This is the truth. However, I do find it funny when you mention that their little sci-fi show is just a fly-by-night fad. That tends to get their scarves all in a bunch.

To be fair, I don't like the show. It's not bad, it's just not my thing. I feel the same way about how Moffat is turning Sherlock Holmes and James Watson into Dr. Who and a Male Companion. :-/ To each their own, though.

.... to be fair; if you want to call it a fly-by-the-night fad, what exactly consitutes something not a fad?

Love it, loathe it, somewhere in between give it credit for longevity.

Just like I don't like Star Wars; but I will give it credit for revolutionising special effects.

Yep, can a show really be called a fad when it's been running for over fifty years?

I didn't mean to say that it was just a fad, or to say that it was objectively bad. I've just had bad luck with meeting fans of the show.

I don't really consider the new show to be Doctor Who. :\  S'all I can really say.  It's Doctor Who the same way this new wannabe version is Power Rangers.  That's not a great analogy.  Hmm.  The same way Ben Affleck is the new Batman?

Maybe the same way the new TMNT is to the comic ninja turtles?

Or Star Wars Clone Wars is to the Original Trilogy, featuring Truman Capote the Hutt?

The first one (TMNT) I wanted to say that earlier, but I haven't seen the new one so I can't really say that with full integrity.

Now, the Star Wars reference.....  Jeez, that's harsh.  I'm not entirely sure the new Doctor Who is on par with the Jar Jar fiasco.

Edit: Wait, clone wars?  I'm half awake. I thought you meant the episode 1 nonsense. What's Clone Wars?...  I should not have googled that....  It cannot be unseen.
This message was last edited by the user at 06:41, Thu 21 Aug 2014.

Well, just to share the possible love:

Hutts in the Original Trilogy:
http://benfanning.com/wp-conte...2013/03/jabba_II.jpg
(Pretty ugly and kinda muppet-y)

Hutts in Clone Wars:
http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net...es/4/4d/Ziro-SWE.jpg
(Notice the big "poop" tattoo on his chest with a star in the middle, also feathers)

Some Doctor Who fans are scarily geeky. I've had issues with some fans (and I -am- a fan) in how seriously they take their 'best Doctor' or 'best companion' wars.

I just didn't like the idea you'd say something just to ruffle a fans feathers as it were.

In reply to JxJxA (msg # 32):

The Clone Wars movie is certainly dragonfruit, but the two TV series are both very good.

@ willvr: Fair dues. I only ever did it when they wouldn't leave me alone for not liking Dr. Who. At some point, enough was enough.

@Mad Mick: I loved the micro series, but the movie put me off wanting to watch the CGI series. I'm running out of Archer episodes to catch up on, so I might give it a go. I grew up loving Star Wars, and I really want to like it.

In reply to JxJxA (msg # 35):

Fair enough. I always figure there's enough flavors of geekdom to go around; and if you don't like mine that just means your tastes are different. If someone's giving you a hard time over not liking a particular show/movie/whatevs, they deserve whatever you want to dish out. I do think some fans have become self-entitled as it's now considered 'popular'; and have forgotten what it was like to worry if your new friend would still like you after he found out what you liked.

And I do agree that the new Who isn't the same show I grew up with; but I think it's close. Actually, if we could get rid of all the love storylines they keep throwing in it'd be fairly close indeed.

Well, as my daughter points out, the self-publicizing nerds are people who have no idea what it is like to actually be a nerd.

Its not a nerd to like Star Wars/Dr. Who/Marvel, whatever. It is a nerd to be bullied, shunned, mocked and ostracized for liking them.

When rich, attractive, and/or powerful people get up on soapboxes and claim to be a nerd; to the real nerds, it feels not like they are saying 'I'm one of you' but more like 'I'm taking the last thing you thought was yours.'

I don't remember "nerd" or "geek" being much used phrases back in the 70s.  One was a circus performer who bit the heads off chickens, and one was a crunchy sweet candy.  "Dork" was the preferred term.

When the other terms came into popular use in the late 70s or early 80s, I recall they were pretty much used interchangeably, and always for ridicule or scorn, never as a badge of honor.  I think the term "nerd" really came into peak form about the time Revenge of the Nerds hit theaters in 1984.  If you want to know what a "nerd" was, watch that movie.  It wasn't about what they liked, such as their preferred movies or entertainment; that was just a symptom.  It was about their underlying social awkwardness and behaviors.

The connotations of the terms have changed, even if the core underlying meaning of the words has remained somewhat consistent.  (I don't even know that they have been consistent, though, at least as to their application to specific content-- e.g., Star Wars, D&D, comic books.)
This message was last edited by the user at 19:07, Mon 25 Aug 2014.

Ive allways wondered if anyone has ever constructed the hierarchy of Geeks. Its a strange thought that my RPG group has that everyone thats into a geeky hobby looks down on another one and says at least we are not X.

It all stemed from a quote on zero punctuiation. "The kind of nerds that are to nreds what nreds are to normal people"

So far we have worked out the following

"normal people" Look Down on
Video Gamers Look down on
Wargamers Look Down on
Bored gamers Look down on
TCG players Look Down on
Role players Look down on
Reinactment look down on
Cosplayers Look down on
Larpers Look down on
????????

basicly the premise is the further down on the list the more likley you are interestind in something above it. i know its likley more complecated than that list thoough

Problem with the list is, there are a lot of people who fit into it at multiple points.  I've been a video gamer, a role player, a cosplayer, and a LARPer...often during the same period of time.

Establishment of a 'geek hierarchy' presupposes some degree of isolation between the various 'realms' that geeks inhabit.  My experience is that it is actually the exception, rather than the rule, that someone has only one geeky habit...

You are missing the point of it really.

the hierartchy exists because each step down the chain is a more obscure hobby. and people will regularly think well i do X but at least i'm not one of those wierdo's that does Y.

The further down the list you are the more lilkley it is you are also involved with the ones above it. its only a rough draft but it does have some truth to it.

there are some LARPEr's that don't roleplay. But i would say a large proportion do. however there are far more roleplayers that don't LARP.

using some made up stats which is entirly speculation and has no basis.

Say 80% of LARPERS roleplay. But only 10% of roleplayers LARP. it then becomes easy for the roleplayers to go. well my hobby is wierd but at least i'm not part of that strange 10% that take it too far. I only do this in the cool socially adjusted way, those guys are freaks. However a LARPER can't do that and so to get their kicks looks to the level below.

In my LARP group the level below seems to be people who only turn up to LARP to swing a foam sword and don't develop a character, in my RP group they complain about larpers. In my \TCG group they complain about roleplayers. e.t.c

See, my experience is, I know a LOT of people who take great pride in the fact that they have a variety of geek-interests...most of my friends don't LARP, but that has more to do with the fact that nobody in the area runs a game that would interest them to that level and they don't have that much time.  But I have several friends who roleplay, and cosplay, and do CCGs/TCGs, and video game...

So, the ranks you describe may be increasingly obscure...but the concept of a hierarchical ranking of them depends on the notion that a large majority of people have a 'well, at least I don't do THAT' mentality, rather than a 'Well, I've never tried that before...let's give it a shot' or 'which of these hobbies are we pursuing tonight?' mentality.

Of course, that could just be me feeling like my experience is the norm, rather than the exception.  Most of my friends may have been geeks of one specific flavor or another (a lot of them kinda 'cut their teeth' as Star Trek fans, for instance)...but someone would come along and say, "Hey, we should try this..."  And so my social circle consists, in significant measure, of Trekkers who enjoy role playing games, paintball, costuming, computer games, movie-making, SCA-style re-enacting (come are more into Civil War than Middle Ages, but...)

I honestly know barely a handful of people, if even that many, who would fit in this proposed ranking system without repeatedly outranking themselves in one way or another...

Yeah, I don't subscribe to the hierarchy system. I get the feeling that people are going to disagree on what goes where, as is the contrary nature of the human condition. For example, I'm sure some LARP-ers would laugh at tabletoppers for not going outside and enjoying nature. Maybe cosplayers will look down at video game players for not using a practical skill (sewing/making clothes ain't easy).

I will agree with this, though: "Bored gamers" will look down on anyone who is having fun.

...I'm an apple strudel... ;-p

Personally I think the ranking idea fails less because because people don't do it and more because there is no consistancy among people and how they rank and classify various activities.

For example I am a brony and a gamer, larper, paintball player, airsoft player, even a casual spelunker and hiker.

The only thing I ever really saw that could be said is that most folks I met either focus on outdoors stuff or indoors stuff with only a few that go really deep into both. I have however met several people that don't any kind of sports or games (beyond classics and oldies, like golf, poker, and bridge)

In reply to PushBarToOpen (msg # 39):

Lore Fitzgerald Sjoberg made one about a decade ago, image found below:

<img src ="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_29_shKT4Elw/R1L0LSjRtsI/AAAAAAAACSo/J5mUYyrb-y4/s1600-R/geeks.gif>

Woah, there's no point in getting personal or espousing such hate speech.  (Additional text so that the reply isn't so short.)

In reply to Genghis the Hutt (msg # 46):

In their defense, subsequent comments lead me to suspect it's a very specific type of fan. The ones which annoy me, and I'm a fan since the late '80s, so I wouldn't take the comments overly seriously.

This message was deleted by the user at 09:54, Thu 11 Sept 2014.

Perhaps Ron is measuring it in Parsecs?   ;)