NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been in a relationship the last ten years, but it recently ended. So, I've decided to return to the practice of dating. Naturally, much of dating is dependent on the individual situations, but there are surely ambient conditions that can be discussed.

So, in a general sense, what are some ways dating is different than ten years ago?

So, in a general sense, what are some ways dating is different than ten years ago?

I get to participate in it without people fleeing in horror while shrieking, "GAH! GET THE AWKWARD, UNATTRACTIVE, SEVERELY GEEKY TEENAGE GIRL AWAY FROM ME!"

That's the main difference I've personally noticed. :p

I get to participate in it without people fleeing in horror while shrieking, "GAH! GET THE AWKWARD, UNATTRACTIVE, SEVERELY GEEKY TEENAGE GIRL AWAY FROM ME!"

That's the main difference I've personally noticed. :p

yeah, most of poli's first dates are less "ewww" and more "you might want to bite down on this....it's gonna hurt..."

It really hasn't changed much for me. Women ignored me in 1999, they ignore me now.

Yeah, geek is chic now. I want a girl who can share the joy of a new laptop, or appreciate properly-encoded music files, or at least go down on me during a screening of TRON.

Yeah, geek is chic now. I want a girl who can share the joy of a new laptop, or appreciate properly-encoded music files, or at least go down on me during a screening of TRON.

nah, not really. "geek" never really became "chic". The idea of packaging attractive women as being "geek" to make geek guys think they'd have a shot with girls like them became more popular, however.

It's gotten a lot more expensive now that I can't just share my cookie at lunch

edit: on the up side, I don't have to give myself the handjob afterwards anymore

yeah, most of poli's first dates are less "ewww" and more "you might want to bite down on this....it's gonna hurt..."

That's only been true of one of my first dates, thank you very much!

(...no, really, thank you.)

I get to participate in it without people fleeing in horror while shrieking, "GAH! GET THE AWKWARD, UNATTRACTIVE, SEVERELY GEEKY TEENAGE GIRL AWAY FROM ME!"

That's the main difference I've personally noticed. :p

Give me the geek girl...

Because her music collection will have bands I've never heard of but that I'll eventually love.

Because with her glasses off, she has to go by feel.

Because she'll tell me what I'm doing wrong, and make me do it again until I get it right...

nah, not really. "geek" never really became "chic". The idea of packaging attractive women as being "geek" to make geek guys think they'd have a shot with girls like them became more popular, however.

http://img1.tvloop.com/img/showpics/d8/3c/l35ac29320000_1_5579.jpg

Yea, but I'm not complaining.

[IMG]http://img1.tvloop.com/img/showpics/d8/3c/l35ac29320000_1_5579.jpg

Yea, but I'm not complaining.

yep...hot girl packaged as geek.

No, being good and even loving science is not all there is to being a geek.

Yeah, geek is chic now. I want a girl who can share the joy of a new laptop, or appreciate properly-encoded music files, or at least go down on me during a screening of TRON.

Uhh...uh...uhhhh....oooh...yeah...oooooooh.....GREETINGS PROGRAMS!

yep...hot girl packaged as geek.

No, being good and even loving science is not all there is to being a geek.

Eh give me a girl that likes black, love horror movies, has a weird sense of humor, and is as random as I am, and I'm happy. I don't care about what "groups" people are in.

Mainly because I never really fit in with any "groups".

nah, not really. "geek" never really became "chic". The idea of packaging attractive women as being "geek" to make geek guys think they'd have a shot with girls like them became more popular, however.

Are you still pissed about Ginsberg shooting you down at that conference?

http://img1.tvloop.com/img/showpics/d8/3c/l35ac29320000_1_5579.jpg

Pretty much exactly my point. She's on a show that's designed to test urban myths and legends by designing experimental methods.

What experience does she have in engineering, technology, or science? Absolutely none. She studied art and film. She's a sculptor.

So why is she packaged with some "geek chic" image as a hot engineering girl, even though she has no engineering background what so ever?

Because it sells.

That's only been true of one of my first dates, thank you very much!

(...no, really, thank you.)

I still can't believe you pick Harvard over me. I feel like Brown.

A total piece of Brown.

Are you still pissed about Ginsberg shooting you down at that conference?

once you go black robed, you never go back!

I still can't believe you pick Harvard over me. I feel like Brown.

A total piece of Brown.

we're off on a road to Rhode Island...

Pretty much exactly my point. She's on a show that's designed to test urban myths and legends by designing experimental methods.

What experience does she have in engineering, technology, or science? Absolutely none. She studied art and film. She's a sculptor.

So why is she packaged with some "geek chic" image as a hot engineering girl, even though she has no engineering background what so ever?

Because it sells.

Umm, you do realize that Adam and Jamie are special effect guys right?

Jamie has a degree in Russian language and literature
Adam has a degree in Acting.

I don't care about the interns.

My point is, Mythbusters is not meant to be a scientific show, it's just meant to be entertaining and having as much value as a Elementary School science experiment.

Pretty much exactly my point. She's on a show that's designed to test urban myths and legends by designing experimental methods.

What experience does she have in engineering, technology, or science? Absolutely none. She studied art and film. She's a sculptor.

So why is she packaged with some "geek chic" image as a hot engineering girl, even though she has no engineering background what so ever?

Because it sells.

There's a hot little blonde over in physics...short, sure, but cute. And her name is Tesla.

Of course, there are 25 sausages over there for every one of her.

What's the field/job/major/industry/place where there are more women than men?

Of course...then the men would go there...damn.

My point is, Mythbusters is not meant to be a scientific show, it's just meant to be entertaining and having as much value as a Elementary School science experiment.

Eh? I'm getting confused now. I thought you guys were discussing whether geek chicks are in or not, not whether Mythbusters is entertaining.

Umm, you do realize that Adam and Jamie are special effect guys right?

Jamie has a degree in Russian language and literature
Adam has a degree in Acting.

I don't care about the interns.

My point is, Mythbusters is not meant to be a scientific show, it's just meant to be entertaining and having as much value as a Elementary School science experiment.

I think you missed my point.

*sigh*.....again.

we're off on a road to Rhode Island...

This isn't funny, you Crimson shitbird, I'm single now. You know I'm not a strong enough personality to exist on my own, and that will in turn make me less attractive to potential partners.








Why are you laughing harder?

I still can't believe you pick Harvard over me. I feel like Brown.

A total piece of Brown.

I couldn't help it; the recruiter was awfully persuasive. :tongue:

Eh? I'm getting confused now. I thought you guys were discussing whether geek chicks are in or not

we were, I think he got distracted by something shiny.

There's a hot little blonde over in physics...short, sure, but cute. And her name is Tesla.

Of course, there are 25 sausages over there for every one of her.

What's the field/job/major/industry/place where there are more women than men?

Of course...then the men would go there...damn.
English, education and hospitality divisions of business have many females

Umm, you do realize that Adam and Jamie are special effect guys right?

Jamie has a degree in Russian language and literature
Adam has a degree in Acting.

I don't care about the interns.

My point is, Mythbusters is not meant to be a scientific show, it's just meant to be entertaining and having as much value as a Elementary School science experiment.
Your point wasn't that. Your point in posting that picture was to demonstrate geek chic...a geek who is hot. She isn't a geek by just about any definition.

This isn't funny, you Crimson shitbird, I'm single now. You know I'm not a strong enough personality to exist on my own, and that will in turn make me less attractive to potential partners.








Why are you laughing harder?

you know, I often wonder. In our relationship, who is Brian and who is Stewie?

Umm, you do realize that Adam and Jamie are special effect guys right?

Jamie has a degree in Russian language and literature
Adam has a degree in Acting.

I don't care about the interns.

My point is, Mythbusters is not meant to be a scientific show, it's just meant to be entertaining and having as much value as a Elementary School science experiment.

Gee, which further means that the girl you posted a picture of to evoke "attractive geekiness" is hardly authentically geeky. Thus further evincing Neo Art's point.

you know, I often wonder. In our relationship, who is Brian and who is Stewie?
You are very clearly Stewie.

you know, I often wonder. In our relationship, who is Brian and who is Stewie?

Well Brian is a highly intelligent, urbane, and witty drunk, and Stewie is a highly intelligent but emotionally underdeveloped baby.

Therefore, I am Meg.

Your point wasn't that. Your point in posting that picture was to demonstrate geek chic...a geek who is hot. She isn't a geek by just about any definition.

Gee, which further means that the girl you posted a picture of to evoke "attractive geekiness" is hardly authentically geeky. Thus further evincing Neo Art's point.

Who cares? Honestly, who cares? Yes, ads are displaying more "attractive geekiness", so what? Also, this whole mess sounds more like a "True Scotsman" argument.

What is a "true geek"?

English, education and hospitality divisions of business have many females

Nice. My Law School is on the same campus as a globally recognized school for hospitality.

Now...an excuse to loiter?

Nice. My Law School is on the same campus as a globally recognized school for hospitality.

Now...an excuse to loiter?

Cornell?

Excuse to loiter...well, smoking used to work, but many girls are turned off by that. Is there a bench to read on nearby? Perhaps a coffee shop?

Who cares? Honestly, who cares? Yes, ads are displaying more "attractive geekiness", so what? Also, this whole mess sounds more like a "True Scotsman" argument.

What is a "true geek"?

The presence of the word "True" does not a true scotsman fallacy make.

"True Geek" is when the aesthetic and cultural aspects are of genuine nature, the girl honestly exhibits those traits that are "geeky".

Fake Geek, like the picture you posted, is when stereotypical props and geeky costumery are draped over someone by the costume department.

The difference should be fairly evident.

The presence of the word "True" does not a true scotsman fallacy make.

"True Geek" is when the aesthetic and cultural aspects are of genuine nature, the girl honestly exhibits those traits that are "geeky".

Fake Geek, like the picture you posted, is when stereotypical props and geeky costumery are draped over someone by the costume department.

The difference should be fairly evident.

So, you know Kari Byron personally? I'm assuming that you live in the San Fran. area, and you've met up with her?

Cornell?

Excuse to loiter...well, smoking used to work, but many girls are turned off by that. Is there a bench to read on nearby? Perhaps a coffee shop?

UNLV. I do have about 7 months of reading to catch up on...

I wonder if the guys over in CS would help me put together some kind of software that can measure the movements and distribution of single women on campus, then develop a predictive model allowing for a solution algorithm that results in the many, many, many contacts I will likely need.

Who cares? Honestly, who cares? Yes, ads are displaying more "attractive geekiness", so what? Also, this whole mess sounds more like a "True Scotsman" argument.

What is a "true geek"?

Apparently the people "who care" are the ones who are discussing it. If that's not you, I wonder why you bother to interject.

Why speak up in a topic you so clearly don't care about, if not just to seek attention?

The presence of the word "True" does not a true scotsman fallacy make.

"True Geek" is when the aesthetic and cultural aspects are of genuine nature, the girl honestly exhibits those traits that are "geeky".

Fake Geek, like the picture you posted, is when stereotypical props and geeky costumery are draped over someone by the costume department.

The difference should be fairly evident.

To be fair, I don't see how this is conflicting with what Wilgrove originally said. He responded to a post about how there are fake geek chicks packaged to people to convince them that there are chicks that dig them or whatever. From the context, it would seem that Wilgrove merely acknowledged this ("yeah..."), provided an example of this (the picture), and then claimed that regardless he liked it anyway ("... but I'm not complaining").

Apparently the people "who care" are the ones who are discussing it. If that's not you, I wonder why you bother to interject.

Why speak up in a topic you so clearly don't care about, if not just to seek attention?

Eh why are any of us here? Boredom and this is a great time waster.

So Neo, do you know Kari Byron personally? Have you ever met her outside of MythBusters?

UNLV. I do have about 7 months of reading to catch up on...

I wonder if the guys over in CS would help me put together some kind of software that can measure the movements and distribution of single women on campus, then develop a predictive model allowing for a solution algorithm that results in the many, many, many contacts I will likely need.

sounds like game theory...

wander around campus on a warm day. The gym is also a decent place to meet good looking girls

Eh why are any of us here? Boredom and this is a great time waster.

So Neo, do you know Kari Byron personally? Have you ever met her outside of MythBusters?

of course not. However, I am capable of doing two things:

1) watching the tv show

2) reading her wiki entry

I can also do this thing that people who are vaguely intelligent can do. It's called "compare and contrast". And as a result, I'm likewise capable of discerning the differences between "person the show pretends she is" and "background she actually has".

The show sells her as some hot girl who also has a technology/engineering background. She's not.

So, you know Kari Byron personally? I'm assuming that you live in the San Fran. area, and you've met up with her?

One doesn't have to. The picture you posted clearly shows the most banal and ham handed pseudo-geek costumery, complete with lab coat.

If she truly were geek on her own time, all of that wouldn't be necessary.

Its as if we were discussing real bananas, and you posted a picture of a fiberglass banana, and when we point out its not real, you say "How do you know there isn't a real banana inside?"

There might be, but the picture you sent is still fake geek and illustrative of Neo Art's point.

of course not. However, I am capable of doing two things:

1) watching the tv show

2) reading her wiki entry

I can also do this thing that people who are vaguely intelligent can do. It's called "compare and contrast".
Can we make a venn diagram? Please?

God my talents are wasted on the tucc...

Well Brian is a highly intelligent, urbane, and witty drunk, and Stewie is a highly intelligent but emotionally underdeveloped baby.

Therefore, I am Meg.

mmm, hair pie....

One doesn't have to. The picture you posted clearly shows the most banal and ham handed pseudo-geek costumery, complete with lab coat.

If she truly were geek on her own time, all of that wouldn't be necessary.

Its as if we were discussing real bananas, and you posted a picture of a fiberglass banana, and when we point out its not real, you say "How do you know there isn't a real banana inside?"

There might be, but the picture you sent is still fake geek and illustrative of Neo Art's point.

Damnit, now I'm hungry.
And one comment out of you, Neo, and I'll administer not-so-pleasurable beatings.

To be fair, I don't see how this is conflicting with what Wilgrove originally said. He responded to a post about how there are fake geek chicks packaged to people to convince them that there are chicks that dig them or whatever. From the context, it would seem that Wilgrove merely acknowledged this ("yeah..."), provided an example of this (the picture), and then claimed that regardless he liked it anyway ("... but I'm not complaining").

I'd agree if he wasn't then contradicting his acknowledgment by trying to claim that one would have to know the girl personally to claim the geekness in the picture wasn't authentic. If he wants to acknowledge that it is fake, he'd have to stop claiming the distinction isn't valid.

I'd agree if he wasn't then contradicting his acknowledgment by trying to claim that one would have to know the girl personally to claim the geekness in the picture wasn't authentic. If he wants to acknowledge that it is fake, he'd have to stop claiming the distinction isn't valid.

Yeah, but you know what Wilgrove is like when you guys start pestering him. He doesn't exactly stay coherent.

of course not. However, I am capable of doing two things:

1) watching the tv show

A TV show where almost everyone is playing a "role". I bet even Adam tones it down outside the universe that is Mythbusters.

2) reading her wiki entry

A source that can be edited at any time by any body. Fantastic.

I can also do this thing that people who are vaguely intelligent can do. It's called "compare and contrast".

All you have is a 1 hour TV show and a Wiki page. That makes your argument flimsy because you already admitted that you don't know Kari personally, so you don't know what she's like when she's not doing her role on Mythbusters.

She may be a closet computer geek.

One doesn't have to. The picture you posted clearly shows the most banal and ham handed pseudo-geek costumery, complete with lab coat.

So? She's selling the show, I'm not disputing that she brings a sex appeal to Mythbusters, what I am disputing that her sex appeal makes her a "fake geek".

If she truly were geek on her own time, all of that wouldn't be necessary.

But you don't know if she is a geek on her own time, do you?

Its as if we were discussing real bananas, and you posted a picture of a fiberglass banana, and when we point out its not real, you say "How do you know there isn't a real banana inside?"

There might be, but the picture you sent is still fake geek and illustrative of Neo Art's point.

Once again, what is a "true geek"?

Eh why are any of us here? Boredom and this is a great time waster.

Perhaps there is a thread elsewhere on a subject you care more about that would be no less effective in helping you pass time.

Perhaps there is a thread elsewhere on a subject you care more about that would be no less effective in helping you pass time.

I like to argue?

Yeah, but you know what Wilgrove is like when you guys start pestering him. He doesn't exactly stay coherent.

"stay"?

I like to argue?

Then perhaps you could argue more cogently, or in another thread that you care more about.

All you have is a 1 hour TV show and a Wiki page. That makes your argument flimsy because you already admitted that you don't know Kari personally, so you don't know what she's like when she's not doing her role on Mythbusters.

She may be a closet computer geek.

Sure, she might be. But that's hardly the image she's being presented as, is it?



So? She's selling the show, I'm not disputing that she brings a sex appeal to Mythbusters, what I am disputing that her sex appeal makes her a "fake geek".

So, lab coat, safety goggles, stiletto heals and bare calves isn't selling sex appeal specifically by showing a specific image?


But you don't know if she is a geek on her own time, do you?

No, but I'm fairly willing to bet she just hangs around her house wearing safety goggles and stiletto heals. She's packaged to appeal to a specific demographic, by blending two styles into one. "geek" and "sexy".

So? She's selling the show, I'm not disputing that she brings a sex appeal to Mythbusters, what I am disputing that her sex appeal makes her a "fake geek".

I didn't say that her sex appeal makes her "fake geek". The clearly contrived costumery makes her "fake geek". Already explained.



But you don't know if she is a geek on her own time, do you?

As the banana analogy illustrates, whether she is doesn't matter. The image you posted was of her done up in fairly uncreative and predictable pseudogeek trappings. Actual geek girls don't look like that. Girls who just came from the costume department look like that.


Once again, what is a "true geek"?

Once again, that's been explained. A "true geek" exhibits geek characteristics of their own impetus, not from artificial costumery and stagecraft.

You may as well ask the difference between Russel Crowe and a "True" gladiator or Nobel Prize winning theorist.

You may as well ask the difference between Russel Crowe and a "True" gladiator or Nobel Prize winning theorist.

Best. Analogy. Ever.

What's the field/job/major/industry/place where there are more women than men?
Education. Maids. Ironically, the education of maids is a field largely dominated by conspicuously well-endowed men. Or, at least, that is what several informative internet videos have informed me.
Of course...then the men would go there...damn.
Not really. Most men aren't secure enough in their manliness to put on the apron and black skirt of a maid. I am not most men, as I proved for 3 summers ago at the local Day's Inn.
Then they found out my gender and fired me. Well, they also found out that I was secretly masturbating in to the guest's pillow cases, but I couldn't have done that if I were a woman, could I? So it is still sexual discrimination.
Pretty much exactly my point. She's on a show that's designed to test urban myths and legends by designing experimental methods.

What experience does she have in engineering, technology, or science? Absolutely none. She studied art and film. She's a sculptor.

So why is she packaged with some "geek chic" image as a hot engineering girl, even though she has no engineering background what so ever?

Because it sells.
Maybe she has an amateur interest in science and technology? If someone can be a "geek" in high school, then it obviously doesn't require a degree to get inside the clubhouse.
Although that picture is just asinine. Within two minutes I lost count of the number of health and safety violations going on there. BAD ADVERTISERS! BAD!

Is there a bench to read on nearby?

Hah.


Sitting on a park bench
eyeing little girls
with bad intent.

Sorry, had to do it. First thing that popped into my head when I read that.

Must be that pedo thread...

Ok, since people seem to think that I am not coherent, I will try to simplify my argument.

The argument I see is this: Attractive Geeks on media aren't really geeks because they're "fake geek". What makes them "fake geek" is that they're dressed up to be attractive but approachable.

My argument: "Yes, you're right, but does that really make them "Fake geeks"? Why is the fact that they are dressed to be attractive but approachable invalidate their geekness? Also, of course they're approachable, duh! That how they sell the sex angle..."

Am I coherent now?

Best. Analogy. Ever.

Glad you like my stuff. My motion for summary judgment had exactly one paragraph that wasn't bleeding red with style and content corrections.

A TV show where almost everyone is playing a "role". I bet even Adam tones it down outside the universe that is Mythbusters.

You realize, I hope, that this doesn't help your argument, yes? In fact, it pretty much hurts it. The whole fact that their background is somewhat "fictionalized" is sort of the point I'm making here.

If all four of them have overly inflated backgrounds, of the four men and one woman on that show, how many of them are shown in pictures as a sex object? How many of them are shown as sex objects specifically in a way made to emphasis their fake credentials

I'll give you a hint. It aint Adam in those heels.

Actual geek girls don't look like that. Girls who just came from the costume department look like that.

Exactly. My lab coat fits and is covered with stains, because I, y'know, used it.

Also, my boobs are nicer.

Ok, since people seem to think that I am not coherent, I will try to simplify my argument.

The argument I see is this: Attractive Geeks on media aren't really geeks because they're "fake geek". What makes them "fake geek" is that they're dressed up to be attractive but approachable.

My argument: "Yes, you're right, but does that really make them "Fake geeks"? Why is the fact that they are dressed to be attractive but approachable invalidate their geekness? Also, of course they're approachable, duh! That how they sell the sex angle..."

Am I coherent now?

So you say "Yes, you're right" to the reasons that make them Fake Geek.

Then you say "Does that really make them fake geek?" In the same sentence as agreeing that it does make them fake geek.

So, no. No, you are not now coherent.

And the premise was the fake geekiness gives a false patina of approachability, so it was never claimed that approachability "invalidates geekiness".

So you're coherent neither in your own argument nor in your grasp of others'.

Then they found out my gender and fired me. Well, they also found out that I was secretly masturbating in to the guest's pillow cases, but I couldn't have done that if I were a woman, could I? So it is still sexual discrimination.


I am unqualified to say you have a strong case. That said, you, sir, have a strong case.

So you say "Yes, you're right" to the reasons that make them Fake Geek.

Then you say "Does that really make them fake geek?" In the same sentence as agreeing that it does make them fake geek.

So, no. No, you are not now coherent.

And the premise was the fake geekiness gives a false patina of approachability, so it was never claimed that approachability "invalidates geekiness".

So you're coherent neither in your own argument nor in your grasp of others'.

and yet, when I try to ask for a definition of "True geek", no one can give me a definition.

Which just leads me to believe, that, like everything else in life, Geekness has a spectrum. There is no "true geek". So yours and Neo's argument are invalidated.

Exactly. My lab coat fits and is covered with stains, because I, y'know, used it.

Also, my boobs are nicer.

I would like to make out with you under the chemical shower over the eyewash station and then play slap and tickle with the bunsen hoses.

and yet, when I try to ask for a definition of "True geek", no one can give me a definition.

Which just leads me to believe, that, like everything else in life, Geekness has a spectrum. There is no "true geek". So yours and Neo's argument are invalidated.

here, this might help you. It's about as useful as the above quoted:

http://ui15.gamespot.com/1614/invalidargument_2.jpg

Or, to put it in another way, just because you didn't understand the definition, doesn't mean you weren't given one.

and yet, when I try to ask for a definition of "True geek", no one can give me a definition.

Since you were twice given a definition, amplified with illustrative examples, its clear you aren't going to contribute anything apt here.


Which just leads me to believe, that, like everything else in life, Geekness has a spectrum. There is no "true geek". So yours and Neo's argument are invalidated.

You clearly, starkly, and within the same sentence completely contradicted yourself, and yet our arguments are invalidated?

Suppose one person works cattle for a living, chooses and lives that lifestyle, and develops a skillset, physique, and identity commensurate with that daily life.

Another person goes to the costume trailer and gets a cowboy hat and some chaps.

On the spectrum of being a cowboy, which of these is more meaningfully described as a "true cowboy"?

Get it now?

I can't enforce it, but Wilgrove, at this point, I'm politely asking you to find another thread.

Another person goes to the costume trailer and gets a cowboy hat and some chaps.


But, but, just because that's true, doesn't mean he doesn't go home and round up some cattle for fun!

Huh? HUH? Didn't think of THAT, did you smart guy?

I am unqualified to say you have a strong case. That said, you, sir, have a strong case.
Many of the guests had strong cases too. Hard and crusty, but very strong (at least by the standards of most pillowcases). However, I don't think any of them appreciated that, and that is what hurts the most.

Many of the guests had strong cases too. Hard and crusty, but very strong (at least by the standards of most pillowcases). However, I don't think any of them appreciated that, and that is what hurts the most.

There there. Genius is rarely appreciated in its time.

and yet, when I try to ask for a definition of "True geek", no one can give me a definition.

Which just leads me to believe, that, like everything else in life, Geekness has a spectrum. There is no "true geek". So yours and Neo's argument are invalidated.

Okay, let's try this.

Wilgrove, which of these pictures depicts a "true rabbit"?

http://www.ministryofpropaganda.co.uk/blogimages/20040806-rabbit.jpg

http://www.slashphone.com/media/data/1107/anne-geddes-3.jpg

Okay, let's try this.

Wilgrove, which of these pictures depicts a "true rabbit"?

http://www.ministryofpropaganda.co.uk/blogimages/20040806-rabbit.jpg

http://www.slashphone.com/media/data/1107/anne-geddes-3.jpg

how do you know that baby isn't a rabbit in her free time? Huh? HUH? Didn't think of that did you?

Many of the guests had strong cases too. Hard and crusty, but very strong (at least by the standards of most pillowcases). However, I don't think any of them appreciated that, and that is what hurts the most.

Dedication should be encouraged, not reprimanded.

You deserve a ballad, by a social activist artist from an era of your choice.

Dedication should be encouraged, not reprimanded.

You deserve a ballad, by a social activist artist from an era of your choice.

How about Garfunkel? I mean, he's GOT to need the work.

Exactly. My lab coat fits and is covered with stains, because I, y'know, used it.

Also, my boobs are nicer.

Pics or it's not true.

how do you know that baby isn't a rabbit in her free time? Huh? HUH? Didn't think of that did you?

Yeah. You'd have to live in the same city as that baby and know it personally.

Maybe it eats carrots and spends weekends in a neck-cage at a cosmetics company getting its skin scraped and eyeballs perfumed.





I was going to suggest it dies to detect pregnancy, but that doesn't really happen any more does it?

-snips-

-snips-

Both of your analogy sucks, but Toomey analogy sucks less.

Once again.

1. What is a true geek?

2. What makes Kari a "fake geek"? (beside the picture or her role on Mythbusters, we're talking about real life here people, not what you see on a 1 hour TV show or Wiki)

3 What would make Kari a true geek?

You know what's funny though, I always thought geekiness comes from the mind, not the physical appearance, and yet that's what we're judging Kari on.

Hmm weird.

Dedication should be encouraged, not reprimanded.

You deserve a ballad, by a social activist artist from an era of your choice.
Does Mike Patton count as a social activist? I'm pretty sure he could come up with something uniquely touching to describe my plight. Of course, he might also just spend 20 minutes screaming and muttering unintelligibly about "pig urination rape sandwiches" while playing with a dentist drill.

How about Garfunkel? I mean, he's GOT to need the work.

(To the tune of "Sounds of Silence")

Hello, linens my old friend...

Come to spunk on you again...

And the pillow stains will dry crusty...

As you sleep upon stains of my seed...

And the towels...in the bathroom are refuge....for my spooge...

Do not disturb...my spe-erm....

Both of your analogy sucks, but Toomey analogy sucks less.

Once again.

1. What is a true geek?

2. What makes Kari a "fake geek"? (beside the picture or her role on Mythbusters, we're talking about real life here people, not what you see on a 1 hour TV show or Wiki)

3 What would make Kari a true geek?

You know what's funny though, I always thought geekiness comes from the mind, not the physical appearance, and yet that's what we're judging Kari on.

Hmm weird.

Wow.

You um..you really don't get it, do you? What part of "they're displaying a hyper sexualized image designed to appear to a certain demographic that does not appear to match up to reality" is so hard to get?

Wow.

You um..you really don't get it, do you? What part of "they're displaying a hyper sexualized image designed to appear to a certain demographic that does not appear to match up to reality" is so hard to get?

You are basing "reality" on a one hour TV show and a Wiki page...That is what invalidates your argument. What does Kari need a B.S. degree to be a geek?

You are basing "reality" on a one hour TV show

Actually, if you had even the most basic understanding of what I was saying, you'd realize I'm doing exactly the opposite of that.

3 What would make Kari a true geek?

Actually being a geek, rather than someone who has dressed up in a "geek" costume for a photo shoot or someone who plays a geek on TV. In the same way, Russell Crowe might really be a troubled math whiz, but there is no particular reason to assume he is based simply on him portraying one in a movie - and that baby might love carrots, but the fact that she's wearing a rabbit costume is not actually evidence of this.

Actually, if you had even the most basic understanding of what I was saying, you'd realize I'm doing exactly the opposite of that.

*smirks* This should be fun, so what are you basing your argument on? The picture?

Actually being a geek, rather than someone who has dressed up in a "geek" costume for a photo shoot or someone who plays a geek on TV. In the same way, Russell Crowe might really be a troubled math whiz, but there is no particular reason to assume he is based simply on him portraying one in a movie - and that baby might love carrots, but the fact that she's wearing a rabbit costume is not actually evidence of this.

Did not know that Geekness was based on what we wear. I'll keep that in mind the next time a hot blonde computer geek approach me.

You are basing "reality" on a one hour TV show
What do you mean "reality?" There is no reality here, you're discussing the public image of a public personality.

Did not know that Geekness was based on what we wear. I'll keep that in mind the next time a hot blonde computer geek approach me.

....what post are you replying to? It's clearly not the one you quoted.

(To the tune of "Sounds of Silence")

Hello, linens my old friend...

Come to spunk on you again...

And the pillow stains will dry crusty...

As you sleep upon stains of my seed...

And the towels...in the bathroom are refuge....for my spooge...

Do not disturb...my spe-erm....

*dies laughing*

Both of your analogy sucks, but Toomey analogy sucks less.

You claim to like to argue, yet can't make a lucid one. "That sucks" isn't an argument. What you like to do is ignore the opposing argument.


Once again.

1. What is a true geek?

Its been answered three times, and you've shown no ability to refute those answers, or any craft a response that reflects basic understanding of them.


2. What makes Kari a "fake geek"? (beside the picture or her role on Mythbusters, we're talking about real life here people, not what you see on a 1 hour TV show or Wiki)

You didn't present the "real person", you presented the picture, i.e. "what you see on TV". You know, the thing you now claim we're not talking about, but is the exact way you introduced her?

When you contradicted yourself before, it could simply have been a mistake. At this point, its blatant hypocrisy or complete cognitive failure.


3 What would make Kari a true geek?

That's also been explained. Authentic geeky attributes, gravitating towards science, technology, eschewing prevalent style, and doing so by her own motivation, not from the costume department for a show. Its no less than the difference between real life and stagecraft.


You know what's funny though, I always thought geekiness comes from the mind, not the physical appearance, and yet that's what we're judging Kari on.

I know, its almost like the person who introduced her to the discussion did so with a picture that solely presented physical appearance.

Let's go back and see who brought her up, and see if they did so in a manner evoking specifically and explicitly her physical appearance...


Hmm weird.

Yeah, really weird. Turns out, it was you that brought up her appearance, in the context of attempting to convey geekiness. Yet now you say that isn't a valid source of geekiness...that is weird.

Wilgrove, did you know that an argument can be so flawed, so insistently lacking in basic reasoning skills, and so lacking in rudimentary logical consistency with its own claims that it actually has the characteristics of an assault on the mind?

....what post are you replying to? It's clearly not the one you quoted.

Replying to yours. Your argument appears to be that since she is dressed up to empathize the geekness part of her "public" image, that it isn't likely that she is a true geek in her "private" image.

Unless I'm misinterpreting your argument.

Eh you know what, I'm finally bored with this. Off to cause chaos and destruction to another thread.

*smirks* This should be fun, so what are you basing your argument on? The picture?

I get the impression that somehow you think you're "outwitting" me or leading me into some sort of "trap" that you're going to spring on me. The problem is, you can't win when you're not in the same ballpark. In fact, I'm fairly certain we're not even playing the same game.

But alright, I'm going to try to repeat this one more time, just so you understand it. Here goes. Advertisers, over the last few years, with the advent of the tech boom, have started to target a demographic that can generally be described as "geek". And that demographic is largely male, educated, professional, young, with a disposable income.

It's a common advertising method to associate "what they know" with "what you're selling". It creates the impression that whatever product you're trying to hawk, can integrate into their lives. And how do you associate a product with "what they know" when "they" are a demographic often described as "geek"?

By associating it with iconography associated with that demographic. Just as if you were trying to associate with sports fans you put the girl in a sports jersey. Or with rock fans, you put her in a punk rock outfit.

Now maybe the girl actually DOES like sports, or does like rock. But to that end, it doesn't matter what she likes. It doesn't matter if she really is a closet geek or not. What matters is the image she's been built to represent. Kari the character (as opposed to Kari the person) exists to be a sex symbol for geek men. Nothing more, nothing less. The very fact that she's associated with geek iconography (IE, lab coat, safety goggles) juxtaposed with sexy poses and gear (IE high heels) is designed to create the impression of "what you want" and "what you know" in one package. Hot, sexy girl, who also fits into your demographic.

Who she is, is entirely irrelevant to the proposition that "geek" is not, and hasn't ever been fashionable. It just appears that way, since advertisers have started targeting them as a demographic, thus wrapping fashionable "buy me" consumerism with geek iconography.

Only in NSG could a thread about dating turn into a discussion about what makes a geek a geek.

To the OP: I think you are asking the wrong crowd.

You are basing "reality" on a one hour TV show and a Wiki page...That is what invalidates your argument. What does Kari need a B.S. degree to be a geek?

Gee, its almost like the way you presented her as an example of "geek" based on a picture from a one hour TV show.

Are you seriously unable to see how the references to bananas, cowboys, Russel Crowe, etc, demonstrate that when something is artificially imaged, in a clear, known, deliberate way, its thus not "real" as contrasted with somebody who takes on those characteristics more naturally?

Do you think we all just like bananas and rabbits and Russell Crowe?

Did not know that Geekness was based on what we wear. I'll keep that in mind the next time a hot blonde computer geek approach me.

yeah, the next time...

Replying to yours. Your argument appears to be that since she is dressed up to empathize the geekness part of her "public" image, that it isn't likely that she is a true geek in her "private" image.

Unless I'm misinterpreting your argument.

Badly.

Let's try this one more time: if I dress up as a princess for a photo shoot, this is evidence that I:

(a) am actually a princess in real life.
(b) am actually not a princess in real life.
(c) am wearing a princess costume for a photo shoot, which has fuck-all to do with whether I may or may not be a princess in real life, so it might make more sense to go look up my biographical information and see if there's anything in it to indicate whether I'm a princess.

Can you identify the correct answer?

*dies laughing*
Some day in the future, cross dressing perverts from around the world will rally to that song. Then who will be laughing? Obviously not you, because you apparently died 10 minutes ago (still having the presence of mind to press enter, of course)
Ah well, assez tu assez. It could not last forever, we all knew that when we started.

Only in NSG could a thread about dating turn into a discussion about what makes a geek a geek.

To the OP: I think you are asking the wrong crowd.

Frankly, its just the crucible of the internet burning away those who wouldn't provide credible advice anyway. Watching Neo Art and Poliwanacraca utterly slaughter Wilgrove's grotesquely deformed argument is just watching the unwanted material sublimated away. The smell is noxious, but it will hopefully go away after a while.

Do you think we all just like bananas and rabbits and Russell Crowe?

Who told you about that?! Dammit, NA, that fantasy was supposed to be private!

I can't imagine that dating has changed too much in the last ten years. Has it? I could never figure out what the hell I would say, if I ever dated anyone. But that probably gets easier the older you get, since you have work and other experiences to talk about, I should think. I know people go to movies, concerts or the theater, and a lot of time a first date will be a double- or group-date, maybe bowling or a picnic or a concert as a group, but I've never put those preconceptions to the test.

Replying to yours. Your argument appears to be that since she is dressed up to empathize the geekness part of her "public" image, that it isn't likely that she is a true geek in her "private" image.

Then you don't have a basic understanding of our replies or what we were replying to.

You were the one that introduced her to the discussion by her photo from the show, her appearance. Its been explained why that aspect of her is fake geek.

Whether she is geek in real life is about as relevant as whether the baby really likes carrots or whether Russell Crowe actually has hallucinations of government agents. The part of her that you presented is clearly fake geek.


Unless I'm misinterpreting your argument.

Completely, but even if you weren't you've contradicted yourself enough that your reply isn't even sound.


Eh you know what, I'm finally bored with this. Off to cause chaos and destruction to another thread.

Thank christ. At least real chaos represent aperiodic complexity that is useful in problem solving. What you cause is just the destruction of a snowball hitting a tree. Its the snowball that's been destroyed.

I still end up hating the vast majority of women I ask out shortly after I do... so I haven't seen much change.

I can't imagine that dating has changed too much in the last ten years. Has it? I could never figure out what the hell I would say, if I ever dated anyone. But that probably gets easier the older you get, since you have work and other experiences to talk about, I should think. I know people go to movies, concerts or the theater, and a lot of time a first date will be a double- or group-date, maybe bowling or a picnic or a concert as a group, but I've never put those preconceptions to the test.

You mentioned "if I ever dated anyone"? Not much dating yet? I never really dated much, even when I was younger.

I would think what you're saying makes sense, common frames of reference would seem to ease discussion. Of course, radically different backgrounds might allow for more stimulating fare, once some momentum gathered.

Group dating actually sounds like a fairly wise idea. May take some of the nervousness out, mutual friends can serve as an ice breaker.

I still end up hating the vast majority of women I ask out shortly after I do... so I haven't seen much change.

Seriously? Is this after just asking them out, or after actually dating them?

And what generally causes this hate?

You mentioned "if I ever dated anyone"? Not much dating yet? I never really dated much, even when I was younger.

I would think what you're saying makes sense, common frames of reference would seem to ease discussion. Of course, radically different backgrounds might allow for more stimulating fare, once some momentum gathered.

Group dating actually sounds like a fairly wise idea. May take some of the nervousness out, mutual friends can serve as an ice breaker.

We were advised in high school never to solo-date on the first few dates. There was an assembly and a hand-out and everything. Apparently, teenaged boys can't handle rejection, and will murder you at the end of the evening if you give them the brush-off, unless there are witnesses of course. Ridiculous, but we honestly were told that. :tongue: Me, I already had enough anxiety around girls to avoid dating, without having them look at me as a potential murderer. So I never dated anyone, and after I was about 25, it stopped bothering me. I do observe others, though. It's pretty fascinating.

I still end up hating the vast majority of women I ask out shortly after I do... so I haven't seen much change.

Why do you end up hating them?

Advertisers, over the last few years, with the advent of the tech boom, have started to target a demographic that can generally be described as "geek".
http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2009/20090302.jpg

We were advised in high school never to solo-date on the first few dates. There was an assembly and a hand-out and everything. Apparently, teenaged boys can't handle rejection, and will murder you at the end of the evening if you give them the brush-off, unless there are witnesses of course. Ridiculous, but we honestly were told that. :tongue: Me, I already had enough anxiety around girls to avoid dating, without having them look at me as a potential murderer. So I never dated anyone, and after I was about 25, it stopped bothering me. I do observe others, though. It's pretty fascinating.

Do you have any remaining urge to date? (I'm not coming on to you, and I won't murder you in any scenario that can be reasonably foreseen)

You say it doesn't bother you, but does the motivation to approach a lady every develop? Or the desire to find circumstances that might make dating easier?

Do you have any remaining urge to date? (I'm not coming on to you, and I won't murder you in any scenario that can be reasonably foreseen)

You say it doesn't bother you, but does the motivation to approach a lady every develop? Or the desire to find circumstances that might make dating easier?

Nah, nothing like that. I've never even spoken to a woman outside of work (and that's never been other than professional), nor did I ever as a kid. My office, until I was laid off last month - budget cuts, and I was only a few years in - was about 80% women, and working with women doesn't bother me at all, but habit is too strong.

Still, dating is interesting to me because you're sort of trying to force familiarity with a person into a time frame that is much shorter than the usual length of time it takes to build a meaningful friendship. That's an extreme that leads to great things and great disasters on occasion, so it's exciting to hear about it from older siblings or male co-workers or online acquaintances, even if it's not something I'd do. It just makes for great stories. :tongue:

Nah, nothing like that. I've never even spoken to a woman outside of work (and that's never been other than professional), nor did I ever as a kid. My office, until I was laid off last month - budget cuts, and I was only a few years in - was about 80% women, and working with women doesn't bother me at all, but habit is too strong.

Still, dating is interesting to me because you're sort of trying to force familiarity with a person into a time frame that is much shorter than the usual length of time it takes to build a meaningful friendship. That's an extreme that leads to great things and great disasters on occasion, so it's exciting to hear about it from older siblings or male co-workers or online acquaintances, even if it's not something I'd do. It just makes for great stories. :tongue:

Is there a particular reason you wouldn't do it?

Are there women you've known for a while that you would want a relationship with?

Is there a particular reason you wouldn't do it?

Are there women you've known for a while that you would want a relationship with?

I've never known any women other than as co-workers, no. There's never been any indication, even second-hand, that anyone was ever interested in me socially, so there's never been any temptation to say "hello" to anyone. I mostly just want to avoid embarassment and trouble at work. In my experience, dating a co-worker is bad news. That's something that was probably just as true in '99 as it is in '09.

Seriously? Is this after just asking them out, or after actually dating them?

And what generally causes this hate?

Why do you end up hating them?

Well, it generally ends up being I decide they are shallow, not too bright, or I discover some personal habit of theirs that makes my skin crawl. The last woman I took on a date seriously voted for Dick Cheney in the election because I don't want no damn ****** in office, and Sarah Palin is a good role model.

Maybe I should try online dating?

Well, it generally ends up being I decide they are shallow, not too bright, or I discover some personal habit of theirs that makes my skin crawl. The last woman I took on a date seriously voted for Dick Cheney in the election because

Maybe I should try online dating?

No, just no. All there is online are single moms, preggers, and people who probably shouldn't reproduce. The rest is Spam.

Online dating is probably the only way to meet people. That and blind dates. I met my wife on a blind date.

Online dating is probably the only way to meet people.
I don't know if it's the ONLY way, but I'd definitely agree that the single biggest change to dating in the last 10 years has been the internet. It is increasingly socially accepted to meet a mate on the internet. In fact, two of my closest friends met through Everquest...they've now been married for 6 years and have two kids.

So, in a general sense, what are some ways dating is different than ten years ago?

it's not.

Ten Years Ago: couldn't get a date to save my life.

Now: Still can't get a date to save my life.


:p

Lets see.

Ten years ago, I was a nerdy awkward teenager without a chance in that department.

Now, I'm an tough awkward 20 something who has been burned so many times that I don't even know if I want anything to do with the department.

How time changes us.

Ten years ago I was 11 and thought girls were icky.

Ten years ago I was 11 and thought girls were icky.
... and now?

Sex on the first date isn't common anymore. thanks a lot explosion of STDs across society.

... and now?
Ive gotten koodies shot, so I am immune to the diseases they bring.
Sex on the first date isn't common anymore.
Youve been lied to.

Sex on the first date isn't common anymore. thanks a lot explosion of STDs across society.

And your dog isn't dead, it's on a farm in Wisconsin.

I don't know if it's the ONLY way, but I'd definitely agree that the single biggest change to dating in the last 10 years has been the internet. It is increasingly socially accepted to meet a mate on the internet. In fact, two of my closest friends met through Everquest...they've now been married for 6 years and have two kids.

It's occassionally cropped up on the forum that I met my wife online, also.

Replying to yours. Your argument appears to be that since she is dressed up to empathize the geekness part of her "public" image, that it isn't likely that she is a true geek in her "private" image.

Unless I'm misinterpreting your argument.

Eh you know what, I'm finally bored with this. Off to cause chaos and destruction to another thread.
And thus the source of the confusion is found.

Wilgrove, they weren't arguing about her private image. They were arguing about her public image.

And her public image is FAKE. Would you disagree with that?

It really hasn't changed much for me. Women ignored me in 1999, they ignore me now.
Oh mans tiny fucking violin.