Alicia Silverstone - I just don't get it . . .
GCarras
No,just have a sense of humor.
Steve who is 36 and enjoys AS.
CAR
maybe you don't.....but i do!
she's my favourite actress, and she's mighty good looking!
GO SEE EXCESS BAGGAGE!!!!!!
Alex Crouvier
All Gen X youngsters I know absolutely loath her, but she keeps getting
paid to star in movies. Do the foreign audience actually got a soft spot
for her lip contorting antic? Sad.
In fact, I have not seen any really graceful actress in the league
of...say even the vacuous Grace Kelly, so don't even expect any future
Lauren Bacall, Ava Gardner, Liz Taylor, or Barbara Stanwick. Today's
female teenagers are a bunch of bland, graceless, talentless, spoiled
brat who are victims of the Philip-Morris marketing campaign.
blake
C...@babylon.montreal.qc.ca (CAR) wrote:
>maybe you don't.....but i do!
>she's my favourite actress, and she's mighty good looking!
>GO SEE EXCESS BAGGAGE!!!!!!
Alicia silverstone's best work, "Various Aerosmith Videos", is behind
her.
Alex Crouvier
I agree, she did her best works there.
David Liu
Daniel Fienberg <d...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu> wrote:
: Alex Crouvier (troj...@geocities.com) wrote:
: : All Gen X youngsters I know absolutely loath her, but she keeps getting
: : paid to star in movies. Do the foreign audience actually got a soft spot
: : for her lip contorting antic? Sad.
: OK, first of all, Alicia Silverstone has no connection to Gen X.
: Beyond the fact that Gen X is a silly term which means different things
: to different people, it certainly does not include Ms. Silverstone or the
: direction that her films have taken. The most standard demographic for
: Gen X is people currently 25-35, the oldest children of the oldest
: Baby-Boomers. Alicia Silverstone is younger than this, as is her target
: audience. Therefore, your statement that the "Gen X youngers" you know
: don't like her, either misuses the phrase or fails to appreciate who she
: is appealing to. The fact is that Alicia sells copies of magazines like
: Seventeen which, contrary to it's name, appeals to young teen girls. So
: too does Alicia Silverstone. While she appeals to older males also, these
: are probably not the people who are counted on to buy tickets to her films.
People 25-35 aren't considered Gen X. This category is usually reserved
for teenagers and early 20's. Generation X is basically any demographic
that is controlled by phillip-morris and MTV ;)
: : In fact, I have not seen any really graceful actress in the league
: : of...say even the vacuous Grace Kelly, so don't even expect any future
: : Lauren Bacall, Ava Gardner, Liz Taylor, or Barbara Stanwick. Today's
: : female teenagers are a bunch of bland, graceless, talentless, spoiled
: : brat who are victims of the Philip-Morris marketing campaign.
: In general, perhaps, but it seems to me that questioning Claire
: Danes's grace would get you a lot of arguements. And saying that, at her
: best, Winona Ryder (who probably is Gen-X) is graceless is just plain
: wrong. There are other actresses, Renee Zellweger, for example, who have
: some of that "classic film star" appeal. You just need to look harder.
: -Daniel
Daniel Fienberg
David Liu (cth...@deltanet.com) wrote:
: People 25-35 aren't considered Gen X. This category is usually reserved
: for teenagers and early 20's. Generation X is basically any demographic
: that is controlled by phillip-morris and MTV ;)
That's the abolute opposite of the truth (the first part, that
is. The last is true). The term came from Douglas Copeland's book of the
same name where he discussed his age group. And age much older than the
people currently in their teens. According to sociological data, as I
said earlier, the people who truly have the right to be called Gen X are
a much older group than the high school and junior high students who the
media mislabels as Gen X.
-Daniel
--
Daniel J. Fienberg
d...@sas.upenn.edu
Daniel's Lion Den -- http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~djf
Managing Editor- 34th Street Magazine http://www.dp.upenn.edu/street
Welcome to Cyprus...Goats and Monkeys!
--
David Roy
David Liu <cth...@deltanet.com> a écrit dans l'article
<5ug358$8c7$2...@news01.deltanet.com>...
> Daniel Fienberg <d...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu> wrote:
> : Alex Crouvier (troj...@geocities.com) wrote:
>
> : : All Gen X youngsters I know absolutely loath her, but she keeps
getting
> : : paid to star in movies. Do the foreign audience actually got a soft
spot
> : : for her lip contorting antic? Sad.
>
> : OK, first of all, Alicia Silverstone has no connection to Gen X.
> : Beyond the fact that Gen X is a silly term which means different things
> : to different people, it certainly does not include Ms. Silverstone or
the
> : direction that her films have taken. The most standard demographic for
> : Gen X is people currently 25-35, the oldest children of the oldest
> : Baby-Boomers. Alicia Silverstone is younger than this, as is her target
> : audience. Therefore, your statement that the "Gen X youngers" you know
> : don't like her, either misuses the phrase or fails to appreciate who
she
> : is appealing to. The fact is that Alicia sells copies of magazines like
> : Seventeen which, contrary to it's name, appeals to young teen girls. So
> : too does Alicia Silverstone. While she appeals to older males also,
these
> : are probably not the people who are counted on to buy tickets to her
films.
>
> People 25-35 aren't considered Gen X. This category is usually reserved
> for teenagers and early 20's. Generation X is basically any demographic
> that is controlled by phillip-morris and MTV ;)
You said teenagers and early 20s (into which you also inserted a grotesque
abuse of an apostrophe); our survey said "wrong".
If you're going to use the Generation X label, you should at least go and
look at the text that launched it into the public consciousness.
Generation X - Douglas Rushkoff. Again, using his definitions, Alicia
Silverstone is a Global Teen. Me? I'm a Generation X Microserf (but
only just). And I think Alicia Silverstone is shaping up to be a pretty
good movie star, even though she'll never be in the same class as Winona
Ryder. (After all, who ever heard of an Xer preferring a Global Teen to
another Xer?)
David
Daniel Fienberg
Alex Crouvier (troj...@geocities.com) wrote:
: All Gen X youngsters I know absolutely loath her, but she keeps getting
: paid to star in movies. Do the foreign audience actually got a soft spot
: for her lip contorting antic? Sad.
OK, first of all, Alicia Silverstone has no connection to Gen X.
Beyond the fact that Gen X is a silly term which means different things
to different people, it certainly does not include Ms. Silverstone or the
direction that her films have taken. The most standard demographic for
Gen X is people currently 25-35, the oldest children of the oldest
Baby-Boomers. Alicia Silverstone is younger than this, as is her target
audience. Therefore, your statement that the "Gen X youngers" you know
don't like her, either misuses the phrase or fails to appreciate who she
is appealing to. The fact is that Alicia sells copies of magazines like
Seventeen which, contrary to it's name, appeals to young teen girls. So
too does Alicia Silverstone. While she appeals to older males also, these
are probably not the people who are counted on to buy tickets to her films.
: In fact, I have not seen any really graceful actress in the league
: of...say even the vacuous Grace Kelly, so don't even expect any future
: Lauren Bacall, Ava Gardner, Liz Taylor, or Barbara Stanwick. Today's
: female teenagers are a bunch of bland, graceless, talentless, spoiled
: brat who are victims of the Philip-Morris marketing campaign.
In general, perhaps, but it seems to me that questioning Claire
Danes's grace would get you a lot of arguements. And saying that, at her
best, Winona Ryder (who probably is Gen-X) is graceless is just plain
wrong. There are other actresses, Renee Zellweger, for example, who have
some of that "classic film star" appeal. You just need to look harder.
GCarras
I'm watching Alicia Silverstone in CLUELESS,her best.
webm...@film.tierranet.com
blake wrote:
>
> C...@babylon.montreal.qc.ca (CAR) wrote:
>
> >maybe you don't.....but i do!
>
> >she's my favourite actress, and she's mighty good looking!
>
> >GO SEE EXCESS BAGGAGE!!!!!!
>
> Alicia silverstone's best work, "Various Aerosmith Videos", is behind
> her.
Which were only good because we only had to watch her for thee minutes.
David Roy
David Roy <Davi...@Computerchannel.com> a écrit dans l'article
<01bcb7ce$1e1e9d00$684c...@ecarre.vtcom.fr>...
If you're going to use the Generation X label, you should at least go and
> look at the text that launched it into the public consciousness.
> Generation X - Douglas Rushkoff. Again, using his definitions, Alicia
--------------------------
Obviously wrong. Substitute Douglas Coupland for Douglas Rushkoff and
you have what I meant to say. Just thought I'd get it in before anyone
jumps up and down on me the way I would.
David
GCarras
>Subject: Re: Alicia Silverstone - I just don't get it . . .
>From: d...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Daniel Fienberg)
>Date: 2 Sep 1997 05:09:03 GMT
>Message-id: <5ug71f$8t2$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>
>
>David Liu (cth...@deltanet.com) wrote:
>
>: People 25-35 aren't considered Gen X. This category is usually reserved
>: for teenagers and early 20's. Generation X is basically any demographic
>: that is controlled by phillip-morris and MTV ;)
>
> That's the abolute opposite of the truth (the first part, that
>is. The last is true). The term came from Douglas Copeland's book of the
>same name where he discussed his age group. And age much older than the
>people currently in their teens. According to sociological data, as I
>said earlier, the people who truly have the right to be called Gen X are
>a much older group than the high school and junior high students who the
>media mislabels as Gen X.
The term was created in 1987.(?).Im rewaction againt the THIRTYSOMETHINGtv
age group conecept. Anybody born..werll,l let's just say too young to
have enlisted or gone to high school before the mid 1970s might qualify.(36..)
Generary x-yo or y are used for younger people.
Matt Beckwith
I thought the Generation-X label applied more to a type of person than
an age group. I mean, obviously it applies to an age group, but it
says something about the person's personality, doesn't it?
Is a Generation-X-er the same as a Slacker?
I used to know a lot of people in their early twenties (who are now in
their late twenties) who dressed like Andre Agassi and were good
people, but not idealistic in the least. Are these the
Generation-X-ers?
There's a somewhat younger crowd of spoiled brats who tend to shave
odd areas of their heads, wear rings in their noses, and have tattoos.
Are these the Slackers?
Daniel Fienberg
Matt Beckwith (beck...@pop.southeast.net) wrote:
: I thought the Generation-X label applied more to a type of person than
: an age group. I mean, obviously it applies to an age group, but it
: says something about the person's personality, doesn't it?
: Is a Generation-X-er the same as a Slacker?
I love to make this boring, but here it goes -- Sociologically
speaking, Gen X is the overall group of people. The dominant
characteristic, therefore is age, which I defined much earlier in this
thread. As for Slacker, there certainly are Slackers within Gen X, but it
is more of a subgroup defined by personality. So your friends in their
late 20s now are Gen X regardless of their attitudes, much like someone
born in 148 will always be a Baby Boomer.
Gary George
The only problem with that is that the term baby boomer came about
simply in reference to the increase in birth rate over a period of time
whereas Generation X was coined in reference to people who lack any
sense of direction and purpose. To quote the inside jacket of the book,
"..they have nowhere to direct their anger, no one to assuage their
fears, and no culture to replace their anomie." Additionally, Douglas
Coupland has said that he used the term after reading an essay referring
to an "X generation" - people who basically tried to perpetuate their
college years without ever setting any career goals. The term has come
to be used for an age group, but even then it is not strictly defined.
Personally, the idea of any age group sharing certain defining
characteristics in terms of personality and values seems ludicrous, and
I wish the term would be replaced as quickly as possible.
L. Shelton Bumgarner
>I thought the Generation-X label applied more to a type of person than
>an age group. I mean, obviously it applies to an age group, but it
>says something about the person's personality, doesn't it?
>
>Is a Generation-X-er the same as a Slacker?
I don't think so. I think of myself more of a slacker than a member of
Gen-X. Maybe that's due to the usual condition of my apartment, more
than anything else.
lee
don't hate me because x-post.
--
L. Shelton Bumgarner -- Keeper of the Great Renaming FAQ
[Please remove "REMOVETHIS" from my email to respond to my posts]
Nattering Nabob of Negativism * http://www.nottowayez.net/~leebum
L. Shelton Bumgarner
On 2 Sep 1997 18:25:43 GMT, "David Roy"
<Davi...@Computerchannel.com> wrote:
>
> If you're going to use the Generation X label, you should at least go and
>look at the text that launched it into the public consciousness.
>Generation X - Douglas Rushkoff. Again, using his definitions, Alicia
>Silverstone is a Global Teen.
Uh, ok. I'm sure she thinks about that all the time.
lee
L. Shelton Bumgarner
On 2 Sep 1997 05:09:03 GMT, d...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Daniel Fienberg)
wrote:
>David Liu (cth...@deltanet.com) wrote:
>
>: People 25-35 aren't considered Gen X. This category is usually reserved
>: for teenagers and early 20's. Generation X is basically any demographic
>: that is controlled by phillip-morris and MTV ;)
>
> That's the abolute opposite of the truth (the first part, that
>is. The last is true). The term came from Douglas Copeland's book of the
>same name where he discussed his age group. And age much older than the
>people currently in their teens. According to sociological data, as I
>said earlier, the people who truly have the right to be called Gen X are
>a much older group than the high school and junior high students who the
>media mislabels as Gen X.
> -Daniel
Kids in high school today are really "Baby Echo" children -- the
children of the Baby Boom.
L. Shelton Bumgarner
On 2 Sep 1997 02:49:59 GMT, d...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Daniel Fienberg)
wrote:
>Alex Crouvier (troj...@geocities.com) wrote:
>
>: All Gen X youngsters I know absolutely loath her, but she keeps getting
>: paid to star in movies. Do the foreign audience actually got a soft spot
>: for her lip contorting antic? Sad.
>
> OK, first of all, Alicia Silverstone has no connection to Gen X.
>Beyond the fact that Gen X is a silly term which means different things
>to different people, it certainly does not include Ms. Silverstone or the
>direction that her films have taken. The most standard demographic for
>Gen X is people currently 25-35, the oldest children of the oldest
>Baby-Boomers.
Hmm, that would make me a early Baby Echo, not a member of
Generation-X.
hmmm.I need a new newsgroup, then.
L. Shelton Bumgarner
On 2 Sep 1997 18:27:39 GMT, "David Roy"
<Davi...@Computerchannel.com> wrote:
>
>
>David Roy <Davi...@Computerchannel.com> a écrit dans l'article
><01bcb7ce$1e1e9d00$684c...@ecarre.vtcom.fr>...
>
>
> If you're going to use the Generation X label, you should at least go and
>> look at the text that launched it into the public consciousness.
>> Generation X - Douglas Rushkoff. Again, using his definitions, Alicia
> --------------------------
>
> Obviously wrong. Substitute Douglas Coupland for Douglas Rushkoff
yeah. Rushkoff is where *I* should be in the media-industral complex,
damn it!
lee
8-)
L. Shelton Bumgarner
On 2 Sep 1997 04:02:48 GMT, David Liu <cth...@deltanet.com> wrote:
>Daniel Fienberg <d...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu> wrote:
>: Alex Crouvier (troj...@geocities.com) wrote:
>
>: : All Gen X youngsters I know absolutely loath her, but she keeps getting
>: : paid to star in movies. Do the foreign audience actually got a soft spot
>: : for her lip contorting antic? Sad.
>
>: OK, first of all, Alicia Silverstone has no connection to Gen X.
>: Beyond the fact that Gen X is a silly term which means different things
>: to different people, it certainly does not include Ms. Silverstone or the
>: direction that her films have taken. The most standard demographic for
>: Gen X is people currently 25-35, the oldest children of the oldest
>: Baby-Boomers. Alicia Silverstone is younger than this, as is her target
>: audience. Therefore, your statement that the "Gen X youngers" you know
>: don't like her, either misuses the phrase or fails to appreciate who she
>: is appealing to. The fact is that Alicia sells copies of magazines like
>: Seventeen which, contrary to it's name, appeals to young teen girls. So
>: too does Alicia Silverstone. While she appeals to older males also, these
>: are probably not the people who are counted on to buy tickets to her films.
>
> People 25-35 aren't considered Gen X. This category is usually reserved
> for teenagers and early 20's. Generation X is basically any demographic
> that is controlled by phillip-morris and MTV ;)
Agreed. I really HATE those fux "cool" tv ads that are supposed to
make me run out and buy the latest wiget.
the fact that I usually go out and buy the latest widget should be
ignored.
lee
Michael Lau
L. Shelton wrote:
> >David Liu (cth...@deltanet.com) wrote:
> >
> >: People 25-35 aren't considered Gen X. This category is usually reserved
> >: for teenagers and early 20's. Generation X is basically any demographic
> >: that is controlled by phillip-morris and MTV ;)
>
> Kids in high school today are really "Baby Echo" children -- the
> children of the Baby Boom.
Actually, they're referred to as "Generation Y". Whatever the hell _that_ means.
And Gen Xer's are the older children of Baby Boomers.
Christopher Dye
Michael Lau (musi...@dti.netCOM) wrote:
: L. Shelton wrote:
: > >David Liu (cth...@deltanet.com) wrote:
: > >
: > >: People 25-35 aren't considered Gen X. This category is usually reserved
: > >: for teenagers and early 20's. Generation X is basically any demographic
: > >: that is controlled by phillip-morris and MTV ;)
I would like to see where you got that fact. Don't quote the nightly
news because they couldn't find their collective asses with roadmaps
and flashlights.
FWIW, do you honestly think that Generation X is going to be the same
age group forever? That you'll one day be Generation X, then BANG,
birthday, OOPS, I'M A BABY BOOMER NOW!
Accepted dates for Generation X are usually listed as 1961 - 1981,
though YMMV. FWIW, though, if you used those figures, you'd
probably currently come up with ages: 36-16 or so. Of course,
since that's an arbitrary figure, much like any other demographic,
if you feel like you're Generation X, GO FOR IT!
: > Kids in high school today are really "Baby Echo" children -- the
: > children of the Baby Boom.
I haven't heard of that one. I'd be interested in finding out more.
: Actually, they're referred to as "Generation Y". Whatever the hell _that_ means.
I've heard "Generation Y," but I've heard "Millenials" used far more
often.
: And Gen Xer's are the older children of Baby Boomers.
Yup.
Seeya!
Chris
--
Christopher B. Dye "They took POWER after a fair & DEMOCRATIC
cb...@blarg.net election -- It was a landslide!! ZOMBIES:
www.pixi.com/~cbdye seven million, six hundred and forty-two,
KC7ZAM [ENTP] BELGIUM: Zero!" --Zippya (970827)
TarlaStar
lee...@REMOVETHIS.nottowayez.net (L. Shelton Bumgarner) wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Sep 1997 12:31:36 GMT, beck...@pop.southeast.net (Matt
>Beckwith) wrote:
>>I thought the Generation-X label applied more to a type of person than
>>an age group. I mean, obviously it applies to an age group, but it
>>says something about the person's personality, doesn't it?
Not according to my understanding of the word. It is simply a
generational marker. Does "Baby Boomer" imply something about an
individual's personality?
>>Is a Generation-X-er the same as a Slacker?
No, and a Slacker is not the same as a SubGenius either.
Tarla
*** Reverend Mutha Tarla Star***
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the
beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire
shaking, the shaking becomes a warning, it is by caffeine
alone I set my mind in motion.--HToMC
//www.ionet.net/~bmyers/homepage.html
Home Skully
On 10 Sep 1997, Christopher Dye wrote:
> Michael Lau (musi...@dti.netCOM) wrote:
> : L. Shelton wrote:
>
> : > >David Liu (cth...@deltanet.com) wrote:
> : > >
> : > >: People 25-35 aren't considered Gen X. This category is usually reserved
> : > >: for teenagers and early 20's. Generation X is basically any demographic
> : > >: that is controlled by phillip-morris and MTV ;)
>
> I would like to see where you got that fact. Don't quote the nightly
> news because they couldn't find their collective asses with roadmaps
> and flashlights.
>
> FWIW, do you honestly think that Generation X is going to be the same
> age group forever? That you'll one day be Generation X, then BANG,
> birthday, OOPS, I'M A BABY BOOMER NOW!
>
> Accepted dates for Generation X are usually listed as 1961 - 1981,
> though YMMV. FWIW, though, if you used those figures, you'd
> probably currently come up with ages: 36-16 or so. Of course,
> since that's an arbitrary figure, much like any other demographic,
> if you feel like you're Generation X, GO FOR IT!
>
Well in my criminology class we were given that people between the ages of
19-34 are Generation X. And under 18 are the Millinials (i hadn't heard
this term before)
Gerald Olchowy
In article <musicman-090...@206.252.157.10>, musi...@dti.netCOM (Michael Lau) writes:
|>
|> And Gen Xer's are the older children of Baby Boomers.
Or the younger brothers and sisters of Boomers.
The prototypical Genernation X-er is in their early thirties now
plus/minus five years.
--
Gerald
Gerald Olchowy
In article <5v62l1$iqr$1...@animal.blarg.net>, cb...@animal.blarg.net (Christopher Dye) writes:
|>
|> Accepted dates for Generation X are usually listed as 1961 - 1981,
|> though YMMV. FWIW, though, if you used those figures, you'd
|> probably currently come up with ages: 36-16 or so. Of course,
|> since that's an arbitrary figure, much like any other demographic,
|> if you feel like you're Generation X, GO FOR IT!
|>
The people Coupland was primarily talking about though were people
born in the sixties...
...for example, if you think Kurt Cobain is a more important musical
artist than Paul Westerberg or perhaps more appropriately Ian Curtis,
you are too young to be an X'ers.
--
Gerald
Gerald Olchowy
In article <Pine.SOL.3.95q.97091...@sun01wor.wam.umd.edu>, Home Skully <sk...@wam.umd.edu> writes:
|>
|> Well in my criminology class we were given that people between the ages of
|> 19-34 are Generation X. And under 18 are the Millinials (i hadn't heard
|> this term before)
|>
Douglas Coupland is now in his early thirties (I think 34)...he was
writing about people in his generation...not people who are in college today.
--
Gerald
Jennifer Basil
Gerald Olchowy (golc...@nortel.ca) wrote:
: In article <Pine.SOL.3.95q.97091...@sun01wor.wam.umd.edu>, Home Skully <sk...@wam.umd.edu> writes:
: |>
: |> Well in my criminology class we were given that people between the ages of
: |> 19-34 are Generation X. And under 18 are the Millinials (i hadn't heard
: |> this term before)
: |>
Hey, what are we doing in your criminology class?!
EGAD!
: Douglas Coupland is now in his early thirties (I think 34)...he was
Yep.
Read the FAQ!
Jenny
marco anglesio
Gerald Olchowy (golc...@nortel.ca) wrote:
:
Perhaps you don't like punk and do like grunge? It's not unheard of.
Regarding Ian Curtis, I was reading about him earlier today; I'm not sure
if he was as big a musical influence as he is a cult figure (no doubt
popularized by the success of his Joy Division bandmates Bernard Sumner
and Peter Hook's band, New Order). But YMMV; I don't think any less of Joy
Division because of it, I just think that perhaps they weren't around long
enough to really influence the post-punk movement.
m.
---
marco anglesio angl...@democracy.queensu.ca democracy.queensu.ca/~anglesio
I've seen more culture in a cup of pasteurized yoghurt.
Christopher Dye
Jennifer Basil (ba...@bu.edu) wrote:
: Hey, what are we doing in your criminology class?!
: EGAD!
The events you are about to witness actually happened. Names have
been changed to protect the innocent...
Scott Martin
generally,
X'ers are people born in mid sixties to late seventies.
Scott Martin
If I'm 19 now===what would I be considered??
steven r kleinedler
In article <34182A...@thezone.net>,
The average age of a soldier in V-V-V-V-V-iet Nam.
--
---------------------------------------------
My generation isn't meaningless. It has a FAQ.
Steve Kleinedler
Jennifer Basil
Scott Martin (scott....@thezone.net) wrote:
: generally,
: X'ers are people born in mid sixties to late seventies.
Unless they are born in the early 60s. Or feel like they belong.
Yers,
Jenny
Stephen Perelgut
Jennifer Basil wrote:
: Yers,
: Jenny
Actually, Scott isn't up on the latest social theory. Apparently Strauss
and Howe have reworked their numbers. Generation X is 1955-1975. They
haven't decided on the name for the 1975-1995 group yet, although the
sentimental favourite from this past week is Generation Diana. Among
other things, this group wouldn't include anyone older than 6 at the
time of Diana's marriage to Charles and would exclude those who were
infants at the time of her death (and hence unlikely to have been
affected).
So, the latest theories set GenXer ages at 21-42yo at the moment.
Stephen, being helpful as usual
Gareth Wilson
Stephen Perelgut wrote:
>
> Jennifer Basil wrote:
> : Scott Martin (scott....@thezone.net) wrote:
> : : generally,
>
> : : X'ers are people born in mid sixties to late seventies.
>
> : Unless they are born in the early 60s. Or feel like they belong.
>
> : Yers,
>
> : Jenny
>
> Actually, Scott isn't up on the latest social theory. Apparently Strauss
> and Howe have reworked their numbers. Generation X is 1955-1975.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gareth Wilson
Christchurch
New Zealand
remove "xxx" from address to reply
Commercial e-mail will be deleted unread
"Medical personnel pick their noses
three times an hour, on average"
-Nurse, "ER"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gareth Wilson
Gerald Olchowy wrote:
>
> In article <5v62l1$iqr$1...@animal.blarg.net>, cb...@animal.blarg.net (Christopher Dye) writes:
> |>
> |> Accepted dates for Generation X are usually listed as 1961 - 1981,
> |> though YMMV. FWIW, though, if you used those figures, you'd
> |> probably currently come up with ages: 36-16 or so.
Laurisa O'Dear
In article <3418DE...@student.cantxxxerbury.ac.nz> Gareth Wilson <gr...@student.cantxxxerbury.ac.nz> writes:
>From: Gareth Wilson <gr...@student.cantxxxerbury.ac.nz>
>Subject: Re: Alicia Silverstone - I just don't get it . . .
>Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 19:15:41 +1300
>Stephen Perelgut wrote:
>>
>> Jennifer Basil wrote:
>> : Scott Martin (scott....@thezone.net) wrote:
>> : : generally,
>>
>> : : X'ers are people born in mid sixties to late seventies.
>>
>> : Unless they are born in the early 60s. Or feel like they belong.
>>
>> : Yers,
>>
>> : Jenny
>>
>> Actually, Scott isn't up on the latest social theory. Apparently Strauss
>> and Howe have reworked their numbers. Generation X is 1955-1975.
>Damn, I missed it by 9 months!
>--
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Gareth Wilson
>Christchurch
>New Zealand
>remove "xxx" from address to reply
>Commercial e-mail will be deleted unread
> "Medical personnel pick their noses
> three times an hour, on average"
> -Nurse, "ER"
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have been considered a "baby boomer" all my life, since the baby boomer
years have always been described as 1946-1964. Generation X comes after that
(I'm not sure where Gen X stops, however). I think it's funny that somebody
is trying to push back Gen X to 1955, of all things! Generation X as a term
has only been in use for a few years, and most of us baby boomers were at
least 30 when the term came into existence!
Laurisa O'Dear
lod...@uiuc.edu
Kenneth Crudup
>>>Accepted dates for Generation X are usually listed as 1961 - 1981,
>>>though YMMV. FWIW, though, if you used those figures, you'd
>>>probably currently come up with ages: 36-16 or so.
In article <3418DD...@student.cantxxxerbury.ac.nz>,
gr...@student.cantxxxerbury.ac.nz says:
>So that makes Princess Diana a Gen-Xer? Interesting...
Well, considering she's daisy food right now, shouldn't that make her an
"X-Gen"er, or alternately, an "X-Xer"?
-Kenny
--
Kenneth R. Crudup, Unix & OS/2 Software Consultant, Scott County Consulting
ke...@panix.com CI$: 75032,3044 +1 617 524 5929/4949 Home/Office
16 Plainfield St, Boston, MA 02130-3633 +1 617 983 9410 Fax
"... the Internet deserves the highest protection from governmental intrusion."
Jeff J. Wilson
In article <5v9q7c$3h92$1...@tornews.torolab.ibm.com>,
pere...@cranium.torolab.ibm.com says...
>
>
>Jennifer Basil wrote:
>: Scott Martin (scott....@thezone.net) wrote:
>: : generally,
>
>: : X'ers are people born in mid sixties to late seventies.
>
>: Unless they are born in the early 60s. Or feel like they belong.
>
>: Yers,
>
>: Jenny
>
>Actually, Scott isn't up on the latest social theory. Apparently Strauss
>and Howe have reworked their numbers. Generation X is 1955-1975. They
>haven't decided on the name for the 1975-1995 group yet, although the
>sentimental favourite from this past week is Generation Diana. Among
>other things, this group wouldn't include anyone older than 6 at the
>time of Diana's marriage to Charles and would exclude those who were
>infants at the time of her death (and hence unlikely to have been
>affected).
>
>So, the latest theories set GenXer ages at 21-42yo at the moment.
>
>Stephen, being helpful as usual
I'm probably responding to a troll, but I can't let this disinformation pass.
I've been actively monitoring the www.fourthturning.com website and there is
not a hint that the authors are modifying their dates. Their birth years for
the 13th generation is still '61 to '81.
L. Shelton Bumgarner
On 12 Sep 1997 20:16:31 GMT, jeff....@unisys.com (Jeff J. Wilson)
wrote:
>In article <5v9q7c$3h92$1...@tornews.torolab.ibm.com>,
>pere...@cranium.torolab.ibm.com says...
>>
>
>I'm probably responding to a troll, but I can't let this disinformation pass.
> I've been actively monitoring the www.fourthturning.com website and there is
>not a hint that the authors are modifying their dates. Their birth years for
>the 13th generation is still '61 to '81.
What is this, sociology through numerology? I'm suspious of any theory
that sounds like it was found in the back of "Cosmo."
lee
note followups
--
L. Shelton Bumgarner -- Keeper of the Great Renaming FAQ
[Please remove "REMOVETHIS" from my email to respond to my posts]
Nattering Nabob of Negativism * http://www.nottowayez.net/~leebum
news:alt.society.generation-x.ls-bumgarner
L. Shelton Bumgarner
On 11 Sep 1997 22:09:48 GMT, pere...@cranium.torolab.ibm.com (Stephen
Perelgut) wrote:
>
>Actually, Scott isn't up on the latest social theory. Apparently Strauss
>and Howe have reworked their numbers. Generation X is 1955-1975. They
>haven't decided on the name for the 1975-1995 group yet, although the
>sentimental favourite from this past week is Generation Diana. Among
>other things, this group wouldn't include anyone older than 6 at the
>time of Diana's marriage to Charles and would exclude those who were
>infants at the time of her death (and hence unlikely to have been
>affected).
>
>So, the latest theories set GenXer ages at 21-42yo at the moment.
This is just crazy. When I think of the definition of "generation"
that really counts, it doesn't go by pure "20 years of people" but
rather what people consider mutual cultural touchstones. Thus, maybe
the Diana Generation might be a better term than "GenX."
lee
Watch out...the Baby Echo people are growing up...and they want YOUR
JOB!
L. Shelton Bumgarner
>Gerald Olchowy wrote:
>>
>> In article <5v62l1$iqr$1...@animal.blarg.net>, cb...@animal.blarg.net (Christopher Dye) writes:
>> |>
>> |> Accepted dates for Generation X are usually listed as 1961 - 1981,
>> |> though YMMV. FWIW, though, if you used those figures, you'd
>> |> probably currently come up with ages: 36-16 or so.
>So that makes Princess Diana a Gen-Xer? Interesting...
As I've said elsewhere, this is unlikely. She's way too old. I would
say anyone age 30 or above simply can't be a GenXer. (Oh, how I detest
that word! But it's kinda like "cyberspace" or putting a "the" infront
of "Internet," after enough people around you do it you can't help but
feel comfortable with it as well.
Put another way, I would suggest having a terms indifing 20-cyles,
then have several others that sub-devide those years by shared
cultural touchstones. ie
36-16 "The Birth Dearth"
-36-29 "Gen-X"
-29-24 "MTV/Challenger" (or the Kibo generation -- a.r.k only)
-23-16 "What's a recession? (so far)"
lee
never fear, followups are outta all the groups but a.s.g-x
L. Shelton Bumgarner
On 10 Sep 1997 19:56:02 GMT, golc...@nortel.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
wrote:
>
>In article <Pine.SOL.3.95q.97091...@sun01wor.wam.umd.edu>, Home Skully <sk...@wam.umd.edu> writes:
>|>
>|> Well in my criminology class we were given that people between the ages of
>|> 19-34 are Generation X. And under 18 are the Millinials (i hadn't heard
>|> this term before)
>|>
>
>Douglas Coupland is now in his early thirties (I think 34)...he was
>writing about people in his generation...not people who are in college today.
One of several things that sucks about the whole GenX hypemobile is
that I am just barely in it. The cut-off date often is refered to as
'72. So I'm too old to be a Birth Echoer but too young to be GenX.
lee
but not too active to be a slacker
Matt Beckwith
lod...@uiuc.edu (Laurisa O'Dear) wrote:
>I have been considered a "baby boomer" all my life, since the baby boomer
>years have always been described as 1946-1964. Generation X comes after that
>(I'm not sure where Gen X stops, however). I think it's funny that somebody
>is trying to push back Gen X to 1955, of all things! Generation X as a term
>has only been in use for a few years, and most of us baby boomers were at
>least 30 when the term came into existence!
Ah, now this sounds better. I was getting disturbed at the idea that
someone just two years younger than I might be considered a generation
X-er. (I'm 44.) Let's see now: people born in 1965 are 32 this
year.
By the way, I kind of thought those folks were "the me generation".
GCarras
I'm watching her in CLUELESS.
Die,SPAMMERS .
cen0...@centuryinter.net
beck...@pop.southeast.net (Matt Beckwith) wrote:
Generation X is between 20 and 30 at any given moment. The minute
they leave those boundaries, they aren't X anymore.
Mike Rice
cen0...@centuryinter.net
Face up to it, she's a fat pig who does not even look
like the star of Clueless. She'll be gone in a year if
she doesn't get the flesh off that face.
Mike Rice
Alex Crouvier <troj...@geocities.com> wrote:
>CAR wrote:
>>
>> maybe you don't.....but i do!
>>
>> she's my favourite actress, and she's mighty good looking!
>>
>> GO SEE EXCESS BAGGAGE!!!!!!
>All Gen X youngsters I know absolutely loath her, but she keeps getting
>paid to star in movies. Do the foreign audience actually got a soft spot
>for her lip contorting antic? Sad.
>In fact, I have not seen any really graceful actress in the league
>of...say even the vacuous Grace Kelly, so don't even expect any future
>Lauren Bacall, Ava Gardner, Liz Taylor, or Barbara Stanwick. Today's
>female teenagers are a bunch of bland, graceless, talentless, spoiled
>brat who are victims of the Philip-Morris marketing campaign.
Dave Mooney
Wendi Dunlap-Simpson <litlnemo@*deletethistoreply*slumberland.com> wrote:
> cen0...@centuryinter.net wrote:
>> Generation X is between 20 and 30 at any given moment. The minute
>> they leave those boundaries, they aren't X anymore.
Yep. Time for you to trade in all those Posies tapes of yours and
replace them with Woodstock retrospectives.
> I don't think so! You don't grow out of your generation.
Do too! How do you think the Boomers became so pervasive? They
assimilated the generations around them! In another 20 years Kate and
Laura Ashley Olson will be Boomers.
dave
--
Dave Mooney | pez @ vex.net | "I'm interested in packing materials"
Stephen Perelgut
Dave Mooney wrote:
: Wendi Dunlap-Simpson <litlnemo@*deletethistoreply*slumberland.com> wrote:
: > cen0...@centuryinter.net wrote:
: >> Generation X is between 20 and 30 at any given moment. The minute
: >> they leave those boundaries, they aren't X anymore.
: > Really? You mean I'm a BABY BOOMER now?
: Yep. Time for you to trade in all those Posies tapes of yours and
: replace them with Woodstock retrospectives.
Just wait, soon you'll be 40 and you're going to be a Silent. So get
it all out of your system now!
: > I don't think so! You don't grow out of your generation.
: Do too! How do you think the Boomers became so pervasive? They
: assimilated the generations around them! In another 20 years Kate and
: Laura Ashley Olson will be Boomers.
Nope, they're already Boomers. They suffer from Rodney Allen Ripey Disease.
Stephen
Preferred Customer
alicia has been through a lot and darn you for bashing her.she is awesome.
and you are supposed to look at people for who they are, and not for what
they look like.i think she is as cute as a button.
cen0...@centuryinter.net wrote in article
<341e1...@news7.centuryinter.net>...
Gary George
Self-contradictory statement alert!! "Don't judge her for her looks.
She's cute."
Joseph Dunphy
: In article <341e1...@news7.centuryinter.net>, cen0...@centuryinter.net wrote:
:
: > Generation X is between 20 and 30 at any given moment. The minute
: > they leave those boundaries, they aren't X anymore.
Bzzzzzzzt ! Wrong, but thank you for playing our game. We have some
lovely parting gifts in the back.....
By definition, generation X consists of those who were "twenty
something" (a term that was used to cover those 18 - 30) at the time
when the phrase was coined, back in the late 1980s. 1989 was 8 years
ago, so if you were 18 - 30 then, you're 26 - 38, now. Well,
actually, you have to broaden the bounds by a year, to take into
account the people who turned 18 between September and December of
1989, but close enough. This is the Time Magazine definition.
The only alternative definition that I've seen around, in common
use, by anyone other than netsurfers and the overly argumentative,
is that generation X consists of those born in the 1960s and 1970s,
which seems a little more sensible, 12 years being kind of short,
for a generation, in most places. (If you've had Anthropology 100,
you've heard of an exception, but still....). This would place the
ages of those in generation X at 17 - 37, at present. Those born in
the 1980s and 1990s being termed "millenials". This category usually
gets subdivided, into those born in the each decade, to reflect the
observation, that the average 37 year old, doesn't spend a lot of
time hanging around with high school seniors.
As the person who I am immediately following (not to be confused
with the person that I'm responding to) said, quite reasonably, one
doesn't grow out of one's generation. The floating definition that
the person that I am responding to (not the one that I am following
up to), is just plain silly. There already is a term for what you're
describing, friend. Try "people in their twenties" or
"twentysomethings" (as the term is used today). More to the point,
your definition is NOT the one that was given to the term, when it
was in the process of being coined, and gaining acceptance.
It is a tribute, to net silliness, though. "Duh, when dey invented
da term, eight years ago, dey said it wuz if you wuz in your
twenties, and I'm I'm in my early twenties now, so I must be a
gen-Xer today !" It's like the joke, about the kid who, was asked
how much older his brother was, than himself. He reasoned, that
since his brother was two years older than he was, two years ago,
and that he, the younger, was now two years older, they must be the
same age, right now.
Someone is really just not getting it.
Daniel Hugh Nexon
On 24 Sep 1997, Joseph Dunphy wrote:
> : In article <341e1...@news7.centuryinter.net>, cen0...@centuryinter.net wrote:
> :
> : > Generation X is between 20 and 30 at any given moment. The minute
> : > they leave those boundaries, they aren't X anymore.
>
>
> Bzzzzzzzt ! Wrong, but thank you for playing our game. We have some
> lovely parting gifts in the back.....
The standard 'correct' definition is close to the one which follows, but,
having worked in public opinion research (pre-marketing marketing) I can
vouch that, in the industry, the term has come to mean anyone *roughly*
20-30 and, the moment you leave that demographic, you aren't.
This is one of those ships passing in the night things.
"[A]narchists... swallow without protest all the severe standards which
scientists and logicians impose upon research ... what are thought to be
the laws of scientific method by a particular writer... are even
integrated into anarchism itself." P. Feyerabend | www.columbia.edu/~dhn2
Preferred Customer
Alicia is a wonderful person and an awesome actress!!! you need to start
seeing that. hollywood is not all about looks and popularity it is about
talent.darn you for bashing one of the best actresses of today. you should
be ashamed of your self. start looking at people on the inside, because
that is what counts.get a life!
cen0...@centuryinter.net wrote in article
<341e1...@news7.centuryinter.net>...
>
>
>
>
Frank Black
>Alicia is a wonderful person and an awesome actress!!! you need to start
>seeing that. hollywood is not all about looks and popularity it is about
>talent.darn you for bashing one of the best actresses of today. you should
>be ashamed of your self. start looking at people on the inside, because
>that is what counts.get a life!
If Alicia is an "awesome actress", we are in for some lean years
waiting for a real actress. You need to get out to see more flicks
and see what an "awesome actress" really is.
She is "awesomely lacking" in actress ability.
You need to get a life, very quickly. Adios amigo...