On 2002-05-09 15:35, mmailliw wrote:

Where do you think the first Heroes lie with respect to the X/Mil cusp? I'm thinking 1979 or 1980...

I'll tell you what. I don't think I will feel comfortable analyzing that boundary until I can look back in hindsight a few decades from now. As it stands now, I don't even want to try to make sense of the Boomer/Xer boundary! Justin and I were discussing this earlier today. All I can go by are the opinions of people like Kiff '61. The true boundary just does not bounce off the page at me. It may take a few more years to properly distinguish the boundary.

The one estimate I have fixed in my mind for first Millie is 1981. Justin and a few others have agreed on that year and it seems about right to me. I think we entered 3T about 1983 (Grenada sealed it) and this would suggest that 1981 was likely the first Millie year since we have been dealing with 2-year differentials in recent generations. So I am willing to bet that 1981 will be the year (within one year) but I might need a few more decades to commit to it. :wink:

i have many friends born in 1981, but my classic tale of Gen X recognition was being at a party at the end of high school standing with the memebers of my band and looking at all the "C2Kers" (ok I dont think any Xers would ever use this term) and incoming fresh and sophs and thinking how strange they were...like...like..like they were a different generation or something?!?!?!?


My band was composed completely of 1980 cohorts, with the execption of a 1977 cohort (someones older bro) and a 1981 cohort (there were 9 people in the group).

So yes, I can definitely see 1981 as the start.
Earlier this year when I was looking around the room at a party I could definitely tell that the 1979 cohorts were Xers (even though some wont admit it...one says that we are in a blurry group, but he has nothing in comon with people born after 1982).
I feel the same way about the 1982 cohorts and many people my age (10 I can thing of off hand) feel the same way...but the 1981 cohorts never seem to sense the difference.
I dont think they can truly grasp generational differences.

As for the Awakening vs. unraveling..Im barely an Xer, which is why it baffles me when kids that are five years younger than me think they are, because I know I barely am...because I know what an Xer is..I know Ive seen us in childhood, I wish I could post pictures to explain it...

I always sensed a shift in 1985, but that was more stylistic...that really hazy 70s like stuff was WAY before then...way back in the dank corners of my brain...

And to thik Stonewall, you were like..18
hehehheehhee.

Ty.

Yeah, I saw 1979 as last gasp of X..followed by 1980 as an ambiguous year which I feel is extremely Nomadic, followed by 1981 which had the individualism crossed witha civic outlook, followed by 1982 which showed no emotional distress or self destructive current (amongst my peers) but rather a strong civic inclination. I am amazed how they care so much about people other than themselves.
I mean I talk a good game, but...you know Nomads.
Theres a 1983 kid that hangs around now..he looked a bit baffled one night when we were talking about Dukakis, just as the 1982 girl looked confused when we were talking about Knight Rider and Hill Street Blues (we were 1978 and 79 cohorts)....He is a cool kid...seems quiet..I feel bad he has to watch us all get fucked up together...he is witnessing four years of school comradery in the making....
Its gota nihilistic and absurd edge...He must think alot of us are really fucked...anyway

My 2 cents,

Ty.

The one estimate I have fixed in my mind for first Millie is 1981. Justin and a few others have agreed on that year and it seems about right to me. I think we entered 3T about 1983 (Grenada sealed it) and this would suggest that 1981 was likely the first Millie year since we have been dealing with 2-year differentials in recent generations. So I
am willing to bet that 1981 will be the year (within one year) but I might need a few more decades to commit to it.

I hate to say this, but I think that the first election of Reagan in '80 was the 3T. I was not old enough to remember, but from what I gather, there was a sea change in the mood of the country right at that time. It was as like a breath of fresh air to most people, as the malaise of the '70s vanished into thin air. Yes, you had Grenada and the assassination attempt and ET and the recession of 82, but I think that the 80 election of Reagan may be the real 3T.

If this is true, then I hate to say this (masochist I am), but the starting year of Generation Y/Millies would then have to be pushed back four years to ...you got it...1978.

On 2002-05-09 19:01, Mark Y wrote:

The one estimate I have fixed in my mind for first Millie is 1981. Justin and a few others have agreed on that year and it seems about right to me. I think we entered 3T about 1983 (Grenada sealed it) and this would suggest that 1981 was likely the first Millie year since we have been dealing with 2-year differentials in recent generations. So I
am willing to bet that 1981 will be the year (within one year) but I might need a few more decades to commit to it.

I hate to say this, but I think that the first election of Reagan in '80 was the 3T. I was not old enough to remember, but from what I gather, there was a sea change in the mood of the country right at that time. It was as like a breath of fresh air to most people, as the malaise of the '70s vanished into thin air. Yes, you had Grenada and the assassination attempt and ET and the recession of 82, but I think that the 80 election of Reagan may be the real 3T.

If this is true, then I hate to say this (masochist I am), but the starting year of Generation Y/Millies would then have to be pushed back four years to ...you got it...1978.

Here I am... standing all alone in my wacky belief that 2T and 3T coexisted throughout most (Reagan election in late 80s - Black Monday, 1987) of the 1980s... is there any reason why any one year needs to be pure awakening or pure unravelling?

On 2002-05-09 19:04, mmailliw wrote:

Here I am... standing all alone in my wacky belief that 2T and 3T coexisted throughout most (Reagan election in late 80s - Black Monday, 1987) of the 1980s... is there any reason why any one year needs to be pure awakening or pure unravelling?

Not at all. All the generations and turnings are a bit fuzzy around the edges. My early elementary school years (1964-67), for example, were enough like the 50s that I feel like I had a genuine High experience-- though that period of time is classified by S&H as Awakening.

But there does have to be a cut-off someplace, and the Kennedy assassination is as good a place as any and better than most for the mood shift. This is largely because the trends which later defined the 2T began right on cue after that event, starting with the Beatles' American debut on the Ed Sullivan Show.

I would agree with you that the period from 1981 through 1987 (most of the Reagan years) were a transition from 2T to 3T. Reagan's initial election in November 1980 did nothing to dampen the Awakening fervor. In fact, it may have even intensified it, as if the populace were driven to enjoy the last gasp of an era to be soon swept away. And swept away it was-- I graduated from college in late 1983 and joined the professional workforce on March 10, 1984. That was a profound life change for me, but the next year-- 1985-- is when i noticed that the world itself seemed profoundly different than it was when i graduated. I recall being extremely depressed that year, even though I had a great deal to be happy about-- great job, new apartment, etc. It was as if with Reagan's re-election, the world's very axis had shifted, and I no longer was sure precisely where I stood on it.

For this reason I consider 1985 as the first year of the 3T, though S&H start the era in '84. Of course, it is possible that '85 was the social moment, the point at which most people realize that the world has changed (like '67 was for the 2T, '49 for 1T, and '32 for the last 4T), and that the 3T Catalyst actually happened earlier. Mark Y makes a good case for 3T beginning in 1981 after Reagan's first election -- although the problem with that is that there's no way I can see the Millennial Generation beginning in 1978. So I stick with Reagan's late-'84 reelection as the 3T Catalyst, with the 3T Social Moment as either Challenger or Black Monday.

Moving forward into the next (current?) 4T, it is still possible that 911 was indeed the Catalyst even though we do seem to be slipping back into an Unravelling-era mindset. It may take a couple more years for people realize that the world really IS different now. That will be the social moment, the point of Regeneracy. Perhaps the 4T Social Moment will occur in 2005 when someone nearly unknown at the present time is inaugurated President.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kevin Parker '59 on 2002-05-09 20:13 ]</font>

On 2002-05-09 16:57, Ty Webb wrote:
i have many friends born in 1981, but my classic tale of Gen X recognition was being at a party at the end of high school standing with the memebers of my band and looking at all the "C2Kers" (ok I dont think any Xers would ever use this term) and incoming fresh and sophs and thinking how strange they were...like...like..like they were a different generation or something?!?!?!?

C2K seems to me like a very Gen-Y term... those who are truly Millennials would respect them as their own - it is more for people within a year or two of them who view them as not only different from those before them but from those after them as well (due to all the overhyping)

On 2002-05-09 19:49, Kevin Parker '59 wrote:

On 2002-05-09 19:04, mmailliw wrote:

Here I am... standing all alone in my wacky belief that 2T and 3T coexisted throughout most (Reagan election in late 80s - Black Monday, 1987) of the 1980s... is there any reason why any one year needs to be pure awakening or pure unravelling?

Not at all. All the generations and turnings are a bit fuzzy around the edges. My early elementary school years (1964-67), for example, were enough like the 50s that I feel like I had a genuine High experience-- though that period of time is classified by S&H as Awakening.

But there does have to be a cut-off someplace, and the Kennedy assassination is as good a place as any and better than most for the mood shift. This is largely because the trends which later defined the 2T began right on cue after that event, starting with the Beatles' American debut on the Ed Sullivan Show.

I would agree with you that the period from 1981 through 1987 (most of the Reagan years) were a transition from 2T to 3T. Reagan's initial election in November 1980 did nothing to dampen the Awakening fervor. In fact, it may have even intensified it, as if the populace were driven to enjoy the last gasp of an era to be soon swept away. And swept away it was-- I graduated from college in late 1983 and joined the professional workforce on March 10, 1984. That was a profound life change for me, but the next year-- 1985-- is when i noticed that the world itself seemed profoundly different than it was when i graduated. I recall being extremely depressed that year, even though I had a great deal to be happy about-- great job, new apartment, etc. It was as if with Reagan's re-election, the world's very axis had shifted, and I no longer was sure precisely where I stood on it.

For this reason I consider 1985 as the first year of the 3T, though S&H start the era in '84. Of course, it is possible that '85 was the social moment, the point at which most people realize that the world has changed (like '67 was for the 2T, '49 for 1T, and '32 for the last 4T), and that the 3T Catalyst actually happened earlier. Mark Y makes a good case for 3T beginning in 1981 after Reagan's first election -- although the problem with that is that there's no way I can see the Millennial Generation beginning in 1978. So I stick with Reagan's late-'84 reelection as the 3T Catalyst, with the 3T Social Moment as either Challenger or Black Monday.

Moving forward into the next (current?) 4T, it is still possible that 911 was indeed the Catalyst even though we do seem to be slipping back into an Unravelling-era mindset. It may take a couple more years for people realize that the world really IS different now. That will be the social moment, the point of Regeneracy. Perhaps the 4T Social Moment will occur in 2005 when someone nearly unknown at the present time is inaugurated President.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kevin Parker '59 on 2002-05-09 20:13 ]</font>

It looks like we finally agree on something! I can definitely accept the 50/50 division as being between 1984 and 1985 with traces of 2T lasting until 1987 (and possibly later if you count, for example, Tetris) - I'm pretty sure that this 3T had two catalysts tho (one for each of Reagan's economic disasters): the recession began establishing a 3T mood and Black Monday removed whatever traces of 2T were left - Bush (Sr)'s 1989 inauguration speech declaring "The generation born after the Second World War has come of age" seems to be as close as we ever got to an official declaration of 3T tho...

1985 is the year I remember as being the last of any of that vibe.
If you look at a pic of me in May 1985 (Mothers Day) Im still a 70s hairy beast child (long hair, plaid...totally awakening)
But by september it was totally different...
and that song "Take on Me" by AHA was playing everywhere.
if you ask me 1982, 83 were awakening..I can remember they felt completely different..
That vibe was totally daed by early 85.
1986 felt like a fresh unraveling year, with that "venus" song playing everywhere.
1986 was definitely hardcore unraveling...
there was a big change over from 1982 to 1986, bigger than anything ive witnessed since.
Ty.

On 2002-05-09 20:29, Ty Webb wrote:
1985 is the year I remember as being the last of any of that vibe.
If you look at a pic of me in May 1985 (Mothers Day) Im still a 70s hairy beast child (long hair, plaid...totally awakening)
But by september it was totally different...
and that song "Take on Me" by AHA was playing everywhere.
if you ask me 1982, 83 were awakening..I can remember they felt completely different..
That vibe was totally daed by early 85.
1986 felt like a fresh unraveling year, with that "venus" song playing everywhere.
1986 was definitely hardcore unraveling...
there was a big change over from 1982 to 1986, bigger than anything ive witnessed since.
Ty.

At least in your location...

"mmailliw" just posted the following:

Generational Boundaries at 20:34
Defining moments by generations at 20:33
Raising the Standards for Regular Kids at 20:30

William, my question is... how in the hell do you post so fast?

On 2002-05-09 20:56, Marc Lamb wrote:

"mmailliw" just posted the following:

Generational Boundaries at 20:34
Defining moments by generations at 20:33
Raising the Standards for Regular Kids at 20:30

William, my question is... how in the hell do you post so fast?

I read at 1100 words per minute and type at 90 :smile:

On 2002-05-09 22:21, Xer of Evil wrote:
3 things:

1) 1985 sucked

I can't remember 1985... but it can't be as bad as the present

2) What the hell is a C2K?

C = Class; 2K = 2000

3) You're going to give Marc an inferiority complex if you pass him up in number of posts.

XoE

I plan on changing my identity before then

On 2002-05-09 22:35, Xer of Evil wrote:
Personally, my life is WAY better now than it was in 1985.

If you change your name, you'd damned well better tell us who you are so we don't all think you are the next reincarnation of Justin. Also, how will I know who to give crap to? :smile:

My posting style is nothing like Justin's... I should be distinguishable from my posting style and my name :smile: and UNLIKE Justin, I will reveal my identity after someone guesses it as me (on the other hand, both this incarnation and my next one COULD easily be confused with either Craig '84 or James E. F. Landau...) - and anyway your crap provides me with a nice mental workout :smile: (I find that I argue with fellow liberals MUCH more than I argue with conservatives here)

On 2002-05-09 22:21, Xer of Evil wrote:
3 things:

1) 1985 sucked

Not for me it didn't. 1985 was the only year I had my very own apartment, no roommates, a good job with great co-workers, and I could basically do whatever the hell I wanted. :grin:

Unfortunately, I got laid off at the end of that year. It was 1986 that sucked for me.

On 2002-05-09 22:40, mmailliw wrote:

My posting style is nothing like Justin's... I should be distinguishable from my posting style and my name :smile: and UNLIKE Justin, I will reveal my identity after someone guesses it as me (on the other hand, both this incarnation and my next one COULD easily be confused with either Craig '84 or James E. F. Landau...) - and anyway your crap provides me with a nice mental workout :smile: (I find that I argue with fellow liberals MUCH more than I argue with conservatives here)

William, are you saying that you are a T4T regular in disguise here? Was there a big discussion about this that I missed? If so, I'd think that you are either Vince Lamb posing as a Millie or Vince Lamb's son. Vince has been MIA for some unknown reason and the frequency of your posts has dramatically increased since about the time Vince vanished in the rice paddy (probably captured by VC). You claim to be ENTJ and Vince is the only other ENTJ here that I know of. Furthermore, I believe Vince stated that his son was born in 1984. If Vince wanted to impersonate a Millie, he would most likely model himself after his son born in 1984. If you are Vince, you really are doing one hell of a job acting like someone with barely any historical memory. If you are Vince's son, then it all makes sense.

Come back to that 40 year old girlfriend deal. I believe Vince stated that he currently has a girlfriend and not a wife. Could it be that 43-43 year old Vince Lamb has the 40 year old girlfriend and not a 17 year old (guffaw) alter ego? I still don't buy the 17 year old with the 40 year old girlfriend. That is right out of Jerry Springer, not an Ivy League school. You have to be Vince himself. Hehehe.

Stonewall, I think that William meant that when he changes his screen name, he'll say something like "I used to be mmailliw."

I don't think he's Vince Lamb. I do wonder where Vince is, though. :???:

On 2002-05-10 17:18, Kiff '61 wrote:


I don't think he's Vince Lamb. I do wonder where Vince is, though.

Mr.Vince Lamb has been enthralled by his very shrewdness. HTH

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Virgil K. Saari on 2002-05-10 19:29 ]</font>

On 2002-05-10 19:47, Xer of Evil wrote:
The plot thickens.

No offense, William, if you really are who you say you are, but I've been wondering for a while if your story was really true. Wasn't going to say anything, but since Stoner brought it up, what the hell.

I can explain this more later if you want, but I'll wait for now.

XoE

seems like:

mmailliw

is "William M" spelled backwards.

Hmmm.

Will

"You're going to give Marc an inferiority complex if you pass him up in number of posts."

I have addressed the Webmaster concerning this "number of posts" business. In short, I deplore it. And I wish it were not an issue.

But, if you would like to continue to make an issue of it, I would be more than happy to make an issue of you.

In otherwords, call off the hounds, lest ye find the hounds upon your own ass. :wink:

Is there a personal test like a psychological one to determine whether you are gen x or gen y?

I wonder about this Millenial business.

Also, I was wondering if there are conservative Millenials out there? I always here about the liberal or anarchist ones.

I just found something on the web suggesting that Gen Y starts in 1979. I don't buy it, having spoken with both Justin '79 and his later incarnation Terminator X (just kidding). I did speak with them both. Niether one seems quite, well, Cobainish. But that's not the same thing as Yish. I actually thought a few times that Justin would shoot himself. He seems like that.

I also detest this Gen X capitalism business. Everyone in my cohort that I know is pretty liberal. I'm going to post some links on sites that give borderlines for Gen Y.

http://www.logophilia.com/WordSpy/Mi...Generation.asp

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/ne...268mar28.story

They say Millenials are 1977 to 1994.

http://www.entrepreneur.com/Your_Bus...290067,00.html

Entrepreneur magazine says that Millenials are 1979 to 1994.

They say Millenials are 1982 on.

http://research.gbgm-umc.org/bdm/BDM0005.htm