• 1 year 6 months ago
    • Posts: 13
    stake n sheak wrote:
    That's the kind of "question" one asks when they are trying to make somebody out to be stupid. It's a natural tactic for somebody to try when they are upset, but it usually doesn't work very well. On top of which, "So in other words" and "Gotcha" are clear indicators that the question mark is sarcastic.

    Well, I already know that you don't understand nuance. So I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you expect other people don't, either.


    Another personal attack based on a misguided assumption. "Gotcha" is because anyone with a knowledge of history would know that 2007 and 2009 have two different presidents. One had Angry Birds, the other did not.
    Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No
      • 1 year 6 months ago
      • Posts: 1785
      So in other words, I'm misguided because of something you pretended I said. Gotcha.
      tangspot2 wrote:
      Mrs. stake you say some nasty on my threads. Dirty bitch
      Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No
        • 1 year 6 months ago
        • Posts: 13
        stake n sheak wrote:
        So in other words, I'm misguided because of something you pretended I said. Gotcha.


        You may not have said that in EXACT SPECIFIC WORDING, but you basically expressed that you weren't convinced that 2007 and 2009 were in different ballparks. I don't have to pretend anything. You do it yourself by claiming that the different presidents isn't a substantial change, when it is.
        Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No
          • 1 year 6 months ago
          • Posts: 1785
          Witch of West East wrote:
          2007 and 2009 were in different ballparks. ... different presidents is a substantial change


          tangspot2 wrote:
          Mrs. stake you say some nasty on my threads. Dirty bitch
          Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No
            • 1 year 6 months ago
            • Posts: 13
            stake n sheak wrote:
            Witch of West East wrote:
            2007 and 2009 were in different ballparks. different presidents is a substantial change




            One was a democrat, one was a republican. One was related for a former president, the other was recognized as the first black president.

            If I said 3 + 3 = 6, would that just be an opinion too? If I said France is a country, is that just an opinion too?
            Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No
              • 1 year 6 months ago
              • Posts: 1785
              Pong and Pacman generated nationwide crazes for years and changed socializing and hobbies for significant portion of the population. Angry Birds did not do that. It was a craze for a month or two, prior to which smart phones were already hugely popular. Angry Birds did not sell hardware to more than a handful of people. It is not historically significant. People STILL care about Pacman today. No one will care about Angry Birds in 2038.

              As to your thing about presidents, that fact alone also is not transformative. I don't think there was all that much difference between 87 and 89 (Reagan and Bush), or 76 and 78 (Ford and Carter).

              Witch of West East wrote:
              One was a democrat, one was a republican. One was related for a former president, the other was recognized as the first black president.

              If I said 3 + 3 = 6, would that just be an opinion too? If I said France is a country, is that just an opinion too?

              Nooo...it's an opinion that party and family and race of presidents bear as much importance as you are ascribing.

              It's pretty rare for any one year to be so drastically different in an overarching scale than two years before or after that they should be termed different periods. Such rare examples would be: [before and after the Great Depression started] [before and after WWII ended] [before and after MTV started broadcasting]. Do you think that the first inauguration of Barack Obama is as important as those things? At the time, I thought that it could possibly become so. But now, I don't think it is. The NSA surveillance business in the news over the past few days is something that started in its current nature in 2006. US still has troops overseas, wages still in stagnation, racial strife and urban segregation still plague the nation, etc. I love to listen to Obama speak, but US is largely in the same place it was six years ago. So is most of the rest of the world. I wish that were untrue as much as anybody, but it's not. And most changes that have occurred (such as Greece financial crisis, microtransactions empowering poor people in Africa/crowdsourcing, Windows 8) were not centralized in 2008 or 09, and had little if anything to do with PotUS.

              Taking the short view: we've had the real estate collapse, but anybody who cares and couldn't see that coming in 2006 wasn't very observant. I think Wii was significant in 06, but that also fizzled after it was inundated with shovelware. Anyway, era delineation inherently requires the long view, and I am not convinced that a single video game and a new president mean the adjacent years are "different ballparks". You could be right, but your examples are poor. Even if they were better, they are not numerous or comprehensive enough to prove your assertions.

              Welcome, "new member". Thanks in advance for constructing your bold claims with intelligence and care.
              tangspot2 wrote:
              Mrs. stake you say some nasty on my threads. Dirty bitch
              Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No
                • 1 year 6 months ago
                • Posts: 2
                stake n sheak wrote:
                Pong and Pacman generated nationwide crazes for years and changed socializing and hobbies for significant portion of the population. Angry Birds did not do that. It was a craze for a month or two, prior to which smart phones were already hugely popular. Angry Birds did not sell hardware to more than a handful of people. It is not historically significant. People STILL care about Pacman today. No one will care about Angry Birds in 2038.

                As to your thing about presidents, that fact alone also is not transformative. I don't think there was all that much difference between 87 and 89 (Reagan and Bush), or 76 and 78 (Ford and Carter).

                Witch of West East wrote:
                One was a democrat, one was a republican. One was related for a former president, the other was recognized as the first black president.

                If I said 3 + 3 = 6, would that just be an opinion too? If I said France is a country, is that just an opinion too?

                Nooo...it's an opinion that party and family and race of presidents bear as much importance as you are ascribing.

                It's pretty rare for any one year to be so drastically different in an overarching scale than two years before or after that they should be termed different periods. Such rare examples would be: [before and after the Great Depression started] [before and after WWII ended] [before and after MTV started broadcasting]. Do you think that the first inauguration of Barack Obama is as important as those things? At the time, I thought that it could possibly become so. But now, I don't think it is. The NSA surveillance business in the news over the past few days is something that started in its current nature in 2006. US still has troops overseas, wages still in stagnation, racial strife and urban segregation still plague the nation, etc. I love to listen to Obama speak, but US is largely in the same place it was six years ago. So is most of the rest of the world. I wish that were untrue as much as anybody, but it's not. And most changes that have occurred (such as Greece financial crisis, microtransactions empowering poor people in Africa/crowdsourcing, Windows 8) were not centralized in 2008 or 09, and had little if anything to do with PotUS.

                Taking the short view: we've had the real estate collapse, but anybody who cares and couldn't see that coming in 2006 wasn't very observant. I think Wii was significant in 06, but that also fizzled after it was inundated with shovelware. Anyway, era delineation inherently requires the long view, and I am not convinced that a single video game and a new president mean the adjacent years are "different ballparks". You could be right, but your examples are poor. Even if they were better, they are not numerous or comprehensive enough to prove your assertions.

                Welcome, "new member". Thanks in advance for constructing your bold claims with intelligence and care.


                The examples may not have been the best but the idea is still there. Angry Birds may not have changed much but the late 00s wave of "music" did. I don't know if it's called autotune or dubstep or whatever, I honestly couldn't care but the point is, there was a wave of something in the music industry that started in 2008 and the music scene simply hasn't been even remotely the same since Lady Gaga appeared to the masses. It's almost like a literal wall that distances 2009 from the mid-00s. People may not think much of Obama being president now, but at the time it was considered a big deal to have a black president of the United States and the only reasonable explanation as to why people may think otherwise today is because people have become accustom to Obama being president. In 2038, it could very well be considered a milestone in American history to have elected its first black president.

                Another thing to consider is social media. Before 2008, it was around, but it was mainly the teenage/young adult crowd on Facebook or Twitter. Unlike today when everyone's grandma and local carpenter probably has one. So there really is more differences than you are willing to acknowledge in fact it seems as though you are trying to downplay the differences for reasons unknown.
                Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No
                  • 1 year 6 months ago
                  • Posts: 373
                  Stake, stop responding to the fool. He only keeps coming back because he has a sickness for needing to get the last word and make others agree with him. If you stop responding, he'll go away.
                  The class is Pain 101. Your instructor is Casey Jones.
                  Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No
                    • 1 year 6 months ago
                    • Posts: 4
                    Casey_Jones wrote:
                    Stake, stop responding to the fool. He only keeps coming back because he has a sickness for needing to get the last word and make others agree with him. If you stop responding, he'll go away.


                    Why are you calling someone a fool? Because you don't like what they have to say? If you don't agree with what they say why not prove that they're wrong instead of making an out-of-the-blue attack?

                    In particular, PROVE that Obama's presidency wasn't a big deal in 2008/09, PROVE that Twitter/Facebook was as dominant in 2007 as it is today.

                    That would be more useful to the discussion than throwing a tantrum over presented information.
                    Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No
                      • 1 year 6 months ago
                      • Posts: 1785
                      Beauty wrote:
                      for reasons unknown.
                      I thought I wrote quite a few words about my reasons, but if you don't want to read them, whatever.

                      Casey_Jones wrote:
                      Stake, stop responding to the fool...

                      OK, yeah
                      tangspot2 wrote:
                      Mrs. stake you say some nasty on my threads. Dirty bitch
                      Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No
                        • 1 year 6 months ago
                        • Posts: 364
                        Why has OJ90s/Laddersnake/Bishop of Dung/Witch Goon created TWO new accounts? Is it simply to agree with himself? That's just... well it's sad.

                        Ban 'em both.
                        The fun doesn't end here. www.retro-daze.com
                        Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No
                          • 1 year 6 months ago
                          • Posts: 9847
                          I have an ulcer and I named it Orangejuice90's.
                          thecrow174: Lover of martial arts cinema.
                          Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No
                            • 1 year 6 months ago
                            • Posts: 41
                            Windy The Big Fan wrote:
                            I think it's difficult to pinpoint the beginning and end of the cultural 90s.

                            For example, Home Alone and The Fresh Prince of Bel Air were definitley around by the beginning of 1991. Then again, Macgyver ran into 1992, and Cheers into 1993.

                            Grunge had died culturally by 1998 but the pre-9/11 era has a very different feel to say, 2005/06.


                            I don't consider Home Alone super 90s. And while Fresh Prince is quite 90s, the concept dates back to 1988 with Will Smith and Jazzy Jeff's "band" so I don't see its debut as a sign the 80s were over necessarily.
                            Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No
                              • 1 year 6 months ago
                              • Posts: 41
                              Shake N Steak I actually agree with you for once. I see little difference in the zeitgeist over the past 8 years or so. Just a continuation of the same things. I think you'd have to go back to 2004 to find trendlines measurably different from those of now. In 2004 the Internet was more basic and there weren't (m)any smartphones, and the pop culture was still largely following the same trends it was during the mid to late 90s.
                              Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No
                                • 1 year 6 months ago
                                • Posts: 20
                                donnie darko wrote:
                                Shake N Steak I actually agree with you for once. I see little difference in the zeitgeist over the past 8 years or so. Just a continuation of the same things. I think you'd have to go back to 2004 to find trendlines measurably different from those of now. In 2004 the Internet was more basic and there weren't (m)any smartphones, and the pop culture was still largely following the same trends it was during the mid to late 90s.


                                Fair point.
                                Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No
                                Search