• CareBearCheer
    • 11 months 4 days ago
    • Posts: 47
    • Globally Banned
    stake n sheak wrote:
    CareBearCheer wrote:

    According to Buzzfeed, some things have changed: http://www.buzzfeed.com/leonoraepstein/forgotten-early-2000s-trends .

    Half of that stuff I definitely remember being very popular in the 90s.


    If that is the case, and some of the 90s trends aren't seen today, how is 2000 fashion not at least a little retro? I also think that early 2000s fashion has a slightly more "dull and plain" look than 2013 fashion.
    Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No
    • stake n sheak
      • 11 months 4 days ago
      • Posts: 1772
      		 I'm saying, nobody cares about Westlife. Take a poll if you don't believe me.

      CareBearCheer wrote:
      Or to compare 2000 vs 2014, in one year he is alive and in the other he is dead.

      So alive Michael Jackson is retro and dead Michael Jackson is not? :lol:

      Anyway, it sounds like you've already decided the answer to your question so just go ahead and write an article about the things you found in your attic.
      tangspot2 wrote:
      Mrs. stake you say some nasty on my threads. Dirty bitch
      Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No
      • CareBearCheer
        • 11 months 4 days ago
        • Posts: 47
        • Globally Banned
        stake n sheak wrote:
        I'm saying, nobody cares about Westlife. Take a poll if you don't believe me.

        CareBearCheer wrote:
        Or to compare 2000 vs 2014, in one year he is alive and in the other he is dead.

        So alive Michael Jackson is retro and dead Michael Jackson is not? :lol:

        Anyway, it sounds like you've already decided the answer to your question so just go ahead and write an article about the things you found in your attic.


        That's my point. Nobody cares about Westlife because they've disbanded and their heyday was 14 years ago.

        I'm saying that someone being dead/alive old/young can be a difference. Michael Jackson only died in 2009 so "alive Michael Jackson" may not be as retro, but if someone else had lived a similar life and died in 2000, then they'd have been dead for 14 years by now.

        I actually haven't "decided the answer to my question", which is why the article isn't published yet. I'm just interested in your thoughts and I am trying to understand HOW you have those thoughts.
        Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No
        • stake n sheak
          • 11 months 3 days ago
          • Posts: 1772
          CareBearCheer wrote:

          That's my point. Nobody cares about Westlife because they've disbanded and their heyday was 14 years ago.

          I've never even heard of them before


          CareBearCheer wrote:
          I actually haven't "decided the answer to my question", which is why the article isn't published yet. I'm just interested in your thoughts and I am trying to understand HOW you have those thoughts.

          It sounds that way when you have a rebuttal for everything people say that disagrees with you.
          Anyway my thoughts are that you can't declare the status of a particular year and draw a line where it crosses the threshold from yes to no. In more recent years it depends on what the things are.
          tangspot2 wrote:
          Mrs. stake you say some nasty on my threads. Dirty bitch
          Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No
          • CareBearCheer
            • 11 months 3 days ago
            • Posts: 47
            • Globally Banned
            stake n sheak wrote:
            CareBearCheer wrote:

            That's my point. Nobody cares about Westlife because they've disbanded and their heyday was 14 years ago.

            I've never even heard of them before


            Yet you somehow knew about their 2010 album...

            stake n sheak wrote:
            CareBearCheer wrote:
            I actually haven't "decided the answer to my question", which is why the article isn't published yet. I'm just interested in your thoughts and I am trying to understand HOW you have those thoughts.

            It sounds that way when you have a rebuttal for everything people say that disagrees with you.
            Anyway my thoughts are that you can't declare the status of a particular year and draw a line where it crosses the threshold from yes to no. In more recent years it depends on what the things are.


            Can I ask you which years you consider to be the "more recent years"?
            Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No
            • stake n sheak
              • 11 months 3 days ago
              • Posts: 1772
              CareBearCheer wrote:
              Yet you somehow knew about their 2010 album...
              I've got the power of a thing called a "search engine". It's a valuable tool for finding information via the internet. It existed all the way back in 2000 (and even before that) and these days drives a very large portion of the web's surface traffic.

              CareBearCheer wrote:
              Can I ask you which years you consider to be the "more recent years"?

              No, because I don't draw a clear line on that. I don't think blanket statements about the year 2000 are valid here.

              It depends on what kind of thing we're talking about. A stuffed animal (or as you UKers might call it, a soft toy) or a toy car from 2000, probably not retro IMO. A boom box probably, a stereo console quite possibly no. A cell phone yes, a house phone no. Et cetera. Different things change at different rates, have different generational increments and delineations.

              If I look at something and could say to myself "well, they certainly don't make them like that any more", that's the key for me. If that's how you feel about the things in your attic then they are retro to you. Other people might disagree.
              tangspot2 wrote:
              Mrs. stake you say some nasty on my threads. Dirty bitch
              Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No
              • CareBearCheer
                • 11 months 3 days ago
                • Posts: 47
                • Globally Banned
                stake n sheak wrote:
                CareBearCheer wrote:
                Yet you somehow knew about their 2010 album...
                I've got the power of a thing called a "search engine". It's a valuable tool for finding information via the internet. It existed all the way back in 2000 (and even before that) and these days drives a very large portion of the web's surface traffic.

                CareBearCheer wrote:
                Can I ask you which years you consider to be the "more recent years"?

                No, because I don't draw a clear line on that. I don't think blanket statements about the year 2000 are valid here.

                It depends on what kind of thing we're talking about. A stuffed animal (or as you UKers might call it, a soft toy) or a toy car from 2000, probably not retro IMO. A boom box probably, a stereo console quite possibly no. A cell phone yes, a house phone no. Et cetera. Different things change at different rates, have different generational increments and delineations.

                If I look at something and could say to myself "well, they certainly don't make them like that any more", that's the key for me. If that's how you feel about the things in your attic then they are retro to you. Other people might disagree.


                You know, you're right.

                There are cars from the 1970s that are considered "antique", but a soft toy/stuffed animal from the 1970s is less likely to be "antique".
                Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No
                • milkypastel
                  • 10 months 29 days ago
                  • Posts: 14
                  		 omg i remember some kid started this topic here in 2006, it was an all out brawl.
                  Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No
                  • RomanBlade86
                    • 10 months 25 days ago
                    • Posts: 289
                    		 The year 2000 seems like a different lifetime completely. It was the last good year in my eyes before I became bored and annoyed with life because years and pop culture was so important to me and I identified with it. It was the last stable year in my life but after summer 2000 it went downhill. The year 2000 is definitely retro. I remember the whole Y2K scare and when 2000 came nothing changed and things felt like the 90s for a little while longer.
                    Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No
                    Search
                    Users Online