On 2002-06-29 12:36, Chet wrote:
Here's an interesting question, do you have more in common with those fifteen years older or younger. :lol:

I'd posit 1964, just because I don't know too many little people.

hmm... 1969 or 1999? infant or teen of the 80s? At the moment I'd say 1969 (though I don't feel I have *THAT* much in common with them) AT LEAST until the 99ers reached enough of an age to have somewhat of a meaningful defining moment and even then i'd only change my answer if I felt impacted by that moment as well

On 2002-06-29 12:36, Chet wrote:
Here's an interesting question, do you have more in common with those fifteen years older or younger.

1934 or 1964 neither/both. I don't see how but; I HTH.

On 2002-06-29 11:56, Heliotrope wrote:
Will, Joneser fits better than either Boomer or Xer for those born approximately 1957-1963, who have difficulty relating to either archetypcal generation. That's why the label has become so successful and has caught on.

It's not a generation per se, but a subgeneration that straddles the last wave and the first wave of two adjacent generations.

Jonesers have characterstics of both Boomers and Xers, but also have traits all their own that are independent from either of those generations. They are cynical yet more idealistic than Xers: they "jones" but don't have the expectations of true Boomers. Hence the moniker, which fits.

_________________
Follow the sun.

I am well aware of what the Jonser stuff is all about but I also think it is an unnecesary burden in the study of generations to add these *sub* generations into the mix. Sure we will have people who feel in between but that will always be the case with generations. I think it is hard enough to identify with one generation without making it even murkier by adding in Jonser or Cusper or Buster to the mix. I can *understand* the late boomer perspective but that does not make me a boomer. I don't identify with the hippie thing or all of that 60's baggage. Yes, I have friends who are late boomers but most of my friends are early wave Xers. My late 50's friends identify with hippies but I don't. I was just wondering why Kiff who opposes sub-generations would still consider herself a part of it. I don't like the name Jonser since it reminds me of the phrase "keeping up with the Jonses" which is a GI phrase about post WWII social status and keeping up with your neighbors in generating material wealth. I don't evaluate life on material wealth alone. My Dad worked himself into his grave trying to "keep up the Jonses". Those 12 hour days seven days a week are a killer.

The thing I oppose to these sub-generations is that they give people a way of opting out of a generation. When we think of Xer, we have this slacker dude hanging out at the mall, feeding off his parents, with tattos and piercings, into extreme sports and all of that. The older Xers don't exactly identify with that. They still have a sense of work ethic that may be tarnished due to the real world experience and they may try real hard to meet those expectations. You may say ah-ha very boomerish then but I don't think so. They are also very mobile when it comes to employment. They realize that they may not get to where they want at Company X and so they always have their resume ready. Watergate and all of that has made them cynical but maybe not in the same way as the later Xers. They may not all have the same traits but we stereotype Xers and they have become a caricature. This cariacature of what an Xer is may make many of the early Xers think that they are nothing like that but they also know they don't fit the caricature of the stereotypical boomer either. Hence, it leaves them feeling in-between and ripe for someone like the dude promoting the Jonser idea to push his sub-generation idea along to sell his books. However, we must remember that not every member of a generation will be exactly the same and have all the same attributes. They share a place in time, a core set of ideas and may have a core set of personality traits but remember that not all traits are in every individual. That is my objection to sub-generations.
_________________
Will Strutts - Whatever!
B: Sep 1962

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: wrstrutts on 2002-06-29 20:32 ]</font>

On 2002-06-29 14:08, Heliotrope wrote:

On 2002-06-29 13:48, Stonewall Patton wrote:

On 2002-06-29 12:46, Heliotrope wrote:

1936-1942 = The Beats

I thought the Beats were generally first wave Silent, weren't they?

Actually I am thinking of the beatnicks of the late '50s--Bob Dylan, Allen Ginsburg and company. The Beats would be more like Jack Kerouac and Neal Cassidy, late GIs, I guess. But the younger beatnicks were influenced by the Beats. Isn't that the way it worked? :???:

Beats, beatnicks. I always get confused. :???:

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Heliotrope on 2002-06-29 14:11 ]</font>

Dude, I did all the work for you.
Here are some (most) of the most famous and influential Beat writers and their birthdates:

William S. Burroughs, author of Naked lunch and the Soft Machine...1914
Lawrence Ferlinghetti...born 1919.
Jack Kerouac <On the road[/i] 1922
Neal Cassady 1925
Allen Ginsberg Howl 1926
Gary Snyder 1930
Michael McClure 1932
Peter Orlovsky 1933.

Those are the main beat writers. Remember that these whole beat phenomenon started in the last years of World War II when Kerouac met Burroughs and Ginsberg in New York when he was attending Columbia University.
On the Road came out in 1957 I believe. A bit early for the Jack Nicholson-wave Silents.

As for the Silent/Boom cusp, 1941 produced the likes of Chubby Checker, Richie Valens, Dick Cheney, Neil Diamond and Ann Margret.
1943 produced Jim Morrison, Janis Joplin, Chevy Chase, and Geraldo Rivera.
You be the judge.

By the way, I don't see 1943 as being that foreign aside for the whole Sixties Generation thing. I think it's a pretty groovy cohort.

On 2002-06-29 12:36, Chet wrote:
Here's an interesting question, do you have more in common with those fifteen years older or younger. :lol:

I'd posit 1964, just because I don't know too many little people.

Being born in 1956 (late Boomer), my choices are 1941 (late Silent) or 1971 (core X). Given that someone born in 1971 is more likely to have a seven-year-old (or at least young children) and living in a "starter home", I'd have to pick 1971. FWIW :smile:

On 2002-06-29 22:05, Chet wrote:
1943 produced Jim Morrison, Janis Joplin, Chevy Chase, and Geraldo Rivera.
You be the judge.

By the way, I don't see 1943 as being that foreign aside for the whole Sixties Generation thing. I think it's a pretty groovy cohort.

I don't know if Geraldo Rivera really fits in with the rest of those people you listed. He seems pretty "ungroovy" to me. Was he ever groovy?

Now Jim Morrison...*definitely* very groovy!

On 2002-06-29 20:19, wrstrutts wrote:
I can *understand* the late boomer perspective but that does not make me a boomer. I don't identify with the hippie thing or all of that 60's baggage. Yes, I have friends who are late boomers but most of my friends are early wave Xers. My late 50's friends identify with hippies but I don't. I was just wondering why Kiff who opposes sub-generations would still consider herself a part of it.

Will, I guess we've just had different life experiences. I've been exposed to a lot of Boomers in my life. Most of my cousins are Boomers. A few of them embraced the hippie look for awhile. I couldn't help but be somewhat influenced by that.

The thing I oppose to these sub-generations is that they give people a way of opting out of a generation.

When push comes to shove, I'm an Xer.

When we think of Xer, we have this slacker dude hanging out at the mall, feeding off his parents, with tattos and piercings, into extreme sports and all of that. The older Xers don't exactly identify with that. They still have a sense of work ethic that may be tarnished due to the real world experience and they may try real hard to meet those expectations. You may say ah-ha very boomerish then but I don't think so. They are also very mobile when it comes to employment. They realize that they may not get to where they want at Company X and so they always have their resume ready. Watergate and all of that has made them cynical but maybe not in the same way as the later Xers. They may not all have the same traits but we stereotype Xers and they have become a caricature. This cariacature of what an Xer is may make many of the early Xers think that they are nothing like that but they also know they don't fit the caricature of the stereotypical boomer either. Hence, it leaves them feeling in-between and ripe for someone like the dude promoting the Jonser idea to push his sub-generation idea along to sell his books.

Sure, Will, but that doesn't make Pontell wrong. He's definitely on to something. And has he actually sold any books yet?

However, we must remember that not every member of a generation will be exactly the same and have all the same attributes. They share a place in time, a core set of ideas and may have a core set of personality traits but remember that not all traits are in every individual. That is my objection to sub-generations.

Are you saying that sub-gens are too specific in characterizing people? Some would argue that the traits identified in S&H for the generations are too stereotypical.

Of course there are individual differences. I'd be the first to say that. But we're talking about behavior in large numbers here.

It seems to me, Will Strutts, that your objection to Generation Jones is based primarily on your own personal emotional reaction rather than external objective logic. It is clear, for example, from your posts that you have strong emotional feelings against hippies in the 60s, and all that represented, and you want to make sure that you are distanced from that. You also appear to have an emotional investment in being thought of as an Xer, with all your "whatever", and "dude" and other Xer stereotypical stuff (maybe it has to do with difficulties you're having with the idea of getting older?). Look, I'm just speculating here about you personally, I know nothing in fact about your personal psychological makeup, but it does seem clear that your attacks on Jones aren't based on a desire for accuracy.


For example, you have said in several posts that the Jones thing just has to do with some "dude" wanting to make money. Did it occur to you to actually find out if that was true rather than just saying it repeatedly? I've been checking out the Generation Jones website from time to time over the last couple years and I've only seen evidence that they are not in it for the money. Not only have I never seen one advertisement on the site, but when some guy tried to sell Generation Jones T-shirts, coffee mugs, etc. using that site, it was immediately removed. Pontell can't be selling his book (it hasn't been published yet), but when it is published and he is selling books, do you really believe that will undermine its credibilty? Are you saying writers shouldn't put their ideas into books and sell them becuse that will prove they are just in it for the money. I'm not aware of Strauss and Howe donating the proceeds of their books to charity, should we then discount the veracity of their claims becuase they are making a financial profit? Do you have any evidence at all to back your claim that the Generation Jones thing is just about some guy making money? The only evidence I am seeing argues the opposite.


You say you hate the moniker becuase it connotes "Keeping up with the Jonesers". That connotation never even occured to me, and I checked the section of the Generation Jones website that lists and expains the reasons and connotations for the moniker, and while it goes into a detailed look at the 10 or so reasons for the name, your "Keeping up with the Jonesers" allusion isn't mentioned nor even hinted at. I asked a few friends if the moniker brought that expression to their minds, and none of them had thought of that as a relevant connotation. What I did get back from them was mostly enthusiam about the concept and moniker.


Which brings me to my last point, which is that you are in the minority in your views, yet you try to argue that you speak for a larger audience. I would guess that the Jones moniker is generally quite popular, and that people aren't bothered by your "Keeping up with..." problem, and that this popularity is why the Jones moniker has caught on in such a big way. And you are also in the minority in not identifying with this generation between the Boomers and Xers. The two national polls that I've seen of those born between the mid/late 50s and mid/late 60s on this question showed overwhelming majorities identifiying not with Boomers or Xers, but rather with this generation in-between. Whatever reasons (personal or otherwise) that cause you not to identify with it are your own, and while you are of course entitled to those views, you are wrong to act like those views reflect others your age.


And for the record, I disagree with those here who see Generation Jones as a sub-generation; I believe strongly that Jones is just as much a distinct generation as Boom and X, and I don't believe that view undermines the validity of the S & H work.

On 2002-06-29 21:31, Chet wrote:

On 2002-06-29 14:08, Heliotrope wrote:

On 2002-06-29 13:48, Stonewall Patton wrote:

On 2002-06-29 12:46, Heliotrope wrote:

1936-1942 = The Beats

I thought the Beats were generally first wave Silent, weren't they?

Actually I am thinking of the beatnicks of the late '50s--Bob Dylan, Allen Ginsburg and company. The Beats would be more like Jack Kerouac and Neal Cassidy, late GIs, I guess. But the younger beatnicks were influenced by the Beats. Isn't that the way it worked? :???:

Beats, beatnicks. I always get confused. :???:

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Heliotrope on 2002-06-29 14:11 ]</font>

Dude, I did all the work for you.
Here are some (most) of the most famous and influential Beat writers and their birthdates:

William S. Burroughs, author of Naked lunch and the Soft Machine...1914
Lawrence Ferlinghetti...born 1919.
Jack Kerouac <On the road[/i] 1922
Neal Cassady 1925
Allen Ginsberg Howl 1926
Gary Snyder 1930
Michael McClure 1932
Peter Orlovsky 1933.

Those are the main beat writers. Remember that these whole beat phenomenon started in the last years of World War II when Kerouac met Burroughs and Ginsberg in New York when he was attending Columbia University.
On the Road came out in 1957 I believe. A bit early for the Jack Nicholson-wave Silents.

Could Agent '84 aka 'mmailliw' be seen as a future Jack Kerouac or William Burroughs?

Foolish people.
All generations produce artists. Some of our most accomplished artists in the 20th century were of the Strauss and Howe "Hero" generation, and not of debatable years like Langston Hughes or John Steinbeck (both 1902) but born in the teens, like Roald Dahl (1916) or Ian Flemming (whenever he was born).
This stereotype of Rosie the Riveter and Joe DiMaggio is so...f**ing lame.

If Agent is producing art there's nothing odd about that. All humans do it, regardless of pathetic historical theory.

On 2002-07-01 11:03, Anne T. wrote:
It seems to me, Will Strutts, that your objection to Generation Jones is based primarily on your own personal emotional reaction rather than external objective logic. It is clear, for example, from your posts that you have strong emotional feelings against hippies in the 60s, and all that represented, and you want to make sure that you are distanced from that. You also appear to have an emotional investment in being thought of as an Xer, with all your "whatever", and "dude" and other Xer stereotypical stuff (maybe it has to do with difficulties you're having with the idea of getting older?). Look, I'm just speculating here about you personally, I know nothing in fact about your personal psychological makeup, but it does seem clear that your attacks on Jones aren't based on a desire for accuracy.


For example, you have said in several posts that the Jones thing just has to do with some "dude" wanting to make money. Did it occur to you to actually find out if that was true rather than just saying it repeatedly? I've been checking out the Generation Jones website from time to time over the last couple years and I've only seen evidence that they are not in it for the money. Not only have I never seen one advertisement on the site, but when some guy tried to sell Generation Jones T-shirts, coffee mugs, etc. using that site, it was immediately removed. Pontell can't be selling his book (it hasn't been published yet), but when it is published and he is selling books, do you really believe that will undermine its credibilty? Are you saying writers shouldn't put their ideas into books and sell them becuse that will prove they are just in it for the money. I'm not aware of Strauss and Howe donating the proceeds of their books to charity, should we then discount the veracity of their claims becuase they are making a financial profit? Do you have any evidence at all to back your claim that the Generation Jones thing is just about some guy making money? The only evidence I am seeing argues the opposite.


You say you hate the moniker becuase it connotes "Keeping up with the Jonesers". That connotation never even occured to me, and I checked the section of the Generation Jones website that lists and expains the reasons and connotations for the moniker, and while it goes into a detailed look at the 10 or so reasons for the name, your "Keeping up with the Jonesers" allusion isn't mentioned nor even hinted at. I asked a few friends if the moniker brought that expression to their minds, and none of them had thought of that as a relevant connotation. What I did get back from them was mostly enthusiam about the concept and moniker.


Which brings me to my last point, which is that you are in the minority in your views, yet you try to argue that you speak for a larger audience. I would guess that the Jones moniker is generally quite popular, and that people aren't bothered by your "Keeping up with..." problem, and that this popularity is why the Jones moniker has caught on in such a big way. And you are also in the minority in not identifying with this generation between the Boomers and Xers. The two national polls that I've seen of those born between the mid/late 50s and mid/late 60s on this question showed overwhelming majorities identifiying not with Boomers or Xers, but rather with this generation in-between. Whatever reasons (personal or otherwise) that cause you not to identify with it are your own, and while you are of course entitled to those views, you are wrong to act like those views reflect others your age.


And for the record, I disagree with those here who see Generation Jones as a sub-generation; I believe strongly that Jones is just as much a distinct generation as Boom and X, and I don't believe that view undermines the validity of the S & H work.

First off a generation is defined as the length of time between the eldest member and its offspring. Generation Jones is less than 10 years long. Second, he makes lots of public appearances in regards to his Generation Jones concept which I am sure brings in speaking fees. Third, Generation Jones concept is being sold to large organizations for the purpose of demographics in order to make and sell products. Yes he is making money on Generation JOnes whether he has a book or not. S&H make money selling their books, and their consulting with organizations in regards to generations. I don't believe that generations can be as short as five years as in the Case of Gen Y (1978 to 1983) that I have seen bantered about on the American Demographics web site.

I also did not say that I didn't identify as something between Boomer and Xer. I would side with Xer anytime over the Boomer logo. What I oppose with Generation Jones is that the site reeks of commercialism to me when I visit it. It gives me the distinct impression he is selling something. I have seen other sites about the 1961 to 1965 crowd that makes me less suspicious like the Cuspers site or the the Baby Busters site. When you visit the Jonser site it just smells like a sales pitch to me.

On 2002-07-01 16:23, wrstrutts wrote:
I also did not say that I didn't identify as something between Boomer and Xer. I would side with Xer anytime over the Boomer logo. What I oppose with Generation Jones is that the site reeks of commercialism to me when I visit it. It gives me the distinct impression he is selling something. I have seen other sites about the 1961 to 1965 crowd that makes me less suspicious like the Cuspers site or the the Baby Busters site. When you visit the Jonser site it just smells like a sales pitch to me.

I know what you mean about the commercial feel of the Joneser website and even to some extent, the term itself. However, be that as it may, the term does fit many of us and clearly has caught on. So even if it got its start as a "marketing niche," (and I detest marketing and commercialism with a passion probably more than most people), it's proven to have validity after all and not all be a pile of doggie doo. Remember, crap makes good fertilizer, and even a broken clock is right twice a day.

I don't believe that generations can be as short as five years as in the Case of Gen Y (1978 to 1983) that I have seen bantered about on the American Demographics web site.

Where did you see '78-83 there, wr? That sounds more like a Martin & Tulgan definition.

On 2002-07-01 18:30, Mark Y wrote:

I don't believe that generations can be as short as five years as in the Case of Gen Y (1978 to 1983) that I have seen bantered about on the American Demographics web site.

Where did you see '78-83 there, wr? That sounds more like a Martin & Tulgan definition.

I'm sorry I can't really say. I once read all articles on the American Demographics site and they have so many sub-generations defined that it was hard to keep track of. For instance, they had a Boomer I and a Boomer II sub generations defines. Then to make matters worse they split the Boomer I and Boomer II into five year cohorts and call that something else. They had Gen Y as being from 1978 to 1983 followed by the Echo Boomers 1984 to 1990 or something like that.

On 2002-07-01 11:03, Anne T. wrote:
And for the record, I disagree with those here who see Generation Jones as a sub-generation; I believe strongly that Jones is just as much a distinct generation as Boom and X, and I don't believe that view undermines the validity of the S & H work.

Which totally screws up S&H's theories of four turnings. I suppose you want eight turning to make things fit your scheme.

Another thing, I went to the Jones site to reread it and found a lot of stuff on their that S&H mentioned in their books circa 1991. However, I also read their 10 definitions of "jonser" and I don't recall ever hearing any of those definitions before. I do recall a member of the Silent generation saying something to me about "just jonesing around" and I had to ask her where she heard that and what it meant. I haven't heard that expression since. The only reference I can faintly recall is "Love Jones" but I don't recall what it was about. Like I said, the only phrase that I can recall with jones in it is "keeping up with the Joneses". My dad used to say that a lot.

Actually, the Jones term, besides being a drug reference ("jonesin' for a joint"), alludes to the anonymity of people born in those birthyears. For years, they were all but ignored by the media and advertising, always being lumped in with the Boomers who they couldn't really identify with. The name Jones is very common and lacks distinction. It's generic and fades into the woodwork. Jonesers have always felt that way about their generation (or subgeneration, actually--I do adhere to S&H's four archetypes)--that they were never really noticed or paid much attention to. That's why it's a good term.

I don't agree that's it's actually a distinct generation though, but a bridge that straddles two adjacent S&H generations.

On 2002-07-01 20:32, wrstrutts wrote:

On 2002-07-01 11:03, Anne T. wrote:
And for the record, I disagree with those here who see Generation Jones as a sub-generation; I believe strongly that Jones is just as much a distinct generation as Boom and X, and I don't believe that view undermines the validity of the S & H work.

Which totally screws up S&H's theories of four turnings. I suppose you want eight turning to make things fit your scheme.

Another thing, I went to the Jones site to reread it and found a lot of stuff on their that S&H mentioned in their books circa 1991. However, I also read their 10 definitions of "jonser" and I don't recall ever hearing any of those definitions before. I do recall a member of the Silent generation saying something to me about "just jonesing around" and I had to ask her where she heard that and what it meant. I haven't heard that expression since. The only reference I can faintly recall is "Love Jones" but I don't recall what it was about. Like I said, the only phrase that I can recall with jones in it is "keeping up with the Joneses". My dad used to say that a lot.

"Love Jones" was the name of a minor hit by a one-hit-wonder group back in the early '70s. It was about a guy who is desperately in love with a girl he knows he'll never have. The use of the term "Jones" was, apparently, an attempt to compare the lovesick protagonist's need for the girl to a junkie's need for heroin. This is the first mention of "Jones", as meaning a deep, dark, obsessive longing, that I ever recall hearing.

In a similar fashion, many members of the 1957-64 Jones cohort set (I refuse to call it a 'Generation', since it is not) "Jones" for the love, peace, prosperity and security that was promised them as children back in the late High/early Awakening, then cruelly denied as young Unravelling era adults.

The Jones years given by the website are preposterous. Any person born in 1965 would identify as an Xer. Class of 83? College class of 1987? Come on.
Of course that would mean that Courtney love (1964) was Joneser, and Kurt Cobain (1967) was Gen Xer.
Pretty lame.

In a similar fashion, many members of the 1957-64 Jones cohort set (I refuse to call it a 'Generation', since it is not) "Jones" for the love, peace, prosperity and security that was promised them as children back in the late High/early Awakening, then cruelly denied as young Unravelling era adults.

Oh that's right. Us Xers just knew the world sucked and you guys were teased by the High.
B-o-o
H-o-o
I don't get this. The world changed. there was no conspiracy. I mean Reagan got elected. His urine trickled down right on your heads.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Chet on 2002-07-01 21:02 ]</font>

On 2002-07-01 21:00, Chet wrote:

In a similar fashion, many members of the 1957-64 Jones cohort set (I refuse to call it a 'Generation', since it is not) "Jones" for the love, peace, prosperity and security that was promised them as children back in the late High/early Awakening, then cruelly denied as young Unravelling era adults.

Oh that's right. Us Xers just knew the world sucked and you guys were teased by the High.
B-o-o
H-o-o
I don't get this. The world changed. there was no conspiracy. I mean Reagan got elected. His urine trickled down right on your heads.

Yeah, Justin, that's pretty much it. But who said anything about a conspiracy? Perhaps you've been hanging out with Stone too long :smile:

According to Mr. Lamb's numbers posted above, the world began to officially "suck" in 1973, as the percentage of people who believed that the Government does the right thing at least most of the time dropped below 50% and stayed there until late last year.

Fond memories of playing on the beach (with "Yesterday Once More" and "Touch Me In The Morning" playing in the background) not withstanding, that sounds......just about right. Good job, Marc....Marc?.....Hey! where did all Marc's cool numbers go???

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kevin Parker '59 on 2002-07-02 03:21 ]</font>

"Oh that's right. Us Xers just knew the world sucked and you guys were teased by the High.
B-o-o
H-o-o
I don't get this. The world changed. there was no conspiracy. I mean Reagan got elected. His urine trickled down right on your heads."

Just what "world" are you talking about, that "sucked"? Did this "world" always suck? Like "sucked" for a very long time before you came along? Or, maybe, just a short time, according to history...?

<table class='Wf' border=0 align='center' width='100%' cellspacing=0 cellpadding=3 nowrap> <tr><td><pre>
How much of the time do you trust the
government in Washington to do what is
right?
Just about
Always Most Only some
2001 13 51 35 911 Aftermath
Did it suck here?
2000 4 26 64 NASDAQ Crash
1998 6 28 59 Lewinsky Affair
1998 4 27 66 Dow at 8000
1997 2 20 76 PEAK Only some?
Did it suck here?
1996 5 29 62 Dow at 5500
1995 3 19 69 GOP Revolution
1994 2 18 75 Dow 3800 up up
1993 5 23 67 Clinton Inaug.
1991 7 38 52 Post-Gulf War
1990 7 35 55 Saddam Invades
1988 6 34 59 Bush I Elected
1987 9 39 51 Iran Contra
1986 6 34 58 USA/USSR Summit
Did it suck here?
1985 5 32 60 Silents Peak 68%
1982 2 31 61 Recession
1980 2 23 69 Reagan Elected
1978 3 27 64 Tax Revolt!
1976 3 30 62 Carter Elected
Did it suck here?
1974 3 34 61 Watergate
1972 5 48 44 Nixon Landslide
1970 7 47 44 Kent State
1968 7 54 36 Assassinations!
1966 17 48 28 LBJ/Vietnam
1964 14 62 22 G.I.s Peak 76%
Did it suck here?
1958 16 57 23 "I Like Ike"

</pre></td></tr></table>

Just when did the "world" begin to suck?

Hey I remember the 86 summit in Reykjavik !!!!

"Hey I remember the 86 summit in Reykjavik !!!!"

Ya know, I tend to get a little miffed when you Gen Xers, or whatever wanna call yourselves, go off on your whining tangents...

I was seventeen, in 1973, as I cradled my dying mother in my arms, giving her mouth to mouth in vain hopes of saving her life, 1200 miles away from home.

I was eighteen, in 1974, as I watched as the President of the United States resigned his office in utter disgrace...

I was nineteen, in 1975, as I watched the last choppers fly out of Saigon in utter defeat...

Wanna compare wretched coming of age experiences, Xers? Boo hoo, is right.