Not really. You broached the subject by saying you're a Pats fan who would be fine with them losing if it meant a Cowboys/Texans Super Bowl. Speaking as (another female) Pats fan, you should have expected to get push back on your claim when you posted that monumentally silly statement.

It's a stretch if you know how the Church works. A huge stretch? Maybe not. But a stretch nonetheless.

A 47 year old pope is a little ridiculous if only because popes are usually elected from Cardinals and they usually don't get there until they are in their 60s. JPII was considered young when he was elected and he was 58.

Um, why? The Catholic Church still exists, with a pope even! Also I guarantee you that the machinations going on at the Vatican currently are just as Machiavellian as they were 500 years ago.

It doesn't make my head explode. You're far more invested in valditating your form of fandom than I am in mine. I'm just telling you how it is

I understand that's how you feel. I'm telling you that is not how any true Pats fan feels. That's what makes us hated by everyone else.

Saying that you derive no pride from the Pats winning just proves the other poster's point.

I mean, there are other New England foods. Like clams and cod.

This is what happens to me when I say that I hate Dead Poets Society. But objectively, I'm right about Dead Poets Society while OP is wrong about The Princess Bride.

Oh sure, I believe that. People see other people's dietary requests as judgment on their diets. But to deliberately invite someone to dinner knowing you have no intention of respecting their dietary choices? That just means you are an awful person.

"For the US, the best way to divide it is 46-63 (death of John F.
Kennedy), Boomers. 64-80 (election of Reagan) Gen-X. 81-2000 Gen-Y
(also wrongly called Millennials). 00- ca. 2020, Millennials."

Wow, that really is passive-aggressive. It's one thing when a vegetarian gets all affronted because (for instance) they even see meat dishes, but if someone invites a person over to dinner with full knowledge that said person is a vegetarian, it's incredibly rude to not serve them a dish they can't eat.

Right, but that's you. Your date may have a different perception of what compatibility is.

If food is a big part of her life, I can understand that. In other words, just as you are picky and comfortable with it, some people are foodies and are comfortable with that. I can see why a person might find that an incompatibility.

And the book didn't even take place in a time frame that Generation X actually influenced (early 60s to early 80s).

No, it didn't. The "Greatest Generation" was coined in 1999, long after the Baby Boomers and Generation X had already been named. Prior to that, that age cohort was called the "Silent Generation."

The years at the ends of any cohort is where it gets difficult. So, if you (like me) were born in 1973, you know that you are squarely a Gen X-er. But born in 1965? That's when it gets fuzzy. But 61? No, that's too early for Generation X. In that case, you're just a really late Boomer.

This is what I studied in graduate school. The truth is that academically, generational cohorts aren't as neatly defined as the public thinks it is. But generally, Generation X are people born between 1968 and 1980-ish.

For Generation X, as the article notes, the real issue is that we are being squeezed. From a numbers perspective, there are just far fewer of us than there are either Baby Boomers or Millennials, and that is preventing us from feeling as if we're gaining in terms of earning power and job security.

Oh for God's sake. Your comments about SNL not being funny anymore are also from 20 years ago.