inthe00s
The Pop Culture Information Society...

These are the messages that have been posted on inthe00s over the past few years.

Check out the messageboard archive index for a complete list of topic areas.

This archive is periodically refreshed with the latest messages from the current messageboard.




Check for new replies or respond here...

Subject: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 04/20/17 at 3:21 pm

Since there are so many '00s kids on the boards these days, I thought this would be an interesting survey. If you had to choose one or the other, do you think it would be better to have grown up as a kid in the 1990's, or today as a kid in the 2010's.

To be clear, I don't really mean this from a cultural standpoint (cartoons, music, kids shows, toys, etc.) because that stuff is subjective. I'm really more talking about technology. Would you have preferred to have been a kid today in the era of smartphones, online streaming, Facebook and Triple A video games, or do you think it would've been better to have grown up with the much more primitive 1990's technology of Game Boy's, no cell phones, VHS and simplistic 2D/early 3D video games?

I think '00s kids would have an interesting perspective on this, since you guys grew up perfectly "in-between" the two eras, experiencing both remnants of '90s technology, as well as precursors of '10s technology during your childhoods.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Zelek3 on 04/20/17 at 3:23 pm

Wouldn't have it any other way than being a kid in 2000-2006.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 04/20/17 at 3:28 pm

I like my childhood in the 2000s. However....personally, I would choose to have grown up in the 1990s. I like VHS, I like the primitive nature of '90s PCs and Internet, I like the Gameboy, SEGA Genesis, NES, SNES, N64 and PS1 and I wish that I got to grow up playing them, I also would of liked to see how I would "cure" my boredom without my phone or modern high-speed Internet. That's just my opinion though :).

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mqg96 on 04/20/17 at 3:33 pm

I would pick being a kid in the 90's over 2010's in a heartbeat. Just think of all the pop culture and the way of living I'd miss out throughout the 90's AND 2000's if I was a kid right now.  It's complete mismatch and humiliation when comparing these two questions. I'll explain later when I get back to my laptop at home.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mqg96 on 04/20/17 at 3:40 pm

Windows XP and broadband internet were already common by my peak childhood, but at least it wasn't mandatory to be on your iPhones, iPads, and Internet ALL day like now. Social media wasn't even that big back then, sure you had MySpace, but nothing like it's become now. In the 90's none of this existed, in the 2000's it was being developed and there were super early adaptions but it wasn't big at all yet. This current decade, you have to be in front of some form of Internet or social media 24/7. I'm glad I wasn't a kid with all the technology we have today, but I guess every generation before us feels this way about something. How will the kids today feel about holograms or automatic cars one day?

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Shemp97 on 04/20/17 at 3:56 pm


Wouldn't have it any other way than being a kid in 2000-2006.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: #Infinity on 04/20/17 at 5:16 pm

Not even close. The 1990s win all the way. The 2010s aren't actually a lousy decade for kid culture - the 70s were far worse in that regard - but with the combination of Disney Renaissance movies, the bit wars, diverse computer games, memorable cartoon shows (no disrepect to Steven Universe, Gravity Falls, and the like, but the 90s simply had a bit more variety as opposed to being extremely hit-or-miss like today), and the excitement of owning things physically, the 90s simply seem more well-rounded.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Encoder319 on 04/20/17 at 5:23 pm


Wouldn't have it any other way than being a kid in 2000-2006.


But between the 90s and 10s, it definitely sounds like you would prefer the former. ;)

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Baltimoreian on 04/20/17 at 6:04 pm

I would rather be a kid in the 1990s than go through all the lousy stuff in which the 2010s have. At least for 90s kids, they did have an interesting sort of entertainment within their childhood. With 2010s kids, even though they have some critically acclaimed movies and shows in their lives (e.g. Frozen, Steven Universe, Gravity Falls, Regular Show, 2012 TMNT series, etc), they never seem to live a day without YouTube, iPads, or anything related with the Internet. So I'll rather go with the decade full of Disney Renaissance movies, VHS tapes, dial-up era Internet (along with AOL), and golden age Nickelodeon.  8)

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Encoder319 on 04/20/17 at 6:14 pm

Dang, people are already giving it to the 10s kids when most of them are still in elementary school. Feels kinda dirty.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: 80sfan on 04/20/17 at 6:34 pm

I wouldn't want to be an 80's kid, unless it meant being a 90's teen.  :o

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mqg96 on 04/20/17 at 6:37 pm


Dang, people are already giving it to the 10s kids when most of them are still in elementary school. Feels kinda dirty.


It's not really the pop culture we're complaining about, it's the over reliance on technology (specifically internet and social media on all forms of computers/tablets) and you would've never known what the world was like before all of that became a necessity in our lives. I think of the 90's cars I used to see on the road all the time and how it's evolved into the 2010's cars we see on the road today. Missing out on 90's culture was already bad enough, but it would have been much worse missing out on the 2000's (especially the pre-2008 years). Years from now people are always going to consider the 2000's more related to the 2010's than the 90's, but I don't think that's true in all aspects. From 2000-2004 nobody was holding cellphones or tablets in their hands everywhere they went, and social media still wasn't like it's become today.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mqg96 on 04/20/17 at 6:38 pm


I wouldn't want to be an 80's kid, unless it meant being a 90's teen.  :o


Being a 90's teen or young adult would have been awesome! Now I would pick being a teen back then over the 2000's and 2010's equally.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 04/20/17 at 6:42 pm

Like I have said earlier, if I could have chosen my birth date...I would have wanted to be born in 1970 (January-July 1970)...so that I could have been a '70s kid, '80s teen and '90s young adult :).

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: ZeldaFan20 on 04/20/17 at 6:44 pm

90's kid easily. I actually grew up closer in time to the 1990's then I did with the 2010's, so a lot of 90's culture & technology was still relevant. I honestly think that while being able to grow up in a time where everything is available at the tip of a finger is cool, it removes the rugged individualism of the past. Any kid now could watch the entire show of Hey Arnold via streaming, but they'll never be able to physically wait for the program to actually appear on TV (without modern TV guides/services to help notify when or how a show is coming on, or what episode is airing). Some modern kids may have never even played board games, because they can easily play a version of say Monopoly via an app on their smart device. The thing is I'm actually glad I was able to be of the last generation to remember these experiences and still be young enough to be indoctrinated to the technological world of today. Having the best of both technological worlds, aka living through the transition from analog to digital (be it cassettes/cds to mp3/musical streaming like Spotify or VHS/DVDs to video streaming like Netflix), is something most 80's & 90's babies could relate to, and I wouldn't want it any other way 8)

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 04/20/17 at 6:45 pm


90's kid easily. I actually grew up closer in time to the 1990's then I did with the 2010's, so a lot of 90's culture & technology was still relevant. I honestly think that while being able to grow up in a time where everything is available at the tip of a finger is cool, it removes the rugged individualism of the past. Any kid now could watch the entire show of Hey Arnold via streaming, but they'll never be able to physically wait for the program to actually appear on TV (without modern TV guides/services to help notify when or how a show is coming on, or what episode is airing). Some modern kids may have never even played board games, because they can easily play a version of say Monopoly via an app on their smart device. The thing is I'm actually glad I was able to be of the last generation to remember these experiences and still be young enough to be indoctrinated to the technological world of today. Having the best of both technological worlds, aka living through the transition from analog to digital (be it cassettes/cds to mp3/musical streaming like Spotify or VHS/DVDs to video streaming like Netflix), is something most 80's & 90's babies could relate to, and I wouldn't want it any other way 8)

Agreed brother 8).

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Tyrannosaurus Rex on 04/20/17 at 6:56 pm


Since there are so many '00s kids on the boards these days, I thought this would be an interesting survey. If you had to choose one or the other, do you think it would be better to have grown up as a kid in the 1990's, or today as a kid in the 2010's.

To be clear, I don't really mean this from a cultural standpoint (cartoons, music, kids shows, toys, etc.) because that stuff is subjective. I'm really more talking about technology. Would you have preferred to have been a kid today in the era of smartphones, online streaming, Facebook and Triple A video games, or do you think it would've been better to have grown up with the much more primitive 1990's technology of Game Boy's, no cell phones, VHS and simplistic 2D/early 3D video games?

I think '00s kids would have an interesting perspective on this, since you guys grew up perfectly "in-between" the two eras, experiencing both remnants of '90s technology, as well as precursors of '10s technology during your childhoods.


As a mid-late 2000's kid, I would rather be a kid in the 1990's than in this decade. In the 90's and even for the most part in the 00's, social media wasn't a big part of our every day lives.

Everything seems so basic and bland in this decade to be honest. There's a lot more conformity now than there was in the 90's and even to some extent the 00's. I truly wish everyone could just be, individuals, again.

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/208/464788075_7b7833717c_b.jpg

What we need is someone like the pink tulip shown above. I feel like nowadays, every person is like a yellow tulip (as represented by the photo I posted).

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Slim95 on 04/20/17 at 7:19 pm

I'm just lucky to be alive. Growing up in the 2000s was perfect for me and I wouldn't have it any other way.  :)

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: 2001 on 04/20/17 at 7:31 pm

I wouldn't mind being a 2010s kid if I got to be a 2020s teenager. I already have sisters as 2010s kids so I know it's not as bad as people make it out to be (although I wish the Disney Channel didn't exist, but that's a mid/late 2000s thing too). Actually it's pretty great all things considered.

But I got to be at least a little kid in the late '90s and I already know how awesome it was. To get to experience 4th gen gaming would be amazing, and I'm already very grateful that I got to experience the multiplayer boom on the N64 in the late '90s. I also wish I got to see earlier computing (before Windows 95). The 2010s just don't have that same allure. The only disadvantage of being a '90s kid is you become a 2000s teen!  :-X

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 04/20/17 at 7:39 pm


I wouldn't mind being a 2010s kid if I got to be a 2020s teenager. I already have sisters as 2010s kids so I know it's not as bad as people make it out to be (although I wish the Disney Channel didn't exist, but that's a mid/late 2000s thing too). Actually it's pretty great all things considered.

But I got to be at least a little kid in the late '90s and I already know how awesome it was. To get to experience 4th gen gaming would be amazing, and I'm already very grateful that I got to experience the multiplayer boom on the N64 in the late '90s. I also wish I got to see earlier computing (before Windows 95). The 2010s just don't have that same allure. The only disadvantage of being a '90s kid is you become a 2000s teen!  :-X

That is very true ;D ;D :-X.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Encoder319 on 04/20/17 at 7:54 pm

The only disadvantage of being a '90s kid is you become a 2000s teen!  :-X

I think being a teenager in the early 00s would've been fun, as it was kind of similar to the late 90s. It's us 89-91ers who had it the worst, IMO. Age 15 in 2006... cringe.

That being said, I like being a true young adult of the 10s and the fact that the Bush/Obama transition happened right when I was finishing high school. It's very cool that I'll be able to associate pretty much my entire 20s with one decade.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 04/20/17 at 8:04 pm


I think being a teenager in the early 00s would've been fun, as it was kind of similar to the late 90s. It's us 89-91ers who had it the worst, IMO. Age 15 in 2006... cringe.

That being said, I like being a true young adult of the 10s and the fact that the Bush/Obama transition happened right when I was finishing high school. It's very cool that I'll be able to associate pretty much my entire 20s with one decade.

Well, I'll spend about 98-99% of my 20s in the 2020s. I will be 20-29 years old from 2019-2028.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Encoder319 on 04/20/17 at 8:18 pm


Well, I'll spend about 98-99% of my 20s in the 2020s. I will be 20-29 years old from 2019-2028.


Yeah, the people born in the years that end with the digits 9, 0, and 1 are the quintessential teenagers and 20-somethings of their respective corresponding decades.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 04/20/17 at 8:26 pm


Yeah, the people born in the years that end with the digits 9, 0, and 1 are the quintessential teenagers and 20-somethings of their respective corresponding decades.

Also, those born in years ending with 8. It kind of sucks that I can't legally drink until 2020. However, 2020 looks like it's going to be an exciting year.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: 2001 on 04/20/17 at 8:56 pm


I think being a teenager in the early 00s would've been fun, as it was kind of similar to the late 90s. It's us 89-91ers who had it the worst, IMO. Age 15 in 2006... cringe.

That being said, I like being a true young adult of the 10s and the fact that the Bush/Obama transition happened right when I was finishing high school. It's very cool that I'll be able to associate pretty much my entire 20s with one decade.


I feel very happy that I got to associate my "youth" (18-25) with one decade, since I'm 17-26 this decade. It was a perfect match! It has really felt like "my decade" so far, although 2016/2017 have been giving me pause for thought. ;D

I think being a teen in 2000 would've been similar to the late '90s, but 2001 onwards the Internet took off in a big way. :o

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: HazelBlue99 on 04/20/17 at 10:55 pm


Also, those born in years ending with 8. It kind of sucks that I can't legally drink until 2020. However, 2020 looks like it's going to be an exciting year.


I can drink now if I wanted to.  8)


It's us 89-91ers who had it the worst, IMO. Age 15 in 2006... cringe.


You think your age group had it bad...try being an adolescent in the Mid 2010s...

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Slim95 on 04/20/17 at 11:00 pm

I think those born in 1995 were the last to experience the greatness of the '00s. We're the last group to clearly remember the early '00s and have our childhood go up to the mid '00s before things got sucky in the late 2000s.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: HazelBlue99 on 04/20/17 at 11:03 pm


I think those born in 1995 were the last to experience the greatness of the '00s. We're the last group to clearly remember the early '00s and have our childhood go up to the mid '00s before things got sucky in the late 2000s.


Wow, that's definitely not biased. People born in 1996 and 1997 would be able to clearly remember the Early 2000s and they were no longer in their core childhoods in the Late 2000s, just like people born in 1995.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 04/20/17 at 11:04 pm


I think those born in 1995 were the last to experience the greatness of the '00s. We're the last group to clearly remember the early '00s and have our childhood go up to the mid '00s before things got sucky in the late 2000s.

That's an opinion mate and you're starting to sound like you're being ageist. Also, it comes off as if you think you're superior to us....which you're not.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Slim95 on 04/20/17 at 11:04 pm


Wow, that's definitely not biased. People born in 1996 and 1997 would be able to clearly remember the Early 2000s and they were no longer in their core childhoods in the Late 2000s, just like people born in 1995.

Well the reason I say that is because 1999 starts to get vague and fuzzy for me, so 2000 would probably start to feel vague and fuzzy for someone born in 1996. So they wouldn't clearly remember all of the early 2000s, maybe I'll say 1996 instead. But yeah I'm a little biased.  :P

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 04/20/17 at 11:05 pm


I can drink now if I wanted to.  8)

You think your age group had it bad...try being an adolescent in the Mid 2010s...

Yeah I know....the drinking age for Australia is 18. In the USA, it's 21 (but we can go to war at 18 :().

Also, being a 2010s teen is slightly better than being a 2000s teen, IMO.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Slim95 on 04/20/17 at 11:06 pm


That's an opinion mate and you're starting to sound like you're being ageist. Also, it comes off as if you think you're superior to us....which you're not.

Us '95ers are totally superior! You must all look up to us.  8)

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 04/20/17 at 11:07 pm


Us '95ers are totally superior! You must all look up to us.  8)

OK, you're joking....good. I thought you was serious for a sec.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Encoder319 on 04/20/17 at 11:08 pm

You think your age group had it bad...try being an adolescent in the Mid 2010s...

What's so unfortunate about being a teenager in the 10s, in your eyes?

The only thing I find better about a 00s teenage experience is that there were less distractions around us.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Slim95 on 04/20/17 at 11:08 pm


OK, you're joking....good. I thought you was serious for a sec.

It was a half-joke. The part of those born in the late '90s not completely remembering the early 2000s was true though. :P But I realize everyone has different memories and some remember more than others.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 04/20/17 at 11:11 pm


What's so unfortunate about being a teenager in the 10s, in your eyes?

The only thing I find better about a 00s teenage experience is that there were less distractions around us.

I personally wouldn't have wanted to be a 2000s teen :-X.


It was a half-joke. The part of those born in the late '90s not completely remembering the early 2000s was true though. :P But I realize everyone has different memories and some remember more than others.

I personally can remember 2001-2003 but a lot of my memories from then are vague or "on the vague side". However, generally yeah....us late '90s borns don't remember the early 2000s clearly.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Slim95 on 04/20/17 at 11:13 pm


I personally wouldn't have wanted to be a 2000s teen :-X.

I was a late 2000s teen and it was actually pretty good for me. But I was an early 2010s teen as well and that part of my life was horrible (when I turned 15 in 2010 and then all up until I turned 18 in 2013). I want to forget my mid to late teen years.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 04/20/17 at 11:16 pm


I was a late 2000s teen and it was actually pretty good for me. But I was an early 2010s teen as well and that part of my life was horrible (when I turned 15 in 2010 and then all up until I turned 18 in 2013). I want to forget my mid to late teen years.

I was 7-10 during the late 2000s and it was a mostly good time for me as well. The early 2010s were alright, I was in middle school then and I didn't enjoy my middle school years but they weren't horrible but not great either...:P.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: HazelBlue99 on 04/20/17 at 11:22 pm


Yeah I know....the drinking age for Australia is 18. In the USA, it's 21 (but we can go to war at 18 :().


That's pretty bad, in my opinion. In a lot of European countries, the legal drinking age is as young as 16! I think it should at least be 18 in the US as well.


What's so unfortunate about being a teenager in the 10s, in your eyes?


Being a teenager during a time of Ariana Grande, an over-saturation of trap and EDM, a lack of variety on the Top-40 charts, the rise of worldwide terrorism and IS, people's obsession with smartphones and social media, the dark and pessimistic nature of the era, the inauguration of Donald Trump, an overall stagnation in popular culture, the recent trend of Hollywood recycling ideas and rebooting movie series from decades ago and "Hipster" culture. Personally, I would prefer to be a teenager of the Mid 2000s rather than being a teenager of the Mid 2010s. I hate the 2010s. :P

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 04/20/17 at 11:25 pm


That's pretty bad, in my opinion. In a lot of European countries, the legal drinking age is as young as 16! I think it should at least be 18 in the US as well.

Being a teenager during a time of Ariana Grande, an over-saturation of trap and EDM, a lack of variety on the Top-40 charts, the rise of worldwide terrorism and IS, people's obsession with smartphones and social media, the dark and pessimistic nature of the era, the inauguration of Donald Trump, an overall stagnation in popular culture, the recent trend of Hollywood recycling ideas and rebooting movie series from decades ago and "Hipster" culture. Personally, I would prefer to be a teenager of the Mid 2000s rather than being a teenager of the Mid 2010s.

I know....here in the USA, either the drinking age should be lowered to 18 or the military age raised to 21.

BTW, being a quintessential 2010s teen is not too great but still slightly better than being a quintessential 2000s teen, IMO.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 04/21/17 at 11:28 am


BTW, being a quintessential 2010s teen is not too great but still slightly better than being a quintessential 2000s teen, IMO.


I don't know why everybody is hating on being an '00s teen so much. I loved it. 8)

When I first became a teen, kids didn't have cell phones, everybody used dial-up internet, people still watched music videos on MTV, and the PlayStation 1 was still the most popular video game console. By the time my teen years were over, Web 2.0 had taken off, social media was exploding, smartphones were on horizon, and everybody was playing high-definition video games with their friends online. So many of the things we take for granted these days (like YouTube, Facebook, iPhones, broadband internet, digital music downloads, etc.) I got to see explode into popularity firsthand as a teenager. It was like living a revolution. 8)

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mqg96 on 04/21/17 at 12:20 pm


Wow, that's definitely not biased. People born in 1996 and 1997 would be able to clearly remember the Early 2000s and they were no longer in their core childhoods in the Late 2000s, just like people born in 1995.


You're right, although, 1997 born's still had one core childhood year in the late 2000's that being 2007, but the rest of the late 2000's yes they were in their late childhoods. I don't know what Slim Jim is smoking there lol. 1996 born's are early to mid 2000's hybrids (they're in the same borderline as 1992 born's when it comes to the late 90's). However, Slim thinks 2003 is a mid 2000's year rather than early so that's why he might think 1995 born's were the last to remember the early 2000's clearly in his opinion.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mqg96 on 04/21/17 at 12:23 pm


It was a half-joke. The part of those born in the late '90s not completely remembering the early 2000s was true though. :P But I realize everyone has different memories and some remember more than others.


Honestly based off how my memories go (not yours) I would consider 1994 born's the last to remember the 2000's decade clearly in its entirety since they were already in elementary school by the time New Years 2000 hit, but remembering a whole decade has nothing to do with being a kid of a decade. I can remember the whole 2010's but that doesn't make me a 2010's kid. A 1997 born doesn't have to remember much well before 2003 and they're still the ultimate/peak 2000's kids.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mqg96 on 04/21/17 at 12:27 pm


Being a teenager during a time of Ariana Grande, an over-saturation of trap and EDM, a lack of variety on the Top-40 charts, the rise of worldwide terrorism and ISIS, people's obsession with smartphones and social media, the dark and pessimistic nature of the era, the inauguration of Donald Trump, an overall stagnation in popular culture, the recent trend of Hollywood recycling ideas and rebooting movie series from decades ago and "Hipster" culture. Personally, I would prefer to be a teenager of the Mid 2000s rather than being a teenager of the Mid 2010s. I hate the 2010s. :P


This is why I'm glad my core teen years took place throughout the early 2010's. Sometimes I get jealous that I was never in my 20's throughout Obama's time in office. (not counting 2016 since it was the tail end and about Trump and Hillary)

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 04/21/17 at 1:20 pm


I don't know why everybody is hating on being an '00s teen so much. I loved it. 8)

When I first became a teen, kids didn't have cell phones, everybody used dial-up internet, people still watched music videos on MTV, and the PlayStation 1 was still the most popular video game console. By the time my teen years were over, Web 2.0 had taken off, social media was exploding, smartphones were on horizon, and everybody was playing high-definition video games with their friends online. So many of the things we take for granted these days (like YouTube, Facebook, iPhones, broadband internet, digital music downloads, etc.) I got to see explode into popularity firsthand as a teenager. It was like living a revolution. 8)

That's fine and all but still no way....with all of the other corny stuff in the 2000s. Also, I said that being a 2010s teen is only SLIGHTLY better...slightly. You do know what that means, right? ;D

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 04/21/17 at 1:51 pm


That's fine and all but still no way....with all of the other corny stuff in the 2000s. Also, I said that being a 2010s teen is only SLIGHTLY better...slightly. You do know what that means, right? ;D


I get what you're saying. And believe me, I'm not one of those people that would try to sugarcoat the 2000's just because I was teenager then. There was plenty of terrible music in the '00s, including Snap Rap (which I think might be the worst genre ever), and atrocious "Hair Grunge" stuff like Nickleback and Hinder.

But, I do think '00s music is actually a bit underrated. One of my favorite genres (Garage Rock Revival) was dominant back then, and gave us some of the great rock bands of the last 30 years like The Strokes, The White Stripes, The Vines, and the like. Early Emo (Dashboard Confessional, Jimmy Eat World, etc.) was really good, and just the fact that rock music was still relevant in the mainstream is an improvement over the 2010's to me. Plus, I prefer early 2000's hip-hop (DMX, OutKast, Nelly, Eminem, etc.) over today's by a long shot.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 04/21/17 at 1:55 pm


I get what you're saying. And believe me, I'm not one of those people that would try to sugarcoat the 2000's just because I was teenager then. There was plenty of terrible music in the '00s, including Snap Rap (which I think might be the worst genre ever), and atrocious "Hair Grunge" stuff like Nickleback and Hinder.

But, I do think '00s music is actually a bit underrated. One of my favorite genres (Garage Rock Revival) was dominant back then, and gave us some of the great rock bands of the last 30 years like The Strokes, The White Stripes, The Vines, and the like. Early Emo (Dashboard Confessional, Jimmy Eat World, etc.) was really good, and just the fact that rock music was still relevant in the mainstream is an improvement over the 2010's to me. Plus, I prefer early 2000's hip-hop (DMX, OutKast, Nelly, Eminem, etc.) over today's by a long shot.

I agree with you in the parts that I bolded. Make no mistake...I don't hate the 2000s. How could I? The 2000s were the decade of my childhood and while of course there were negatives....I still loved my childhood.

However, a lot of stuff from the 2000s is too corny for me to want to have been a teen then ;D ;D ;D.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 04/21/17 at 2:01 pm


I agree with you in the parts that I bolded. Make no mistake...I don't hate the 2000s. How could I? The 2000s were the decade of my childhood and while of course there were negatives....I still loved my childhood.

However, a lot of stuff from the 2000s is too corny for me to want to have been a teen then ;D ;D ;D.


Well, I think it's only fair if I admit that I am a little bit biased. As I've said, I really haven't paid much attention to modern pop culture since about 2012, so I'm not really that up to date on what's hot these days.

The years 2012-2017 all run together and seem very bland to me culturally and musically, but that probably just has something to do with my age. If I was ten years younger, there's a good chance I would prefer the '10s over the '00s, too.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 04/21/17 at 2:06 pm


Well, I think it's only fair if I admit that I am a little bit biased. As I've said, I really haven't paid much attention to modern pop culture since about 2012, so I'm not really that up to date on what's hot these days.

The years 2012-2017 all run together and seem very bland to me culturally and musically, but that probably just has something to do with my age. If I was ten years younger, there's a good chance I would prefer the '10s over the '00s, too.

Being a quintessential 2010s teen (those born 1998-2000) is not great but to me it's slightly better than being a 2000s teen. I can't really explain but that's just what I think.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mxcrashxm on 04/21/17 at 3:15 pm


Being a quintessential 2000s teen (those born 1998-2000) is not great but to me it's slightly better than being a 2000s teen. I can't really explain but that's just what I think.
I think you mean 2010s right?

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 04/21/17 at 3:17 pm


I think you mean 2010s right?

Yes, my bad....I'll go fix it right now. Thanks :).

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mxcrashxm on 04/21/17 at 3:40 pm


Yes, my bad....I'll go fix it right now. Thanks :).
you're welcome

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Slim95 on 04/21/17 at 4:36 pm


I don't know what Slim Jim is smoking there lol. 1996 born's are early to mid 2000's hybrids (they're in the same borderline as 1992 born's when it comes to the late 90's). However, Slim thinks 2003 is a mid 2000's year rather than early so that's why he might think 1995 born's were the last to remember the early 2000's clearly in his opinion.

It was joking lol.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 04/21/17 at 4:37 pm


It was joking lol.

I just like the fact that he called you Slim Jim ;D ;D ;D ;D.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Slim95 on 04/21/17 at 4:38 pm


Honestly based off how my memories go (not yours) I would consider 1994 born's the last to remember the 2000's decade clearly in its entirety since they were already in elementary school by the time New Years 2000 hit, but remembering a whole decade has nothing to do with being a kid of a decade. I can remember the whole 2010's but that doesn't make me a 2010's kid. A 1997 born doesn't have to remember much well before 2003 and they're still the ultimate/peak 2000's kids.

I'm basically almost 1994 born because I was born in early January of 1995 so I was in Kindergarten all throughout the year 2000. Which is why I said 1995 (taking into account people who started elementary early or have better memories). But if you were born in 1996, there is almost no way you would be in elementary school for all of the early 2000s. If you were born in 1995 you can be in elementary school in all of early 2000s because some people I know started early at age 4. So how exactly would 1994 make a difference? 1994 and 1995 people are more related to each other than those born in 1996 when it comes what we're talking about now.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Slim95 on 04/21/17 at 4:42 pm


I just like the fact that he called you Slim Jim ;D ;D ;D ;D.

Haha yeah me and mq96 have some history because we disagreed with when the mid '00s started lol.  ;D

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 04/21/17 at 4:44 pm


Haha yeah me and mq96 have some history because we disagreed with when the mid '00s started lol.  ;D

LMAO ;D.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: ZeldaFan20 on 04/21/17 at 4:46 pm


I'm basically almost 1994 born because I was born in early January of 1995 so I was in Kindergarten all throughout the year 2000. Which is why I said 1995 (taking into account people who started elementary early or have better memories). But if you were born in 1996, there is almost no way you would be in elementary school for all of the early 2000s. If you were born in 1995 you can be in elementary school in all of early 2000s because some people I know started early at age 4.


You're from Alberta right? Well here in the U.S mandatory schooling starts at age 5. Meaning someone born in 95' would've started school in Aug/Sep 2000. They were in mandatory schooling for the most of the early 2000's, with the exception of Jan-Jul/Aug of 2000. In the U.S, you'd have to be born in 94' & before to have all of your mandatory schooling years in the early 2000's.



Haha yeah me and mq96 have some history because we disagreed with when the mid '00s started lol.  ;D


No offense bro, I think your one of the only people I know that thinks the mid 2000's began in 2003 ;D. I can accept 2003 being a core year (like most of 2004-2007/8 is generally considered), but to be a mid 00's year..... eh idk about that.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Encoder319 on 04/21/17 at 4:49 pm

No offense bro, I think your one of the only people I know that thinks the mid 2000's began in 2003 ;D. I can accept 2003 being a core year (like most of 2004-2007/8 is generally considered), but to be a mid 00's year..... eh idk about that.


It was a strange mix of both IMO. First half more early, second half more mid. ;D

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Slim95 on 04/21/17 at 5:17 pm


You're from Alberta right? Well here in the U.S mandatory schooling starts at age 5. Meaning someone born in 95' would've started school in Aug/Sep 2000. They were in mandatory schooling for the most of the early 2000's, with the exception of Jan-Jul/Aug of 2000. In the U.S, you'd have to be born in 94' & before to have all of your mandatory schooling years in the early 2000's.

Yeah I'm from Alberta. We have a slightly different system here and some kids start kindergarten from 4 - 6 years old (never before or after that though).


No offense bro, I think your one of the only people I know that thinks the mid 2000's began in 2003 ;D. I can accept 2003 being a core year (like most of 2004-2007/8 is generally considered), but to be a mid 00's year..... eh idk about that.


I think there was one other guy who thought that too. For me music is a big indicator of when an era starts so when 50 Cent released his song "In Da Club" which went to number 1 in 2003, that was just a clear sign that the mid '00s have arrived. Plus don't forget that the mid '00s technically did start in the second half of 2003 numerically.

It was a strange mix of both IMO. First half more early, second half more mid. ;D

Yeah I can agree with that. Funny how many people on here say the mid '10s started in 2013 though. When it was the exact same case for the mid '00s and mid '10s, the third year was a transitional year for the most part. I can't believe people can say that 2012 started the mid '10s yet people wouldn't accept '03 as mid '10s. 2012 being mid '10s just sounds way more ridiculous to me.  ;D

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: ZeldaFan20 on 04/21/17 at 6:07 pm


Yeah I'm from Alberta. We have a slightly different system here and some kids start kindergarten from 4 - 6 years old (never before or after that though).


I see I see. So that could be a reason for the confusion. I'm guessing you started kindergarten in 1999?


I think there was one other guy who thought that too. For me music is a big indicator of when an era starts so when 50 Cent released his song "In Da Club" which went to number 1 in 2003, that was just a clear sign that the mid '00s have arrived. Plus don't forget that the mid '00s technically did start in the second half of 2003 numerically.Yeah I can agree with that. Funny how many people on here say the mid '10s started in 2013 though. When it was the exact same case for the mid '00s and mid '10s, the third year was a transitional year for the most part. I can't believe people can say that 2012 started the mid '10s yet people wouldn't accept '03 as mid '10s. 2012 being mid '10s just sounds way more ridiculous to me.  ;D


Those are all great examples. FWIW, the emergence of these songs, trends, etc. doesn't imply that we were entering the mid 00's per say, but likely just the core 00's. The Core 2000's does not equal The Mid 2000's. They just happen to coincide with each other. I actually remember having this conversation with you a month ago on another thread about the same topic ;D. I made a pretty detailed response as to why 2003 (while transitional, most definitely) is mainly a early 2000's year. If I could find it, I'll post it as a link

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Slim95 on 04/21/17 at 6:27 pm


I see I see. So that could be a reason for the confusion. I'm guessing you started kindergarten in 1999?

I started in 2000 actually when I was 5 years old. But I knew a few people of my age who started in 1999.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 04/21/17 at 6:40 pm

I started Pre-K in 2002 (continued until 2003), Kindergarten in 2004, 1st grade in 2005, 2nd grade in 2006, 3rd grade in 2007, 4th grade in 2008, 5th grade in 2009, 6th grade in 2010, 7th grade in 2011, 8th grade in 2012, 9th grade in 2013, 10th grade in 2014, 11th grade in 2015, 12th grade in 2016, College/University this year in the Fall.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: 2001 on 04/21/17 at 6:41 pm


I started in 2000 actually when I was 5 years old. But I knew a few people of my age who started in 1999.


Do you guys have two years of kindergarten too? I thought that was only an Ontario–Québec thing. :o

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Slim95 on 04/21/17 at 6:44 pm


Do you guys have two years of kindergarten too? I thought that was only an Ontario–Québec thing. :o

Well there was one year of kindergarten, but in each grade people can be born in completely different years. Although the majority were born in 1995. For example one of my friends in the same grade as me was born the same month as me but in 1996 while I was born in 1995.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: ZeldaFan20 on 04/21/17 at 6:46 pm


I started in 2000 actually when I was 5 years old. But I knew a few people of my age who started in 1999.


I see. Here in the U.S every state divides their cutoff points differently. In NJ, most districts cutoff kindergarten at September/October, implying a child must be 5 (or about to turn 5) when they start school. However, just one state over in NY, the cutoff is December.

So as an example using the U.S High School C/O 2014 (my class).

The traditional system would have its members be born from: September/October of 1995 through August/September of 1996.

However the second most common system would be this: January of 1996 through December of 1996, meaning everyone born in 96' would graduate in 14'.



I started Pre-K in 2002 (continued until 2003), Kindergarten in 2004, 1st grade in 2005, 2nd grade in 2006, 3rd grade in 2007, 4th grade in 2008, 5th grade in 2009, 6th grade in 2010, 7th grade in 2011, 8th grade in 2012, 9th grade in 2013, 10th grade in 2014, 11th grade in 2015, 12th grade in 2016, College/University this year in the Fall.


The educational history of ReignMan99 ;D


How does it feel that you spent nearly 15 years of year life sitting in a desk without your will or consent?

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 04/21/17 at 6:50 pm


The educational history of ReignMan99 ;D


How does it feel that you spent nearly 15 years of year life sitting in a desk without your will or consent?

You can call me Shawn (my real name)....but if you want

Also, yes ;D.....I've spent a long damn time in school and I'm tired of it. I'm glad that I'm going to college in the Fall ;D ;D ;D.

I still can't believe I started Pre-K 15 years ago and 1st grade 12 years ago...:o :o :o.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: ZeldaFan20 on 04/21/17 at 6:53 pm


You can call me Shawn (my real name)....but if you want

Also, yes ;D.....I've spent a long damn time in school and I'm tired of it. I'm glad that I'm going to college in the Fall ;D ;D ;D.

I still can't believe I started Pre-K 15 years ago and 1st grade 12 years ago...:o :o :o.


Ok Shawn I will! Yeah I don't blame you, I had a similar feeling when I was about to graduate in 2014. Heck 3 years later I'm still in school trying to succeed in this crappy economy ;D. Also for me it'll be almost 20 years when I started pre school :o

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 04/21/17 at 6:57 pm


Ok Shawn I will! Yeah I don't blame you, I had a similar feeling when I was about to graduate in 2014. Heck 3 years later I'm still in school trying to succeed in this crappy economy ;D. Also for me it'll be almost 20 years when I started pre school :o

Yeah, it's crazy how fast time goes by. Also, when I start college in the Fall...the seniors will have been born mostly late 1995-mid 1996. However, when I graduate in 2021....colleges will be made up almost entirely of 2000s borns :o :o :o.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Zelek3 on 04/21/17 at 7:00 pm


The Core 2000's does not equal The Mid 2000's. They just happen to coincide with each other. I actually remember having this conversation with you a month ago on another thread about the same topic ;D. I made a pretty detailed response as to why 2003 (while transitional, most definitely) is mainly a early 2000's year. If I could find it, I'll post it as a link

Question for you Zelda: do your IRL friends consider 2003 to be mid 2000s or early? Like, when you guys reminisce on things, do you go in-depth about all this nerdy "early mid late" stuff that we nerds talk about online?

Also, do most of your 96-born friends agree or disagree that late 2006 was when were thrusted from the trashy blingy real 00s(Late 2001-Mid 2006) into a fake HD parallel universe?

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: ZeldaFan20 on 04/21/17 at 7:09 pm


Yeah, it's crazy how fast time goes by. Also, when I start college in the Fall...the seniors will have been born mostly late 1995-mid 1996. However, when I graduate in 2021....colleges will be made up almost entirely of 2000s borns :o :o :o.


That's awesome! Yeah that'll be kind of weird lol. I'll be in grad school (hopefully) during the early 20's, so I may run into a few of them.



Question for you Zelda: do your IRL friends consider 2003 to be mid 2000s or early? Like, when you guys reminisce on things, do you go in-depth about all this nerdy "early mid late" stuff that we nerds talk about online?

Also, do most of your 96-born friends agree or disagree that late 2006 was when were thrusted from the trashy blingy real 00s(Late 2001-Mid 2006) into a fake HD parallel universe?


Dude idk ;D. I don't have many friends in real life who have these deep philosophical conversations about the groundbreaking shift in space/time that was 2006. If we're talking nostalgia, we just talk nostalgia lol.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: wixness on 04/21/17 at 7:14 pm

Would have liked to be a teenager in the 2000s, I have to admit.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: 2001 on 04/21/17 at 7:15 pm


Well there was one year of kindergarten, but in each grade people can be born in completely different years. Although the majority were born in 1995. For example one of my friends in the same grade as me was born the same month as me but in 1996 while I was born in 1995.


Oh I see. Yeah, one of my friends from elementary school was born January '92 and I was born February '93 and we were in the same class together.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 04/21/17 at 7:16 pm


That's awesome! Yeah that'll be kind of weird lol. I'll be in grad school (hopefully) during the early 20's, so I may run into a few of them.

What do you want to be?

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 04/21/17 at 7:25 pm


I see. Here in the U.S every state divides their cutoff points differently. In NJ, most districts cutoff kindergarten at September/October, implying a child must be 5 (or about to turn 5) when they start school. However, just one state over in NY, the cutoff is December.

So as an example using the U.S High School C/O 2014 (my class).

The traditional system would have its members be born from: September/October of 1995 through August/September of 1996.

However the second most common system would be this: January of 1996 through December of 1996, meaning everyone born in 96' would graduate in 14'.


In Georgia the system is, I'm pretty sure, a September cutoff. So, for example, if I'd been born in November 1987 instead of July 1987, then I would've started kindergarten in the 1993-94 school year instead of 1992-93.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: ZeldaFan20 on 04/21/17 at 7:28 pm


In Georgia the system is, I'm pretty sure, a September cutoff. So, for example, if I'd been born in November 1987 instead of July 1987, then I would've started kindergarten in the 1993-94 school year instead of 1992-93.


I see, so its somewhat similar. Doesn't the south also start school earlier?

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Zelek3 on 04/21/17 at 7:30 pm

I went to school in the south and the school years there typically ran from September to June.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 04/21/17 at 7:33 pm


I see, so its somewhat similar. Doesn't the south also start school earlier?


It's moved up over the years. In 1992-93, we started school after Labor Day, and school always got out for the summer the first week in June. Then they moved it up into late August in 1994-95. The big jump happened in 1999-00, when my district moved the start of school all the way up to the first week in August, and moved the start of summer back to late May.

Believe it or not, in 2004-05 we actually went back to school on July 30!

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Encoder319 on 04/21/17 at 7:39 pm

In my graduating class, almost everyone with a September birthday was born in 1991, not 1990. Even though the cutoff date is September 1 (or so) for most states, it seems like most September-borns graduate with those from the same birth year; October and even November are pretty 50/50, December more 25/75.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: 2001 on 04/21/17 at 7:42 pm


It's moved up over the years. In 1992-93, we started school after Labor Day, and school always got out for the summer the first week in June. Then they moved it up into late August in 1994-95. The big jump happened in 1999-00, when my district moved the start of school all the way up to the first week in August, and moved the start of summer back to late May.

Believe it or not, in 2004-05 we actually went back to school on July 30!


Does the summer end early in the south? In Ontario and I guess the rest of the Midwest/Northeast, the warmest month of the year is August. ??? If we were in school in August, we'd be fried eggs! There was no AC in my school. ;D

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: ZeldaFan20 on 04/21/17 at 7:43 pm


I went to school in the south and the school years there typically ran from September to June.


I see, I guess it depends on the state/district.



It's moved up over the years. In 1992-93, we started school after Labor Day, and school always got out for the summer the first week in June. Then they moved it up into late August in 1994-95. The big jump happened in 1999-00, when my district moved the start of school all the way up to the first week in August, and moved the start of summer back to late May.

Believe it or not, in 2004-05 we actually went back to school on July 30!


Damn those are some rapid changes :o! Also, thats pretty cool how when you first started school you guys would start school in early September and still get out relatively early within June. All through my 13 years of schooling, the school year would start in the first week of September, right after Labour Day, and end in the third week of June, or 4th week if we had too many snow days. That is what happened during my senior year, 2013-14' was a very bad winter with a lot of snow so we used up all of our school days, so I remember our school district extended our school calendar by almost a week! I didn't graduate from high school until June 25th!


Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 04/21/17 at 7:43 pm


In my graduating class, almost everyone with a September birthday was born in 1991, not 1990. Even though the cutoff date is September 1 (or so) for most states, it seems like most September-borns graduate with those from the same birth year; October and even November are pretty 50/50, December more 25/75.

There are a few people in my high school graduating class that were born after September 1st. The youngest in my class was born Dec. 24, 1999 :o.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Baltimoreian on 04/21/17 at 7:49 pm


There are a few people in my high school graduating class that were born after September 1st. The youngest in my class was born Dec. 24, 1999 :o.


Typical high school in New York City though. I have the same thing with one senior born in Dec. 3, 1999.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: 2001 on 04/21/17 at 7:51 pm

Over here, school ended 1st of July (Canada Day). But in elementary/middle school, the last three to four weeks of schools were not for studying, I didn't even have to bring my bag to school. We just played outside and had field trips and stuff but attendance was still mandatory.. It would all top up with "Fun Day" which was a school festival, which we'd usually have in late June. Oh yeah, those were the days!  8)

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Baltimoreian on 04/21/17 at 7:52 pm


Over here, school ended 1st of July (Canada Day). But in elementary/middle school, the last three to four weeks of schools were not for studying, I didn't even have to bring my bag to school. We just played outside and had field trips and stuff but attendance was still mandatory.. It would all top up with "Fun Day" which was a school festival, which we'd usually have in late June. Oh yeah, those were the days!  8)


Wow. That sounds way better than what we have in the United States.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 04/21/17 at 7:53 pm


Typical high school in New York City though. I have the same thing with one senior born in Dec. 3, 1999.

True. Despite all of that, 95% of the people in my graduating class were born from September 1998-August 1999, 3% were born September-December 1999, 1% were born January-August 1998, 1% were born before January 1998.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 04/21/17 at 7:58 pm


Does the summer end early in the south? In Ontario and I guess the rest of the Midwest/Northeast, the warmest month of the year is August. ??? If we were in school in August, we'd be fried eggs! There was no AC in my school. ;D


I wish it did! As hot as you guys up north think it is in August, I can guarantee you that you don't know what heat is until you experience the "dog days" in Georgia. It's still in the 90s in late September here!


I see, I guess it depends on the state/district.


Damn those are some rapid changes :o! Also, thats pretty cool how when you first started school you guys would start school in early September and still get out relatively early within June. All through my 13 years of schooling, the school year would start in the first week of September, right after Labour Day, and end in the third week of June, or 4th week if we had too many snow days. That is what happened during my senior year, 2013-14' was a very bad winter with a lot of snow so we used up all of our school days, so I remember our school district extended our school calendar by almost a week! I didn't graduate from high school until June 25th!





You guys are lucky up there, then. I hated going back to school in early August once they moved up to that date. It always felt like every other kid in America was still enjoying their summer break except us.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 04/21/17 at 8:01 pm


I wish it did! As hot as you guys up north think it is in August, I can guarantee you that you don't know what heat is until you experience the "dog days" in Georgia. It's still in the 90s in late September here!

In NYC, we have heat waves often during the Summer where the temperature is 95-110 degrees Fahrenheit. Also, usually Summers here are really hot where the humidity is high the temperature doesn't go below 80 degrees Fahrenheit...this lasts until mid September. It's sucks and you feel sticky, sweaty and fatigued.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: ZeldaFan20 on 04/21/17 at 8:05 pm


I wish it did! As hot as you guys up north think it is in August, I can guarantee you that you don't know what heat is until you experience the "dog days" in Georgia. It's still in the 90s in late September here!


Damn that sounds rough! Here in the North East it usually averages about the 80's in July/August, 70's in September, and 60's by October rolls around. Does the south experience a distinct sense of 4 seasons? I know that winters are milder down by you guys, but snow is still somewhat common (I'm pretty sure you guys had a nor'easter this season). How are falls/springs like in the South?

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: 2001 on 04/21/17 at 8:09 pm


I wish it did! As hot as you guys up north think it is in August, I can guarantee you that you don't know what heat is until you experience the "dog days" in Georgia. It's still in the 90s in late September here!

You guys are lucky up there, then. I hated going back to school in early August once they moved up to that date. It always felt like every other kid in America was still enjoying their summer break except us.


What's the logic behind shifting the summer break earlier? Wouldn't electricity costs be through the roof? :o

I used to vacation in Southeast and South Asia in the summer so I think I know what you mean ;D

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 04/21/17 at 8:12 pm


I still can't believe I started Pre-K 15 years ago and 1st grade 12 years ago...:o :o :o.


Time does fly, and it catches up with you quick. I started kindergarten 25 years ago this September. Boyz II Men had the #1 hit, Aladdin was about to premiere in theaters, and George H. W. Bush was President!


Damn that sounds rough! Here in the North East it usually averages about the 80's in July/August, 70's in September, and 60's by October rolls around. Does the south experience a distinct sense of 4 seasons? I know that winters are milder down by you guys, but snow is still somewhat common (I'm pretty sure you guys had a nor'easter this season). How are falls/springs like in the South?


It differs from year-to-year. Some winters can be quite cold (for here anyway) with lows getting down into 20s or occasionally 10s. Usually it's somewhere in the 30s/40s for lows and 50s/60s for highs. We don't really have much in the way of true "falls" and "springs" around here. It starts heating up well into the 80s by April, and it can stay fairly warm up until early November, after which it finally starts cooling down. Snow is fairly common in the North Georgia mountains, but in Central Georgia it's much less common. We've only had four big snows here in my lifetime.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 04/21/17 at 8:20 pm


Time does fly, and it catches up with you quick. I started kindergarten 25 years ago this September. Boyz II Men had the #1 hit, Aladdin was about to premiere in theaters, and George H. W. Bush was President!

When I started Kindergarten in 2004, George W. Bush was President, "Yeah!" by Usher ft. Lil Jon and Ludacris was the #1 hit, Spider-Man 2, The Incredibles and Kill Bill: Volume 2 were in theaters.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Zelek3 on 04/21/17 at 8:21 pm


When I started Kindergarten in 2004, George W. Bush was President, "Yeah!" by Usher ft. Lil Jon and Ludacris was the #1 hit, Spider-Man 2, The Incredibles and Kill Bill: Volume 2 were in theaters.

One of the last truly great years, before we entered the fake universe of late 2006 and beyond.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 04/21/17 at 8:23 pm


One of the last truly great years, before we entered the fake universe of late 2006 and beyond.

;D ;D ;D ;D Absolutely.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: 2001 on 04/21/17 at 8:28 pm

The only thing I remember from Kindergarten is the Macarena.  :-X My teacher's name was Macarena which made it worse! Whenever anyone asked what my teacher's name was, or my mom would name dropped her, people would burst out laughing or start spontaneously dancing the Macarena. Dark times.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 04/21/17 at 8:29 pm


The only thing I remember from Kindergarten is the Macarena.  :-X My teacher's name was Macarena which made it worse! Whenever anyone asked what my teacher's name was, or my mom would name dropped her, people would burst out laughing or start spontaneously dancing the Macarena. Dark times.

Was this in 1996 or 1997? ;D

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 04/21/17 at 8:30 pm


When I started Kindergarten in 2004, George W. Bush was President, "Yeah!" by Usher ft. Lil Jon and Ludacris was the #1 hit, Spider-Man 2, The Incredibles and Kill Bill: Volume 2 were in theaters.


I never really thought about it before, but you 1999 guys were the last kids to enter K-12 school with me. And, since the oldest kids still in school when I started were 1975ers, that means that you were technically in school at the same time as somebody who was in school with kids born in the '70s.


The only thing I remember from Kindergarten is the Macarena.  :-X My teacher's name was Macarena which made it worse! Whenever anyone asked what my teacher's name was, or my mom would name dropped her, people would burst out laughing or start spontaneously dancing the Macarena. Dark times.


Now you're reminding me of that embarrassing Macarena routine I had to do during my 4th grade play again.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Zelek3 on 04/21/17 at 8:30 pm


;D ;D ;D ;D Absolutely.

I thought you were going to reply angrily at me since you like Late 2006-2009. :P

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 04/21/17 at 8:32 pm


I never really thought about it before, but you 1999 guys were the last kids to enter K-12 school with me. And, since the oldest kids still in school when I started were 1975ers, that means that you were technically in school at the same time as somebody who was in school with kids born in the '70s.

Wait....WHAT? ???

Can you explain that a bit more in detail?


I thought you were going to reply angrily at me since you like Late 2006-2009. :P

I also like the mid 2000s (2004-2006). I only barely remember some of the early 2000s (mid 2001-2003).

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: 80sfan on 04/21/17 at 8:36 pm

I don't know, I just like movies from 2000 to 2005, more than movies from 2006 to 2009.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: 2001 on 04/21/17 at 8:36 pm


Was this in 1996 or 1997? ;D


I remember the Macarena from '96 but Miss Macarena was my teacher during 1997-1998 school year.


Now you're reminding me of that embarrassing Macarena routine I had to do during my 4th grade play again.


Some people bond with bad memories. :-X :-X :-X

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 04/21/17 at 8:38 pm


I remember the Macarena from '96 but Miss Macarena was my teacher during 1997-1998 school year.

OH OK. I know the Macarena became popular in North America (and worldwide) in 1996...so I guessed it was around that time.

I also know the former President Bill Clinton did the Macarena back then ;D ;D.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 04/21/17 at 8:40 pm


Wait....WHAT? ???

Can you explain that a bit more in detail?


I was saying that when I started K-12 in 1992 there were still kids born in the '70s in school. Since we were both in K-12 in the 2004-05 school year that means that you were in school at the same time with somebody (me) who was in school with kids born in the '70s.

I admit that that observation made more sense before I typed it out.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: ZeldaFan20 on 04/21/17 at 8:40 pm


It differs from year-to-year. Some winters can be quite cold (for here anyway) with lows getting down into 20s or occasionally 10s. Usually it's somewhere in the 30s/40s for lows and 50s/60s for highs. We don't really have much in the way of true "falls" and "springs" around here. It starts heating up well into the 80s by April, and it can stay fairly warm up until early November, after which it finally starts cooling down. Snow is fairly common in the North Georgia mountains, but in Central Georgia it's much less common. We've only had four big snows here in my lifetime.


I see. So you guys have polar opposite winters/summers, but pretty consistent fall/springs. Thats pretty similar to where I'm from, just that its slightly colder in the winter, with lows typically in the 10's/20's and highs in the 30's/40's. Summers are hot AF, and Winters Cold as Ice. Spring and Fall seem to generally be milder, although early Spring (Late March/Early April) and early Fall (Late September/Early October) could still be relatively cold/warm respectively.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 04/21/17 at 8:43 pm


I was saying that when I started K-12 in 1992 there were still kids born in the '70s in school. Since we were both in K-12 in the 2004-05 school year that means that you were in school at the same time with somebody (me) who was in school with kids born in the '70s.

I admit that that observation made more sense before I typed it out.

Really? The oldest people that were in the 12th grade (imagine if no one get laid/left back) in the 2004-05 school year was born in late 1986-mid 1987...like you.

How could someone born in the 1970s be involved in this?

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: 2001 on 04/21/17 at 8:45 pm


Really? The oldest people that were in the 12th grade (imagine if no one get laid/left back) in the 2004-05 school year was born in late 1986-mid 1987...like you.

How could someone born in the 1970s be involved in this?


He's saying when he started kindergarten in 1992, the oldest people there were born 1975. So you went to school with someone who went to school with someone born 1975 :P

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: ZeldaFan20 on 04/21/17 at 8:45 pm


Really? The oldest people that were in the 12th grade (imagine if no one get laid/left back) in the 2004-05 school year was born in late 1986-mid 1987...like you.

How could someone born in the 1970s be involved in this?


He means that someone born in Late 86-Mid 87' like MachineHead attended school with someone born in the 70's. When they started school the oldest students were born in the 70's, when he ended the youngest students were born in the 90's.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: ZeldaFan20 on 04/21/17 at 8:46 pm


He's saying when he started kindergarten in 1992, the oldest people there were born 1975. So you went to school with someone who went to school with someone born 1975 :P


So essentially since you were born in 93' you attended school with someone who attended school with someone born in the Late 60's ;)

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 04/21/17 at 8:47 pm


He's saying when he started kindergarten in 1992, the oldest people there were born 1975. So you went to school with someone who went to school with someone born 1975 :P

;D ;D ;D ;D


He means that someone born in Late 86-Mid 87' like MachineHead attended school with someone born in the 70's. When they started school the oldest students were born in the 70's, when he ended the youngest students were born in the 90's.

I still don't get how it relates to me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: 2001 on 04/21/17 at 8:48 pm


So essentially since you were born in 93' you attended school with someone who attended school with someone born in the Late 60's ;)


The calculus gets more complicated for me, since we have two years of kindergarten starting sometime in the '80s, and we also had a Grade 13 before it was abolished in 2002. :o

It's possible I went to school with someone who went to school with someone born in the mid '60s: my mom's age. :o

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: ZeldaFan20 on 04/21/17 at 8:50 pm

Slowpoke you're a rare breed, by the U.S system your schooling experience is equal to a late 60's born in comparison to a senior in high school when you were in kindergarten (someone born in 1981). If we're to go by the condition that may include your mid 60's born mom Thats 4 decades of Kevin Bacon

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/09/14/article-2203145-1503296E000005DC-567_634x311.jpg

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--zHvW4gK3--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/wnfyyiakckla7hs0ptqb.jpg

http://kingofwallpapers.com/hallucinations/hallucinations-006.jpg

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 04/21/17 at 8:50 pm

I NEVER noticed this but technically us late 1998-mid 1999 borns are the OLDEST in the K-12 school system here in the USA :o :o :o :o :o :o.

The youngest were born in late 2011-mid 2012 :o :o :o :o :o :o.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: 2001 on 04/21/17 at 8:56 pm


Slowpoke you're a rare breed, by the U.S system your schooling experience is equal to a late 60's born in comparison to a senior in high school when you were in kindergarten (someone born in 1981). If we're to go by the condition that may include your mid 60's born mom Thats 4 decades of Kevin Bacon


I have no idea what's going on anymore. I blame mach!ne_he@d  :(

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: 80sfan on 04/21/17 at 8:56 pm


Slowpoke you're a rare breed, by the U.S system your schooling experience is equal to a late 60's born in comparison to a senior in high school when you were in kindergarten (someone born in 1981). If we're to go by the condition that may include your mid 60's born mom Thats 4 decades of Kevin Bacon

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/09/14/article-2203145-1503296E000005DC-567_634x311.jpg

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--zHvW4gK3--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/wnfyyiakckla7hs0ptqb.jpg

http://kingofwallpapers.com/hallucinations/hallucinations-006.jpg


I'm hypnotized!  :o  :o  :o  :(  :(

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 04/21/17 at 8:57 pm


I have no idea what's going on anymore. I blame mach!ne_he@d  :(

Me too :( :( :( :(.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: 2001 on 04/21/17 at 8:58 pm


I don't know, I just like movies from 2000 to 2005, more than movies from 2006 to 2009.


I tried to fudge you for this but it said "Sorry you can't repeat a karma action for at least 24 hours"  >:(

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 04/21/17 at 8:59 pm


I tried to fudge you for this but it said "Sorry you can't repeat a karma action for at least 24 hours"  >:(

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: 80sfan on 04/21/17 at 8:59 pm


I tried to fudge you for this but it said "Sorry you can't repeat a karma action for at least 24 hours"  >:(


I think 2017 has been a good year for movies. But the first half of 00's movies were better than the second half.  :(  :(  :(  :(  :(  :(  :(

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 04/21/17 at 9:00 pm


He means that someone born in Late 86-Mid 87' like MachineHead attended school with someone born in the 70's. When they started school the oldest students were born in the 70's, when he ended the youngest students were born in the 90's.


Let's get really geeky and do this for everybody. The oldest people still in K-12 school when...

You started in 2001-02 would've been 1983-84 borns.
Slowpoke (under the American system) started in 1998-99 would've been 1980-81 borns.
TheReignMan99 started in 2004-05 would've been 1986-87 borns.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 04/21/17 at 9:02 pm


Let's get really geeky and do this for everybody. The oldest people still in K-12 school when...

You started in 2001-02 would've been 1983-84 borns.
Slowpoke (under the American system) started in 1998-99 would've been 1980-81 borns.
TheReignMan99 started in 2004-05 would've been 1986-87 borns.

OH OK, I was right....I was so confused for a sec.

Also, I'll just copy and paste my earlier comment:

"I NEVER noticed this but technically us late 1998-mid 1999 borns are the OLDEST in the K-12 school system here in the USA :o :o :o :o :o :o.

The youngest were born in late 2011-mid 2012 :o :o :o :o :o :o. "

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Encoder319 on 04/21/17 at 9:03 pm

Those born in the years ending with the digits 8, 9, 0, 1, and 2 went to K-12 with people from four different decades. Me:

1978-79 in kindergarten
2002-03 in 12th grade

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 04/21/17 at 9:09 pm


Those born in the years ending with the digits 8, 9, 0, 1, and 2 went to K-12 with people from four different decades. Me:

1978-79 in kindergarten
2002-03 in 12th grade


That's true. Those born in 1988 went to school with people born 1975-76 in kindergarten and 1999-00 in 12th grade.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: HazelBlue99 on 04/21/17 at 11:54 pm


TheReignMan99 started in 2004-05 would've been 1986-87 borns.


That also applies to me. I started primary school in 2005 and the oldest people in the K-12 school system would have been people born in 1987 as well. People born in 1993 were the oldest in primary school at the time.

This is a question to anyone. If I had of started school in the US, what year would I have started? Would I have started in 2004-05 as well?

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Encoder319 on 04/22/17 at 5:12 am


That also applies to me. I started primary school in 2005 and the oldest people in the K-12 school system would have been people born in 1987 as well. People born in 1993 were the oldest in primary school at the time.

This is a question to anyone. If I had of started school in the US, what year would I have started? Would I have started in 2004-05 as well?


Your profile indicates that you're already 18 years old, meaning that your birthday falls within the first half of the calendar year. So yes, as an American you would've entered kindergarten in 2004.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 04/22/17 at 9:29 am


That also applies to me. I started primary school in 2005 and the oldest people in the K-12 school system would have been people born in 1987 as well. People born in 1993 were the oldest in primary school at the time.

This is a question to anyone. If I had of started school in the US, what year would I have started? Would I have started in 2004-05 as well?


It would depend on where you lived. If you lived where I do, then you would've started school in 2004-05 if you were born before October of 1999. Interestingly, most primary/elementary schools here are K-5, so the oldest kids in the same school as you in 2004-05 would've been 1994 borns instead of 1993. The oldest kids in my elementary school in 1992-93 were 1982 babies.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Baltimoreian on 04/22/17 at 9:30 am


This is a question to anyone. If I had of started school in the US, what year would I have started? Would I have started in 2004-05 as well?


Since you were born in early 1999, it's easy to say that you could've gone to Kindergarten during the 2004-05 school year.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 04/22/17 at 10:41 am


Your profile indicates that you're already 18 years old, meaning that your birthday falls within the first half of the calendar year. So yes, as an American you would've entered kindergarten in 2004.


It would depend on where you lived. If you lived where I do, then you would've started school in 2004-05 if you were born before October of 1999. Interestingly, most primary/elementary schools here are K-5, so the oldest kids in the same school as you in 2004-05 would've been 1994 borns instead of 1993. The oldest kids in my elementary school in 1992-93 were 1982 babies.

SharksFan99 was born March 13, 1999.....so he most definitely would have started Kindergarten in the 2004-05 school year.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 04/23/17 at 4:43 pm

Rather have grown up in the 90s than 10s, that's for DAMN sure!!! :o

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 04/23/17 at 4:49 pm


Yeah, the people born in the years that end with the digits 9, 0, and 1 are the quintessential teenagers and 20-somethings of their respective corresponding decades.

What about the digits of 4, 5, and 6? ???

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 04/23/17 at 4:52 pm


What about the digits of 4, 5, and 6? ???

Born in 1994 - Teenager from 2007 until 2013...thus not a quintessential 2010s teen.

Born in 1995 - Teenager from 2008 until 2014...thus not a quintessential 2010s teen.

Born in 1996 - Teenager from 2009 until 2015....could be considered a very slight quintessential 2010s teen.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 04/23/17 at 5:01 pm


I feel very happy that I got to associate my "youth" (18-25) with one decade, since I'm 17-26 this decade. It was a perfect match! It has really felt like "my decade" so far, although 2016/2017 have been giving me pause for thought. ;D

Yea I feel the same way too poke! :) It is nice to associate my youth with one era as well, and yes Im including 2020 as well since Trump will still be in office. ;D  But it's kinda weird cause my 20s is/will be the half of one era and the half of another.  :o

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 04/23/17 at 5:01 pm


Born in 1994 - Teenager from 2007 until 2013...thus not a quintessential 2010s teen.

Born in 1995 - Teenager from 2008 until 2014...thus not a quintessential 2010s teen.

Born in 1996 - Teenager from 2009 until 2015....could be considered a very slight quintessential 2010s teen.

True we were the eldest ones. 8)

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 04/23/17 at 5:09 pm


True we were the eldest ones. 8)

We? ???. I am unfortunately a quintessential 2010s teen :(.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 04/23/17 at 5:12 pm


We? ???. I am unfortunately a quintessential 2010s teen :(.

I was referring to the 94 and 96 Borns...

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 04/23/17 at 5:17 pm


I was referring to the 94 and 96 Borns...

OH OK....being a teen from 2012-2018 sucks. However, I wouldn't want to have been a quintessential 2000s teen :P.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mqg96 on 04/23/17 at 5:18 pm


Born in 1994 - Teenager from 2007 until 2013...thus not a quintessential 2010s teen.

Born in 1995 - Teenager from 2008 until 2014...thus not a quintessential 2010s teen.

Born in 1996 - Teenager from 2009 until 2015....could be considered a very slight quintessential 2010s teen.


I go by age 14-18 (before HS graduation) to define someone's peak teen years, however, 13-19 is pretty much the same thing, but age 13 and 19 aren't exactly like your main teen years though.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 04/23/17 at 5:22 pm


I go by age 14-18 (before HS graduation) to define someone's peak teen years, however, 13-19 is pretty much the same thing, but age 13 and 19 aren't exactly like your main teen years though.

It was just about being a teenager (13-19) not your "peak" teenage years.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mqg96 on 04/23/17 at 5:30 pm


It was just about being a teenager (13-19) not your "peak" teenage years.


Honestly, I consider age 18 1/2 through 20 to be the exact same feeling to me. That's why I look at 2010-2014 as my main teen years personally. Even though I technically became a teenager in 2009, I feel like I was never a teen in the 2000's at all. Being a 12 & 13 year old in middle school felt no different. It felt like my true teen years were over after I graduated high school.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 04/23/17 at 5:33 pm


Honestly, I consider age 18 1/2 through 20 to be the exact same feeling to me. That's why I look at 2010-2014 as my main teen years personally. Even though I technically became a teenager in 2009, I feel like I was never a teen in the 2000's at all. Being a 12 & 13 year old in middle school felt no different. It felt like my true teen years were over after I graduated high school.

That's perfectly fine. However, like I said my comment was about the literally boundaries of being a teen (ages 13-19) not when you were in your peak teen years. Even if I did do peak teen years....those born 1994-1995 weren't quintessential 2010s teens and 1996 borns like you could still be considered very slight quintessential 2010s teens.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mqg96 on 04/23/17 at 6:06 pm


That's perfectly fine. However, like I said my comment was about the literally boundaries of being a teen (ages 13-19) not when you were in your peak teen years. Even if I did do peak teen years....those born 1994-1995 weren't quintessential 2010s teens and 1996 borns like you could still be considered very slight quintessential 2010s teens.


I can see the late 1996 born's who were part of C/O 2015 as slight quintessential 2010's teens, but not early ones like me. I'm not a quintessential 2010's teenager at all, and besides the Class of 2014 (1995-96) only had one mid 2010's year in high school which was their senior year while the rest were spent in the early 2010's. 2015 and 2016 will probably be remembered as the quintessential 2010's years so far, and while I was still 19 in 2015 I was out of high school, I still had no high school years spent in a quintessential 2010's year. College life or being in the military is a whole another animal bruh.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 04/23/17 at 6:09 pm


I can see the late 1996 born's who were part of C/O 2015 as slight quintessential 2010's teens, but not early ones like me. I'm not a quintessential 2010's teenager at all, and besides the Class of 2014 (1995-96) only had one mid 2010's year in high school which was their senior year while the rest were spent in the early 2010's. 2015 and 2016 will probably be remembered as the quintessential 2010's years so far, and while I was still 19 in 2015 I was out of high school, I still had no high school years spent in a quintessential 2010's year. College life or being in the military is a whole another animal bruh.

This all the way my friend!

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 04/23/17 at 6:15 pm


I can see the late 1996 born's who were part of C/O 2015 as slight quintessential 2010's teens, but not early ones like me. I'm not a quintessential 2010's teenager at all, and besides the Class of 2014 (1995-96) only had one mid 2010's year in high school which was their senior year while the rest were spent in the early 2010's. 2015 and 2016 will probably be remembered as the quintessential 2010's years so far, and while I was still 19 in 2015 I was out of high school, I still had no high school years spent in a quintessential 2010's year. College life or being in the military is a whole another animal bruh.

True but 2013-2016 maybe 2017 will be remembered as core 2010s years. 2014 was a quintessential 2010s year. However, yes I guess that most '96 borns aren't quintessential 2010s teens.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 04/23/17 at 6:18 pm


Honestly, I consider age 18 1/2 through 20 to be the exact same feeling to me. That's why I look at 2010-2014 as my main teen years personally. Even though I technically became a teenager in 2009, I feel like I was never a teen in the 2000's at all. Being a 12 & 13 year old in middle school felt no different. It felt like my true teen years were over after I graduated high school.

Agreed. Late 2014-mid 2016 was all the same to me. A transition as time at best. ;)
Due to my birthday, my teen years regarding the era's are... Awkward! ;D  It's simply because culturally speaking I was a teen during the second half of 2008 and 2009. But by that point the core 00s were done.  :(
And yes, 11 until 14 I felt the same during ALL those years, which is why I consider 2010-2013 my peak.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 04/23/17 at 6:24 pm

People born in the '5' year are always in a weird spot when it comes to kid/teen classifications. Like, if you were born in 1995, you actually started high school in the '00s (albeit barely in late 2009), and 2014 was your last fully teenage year, meaning you were a teen for less than half of the '10s. By the time 2019 is over, you'll be 24-years-old. Certainly not close to being a teenager any more. Yet, you're still obviously too young to be considered an '00s teen.

On the other hand, I always feel like the people born in the '8' year are the ultimate teens of a given decade. For example, if you were born in 1988 then you were 13-19 from 2001-2007. It doesn't get much more "quintessential '00s teen" than that.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 04/23/17 at 6:26 pm


People born in the '5' year are always in a weird spot when it comes to kid/teen classifications. Like, if you were born in 1995, you actually started high school in the '00s (albeit barely in late 2009), and 2014 was your last fully teenage year, meaning you were a teen for less than half of the '10s. By the time 2019 is over, you'll be 24-years-old. Certainly not close to being a teenager any more. Yet, you're still obviously too young to be considered an '00s teen.

On the other hand, I always feel like the people born in the '8' year are the ultimate teens of a given decade. For example, if you were born in 1988 then you were 13-19 from 2001-2007. It doesn't get much more "quintessential '00s teen" than that.

Don't forget those of us born in years that end in "9". We are quintessential teens of decades as well.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 04/23/17 at 6:29 pm


People born in the '5' year are always in a weird spot when it comes to kid/teen classifications. Like, if you were born in 1995, you actually started high school in the '00s (albeit barely in late 2009), and 2014 was your last fully teenage year, meaning you were a teen for less than half of the '10s. By the time 2019 is over, you'll be 24-years-old. Certainly not close to being a teenager any more. Yet, you're still obviously too young to be considered an '00s teen.

On the other hand, I always feel like the people born in the '8' year are the ultimate teens of a given decade. For example, if you were born in 1988 then you were 13-19 from 2001-2007. It doesn't get much more "quintessential '00s teen" than that.

You realize, some started in 2010 like myself...  But anyways, yea I'm in a VERY awkward position when it comes to the kid/ teen definition. What about those born in the 4 year when it comes to classification?!

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mxcrashxm on 04/23/17 at 6:31 pm


Don't forget those of us born in years that end in "9". We are quintessential teens of decades as well.
And those in the 0 year as well. I've noticed when it comes to adolescence (from 10/11-18), folks in the 8-1 group seem to be the quintessential teens of their respective era. 

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 04/23/17 at 6:33 pm


And those in the 0 year as well. I've noticed when it comes to adolescence (from 10/11-18), folks in the 8-1 group seem to be the quintessential teens of their respective era. 

Ya mean 10 1/2. ;)  But yeah. ;D

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mxcrashxm on 04/23/17 at 6:35 pm


Ya mean 10 1/2. ;)  But yeah. ;D
I know 10 year olds are in the 5th G (or sometimes 4th), but when one hit his/her double digits, adolescence comes into place. ;)

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 04/23/17 at 6:36 pm


I know 10 year olds are in the 5th G (or sometimes 4th), but when one hit his/her double digits, adolescence comes into place. ;)

I know one hits double digits is a big deal, but I still consider that age to be the prime of my childhood.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 04/23/17 at 6:36 pm


Don't forget those of us born in years that end in "9". We are quintessential teens of decades as well.


Yeah, 8-9 are probably the two main "core teen" years.


You realize, some started in 2010 like myself...  But anyways, yea I'm in a VERY awkward position when it comes to the kid/ ten definition. What about those born in the 4 year when it comes to classification?!


The "4" year is arguably even more complicated. If you were born in early-to-mid 1994, then your high school career was 2008-2012, basically spanning the entire late '00s/early '10s time period. You're still too young to be an '00s teen, only turning 13 in 2007, but you're also way too old to be considered a true '10s teen either.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 04/23/17 at 6:37 pm


And those in the 0 year as well. I've noticed when it comes to adolescence (from 10/11-18), folks in the 8-1 group seem to be the quintessential teens of their respective era.

True.

Born in 1998 - Teen from 2011-2017 (peak teen from 2012-2015)

Born in 1999 - Teen from 2012-2018 (peak teen from 2013-2016)

Born in 2000 - Teen from 2013-2019 (peak teen from 2014-2017)

Born in 2001 - Teen from 2014-2020 (peak teen from 2015-2018)

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 04/23/17 at 6:40 pm


Yeah, 8-9 are probably the two main "core teen" years.

The "4" year is arguably even more complicated. If you were born in early-to-mid 1994, then your high school career was 2008-2012, basically spanning the entire late '00s/early '10s time period. You're still too young to be an '00s teen, only turning 13 in 2007, but you're also way too old to be considered a true '10s teen either.

Yup. It's a no win situation for me. ;D ;)

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mxcrashxm on 04/23/17 at 6:41 pm


I know one hits double digits is a big deal, but I still consider that age to be the prime of my childhood.
Prime? I thought 5-9 was the prime.


True.

Born in 1998 - Teen from 2011-2017 (peak teen from 2012-2015)

Born in 1999 - Teen from 2012-2018 (peak teen from 2013-2016)

Born in 2000 - Teen from 2013-2019 (peak teen from 2014-2017)

Born in 2001 - Teen from 2014-2020 (peak teen from 2015-2018)
Pretty much


Yeah, 8-9 are probably the two main "core teen" years.

The "4" year is arguably even more complicated. If you were born in early-to-mid 1994, then your high school career was 2008-2012, basically spanning the entire late '00s/early '10s time period. You're still too young to be an '00s teen, only turning 13 in 2007, but you're also way too old to be considered a true '10s teen either.
I can agree if we're going by the 13-19, and not the 10/11-18 group.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 04/23/17 at 6:42 pm


Yup. It's a no win situation for me. ;D ;)

But you were born in late 1995 not 1994.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 04/23/17 at 6:42 pm


Prime? I thought 5-9 was the prime.

That's not what me and Marquis think. I think 5-10 and he thinks 6-10.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 04/23/17 at 6:43 pm


But you were born in late 1995 not 1994.

I know but still. ;D

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 04/23/17 at 6:44 pm


I know but still. ;D

It's OK, we all feel left out sometimes ;D.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mxcrashxm on 04/23/17 at 6:47 pm


That's not what me and Marquis think. I think 5-10 and he thinks 6-10.
Oh, you're going by your view. Ok. I got it ;)


Yup. It's a no win situation for me. ;D ;)
If it's anything, you, the 94 and '96 folks are pretty much in the same position.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 04/23/17 at 6:49 pm

Now what about those born in the years that end in "7" like mach!ne_he@d?

1997 borns for example were teens from 2010-2016 (peak teen from 2011-2014).

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 04/23/17 at 6:53 pm


Oh, you're going by your view. Ok. I got it ;)
If it's anything, you, the 94 and '96 folks are pretty much in the same position.

Yep. :)


And yeah, pretty much... ;D  Since you were born in Sept. of 1993, Youre kinda of a hybrid, but you lean a little more towards 00s, since 2007-2011 was you're peak. or 2008-2011, going by MY view. ;)

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mxcrashxm on 04/23/17 at 7:04 pm


And yeah, pretty much... ;D  Since you were born in Sept. of 1993, Youre kinda of a hybrid, but you lean a little more towards 00s, since 2007-2011 was you're peak. or 2008-2011, going by MY view. ;)
Yeah. I understand since most folks use the main adolescence being their HS years which 2007-11 was; however, I have to say it's a little inaccurate because 18 and 19 are generally not considered teenhood while 10-17 is.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 04/23/17 at 7:07 pm


Yeah. I understand since most folks use the main adolescence being their HS years which 2007-11 was; however, I have to say it's a little inaccurate because 18 and 19 are generally not considered teenhood while 10-17 is.

I have never heard anyone consider 10-12 year olds as teens.....ONLY TWEENS.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Slim95 on 04/23/17 at 7:09 pm


Yeah. I understand since most folks use the main adolescence being their HS years which 2007-11 was; however, I have to say it's a little inaccurate because 18 and 19 are generally not considered teenhood while 10-17 is.

I actually do consider 18 and 19 still part of the teens and 10 - 12 not part of the teens. Although you are an adult once 18 comes so it is pretty different.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mxcrashxm on 04/23/17 at 7:11 pm


I have never heard anyone consider 10-12 year olds as teens.....ONLY TWEENS.



I actually do consider 18 and 19 still part of the teens and 10 - 12 not part of the teens. Although you are an adult once 18 comes so it is pretty different.


Not teens, but more like adolescence which is the general term for the stage we're talking about. Besides, the word teenager seems to almost be exclusively used here.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 04/23/17 at 7:13 pm


Not teens, but more like adolescence which is the general term for the stage we're talking about. Besides, the word teenager seems to almost be exclusively used here.

Not even adolescence....if not tweens then I've heard 10-12 year olds be referred to as kids or big kids.....never teen or adolescent.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mxcrashxm on 04/23/17 at 7:15 pm


Not even adolescence....if not tweens then I've heard 10-12 year olds be referred to as kids or big kids.....never teen or adolescent.
That's most likely because it was here for which adolescence is uncommonly used. It doesn't seem that other countries use the word teenager though. 

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 04/23/17 at 7:20 pm


Now what about those born in the years that end in "7" like mach!ne_he@d?

1997 borns for example were teens from 2010-2016 (peak teen from 2011-2014).

Anyone? :(

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 04/23/17 at 7:23 pm


Now what about those born in the years that end in "7" like mach!ne_he@d?

1997 borns for example were teens from 2010-2016 (peak teen from 2011-2014).


I think those born in the "7" year are right there with those born in the "8" and "9" years. My main childhood years were about 1990-1998 so I'm a peak '90s kid, and my teen years were 2000-2006, so peak '00s teen. I still feel like 1988 borns are slightly more "peak" than me on both the '90s kid and '00s teen front, though.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 04/23/17 at 7:30 pm


I think those born in the "7" year are right there with those born in the "8" and "9" years. My main childhood years were about 1990-1998 so I'm a peak '90s kid, and my teen years were 2000-2006, so peak '00s teen. I still feel like 1988 borns are slightly more "peak" than me on both the '90s kid and '00s teen front, though.

I think 1985-1988 borns are "prime" '90s kids. 1987-1991 are the quintessential 2000s teens (with 1988-1990 being the "prime" quintessential teens).

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 04/23/17 at 9:32 pm


I think 1985-1988 borns are "prime" '90s kids. 1987-1991 are the quintessential 2000s teens (with 1988-1990 being the "prime" quintessential teens).

Not sure about that one, a 1985 born is an elder "90s kid"
That would be like calling me a prime 00s kid, which I'm definetly not.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 04/23/17 at 9:34 pm


I actually do consider 18 and 19 still part of the teens and 10 - 12 not part of the teens. Although you are an adult once 18 comes so it is pretty different.

Agreed Slim. have no idea what he's smoking! ;D ;)

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mxcrashxm on 04/23/17 at 9:38 pm


Agreed Slim. have no idea what he's smoking! ;D ;)
Well I'm going by what sources have said. Adolescence is a much better term because once again, 18 and 19 are not generally considered to be part of that stage despite the suffix.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: 2001 on 04/23/17 at 9:57 pm

Adolescence is the transition between childhood and adulthood. It's not like you're a kid one day and BAM childhood over, you're an ado. It's a transition. 10-13 may be adolescent, but also "child" at the same time, at least in my experience. In contrast, 18/19 might still be adolescent, but also (a very young) adult. It's a transition.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 04/23/17 at 10:04 pm


Well I'm going by what sources have said. Adolescence is a much better term because once again, 18 and 19 are not generally considered to be part of that stage despite the suffix.

To be fair, my earlier statement was also meant to serve as some humor. ;D
But, anyways 18 and 19 while a young adult, is still kinda considered teens.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mxcrashxm on 04/23/17 at 10:14 pm


Adolescence is the transition between childhood and adulthood. It's not like you're a kid one day and BAM childhood over, you're an ado. It's a transition. 10-13 may be adolescent, but also "child" at the same time, at least in my experience. In contrast, 18/19 might still be adolescent, but also (a very young) adult. It's a transition.
That's true, and I read that the stage starts right when puberty hits.


To be fair, my earlier statement was also meant to serve as some humor. ;D
But, anyways 18 and 19 while a young adult, is still kinda considered teens.
Oh, I should have known ;D

In a way, but it depends on the context.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: 80sfan on 04/23/17 at 10:30 pm

Age 10 to 13- Adolescence, but with still pieces of childhood, here and there.
Age 14 to 18- Young adulthood, but with pieces of adolescence.
Age 18 to 20/21- Young adulthood, but with pieces of adolescence, here and there.

Age 30- 98/99% of young adulthood is gone. Fully an adult now.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 04/23/17 at 10:53 pm


Not sure about that one, a 1985 born is an elder "90s kid"
That would be like calling me a prime 00s kid, which I'm definetly not.

1985 borns are "prime" '90s kids and yes 1995 borns are "prime" '00s kids. Here's why.....

A 1985 born turned 5 in 1990 and was 14 when the 1990s ended (thus core childhood was from 1990/1991 until 1995). Plus, they were 11-14 from 1996-1999.....11-13 are still kids and not in HS.

A 1995 born turned 5 in 2000 and was 14 when the 2000s ended (thus core childhood was from 2000/2001 until 2005). Plus, they were 11-14 from 2006-2009......11-13 are still kids and not in HS.

A 1985 born was 5-13 from 1990-1998 (that's basically all of the 1990s)

A 1995 born was 5-13 from 2000-2008 (that's basically all of the 2000s)

Dude, you're a "prime" '00s kid....and judging by the fact that you and Max adore 2000-2005/2006 (most of 2006)....that gives weight to my opinion 👌.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Encoder319 on 04/23/17 at 10:53 pm


I think 1985-1988 borns are "prime" '90s kids. 1987-1991 are the quintessential 2000s teens (with 1988-1990 being the "prime" quintessential teens).


Eh. The quintessential 2000s teens are more like 1988-1992, with 1989-1991 being the prime ones. They're the ones who had all or most of their true teen years (ages 14-16) in the mid 2000s.

1986-1988 - quintessential early 00s teens
1989-1991 - quintessential mid 00s teens
1992-1994 - quintessential late 00s teens

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 04/23/17 at 10:56 pm


Eh. The quintessential 2000s teens are more like 1988-1992, with 1989-1991 being the prime ones. They're the ones who had all or most of their true teen years (ages 14-16) in the mid 2000s.

1986-1988 - quintessential early 00s teens
1989-1991 - quintessential mid 00s teens
1992-1994 - quintessential late 00s teens

I'm talking about when the 2000s was at the peak of it's identity....so 1987 and 1992 borns are out of the equation for being quintessential 2000s teens. No one is saying those born 1986-1994 weren't teens in the 2000s (be mindful of that).

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: 80sfan on 04/23/17 at 11:12 pm


1985 borns are "prime" '90s kids and yes 1995 borns are "prime" '00s kids. Here's why.....

A 1985 born turned 5 in 1990 and was 14 when the 1990s ended (thus core childhood was from 1990/1991 until 1995). Plus, they were 11-14 from 1996-1999.....11-13 are still kids and not in HS.

A 1995 born turned 5 in 2000 and was 14 when the 2000s ended (thus core childhood was from 2000/2001 until 2005). Plus, they were 11-14 from 2006-2009......11-13 are still kids and not in HS.

A 1985 born was 5-13 from 1990-1998 (that's basically all of the 1990s)

A 1995 born was 5-13 from 2000-2008 (that's basically all of the 2000s)

Dude, you're a "prime" '00s kid....and judging by the fact that you and Max adore 2000-2005/2006 (most of 2006)....that gives weight to my opinion 👌.


By age 4 you should remember enough. So yeah, 1986 born, and before, are going to remember all of the 1990's. Age 3 is still kind of blurry, even if you remember some things.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 04/23/17 at 11:21 pm


By age 4 you should remember enough. So yeah, 1986 born, and before, are going to remember all of the 1990's. Age 3 is still kind of blurry, even if you remember some things.

5 (some say 6) is when your core childhood starts. When you're 4.....you're not even in mandatory schooling (K-12). Also, you're more likely to remember things from when you're 5 than when you're 4. But however yes....a 1986 born can remember all of the 1990s.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Slim95 on 04/23/17 at 11:27 pm


5 (some say 6) is when your core childhood starts. When you're 4.....you're not even in mandatory schooling (K-12). Also, you're more likely to remember things from when you're 5 than when you're 4. But however yes....a 1986 born can remember all of the 1990s.

Where I live you can start kindergarten at age 4.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: nintieskid999 on 04/24/17 at 12:12 am


By age 4 you should remember enough. So yeah, 1986 born, and before, are going to remember all of the 1990's. Age 3 is still kind of blurry, even if you remember some things.


I remember 3 pretty well but to be fair I was advanced. I was reading and doing math at that age.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: HazelBlue99 on 04/24/17 at 1:54 am


It doesn't seem that other countries use the word teenager though.


We use the words "teenager" and "adolescent" to describe someone between the ages of 13-18. It interchanges. I don't hear very many people refer to 10-12 year olds as "tweens" though. People between those ages are simply referred to as "kids".

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Encoder319 on 04/24/17 at 2:08 am

I can remember as far back as age 2 when I had a very traumatic hospital experience that involved getting stitches to my forehead. Of course I didn't know that it was "1993" at the time; my mom had to tell me what age I was when that incident occurred. The only other vague memory I may have of 1993 is when I watched the film The Vanishing (starring Kiefer Sutherland, Jeff Bridges, Sandra Bullock) with my mom. That movie came out in early 1993 and, if my research is correct, was released on VHS in August of that year.

Okay, back on topic.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Slim95 on 04/24/17 at 2:09 am


I can remember as far back as age 2 when I had a very traumatic hospital experience that involved getting stitches to my forehead. Of course I didn't know that it was "1993" at the time; my mom had to tell me what age I was when that incident occurred. The only other vague memory I may have of 1993 is when I watched the film The Vanishing (starring Kiefer Sutherland, Jeff Bridges, Sandra Bullock) with my mom. That movie came out in early 1993 and, if my research is correct, was released on VHS in August of that year.

I have three or four memories of when I was two years old.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Encoder319 on 04/24/17 at 3:21 am


We use the words "teenager" and "adolescent" to describe someone between the ages of 13-18. It interchanges. I don't hear very many people refer to 10-12 year olds as "tweens" though. People between those ages are simply referred to as "kids".


"Tween" is just a synonym for "preteen."

I know that I'm in the extreme minority here, but I actually think that there's a case to be made for including age 9 in that group. Wikipedia (yes, I know) states that the term "preadolescence," although typically defined as ages 10-13, may also refer to ages 9-14.

And based on my recollection of age 9, it actually makes a lot of sense. I was already watching teen/coming-of-age TV shows on Nickelodeon at that point (Caitlin's Way, Brothers Garcia, Amanda Show), as opposed to strictly cartoons. Age 9 was also when academic performance began to count for something. At my school, fourth graders were assigned to either regular or advanced language arts and math blocks. How well you did in those classes determined what level you'd be placed in the following year, a practice that continued through high school.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 04/24/17 at 6:45 am


Where I live you can start kindergarten at age 4.

Well, you're Canadian and I'm American.....so there's the difference.


I can remember as far back as age 2 when I had a very traumatic hospital experience that involved getting stitches to my forehead. Of course I didn't know that it was "1993" at the time; my mom had to tell me what age I was when that incident occurred. The only other vague memory I may have of 1993 is when I watched the film The Vanishing (starring Kiefer Sutherland, Jeff Bridges, Sandra Bullock) with my mom. That movie came out in early 1993 and, if my research is correct, was released on VHS in August of that year.

Okay, back on topic.

I can remember a few things from when I was 2 as well (getting my tricycle in mid 2001, watching Monsters Inc in theaters, etc).

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mqg96 on 04/24/17 at 8:17 am


By age 4 you should remember enough. So yeah, 1986 born, and before, are going to remember all of the 1990's. Age 3 is still kind of blurry, even if you remember some things.


It's different for everybody. Ages 2-4 felt the same for me, those are the vague/blurry memories of my life. Of course I remember preschool/pre-K at my private school, late 80's and 90's cars on the road, the old houses my family lived in, the old stores on the other side of my town, etc. Stuff like that, but it's not like I remembered any pop culture or significant events that were going on. Age 5 is the first year I can remember well in life with specific events that happened in order including some pop culture as well, but still had many fuzzy areas. Age 6 is when my memories crystallized 100%.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 04/24/17 at 9:07 am


1985 borns are "prime" '90s kids and yes 1995 borns are "prime" '00s kids. Here's why.....

A 1985 born turned 5 in 1990 and was 14 when the 1990s ended (thus core childhood was from 1990/1991 until 1995). Plus, they were 11-14 from 1996-1999.....11-13 are still kids and not in HS.

A 1995 born turned 5 in 2000 and was 14 when the 2000s ended (thus core childhood was from 2000/2001 until 2005). Plus, they were 11-14 from 2006-2009......11-13 are still kids and not in HS.

A 1985 born was 5-13 from 1990-1998 (that's basically all of the 1990s)

A 1995 born was 5-13 from 2000-2008 (that's basically all of the 2000s)

Dude, you're a "prime" '00s kid....and judging by the fact that you and Max adore 2000-2005/2006 (most of 2006)....that gives weight to my opinion 👌.


I agree with much of that. I think that the one argument you could make against those born in the "5" year being "prime decade kids" is that (in some cases) they might have been a little bit too old to get into some kid culture during the late part of their childhood decade.

For example, a 1985er, being 14 in 1999, might've felt too old to get into the Pokemon fad when it was in it's prime. I know, for me, I first starting thinking I was "too old" to watch cartoons when I was 12. If a 1985 born started to feel the same way at that age and started cutting back on watching cartoons in 1997, then he would've missed out on several key late '90s kids shows like Cow & Chicken, Johnny Bravo, Hey Arnold, and possibly even Toonami's peak of popularity in 1999-00.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: 2001 on 04/24/17 at 10:10 am

I don't care what age you are, if you haven't played the Pokémon games then you had no childhood.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: ZeldaFan20 on 04/24/17 at 2:24 pm


I agree with much of that. I think that the one argument you could make against those born in the "5" year being "prime decade kids" is that (in some cases) they might have been a little bit too old to get into some kid culture during the late part of their childhood decade.

For example, a 1985er, being 14 in 1999, might've felt too old to get into the Pokemon fad when it was in it's prime. I know, for me, I first starting thinking I was "too old" to watch cartoons when I was 12. If a 1985 born started to feel the same way at that age and started cutting back on watching cartoons in 1997, then he would've missed out on several key late '90s kids shows like Cow & Chicken, Johnny Bravo, Hey Arnold, and possibly even Toonami's peak of popularity in 1999-00.


I agree! Hence why I typically consider those born in the '7' or '8' years as the ultimate kids of their respected decades due to them being in their early, core, and late childhood periods during the actual early, mid/core, late periods of a respected decade. Using the birth years of 1987 & 1988 as an example:

1987ers were in their early childhood (ages 3-5) from: 1990-1992 (the early 90's)

1987ers were in their core childhood (ages 5-10) from: 1992-1997 (the core 90's/good chunk of it being mid 90's)

1987ers were in their late childhood (ages 10-12) from: 1997-1999 (the late 90's)


1988ers were in their early childhood from: 1991-1993 (the early 90's)

1988ers were in their core childhood from: 1993-1998 (the core 90's/good chunk of it being mid 90's)

1988ers were in their late childhood from: 1998-2000 (the late 90's)


During the early 90's those born in 87'-88' were the last to get into the TMNT fandom when it was at its peak (ages 3/4-5/6)

During the mid 90's those born in 87'-88' were at their peak childhoods during the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers Fandom when it peaked (ages 5/6-8/9)

During the late 90's those born in 87'-88' were probably the oldest to have fully gotten into the Pokemon fandom during its peak in the late 90's (ages 10/11-12/13).


1985/1986 is the perfect age to have had their core childhood primairly in the early/mid 90's, while 1989/1990 is the perfect age to have had their core childhood primairly in the mid/late 90's. 1987/1988ers were the perfectly equivalent 90's kids, and ironically most of your stereotypical "thuh 90's were the greatest decade ofvvv all time!!!!" kind of people were born in those two years ;D


qkM6RJf15cg

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 04/24/17 at 2:45 pm


I agree! Hence why I typically consider those born in the '7' or '8' years as the ultimate kids of their respected decades due to them being in their early, core, and late childhood periods during the actual early, mid/core, late periods of a respected decade. Using the birth years of 1987 & 1988 as an example:

1987ers were in their early childhood (ages 3-5) from: 1990-1992 (the early 90's)

1987ers were in their core childhood (ages 5-10) from: 1992-1997 (the core 90's/good chunk of it being mid 90's)

1987ers were in their late childhood (ages 10-12) from: 1997-1999 (the late 90's)


1988ers were in their early childhood from: 1991-1993 (the early 90's)

1988ers were in their core childhood from: 1993-1998 (the core 90's/good chunk of it being mid 90's)

1988ers were in their late childhood from: 1998-2000 (the late 90's)


During the early 90's those born in 87'-88' were the last to get into the TMNT fandom when it was at its peak (ages 3/4-5/6)

During the mid 90's those born in 87'-88' were at their peak childhoods during the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers Fandom when it peaked (ages 5/6-8/9)

During the late 90's those born in 87'-88' were probably the oldest to have fully gotten into the Pokemon fandom during its peak in the late 90's (ages 10/11-12/13).


1985/1986 is the perfect age to have had their core childhood primairly in the early/mid 90's, while 1989/1990 is the perfect age to have had their core childhood primairly in the mid/late 90's. 1987/1988ers were the perfectly equivalent 90's kids, and ironically most of your stereotypical "thuh 90's were the greatest decade ofvvv all time!!!!" kind of people were born in those two years ;D


qkM6RJf15cg


Spot on. One of my friends was born in 1988 and he's the youngest mega TMNT fan I know. He had TMNT 1, 2 and 3 all on VHS growing up, along with about a dozen episodes of the 1987 cartoon as well. TMNT was replaced by Power Rangers as the top kid fad after 1993, so it would be almost impossible for anybody younger than that to have gotten into it in a big way.

With Pokemon, I've seen mid '80s borns get into it, but it's much less common than late '80s folk. I have a few friends born in 1984 or 1985 that collected the cards or played the Gen 1 games on Game Boy, but not many. I even know some people born in 1987-88 that scoffed at Pokemon in 1999 and didn't get into it because they thought it was "for babies", so 1987 is probably about the oldest age group that liked Pokemon in a big way.

That Internet Explorer video, by the way, was definitely made by somebody born in the mid-to-late '80s. I can relate to every single thing in that video, except for bowl cuts. Thank God my parents never subjected me to that. ;D

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: ZeldaFan20 on 04/24/17 at 3:02 pm


Spot on. One of my friends was born in 1988 and he's the youngest mega TMNT fan I know. He had TMNT 1, 2 and 3 all on VHS growing up, along with about a dozen episodes of the 1987 cartoon as well. TMNT was replaced by Power Rangers as the top kid fad after 1993, so it would be almost impossible for anybody younger than that to have gotten into it in a big way.

With Pokemon, I've seen mid '80s borns get into it, but it's much less common than late '80s folk. I have a few friends born in 1984 or 1985 that collected the cards or played the Gen 1 games on Game Boy, but not many. I even know some people born in 1987-88 that scoffed at Pokemon in 1999 and didn't get into it because they thought it was "for babies", so 1987 is probably about the oldest age group that liked Pokemon in a big way.

That Internet Explorer video, by the way, was definitely made by somebody born in the mid-to-late '80s. I can relate to every single thing in that video, except for bowl cuts. Thank God my parents never subjected me to that. ;D


Thats awesome! Going by when we were at for similar ages for certain fandoms, I'm guessing the TMNT fad was for Late 80's babies similar to as the Pokemon fad was for Mid 90's babies. People around my age (born 95-96/97) were probably the absolute youngest to have gotten into Pokemon's initial peak in popularity during the VERY Late 90's/Early 00's aka the 'Y2K' Era (Summer 1999-Summer 2001). However, we also were big fans of shows like Yu-Gi-Oh & DBZ during our core childhoods in the early 2000's. For people of my age, our Pokemon was your TMNT, our DBZ was your Power Rangers, and our Ben 10 was your Pokemon.

Also, yeah it seems like 86'-88' babies were the oldest to have gotten into Pokemon, without being scoffed at. Those born in 85' & before were in high school when it came out, so they had a reputation to keep ;D. There's a few things I could relate to with the Internet Explorer video such as 56k dial up, yo-yos, Hungry Hungry Hippos, and those godawful Bowl Cuts ;D.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: 2001 on 04/24/17 at 3:12 pm


Spot on. One of my friends was born in 1988 and he's the youngest mega TMNT fan I know. He had TMNT 1, 2 and 3 all on VHS growing up, along with about a dozen episodes of the 1987 cartoon as well. TMNT was replaced by Power Rangers as the top kid fad after 1993, so it would be almost impossible for anybody younger than that to have gotten into it in a big way.

With Pokemon, I've seen mid '80s borns get into it, but it's much less common than late '80s folk. I have a few friends born in 1984 or 1985 that collected the cards or played the Gen 1 games on Game Boy, but not many. I even know some people born in 1987-88 that scoffed at Pokemon in 1999 and didn't get into it because they thought it was "for babies", so 1987 is probably about the oldest age group that liked Pokemon in a big way.

That Internet Explorer video, by the way, was definitely made by somebody born in the mid-to-late '80s. I can relate to every single thing in that video, except for bowl cuts. Thank God my parents never subjected me to that. ;D


I have a friend born 1984 who played the Pokémon games, but didn't watch the anime or collect the cards.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 04/24/17 at 3:30 pm


Thats awesome! Going by when we were at for similar ages for certain fandoms, I'm guessing the TMNT fad was for Late 80's babies similar to as the Pokemon fad was for Mid 90's babies. People around my age (born 95-96/97) were probably the absolute youngest to have gotten into Pokemon's initial peak in popularity during the VERY Late 90's/Early 00's aka the 'Y2K' Era (Summer 1999-Summer 2001). However, we also were big fans of shows like Yu-Gi-Oh & DBZ during our core childhoods in the early 2000's. For people of my age, our Pokemon was your TMNT, our DBZ was your Power Rangers, and our Ben 10 was your Pokemon.

Also, yeah it seems like 86'-88' babies were the oldest to have gotten into Pokemon, without being scoffed at. Those born in 85' & before were in high school when it came out, so they had a reputation to keep ;D. There's a few things I could relate to with the Internet Explorer video such as 56k dial up, yo-yos, Hungry Hungry Hippos, and those godawful Bowl Cuts ;D.


Good comparisons. Pokemon's absolute peak of popularity was mostly over by late 2001, so it's unlikely that anybody born after 1997 would remember that. I actually remember some of you mid '90s babies being into Pokemon in 1999-00. You were always the ones that the older kids would rip off in Pokemon card trades, with the older folks always convincing you to trade your holographic Charizard cards for a Weedle or something. ;D

DBZ was interesting because it attracted an older audience than Pokemon did. I was mega into DBZ in 2000-01, and even kept watching it after I started high school. DBZ had such a large reach that conceivably everybody born from about  1983-1999 could've been into it during it's peak in the early '00s.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 04/24/17 at 4:23 pm


I agree with much of that. I think that the one argument you could make against those born in the "5" year being "prime decade kids" is that (in some cases) they might have been a little bit too old to get into some kid culture during the late part of their childhood decade.

For example, a 1985er, being 14 in 1999, might've felt too old to get into the Pokemon fad when it was in it's prime. I know, for me, I first starting thinking I was "too old" to watch cartoons when I was 12. If a 1985 born started to feel the same way at that age and started cutting back on watching cartoons in 1997, then he would've missed out on several key late '90s kids shows like Cow & Chicken, Johnny Bravo, Hey Arnold, and possibly even Toonami's peak of popularity in 1999-00.

I agree with your points. However, I consider a "prime" '90s kid, '00s kid, etc to be born in the years ending in 5, 6, 7, & 8. So to me, prime '90s kids were born from 1985-1988 and prime '00s kids were born from 1995-1998. However, that doesn't mean that me (a 1999er) is/was not a '00s kid or a 1989er wasn't a '90s kid.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: af2010 on 04/24/17 at 4:39 pm

I actually think the '5 year' is the peak 'decade kid,' and I say this as an 87er; being 13/14 at the end of a decade seems more valuable than being 2/3 at the beginning. It's hard for me to even claim 90/91 as part of my childhood, at least when it comes to memories.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: ZeldaFan20 on 04/24/17 at 4:47 pm


Good comparisons. Pokemon's absolute peak of popularity was mostly over by late 2001, so it's unlikely that anybody born after 1997 would remember that. I actually remember some of you mid '90s babies being into Pokemon in 1999-00. You were always the ones that the older kids would rip off in Pokemon card trades, with the older folks always convincing you to trade your holographic Charizard cards for a Weedle or something. ;D

DBZ was interesting because it attracted an older audience than Pokemon did. I was mega into DBZ in 2000-01, and even kept watching it after I started high school. DBZ had such a large reach that conceivably everybody born from about  1983-1999 could've been into it during it's peak in the early '00s.


Yeah that was pretty much my elementary school years at the playground in a nutshell. Kids in my grade would trade Pokemon and/or Yu-Gi-Oh cards amongst each other in peace and harmony. However, when the older 4th or 5th grader kids (those born in the early 90's) would try to approach us to 'battle' them, be it Pokemon, Yu-Gi-Oh, or Beyblades, you knew sh!t was getting REAL ;D. I'm not sure if we had this conversation, but during the early 00's, more specifically the 2001-2004 period, this was known as the 'Card Game Wars'. I vividly remember kids in the playground having arguments of whether Pokemon or Yu-Gi-Oh had the better card game, TV show, video games, etc. To us 1990's babies the epic 'Pokemon vs. Yu-Gi-Oh (to a lesser extent, Digimon)' battles in the early 00's were similar to the 'Nintendo vs. SEGA' battles in the 90's.

Also DBZ was pretty big in the early 00's with kids my age. It had a cheesy WWF/E kind of vibe to it, but with the hardcore violence that was risky on television back in the day! I remember watching it on TOONAMI mainly from 2002-2004, along with the original Dragon Ball & (unfortunately) Dragon Ball GT that were simultaneously aired on the block as well back then. Its cool how the show had such a wide and varied fanbase. Heck they played reruns of the show well into 2005/6.



I actually think the '5 year' is the peak 'decade kid,' and I say this as an 87er; being 13/14 at the end of a decade seems more valuable than being 2/3 at the beginning. It's hard for me to even claim 90/91 as part of my childhood, at least when it comes to memories.


Those born in 85' remember the entirety of the 90's, but like MachineHead said was that they outgrew a lot of the Late 90's childhood trends. They weren't really that deep into stuff like Pokemon or Tamagotchis in the same way those 2-3 years younger than them were. I think 87'-88' babies are the prime 90's kids because they were the perfect age to remember and partake in all 3 90's childhood periods. They first handily experienced The early 'TMNT' era, The mid 'MMPR' era, and The late 'Pokemon' era.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mqg96 on 04/24/17 at 4:55 pm


I actually think the '5 year' is the peak 'decade kid,' and I say this as an 87er; being 13/14 at the end of a decade seems more valuable than being 2/3 at the beginning. It's hard for me to even claim 90/91 as part of my childhood, at least when it comes to memories.


I've said it many times before, being a peak decade kid has nothing to do with remembering the whole decade. I was born in 1996 and I'm definitely a prime 2000's kid, I started elementary school in late 2001 when 9/11 happened and I finished elementary school in early 2007 which was over a year before the major 2008 shift. Anybody can remember a whole decade and participated in kid culture by choice and that doesn't make them a kid of the decade. It's about being the prime kid ages during the peak of that decade. Someone born in '87 (not late but early) was 6-10 from 1993-1997 and age 8 in 1995, it doesn't get anymore peak 90's kid than that. Now the reason I say prime 90's kids were born from 1985-1988 (or late 1984-mid 1988) is because they spent all of their elementary school years in the 90's. None in the 80's and none in the 2000's. None of them had one full high school year in the 90's either, however, they did graduate high school from 2003-2006 right in the center of the 2000's. Those are reasons why the years that end with 5 through 8 are the prime kids of the decade. 

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: af2010 on 04/24/17 at 5:06 pm

I knew that comment would light a fire lol. I'm not saying you had to be born in 85 to be a 90s kid. I consider myself one. I'm saying a 13/14 year old is about as much a kid as a 2/3 year old, but they can actually remember things.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: ZeldaFan20 on 04/24/17 at 5:23 pm


I knew that comment would light a fire lol. I'm not saying you had to be born in 85 to be a 90s kid. I consider myself one. I'm saying a 13/14 year old is about as much a kid as a 2/3 year old, but they can actually remember things.


LOL, thats a good point. I guess its a matter of debate. Personally I lean more towards the latter but I could get where people are coming from when they include ages 13/14 as childhoods, especially since they're still in middle school for the most part.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mqg96 on 04/24/17 at 5:28 pm


I knew that comment would light a fire lol. I'm not saying you had to be born in 85 to be a 90s kid. I consider myself one. I'm saying a 13/14 year old is about as much a kid as a 2/3 year old, but they can actually remember things.


13 & 14 are the late childhood or early teen stage, just like 2 & 3 are the early childhood/toddler stage, but at the end of the day neither of those years are important to childhood as your age 6-10 years. It doesn't matter which ages can remember the decade or not, because remembering a decade doesn't equal to being a kid during the time. I can remember the entire 2010's, better than a 2007 born but that doesn't make me more of a 2010's kid than a 2007 born because I'm not a 2010's kid at all.

I know you weren't talking about 90's kid in general, you said "prime" 90's kid in your original comment so 1985-1988 are the prime 90's kids while 1986 & 1987 are the ultimate peak. 1985 born's were age 6-10 from 1991-1995 and 1988 born's were age 6-10 from 1994-1998. So everybody born from 1985-1988 were in their prime childhoods throughout 1994 & 1995 which were the quintessential 90's years, plus, none of them had peak years outside of that span in 1990 or 1999. They spent all of their elementary school years in the 90's, and they graduated high school between 2003-2006 right in the middle of the 2000's.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 04/24/17 at 5:32 pm


I've said it many times before, being a peak decade kid has nothing to do with remembering the whole decade. I was born in 1996 and I'm definitely a prime 2000's kid, I started elementary school in late 2001 when 9/11 happened and I finished elementary school in early 2007 which was over a year before the major 2008 shift. Anybody can remember a whole decade and participated in kid culture by choice and that doesn't make them a kid of the decade. It's about being the prime kid ages during the peak of that decade. Someone born in '87 (not late but early) was 6-10 from 1993-1997 and age 8 in 1995, it doesn't get anymore peak 90's kid than that. Now the reason I say prime 90's kids were born from 1985-1988 (or late 1984-mid 1988) is because they spent all of their elementary school years in the 90's. None in the 80's and none in the 2000's. None of them had one full high school year in the 90's either, however, they did graduate high school from 2003-2006 right in the center of the 2000's. Those are reasons why the years that end with 5 through 8 are the prime kids of the decade.


13 & 14 are the late childhood or early teen stage, just like 2 & 3 are the early childhood/toddler stage, but at the end of the day neither of those years are important to childhood as your age 6-10 years. It doesn't matter which ages can remember the decade or not, because remembering a decade doesn't equal to being a kid during the time. I can remember the entire 2010's, better than a 2007 born but that doesn't make me more of a 2010's kid than a 2007 born because I'm not a 2010's kid at all.

I know you weren't talking about 90's kid in general, you said "prime" 90's kid in your original comment so 1985-1988 are the prime 90's kids while 1986 & 1987 are the ultimate peak. 1985 born's were age 6-10 from 1991-1995 and 1988 born's were age 6-10 from 1994-1998. So everybody born from 1985-1988 were in their prime childhoods throughout 1994 & 1995 which were the quintessential 90's years, plus, none of them had peak years outside of that span in 1990 or 1999. They spent all of their elementary school years in the 90's, and they graduated high school between 2003-2006 right in the middle of the 2000's.

I agree with both comments 100%.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 04/24/17 at 5:33 pm


Yeah that was pretty much my elementary school years at the playground in a nutshell. Kids in my grade would trade Pokemon and/or Yu-Gi-Oh cards amongst each other in peace and harmony. However, when the older 4th or 5th grader kids (those born in the early 90's) would try to approach us to 'battle' them, be it Pokemon, Yu-Gi-Oh, or Beyblades, you knew sh!t was getting REAL ;D. I'm not sure if we had this conversation, but during the early 00's, more specifically the 2001-2004 period, this was known as the 'Card Game Wars'. I vividly remember kids in the playground having arguments of whether Pokemon or Yu-Gi-Oh had the better card game, TV show, video games, etc. To us 1990's babies the epic 'Pokemon vs. Yu-Gi-Oh (to a lesser extent, Digimon)' battles in the early 00's were similar to the 'Nintendo vs. SEGA' battles in the 90's.


That actually sounds very similar to Pogs/Slammers for us mid '90s kids. We used to have some epic playground battles when I was in 2nd and 3rd grade over Pogs, especially if a kid lost a bunch of good ones a didn't want to give them up. ;D


LOL, thats a good point. I guess its a matter of debate. Personally I lean more towards the latter but I could get where people are coming from when they include ages 13/14 as childhoods, especially since they're still in middle school for the most part.


I think it probably differs from person to person. By the time I was 13, I had largely stopped watching cartoons except for Toonami, and only watched Nickelodeon for the live-action shows. By that point, I was spending most of my time watching MTV and starting to worry much more about buying CDs than Pokemon cards. I'm sure there are others, though, that might've continued being into kids stuff at a later age.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: ZeldaFan20 on 04/24/17 at 5:44 pm


That actually sounds very similar to Pogs/Slammers for us mid '90s kids. We used to have some epic playground battles when I was in 2nd and 3rd grade over Pogs, especially if a kid lost a bunch of good ones a didn't want to give them up. ;D


That's awesome! I never played with POGs... however they do look fun!



I think it probably differs from person to person. By the time I was 13, I had largely stopped watching cartoons except for Toonami, and only watched Nickelodeon for the live-action shows. By that point, I was spending most of my time watching MTV and starting to worry much more about buying CDs than Pokemon cards. I'm sure there are others, though, that might've continued being into kids stuff at a later age.

Yeah for me by 7th grade I felt I had officially grew out of most kiddy things. I wearing popular teenaged fashion, listening to music on my Discman, I had just gotten my first cell phone, and I was watching shows targeted at teens/adults. I really only watched Nick for its live action shows by that point, and CN was a dumpster fire by that point (Noodz era, also around when they cancelled TOONAMI) so I definitely wasn't watching that sh!t ;D

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Tyrannosaurus Rex on 04/24/17 at 6:08 pm


That's awesome! I never played with POGs... however they do look fun!


I played pogs, but even though I don't play it anymore, I still collect them.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/41/Image-Pog_Collection.jpg

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: ZeldaFan20 on 04/24/17 at 6:13 pm


I played pogs, but even though I don't play it anymore, I still collect them.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/41/Image-Pog_Collection.jpg


That's wassup! What drew you into the hobby?

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Tyrannosaurus Rex on 04/24/17 at 6:16 pm


That's wassup! What drew you into the hobby?


I was introduced to them by a friend a while ago. I have pogs that look like the ones in the picture, but the ones he introduced me to were the MapleStory pogs. The MapleStory pogs looked like this:

http://thumbs.ebaystatic.com/images/g/0dMAAOSwBahVK-Bt/s-l225.jpg

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Zelek3 on 04/24/17 at 9:00 pm

I'm surprised you (born 1999) were into the pogs fad... in the mid 2000s at that! I had heard that pogs died after the mid 90s, and growing up in the 2000s I (a 95er) never saw a single one or had even heard of them until Buzzfeed and other "90s-fest" sites started mentioning them around 2010.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Tyrannosaurus Rex on 04/24/17 at 9:02 pm


I'm surprised you were into the pogs fad... in the mid 2000s at that! I had heard that pogs died after the mid 90s, and growing up in the 2000s I never saw a single one.


It was actually a little later in my childhood. Think late 2000's and the very early 2010's (2008-2010/2011).

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 04/24/17 at 9:03 pm


I'm surprised you (born 1999) were into the pogs fad... in the mid 2000s at that! I had heard that pogs died after the mid 90s, and growing up in the 2000s I (a 95er) never saw a single one or had even heard of them until Buzzfeed and other "90s-fest" sites started mentioning them around 2010.

I'm the exact same way. I didn't even know of Pogs until BuzzFeed. T-Rex had a very unique childhood.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Zelek3 on 04/24/17 at 9:16 pm


qkM6RJf15cg

I don't understand why Microsoft disabled the comments on that video, lol.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: ZeldaFan20 on 04/24/17 at 9:19 pm


I don't understand why Microsoft disabled the comments on that video, lol.


Probably to avoid the annoying ass debates on who is a 90's kid or not. Good riddance... >:(

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 04/24/17 at 9:21 pm


Probably to avoid the annoying ass debates on who is a 90's kid or not. Good riddance... >:(

We all know that those born from 1980-1989 are the real '90s kids 8).

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Zelek3 on 04/24/17 at 10:08 pm

I've always thought of 90s kids as 1984-1993 and 00s kids as 1994-2003. I'll leave it at that and not debate further.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 04/24/17 at 10:34 pm


I've always thought of 90s kids as 1984-1993 and 00s kids as 1994-2003. I'll leave it at that and not debate further.

Well.. guess what. I think 1983-1992 and 1993-2002. But to each his own.
I have question how do you relate to 1993ers?! That may plah a role in to why you think they are different from you

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 04/24/17 at 10:35 pm


We all know that those born from 1980-1989 are the real '90s kids 8) .

Yup 80s babies are the true 90s kids.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 04/24/17 at 11:04 pm

This dude still hasnt responded to my post... ::) ;D

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Zelek3 on 04/24/17 at 11:11 pm


I have question how do you relate to 1993ers?! That may plah a role in to why you think they are different from you

Not sure. I've never asked a person his birthdate IRL. :P

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mqg96 on 04/24/17 at 11:20 pm


I've always thought of 90s kids as 1984-1993 and 00s kids as 1994-2003. I'll leave it at that and not debate further.


1983-1991 are 90's kids and 1993-2001 are 00's kids. 1982, 1992, and 2002 are hybrids of their respect decades.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 04/24/17 at 11:34 pm


Yup 80s babies are the true 90s kids.

I was half-joking but...it doesn't matter.


1983-1991 are 90's kids and 1993-2001 are 00's kids. 1982, 1992, and 2002 are hybrids of their respect decades.

I agree 100% with that.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 04/24/17 at 11:48 pm


1983-1991 are 90's kids and 1993-2001 are 00's kids. 1982, 1992, and 2002 are hybrids of their respect decades.

Yup. Agreed my brotha! :)

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: 1999 Baby, 2000s Kid on 04/25/17 at 1:36 am

Probably 10's, because that'd be closer to how my childhood was.

Very happy to be a 2000's kid though! :)

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 04/25/17 at 9:00 am


I was introduced to them by a friend a while ago. I have pogs that look like the ones in the picture, but the ones he introduced me to were the MapleStory pogs. The MapleStory pogs looked like this:

http://thumbs.ebaystatic.com/images/g/0dMAAOSwBahVK-Bt/s-l225.jpg


I used to have a massive collection of pogs back in the mid '90s, but sadly most of them are long gone.

I do still have a few left though, including these awesome Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers pogs that I won from a classmate when I was in 2nd grade. They looked very similar to this.

https://assets.listia.com/photos/141d929caa9b419d1cdd/original.png?s=320x320m&sig=2a33ff6427fce589&ts=1429659259

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: 2001 on 04/25/17 at 1:12 pm

This is the first I'm hearing of pogs. They look like my NFC tags.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 04/25/17 at 1:51 pm


This is the first I'm hearing of pogs. They look like my NFC tags.


You've never heard of pogs? And some guy on YouTube told me that 1993 babies were the ULTIMATE '90s kids. :-\\

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mqg96 on 04/25/17 at 2:05 pm


You've never heard of pogs? And some guy on YouTube told me that 1993 babies were the ULTIMATE '90s kids. :-\\


I've never heard of pawgs before?  ???

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mqg96 on 04/25/17 at 2:06 pm


This is the first I'm hearing of pogs. They look like my NFC tags.


NFC, as in the National Football Conference in the NFL? Oh I have many of those tags!

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: 2001 on 04/25/17 at 3:48 pm


You've never heard of pogs? And some guy on YouTube told me that 1993 babies were the ULTIMATE '90s kids. :-\\


Silly, everyone knows the '90s didn't end until 2004.
NFC, as in the National Football Conference in the NFL? Oh I have many of those tags!


I had to look that up. Those are pretty cool.  8)

By NFC I meant near-field communication.

http://i.imgur.com/wYaGuAC.jpg

It costs $1 each and stores 32KB of data. I programmed this specific one so that I have to tap my phone on it to disable my alarm in the morning, and I programmed the disabling to turn on the lights in my room and start playing a livestream on my TV (through Internet connected Chromecast). 

That's my so called 2010s life. And you guys want to be '90s kids?! NFC tags >>> Pogs.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: 80sfan on 04/25/17 at 4:08 pm


I don't care what age you are, if you haven't played the Pokémon games then you had no childhood.


>:(  >:(  >:(

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: JordanK1982 on 04/25/17 at 4:16 pm

Pogs were just some silly little trend from 1992-1993. It's always the dumb little millennials born in 1991 who think they're actual "90's kids" that go on about pogs. ::) Us superior born-in-the-80s alpha males know better. 

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 04/25/17 at 4:19 pm


You've never heard of pogs? And some guy on YouTube told me that 1993 babies were the ULTIMATE '90s kids. :-\\

Maybe it has to do with the fact that he's Canadian and not American. It's seems like Pogs was mostly an American kid fad of the 1990s.


I've never heard of pawgs before?  ???

Pogs were popular amongst kids (seemingly mainly American kids) in the 1990s. They died out in popularity in the late 1990s. So of course since you was born in 1996, you don't know what Pogs are. I literally only know of Pogs because of the BuzzFeed '90s nostlagia hype train articles and listicles (articles that are lists).

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: 2001 on 04/25/17 at 4:21 pm


Pogs were just some silly little trend from 1992-1993. It's always the dumb little millennials born in 1991 who think they're actual "90's kids" that go on about pogs. ::) Us superior born-in-the-80s alpha males know better.


What do you do with pogs? Is it like 2D marbles?

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: JordanK1982 on 04/25/17 at 4:27 pm


What do you do with pogs? Is it like 2D marbles?



You're supposed to slam 'em down or some sh!t. They were only popular around 1993 or whatever. After that I never heard about them again.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mqg96 on 04/25/17 at 10:28 pm


Maybe it has to do with the fact that he's Canadian and not American. It's seems like Pogs was mostly an American kid fad of the 1990s.
Pogs were popular amongst kids (seemingly mainly American kids) in the 1990s. They died out in popularity in the late 1990s. So of course since you was born in 1996, you don't know what Pogs are. I literally only know of Pogs because of the BuzzFeed '90s nostlagia hype train articles and listicles (articles that are lists).


LOL you don't have to notify me I get it. I was being sarcastic with that comment anyway.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 04/25/17 at 10:56 pm


LOL you don't have to notify me I get it. I was being sarcastic with that comment anyway.

LOL sorry fam. Sarcasm doesn't translate well online (I've learned that personally both as the person who was being sarcastic and the person who didn't get another person's sarcasm)

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Baltimoreian on 04/26/17 at 10:18 am


LOL sorry fam. Sarcasm doesn't translate well online (I've learned that personally both as the person who was being sarcastic and the person who didn't get another person's sarcasm)


Sarcasm is more better in real life anyway, since it's not monotone unlike Internet texted sarcasm.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mxcrashxm on 04/29/17 at 6:50 pm

I would rather be a '90s kid although I'm partly one because there was so much variety from literally everything, something that has been mainly missing from this decade. As for being a 00s teen, I wouldn't cringe on it since there was still diversity in everything. I mean, if one didn't like Emo, then he or she could go for the semi-baggy look. If one despised snap rap, he or she still had R&B. 

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: wixness on 04/30/17 at 5:08 pm


I would rather be a '90s kid although I'm partly one because there was so much variety from literally everything, something that has been mainly missing from this decade. As for being a 00s teen, I wouldn't cringe on it since there was still diversity in everything. I mean, if one didn't like Emo, then he or she could go for the semi-baggy look. If one despised snap rap, he or she still had R&B.


Yep. If you're in the 2010s, people have to succumb to the hipster borg because they think it's "classy". I think they're just trying to take us back to the 1950s, but with LGBT rights and no racism.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 05/02/17 at 10:52 am


possibly even Toonami's peak of popularity in 1999-00.

Debatable... ::)

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 05/02/17 at 11:20 am


Debatable... ::)


Of course it's debatable, but DBZ, ReBoot, Gundam Wing, Sailor Moon and Tenchi Muyo are hard to beat. ;)

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 05/02/17 at 11:50 am


Of course it's debatable, but DBZ, ReBoot, Gundam Wing, Sailor Moon and Tenchi Muyo are hard to beat. ;)

1999-2003, in general was the golden period of toonami. I just think the TOM 2 era took it to a WHOLE nother level. :D :D :D

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: ZeldaFan20 on 05/02/17 at 12:46 pm


1999-2003, in general was the golden period of toonami. I just think the TOM 2 era took it to a WHOLE nother level. :D :D :D


I second this!

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mqg96 on 05/02/17 at 12:48 pm


Of course it's debatable, but DBZ, ReBoot, Gundam Wing, Sailor Moon and Tenchi Muyo are hard to beat. ;)


TOM 1 was great, but TOM 2 was the absolute peak. TOM 1's best lineup happened during Summer 2000, however, most people believe the TOM 2 era from Fall 2000 through all of 2002 had the best lineup of shows and designs. TOM 3 was my favorite era even though the block started going past its peak by then, but I was only 7 when TOM 3 debuted so that makes sense. 2003 Toonami/SVES and 2005 Toonami Saturday nights were my favorite lineups.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: ZeldaFan20 on 05/02/17 at 1:41 pm


TOM 1 was great, but TOM 2 was the absolute peak. TOM 1's best lineup happened during Summer 2000, however, most people believe the TOM 2 era from Fall 2000 through all of 2002 had the best lineup of shows and designs. TOM 3 was my favorite era even though the block started going past its peak by then, but I was only 7 when TOM 3 debuted so that makes sense. 2003 Toonami/SVES and 2005 Toonami Saturday nights were my favorite lineups.


Yeah I feel like 2003 & 2004 had the best TOONAMI lineup! Overall TOONAMI from 1999-2005/6 was kickass!

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 05/02/17 at 1:54 pm


TOM 1 was great, but TOM 2 was the absolute peak. TOM 1's best lineup happened during Summer 2000, however, most people believe the TOM 2 era from Fall 2000 through all of 2002 had the best lineup of shows and designs. TOM 3 was my favorite era even though the block started going past its peak by then, but I was only 7 when TOM 3 debuted so that makes sense. 2003 Toonami/SVES and 2005 Toonami Saturday nights were my favorite lineups.

Yup Yup!!! TOM 2 ruled. DBZ, Outlaw Star Tenchi Muyo, Gundam, Big O, Zoids, Batman Beyond, G-Force, Batman and Superman reruns, etc. :D :D :D
When DBZ ended and TOM changed his look that ended the golden age.


Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 05/02/17 at 1:57 pm


I second this!

Okay, TOM 3's DESIGN looked pretty damn cool. But the TOM 3 the period was not better than the TOM 2 period...
DBZ, Outlaw Star Tenchi Muyo, Classic Gundam, Big O, Zoids, Batman Beyond, G-Force, He Man 2002, Gi Joe, Transformers Armada, Batman and Superman reruns were MUCH better than JLU, Megas XLR, DBGT, Cyborg, Astro Boy, Rave Master, IGPX, Gundam Seed,Transformers Cyberton, Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo etc. ;D  Yu Yu Haksuho and Kenshin were hybrids so I don't count those. ::)

Yeah I feel like 2003 & 2004 had the best TOONAMI lineup! Overall TOONAMI from 1999-2005/6 was kickass!

Sigh... I guess It depends on when you started watching. Maybe you're just not that much into anime like I was/is. I know for a fact Marquis isn't a big anmie guy which is why he prefers TOM 3 era because there was less emphasizes on anime during that era.
2003 was good/great and all. But in 2004 the block was past its prime. and don't even get me started on 2005/06 was WAY past its peak. ;D
2001 and 2002 years was the true GOAT!!! That was special. :) 

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: ZeldaFan20 on 05/02/17 at 2:49 pm


Okay, TOM 3's DESIGN looked pretty damn cool. But the TOM 3 the period was not better than the TOM 2 period...
DBZ, Outlaw Star Tenchi Muyo, Classic Gundam, Big O, Zoids, Batman Beyond, G-Force, He Man 2002, Gi Joe, Transformers Armada, Batman and Superman reruns were MUCH better than JLU, Megas XLR, DBGT, Cyborg, Astro Boy, Rave Master, IGPX, Gundam Seed,Transformers Cyberton, Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo etc. ;D  Yu Yu Haksuho and Kenshin were hybrids so I don't count those. ::) Sigh... I guess It depends on when you started watching. Maybe you're just not that much into anime like I was/is. I know for a fact Marquis isn't a big anmie guy which is why he prefers TOM 3 era because there was less emphasizes on anime during that era.
2003 was good/great and all. But in 2004 the block was past its prime. and don't even get me started on 2005/06 was WAY past its peak. ;D
2001 and 2002 years was the true GOAT!!! That was special. :)


I agree, objectively the golden age was roughly from 1999-2003, however, subjectively I thought the start of TOM 3 was the best. DBZ was at the end of its prime with the Buu saga, you had the start of Yu Yu Hakusho, Ruroni Kenshin, reruns of Justice League, Batman TAS, etc. Also I started watching regularly around Late 2001/Early 2002 so I vividly remember TOONAMI's TOM 2 Era. I'll admit 2005/6 doesn't really belong in the golden age, but it was still pretty kickass back then!

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: ZeldaFan20 on 05/02/17 at 2:54 pm

I guess if I had to divide it up it'll look like this:

1997-1999: Moltar Era - Platinium Age

1999-2000: TOM 1 Era - 1st Silver Age

2000-2003: TOM 2 Era - Golden Age

2003-2007: TOM 3 Era - 2nd Silver Age

2007-2008: TOM 4 Era - Bronze Age

2008: Its death

2008-2012: Lack of Toonami - Dark Ages

2012-2013: Revival of Toonami - Neo Platinum Age

2013-2016: TOM 5 Era Phase 1 - Neo Silver Age

2016-Present: TOM 5 Era Phase 2 - Neo Golden Age

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 05/02/17 at 3:04 pm


I agree, objectively the golden age was roughly from 1999-2003, however, subjectively I thought the start of TOM 3 was the best. DBZ was at the end of its prime with the Buu saga, you had the start of Yu Yu Hakusho, Ruroni Kenshin, reruns of Justice League, Batman TAS, etc. Also I started watching regularly around Late 2001/Early 2002 so I vividly remember TOONAMI's TOM 2 Era. I'll admit 2005/6 doesn't really belong in the golden age, but it was still pretty kickass back then!

OH. I see. :o The VERY beginning of TOM 3,I figured that's what you were talkin bout. my dude you are soo right on that one. :o  It felt like everything was on during that time. Also that period (arguably) had the most diversity if we're talking programming.(The last epsiodes of DBZ, Dragon Ball,  Ruroni Kenshin, Yu Yu Hakusho, JL reruns, hack/sign, Neon Evangelison, Transformers Armada, Hamtaro ;D , STAR WARS Clone Wars,  cyborg 009, IGPX, hell even Samuria Jack reruns in may 2003 etc. :D
The end of TOM 2/ start of TOM 3, was INCREDIBLE. That's still remins my 2nd fav time of the block RIGHT next to 2001.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 05/02/17 at 3:24 pm

I can't really argue with you guys about 2000-01 Toonami. It was still awesome then. Outlaw Star is one of my all-time favorite anime shows, actually. 8)

I don't know anything about Toonami in 2003 or 2004, though. I wasn't watching it anymore by that point. :P

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 05/02/17 at 3:53 pm


I guess if I had to divide it up it'll look like this:

1997-1999: Moltar Era - Platinium Age

1999-2000: TOM 1 Era - 1st Silver Age

2000-2003: TOM 2 Era - Golden Age

2003-2007: TOM 3 Era - 2nd Silver Age

2007-2008: TOM 4 Era - Bronze Age

2008: Its death

2008-2012: Lack of Toonami - Dark Ages

2012-2013: Revival of Toonami - Neo Platinum Age

2013-2016: TOM 5 Era Phase 1 - Neo Silver Age

2016-Present: TOM 5 Era Phase 2 - Neo Golden Age

I agree with you 100% on this.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: ZeldaFan20 on 05/02/17 at 5:11 pm


OH. I see. :o The VERY beginning of TOM 3,I figured that's what you were talkin bout. my dude you are soo right on that one. :o  It felt like everything was on during that time. Also that period (arguably) had the most diversity if we're talking programming.(The last epsiodes of DBZ, Dragon Ball,  Ruroni Kenshin, Yu Yu Hakusho, JL reruns, hack/sign, Neon Evangelison, Transformers Armada, Hamtaro ;D , STAR WARS Clone Wars,  cyborg 009, IGPX, hell even Samuria Jack reruns in may 2003 etc. :D
The end of TOM 2/ start of TOM 3, was INCREDIBLE. That's still remins my 2nd fav time of the block RIGHT next to 2001.


THIS. 2003 TOONAMI was hands down my favorite year for TOONAMIi! I think this video from YouTube best represents 2003 TOONAMI in a nutshell!
whDPASwEiNU

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: ZeldaFan20 on 05/02/17 at 5:11 pm


I agree with you 100% on this.


Thanks bro! BTW when did you start watching the block?

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 05/02/17 at 5:18 pm


Thanks bro! BTW when did you start watching the block?

Around the year 2003.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mxcrashxm on 05/02/17 at 6:00 pm


I guess if I had to divide it up it'll look like this:

1997-1999: Moltar Era - Platinium Age

1999-2000: TOM 1 Era - 1st Silver Age

2000-2003: TOM 2 Era - Golden Age

2003-2007: TOM 3 Era - 2nd Silver Age

2007-2008: TOM 4 Era - Bronze Age

2008: Its death

2008-2012: Lack of Toonami - Dark Ages

2012-2013: Revival of Toonami - Neo Platinum Age

2013-2016: TOM 5 Era Phase 1 - Neo Silver Age

2016-Present: TOM 5 Era Phase 2 - Neo Golden Age


Overall TOONAMI from 1999-2005/6 was kickass!

I agree with your chart and your statement. It's amazing how I was able to witness almost the entire history of Toonami. I first began watching the block when Moltar was the host, and then stopped with TOM 3; therefore, I thankfully missed the horror of TOM 4. Saw the revival which was awesome 8), and TOM 5 much later.

Now I will say that I haven't watched Toonami lately since I haven't watched much TV; however, once I will get back into it sooner or later, it's going to be boss again! :) 8)

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mxcrashxm on 05/02/17 at 10:22 pm


Yep. If you're in the 2010s, people have to succumb to the hipster borg because they think it's "classy". I think they're just trying to take us back to the 1950s, but with LGBT rights and no racism.
Yeah, and it sucks. I rather have variety where everyone be anything they want. Having monotone fashion is not the business.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 05/02/17 at 10:25 pm


Yeah, and it sucks. I rather have variety where everyone be anything they want. Having monotone fashion is not the business.

That's one thing I don't like about the 2010s and why I'm sort of scared for the future :-\\.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mxcrashxm on 05/02/17 at 10:52 pm


That's one thing I don't like about the 2010s and why I'm sort of scared for the future :-\\.
Yeah, I'm trying to be optimistic as possible; however, with all the monotone BS, it's slightly decreasing.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 05/02/17 at 10:57 pm


Yeah, I'm trying to be optimistic as possible; however, with all the monotone BS, it's slightly decreasing.

Yeah man but we can't change the way the wind blows :-\\.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mxcrashxm on 05/02/17 at 11:00 pm


Yeah man but we can't change the way the wind blows :-\\.
Well we can. We can just go out, and protest. ;)

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 05/02/17 at 11:04 pm


Well we can. We can just go out, and protest. ;)

#NotMyFuture ;)

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mxcrashxm on 05/02/17 at 11:12 pm


#NotMyFuture ;)
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: 80sfan on 05/02/17 at 11:33 pm

00's kids probably watched Dragon Tails.  :o

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Zelek3 on 05/02/17 at 11:34 pm

I liked Cyberchase better, that show was kino.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 05/02/17 at 11:35 pm


00's kids probably watched Dragon Tails.  :o

*Dragon Tales. And so what that show was OG to the max fam 8).

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 05/02/17 at 11:36 pm


I liked Cyberchase better, that show was kino.

"kino"? ???

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: 80sfan on 05/02/17 at 11:36 pm


*Dragon Tales. And so what that show was OG to the max fam 8).


I took a peak at the show too!  :-[  :-[

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 05/02/17 at 11:38 pm


I took a peak at the show too!  :-[  :-[

It's OK. No need to be ashamed.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Zelek3 on 05/02/17 at 11:39 pm


"kino"? ???

http://i.imgur.com/S8NcGRQ.png

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 05/02/17 at 11:42 pm


http://i.imgur.com/S8NcGRQ.png

Cyberchase is NOT "kino" (you youngsters and your fancy shmancy slang). However, Cyberchase was still a great show 👍.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: SpyroKev on 05/03/17 at 12:44 pm


00's kids probably watched Dragon Tails.  :o


We used to watch Dragon Tales in class. There isn't one episode I recall not enjoying. It was a good show to pass the time.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 05/03/17 at 12:52 pm


We used to watch Dragon Tales in class. There isn't one episode I recall not enjoying. It was a good show to pass the time.

Hell yeah bro 8).

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: 2001 on 05/03/17 at 1:07 pm


http://i.imgur.com/S8NcGRQ.png


You wrote that, didn't you? ;D

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Setemstraight on 05/03/17 at 1:08 pm


Being a quintessential 2010s teen (those born 1998-2000) is not great but to me it's slightly better than being a 2000s teen. I can't really explain but that's just what I think.

It's simple, you weren't a teen in the 00s so you wouldn't understand.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: 2001 on 05/03/17 at 1:14 pm


It's simple, you weren't a teen in the 00s so you wouldn't understand.


I was a teen from 2006-2011 (and was immersed in teen culture in 2004/2005), and  2009-2011 was more to my taste. That's just my personal preference, though.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 05/03/17 at 1:21 pm


It's simple, you weren't a teen in the 00s so you wouldn't understand.

But I was a kid during the 2000s, so I somewhat understand. LMAO, you seem kind of defensive....it's just an opinion.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Setemstraight on 05/03/17 at 9:27 pm


But I was a kid during the 2000s, so I somewhat understand. LMAO, you seem kind of defensive....it's just an opinion.

Lol not being defensive at all buddy. Just saying you saw the 00s through the eyes of a child. I saw it through the eyes of teen/young adult. We were more politically aware of what was going on with Iraq, Afghanistan, Bush, Katrina, the Great Ressesion,  and how it all was effecting us as well came of age. We were also immersed in the pop culture aimed at our age demographic at the time. You not being apart of that group at that time is what I meant by not understanding.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 05/03/17 at 9:35 pm


Lol not being defensive at all buddy. Just saying you saw the 00s through the eyes of a child. I saw it through the eyes of teen/young adult. We were more politically aware of what was going on with Iraq, Afghanistan, Bush, Katrina, the Great Ressesion,  and how it all was effecting us as well came of age. We were also immersed in the pop culture aimed at our age demographic at the time. You not being apart of that group at that time is what I meant by not understanding.

Yeah..all of those things (the things I bolded) and more (a lot of corny 2000s pop culture stuff) is why I wouldn't want to have been a 2000s teen.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Setemstraight on 05/03/17 at 9:45 pm


Yeah..all of those things (the things I bolded) and more (a lot of corny 2000s pop culture stuff) is why I wouldn't want to have been a 2000s teen.

That's my point. To you it's corny, but to us it was awesome. It's like that with every decade. Alot of people think the 80s was corny and silly but to thoes who were in their Youth than see it differently. Same will happen in the 2020s. Teens then will say the same thing about the 10s.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 05/03/17 at 9:49 pm


It's that's my point. To you it's corny, but to us i was awesome. It's like that with every decade. Alot of people think the 80s was corny and silly but to thoes who were in their Youth than see it differently. Same will happen in the 2020s. Teens then will say the same thing about the 10s.

Being a kid means that you are apart of the youth. Also, I'm not fond of the 2010s either but in my opinion being a 2010s teen is slightly....SLIGHTLY....better than being a 2000s teen.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: HazelBlue99 on 05/04/17 at 1:06 am


It's that's my point. To you it's corny, but to us i was awesome. It's like that with every decade.


Wish I could say that about the 2010s...

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 05/04/17 at 9:38 am


Yeah..all of those things (the things I bolded) and more (a lot of corny 2000s pop culture stuff) is why I wouldn't want to have been a 2000s teen.


Yeah, but the first presidential election that a majority of 2010's teens could vote in saw Donald Freakin' Trump get elected President, so that's gotta be worse than anything we 2000's teens experienced with George W. Bush, right? ;D

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Baltimoreian on 05/04/17 at 9:59 am


Yeah, but the first presidential election that a majority of 2010's teens could vote in saw Donald Freakin' Trump get elected President, so that's gotta be worse than anything we 2000's teens experienced with George W. Bush, right? ;D


Hell yeah. At least with George W. Bush, he seemed to be influential towards the Republican Party during the 2000s. With Donald Trump, he's not even that important to listen to, especially since he never had any prior political experience to begin with.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 05/04/17 at 12:09 pm


Yeah, but the first presidential election that a majority of 2010's teens could vote in saw Donald Freakin' Trump get elected President, so that's gotta be worse than anything we 2000's teens experienced with George W. Bush, right? ;D

https://media.giphy.com/media/3oz8xLd9DJq2l2VFtu/giphy.gif

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Slim95 on 05/04/17 at 12:54 pm

Bush and Trump are equally bad.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Setemstraight on 05/04/17 at 2:46 pm


Bush and Trump are equally bad.

Yeah there's no comparison.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mxcrashxm on 05/04/17 at 4:28 pm


It's simple, you weren't a teen in the 00s so you wouldn't understand.
I agree! Being a teenager in the 00s wasn't that bad. Other than the political stuff, there was good music, games, movies etc.


Yeah..all of those things (the things I bolded) and more (a lot of corny 2000s pop culture stuff) is why I wouldn't want to have been a 2000s teen.
Well, you don't always have to focus on the political trends. Besides, there was much more in the 00s to enjoy as an adolescent. I think you're underestimating that it was awful when it wasn't.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 05/04/17 at 5:35 pm


Well, you don't always have to focus on the political trends. Besides, there was much more in the 00s to enjoy as an adolescent. I think you're underestimating that it was awful when it wasn't.

I did say other stuff besides political things. I never said that the 2000s were awful and never will. It was the decade of my childhood and I loved my childhood (of course, it had it's negatives but the positives far outweigh the negatives). However, there just too many corny stuff about 2000s pop culture especially 2000s teen culture.....also, coming of age right around the time of the Great Recession sucked a lot. I'm glad with having been a kid and not teen during the 2000s.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Rainbowz on 02/24/18 at 11:06 am

I would have obviously chosen to have grown up in the 90's since I was already a kid for the early part of this decade.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: 2001 on 02/24/18 at 11:13 am

2010s kid so when I'm a teen I get paid $14/hr minimum wage instead of the $7/hr I got lol.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Dundee on 02/24/18 at 11:51 am

I dunno, internet days in 2013-2014 were so annoying with the 90s nostalgia reaching its peak and the sheer level of assholery a lot of 90s kids had, so I have a hard time wanting to assimilate myself with them. Late 90s were a great period fof kid shows, but then I again there were still airing when I grew up. (And to be honest graduating in the middle of the recession sounds terrible).

2010s kids are lucky with all the technology at their hand and the sheer level of information, but maybe that's exactly what 90s kids said about us and 2010s kids gonna say about 2020s kids and so on

To be honest, I'm very confortable with my childhood decade so leave me alone >:(

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Slim95 on 02/24/18 at 12:53 pm


2010s kid so when I'm a teen I get paid $14/hr minimum wage instead of the $7/hr I got lol.

Haha good point.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Slim95 on 02/24/18 at 12:54 pm


I dunno, internet days in 2013-2014 were so annoying with the 90s nostalgia reaching its peak and the sheer level of assholery a lot of 90s kids had, so I have a hard time wanting to assimilate myself with them. Late 90s were a great period fof kid shows, but then I again there were still airing when I grew up. (And to be honest graduating in the middle of the recession sounds terrible).

2010s kids are lucky with all the technology at their hand and the sheer level of information, but maybe that's exactly what 90s kids said about us and 2010s kids gonna say about 2020s kids and so on

To be honest, I'm very confortable with my childhood decade so leave me alone >:(

'90s nostalgia didn't even reach its peak yet. It was all about the '80s this decade still. The nostalgia cycle gap seem to be getting bigger, either that or '90s nostalgia was just plain weak this decade.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: graciee on 02/24/18 at 3:37 pm

I am a late 2000s kid born in 2003. I pick 90s

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: ofkx on 02/24/18 at 3:45 pm

90s. Kids with iPhones really grind my gears.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Looney Toon on 02/24/18 at 10:03 pm


I dunno, internet days in 2013-2014 were so annoying with the 90s nostalgia reaching its peak and the sheer level of assholery a lot of 90s kids had, so I have a hard time wanting to assimilate myself with them. Late 90s were a great period fof kid shows, but then I again there were still airing when I grew up. (And to be honest graduating in the middle of the recession sounds terrible).

2010s kids are lucky with all the technology at their hand and the sheer level of information, but maybe that's exactly what 90s kids said about us and 2010s kids gonna say about 2020s kids and so on

To be honest, I'm very confortable with my childhood decade so leave me alone >:(


I grew up in the '90s, but 2013-2014 was when the elistist 90s kids were at their worst. Ever since 2014 I just couldn't stand the 90s as I found the decade overrated and the obsession of 90s rose-tinted nostalgia really ruined the decade for me. I like my childhood, but I always found my teen years to me more interesting. I just can't wait until all the 80s/90s nostalgia dies away honestly. I had my childhood in the 90s, but when I was a kid all I ever wanted was to grow up and really put in work to make my dreams come true. Dreams/goals that I could not achieve while being a kid who has to go to bed at 8PM cause it's bed time. I'm not an adult who doesn't want to be a kid again because to me that is just crazy and huge step back in terms of logical thinking, I feel. I don't care to revisit my childhood since there is literally nothing to go back to that I already didn't experience.

I know some people say "well what if you were in an adult in the 90s?". Well most adults in the 90s were too busy being nostalgic about the 70s/80s and think things went bad by the 90s from what I can see.

5 year old Jimmy : "I wanna be the president when I grow"
7 year old Sara    : "I wanna become a doctor when I'm older"
10 year old Georga : "I'm practicing to become a technician."

20 years later

23 year old jimmy: "I wanna be a kid again. Everything sucks now."
27 year old Sara  : "God I miss the 90s. Everything was so simple back then."
30 year old Geroga:"I'm working with younger technicians who just will never understand the joy that was the 90s"


Can someone tell what the hell happened? Nostalgia literally makes kids who were looking forward in the future to do nothing but look back when they were kids. Sure adult life is hard, but I'm sure the handful of of generations before us has already shown us that. Now we had guys who were cheerful kids become elitist 90s man-children.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Wobo on 02/24/18 at 10:19 pm

I'm a 2010s kid lol learn the experience from me.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Wobo on 02/24/18 at 10:27 pm


90's kid easily. I actually grew up closer in time to the 1990's then I did with the 2010's, so a lot of 90's culture & technology was still relevant. I honestly think that while being able to grow up in a time where everything is available at the tip of a finger is cool, it removes the rugged individualism of the past. Any kid now could watch the entire show of Hey Arnold via streaming, but they'll never be able to physically wait for the program to actually appear on TV (without modern TV guides/services to help notify when or how a show is coming on, or what episode is airing). Some modern kids may have never even played board games, because they can easily play a version of say Monopoly via an app on their smart device. The thing is I'm actually glad I was able to be of the last generation to remember these experiences and still be young enough to be indoctrinated to the technological world of today. Having the best of both technological worlds, aka living through the transition from analog to digital (be it cassettes/cds to mp3/musical streaming like Spotify or VHS/DVDs to video streaming like Netflix), is something most 80's & 90's babies could relate to, and I wouldn't want it any other way 8)

It's not like any kid never played monopoly physically in their life I've played tons of board games before.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: 2001 on 02/24/18 at 10:40 pm


It's not like any kid never played monopoly physically in their life I've played tons of board games before.


Monopoly died when the PC game Monopoly Tycoon came out in 2001.

I sunk ridiculous hours into that game. It came free in a cereal box.  :-X

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Wobo on 02/24/18 at 10:54 pm


Monopoly died when the PC game Monopoly Tycoon came out in 2001.

I sunk ridiculous hours into that game. It came free in a cereal box.  :-X

I remember one time when I was in the 4th grade it was before Christmas break started and we were given presents at school and once I opened it at home I was mad that it was a board game i thought it would be like a console or Something lol.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: 2001 on 02/24/18 at 11:03 pm


I remember one time when I was in the 4th grade it was before Christmas break started and we were given presents at school and once I opened it at home I was mad that it was a board game i thought it would be like a console or Something lol.


Why would a school be handing out free gaming consoles ;D

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Wobo on 02/24/18 at 11:07 pm


Why would a school be handing out free gaming consoles ;D

I don't know  ;D

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: ZeldaFan20 on 02/25/18 at 1:56 am


I don't know  ;D


Slowpoke is a Russian Troll Operative attempting to inflict the U.S with Kleptocracy Propoganda through his various networks in the Trump Administration. I'd stay far away from him ;D its 3AM on a Sunday morning I'm bored lol

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: 2000s Nostalgiaist on 02/25/18 at 4:12 pm


I think being a teenager in the early 00s would've been fun, as it was kind of similar to the late 90s. It's us 89-91ers who had it the worst, IMO. Age 15 in 2006... cringe.

That being said, I like being a true young adult of the 10s and the fact that the Bush/Obama transition happened right when I was finishing high school. It's very cool that I'll be able to associate pretty much my entire 20s with one decade.


What's so cringe/bad about it?

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Longaotian00 on 02/25/18 at 4:34 pm


What's so cringe/bad about it?


It's pretty bad. I definetly wouldn't have wanted to be a teenager during 2004-2009.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Dundee on 02/25/18 at 4:58 pm


It's pretty bad. I definetly wouldn't have wanted to be a teenager during 2004-2009.
Glad I turned into a teenager in 2010 then 8)

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: piecesof93 on 02/25/18 at 5:06 pm


It's pretty bad. I definetly wouldn't have wanted to be a teenager during 2004-2009.

What specifically do you think was bad about it?

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TwilightPrince16 on 02/25/18 at 6:35 pm

My childhood was partially in the 2010s, and while 90s beige computers and VHS tapes hold a special place in my heart,

I'm glad I grew up in the late 2000s and early 2010s.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Wobo on 07/19/18 at 4:25 pm

Glad to have my childhood in the 2010s, i'm also greatful that i get to live in a decade with technology and better yet to connect with people easier.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: piecesof93 on 07/19/18 at 4:31 pm


Being a quintessential 2010s teen (those born 1998-2000) is not great but to me it's slightly better than being a 2000s teen. I can't really explain but that's just what I think.

Yeah, only slightly. Mostly because of technology. For example, B
be glad y'all didn't have to deal with Limewire and can just stream.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Wobo on 07/19/18 at 4:33 pm


Not even close. The 1990s win all the way. The 2010s aren't actually a lousy decade for kid culture - the 70s were far worse in that regard - but with the combination of Disney Renaissance movies, the bit wars, diverse computer games, memorable cartoon shows (no disrepect to Steven Universe, Gravity Falls, and the like, but the 90s simply had a bit more variety as opposed to being extremely hit-or-miss like today), and the excitement of owning things physically, the 90s simply seem more well-rounded.

2010s has a lot of cartoons than just Steven Universe and Gravity Falls.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Wobo on 07/19/18 at 4:35 pm


I wouldn't mind being a 2010s kid if I got to be a 2020s teenager. I already have sisters as 2010s kids so I know it's not as bad as people make it out to be (although I wish the Disney Channel didn't exist, but that's a mid/late 2000s thing too). Actually it's pretty great all things considered.

But I got to be at least a little kid in the late '90s and I already know how awesome it was. To get to experience 4th gen gaming would be amazing, and I'm already very grateful that I got to experience the multiplayer boom on the N64 in the late '90s. I also wish I got to see earlier computing (before Windows 95). The 2010s just don't have that same allure. The only disadvantage of being a '90s kid is you become a 2000s teen!  :-X

99% of 90s kids were emos as 2000s teens jk lol, i wonder what a 2020s teen would be like.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Tyrannosaurus Rex on 07/19/18 at 4:39 pm


99% of 90s kids were emos as 2000s teens jk lol, i wonder what a 2020s teen would be like.


Early 90's kids (1982/83-1985/86) probably did not get into emo.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: 2001 on 07/19/18 at 5:05 pm


Yeah, only slightly. Mostly because of technology. For example, B
be glad y'all didn't have to deal with Limewire and can just stream.


Limewire was more our pre-teen years (11-13). My teen years were Megavideo ;D

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: piecesof93 on 07/19/18 at 5:13 pm


Limewire was more our pre-teen years (11-13). My teen years were Megavideo ;D

Likewire was still popular here until after 2007.

Oh and to answer the OP question. I'd rather grow up as a kid the 90s so that I could be old enough to really enjoy/be the target audience of culture this decade and the early-mid 2000s.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: piecesof93 on 07/19/18 at 8:42 pm


People born in the '5' year are always in a weird spot when it comes to kid/teen classifications. Like, if you were born in 1995, you actually started high school in the '00s (albeit barely in late 2009), and 2014 was your last fully teenage year, meaning you were a teen for less than half of the '10s. By the time 2019 is over, you'll be 24-years-old. Certainly not close to being a teenager any more. Yet, you're still obviously too young to be considered an '00s teen.

On the other hand, I always feel like the people born in the '8' year are the ultimate teens of a given decade. For example, if you were born in 1988 then you were 13-19 from 2001-2007. It doesn't get much more "quintessential '00s teen" than that.

What about people born in year "3." We're always left out of discussions.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mwalker1996 on 07/19/18 at 11:57 pm

I'm glad to have witnessed the 2000s from beginning to end.  Being and early-mid 200s kid was pretty fun. Seeing the big leaps in technology was pretty intresting.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: ZeldaFan20 on 07/19/18 at 11:59 pm


What about people born in year "3." We're always left out of discussions.


Nah, us '6' people, especially '96' people, have always had it rough.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: ZeldaFan20 on 07/20/18 at 12:00 am


I'm glad to have witnessed the 2000s from beginning to end.  Being and early-mid 200s kid was pretty fun. Seeing the big leaps in technology was pretty intresting.


I second this.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mqg96 on 07/20/18 at 12:02 am


I second this.



I'm glad to have witnessed the 2000s from beginning to end.  Being and early-mid 200s kid was pretty fun. Seeing the big leaps in technology was pretty intresting.


Third, being 4-13 throughout the 2000's was the perfect age really to grow up in and experience all years in its entirety as a kid. We witnessed the huge change between early 2000's vibe when late 90's influences were still around and the late 2000's when technology became more modernized.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mwalker1996 on 07/20/18 at 12:42 am


Third, being 4-13 throughout the 2000's was the perfect age really to grow up in and experience all years in its entirety as a kid. We witnessed the huge change between early 2000's vibe when late 90's influences were still around and the late 2000's when technology became more modernized.
Yea the 2000s was probably the most transformative decade in technology since you witnessed brickphones, fliphones, sliderphones, blackberries and touch-screen phones within one decade. You can say the same with gamming where the start of the decade memory cards and wired controllers was still a thing where as the latter part of the decade you saw online gamming, memory cards being replaced by hardrives and wireless controllers came into full-effect.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: ZeldaFan20 on 07/20/18 at 11:17 pm


Yea the 2000s was probably the most transformative decade in technology since you witnessed brickphones, fliphones, sliderphones, blackberries and touch-screen phones within one decade. You can say the same with gamming where the start of the decade memory cards and wired controllers was still a thing where as the latter part of the decade you saw online gamming, memory cards being replaced by hardrives and wireless controllers came into full-effect.


Third, being 4-13 throughout the 2000's was the perfect age really to grow up in and experience all years in its entirety as a kid. We witnessed the huge change between early 2000's vibe when late 90's influences were still around and the late 2000's when technology became more modernized.


I agree. Its crazy to think how different of a world the early 2000s were in comparison to today. This recording is from Early 2002 and includes Jeopardy, Wheel of Fortune, and Who Wants to Be a Billionaire, so more than 16 years ago. Everything is different; the technology, the fashion, the cars, music, etc. The commercials themselves are also very dated in how they were structured (many of them still had nostalgic little jingles/sing-a-longs, thats barely heard of these days). Its crazy how I vividly remember much of this and the older aesthetic of things back then. When I look at old photo albums and family videos from back then, its almost seems like a different world. No smartphones, or cell phones if that, CRT televisions, the baggier fashion, etc.

9cz6O0FFj3Q&t=0s&list=PLqeTNHdKAyNobN6G6Uanp2ElcK8eL6-wu&index=10&frags=pl%2Cwn

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: piecesof93 on 07/21/18 at 12:00 am


Nah, us '6' people, especially '96' people, have always had it rough.

What do you mean? Because you're a quintessential 2000s kid, I don't see why people would have a difficult time classifying you.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Slim95 on 07/21/18 at 12:05 am

It freaks me out how old the early 2000s are becoming. Make time stop!

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: ZeldaFan20 on 07/21/18 at 12:16 am


What do you mean? Because you're a quintessential 2000s kid, I don't see why people would have a difficult time classifying you.


Thanks for proving my point ;D. I'm certainly not a 'quintessential 2000s kid' because I was a kid (granted, VERY young, but I digress) in the Late 90s, along with most other early-mid 90s borns. However, conversely, I had a taste of my late childhood in the Late 2000s as well, with other mid-late 90s borns. My core childhood years were from 2001-2006, which isn't clearly more early or mid 2000s, its roughly equal. We were the youngest to be in school during 9/11, but we were also the first to spend all of our compulsory years in the 21st century. On top of that, I was already a teenager by 2009, but not old enough for high school until the 10s rolled around.

All in all; People in my birth year seems to always to be the VERY Last and ONE of the First for many different generational things. You kind of get used to it. Just as a grain of salt; theres a reason why some of the most common Gen Y cutoffs are circa in 1995-1996, always making people in my age group in a sort of 'No Man's Land' ;D.



It freaks me out how old the early 2000s are becoming. Make time stop!


I agree bro! Its crazy that we are closer in time to the year 2030, than we are to 2000.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: piecesof93 on 07/21/18 at 12:28 am


Thanks for proving my point ;D. I'm certainly not a 'quintessential 2000s kid' because I was a kid (granted, VERY young, but I digress) in the Late 90s, along with most other early-mid 90s borns. However, conversely, I had a taste of my late childhood in the Late 2000s as well, with other mid-late 90s borns. My core childhood years were from 2001-2006, which isn't clearly more early or mid 2000s, its roughly equal. We were the youngest to be in school during 9/11, but we were also the first to spend all of our compulsory years in the 21st century. On top of that, I was already a teenager by 2009, but not old enough for high school until the 10s rolled around.

All in all; People in my birth year seems to always to be the VERY Last and ONE of the First for many different generational things. You kind of get used to it. Just as a grain of salt; theres a reason why some of the most common Gen Y cutoffs are circa in 1995-1996, always making people in my age group in a sort of 'No Man's Land' ;D.


I agree bro! Its crazy that we are closer in time to the year 2030, than we are to 2000.

All of your childhood was in the 2000s. One year in the 90s/2010s doesn't make that much of a difference tbh. That's why you'd fit the mold of a quintessential 2000s kid. And you'd be able to remember a little more of the 2000s than a 97 born who are also often referred to as quintessential 2000s kids.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Dundee on 07/21/18 at 6:55 am

Us 97 borns are still the youngest '7' people allowed to board nwehehehehe

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Setemstraight on 07/21/18 at 8:46 am


I agree with much of that. I think that the one argument you could make against those born in the "5" year being "prime decade kids" is that (in some cases) they might have been a little bit too old to get into some kid culture during the late part of their childhood decade.

For example, a 1985er, being 14 in 1999, might've felt too old to get into the Pokemon fad when it was in it's prime. I know, for me, I first starting thinking I was "too old" to watch cartoons when I was 12. If a 1985 born started to feel the same way at that age and started cutting back on watching cartoons in 1997, then he would've missed out on several key late '90s kids shows like Cow & Chicken, Johnny Bravo, Hey Arnold, and possibly even Toonami's peak of popularity in 1999-00.

Here's the problem with what you said. You say you where born in 1987, which meant you turned 12 in 1999, the peak year of Toonami? Another Mach!neHe@d contradiction. People born in 85 and 87 grew up in the same era, they were exposed to the same culture of 90s, they're the same generation. There's no if, and, or buts about. No opinions matter because this is FACT.

Oh and "5" year borns, are not in a "weird spot", as you say, neither. If you're born in the "5" year, you spent the vast majority of your childhood in following decade. And you're considered a teen of the decade following that, as you spent the MOST of your teens in that decade. Yoh can say your barley a hybrid, but primarily a teen of the following decade. It's not hard to figure out. That seems to be case on these forums though. ::)

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Setemstraight on 07/21/18 at 8:55 am


All of your childhood was in the 2000s. One year in the 90s/2010s doesn't make that much of a difference tbh. That's why you'd fit the mold of a quintessential 2000s kid. And you'd be able to remember a little more of the 2000s than a 97 born who are also often referred to as quintessential 2000s kids.

It's the same for people born in the mid 80s . You spent pretty much all of your childhood during most of the 90s, you also started primary school in the beginning of the the decade. It's not even a matter of one's opinion. It's pretty much set in stone.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: ZeldaFan20 on 07/21/18 at 8:59 am


All of your childhood was in the 2000s. One year in the 90s/2010s doesn't make that much of a difference tbh. That's why you'd fit the mold of a quintessential 2000s kid. And you'd be able to remember a little more of the 2000s than a 97 born who are also often referred to as quintessential 2000s kids.


When I think quintessential, I think more so of guys who were in most of their core childhoods during the core/mid 2000s, while also being able to be old enough to participate in the early 2000s kid trends, and young enough to be into the Late 2000s kid trends. In relation to the the 90s, I always thought of those born in 87'/88', as the ultimate (and most stereotypical ;D) 90s kids, because they were old enough to remember trends like TMNT in the early 90s, were in their core childhoods during the 'Morphin TAIMEE!!!' era of the Mid 90s, and still be young enough to have been immersed in 'Pokemania' in the Late 90s/VERY Early 00s. This same logic is why I would say that those born in 97'/98' would be closer to what a 'quintessential' 2000s kid is to me. Just because people my age (95ers/96ers) remember the entire decade pretty vividly, doesn't make us quintessential 2000s kids.

We're still 'Core' 2000s kid, yeah, along with other 1995-1998/9 borns as we were all ages 7 & or 8 from 2003-2006, the mathematical (and arguably cultural) core years of the decade. But quintessential? I wouldn't say so because I relate most of my childhood to the early-mid 2000s, so mainly the first half of the decade, which makes sense because that was the bulk of my core childhood/elementary school years.

I was at the peak of my childhood (ages 7-8) during the Klasky Csupo Era of Nickelodeon, Powerhouse Era of Cartoon Network, and pre Jetix era of Toon Disney in which all ended in 2004, so people my age were the last to catch these eras for most of our core childhoods. I also can remember the finals years of the Zoog Disney era in 2001-2002. Those memories I have aren't really found in my friends I know of that are merely just a year or two younger than me. Its not a big difference in the grand scheme of things, but you could still tell that the early 2000s still had more of a lasting effect on me than some of my slightly younger peers simply because I have clearer memories of them.

This same argument can be applied with my friends born in 1993/1994, who were arguably the last to remember the Late 90s vividly. Thus, even though they're not 90s kids mainly and we (generally speaking) grew up more in common than actual pro-typical 90s kid (like someone born in the late 80s), they could still heavily relate to a lot of the Late 90s kid trends and such that someone my age really can't.

Slowpoke (born in 93') for instance always talks about being apart of the 'N64 Generation', because he spent a sizable chunk of his core childhood in the Late 90s and the VERY Early 00s (aka the Y2K Era, essentially during Y2K fears in mid-late 99' and just prior to 9/11) when the console was at its peak in popularity. Thus, I'd find it hard for someone born in 1993 or even 1994 to really relate much to the 2000s kid label, which is understandable and why I get where you're coming from. However, see where I am coming from as well; while people born in 1995 & 1996 are undeniably 2000s kids, I'd vouch for core label so I am not discarding that, just because they so many vivid memories of life in the early 2000s, could vaguely remember the late 90s (although clear memories of the late 90s are not uncommon for people in my group), were in school during 9/11 (although 95ers were the last to be in compulsory school in the 20th century), and already were teenagers by the Late 2000s so essentially aging out of the kid culture of that time, are many of the reasons why 95ers & 96ers wouldn't really be quintessential 2000s kids. They're similar to 1993/1994 borns in that aspect in which they relate most of their childhood to the Late 1990s-Mid 2000s. When you talk to someone born from 1992-1996/ about 'Classic' Disney Channel, likely shows like Even Stevens, Lizzie McGuire, reruns of Boy Meets World, Zoog Disney, That's So Raven, Disney Channel Movies from the 1996-2003 era, or Kim Possible come to mind. A 1997-1998 born may also relate to shows like Zack & Cody, Phil of the Future, Life with Derek, and (gasp*) potentially High School Musical & Hannah Montana as well. Finally, those born after 1998, whom don't remember much of the pre 2005 era of Disney Channel will of course relate mostly to the latter shows already mentioned and of course shows like Wizards of Waverly Place, Sonny with a Chance, Jonas LA, and of course DCOMs post 2006/'HSM Mania' Era.

Perhaps, we're the quintessential 'Classic' 2000s kids, as we spent almost all our childhoods in the 'Classic', or the more antiquated half of the decade in comparison, to the Later half of the decade, from 2000-2005/2006 v. 2006/2007-2009. We didn't grow up with social media (heck, it didn't exist for much of our childhoods), smartphones, etc. We remember some 90s trends continuing into the 2000s, 'classic' (comparatively), Nickelodeon & Cartoon Network, musical acts like NSYNC, BSB, & Britney in their prime (granted from the perspective as kids), watched Saturday Morning Cartoons when they were still viable alternative to cable like Disney's One Saturday Morning & Kids WB, among other things. Also, 95ers/96ers weren't in the core demographic for the popularity of Late 2000s kid trends, most notably Hannah Montana good riddance 8-P

Essentially because we were to busy watching Degrassi or My Sweet 16 ;D.

Where's Eric when you need him ;D He'd totally back me up in what I am trying to convey

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: piecesof93 on 07/21/18 at 9:00 am


Here's the problem with what you said. You say you where born in 1987, which meant you turned 12 in 1999, the peak year of Toonami? Another Mach!neHe@d contradiction. People born in 85 and 87 grew up in the same era, they were exposed to the same culture of 90s, they're the same generation. There's if, and, or buts about. No opinions matter because this is FACT.

Oh and "5" year borns, are not in a "weird spot", as you say, neither. If you're born in the "5" year, you spent the vast majority of your childhood in following decade. And you're considered a teen of the decade following that, as you spent the MOST of your teens in that decade. Yoh can say your barley a hybrid, but primarily a teen of the following decade. It's not hard to figure out. That seems to be case on these forums though. ::)

Right.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: ZeldaFan20 on 07/21/18 at 9:08 am


It's the same for people born in the mid 80s . You spent pretty much all of your childhood during most of the 90s, you also started primary school in the beginning of the the decade. It's not even a matter of one's opinion. It's pretty much set in stone.


But are people born in '5' years quintessential? That is the question we're trying to answer. Perhaps its just confusion on word usage, but 'quintessential' and 'core' are not the same thing in my eyes or ears. 'Core' means they certainly are clearly kids of that respected decade, but 'quintessential' insinuates that they were the perfect age to experience almost all of the trends of that decade as a kid. So an 85' born would've been hugely into say TMNT in the early 90s & Mighty Morphin Power Rangers in the Mid 90s. However, their interest in something like Pokemon in the Late 90s would've probably varied by person to person, and even then they were no longer in their childhoods (ages 3-12) when the trend got big in 99'. That's just one of many examples why someone born in the mid years of a decade are clearly children of the respected decade, but are still a little too old to be considered the 'quintessential' kids of that respected decade.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: piecesof93 on 07/21/18 at 9:15 am


When I think quintessential, I think more so of guys who were in most of their core childhoods during the core/mid 2000s, while also being able to be old enough to participate in the early 2000s kid trends, and young enough to be into the Late 2000s kid trends

We use different definitions then. Since 96/97ers had the majority, if not all of their childhood in the 2000s, II'd consider them pure 2000s kids.

edit: but 'quintessential' insinuates that they were the perfect age to experience almost all of the trends of that decade as a kid.
That describes 96/97ers

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: HazelBlue99 on 07/21/18 at 9:19 am

https://media.giphy.com/media/vjwACwDxB0hZ6/giphy.gif

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1764/42642829195_9328129877.jpg

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: CupidTheStupid on 07/21/18 at 9:32 am


We use different definitions then. Since 96/97ers had the majority, if not all of their childhood in the 2000s, II'd consider them pure 2000s kids.

edit: That describes 96/97ers

I’m in the minority, but I would say 1996-1998 are quintessential/pure 2000s kids.

That puts 1997 right in the center. Sweet spot!

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: ZeldaFan20 on 07/21/18 at 10:07 am


We use different definitions then. Since 96/97ers had the majority, if not all of their childhood in the 2000s, II'd consider them pure 2000s kids.

edit: That describes 96/97ers


96ers were already teens by 2009, and had outgrown most kid trends by around 2007/2008. Try again ;D.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mqg96 on 07/21/18 at 10:16 am

1996 born's were 8 in 2004 halfway through elementary school and 1997 born's were 8 in 2005 halfway through elementary school. 1996 and 1997 born's never hit elementary school before the new millennium, but they never stayed in elementary school by the 2008-2009 school year when Obama entered office and the culture started changing rapidly. 1996 and 1997 born's also never hit high school in the 2000's either, even if 13 is a teen year, it's no different than 12 and not really a core teen year like 14-18 in high school just like 18 & 19 out of high school aren't core teen years either. 1996 and 1997 born's graduated in 2014 and 2015 right in the middle of the 2010's. To me, it doesn't get anymore quintessential 2000's kid than that. We were able to witness the early 2000's from a little kid perspective, the core 2000's from a peak/height childhood perspective, and the late 2000's from an older kid/preteen perspective. 1998 born's were 2 in 2000, age 8 in 2006 when late 2000's influences and culture started, and still in elementary school when Obama entered office and the economy went down. 1995 born's were 8 in 2003, making them the last to spend the majority of their elementary school years in the early 2000's, and they entered high school before 2010. Last but not least, 1996 and 1997 born's were in elementary school the whole time the core 2000's happened (2003-2007) meaning that 1995 and 1998 were either out of elementary school when the core 2000's ended or had not started elementary school yet when the core 2000's started. In general late 1994-1998 born's (classes of 2013-2016 or peak 2003-2006 kids) are the quintessential kids of the 2000's, but 1996 and 1997 are the absolute peak. We were in elementary school without Bill Clinton or Barack Obama being president of the U.S.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: piecesof93 on 07/21/18 at 10:18 am


96ers were already teens by 2009, and had outgrown most kid trends by around 2007/2008. Try again ;D.

Yeah because one year as a teen in the 2000s makes a difference. Also your words "but 'quintessential' insinuates that they were the perfect age to experience almost all of the trends of that decade as a kid".

That literally describe 96ers and 97ers.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: piecesof93 on 07/21/18 at 10:23 am


I’m in the minority, but I would say 1996-1998 are quintessential/pure 2000s kids.

That puts 1997 right in the center. Sweet spot!

Right.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: ZeldaFan20 on 07/21/18 at 10:49 am


I’m in the minority, but I would say 1996-1998 are quintessential/pure 2000s kids.

That puts 1997 right in the center. Sweet spot!


Honestly at this point, I can’t get the point through to anyone...
But I think this definition is a good concession

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mqg96 on 07/21/18 at 10:52 am


96ers were already teens by 2009, and had outgrown most kid trends by around 2007/2008. Try again ;D.


Also let me get this off real quick. If you go by Slim's definition of kid trends of the 2000's, he believes the early 2000's through 2005 was the most important and 2006-2009 was not. See, this is the problem. I believe to be the most quintessential 2000's kid you have to be the youngest the remember the whole decade in its entirety, that's my opinion on it. 1996 and 1997 born's were the youngest to remember and cherish what the whole decade offered! I would argue that remembering the entire early 2000's is more important to being a kid of the 2000's than being a true kid of the late 2000's.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Tyrannosaurus Rex on 07/21/18 at 11:01 am


Also let me get this off real quick. If you go by Slim's definition of kid trends of the 2000's, he believes the early 2000's through 2005 was the most important and 2006-2009 was not. See, this is the problem. I believe to be the most quintessential 2000's kid you have to be the youngest the remember the whole decade in its entirety, that's my opinion on it. 1996 and 1997 born's were the youngest to remember and cherish what the whole decade offered! I would argue that remembering the entire early 2000's is more important to being a kid of the 2000's than being a true kid of the late 2000's.


He believes that there was this notorious "late 2006 shift" that changed everything in history for the worse.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Rainbowz on 07/21/18 at 11:08 am


1996 born's were 8 in 2004 halfway through elementary school and 1997 born's were 8 in 2005 halfway through elementary school. 1996 and 1997 born's never hit elementary school before the new millennium, but they never stayed in elementary school by the 2008-2009 school year when Obama entered office and the culture started changing rapidly. 1996 and 1997 born's also never hit high school in the 2000's either, even if 13 is a teen year, it's no different than 12 and not really a core teen year like 14-18 in high school just like 18 & 19 out of high school aren't core teen years either. 1996 and 1997 born's graduated in 2014 and 2015 right in the middle of the 2010's. To me, it doesn't get anymore quintessential 2000's kid than that. We were able to witness the early 2000's from a little kid perspective, the core 2000's from a peak/height childhood perspective, and the late 2000's from an older kid/preteen perspective. 1998 born's were 2 in 2000, age 8 in 2006 when late 2000's influences and culture started, and still in elementary school when Obama entered office and the economy went down. 1995 born's were 8 in 2003, making them the last to spend the majority of their elementary school years in the early 2000's, and they entered high school before 2010. Last but not least, 1996 and 1997 born's were in elementary school the whole time the core 2000's happened (2003-2007) meaning that 1995 and 1998 were either out of elementary school when the core 2000's ended or had not started elementary school yet when the core 2000's started. In general late 1994-1998 born's (classes of 2013-2016 or peak 2003-2006 kids) are the quintessential kids of the 2000's, but 1996 and 1997 are the absolute peak. We were in elementary school without Bill Clinton or Barack Obama being president of the U.S.

The problem with this is that if you go by "Who was in elementary school during the core 2000's" you're going to create more of a mess because not everyone's definition of the "core 2000's" are the same.

The "core childhood" and/or "absolute peak childhood" is not only confusing but that is also subjective. You have some people who say theirs was 5-9, 6-10, etc.

Also, going by your definition, technically speaking,  1994 was the last to have most of their childhood in the early 2000's, not 1995. 2003 is a mid-2000's year.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: ZeldaFan20 on 07/21/18 at 11:10 am


1996 born's were 8 in 2004 halfway through elementary school and 1997 born's were 8 in 2005 halfway through elementary school. 1996 and 1997 born's never hit elementary school before the new millennium, but they never stayed in elementary school by the 2008-2009 school year when Obama entered office and the culture started changing rapidly. 1996 and 1997 born's also never hit high school in the 2000's either, even if 13 is a teen year, it's no different than 12 and not really a core teen year like 14-18 in high school just like 18 & 19 out of high school aren't core teen years either. 1996 and 1997 born's graduated in 2014 and 2015 right in the middle of the 2010's. To me, it doesn't get anymore quintessential 2000's kid than that. We were able to witness the early 2000's from a little kid perspective, the core 2000's from a peak/height childhood perspective, and the late 2000's from an older kid/preteen perspective. 1998 born's were 2 in 2000, age 8 in 2006 when late 2000's influences and culture started, and still in elementary school when Obama entered office and the economy went down. 1995 born's were 8 in 2003, making them the last to spend the majority of their elementary school years in the early 2000's, and they entered high school before 2010. Last but not least, 1996 and 1997 born's were in elementary school the whole time the core 2000's happened (2003-2007) meaning that 1995 and 1998 were either out of elementary school when the core 2000's ended or had not started elementary school yet when the core 2000's started. In general late 1994-1998 born's (classes of 2013-2016 or peak 2003-2006 kids) are the quintessential kids of the 2000's, but 1996 and 1997 are the absolute peak. We were in elementary school without Bill Clinton or Barack Obama being president of the U.S.


I guess it’s all a matter of perspective I guess. Perhaps it’s something like this:

If you were to take into account HS Grad Classes (HS Classes = Born Late of Prior Year to Mid Section of Subequent Year) Than it would look like this:


Born Late 1992-Mid 1994: 2000s Kids, but not core 2000s kids (Childhood Sqaurely within ‘Pokemania’ and the Y2K Era)



Born Late 1994-Mid 1999: Core 2000s Kids

Born Late 1994-Mid 1996: Early Core 2000s Kids

Born Late 1996-Mid 1997: Quintessential 2000s Kids

Born Late 1997-Mid 1999: Late Core 2000s Kids




Born Late 1999-Mid 2001: 2000s Kids, but not Core (Childhood Sqaurely within ‘Obamamania’ and the Electropop Era)


Born Late 2001-Mid 2002: Ultimate 2000s/2010s Hybrid Kids

And the Cycle Continues.

Now if You were talking mainly just birth years, then I would slightlyagree with you that 96/97 borns are the ultimate 2000s kids because objectively, but then I would also include 98ers in that category as welll, as Cupid mentioned.

Objectively; December 31st/January 1st 2004 into 2005 was the absolute peak of the 2000s decade. Those born in 97 (for the most part) were 7 going on 8 around this time, therefore are the quintessential 2000s kids. However, in 2003-2004, 96ers were 7 going on 8, and in 2005-2006 98ers were 7 going on 8. Plus they all reached the halfway point of their elementary school years in 2004-2006, the mid years of the decade. Therefor, Id rearrange to this for full birth years:

1993-1995: 2000s Kids, but not Core (Y2K Era)

1996-1998: Core 2000s Kids

(1997 borns borns being the epicenter)

1999-2001: 2000s Kids but not Core (Electropop Era)

2002: Ultimare Hybrids

So depending on the definition could vary pretty slightly. I’m a 96’ born, so is you were to just judge by merely birth year then yeah I’d be a core 2000s kid along with 97’/98’ borns. But by using HS Grad Classes, then I’d be more of a Earlier Core 2000s Kid, with 98ers being more of a Later Core 2000s Kid, and finally 97ers being the ultimate ones. Pick you poison!

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: ZeldaFan20 on 07/21/18 at 11:14 am

At the end of the day we all agree that 1995-1998 borns are undeniably 2000s kids, we just have our own subjective opinions on whom would be the ‘Ultimate’ 2000s Kids.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: ZeldaFan20 on 07/21/18 at 11:16 am


He believes that there was this notorious "late 2006 shift" that changed everything in history for the worse.


Some people seem to overstate how big of a shift 2006 was. While there were some changes late in the year that would’ve proved prudential to the late 2000s (such as the laugh of the Wii and PS3) the year in itself was just a continuation of 2004/2005 culturally.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mqg96 on 07/21/18 at 11:17 am


Also, going by your definition, technically speaking,  1994 was the last to have most of their childhood in the early 2000's, not 1995. 2003 is a mid-2000's year.


and you know good and well most people don't agree with this either (for any decade that matter) but we agree to disagree.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Tyrannosaurus Rex on 07/21/18 at 11:18 am


I guess it’s all a matter of perspective I guess. Perhaps it’s something like this:

If you were to take into account HS Grad Classes (HS Classes = Born Late of Prior Year to Mid Section of Subequent Year) Than it would look like this:


Born Late 1992-Mid 1994: 2000s Kids, but not core 2000s kids (Childhood Sqaurely within ‘Pokemania’ and the Y2K Era)



Born Late 1994-Mid 1999: Core 2000s Kids

Born Late 1994-Mid 1996: Early Core 2000s Kids

Born Late 1996-Mid 1997: Quintessential 2000s Kids

Born Late 1997-Mid 1999: Late Core 2000s Kids




Born Late 1999-Mid 2001: 2000s Kids, but not Core (Childhood Sqaurely within ‘Obamamania’ and the Electropop Era)


Born Late 2001-Mid 2002: Ultimate 2000s/2010s Hybrid Kids

And the Cycle Continues.

Now if You were talking mainly just birth years, then I would slightlyagree with you that 96/97 borns are the ultimate 2000s kids because objectively, but then I would also include 98ers in that category as welll, as Cupid mentioned.

Objectively; December 31st/January 1st 2004 into 2005 was the absolute peak of the 2000s decade. Those born in 97 (for the most part) were 7 going on 8 around this time, therefore are the quintessential 2000s kids. However, in 2003-2004, 96ers were 7 going on 8, and in 2005-2006 98ers were 7 going on 8. Plus they all reached the halfway point of their elementary school years in 2004-2006, the mid years of the decade. Therefor, Id rearrange to this for full birth years:

1993-1995: 2000s Kids, but not Core (Y2K Era)

1996-1998: Core 2000s Kids

(1997 borns borns being the epicenter)

1999-2001: 2000s Kids but not Core (Electropop Era)

2002: Ultimare Hybrids

So depending on the definition could vary pretty slightly. I’m a 96’ born, so is you were to just judge by merely birth year then yeah I’d be a core 2000s kid along with 97’/98’ borns. But by using HS Grad Classes, then I’d be more of a Earlier Core 2000s Kid, with 98ers being more of a Later Core 2000s Kid, and finally 97ers being the ultimate ones. Pick you poison!


What are your thoughts about my take on it?

Late 1991-Mid 1993: Older 2000's children (peak was after 2000 but before 9/11)
Late 1993-Mid 1996: Older core 2000's children (peak was after 9/11 but before Web 2.0 and the closing of Nickelodeon Studios)
Late 1996-Mid 1999: Younger core 2000's children (peak was after the start of Web 2.0 and the closing of Nickelodeon Studios but before the Electropop age and the Recession)
Late 1999-Mid 2001: Younger 2000's children (peak was during the Electropop age and the Recession but before 2010)

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: piecesof93 on 07/21/18 at 11:21 am


and you know good and well most people don't agree with this either (for any decade that matter) but we agree to disagree.

ROTFL

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Rainbowz on 07/21/18 at 11:42 am


and you know good and well most people don't agree with this either (for any decade that matter) but we agree to disagree.

Well, technically it's a mid-2000's year numerically whether y'all like it or not.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Wobo on 07/21/18 at 12:17 pm


At the end of the day we all agree that 1995-1998 borns are undeniably 2000s kids, we just have our own subjective opinions on whom would be the ‘Ultimate’ 2000s Kids.

Shouldn't 1999 borns be in that group also? They're ultimate 2000s kids also.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mqg96 on 07/21/18 at 12:23 pm


Well, technically it's a mid-2000's year numerically whether y'all like it or not.


That's true. The 0, 1, 2's, 4, 5's, and 7, 8, 9's are clear cut early mid, and late. The 3 and 6 I judge by the flow of the culture throughout each decade because it's arbitrary. However, keep in mind when it comes to mainstream articles, radio stations, and documentaries on television, the majority of the people consider 0-3 to be early, 4-6 to be mid, and 7-9 to be late. Someone else on this forum brought this up too.

We have to understand rather y'all (like you) like it or not, not every decade's culture flowed the exact same way or lasted for the same amount of time. The pop culture and technology of the 90's and 2000's felt very different as the decade went on and changed rapidly, the 80's and 2010's pop culture and technology felt stagnant and didn't change much, however, the political world of the 2010's have definitely changed rapidly (think anymore would agree with this). The political world of the 90's feels the most stagnant up to date compared to the 2000's and 2010's, but even with 9/11 and the Iraq War happening in the 2000's, I still consider the 2010's to be more impacting and changing politically than the 2000's!

I consider 1996 to lean more towards the late 90's than mid 90's because of the fact that millennium/Y2K influences starting being teased throughout the year and 5th generation gaming was in huge effect which had a huge impact on late 90's culture. 1996 was also the year Tupac was shot and killed which caused a huge shift in music, but I'm not sure about grunge culture now TBH. The TV shows that premiered in 1996 impacted the late 90's and some were Y2K too. Some core 90's shows were on its way out throughout 1996 as well. 2006 and 2016 on the other hand, I consider to be more mid to the cultural decade than late, in fact, you could argue that 2016 was quintessential to the mid 2010's (although I'd pick 2015). That definitely wasn't the case with 1996 though.

1993 and 2003 are still early culturally because again the 90's and 2000's were very transitional, 2013 on the other hand feels more mid 2010's because the culture throughout the 2010's established itself way earlier than the 90's and 2000's did. This is my take on this, now this is a sincere clear cut explanation by me. For other users out there reading this post DON'T GET OFFENDED! DON'T FOCUS ON THE NUMBERS AND FOCUS ON THE CULTURE!!!! THE FLOW OF THE CULTURE! THE FLOW! This is my opinion on this, and anyone may have an opinion different than mine, then I'm ABSOLUTELY OKAY with that. Rainbowz, I'm cool with you considering 2003 as mid 2000's, absolutely no hate whatsoever.

Anyways, for those who grew up in the 2000's and experienced it first hand, any of us know that Fall 2001 to Summer 2008 was the main stretch of the 2000's, it has nothing to do with the numbers, it has to do with how the pop culture, politics, and technology flowed throughout the decade, and we know it, this is my point on why I believe 1996 and 1997 born's were the ultimate kids of the decade, while still knowing 2000 - Summer 2001 from a little kid perspective and knowing Fall 2008 - 2009 from an older kid/young teen perspective. I could explain everything regarding the technology, politics, and pop culture that flowed throughout Fall 2001 to Summer 2008, but I don't have time for it right now.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Wobo on 07/21/18 at 12:34 pm


I’m in the minority, but I would say 1996-1998 are quintessential/pure 2000s kids.

That puts 1997 right in the center. Sweet spot!

I agree my brother was born in 1997 and spent all of his childhood in the 2000s, sounds like a core 2000s kid to me.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Rainbowz on 07/21/18 at 12:42 pm


That's true. The 0, 1, 2's, 4, 5's, and 7, 8, 9's are clear cut early mid, and late. The 3 and 6 I judge by the flow of the culture throughout each decade because it's arbitrary. However, keep in mind when it comes to mainstream articles, radio stations, and documentaries on television, the majority of the people consider 0-3 to be early, 4-6 to be mid, and 7-9 to be late. Someone else on this forum brought this up too.

We have to understand rather y'all (like you) like it or not, not every decade's culture flowed the exact same way or lasted for the same amount of time. The pop culture and technology of the 90's and 2000's felt very different as the decade went on and changed rapidly, the 80's and 2010's pop culture and technology felt stagnant and didn't change much, however, the political world of the 2010's have definitely changed rapidly (think anymore would agree with this). The political world of the 90's feels the most stagnant up to date compared to the 2000's and 2010's, but even with 9/11 and the Iraq War happening in the 2000's, I still consider the 2010's to be more impacting and changing politically than the 2000's!

I consider 1996 to lean more towards the late 90's than mid 90's because of the fact that millennium/Y2K influences starting being teased throughout the year and 5th generation gaming was in huge effect which had a huge impact on late 90's culture. 1996 was also the year Tupac was shot and killed which caused a huge shift in music, but I'm not sure about grunge culture now TBH. The TV shows that premiered in 1996 impacted the late 90's and some were Y2K too. Some core 90's shows were on its way out throughout 1996 as well. 2006 and 2016 on the other hand, I consider to be more mid to the cultural decade than late, in fact, you could argue that 2016 was quintessential to the mid 2010's (although I'd pick 2015). That definitely wasn't the case with 1996 though.

1993 and 2003 are still early culturally because again the 90's and 2000's were very transitional, 2013 on the other hand feels more mid 2010's because the culture throughout the 2010's established itself way earlier than the 90's and 2000's did. This is my take on this, now this is a sincere clear cut explanation by me. For other users out there reading this post DON'T GET OFFENDED! DON'T FOCUS ON THE NUMBERS AND FOCUS ON THE CULTURE!!!! THE FLOW OF THE CULTURE! THE FLOW! This is my opinion on this, and anyone may have an opinion different than mine, then I'm ABSOLUTELY OKAY with that. Rainbowz, I'm cool with you considering 2003 as mid 2000's, absolutely no hate whatsoever.

Anyways, for those who grew up in the 2000's and experienced it first hand, any of us know that Fall 2001 to Summer 2008 was the main stretch of the 2000's, it has nothing to do with the numbers, it has to do with how the pop culture, politics, and technology flowed throughout the decade, and we know it, this is my point on why I believe 1996 and 1997 born's were the ultimate kids of the decade, while still knowing 2000 - Summer 2001 from a little kid perspective and knowing Fall 2008 - 2009 from an older kid/young teen perspective. I could explain everything regarding the technology, politics, and pop culture that flowed throughout Fall 2001 to Summer 2008, but I don't have time for it right now.

I'm just trying to be more objective with it, because culture isn't set in stone unlike numerical definitions. I can agree with 2003 being early 2000's culturally.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Rainbowz on 07/21/18 at 12:45 pm

http://i68.tinypic.com/2evydxw.jpg

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: piecesof93 on 07/21/18 at 12:56 pm

Yup we murder y'all every time

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: ZeldaFan20 on 07/21/18 at 12:58 pm


What are your thoughts about my take on it?

Late 1991-Mid 1993: Older 2000's children (peak was after 2000 but before 9/11)
Late 1993-Mid 1996: Older core 2000's children (peak was after 9/11 but before Web 2.0 and the closing of Nickelodeon Studios)
Late 1996-Mid 1999: Younger core 2000's children (peak was after the start of Web 2.0 and the closing of Nickelodeon Studios but before the Electropop age and the Recession)
Late 1999-Mid 2001: Younger 2000's children (peak was during the Electropop age and the Recession but before 2010)


That’s a good way of looking at it as well. I’d just have to disagree about Late 1993-Mid 1994. I think just the mere fact that they were already in their core childhood in 1999 is reason for them not really being core. Especially since they were in their peak childhood in 2001-2002, which clearly was before the core 2000s (from a cultural sense) came to fruition. However, you could make the argument that because it was post 9/11, they were the first to spend most of their childhoods in the core 2000s from a historical/political sense.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Wobo on 07/21/18 at 1:02 pm


http://i68.tinypic.com/2evydxw.jpg

+1 Karma for that lol.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Tyrannosaurus Rex on 07/21/18 at 1:05 pm


That’s a good way of looking at it as well. I’d just have to disagree about Late 1993-Mid 1994. I think just the mere fact that they were already in their core childhood in 1999 is reason for them not really being core. Especially since they were in their peak childhood in 2001-2002, which clearly was before the core 2000s (from a cultural sense) came to fruition. However, you could make the argument that because it was post 9/11, they were the first to spend most of their childhoods in the core 2000s from a historical/political sense.


Well, they weren't at school yet when the Columbine shooting occurred.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: ZeldaFan20 on 07/21/18 at 1:34 pm


That's true. The 0, 1, 2's, 4, 5's, and 7, 8, 9's are clear cut early mid, and late. The 3 and 6 I judge by the flow of the culture throughout each decade because it's arbitrary. However, keep in mind when it comes to mainstream articles, radio stations, and documentaries on television, the majority of the people consider 0-3 to be early, 4-6 to be mid, and 7-9 to be late. Someone else on this forum brought this up too.

We have to understand rather y'all (like you) like it or not, not every decade's culture flowed the exact same way or lasted for the same amount of time. The pop culture and technology of the 90's and 2000's felt very different as the decade went on and changed rapidly, the 80's and 2010's pop culture and technology felt stagnant and didn't change much, however, the political world of the 2010's have definitely changed rapidly (think anymore would agree with this). The political world of the 90's feels the most stagnant up to date compared to the 2000's and 2010's, but even with 9/11 and the Iraq War happening in the 2000's, I still consider the 2010's to be more impacting and changing politically than the 2000's!

I consider 1996 to lean more towards the late 90's than mid 90's because of the fact that millennium/Y2K influences starting being teased throughout the year and 5th generation gaming was in huge effect which had a huge impact on late 90's culture. 1996 was also the year Tupac was shot and killed which caused a huge shift in music, but I'm not sure about grunge culture now TBH. The TV shows that premiered in 1996 impacted the late 90's and some were Y2K too. Some core 90's shows were on its way out throughout 1996 as well. 2006 and 2016 on the other hand, I consider to be more mid to the cultural decade than late, in fact, you could argue that 2016 was quintessential to the mid 2010's (although I'd pick 2015). That definitely wasn't the case with 1996 though.

1993 and 2003 are still early culturally because again the 90's and 2000's were very transitional, 2013 on the other hand feels more mid 2010's because the culture throughout the 2010's established itself way earlier than the 90's and 2000's did. This is my take on this, now this is a sincere clear cut explanation by me. For other users out there reading this post DON'T GET OFFENDED! DON'T FOCUS ON THE NUMBERS AND FOCUS ON THE CULTURE!!!! THE FLOW OF THE CULTURE! THE FLOW! This is my opinion on this, and anyone may have an opinion different than mine, then I'm ABSOLUTELY OKAY with that. Rainbowz, I'm cool with you considering 2003 as mid 2000's, absolutely no hate whatsoever.

Anyways, for those who grew up in the 2000's and experienced it first hand, any of us know that Fall 2001 to Summer 2008 was the main stretch of the 2000's, it has nothing to do with the numbers, it has to do with how the pop culture, politics, and technology flowed throughout the decade, and we know it, this is my point on why I believe 1996 and 1997 born's were the ultimate kids of the decade, while still knowing 2000 - Summer 2001 from a little kid perspective and knowing Fall 2008 - 2009 from an older kid/young teen perspective. I could explain everything regarding the technology, politics, and pop culture that flowed throughout Fall 2001 to Summer 2008, but I don't have time for it right now.


Bro I don’t agree with that at all. While I understand 1996 was a pretty transformative year that lead to many Late 90s trends getting big, it was still mainly a mid 90s year culturally. If you really think about it, most ‘6’ years are like that, they introduce trends that would be popular for the later years of the decade, but the year itself as a little whole still represents the core zeitgeist of the respected decade. 1996, is a perfect candidate for that. As an example; Yeah 2PAC died, it was very late in the year. His finale album, All Eyes on Me, was what many hip hop fans considered a perfect finale to his impactful reign in the West Coast Genre of Hip Hop in the early-mid 90s. That’s not to mention Biggy (from my hometown) was still alive and kicking. The year was still in the mid 90s East Coast v. West Coast Hip Hop Wars, and 2PAC’s death (one could argue) was the perfect culmination of it. Hip Hop wouldn’t really go into a more Poppish/Faux 2000a direction until 1997/1998 after Biggy’s death and the subsequent rise in Puff Daddy in the mainstream. And keep in mind, that’s just hip hop.

Post Grunge bands like Soundgarden, Alice In Chains, & Pearl Jam were in the last years of prominence before the late 90s demises. Many signal in the disbarment of Soundgarden in early 1997 as around when the Grunge movement in its musical and subculture sense officially died. Speaking about early 97’, that was also when Biggy died (which one could attribute to the official death of Golden Age 80s/90s Hip Hop) and when The Spice Girls went international and kicked off the Late 90s Teen/Bubblegum Pop trend.

Fashion started to go in a more minimalist/sleek direction in 1997/1998 due to the improving economy and changing cultural values. This was in contrast to Earthier tones and Rugged aesthetics in fashion that were prevalent in 97’ and before due to the not as good economy (post 80’s Yuppism, acting as a counterculture to that decade).

1996 was still a 4th Generation year because the SNES (despite the looming launch of N64) was still the top console on the market and lead to blockbuster releases like Super Mario RPG and Donkey Kong Country 3. Sega Genesis (surprisingly) also was still fairly popular (showing how bad of a markdrying job Sega did on the Saturn, mainly because of confusion with the Saturn and the 32X). Just because the PS1 was already out didn’t signal much, especially since the PS1 wouldn’t start to produce killer apps until later in the year with Crash Bandicoot & Tomb Raider and especially until 1997 with Final Fantasy 7.

I could go on and on but I rest my case. 1996, was a mid 90s year both in culture and of course mathematically. It had a lot of Late 90s trends that debuted, which were not anything to ignore. But guess what other year also had a lot of late 90s trends debuted in? 1995 (Windows 95, Kids WB, Playstaion 1, The ‘FRIENDS’ Craze, Toy Story changing the animation industry, etc etc.). But yet nobody here will try to claim that 1995 was the start of the Late 1990s culturally. So that right there rests my case. IMHO, even much of early 97’, despite a lot of core/mid 90s trends having their demises around that time, is still fairly within the mid period from a cultural standpoint (looking at what was status quo at the time).

Mid 1990s mathematically were from May 1993-August 1996

Culturally from Spring 1994 (arguably after Kurt Kobain’s death) to roughly Spring 1997 (right around when Biggy Died).

I haven’t done this crazy sh!t in a while, so if any of you guys have any questions, just PM me, I’m beat  ;D....

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mqg96 on 07/21/18 at 1:42 pm


Bro I don’t agree with that at all. While I understand 1996 was a pretty transformative year that lead to many Late 90s trends getting big....


I think what I meant to say is that I consider 1996 to be more late culturally to the 90's than 2006 and 2016 were to its decades. Even if 1996 is still more mid 90's culturally, I believe 2006 and 2016 were a lot more mid culturally and less late than 1996 was. You brought up a lot of good points though especially with Biggie still being alive, the hip hop wars, and 4th generation still being relevant for that year, although 5th generation definitely entered it's peak by that year and there were undeniably Y2K influences coming in by Autumn of the year.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Setemstraight on 07/21/18 at 1:49 pm


When I think quintessential, I think more so of guys who were in most of their core childhoods during the core/mid 2000s, while also being able to be old enough to participate in the early 2000s kid trends, and young enough to be into the Late 2000s kid trends. In relation to the the 90s, I always thought of those born in 87'/88', as the ultimate (and most stereotypical ;D) 90s kids, because they were old enough to remember trends like TMNT in the early 90s, were in their core childhoods during the 'Morphin TAIMEE!!!' era of the Mid 90s, and still be young enough to have been immersed in 'Pokemania' in the Late 90s/VERY Early 00s. This same logic is why I would say that those born in 97'/98' would be closer to what a 'quintessential' 2000s kid is to me. Just because people my age (95ers/96ers) remember the entire decade pretty vividly, doesn't make us quintessential 2000s kids.

We're still 'Core' 2000s kid, yeah, along with other 1995-1998/9 borns as we were all ages 7 & or 8 from 2003-2006, the mathematical (and arguably cultural) core years of the decade. But quintessential? I wouldn't say so because I relate most of my childhood to the early-mid 2000s, so mainly the first half of the decade, which makes sense because that was the bulk of my core childhood/elementary school years.

I was at the peak of my childhood (ages 7-8) during the Klasky Csupo Era of Nickelodeon, Powerhouse Era of Cartoon Network, and pre Jetix era of Toon Disney in which all ended in 2004, so people my age were the last to catch these eras for most of our core childhoods. I also can remember the finals years of the Zoog Disney era in 2001-2002. Those memories I have aren't really found in my friends I know of that are merely just a year or two younger than me. Its not a big difference in the grand scheme of things, but you could still tell that the early 2000s still had more of a lasting effect on me than some of my slightly younger peers simply because I have clearer memories of them.

This same argument can be applied with my friends born in 1993/1994, who were arguably the last to remember the Late 90s vividly. Thus, even though they're not 90s kids mainly and we (generally speaking) grew up more in common than actual pro-typical 90s kid (like someone born in the late 80s), they could still heavily relate to a lot of the Late 90s kid trends and such that someone my age really can't.

Slowpoke (born in 93') for instance always talks about being apart of the 'N64 Generation', because he spent a sizable chunk of his core childhood in the Late 90s and the VERY Early 00s (aka the Y2K Era, essentially during Y2K fears in mid-late 99' and just prior to 9/11) when the console was at its peak in popularity. Thus, I'd find it hard for someone born in 1993 or even 1994 to really relate much to the 2000s kid label, which is understandable and why I get where you're coming from. However, see where I am coming from as well; while people born in 1995 & 1996 are undeniably 2000s kids, I'd vouch for core label so I am not discarding that, just because they so many vivid memories of life in the early 2000s, could vaguely remember the late 90s (although clear memories of the late 90s are not uncommon for people in my group), were in school during 9/11 (although 95ers were the last to be in compulsory school in the 20th century), and already were teenagers by the Late 2000s so essentially aging out of the kid culture of that time, are many of the reasons why 95ers & 96ers wouldn't really be quintessential 2000s kids. They're similar to 1993/1994 borns in that aspect in which they relate most of their childhood to the Late 1990s-Mid 2000s. When you talk to someone born from 1992-1996/ about 'Classic' Disney Channel, likely shows like Even Stevens, Lizzie McGuire, reruns of Boy Meets World, Zoog Disney, That's So Raven, Disney Channel Movies from the 1996-2003 era, or Kim Possible come to mind. A 1997-1998 born may also relate to shows like Zack & Cody, Phil of the Future, Life with Derek, and (gasp*) potentially High School Musical & Hannah Montana as well. Finally, those born after 1998, whom don't remember much of the pre 2005 era of Disney Channel will of course relate mostly to the latter shows already mentioned and of course shows like Wizards of Waverly Place, Sonny with a Chance, Jonas LA, and of course DCOMs post 2006/'HSM Mania' Era.

Perhaps, we're the quintessential 'Classic' 2000s kids, as we spent almost all our childhoods in the 'Classic', or the more antiquated half of the decade in comparison, to the Later half of the decade, from 2000-2005/2006 v. 2006/2007-2009. We didn't grow up with social media (heck, it didn't exist for much of our childhoods), smartphones, etc. We remember some 90s trends continuing into the 2000s, 'classic' (comparatively), Nickelodeon & Cartoon Network, musical acts like NSYNC, BSB, & Britney in their prime (granted from the perspective as kids), watched Saturday Morning Cartoons when they were still viable alternative to cable like Disney's One Saturday Morning & Kids WB, among other things. Also, 95ers/96ers weren't in the core demographic for the popularity of Late 2000s kid trends, most notably Hannah Montana good riddance 8-P

Essentially because we were to busy watching Degrassi or My Sweet 16 ;D.

Where's Eric when you need him ;D He'd totally back me up in what I am trying to convey

And that's another problem. I see a lot of you on here arguing and debating this whole "quintessential", "core", "ultimate", ect... nonsense. It doesn't matter who spent every single year of they're childhood within the walls a certain decade, it doesn't make them anymore of a child of that decade then someone who spent the vast majority of they're childhood during it.

This whole breaking it down to the very fine core is ridiculous and all it's doing is creating this whole "you're not one of us" type of vibe. There is no "us", it's not like it's some clique that automatically formed because everyone's parents decided to have sex at a certain time and then you popped out nine months at certain time of a year during a certain time of a decade.

Everyone can throw they're opinions on this subject all they want, but at the end of the day, the facts are still facts. No quintessential, core, ultimate, any of that BS. If you spent that vast majority if your childhood in any decade, then you're a (said decade) kid. It's that simple.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mqg96 on 07/21/18 at 1:51 pm


And that's another problem. I see a lot of you on here arguing and debating this whole "quintessential", "core", "ultimate", ect... nonsense. It doesn't matter who spent every single year of they're childhood with the walls a certain decade, it doesn't make them anymore of a child of that decade then someone who spent the vast majority of they're childhood during it.

This whole breaking it down to the very fine core is ridiculous and all it's doing is creating this whole "you're not one of us" type of vibe. There is no "us", it's not like it's some clique that automatically formed because everyone's parents decided to have sex at a certain time and then you popped out nine months at certain time of a year during a certain time of a decade.

Everyone can throw they're opinions on this subject all they want, but at the end of the day, the facts are still facts. No quintessential, core, ultimate, any of that BS. If you spent that vast majority if your childhood in any decade, then you're a (said decade) kid. It's that simple.


SET THEM B**CHES STRAIGHT!

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Setemstraight on 07/21/18 at 2:04 pm


Yeah because one year as a teen in the 2000s makes a difference. Also your words "but 'quintessential' insinuates that they were the perfect age to experience almost all of the trends of that decade as a kid".

That literally describe 96ers and 97ers.

Hell a teen for just two years of a given decade doesn't make much of a difference. Which is the argument for the "5" year borns.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Setemstraight on 07/21/18 at 2:13 pm


SET THEM B**CHES STRAIGHT!

Lol that's why I use this name. Because the people on these forums, for the most part, are so far off on what they say that it does get irritating at times.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: piecesof93 on 07/21/18 at 2:47 pm


And that's another problem. I see a lot of you on here arguing and debating this whole "quintessential", "core", "ultimate", ect... nonsense. It doesn't matter who spent every single year of they're childhood within the walls a certain decade, it doesn't make them anymore of a child of that decade then someone who spent the vast majority of they're childhood during it.

This whole breaking it down to the very fine core is ridiculous and all it's doing is creating this whole "you're not one of us" type of vibe. There is no "us", it's not like it's some clique that automatically formed because everyone's parents decided to have sex at a certain time and then you popped out nine months at certain time of a year during a certain time of a decade.

Everyone can throw they're opinions on this subject all they want, but at the end of the day, the facts are still facts. No quintessential, core, ultimate, any of that BS. If you spent that vast majority if your childhood in any decade, then you're a (said decade) kid. It's that simple.

Exactly. I remember somebody tried to deadass call me a 2010s teen when I only spent one year as a teen (17) in this decade lmao. I guess it can be fun sometimes but there's really no point in being so technical or serious about this stuff.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Setemstraight on 07/21/18 at 3:00 pm


Exactly. I remember somebody tried to deadass call me a 2010s teen when I only spent one year as a teen (17) in this decade lmao. I guess it can be fun sometimes but there's really no point in being so technical or serious about this stuff.

You hit the nail in the head with that one. Everyone is trying to get so technical with it that it loses its substance. Not to mention it creates barriers between people who are close in age

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Rainbowz on 07/21/18 at 3:02 pm


You hit the nail in the head with that one. Everyone is trying to get so technical with it that it loses its substance. Not to mention it creates barriers between people who are close in age

Yeah. I was born in 2002 and I just consider myself a perfect 2000's and 2010's hybrid kid. I don't really lean one way or another and it's really interesting to be in that position.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Wobo on 07/21/18 at 3:03 pm

I just only label myself as a full 2010s kid.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: ZeldaFan20 on 07/21/18 at 3:28 pm


And that's another problem. I see a lot of you on here arguing and debating this whole "quintessential", "core", "ultimate", ect... nonsense. It doesn't matter who spent every single year of they're childhood within the walls a certain decade, it doesn't make them anymore of a child of that decade then someone who spent the vast majority of they're childhood during it.

This whole breaking it down to the very fine core is ridiculous and all it's doing is creating this whole "you're not one of us" type of vibe. There is no "us", it's not like it's some clique that automatically formed because everyone's parents decided to have sex at a certain time and then you popped out nine months at certain time of a year during a certain time of a decade.

Everyone can throw they're opinions on this subject all they want, but at the end of the day, the facts are still facts. No quintessential, core, ultimate, any of that BS. If you spent that vast majority if your childhood in any decade, then you're a (said decade) kid. It's that simple.


Why are you getting salty though? You asked a question, and I answered it to the best of my ability. And don't get me wrong, I agree that a lot of these labels are meaningless and could cause confusion and such. Hence why I said, those born from 1995-1999 are core 2000s kids, plain and simple. One user (not going to mention names) said that 96/97 borns are the 'quintessential 00s kids' (there words, not mines) and I made my case on why I didn't think so in a constructive manner. We all have our opinions at the end of the day, so why not have civic discourse and try to figure where everybody is coming from?

Thats the inthe00s I signed up for three years ago, and have become used to. You're one of the newer users here so I could understand a little bit of your frustration, but I digress. At the end of the day; we may agree to disagree on the specific labels on what constitutes what decade kid. But we all agree that those born in between the '5' and '9' years are the respected kids of a certain decade. BAM! We're done here...

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: ZeldaFan20 on 07/21/18 at 3:28 pm


I think what I meant to say is that I consider 1996 to be more late culturally to the 90's than 2006 and 2016 were to its decades. Even if 1996 is still more mid 90's culturally, I believe 2006 and 2016 were a lot more mid culturally and less late than 1996 was. You brought up a lot of good points though especially with Biggie still being alive, the hip hop wars, and 4th generation still being relevant for that year, although 5th generation definitely entered it's peak by that year and there were undeniably Y2K influences coming in by Autumn of the year.


Oh ok I get where you're coming from. I'd still have to respectfully disagree though.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: ZeldaFan20 on 07/21/18 at 3:30 pm


You hit the nail in the head with that one. Everyone is trying to get so technical with it that it loses its substance. Not to mention it creates barriers between people who are close in age


Hence why I disdain the 'decade kid debate'. It just creates unnecessary drama. I just simply say that I grew up in the 2000s & 2010s, insinuating I was a kid in the 2000s and a teen/youth in the 2010s.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 07/21/18 at 3:48 pm

Yo, what the hell is going on here?

1999 borns are 100% 2000s kids. We were 5-8 years old from 2004-2007 that means that we were at the peak of our childhoods during the peak of the 2000s.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: piecesof93 on 07/21/18 at 3:58 pm


One user (not going to mention names) said that 96/97 borns are the 'quintessential 00s kids' (there words, not mines) and I made my case on why I didn't think so in a constructive manner. We all have our opinions at the end of the day, so why not have civic discourse and try to figure where everybody is coming from?

Yeah we can agree to disagree. Also, you can say my name. You're not going to hurt my feelings, I'm a big girl.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Longaotian00 on 07/21/18 at 4:04 pm


Yo, what the hell is going on here?

1999 borns are 100% 2000s kids. We were 5-8 years old from 2004-2007 that means that we were at the peak of our childhoods during the peak of the 2000s.

Dont worry, just a bunch of salty 1995-1998ers trying to feel more like 90's kids, they're everywhere :o. I always see them seperating themselves from everyone born 1999 onwards, simply because we experienced our peak childhoods after the supposed Late 2006 shift, or in other words the 'crap Hannah Montana 2000s' >:( ;D.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Slim95 on 07/21/18 at 4:05 pm

It is understandable to think '96 and '97 borns are not quenessential 2000s kids because the people proudly claiming they are 2000s kids, mainly from what I have noticed on this forum, are born in 1999 and 2000. You see way more people who were born in the early 2000s boasting how they grew up in the 2000s than you see mid '90s borns. However from my definition of what a true 2000s kid is (a millennial kid, one who had his childhood in the late '90s and early '00s) I believe the true 2000s kids in the most realest form were born from 1994 - 1996. Those born in the late '90s and early '00s are taking that title away from us even when they don't remember the early 2000s, so I agree with Zelda in that we are in a very weird position. Some people even say we aren't millennials too. It's like we don't fit in with either crowd and we are unique in that way.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Slim95 on 07/21/18 at 4:10 pm


Yo, what the hell is going on here?

1999 borns are 100% 2000s kids. We were 5-8 years old from 2004-2007 that means that we were at the peak of our childhoods during the peak of the 2000s.

I disagree. True '00s culture died in 2006, and you were only 7 when the classic 2000s ended.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Longaotian00 on 07/21/18 at 4:12 pm


No offense but we are very seperate from 1999ers. We are closer to your birth year, and you are also a 2000s kid so don't get it twisted. One born in 1993 is NOT a '90s kid.


bruhhhhh you high? ???

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Dundee on 07/21/18 at 4:13 pm


Dont worry, just a bunch of salty 1995-1998ers trying to feel more like 90's kids, they're everywhere :o. I always see them seperating themselves from everyone born 1999 onwards, simply because we experienced our peak childhoods after the supposed Late 2006 shift, or in other words the 'crap Hannah Montana 2000s' >:( ;D.

Anyone considering Hannah Montana crap shouldn't have their opinions in general considered valid in any way.

Also this thread turning into a generational kid discussion with some obvious self-boasting in disguise thrown in
https://media3.giphy.com/media/BwRzjeqPnC6Dm/giphy.gif

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Slim95 on 07/21/18 at 4:18 pm


bruhhhhh you high? ???

You would think lol Forget I wrote that. I thought I was replying to someone else. Anyways I was trying to say something else but it came out wrong. I meant to say that us born in the mid '90s are closer to those born in the early '90s than those born in the late '90s. And no one can refute that if they are born in the late '90s and early '00s because you aren't us. We had extremely different childhoods, and didn't grow up on Hannah Montanna and late 2000s stuff. We were in our core childhoods in the early '00s which is EXTREMELY different from the late '00s while you guys were in your diapers, and that's a fact. I don't know why you guys wanna be so connected and close to us when we are very different and grew up differently. I am just stating facts here. Our childhoods were indeed different and the 2000s were quite split. We relate more to '90s kids than you guys.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Longaotian00 on 07/21/18 at 4:18 pm


Anyone considering Hannah Montana crap shouldn't have their opinions in general considered valid in any way.

Also this thread turning into a generational kid discussion with some obvious self-boasting in disguise thrown in


Seemed very blatant to me

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: piecesof93 on 07/21/18 at 4:26 pm


bruhhhhh you high? ???

lmfao

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: SmartBo1 on 07/21/18 at 4:31 pm

This thread is starting to become pretty painful to read. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mqg96 on 07/21/18 at 4:32 pm


It is understandable to think '96 and '97 borns are not quenessential 2000s kids because the people proudly claiming they are 2000s kids, mainly from what I have noticed on this forum, are born in 1999 and 2000. You see way more people who were born in the early 2000s boasting how they grew up in the 2000s than you see mid '90s borns. However from my definition of what a true 2000s kid is (a millennial kid, one who had his childhood in the late '90s and early '00s) I believe the true 2000s kids in the most realest form were born from 1994 - 1996. Those born in the late '90s and early '00s are taking that title away from us even when they don't remember the early 2000s, so I agree with Zelda in that we are in a very weird position. Some people even say we aren't millennials too. It's like we don't fit in with either crowd and we are unique in that way.


Bro I feel you, I totally agree with you on this entire post 110% especially for what I have in bold hahaha. From start to finish. You took Zelda's opinion and took it from completely different perspective where I would agree with you too. I even brought this up a year ago on how people born in the late part of the decade and the early part of the next decade are going to be the most immature acting about being a kid of their majority kid decade. For example, 1984 and 1985 born's, people who truly remember being a kid throughout the entire 90's and knew the decade inside and out, are going to have a more mature perspective about the decade than someone born in 1989 or 1990 who are a lot more immature about the 90's when they only remember the later half of it for most of the part. This is why we're tired of everyone focusing on only the mid and late part of the decade while they forget the early part existed. There's a difference between being a hybrid of a decade, being just a plain kid of a decade, and being a true/ultimate kid of a decade. Keep in mind it's not any of our faults that this became a problem, it's those dumb buzzfeed posts and YouTube videos that ruined the mainstream's thoughts on how the 2000's actually went (while forgetting the early part). They'll start with the social media era on the rise for crying out loud.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Slim95 on 07/21/18 at 4:40 pm


Bro I feel you, I totally agree with you on this entire post 110% especially for what I have in bold hahaha. From start to finish. You took Zelda's opinion and took it from completely different perspective where I would agree with you too. I even brought this up a year ago on how people born in the late part of the decade and the early part of the next decade are going to be the most immature acting about being a kid of their majority kid decade. For example, 1984 and 1985 born's, people who truly remember being a kid throughout the entire 90's and knew the decade inside and out, are going to have a more mature perspective about the decade than someone born in 1989 or 1990 who are a lot more immature about the 90's when they only remember the later half of it for most of the part. This is why we're tired of everyone focusing on only the mid and late part of the decade while they forget the early part existed. There's a difference between being a hybrid of a decade, being just a plain kid of a decade, and being a true/ultimate kid of a decade. Keep in mind it's not any of our faults that this became a problem, it's those dumb buzzfeed posts and YouTube videos that ruined the mainstream's thoughts on how the 2000's actually went (while forgetting the early part). They'll start with the social media era on the rise for crying out loud.

I totally agree.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Zelek3 on 07/21/18 at 4:47 pm

People calm down! Don't get mad and make people leave the forum. :( This has happened before. We need a chiller vibe in this thread.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Wobo on 07/21/18 at 4:52 pm


Why are you getting salty though? You asked a question, and I answered it to the best of my ability. And don't get me wrong, I agree that a lot of these labels are meaningless and could cause confusion and such. Hence why I said, those born from 1995-1999 are core 2000s kids, plain and simple. One user (not going to mention names) said that 96/97 borns are the 'quintessential 00s kids' (there words, not mines) and I made my case on why I didn't think so in a constructive manner. We all have our opinions at the end of the day, so why not have civic discourse and try to figure where everybody is coming from?

Thats the inthe00s I signed up for three years ago, and have become used to. You're one of the newer users here so I could understand a little bit of your frustration, but I digress. At the end of the day; we may agree to disagree on the specific labels on what constitutes what decade kid. But we all agree that those born in between the '5' and '9' years are the respected kids of a certain decade. BAM! We're done here...

Setemstraight joined inthe00s four months before you did.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Wobo on 07/21/18 at 4:56 pm


It is understandable to think '96 and '97 borns are not quenessential 2000s kids because the people proudly claiming they are 2000s kids, mainly from what I have noticed on this forum, are born in 1999 and 2000. You see way more people who were born in the early 2000s boasting how they grew up in the 2000s than you see mid '90s borns. However from my definition of what a true 2000s kid is (a millennial kid, one who had his childhood in the late '90s and early '00s) I believe the true 2000s kids in the most realest form were born from 1994 - 1996. Those born in the late '90s and early '00s are taking that title away from us even when they don't remember the early 2000s, so I agree with Zelda in that we are in a very weird position. Some people even say we aren't millennials too. It's like we don't fit in with either crowd and we are unique in that way.

I was born in 2004, so gladly i'm not one of those people to claim i was a kid of the 2000s. I take it into consideration that i'm a 2010s kid.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mqg96 on 07/21/18 at 4:56 pm


Setemstraight joined inthe00s four months before you did.


Wrong! This is ZeldaFan's 2nd account. He took a break and deactivated his old account, that's why it look like he signed up after he did. ZeldaFan originally joined in 2015 when it was his old account, and I invited him over here too.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Wobo on 07/21/18 at 4:58 pm


Wrong! This is ZeldaFan's 2nd account. He took a break and deactivated his old account, that's why it look like he signed up after he did. ZeldaFan originally joined in 2015 when it was his old account, and I invited him over here too.

Well, Setemstraight isn't a new user anymore considering he's been on this site for two years.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Wobo on 07/21/18 at 5:00 pm


I disagree. True '00s culture died in 2006, and you were only 7 when the classic 2000s ended.

Nope 1999 borns are 100% 2000s kids.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: CupidTheStupid on 07/21/18 at 5:40 pm


Yeah. I was born in 2002 and I just consider myself a perfect 2000's and 2010's hybrid kid. I don't really lean one way or another and it's really interesting to be in that position.

I’m with you on this one! I was born in August of 2002 & I feel like I cannot be considered a 2000s kid, but true 2010s kids grew up in a VERY different time. Better to call ourselves late 2000s & early 2010s kids instead.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Rainbowz on 07/21/18 at 5:45 pm


I’m with you on this one! I was born in August of 2002 & I feel like I cannot be considered a 2000s kid, but true 2010s kids grew up in a VERY different time. Better to call ourselves late 2000s & early 2010s kids instead.

I agree with this. I feel like people born in a year ending in "2", especially the early and mid part, are like the perfect hybrids. We early and mid-2002 borns were technically in elementary for more than half of the late 2000's, but at the same time, we were still in elementary in the early 2010's. I feel like we can't really identify with either decade, to be honest.

Also, I know this is subjective and it ranges from person to person, but I remember the entirety of the late 2000's from a kid perspective.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: CupidTheStupid on 07/21/18 at 5:54 pm


I agree with this. I feel like people born in a year ending in "2", especially the early and mid part, are like the perfect hybrids. We early and mid-2002 borns were technically in elementary for more than half of the late 2000's, but at the same time, we were still in elementary in the early 2010's. I feel like we can't really identify with either decade, to be honest.

Also, I know this is subjective and it ranges from person to person, but I remember the entirety of the late 2000's from a kid perspective.

Yup! I started Kindergarten in 2007 & finished in 2012/2013. The core 2000s was approximately 2003-2007, so we’re the last to be in school during that time. But look at the core 2010s, which started in circa. 2012/2013. We're the oldest of the bunch to be in elementary when core 2010s started. Isn't it cool? 8)

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Rainbowz on 07/21/18 at 5:58 pm


Yup! I started Kindergarten in 2007 & finished in 2012/2013. The core 2000s was approximately 2003-2007, so we’re the last to be in school during that time. But look at the core 2010s, which started in circa. 2012/2013. We're the oldest of the bunch to be in elementary when core 2010s started. Isn't it cool? 8)

Yeah, that's definitely something I've noticed. It's interesting too because when we first started elementary in August 2007, the core 2000's were still at its peak but it was on its last legs, but when we finished elementary in either May or June of 2013, that was when the core 2010's barely started.

It's like our very first days of elementary school were the core 2000's, and our very last days were the core/mid-2010's, and in-between was the electropop era.  ;D ;D

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Setemstraight on 07/21/18 at 6:07 pm


Setemstraight joined inthe00s four months before you did.

Ikr ;D

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 07/21/18 at 6:45 pm

1999 borns are 100% 2000s kids. That is a fact and I'm not debating that.

Anyways, y'all can enjoy the rest of your day.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: SmartBo1 on 07/21/18 at 7:39 pm


1999 borns are 100% 2000s kids. That is a fact and I'm not debating that.

Anyways, y'all can enjoy the rest of your day.


bUt yOu ArE tAkInG tHe TiTlEs oF tHoSe bOrN fRoM 1994-1996

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 07/21/18 at 7:50 pm


bUt yOu ArE tAkInG tHe TiTlEs oF tHoSe bOrN fRoM 1994-1996

THEY'LL JUST HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT! 8)

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: piecesof93 on 07/21/18 at 7:59 pm


THEY'LL JUST HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT! 8)

lmfao

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mqg96 on 07/21/18 at 8:00 pm


lmfao


Secretly celebrating that you barely escaped the 1994-1996 range huh!?  ;)

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: piecesof93 on 07/21/18 at 8:02 pm


Secretly celebrating that you barely escaped the 1994-1996 range huh!?  ;)

haha nope. That post actually made me think back to my original post when I said 93ers always get left out of the conversation  ;D.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 07/21/18 at 8:04 pm


haha nope. That post actually made me think back to my original post when I said 93ers always get left out of the conversation  ;D.

It's aight. 1993 borns are cool.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mwalker1996 on 07/21/18 at 8:22 pm

As a 96 born I feel that I can relate to both early and late 90s borns. It's true that we have a more mature perspective of the 00s, but we spent our preteen and early teen years in the late 00s, we were hitting puberty when all the big changes were occurring in the US with the recession and with Obama becoming president.  From my personal perspective here's how I can relate to early and late 90s borns.

Early 90s
Being in elementry school in the early 00s
Remembering wwe as wwf
Remembering watching pokemon before Hoenn
Remembering the GameBoy Color when it was still sold in stores
Have some memories of 1999
Remembering the Dreamcast when it was still sold in stores
Being teens in the 00s.
Old enough to have used Myspace when it was relevant.
Spent our core childhoods in the 6th generation of gamming

Late 90s
Had our core childhoods in the mid 00s
Born in the 2nd half of the 90s
Playing the ds during our elementry school years
Becoming teens during Obama's frist term
Watching Bakugan on CN (I did, I did say this was me personally)
Grew up with Pokemon post Gen 1 (After most late 80s and early 90s borns got sick of it).
Too young to be consisdered 90s kids.
Spent most/a good chunck of our childhoods watching Cena as a wwe wrestler.
Spent a portion of our teens and pre-teen years in the 7th generation of gaming.


Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: piecesof93 on 07/21/18 at 9:19 pm


It's aight. 1993 borns are cool.

I agree.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Slim95 on 07/21/18 at 10:57 pm


1999 borns are 100% 2000s kids. That is a fact and I'm not debating that.

How can you be "100%" 2000s kids if you don't even remember (or barely remember) 2000 - 2002? 100% means 100%... It means you can remember being a kid in every single year of the decade. So that "fact" is wrong and quite debatable. If you are just saying you are  a general 2000s kid then sure, but 100%? That isn't right.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 07/21/18 at 11:02 pm


How can you be "100%" 2000s kids if you don't even remember (or barely remember) 2000 - 2002? 100% means 100%... It means you can remember being a kid in every single year of the decade. So that "fact" is wrong and quite debatable. If you are just saying you are  a general 2000s kid then sure, but 100%? That isn't right.

Please be quiet.

Also, I have memories from 2001 & 2002. So don't speak on what you don't know.

I am 100% a 2000s kid and NOTHING YOU SAY WILL CHANGE THAT.

That is it. I'm done, don't even reply to me.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Slim95 on 07/21/18 at 11:19 pm


Also, I have memories from 2001 & 2002. So don't speak on what you don't know.

But you don't from 2000, and 2000 is still a part of the decade. So it isn't "100%".

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Wobo on 07/22/18 at 12:21 am


But you don't from 2000, and 2000 is still a part of the decade. So it isn't "100%".

He was born in 1999 and spent all of his childhood in the 2000s, that is 100%.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Slim95 on 07/22/18 at 12:25 am


He was born in 1999 and spent all of his childhood in the 2000s, that is 100%.

I consider 100% remembering being a kid from every single year of the decade.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Wobo on 07/22/18 at 12:28 am


I consider 100% remembering being a kid from every single year of the decade.

I consider 100% by spending most of your childhood in the decade.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: HazelBlue99 on 07/22/18 at 12:41 am


I consider 100% remembering being a kid from every single year of the decade.


I was planning on taking a break from inthe00s and Popedia, but I had to share my two cents worth on this ridiculous "debate".

For starters, someone who is between the ages of 12-24 months isn't considered a child, so that immediately makes your point invalid. You used that as an excuse for Black Panther not being a quintessential 2000s kid, but he wasn't even in his childhood in the year 2000 (and neither was I).

If anything, a person born in 1999 is more of a quintessential 2000s kid than someone born in 1995. We experienced the core of our childhood between 2004-2009. We were 1-10 years old during the decade; heck, you weren't even in your childhood in 2008 and 2009.

Cut the bullsh*t and stop being the narcissistic ageist that you are. I don't know why this should be such a concern for a 23 year old anyway.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Slim95 on 07/22/18 at 12:45 am


I was planning on taking a break from inthe00s and Popedia, but I had to share my two cents worth on this ridiculous "debate".

For starters, someone who is between the ages of 12-24 months isn't considered a child, so that immediately makes your point invalid. You used that as an excuse for Black Panther not being a quintessential 2000s kid, but he wasn't even in his childhood in the year 2000 (and neither was I).

If anything, a person born in 1999 is more of a quintessential 2000s kid than someone born in 1995. We experienced the core of our childhood between 2004-2009. We were 1-10 years old during the decade; heck, you weren't even in your childhood in 2008 and 2009.

Cut the bullsh*t and stop being the narcissistic ageist that you are. I don't know why this should be such a concern for a 23 year old anyway.

It's not a concern, I'm not even angry. it's just my belief and I'm allowed to weigh in on this discussion as everyone else. I am saying that I believe the early 2000s were a huge part of 2000s culture even more so than 2004 - 2009. You haven't experienced all of 2000s culture. Why is that a concern for you if I think that at 19?

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: HazelBlue99 on 07/22/18 at 12:51 am


It's not a concern, I'm not even angry. it's just my belief and I'm allowed to weigh in on this discussion as everyone else. I am saying that I believe the early 2000s were a huge part of 2000s culture even more so than 2004 - 2009. You haven't experienced all of 2000s culture. Why is that a concern for you if I think that at 19?


Whether it's intentional or not, your belittling people just a few years younger than yourself. You've stated numerous times in the past that you can vividly remember when you were 4 years old. So, why are you taking offence to the fact that people around my age have consistent recollections of the Early 2000s as well? Black Panther stated he can remember 2001 and 2002, but you basically shot him down for saying it. Talk about double standards.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Slim95 on 07/22/18 at 1:36 am


Whether it's intentional or not, your belittling people just a few years younger than yourself. You've stated numerous times in the past that you can vividly remember when you were 4 years old. So, why are you taking offence to the fact that people around my age have consistent recollections of the Early 2000s as well? Black Panther stated he can remember 2001 and 2002, but you basically shot him down for saying it. Talk about double standards.

You can't remember 2000. And being 4 would be 2003, not even entirely an early '00s year.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 07/22/18 at 1:42 am


I was planning on taking a break from inthe00s and Popedia, but I had to share my two cents worth on this ridiculous "debate".

For starters, someone who is between the ages of 12-24 months isn't considered a child, so that immediately makes your point invalid. You used that as an excuse for Black Panther not being a quintessential 2000s kid, but he wasn't even in his childhood in the year 2000 (and neither was I).

If anything, a person born in 1999 is more of a quintessential 2000s kid than someone born in 1995. We experienced the core of our childhood between 2004-2009. We were 1-10 years old during the decade; heck, you weren't even in your childhood in 2008 and 2009.

Cut the bullsh*t and stop being the narcissistic ageist that you are. I don't know why this should be such a concern for a 23 year old anyway.



Whether it's intentional or not, your belittling people just a few years younger than yourself. You've stated numerous times in the past that you can vividly remember when you were 4 years old. So, why are you taking offence to the fact that people around my age have consistent recollections of the Early 2000s as well? Black Panther stated he can remember 2001 and 2002, but you basically shot him down for saying it. Talk about double standards.

Thank you for explaining. You hit the nail on the head.

Leave Slim95 alone, don't let him get to you. We're 100% 2000s kids and there's nothing Slim95 can do or say to change that.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: HazelBlue99 on 07/22/18 at 1:50 am


You can't remember 2000. And being 4 would be 2003, not even entirely an early '00s year.


Thanks for telling me something I didn't know. I never knew that I was 4 years old in 2003.


Thank you for explaining. You hit the nail on the head.

Leave Slim95 alone, don't let him get to you. We're 100% 2000s kids and there's nothing Slim95 can do or say to change that.


No worries. Yeah, good advice. I guess you can't reason with someone who is clearly delusional.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: AL-B Mk. III on 07/22/18 at 3:45 am

Could someone please explain why it's so damned important whether or not someone is s "2000's kid??? I mean, the way you are all are talking, it sounds that this is of such vital importance that you'd actually come to blows over this if you discussed it face to face.

Yet you act like you're the generation that's so enlightened that you're going to save the world.  ::)

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: 2001 on 07/22/18 at 5:23 am


Could someone please explain why it's so damned important whether or not someone is s "2000's kid??? I mean, the way you are all are talking, it sounds that this is of such vital importance that you'd actually come to blows over this if you discussed it face to face.

Yet you act like you're the generation that's so enlightened that you're going to save the world.  ::)


I'm a 2000s kid and PROUD.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Dundee on 07/22/18 at 5:41 am


I'm a 2000s kid and PROUD.
I'm not, I'm a poor 2010s kid with the stereotype of never going outside and being glued to technology, mostly defined by adults/teens on websites so they can feel better about themselves by desperately putting people younger than them down :(.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: 2001 on 07/22/18 at 5:45 am


I'm not, I'm a poor 2010s kid with the stereotype of never going outside and being glued to technology, mostly defined by adults/teens on websites so they can feel better about themselves by desperately putting people younger than them down :(.


Damn I bet you wish you grew up old school without technology in the 2000s like me. :o

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Longaotian00 on 07/22/18 at 5:49 am

This thread is an inthe00s classic :D

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: piecesof93 on 07/22/18 at 6:02 am


I'm not, I'm a poor 2010s kid with the stereotype of never going outside and being glued to technology, mostly defined by adults/teens on websites so they can feel better about themselves by desperately putting people younger than them down :(.

Damn poor kid

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: ZeldaFan20 on 07/22/18 at 8:20 am


I'm not, I'm a poor 2010s kid with the stereotype of never going outside and being glued to technology, mostly defined by adults/teens on websites so they can feel better about themselves by desperately putting people younger than them down :(.


https://media.giphy.com/media/mcH0upG1TeEak/giphy.gif

You probably don't even get this reference ;D

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 07/22/18 at 8:57 am


Could someone please explain why it's so damned important whether or not someone is s "2000's kid??? I mean, the way you are all are talking, it sounds that this is of such vital importance that you'd actually come to blows over this if you discussed it face to face.

Yet you act like you're the generation that's so enlightened that you're going to save the world.  ::)

Huh? I think that you're stereotyping and being a bit smug in this statement.

I don't know what your last sentence has to do with anything.

Also, this is an online forum where things like this are discussed. It doesn't mean that "it's so damned important" as you put it. However, it's something that every modern generation (including yours) has done.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mqg96 on 07/22/18 at 9:16 am


Could someone please explain why it's so damned important whether or not someone is s "2000's kid??? I mean, the way you are all are talking, it sounds that this is of such vital importance that you'd actually come to blows over this if you discussed it face to face.

Yet you act like you're the generation that's so enlightened that you're going to save the world.  ::)


You mean, the time when we get tired of Late Boomers and Gen X people bashing millennials over and over again? It's no different than this discussion honestly, and this is mainstream. I listen to sports talk radio, politics radio, and watch news/sports on TV and people in their late 30's, 40's and early 50's insult the millennial generation all the time and sometimes come up with derogatory jokes for them too. You know the "dumb millennial" phrase right? I could download a bunch of radio podcast and link a bunch of YouTube videos just to prove it.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mqg96 on 07/22/18 at 9:27 am

BTW, 1999 born's are just as 100% 2000's kids as 1994 born's. All I'm saying is that 1996 and 1997 are the ultimate/peak of it. I never said that 1999 weren't 100% kids because they obviously are in general. 1993 are the last to have a full elementary school year in the 90's and 2000 are the first to have a full elementary school year in the 2010's, making them the first who aren't 100% kids to the decade. 1991 and 1992 are hybrids of the late 90's and early 00's, 1991 leaning towards late 90's and 1992 leaning towards early 00's. 2001 and 2002 are hybrids, 2001 leaning towards late 00's and 2002 leaning towards early 10's. Just my opinion. 1991 born's were 8 in 1999 and graduated high school in 2009. 1992 born's were 8 in 2000 and graduated high school in 2010, and so forth. The most important trait of being a kid of the 2000's is graduating high school throughout the 2010's as well. IMO age 8 is the key childhood year along with your graduation year at 18.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 07/22/18 at 9:28 am


You mean, the time when we get tired of Late Boomers and Gen X people bashing millennials over and over again? It's no different than this discussion honestly, and this is mainstream. I listen to sports talk radio, politics radio, and watch news/sports on TV and people in their late 30's, 40's and early 50's insult the millennial generation all the time and sometimes come up with derogatory jokes for them too. You know the "dumb millennial" phrase right? I could download a bunch of radio podcast and link a bunch of YouTube videos just to prove it.

That's a good point. However, I wasn't talking about that.

I was talking about an early forum on the Web from September 1993, where there were late '60s and early '70s borns that were talking about what is Gen X and what is the boundaries for being a '70s kid.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mqg96 on 07/22/18 at 9:35 am


That's a good point. However, I wasn't talking about that.

I was talking about an early forum on the Web from September 1993, where there were late '60s and early '70s borns that were talking about what is Gen X and what is the boundaries for being a '70s kid.


I wasn't responding to you, I was responding to AL-B from a different standpoint, because even today people born around the 60's to early 80's still talk trash about millennials (80's and 90's born's) even though they fail to admit it. It may not be any of the older folks on this forum, but it's definitely those on radio and mainstream news that's for sure, and I believe people are going to be influenced by that. Older people don't mind the mainstream bashing millennials every day. Interesting that there was a forum from September 1993 though, especially when Internet Explorer and Windows 95 weren't in existence yet.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: AL-B Mk. III on 07/22/18 at 9:42 am


Huh? I think that you're stereotyping and being a bit smug in this statement.

I don't know what your last sentence has to do with anything.

Also, this is an online forum where things like this are discussed. It doesn't mean that "it's so damned important" as you put it. However, it's something that every modern generation (including yours) has done.


I just think it's funny how people are getting so mad about whether or not they can call themselves "2000s kids," as if having the right to self-apply that label is supposed to make them superior or something.  ;D

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 07/22/18 at 9:59 am


I just think it's funny how people are getting so mad about whether or not they can call themselves "2000s kids," as if having the right to self-apply that label is supposed to make them superior or something.  ;D

Nobody was saying that it makes them "superior". Being a '00s kid is just about acknowledging the decade that we (1995-1999 borns) grew up in.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 07/22/18 at 10:10 am


I wasn't responding to you, I was responding to AL-B from a different standpoint, because even today people born around the 60's to early 80's still talk trash about millennials (80's and 90's born's) even though they fail to admit it. It may not be any of the older folks on this forum, but it's definitely those on radio and mainstream news that's for sure, and I believe people are going to be influenced by that. Older people don't mind the mainstream bashing millennials every day. Interesting that there was a forum from September 1993 though, especially when Internet Explorer and Windows 95 weren't in existence yet.

Well, the first Windows came out in 1985. Also, Windows 3.0 and 3.1x were the newest Windows operating systems in 1993 until Windows 95.

Internet Explorer didn't exist until 1995 but America Online (AOL) existed in 1993 and was connected with Windows.

Here is the thread that was created about the 1993 forum: http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?topic=50641.0

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: 2001 on 07/22/18 at 10:16 am


I wasn't responding to you, I was responding to AL-B from a different standpoint, because even today people born around the 60's to early 80's still talk trash about millennials (80's and 90's born's) even though they fail to admit it. It may not be any of the older folks on this forum, but it's definitely those on radio and mainstream news that's for sure, and I believe people are going to be influenced by that. Older people don't mind the mainstream bashing millennials every day. Interesting that there was a forum from September 1993 though, especially when Internet Explorer and Windows 95 weren't in existence yet.


BBS boards and newsgroups were popular in the 1980s and early 1990s. You would browse these "forums" on your console (terminal)

http://thedigitallifeshow.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/bbs3.jpg

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: meesa on 07/22/18 at 11:12 am

...and this thread is a perfect example of why decadeology was at one time completely banned from this website...the argument will never cease because what you are arguing about is completely arbitrary.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 07/22/18 at 11:21 am


...and this thread is a perfect example of why decadeology was at one time completely banned from this website...the argument will never cease because what you are arguing about is completely arbitrary.

It's generationology not decadeology.

Anyways, I wasn't taking anything seriously but it's not "completely arbitrary". Slim95 just decided to respond in the only way he knows and I just told him to stop. That's all.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: meesa on 07/22/18 at 11:29 am


It's generationology not decadeology.

Anyways, I wasn't taking anything seriously but it's not "completely arbitrary". Slim95 just decided to respond in the only way he knows and I just told him to stop. That's all.


You can call it whatever you like. Arguing over who is a  XXXX kid compared to who is not a XXXX kid? You and several of the younger folks on this site have such good heads on your shoulders; why argue over something this petty?

Anyway...I will bounce out of this subject now.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 07/22/18 at 11:36 am


You can call it whatever you like. Arguing over who is a  XXXX kid compared to who is not a XXXX kid? You and several of the younger folks on this site have such good heads on your shoulders; why argue over something this petty?

Anyway...I will bounce out of this subject now.

I wasn't arguing anything, I was literally saying that I'm a 2000s kid (which I am) and nothing can change that. It was Slim95 who was "arguing".

Anyways, whatever.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: piecesof93 on 07/22/18 at 12:00 pm


You can call it whatever you like. Arguing over who is a  XXXX kid compared to who is not a XXXX kid? You and several of the younger folks on this site have such good heads on your shoulders; why argue over something this petty?

Anyway...I will bounce out of this subject now.

It's not that serious...I don't think most people are getting in their emotions about this.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: ZeldaFan20 on 07/22/18 at 12:11 pm

Its crazy how all of this unnecessary crap started just by me saying that people born in '6' years have it pretty weird. I wasn't expecting it to be an insanely controversial thing to say and to lead to hectic generationolgy, but yeah...... thats inthe00s for you ;D.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 07/22/18 at 12:16 pm


It's not that serious...I don't think most people are getting in their emotions about this.

THIS^

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: CupidTheStupid on 07/22/18 at 12:40 pm

I would rather grow up as a kid in the 90s, so I could be a teen in the 2000s, & spend my young adulthood in the 2010s.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Wobo on 07/22/18 at 12:50 pm


I'm not, I'm a poor 2010s kid with the stereotype of never going outside and being glued to technology, mostly defined by adults/teens on websites so they can feel better about themselves by desperately putting people younger than them down :( .

I'm a 2010s kid and i'm proud!

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: 2001 on 07/22/18 at 1:04 pm


I'm a 2010s kid and i'm proud!


PROUD should be in all-caps.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: ZeldaFan20 on 07/22/18 at 1:06 pm


PROUD should be in all-caps.

I'm a 2010s kid and i'm proud!


Slowpoke is a Russian Troll Operative attempting to inflict the U.S with Kleptocracy Propoganda through his various networks in the Trump Administration. He was prudential in Trump's efforts to coddle up to Putin. The mastermind behind the Helliniski Summit. I'd stay far away from him ;D ;D ;D

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Wobo on 07/22/18 at 1:08 pm


PROUD should be in all-caps.

Stop being a grammar nazi because i'm proud of being a 2010s kid  8)

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Slim95 on 07/22/18 at 1:12 pm


BTW, 1999 born's are just as 100% 2000's kids as 1994 born's. All I'm saying is that 1996 and 1997 are the ultimate/peak of it. I never said that 1999 weren't 100% kids because they obviously are in general. 1993 are the last to have a full elementary school year in the 90's and 2000 are the first to have a full elementary school year in the 2010's, making them the first who aren't 100% kids to the decade. 1991 and 1992 are hybrids of the late 90's and early 00's, 1991 leaning towards late 90's and 1992 leaning towards early 00's. 2001 and 2002 are hybrids, 2001 leaning towards late 00's and 2002 leaning towards early 10's. Just my opinion. 1991 born's were 8 in 1999 and graduated high school in 2009. 1992 born's were 8 in 2000 and graduated high school in 2010, and so forth. The most important trait of being a kid of the 2000's is graduating high school throughout the 2010's as well. IMO age 8 is the key childhood year along with your graduation year at 18.

Going past "peak" as you mention doesn't make it 100% anymore. If 1999 borns are past the peak birth year of 2000s kids, it wouldn't be 100%. Would be more like 90%.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: christopher on 07/22/18 at 1:13 pm


I would rather grow up as a kid in the 90s, so I could be a teen in the 2000s, & spend my young adulthood in the 2010s.

That's my life lol (1988). Believe me most 90's music was bad. Thank God for reruns of 80s music videos. Early 00s were nice and futuristic, mid 00s meh, 2008 and 2009 ushered in the early 2010s trends. Parties in 2010-2014 were better due to the nice music.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 07/22/18 at 1:15 pm


Slowpoke is a Russian Troll Operative attempting to inflict the U.S with Kleptocracy Propoganda through his various networks in the Trump Administration. He was prudential in Trump's efforts to coddle up to Putin. The mastermind behind the Helliniski Summit. I'd stay far away from him ;D ;D ;D

Он не русский тролль. Slim95 - настоящий русский тролль.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Slim95 on 07/22/18 at 1:16 pm


Being a '00s kid is just about acknowledging the decade that we (1995-1999 borns) grew up in.

You have got to be kidding me... You are seriously trying to lump 1995 - 1999 as one group again? Where in the world do you think 1995 - 1999 are equal counterparts in being 2000s kids? That's ridiculous. 1994 - 1996 are a similar group, 1994 and 1995 have NO difference. 1999 borns are VERY different from 1995 borns, so please stop with this 1995 - 1999 nonsense. Not sure why you are so obsessed with being grouped with mid 90s born, when you are obviously closer to someone born in 2001. (someone born in 2001 is only two years younger than you, and someone born in 1995 is 4 years older than you and that's a FACT so you have to deal with being closer to someone born in 2001 because it's the truth)

We did not have the same childhood. You were in diapers when I started going to school and getting immersed in Y2K culture. You were just born when Y2K and early '00s culture started, and I remember the era very well.

I am only stating facts here. 1999 borns will get on me when I am saying what every mid '90s born is thinking and these are facts that 1999 borns are closer to early '00s borns. You can deal with it how you like.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: 2001 on 07/22/18 at 1:22 pm


Slowpoke is a Russian Troll Operative attempting to inflict the U.S with Kleptocracy Propoganda through his various networks in the Trump Administration. He was prudential in Trump's efforts to coddle up to Putin. The mastermind behind the Helliniski Summit. I'd stay far away from him ;D ;D ;D


I have no reason to believe I would.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: piecesof93 on 07/22/18 at 1:23 pm


I'm a 2010s kid and i'm proud!

I'm a 2010s young adult and PROUD.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Wobo on 07/22/18 at 1:25 pm


I'm a 2010s young adult and PROUD.

I'm just glad i was a kid in this decade, the early 2010s were awesome for being a kid.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Rainbowz on 07/22/18 at 1:26 pm


You have got to be kidding me... You are seriously trying to lump 1995 - 1999 as one group again? Where in the world do you think 1995 - 1999 are equal counterparts in being 2000s kids? That's ridiculous. 1994 - 1996 are a similar group, 1994 and 1995 have NO difference. 1999 borns are VERY different from 1995 borns, so please stop with this 1995 - 1999 nonsense. Not sure why you are so obsessed with being grouped with mid 90s born, when you are obviously closer to someone born in 2001. (someone born in 2001 is only two years younger than you, and someone born in 1995 is 4 years older than you and that's a FACT so you have to deal with being closer to someone born in 2001 because it's the truth)

We did not have the same childhood. You were in diapers when I started going to school and getting immersed in Y2K culture. You were just born when Y2K and early '00s culture started, and I remember the era very well.

I guess the good thing about this is that at least he's not like you.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Tyrannosaurus Rex on 07/22/18 at 1:28 pm


Its crazy how all of this unnecessary crap started just by me saying that people born in '6' years have it pretty weird. I wasn't expecting it to be an insanely controversial thing to say and to lead to hectic generationolgy, but yeah...... thats inthe00s for you ;D.


That's unfortunate.  :\'(

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Slim95 on 07/22/18 at 1:30 pm


I guess the good thing about this is that at least he's not like you.

I don't know what that's supposed to mean, but I'm tired of him and other people lumping 1995 with late '90s borns. When we relate to 1992 borns on the same way that he with 2002 borns. (3 years apart, and that's a fact)

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: piecesof93 on 07/22/18 at 1:31 pm


I guess the good thing about this is that at least he's not like you.

https://www.thecoli.com/media/damn.15766/full

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Wobo on 07/22/18 at 1:36 pm


I guess the good thing about this is that at least he's not like you.

I'm just glad i don't feel the same way for a 2009 born.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 07/22/18 at 1:38 pm


I'm a 2010s young adult and PROUD.

I'm King of Wakanda and PROUD.


https://www.thecoli.com/media/damn.15766/full

https://www.thecoli.com/media/shaking.16985/full?d=1521064251

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Slim95 on 07/22/18 at 1:41 pm

100% means 100% to me. I never claimed 1999 borns aren't '00s kids. But 100%? That's impossible if their core childhoods started in 2004 and they don't even remember 2000. The early 2000s is a very definitive era for the 2000s decade. I don't know why so many people are disagreeing with me on that. That's why I made the claim 1995 borns are 100%, core childhood started in 2000 and it ended in 2008.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 07/22/18 at 1:44 pm


100% means 100% to me. I never claimed 1999 borns aren't '00s kids. But 100%? That's impossible if their core childhoods started in 2004 and they don't even remember 2000. The early 2000s is a very definitive era for the 2000s decade.

https://www.thecoli.com/media/cantseedahell.16147/full?d=1516150152

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Wobo on 07/22/18 at 1:44 pm


100% means 100% to me. I never claimed 1999 borns aren't '00s kids. But 100%? That's impossible if their core childhoods started in 2004 and they don't even remember 2000. The early 2000s is a very definitive era for the 2000s decade.

What did you say again? I wasn't paying attention.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Wobo on 07/22/18 at 1:51 pm


I would rather grow up as a kid in the 90s, so I could be a teen in the 2000s, & spend my young adulthood in the 2010s.

I would wanna be a kid between 2005-2008, so i could watch the good Cartoon Network and use old Youtube then.
The 1990s aren't interesting to me.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: SeaCaptainMan97 on 07/22/18 at 4:45 pm


1999 borns are VERY different from 1995 borns,


"VERY". That's a gross exaggeration. You are certainly making mountains out of molehills at an attempt to desperately distance yourself from those born in 1999.
I'm not going to deny 4 years is certainly a moderate age difference especially during the younger age stages, but it's nowhere near as huge of a difference as you make it out to be.
You talk about Y2K culture, but you would've been 6 and still in the pre-operational age stage when the Y2K era ended in 2001, you would've been too young to truly determine your own music tastes or even be able to think in a logical manner. For you, or at least the vast majority of your peers, when the New Millennium hit, your favorite music acts weren't Britney Spears and the Backstreet Boys, your favorite music acts were Barney and the cast of Sesame Street. When 9/11 happened, you and your peers most likely wouldn't have understood the concept of death yet, and nowhere near understood the impact of the event.

1995 and 1999 borns were both born post-USSR and pre-9/11, both grew up with the internet in both the Broadband and Dial-Up age, both grew up watching CGI-animated movies from Dreamworks and Pixar and not movies from the Disney Renaissance, both grew up watching a certain variety of cartoons, both grew up playing analog but advanced video games, and during their teen years, both used Facebook and watched music videos on YouTube's VEVO.
I'd even argue 1995 borns grew up more like 1999 borns than 1991 borns.

I'm not trying to outright lump 1995 and 1999 together here, in fact I think this whole "lumping" thing is a complete jape, but you should at least stop trying to over exaggerate the difference between yourself and those only 4 years younger than you as if you're like 20+ years older than them or something. Like I said previously, you're just making mountains out of molehills.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Rainbowz on 07/22/18 at 5:04 pm


"VERY". That's a gross exaggeration. You are certainly making mountains out of molehills at an attempt to desperately distance yourself from those born in 1999.
I'm not going to deny 4 years is certainly a moderate age difference especially during the younger age stages, but it's nowhere near as huge of a difference as you make it out to be.
You talk about Y2K culture, but you would've been 6 and still in the pre-operational age stage when the Y2K era ended in 2001, you would've been too young to truly determine your own music tastes or even be able to think in a logical manner. For you, or at least the vast majority of your peers, when the New Millennium hit, your favorite music acts weren't Britney Spears and the Backstreet Boys, your favorite music acts were Barney and the cast of Sesame Street. When 9/11 happened, you and your peers most likely wouldn't have understood the concept of death yet, and nowhere near understood the impact of the event.

1995 and 1999 borns were both born post-USSR and pre-9/11, both grew up with the internet in both the Broadband and Dial-Up age, both grew up watching CGI-animated movies from Dreamworks and Pixar and not movies from the Disney Renaissance, both grew up watching a certain variety of cartoons, both grew up playing analog but advanced video games, and during their teen years, both used Facebook and watched music videos on YouTube's VEVO.
I'd even argue 1995 borns grew up more like 1999 borns than 1991 borns.

I'm not trying to outright lump 1995 and 1999 together here, in fact I think this whole "lumping" thing is a complete jape, but you should at least stop trying to over exaggerate the difference between yourself and those only 4 years younger than you as if you're like 20+ years older than them or something. Like I said previously, you're just making mountains out of molehills.

Just ignore him. It's not going to solve anything at this point and we're done arguing about this.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Rainbowz on 07/22/18 at 5:06 pm


I would rather grow up as a kid in the 90s, so I could be a teen in the 2000s, & spend my young adulthood in the 2010s.

At least we were both born in 2002 so we're both apart of the coolest generation ever. Everyone born before 2002 and after 2002 be jealous asf.  ;)

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Slim95 on 07/22/18 at 5:15 pm


"VERY". That's a gross exaggeration. You are certainly making mountains out of molehills at an attempt to desperately distance yourself from those born in 1999.
I'm not going to deny 4 years is certainly a moderate age difference especially during the younger age stages, but it's nowhere near as huge of a difference as you make it out to be.
You talk about Y2K culture, but you would've been 6 and still in the pre-operational age stage when the Y2K era ended in 2001, you would've been too young to truly determine your own music tastes or even be able to think in a logical manner. For you, or at least the vast majority of your peers, when the New Millennium hit, your favorite music acts weren't Britney Spears and the Backstreet Boys, your favorite music acts were Barney and the cast of Sesame Street. When 9/11 happened, you and your peers most likely wouldn't have understood the concept of death yet, and nowhere near understood the impact of the event.

1995 and 1999 borns were both born post-USSR and pre-9/11, both grew up with the internet in both the Broadband and Dial-Up age, both grew up watching CGI-animated movies from Dreamworks and Pixar and not movies from the Disney Renaissance, both grew up watching a certain variety of cartoons, both grew up playing analog but advanced video games, and during their teen years, both used Facebook and watched music videos on YouTube's VEVO.
I'd even argue 1995 borns grew up more like 1999 borns than 1991 borns.

I'm not trying to outright lump 1995 and 1999 together here, in fact I think this whole "lumping" thing is a complete jape, but you should at least stop trying to over exaggerate the difference between yourself and those only 4 years younger than you as if you're like 20+ years older than them or something. Like I said previously, you're just making mountains out of molehills.

I respect your opinion but I disagree. I remember things from 2000, even though it's not as if I was into pop culture as older kids. I remember the whole vibe of Y2K and what it was like. When you are 5 years old, your memories are pretty clear already from then. And I am not different from someone born in 1994, so it is kind of strange to say I am more similar to someone born in 1999 than 1994, and a lot of people think that with these ridiculous millennial cutoff stuff. It's even more strange in my case given I was  born in January of 1995. Hopefully you can see why I got kind of upset by this. It's not a big deal of course, but like ZeldaFan said being born in the mid '90s is a weird time and a lot of people will just lump you with younger kids when you did grow up differently. I do believe I am not a "2000s kid" in the same way a 1999er would be, because the 2000s were just so split. And our core childhood started when the 2000s started. I even remember a little bit of the late 1990s, which makes it even more likely I would experience the 2000s more than someone born later than me. Also, I am a lot more similar to 1991 borns than 1999 borns, especially given my siblings were born in 1988 and 1990, a lot more in common with them. I don't know anyone born in 1999 outside from the online world.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: SeaCaptainMan97 on 07/22/18 at 5:22 pm


I respect your opinion but I disagree. I remember things from 2000, even though it's not as if I was into pop culture as older kids. I remember the whole vibe of Y2K and what it was like. When you are 5 years old, your memories are pretty clear already from then. And I am not different from someone born in 1994, so it is kind of strange to say I am more similar to someone born in 1999 than 1994, and a lot of people think that with these ridiculous millennial cutoff stuff.


Of course you're going to have a lot more in common with those just a few months older than you than those four years younger than you.
It's understandable if you dislike the notion of being the oldest in a certain bracket, but your comment about being "VERY" different from those born in 1999 is still a gross exaggeration regardless.
If you ask me, I'd say one's age group comprises of those within a 5-year difference, either way, meaning for you it'd be about 1990-2000, or 1989-2000 since you were born in January.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 07/22/18 at 5:32 pm

LOL, being born in 1999 to certain mid-90s borns like Slim95 basically means that we were born in 2009.

Anyways, I personally don't care whether Slim95 feels closer to 1991 or 1999 borns or whatever. Slim95 acts pretty ageist and that's just something we'll all have to ignore.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Slim95 on 07/22/18 at 5:34 pm


LOL, being born in 1999 to certain mid-90s borns like Slim95 basically means that we were born in 2009.

Never said that. Just said it's not very close as many people believe, and I do truly believe it is quite different in the decadeological sense in how we grew up in the decade and our childhoods being quite different. It's also not as if it's closer to you guys than being connected to early '90s borns. I am not speaking for all of those born in 1995, I am speaking for myself. But I am sure many born in 1995 would agree with my sentiment.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Rainbowz on 07/22/18 at 5:35 pm


LOL, being born in 1999 to certain mid-90s borns like Slim95 basically means that we were born in 2009.

Anyways, I personally don't care whether Slim95 feels closer to 1991 or 1999 borns or whatever. Most 1995 borns don't act like Slim95 lol.

Yeah, just ignore him. As 1995 and 1999 borns get older there will be literally zero differences. My parents are four years apart, just like a 1995 and a 1999 born and there's not even a single difference between them. Just because one might remember a time period better than the other, doesn't make a huge difference at all.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Slim95 on 07/22/18 at 5:36 pm


Just ignore him.


Yeah, just ignore him.

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/030/403/YouMad.jpg?1260647699

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: SeaCaptainMan97 on 07/22/18 at 5:38 pm


Yeah, just ignore him. As 1995 and 1999 borns get older there will be literally zero differences. My parents are four years apart, just like a 1995 and a 1999 born and there's not even a single difference between them. Just because one might remember a time period better than the other, doesn't make a huge difference at all.


I have an aunt and uncle who are seven years apart, and likewise, there's no huge difference between them at the life stage they're at now.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Slim95 on 07/22/18 at 5:39 pm


Of course you're going to have a lot more in common with those just a few months older than you than those four years younger than you.
It's understandable if you dislike the notion of being the oldest in a certain bracket, but your comment about being "VERY" different from those born in 1999 is still a gross exaggeration regardless.
If you ask me, I'd say one's age group comprises of those within a 5-year difference, either way, meaning for you it'd be about 1990-2000, or 1989-2000 since you were born in January.

That's fair. It's not as if we have zero similarities, but I do believe we grew up quite differently. I always saw 1999 borns and especially 2000 borns being quite separated from me growing up. I didn't hang out with any of them and had older siblings born in the 1980s and 1990. As time goes on, we are more similar. But there will always be a difference in our childhood growing up.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Wobo on 07/22/18 at 6:21 pm


LOL, being born in 1999 to certain mid-90s borns like Slim95 basically means that we were born in 2009.

Anyways, I personally don't care whether Slim95 feels closer to 1991 or 1999 borns or whatever. Slim95 acts pretty ageist and that's just something we'll all have to ignore.

Yep.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: piecesof93 on 07/22/18 at 6:22 pm

Slim when you hit 25 none of this stuff is gonna matter because people aren't going to lump you with 18 - 22 year at all anymore due to your age. So there's really no point in trying to prove you're different.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: SpyroKev on 07/22/18 at 6:43 pm

Slim is the antagonist lmfao

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: SeaCaptainMan97 on 07/22/18 at 6:58 pm

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/710/179/022.jpg

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mxcrashxm on 07/22/18 at 6:59 pm

This argument precisely is why I don't think there's such a thing as core childhood anymore. If one thinks about it, everyone is going to have a peak year for childhood stage, and it's not always 2nd or 3rd grade (Year 3 or 4 for those outside this country). Besides, shouldn't childhood be based on what one participated and had fun in rather than what year is going to be the most significant?

As for Slim, while he does have things in common with 1991 folks, he also has similarities with 1999 people as well. For instance, he and '99 users grew up with the original Teen Titans, the 6th generation of gaming, FoxBox/4 KidsTV, the Klasky-Caupo Nick era, the CN City era, post-Zoog, but also pre-HSM/HM Disney era and Yugioh.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mqg96 on 07/22/18 at 7:02 pm


Slim is the antagonist lmfao


You mean this guy?

https://i.pinimg.com/236x/62/5e/31/625e311141715a0fced491bf3116f810--italy-web-holiday-shopping-ideas.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/89/65/07/8965070e659993c8bca043766b29d6d7--interesting-faces-biceps.jpg

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Wobo on 07/22/18 at 7:04 pm


You mean this guy?

https://i.pinimg.com/236x/62/5e/31/625e311141715a0fced491bf3116f810--italy-web-holiday-shopping-ideas.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/89/65/07/8965070e659993c8bca043766b29d6d7--interesting-faces-biceps.jpg

Really? I imagined Slim to be this:
https://i.imgur.com/7Gf6U4u.jpg

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: CupidTheStupid on 07/22/18 at 7:06 pm


https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/710/179/022.jpg

Ikr! ;D This thread got derailed badly over a useless & dumb argument

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mqg96 on 07/22/18 at 7:06 pm


Really? I imagined Slim to be this:


Nope, Slim seems like a macho, cocky dude to me based off his posts more than a Squidward/nerdy type guy like that person in the photo, as much as people don't want to admit it. You know the guy in school who never let's anything get under his skin, makes fun of people, and knew a lot of suggestive jokes at a younger age (and he's mentioned this himself before too). He had a mature personality from young age.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Wobo on 07/22/18 at 7:08 pm


Nope, Slim seems like a macho, cocky dude to me based off his posts more than a Squidward/nerdy type guy like that person in the photo, as much as people don't want to admit it. You know the guy in school who makes fun of people who knew a lot of suggestive jokes at a younger age (and he's mentioned this himself before too). He had a mature personality from young age.

Nah i still think he looks like this
https://i.imgur.com/7Gf6U4u.jpg

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mqg96 on 07/22/18 at 7:09 pm


Nah i still think he looks like this


I've known him over 2 1/2 years longer than you. Trust me. I have the most accurate representation of him. He's not Fat95 (or Geeky95), he's Slim Jim and cocky for a reason, but you can call it confidence.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: piecesof93 on 07/22/18 at 7:10 pm


You mean this guy?

https://i.pinimg.com/236x/62/5e/31/625e311141715a0fced491bf3116f810--italy-web-holiday-shopping-ideas.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/89/65/07/8965070e659993c8bca043766b29d6d7--interesting-faces-biceps.jpg

:D

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Wobo on 07/22/18 at 7:11 pm


I've known him over 2 1/2 years longer than you. Trust me. I have the most accurate representation of him.



https://i.imgur.com/7Gf6U4u.jpg

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: SeaCaptainMan97 on 07/22/18 at 7:11 pm


Nah i still think he looks like this
https://i.imgur.com/7Gf6U4u.jpg


This is how I'd imagine him;

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/wY421vRr-lM/maxresdefault.jpg

Let's stop the convo here though, the mods would prefer if we dropped this subject.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: piecesof93 on 07/22/18 at 7:14 pm

It's going too far making fun of someone's looks though (at least on this site it's too far).

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: TheReignMan99 on 07/22/18 at 7:19 pm

Yeah, this thread is too far gone now.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: mqg96 on 07/22/18 at 7:26 pm

I've never taken anything seriously throughout this thread, I've actually found it hilarious (my biggest weakness on this site is being tempted to reply to any topic, even the annoying ones to older users or decade/generation topics in general, I'm welcome to discuss anything and I like being diverse), but I agree, this thread is totally dead af. A topic like this I'd never start, but I'm welcome to discuss in if everyone else is discussing about it. I will always bring out my opinion 100%. I'm never ashamed to hide my true thoughts.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: AL-B Mk. III on 07/22/18 at 9:43 pm

I wonder if the people who are so adamant about deciding who can or cannot call themselves "2000s kids" do so because they were too young to be "90s kids," and they just want to dump on the younger 2000s kids in the same way that the older 90s kids dumped on them.

Sorry about my post last night where I lumped you all in together.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Tyrannosaurus Rex on 07/22/18 at 10:12 pm


I've never taken anything seriously throughout this thread, I've actually found it hilarious (my biggest weakness on this site is being tempted to reply to any topic, even the annoying ones to older users or decade/generation topics in general, I'm welcome to discuss anything and I like being diverse), but I agree, this thread is totally dead af. A topic like this I'd never start, but I'm welcome to discuss in if everyone else is discussing about it. I will always bring out my opinion 100%. I'm never ashamed to hide my true thoughts.


The whole topic is crazy.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: Dundee on 07/23/18 at 11:59 am

Shouldn't this thread be closed by now ???? It's going nowhere, except into petty discussions territory.

Subject: Re: A Question for '00s Kids

Written By: CatwomanofV on 07/23/18 at 2:09 pm

Ok enough everyone. This thread is now locked.


Cat

Check for new replies or respond here...