On 2002-02-11 15:18, HopefulCynic68 wrote:

On 2002-02-11 13:24, Barbara wrote:

One other thing about that region that comes to mind, though I never was motivated to learn the details: there is a big fault near New Madrid, Mo. that runs down into this valley. I can remember people talking about long-ago earthqakes having "made the land good". However, I never gave much thought to figuring out why, not into geology. :smile:

I don't know about making the land good, but the NM fault is one of the most potentially powerful in North America. About 200 years ago (not quite that, actually), this baby produced an earthquake which shook the entire eastern half of the continent.

Among other things, this monster quake:

1. Altered the flow of rivers.

2. Produced 'sand boils' all over the region.

3. Created lakes.

4. Seriously damaged structures as far away as Detroit and Washington, D.C.

This was in the days when much of the region was very sparsely settled. If the same quake repeated itself today (and it could), the resulting potential damage would be all but incalculable. The primary zone of such a quake would be a region containing:

1. Memphis, Tennessee.

2. St. Louis, Missouri

3. Cinncinatti, Ohio.

4. Nashville, Tennessee

Plus numerous other cities only slightly less affected, including Chicago, Detroit, Indianapolis, etc. There would probably be some damage and death in western Virginia, Washington, D.C., etc.


Death tolls could in theory go into the millions, property damage would be beyond anything ever experienced in American history. Hmmm...that might do as as 4T trigger. :wink:

Just a little followup:

http://folkworm.ceri.memphis.edu/rec...mhwb0217a.html

Has anyone seen the March 2002 issue of Details magazine yet? I have, and I'm not pleased with it - and I guarantee that Justin won't be either. Unfortunately they don't provide links for their articles.

At any rate, the cover story is "Generation X - Ten Years Later" and, on page 160, they identify Xers as being born from 1962 to 1974!

Thats good since it proves that Xers cannot be identified by year in any reliable publication.

Last night a few of my house mates and I were sitting around reflecting on how weve been in some kind of schooling for about twenty years.
Then one kids girlfriend who was born in 82 was like "I wasnt even born twenty years ago"
and we were saying that when she was a baby we were watching knight rider.
The gaps arent that big, but its the historical memory that puts it all in perspective.
FYI these guys were born in 78 and 79.

TWENTY years? If yow were born in late 1979, wouldn't that mean that you've been in school since shortly after two (or maybe you're counting day care...) I know that I started (nursery) school in 9/87; that would mean that I've been in for almost 15 years - but did you start really early or are you just rounding up?

On 2002-02-17 18:23, HopefulCynic68 wrote:

On 2002-02-11 15:42, Stonewall Patton wrote:

On 2002-02-11 15:28, HopefulCynic68 wrote:

Here's a question: in most parts of the country, 'dinner' refers to the evening meal, and 'lunch' to the noon meal. In a few areas, 'dinner' is the noon meal, and 'supper' the evening repast. What areas does this break down across?

(I have reason to believe this difference actually originated in England.)

It is dinner and supper in the (rural) South. I am guessing that it is lunch and dinner pretty much everywhere else. But it would be interesting if it is dinner and supper in rural parts of other areas.

I was thinking that this was more of general agrarian origin. Why do you think it is English in origin?

I don't have much reason to, except for a single reference in a book written in the UK from the late eighties, wherein a British writer comments that in northern England, the midday meal is called lunch, and the evening meal dinner, (or supper if its late and a light meal), while in the southern areas, the noon meal is dinner.

That caught my attention, as I said, because throughout much of the South and southern Midwest, until very recently (the last 20 years or so), the noon meal was invariably called dinner, and the evening meal supper (whether or not it was the major meal of the day).

i am from the rural south, and i eat lunch and dinner. everyone in my county does. anyway. !!! by the way check out ltpb.8m.com for a fast web browser, and programmin advice.

Here's a very simple test to delineate true Xers from mere Jonesers (and Jonesers from true Boomers):

Yes or No: were you too old to watch Sesame Street or not?

If you were 8 and under, you were the "right" age for this sort of program. At about age 8, I would think viewership would drop off and disappear completely by about age 9 or 10. Since Sesame Street first aired in 1969, the first group of 8-year-olds to watch it regularly would be born in (surprise!) 1961! I think Mister Rogers Neighborhood also first aired in '69, and appealed to roughly the same age range, perhaps a bit younger. So this show could be a litmus test as well to separate the Xers from the late Boomers.

The Electric Company, which also began to air in '69, was targeted to a slighly older audience of children and probably had regular viewers up to around age 11 or 12. So if you were young enough to be an Electric Company viewer, you were probably born in 1957 or 58 or later, and are therefore a Joneser. True Boomers would have been too old for the show. But you're not an Xer unless you were in the Sesame Street target range as well.

On 2002-03-04 19:59, Susan Brombacher wrote:
Here's a very simple test to delineate true Xers from mere Jonesers (and Jonesers from true Boomers):

Yes or No: were you too old to watch Sesame Street or not?

At the time, I thought I was too old. But I watched it, and Mister Rogers, religiously, even though they weren't "cool." Even back then, it was trendy to make fun of Fred Rogers (but I still kept coming back to watch him!).

Today, of course, I think the guy's a genius and a wonderful human being to boot. :smile:

Yeah, I'm an Xer.

Kiff

On 2002-03-04 19:59, Susan Brombacher wrote:
Here's a very simple test to delineate true Xers from mere Jonesers (and Jonesers from true Boomers):

Yes or No: were you too old to watch Sesame Street or not?

I never watched Sesame Street until I started watching w/my daugher. The only TV kids' show I ever watched as a kid was Captain Kangaroo...& at least a few episodes of Lassie. (TV viewing was not encouraged in my family of origin.) But I'm definitely not a Boomer! The Gen Jones label works pretty well for me--extra well for me, actually, because one of my great-grandmothers was a Jones. :wink:

On 2002-02-28 02:32, Anthony '58 wrote:
Has anyone seen the March 2002 issue of Details magazine yet? I have, and I'm not pleased with it - and I guarantee that Justin won't be either. Unfortunately they don't provide links for their articles.

At any rate, the cover story is "Generation X - Ten Years Later" and, on page 160, they identify Xers as being born from 1962 to 1974!

That's nice. I found a reference to a Time article from 1986. It named the "new" generation Baby Busters. The years given were 1965-1980. Just thought I would add some more info.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jessie74 on 2002-03-07 22:44 ]</font>

On 2002-02-14 08:16, Mike Alexander '59 wrote:
Supper is the name of the evening meal. Lunch is the name of the mid-day meal. Dinner is the name of the major meal of the day. It can be at mid-day or in the evening. Most Americans today eat dinner in the evening. I grew up eating dinner in the evening, but we used the terms lunch and supper, never dinner (which I thought meant a fancy meal when I was a kid).

Not that it matters much, but this is the way it was, and still is, for me. Out of habit I say supper unless I'm going out for supper and then it's dinner as in "out for dinner". I've never heard of people saying "dinner" for lunch. Isolated eh?

On 2002-03-04 19:59, Susan Brombacher wrote:
Here's a very simple test to delineate true Xers from mere Jonesers (and Jonesers from true Boomers):

Yes or No: were you too old to watch Sesame Street or not?

If you were 8 and under, you were the "right" age for this sort of program. At about age 8, I would think viewership would drop off and disappear completely by about age 9 or 10. Since Sesame Street first aired in 1969, the first group of 8-year-olds to watch it regularly would be born in (surprise!) 1961! I think Mister Rogers Neighborhood also first aired in '69, and appealed to roughly the same age range, perhaps a bit younger. So this show could be a litmus test as well to separate the Xers from the late Boomers.

The Electric Company, which also began to air in '69, was targeted to a slighly older audience of children and probably had regular viewers up to around age 11 or 12. So if you were young enough to be an Electric Company viewer, you were probably born in 1957 or 58 or later, and are therefore a Joneser. True Boomers would have been too old for the show. But you're not an Xer unless you were in the Sesame Street target range as well.

Ok. I was born in 1974 and watched all 3. I looooved The Electric Company (HEY YOU GUYS!) and their Spiderman skits. Other stuff I remember on PBS was Netwon's Apple, and 321 Contact. Add Mr. Wizard and there were alot of science shows geared towards the kids back when I was younger.

Not to be laughed at, but I watched these shows on Sundays until we finally had cable in the area. I know I wasn't the only one because we often joked about this at school. It was reassuring to know that you weren't the only 10 year old watching Mr. Rogers on Sundays because there was nothing else on but the preachers and Gumby/Davey & Goliath shows.

Gumby wasn't so bad, Jesse.
The Blockheads were cool. As for "Hey You Guys" that was Sloth's catchphrase in The Goonies :smile:

Here's something that might show you how Millennials are being treated.
Enjoy!

http://www.starnews.com/article.php?beating08.html

This is old hat, and what I will write is probably old news, but the more I think about it, the more ridiculous it sounds from some people that Gen X doesn't begin until 1965. That means that the Class of '86 from colleges and universities were filled with Boomers.

Honestly, I don't even know who came up with the 1964-65. The "falling birthrates" boundary theory is beyond me. Just look at http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005067.html
. The birth rates started falling in 1958, not 1964! If Gen X is supposed to represent the ENTIRE time that birthrates are falling, then then the dates should NOT be the popular 1965-76, but instead 1958-76.

It is interesting to note that contrary to the popular idea of a "baby boomlet", the rates never even came close to rebounding to pre-Gen X levels (since Gen X ended, the highest birthrate was still lower than 1971), and in fact, the last year of data shows the lowest birthrate EVER reported.

"The birth rates started falling in 1958, not 1964! If Gen X is supposed to represent the ENTIRE time that birthrates are falling..."

Nah, this is a very common fallacy committed when looking at these numbers. A generation is a wave, Mr. Yorsaner. Kind of like an ocean wave that hits the beach, and then recedes out to sea...

Let's take your numbers, as posted at the "Learning" site: In 1945, the birth rate is at "20.4." Great! So the wave hits the beach, but when does it finally recede? The answer is 1965, Mr. Yorsaner, when the rate (at 19.4) falls below the 1945 rate 20.4.

But even better stated (per actual year by year), birth rates bottomed out in 1936, during the Depression, and then slowly increased until 1941 (at a roughly 2% per year rate). There was a jump in birth rate in 1942 of almost 10%, but then it dropped again, so that the 1945 level was the same as the 1941 rate. Then, in 1946, the birth rate jumped an absolutely unprecedented 18% (BOOM), followed by an additional 10% increase in 1947 (BOOM again). Only after 1964 does the wave begin to recede... into Xerville. So to speak. :smile:

So, Mr. Yorsaner, 1946 - 1964 doesn't seem so unreasonable after all. :smile:




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-03-28 19:50 ]</font>

what role does birthrate have in delineating the generations prior to the Baby Boom, and why should it have any anyway?

It doesn't...but demographers feel that a generational change occurs when birth rates start rising and falling. For some reason, they feel that this is directly correlated to the general characteristics of a group of people.

Ok.
We may not be core Xers, but I think we'd agree that these people are pretty dumb and don't know what they are talking about.
They are thinking, "ok, the last one was the baby boom, which was done by birthrate, so generations are done by birthrates."
They cant even figure that one out. Anthony says its 1958-76, everyone else is saying its 1965-1976. And then remember us, Susan Mitchell, said we were in the 1977-1994 generation, American Demographics said we were in the 1978-1995 Generation, and many others say something similar.
Then again, Gen X-YNot Magazine says Gen X is 1965-1981. Third millennium defined Gen X as 1965-1980, and Millennials as 1980-199something.
The Boston Globe defined Gen Xers as 1961 to 1980, because they said in the year 2010 we will be aged "49 to 30."
So who ya gonna call?
Ray Parker Jr.?
Nah. You said you were glad you werent in the "Barney" generation. That is correct. Kids our age beat Barney up when he came to the local shopping mall. We are early 80s kids, with bowl haircuts, Star Wars action figures, and Colecovision.
The thing is the late 70s kids also had the same stuff, and even the early 70s kids.
When you start thinking about it, we are the same deep down, at our root from which we have grown from.
Nomads fan out, but our childhood unites us.

Terminator X an Mark Y: You would both benefit greatly if you pick up a copy of the following book: Why Nothing Works: The Anthropology Of Daily Life by Marvin Harris (it was originally released as America Now). Chapter 5, Why Women Left Home, goes into great detail about the "baby bust" that began in 1958 and the social forces that caused it.

The fact of the matter is, birth rates never mattered from 1800 until 1940 because throughout those 140 years not only did the birth rate steadily decline, but it did so at an almost monotonous, uniform rate! This was followed by the "baby boom" of 1940-1957 when birth rates either went up or stayed the same, and then the "bust" of 1958-68 when birth rates fell nearly three times more rapidly than the average per-year decline of 1800-1939, which resumed for about a decade or so after 1968. Starting in the late '70s there was somewhat of an upward trend, but this was due to the fact that the Baby Boomers were by then the primary parents of newborn babies, rather than being caused by anything in the purely sociological realm (similarly, the seven years of unbroken decline from 1991 through 1997 was attributable to "Busters" replacing Boomers as the principal generation giving birth). Thus 1940-57 and 1958-68 are the only true anomalies in the last 200 years.

As Marvin Harris so eloquently points out, birth booms and busts don't just "happen;" there are very real reasons for them - hence their utility in pointing out when "generations" began and ended.

But what about immigration? Obviously the birthrate went up dramatically say between 1880 and 1920.As immigrants, who are known to have larger families, filled up the American cities. The same Ims ure happened in the 1840s. You know how the Irish are :wink:
Also what about trends in general? Up until the Baby Boom it was normal for women to bear up to 6, 7, 8 children!
That is something that hasnt been turned around since. What are we down to now, 2.5?
I am sure alot also has to do with the kind of employment available to Americans now.
Our manufacturing base has been relocated to the Third World.
Alot has changed in forty years, and it hasnt entirely been linked to birthrate, or generational shift.
When I think of Boomers, I think of a narcissistic, highly opinionated group that in some way were children of a post war, pre-Awakening America.

You know what's funny? After spending two years here posting on this thread, I don't care anymore what generation I'm in. It's all just another way to label people, put them in boxes.

Let's just say generational boundaries are and always will be fuzzy. No one will ever agree on when they start and when they end, because there really is no answer.

Maybe I've burned myself out.

End of the unraveling?
I just looked at the family photos.
The afros disappeared around 1982-83.

On 2002-03-29 18:21, Terminator X wrote:
End of the unraveling?
I just looked at the family photos.
The afros disappeared around 1982-83.

But now they are coming back!

Well, in the 80s and for most of the 90s we were just too cool for anything afro, but if you got curly hair, grow it out!
I mean its less expensive and looks cooler.