And for the record, I don't actually want alcohol to be banned. I just hate underage drinking at all, and getting drunk no matter what your age. Drinking in moderation when at least age 21 is no problem at all. I plan to do that myself.

And for the record, I don't actually want alcohol to be banned. I just hate underage drinking at all, and getting drunk no matter what your age. Drinking in moderation when at least age 21 is no problem at all. I plan to do that myself.

Well Alex,

That's pretty much what I was reffering to.I don't wanna see alcohol banned and "thrown down to the pits of hell".And I'm a child of an alcoholic.I enjoy the touch of spirits at times.I am an adult and can handle myself quite well.I even talked myself out of going out tonight.I had planned on drinking quite a few dirty-martinis seeing as I have the weekend off.Alcohol is not bad.It's how you abuse it that can turn out bad.

Cigarettes? Ohhhhh.Don't even get me started on this subject.I think Mayor Bloomberg of NYC should be run outta town.I find it OFFENSIVE that the GOVERNMENT is now seeing fit to tell a PRIVATE BUSINESS it cannot allow smokers in certain establishments.Resturants I can somewhat begrudgingly understand.But BARS?! Come on.This is getting way out of hand.I no longer smoke.Quit cold turkey 7 years ago.Although I was never a heavy smoker anyway;A pack would last me a week.But I expect folks to smoke in bars.And that's nowhere NEAR the level where it once was.If someones cig is bothering me,I'll either move or kindly ask them to move it.I even occasionally crave one when I'm out.Something about when you drink.But I'll never light one up again.And it's NOT due to any peer,government or societal pressure.My body just turned off to them.

Well Alex,

That's pretty much what I was reffering to.I don't wanna see alcohol banned and "thrown down to the pits of hell".And I'm a child of an alcoholic.I enjoy the touch of spirits at times.I am an adult and can handle myself quite well.I even talked myself out of going out tonight.I had planned on drinking quite a few dirty-martinis seeing as I have the weekend off.Alcohol is not bad.It's how you abuse it that can turn out bad.

Cigarettes? Ohhhhh.Don't even get me started on this subject.I think Mayor Bloomberg of NYC should be run outta town.I find it OFFENSIVE that the GOVERNMENT is now seeing fit to tell a PRIVATE BUSINESS it cannot allow smokers in certain establishments.Resturants I can somewhat begrudgingly understand.But BARS?! Come on.This is getting way out of hand.I no longer smoke.Quit cold turkey 7 years ago.Although I was never a heavy smoker anyway;A pack would last me a week.But I expect folks to smoke in bars.And that's nowhere NEAR the level where it once was.If someones cig is bothering me,I'll either move or kindly ask them to move it.I even occasionally crave one when I'm out.Something about when you drink.But I'll never light one up again.And it's NOT due to any peer,government or societal pressure.My body just turned off to them.

Well Alex,

That's pretty much what I was reffering to.I don't wanna see alcohol banned and "thrown down to the pits of hell".And I'm a child of an alcoholic.I enjoy the touch of spirits at times.I am an adult and can handle myself quite well.I even talked myself out of going out tonight.I had planned on drinking quite a few dirty-martinis seeing as I have the weekend off.Alcohol is not bad.It's how you abuse it that can turn out bad.

Cigarettes? Ohhhhh.Don't even get me started on this subject.I think Mayor Bloomberg of NYC should be run outta town.I find it OFFENSIVE that the GOVERNMENT is now seeing fit to tell a PRIVATE BUSINESS it cannot allow smokers in certain establishments.Resturants I can somewhat begrudgingly understand.But BARS?! Come on.This is getting way out of hand.I no longer smoke.Quit cold turkey 7 years ago.Although I was never a heavy smoker anyway;A pack would last me a week.But I expect folks to smoke in bars.And that's nowhere NEAR the level where it once was.If someones cig is bothering me,I'll either move or kindly ask them to move it.I even occasionally crave one when I'm out.Something about when you drink.But I'll never light one up again.And it's NOT due to any peer,government or societal pressure.My body just turned off to them.

Well Alex,

That's pretty much what I was reffering to.I don't wanna see alcohol banned and "thrown down to the pits of hell".And I'm a child of an alcoholic.I enjoy the touch of spirits at times.I am an adult and can handle myself quite well.I even talked myself out of going out tonight.I had planned on drinking quite a few dirty-martinis seeing as I have the weekend off.Alcohol is not bad.It's how you abuse it that can turn out bad.

Cigarettes? Ohhhhh.Don't even get me started on this subject.I think Mayor Bloomberg of NYC should be run outta town.I find it OFFENSIVE that the GOVERNMENT is now seeing fit to tell a PRIVATE BUSINESS it cannot allow smokers in certain establishments.Resturants I can somewhat begrudgingly understand.But BARS?! Come on.This is getting way out of hand.I no longer smoke.Quit cold turkey 7 years ago.Although I was never a heavy smoker anyway;A pack would last me a week.But I expect folks to smoke in bars.And that's nowhere NEAR the level where it once was.If someones cig is bothering me,I'll either move or kindly ask them to move it.I even occasionally crave one when I'm out.Something about when you drink.But I'll never light one up again.And it's NOT due to any peer,government or societal pressure.My body just turned off to them.

Cool.Then please pardon my previous post.It was composed before I read this one. :lol:

Cool.Then please pardon my previous post.It was composed before I read this one. :lol:

Cool.Then please pardon my previous post.It was composed before I read this one. :lol:

Cool.Then please pardon my previous post.It was composed before I read this one. :lol:

I have a feeling that people usually have a strong sense of what generation they indentify or belong with. I indentify strongly with Generation X and I never felt as a part of Generation Y or the Millennials. I always regarded those people as another quite alien generation, I often identified with people 10-15 years older than me.

I do sense the same sort of feeling from a lot of others on this discussion forum?

Note; I was quite the angst ridden, hopeless young man during my teens, I had only a passing interest in politics. I was more into science fiction and had low expections of where I was going in life, the best I hoped was to become a chef or cook.

Originally Posted by Tristan

I have a feeling that people usually have a strong sense of what generation they indentify or belong with. I indentify strongly with Generation X and I never felt as a part of Generation Y or the Millennials. I always regarded those people as another quite alien generation, I often identified with people 10-15 years older than me.

I do sense the same sort of feeling from a lot of others on this discussion forum?

Note; I was quite the angst ridden, hopeless young man during my teens, I had only a passing interest in politics. I was more into science fiction and had low expections of where I was going in life, the best I hoped was to become a chef or cook.

Even so, you were a regular T4T poster when you were 18 and 19!

The only time "generation" became extraordinary reality for me was in high school and college when I saw the new generation firsthand. It was then that I realized a comfort level existed with people perhaps even 15 years older than me, that didn't exist with those even two or three years younger.
Now that I am no longer in "the classroom" or at the "club" I don't feel that awkwardness when surrounded by Millenials, because by and large my working peers are Xers, Boomers, and occasionally Silents. So generational identity I guess matters less.

As for boundaries, I've pretty much nailed down mine up until the Boom/X and the X/Mill.
I actually split the years in halves.
I use 1882/83 - 1901/02 for Lost, 1902/03-1923/24 for GIs,1924/25-1941/42 for Silents, 1942/43-1960/61 for Boomers, 1961/62-1980/81 for Xers*, and 1981/82 onwards for Millennials*.

Look obviously I am uneducated and stereotyping legions of people.
But how do you fit FDR and Joyce into one generation? Langston Hughes and John Steinbeck? Bush and Brando? Ashcroft and Hendrix?

Originally Posted by Olaf Palme

As for boundaries, I've pretty much nailed down mine up until the Boom/X and the X/Mill.
I actually split the years in halves.
I use 1882/83 - 1901/02 for Lost, 1902/03-1923/24 for GIs,1924/25-1941/42 for Silents, 1942/43-1960/61 for Boomers, 1961/62-1980/81 for Xers*, and 1981/82 onwards for Millennials*.

Look obviously I am uneducated and stereotyping legions of people.
But how do you fit FDR and Joyce into one generation? Langston Hughes and John Steinbeck? Bush and Brando? Ashcroft and Hendrix?

Well, Ashcroft must being seeing purple haze. There's no other explanation.

'Scuse me while I kiss the sky?

Originally Posted by Olaf Palme

'Scuse me while I kiss the sky?

:lol: :lol: :lol:

No, that's more like "Hey Joe".

I have decided to weigh in the generational boundaries debate, I am in favour of Strauss and Howe?s painfully researched start date for the Millennial generation as 1982, in the USA and Canada at least*

Here is an example,
If You look at a couple of Hollywood celebrities born in 81? Paris Hilton (17/2/1981) and Britney Spears (2/12/1981), their antics seemed to be regarded as normal by the society as a whole. If they had been born in 1982 or later their antics would not be tolerated. All over society Millennial's are being punished for antics which X?ers in their youth got away with at least or was accepted by the public at large.

* The Millennial start date varies from country to country in the countries that are on our saeculum. I have a feeling in Europe and Australia the Millennials do not start until 1986.

Originally Posted by Tristan

I have decided to weigh in the generational boundaries debate, I am in favour of Strauss and Howe?s painfully researched start date for the Millennial generation as 1982, in the USA and Canada at least*

Agreed. Though I am open to that date moving based on 4T events (e.g., lots of late-wave Xer's getting drafted in this decade). But for now, 1982 (Class of 2000) is definitely the first wave of "seed" vis-a-vis the 1981 cohort's "weed".

As for people claiming that many late 70's cohorts have Hero traits or mid-80's cohorts having Nomad traits, I say that the cusp effect, in this case sub-generation "Gen Y", takes care of that -- just as the Boomer/Xer boundary has "Generation Jones" and the Silent/Boomer boundary has the "War Babies".

Originally Posted by Tristan

* The Millennial start date varies from country to country in the countries that are on our saeculum. I have a feeling in Europe and Australia the Millennials do not start until 1986.

Also agreed. Though there was a poster recently who demonstrated evidence of a very-well established 2T mood in London in the mid-60's, leaving me open to the possibility that Britain may more in synch with us than the Continent. I am not wedded to that idea, however.

Originally Posted by Tristan

I have decided to weigh in the generational boundaries debate, I am in favour of Strauss and Howe?s painfully researched start date for the Millennial generation as 1982, in the USA and Canada at least*

Here is an example,
If You look at a couple of Hollywood celebrities born in 81? Paris Hilton (17/2/1981) and Britney Spears (2/12/1981), their antics seemed to be regarded as normal by the society as a whole. If they had been born in 1982 or later their antics would not be tolerated. All over society Millennial's are being punished for antics which X?ers in their youth got away with at least or was accepted by the public at large.

* The Millennial start date varies from country to country in the countries that are on our saeculum. I have a feeling in Europe and Australia the Millennials do not start until 1986.

Can you give me a few specific examples of 82-85ers' antics not being accepted in the same way that Britney's antics were?

Originally Posted by mmailliw 8419

Can you give me a few specific examples of 82-85ers' antics not being accepted in the same way that Britney's antics were?

The issue shifts from the individual to the society at large. I noticed during the school shootings in the late 90s that there was a certain "cult" of Kleibold/Harris - they became public personalities - but can you remember any of the other shooters names?
I can't.
The same goes for the Britney/Mary Kate divide.
All eyes are on Britney to mess up. All eyes are on Mary Kate to get better.
Paris Hilton's sex video is released to the world, and she yucks it up, making more money. Jack Osbourne goes into rehab and the focus is on Jack getting better. Poor Jack!
Prince William and Harry certainly get A LOT of respect from even the British tabloids.
It's hard to make grand sweeping generalizations at this point - but I think that when someone on the cusp like Paris screws up in the eyes of society - it's all about Paris - her parents are like distant fools of little consequence.
With Millennials, it seems that when they screw up, its addressed as a societal issue. The school shottings become a problem at large - their shooters are less responsible, while the blame almost squarely fall son the teachers, parents - the society.
Look at how that Collumbine thing played out - the parents of the Millies there demanded apologies from the Kleibolds and Harrises - who refused to apologize on behlaf of the actions of their children.
Very telling.

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

Agreed. Though I am open to that date moving based on 4T events (e.g., lots of late-wave Xer's getting drafted in this decade). But for now, 1982 (Class of 2000) is definitely the first wave of "seed" vis-a-vis the 1981 cohort's "weed".

Exactly, generational boundaries are never going to be extremely precise, however they are accurate to a large degree.

As for people claiming that many late 70's cohorts have Hero traits or mid-80's cohorts having Nomad traits, I say that the cusp effect, in this case sub-generation "Gen Y", takes care of that -- just as the Boomer/Xer boundary has "Generation Jones" and the Silent/Boomer boundary has the "War Babies".

I would agree with you on that. The Millennial/X'er boundary is the least sharp of generations live right now, The GI/Silent, Silent/Boom and Boom/X'er boundary are much more sharp because of the dramatic nature that the turnings began or ended in those generations grew up and came of age in.

From my limited view I can pinpoint the changeover from GI to Silent somewhere at 1924. I don't even feel George H.W. Bush was very much a GI, but he obviously comes out of that WWII experience.
The Silent/Boom divide for me is most definitely at 1942-43. Both Bill Bradley and John Kerry have unknowingly been called Boomers in the press, even if it doesn't match up with demographers numbers.
The issues swirl around Vietnam, and who served. If 'Nam vet John McCain (b 1936) ran against someone like Bob Graham (b 1936) that issue would have never entered the debate.
The Boom/X divide is harder to call. I'd agree on 60/61, but occasionally I see it more like 61/62.
The Boomers are the ideologues, and late wave ideologues like Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity (both born 1961) make me think that the Boom year needs to be extended perhaps by one. There's also some 1962ers that seem rather Boom-ish, like Ralph Reed and Rosie O'Donnell. After that, the era of the ideologues is over.
My divide is even harder to call. I still think 81/82 is the divide, but who knows.

Originally Posted by Olaf Palme

My divide is even harder to call. I still think 81/82 is the divide, but who knows.

We may not have the answer just yet - where do you place Jenna and Barbara Bush (born 1981), for instance? Their behavior toward underage drinking reminded me of my (Xer) cohorts in high school but I don't think that's the whole picture.

It was a stark contrast seeing the Kerrys, Heinzes and Edwardses together. John Kerry's children and stepchildren are all Xers, while John Edwards's living children are all Millies.

Originally Posted by Nomanissen Island

Originally Posted by Olaf Palme

My divide is even harder to call. I still think 81/82 is the divide, but who knows.

We may not have the answer just yet - where do you place Jenna and Barbara Bush, for instance? Their behavior toward underage drinking reminded me of my (Xer) cohorts in high school but I don't think that's the whole picture.

The Bush twins for me would be Millennials. I tend to spot Millennial trends based on gender identifications. As Xers we were raised in a fairly gender neutral environment and that is reflected in the adults we have become.
I noticed in high school and at university that Millennial males trend more masculine, while Millennial females trend more feminine. Walking Barbie and Ken dolls, if you will.
I see the Bush twins as part of the swath of super feminine, vapid, pack-oriented Millennial females.
Chelsea Clinton on the other hand, I'm not so sure about. She seems to want to take part in the safe, Millennial girl world, but her interest in redefining her "look" makes me think she is an Xer deep down.
Hard one to call. The Gore girls were definitely all late-wave Xers, while Albert Gore III is certainly a Hero.