore Justin's chat excerpt until you and Susan brought up the name of this identity. You get the blame for bringing me here. Nyah! :razz:

Oh, now I remember the topic--Generational Boundaries! Hmm, since I'm more interested in transgressing the boundaries of good taste than debating the boundaries of generations (although I think that Millies are now fall 1980 to summer 1998 or 1999, instead of 1982 to 2002), I'll depart for a place where my inappropriateness would be more appropriate (Generations and Sex? Generations and Fashion? Where was that thread where Stonewall brought up fashions in body hair?).

Tootles!

Your resident general nuisance.

On 2002-01-31 01:36, The Pervert wrote:

Oh, wow, I didn't get the blame for locking that up, you did! That's a first! Hah, hah. :wink: Still, I didn't start that one, and I was more interested in rim jobs than circle jerks (the name of a southern California punk band during the late 70s, BTW).

As a matter of fact, the Circle Jerks had an album called "Golden Shower of Hits." They made quite a "splash" in the music scene.

Marc was the one interested in circle jerks.

You noticed that too.

I'll depart for a place where my inappropriateness would be more appropriate (Generations and Sex? Generations and Fashion? Where was that thread where Stonewall brought up fashions in body hair?).

It was Generational Boundaries, the thread to which you are currently posting. And speaking of my post on female sub rosa coiffure and the saeculum (and let's not forget that there is a legitimate saecular pattern here), did you notice that Marc never weighed in on it? I honestly expected him to call me a heathen or something. Yet somebody mentions "circle jerks" and Marc is on the thread all day long. Just what kind of movies is he making there in his studio anyway? Heheheheh. :wink:

Dear Pervert,

Why choose a season? However it does seem like years start in December rather than January.
Interesting.

Regards, Homo.

Pervert: Thanks but we can take it from here. You know that he will start queing on the name alone. Let someone else take up the slack. Of course unless you feel that it is your god-given calling. Then who am I to stand in your way? It is that nasty bill-of-rights thing you know.

It seems that a generation begins where people begin to signify their age as part of something different than what was before, or begin to react in response to what was happening before.

Somebody responded to my post at the Peanut Gallery at the Baby Boomer Headquarters. If you would like weigh in on this hear is a link.http://www.bbhq.com

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Robbie Asbury on 2002-02-03 23:23 ]</font>

A very big "Baby Buster" story is currently brewing in San Francisco.

A member of that city's Board of Supervisors (their version of what is commonly called a "City Council" in other cities), Gavin Newsom, a '67 cohort, has made huge headlines in recent weeks proposing Giuliani-style methods of dealing with Frisco's notorious homeless problem, including six-month "hard labor" sentences for anyone caught urinating and/or defecating in public; then he fired another salvo this past Tuesday by advocating the replacement of cash with "in-kind" benefits (housing vouchers etc.) for General Assistance recipients (welfare for single adults and, less commonly, married couples with no children).

San Francisco's next mayoral election is in 2003, and this is obviously Newsom's way of throwing his hat into the ring a bit ahead of time.

And for the generational aspects of this? On page 327 of Generations, S&H write:

"... 13ers report the most negative generational attitude toward welfare spending - and two-thirds believe that if they ever end up unemployed, it's their own fault."

Then this appears on page 400 of the same book:

"Boomers will define new crimes, from limitations on freedom of speech to new vagrancy statutes for panhandlers who refuse to live in austere shelters."

So you see, Newsom's agenda combines the 13er's flinty sense of personal responsibility with the Boomer's fondness for harsh punishments - the perfect Prophet/Nomad synthesis that lies at the very heart of the Buster persona (for those of you who have just joined us, a "Baby Buster" is someone born from 1958 through 1968, all inclusive - among other reasons, because the U.S. birth rate per 1,000 population declined for a record eleven consecutive years after 1957).

_________________
"An insult unpunished is the parent of many others" - John Jay

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Anthony '58 on 2002-02-07 06:44 ]</font>

This is a funny one.

My boss (born 1952), my colleague (born 1970), and I (born 1956) are discussing what to do about the retirement of a colleague (born 1932). We were discussing whether to present the retiree with a gold watch. By the way, this retiree is notorious for his erratic hours in the office. :razz:

My boss mentions that since he and the retiring colleague are in an older generation than my X-er colleague and myself, they are more familiar with the concept of getting a watch when you retire than us "young uns".

So okay, 1932 and 1952 are one generation and 1956 and 1970 are another generation. Sure, its flattering to be considered the same age as a 30-year-old

By the way, my parents were both born in 1930 and my older sister was born in 1953.

_________________
Why does it have to take a disaster to acknowledge the beauty of being alive? -- Maharaji

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jenny Genser on 2002-02-07 14:37 ]</font>

On 2002-02-07 14:35, Jenny Genser wrote:

My boss mentions that since he and the retiring colleague are in an older generation than my X-er colleague and myself, they are more familiar with the concept of getting a watch when you retire than us "young uns".

So okay, 1932 and 1952 are one generation and 1956 and 1970 are another generation. Sure, its flattering to be considered the same age as a 30-year-old

LOL! I know exactly what you mean, Jenny. In the office I work in, the majority of employees there are Boomers and Xers. There are a few Silents sticking it out, though, and a 1939 cohort I work with always refers to the rest of the people in our group (all Xers and Boomers, and one Millennial) as "the kids." It's pretty funny when she's referring to a bunch of 30-50 year olds! When you're 20, 43 seems ancient and 20 doesn't seem that young (I first started feeling twinges of being "old" at age 21, when my teens were over!) So I guess it would follow that to a 63 year old, someone in their 30s and 40s would still be a "kid."

What do you people think of this?

http://www.suntimes.com/output/smoro...r-paige07.html



A generation agrees: Adulthood is just not for us

February 7, 2002

BY PAIGE SMORON SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST








Shouldn't we be grown up by now? Weren't we going to merge effortlessly onto the career fast track, start a family and vacation in Door County? Weren't we going to have flatware that matched?

What happened? Why aren't we being treated like adults? Why aren't we acting like adults? Why is Mom still doing our laundry?

Is this all just a very long, very painful adolescence?

Take this pop quiz. (It's OK if you can't find a pen. Try to keep track of the answers in your head.)

Do you strongly identify with Adam Sandler movies?

Do you begin sentences with the words "dude" or "lookit"?

Have your parents recently increased the rent on your childhood bedroom?

Are you wearing a baseball hat right now?

Is it backward?

Is it advertising the college from which you graduated 10 years ago?

Do you still date in groups?

Do you spend more on CDs than you contribute to your 401K plan?

Is this the first time you've heard of a 401K plan?

If you've answered "yes" to one or more of these questions, there's no need to feel any shame. In fact, my slacker friend, you are smack dab in the middle of a trend. And institutions--made up of certified grownups--are studying you. The Society for Research in Adolescence is scrutinizing "emerging adulthood" between ages 18 and 29. Twenty. Nine. The MacArthur Foundation threw $3.4 million at a project called "Transitions to Adulthood," which is focusing on adolescents as old as 34. Thirty. Four.

U.S. Census Bureau statistics indicate that more than half of men ages 18-24 lived with their parents last year. So did almost half of women the same age.

The good news: There's safety in numbers. The number of adolescents in the United States is 60 million if you start at age 10 and continue to 24. It's 80 million if you count to 30. And all those baby boomers don't want to see us grow up, because that would make them ... old.

The experts are blaming this prolonged adolescence on one more statistic:

Young adults now marry about four years later than they did in 1970 (at 25 for women, 26.8 for men). And a popular school of thought defines adolescence as a search for one's identity that ends when the adolescent finds the right occupation and the right spouse.

You're laughing now, aren't you? You haven't even found the right pet yet, have you?

Maybe this will prove to be a positive trend. Maybe, if we take our time about getting married, the divorce rate will go down. Maybe if we live at home and save up some money, we will have the financial stability to responsibly start a family.

Then again, maybe we'll skip right from our adolescence to a midlife crisis.

No progress, no responsibilities, no maturity in sight. Instead, we're wallowing in the longest awkward phase in recorded history. Instead, we're asking the same question we asked when we were 13, stuck in the back seat of a station wagon on another family vacation: Are we there yet?

Dirk, come to mommy.

On 2002-02-07 17:49, Susan Brombacher wrote:

On 2002-02-07 14:35, Jenny Genser wrote:

My boss mentions that since he and the retiring colleague are in an older generation than my X-er colleague and myself, they are more familiar with the concept of getting a watch when you retire than us "young uns".

So okay, 1932 and 1952 are one generation and 1956 and 1970 are another generation. Sure, its flattering to be considered the same age as a 30-year-old

:lol: I know exactly what you mean, Jenny. In the office I work in, the majority of employees there are Boomers and Xers. There are a few Silents sticking it out, though, and a 1939 cohort I work with always refers to the rest of the people in our group (all Xers and Boomers, and one Millennial) as "the kids." It's pretty funny when she's referring to a bunch of 30-50 year olds! When you're 20, 43 seems ancient and 20 doesn't seem that young (I first started feeling twinges of being "old" at age 21, when my teens were over!) So I guess it would follow that to a 63 year old, someone in their 30s and 40s would still be a "kid."

Yes, but it wasn't the 69-year-old that was grouping me with Kristen (the 1970-cohort colleague), it was my 1952-cohort boss!

Oh well, I guess the 4-year difference was real in 1965 and 1970. I certainly don't see it is significant today! :smile: