"John Reimer" <brk_6502@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:cu6h5v$2tl5$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> I think few people in this field fit the stereotypical geek profile
anymore.

I do.

Walter wrote:
> "John Reimer" <brk_6502@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:cu6h5v$2tl5$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> 
>>I think few people in this field fit the stereotypical geek profile
> 
> anymore.
> 
> I do.
> 
> 

He he, well you must be a special, multi-faceted geek then, which makes you even more special than us wannabes.

Stereotypical geeks don't jog. I believe you do.

Stereotypical geeks don't rebuild novelty cars.  That's something you do, isn't it?

Walter, as much as you may aspire to it, I'm afraid I can't give you the official seal of stereotypical geekdom.  As one of your loyal fans, that can't happen. Yeah, you're a geek, but, sorry, you don't qualify for TV.

Ah, but who cares?

I guess it really doesn't matter anyway, does it?  More than half the people on the list have some sort of geek blood flowing through their veins or they wouldn't be sticking around to see where D goes.

Have I dug myself deep enough yet? :-)

- John R.

"John Reimer" <brk_6502@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:cu6rbc$h22$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Walter wrote:
>> "John Reimer" <brk_6502@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:cu6h5v$2tl5$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>>
>>>I think few people in this field fit the stereotypical geek profile
>>
>> anymore.
>>
>> I do.
>>
>>
>
> He he, well you must be a special, multi-faceted geek then, which makes you even more special than us wannabes.
>
> Stereotypical geeks don't jog. I believe you do.
>
> Stereotypical geeks don't rebuild novelty cars.  That's something you do, isn't it?
>
> Walter, as much as you may aspire to it, I'm afraid I can't give you the official seal of stereotypical geekdom.  As one of your loyal fans, that can't happen. Yeah, you're a geek, but, sorry, you don't qualify for TV.
>
> Ah, but who cares?
>
> I guess it really doesn't matter anyway, does it?  More than half the people on the list have some sort of geek blood flowing through their veins or they wouldn't be sticking around to see where D goes.
>
> Have I dug myself deep enough yet? :-)

I think geeks are, despite obvious social, sexual and hygiene challenges, nice people. I'd rather be marooned on a planet with a few million awkward, ugly, smelly geeks than with 5.2 billions religious zealots intent on killing each other and taking the rest of us along with 'em.

:-(

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 15:50:09 +1100, Matthew wrote:

> I think geeks are, despite obvious social, sexual and hygiene challenges, nice people. I'd rather be marooned on a planet with a few million awkward, ugly, smelly geeks than with 5.2 billions religious zealots intent on killing each other and taking the rest of us along with 'em.
> 
> :-(

Uh... that's not much of an alternative now is it?  I think anyone would make the same choice!  You need to make much less severe a comparison to get your point across. :-)

It's kind of funny. My own personality is adverse to any social
interaction.  Strangely I got myself into a job that requires every ounce
of grace, manners, and friendliness to maintain a relaxed and
approachable atmosphere in situations of complete chaos. I don't
know how I've survived.  At the end of the day (night?), I'm quite
satisfied to sequester myself into quiet surroundings (translated: me and
my laptop).

Contrary to the social butterfly's affinity for people, I actual
find myself slightly exhausted after a day of putting people at ease.  It
has got easier over the years, though, I admit. :-)

So there you go.  My geek roots were inborn.

- John R.

> On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 15:50:09 +1100, Matthew wrote:
>
>> I think geeks are, despite obvious social, sexual and hygiene
>> challenges, nice people. I'd rather be marooned on a planet with a
>> few
>> million awkward, ugly, smelly geeks than with 5.2 billions religious
>> zealots intent on killing each other and taking the rest of us along
>> with 'em.
>>
>> :-(
>
> Uh... that's not much of an alternative now is it?  I think anyone
> would
> make the same choice!  You need to make much less severe a comparison
> to
> get your point across. :-)

No, it was very poor debating form, I must concede..

Just a few things over the past few days here in Sydney and in the wider world has got me wondering about what a despicable creature we humans are in the main, with a few % exception. It bamboozles me in the extreme that so much ill goes on, primarily in the name of religion and commercial organisations, both of which purport to be for the good of humanity in one perverse way or another.

Consider the recent disagreement between Walter and myself. We're completely disagreeing with each other's main perspectives, but yet we can see some of each other's pov, are going to continue working together for the good of D and of our respective causes (Walter's just reviewed the next instalment of my Flexible C++ column, depite me calling some of his posts idiotic, or what not), and remain friends. We're not suspending our plans to write our book as a result of bruised egos, or any such nonsense.

Contrast that with the wider geopolitico/religious perspective. We have these hugely powerful religious organisations decreeing that each other (and their attendant / associated innocent populations) are evil. Where's the empathy / insight / intellect? There's none.

But even that offers some hope of a balance between evils. Kind of like the cold war's Mutually Assured Destruction. What hope do we have with large commerical organisations, whose interests subsume those of individual people, both within and without the organisation? There's no Warsaw Pact to balance their NATO. It's kind of funny that people have been concerned for about the last 20 years about nano-technology killing us all. IIRC, Bill Joy prophesied the end of humanity a few years ago. It's completely backwards. Mega commercial organisations have developed emergent characteristics that are bad for _all_ people, and will drive humanity to a far more certain death.

Too many people. Too few brain cells.

I really do worry about the world our kids will grow up in.

> It's kind of funny. My own personality is adverse to any social interaction.

He he. You should talk to my wife! :-)

> Strangely I got myself into a job that requires every ounce
> of grace, manners, and friendliness to maintain a relaxed and
> approachable atmosphere in situations of complete chaos. I don't
> know how I've survived.  At the end of the day (night?), I'm quite
> satisfied to sequester myself into quiet surroundings (translated: me
> and
> my laptop).

I always seem to get on really well with work colleagues. It's family that causes the issues ...

> Contrary to the social butterfly's affinity for people, I actual
> find myself slightly exhausted after a day of putting people at ease.
> It
> has got easier over the years, though, I admit. :-)
>
> So there you go.  My geek roots were inborn.

Mine too.

"John Reimer" <brk_6502@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:cu6rbc$h22$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Walter wrote:
> > "John Reimer" <brk_6502@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:cu6h5v$2tl5$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> >
> >>I think few people in this field fit the stereotypical geek profile
anymore.
> >
> > I do.
>
> He he, well you must be a special, multi-faceted geek then, which makes you even more special than us wannabes.
>
> Stereotypical geeks don't jog. I believe you do.

I do. It's the only activity I do. I basically stink at any and all sports, picked last for the team, even the eye doctor opined that I must be terrible at baseball. The only picture of me at little league is me striking out. I tried weightlifting for a couple years. Nothing happened.

> Stereotypical geeks don't rebuild novelty cars.  That's something you do, isn't it?

I'm not sure I'd call a muscle car a novelty car, but there ya go. It's basically all in pieces right now. I'm back into it after a 20 year hiatus following a huge crash that nearly ended me. I've attached a picture of my half-done cylinder head. Woo-hoo!

> Walter, as much as you may aspire to it, I'm afraid I can't give you the official seal of stereotypical geekdom.

Bald. Thick glasses. I used to wear a calculator on my belt. Can't get more geeky than that. I come from a long line of geeks, my grandfather's seminal picture is him with his telescope. My favorite t-shirt has Maxwell's Equations written on it.

> As one of your loyal fans, that
> can't happen. Yeah, you're a geek, but, sorry, you don't qualify for TV.

I tried out for The Apprentice, telling them on the application that they needed a nerd to balance out the show. I didn't get a call :-)

> Ah, but who cares?

It used to bother me being a nerd. But hey, it's what I am.

> I guess it really doesn't matter anyway, does it?

Nope.

Walter wrote:

>>He he, well you must be a special, multi-faceted geek then, which makes
>>you even more special than us wannabes.
>>
>>Stereotypical geeks don't jog. I believe you do.
> 
> 
> I do. It's the only activity I do. I basically stink at any and all sports,
> picked last for the team, even the eye doctor opined that I must be terrible
> at baseball. The only picture of me at little league is me striking out. I
> tried weightlifting for a couple years. Nothing happened.

Well... It's very rare for a person to have talent in every facet of life.  Running /is/ one of those things almost anybody can do if they are determined enough.  That's what I like about it.  The biggest impediment for most people is the commitment and consistancy it requires.  You seem to have the required commitment ingrained into your nature... dmc and dmd are good examples.  I don't know how you do it.

> 
>>Stereotypical geeks don't rebuild novelty cars.  That's something you
>>do, isn't it?
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I'd call a muscle car a novelty car, but there ya go. It's
> basically all in pieces right now. I'm back into it after a 20 year hiatus
> following a huge crash that nearly ended me. I've attached a picture of my
> half-done cylinder head. Woo-hoo!
> 


Oops.  Unfortunately, I know little about muscle or novelty cars.  So they're pratically the same to me :-(.  But I certainly can appreciate the intricate detail required for that kind of hobby.  The extent of my construction skills includes some model airplanes and a few electronic circuits.  I /have/ inherited an impressive ability to break things, though.


>>Walter, as much as you may aspire to it, I'm afraid I can't give you the
>>official seal of stereotypical geekdom.
> 
> 
> Bald. Thick glasses. I used to wear a calculator on my belt. Can't get more
> geeky than that. I come from a long line of geeks, my grandfather's seminal
> picture is him with his telescope. My favorite t-shirt has Maxwell's
> Equations written on it.
> 


Heh... my Dad's got the bald head and glasses now too.  No calculator on his belt, though... well, on second thought, does a PDA count?  He does wear that on his belt.  He's an ex-US Marine (late 1960s era) :-).  But he does work as a laboratory manager now.  His solution for the bald head is to shave his hair really tight so it just looks like he's bald on purpose :-).  It actually suits him.


>>As one of your loyal fans, that
>>can't happen. Yeah, you're a geek, but, sorry, you don't qualify for TV.
> 
> 
> I tried out for The Apprentice, telling them on the application that they
> needed a nerd to balance out the show. I didn't get a call :-)
> 


He, he... The Apprentice is the one with that Trump guy, isn't it?  I always get annoyed with those shows... can't watch them too long.  I can't stand seeing people being manipulated simply at the whim of a big somebody.


>>Ah, but who cares?
> 
> 
> It used to bother me being a nerd. But hey, it's what I am.
> 
> 
>>I guess it really doesn't matter anyway, does it?
> 
> 
> Nope.
> 

Okay... I'll try to refrain from any rediculous flattery:

I met you in person for the first time at the Northwest C++ Users' Group meeting last year.  All I can say is that you are a very genuine and eloquent person.  It was an honor to be able to shake your hand and listen to your lecture (For those not present, Walter literaly got pummeled with questions there: I've seen few people handle such a situation so adeptly -- hard questions too!). I was also impressed by your frank honesty.  There's not many people like that.

You'll have to forgive me if I was little awkward myself; like I said, I'm not a huge socializer; sometimes I resign myself to the bear minimum of interaction.  It's a stretch for me to show up at things like that, but it was well worth the trip and a pleasure to meet you.

Next time we meet, I'll have to get your signature in a newly published /D Programming Distilled/. :-)

All the best,

- John R.

Walter wrote:

> 
> I'm not sure I'd call a muscle car a novelty car, but there ya go. It's
> basically all in pieces right now. I'm back into it after a 20 year hiatus
> following a huge crash that nearly ended me. I've attached a picture of my
> half-done cylinder head. Woo-hoo!
> 

Nice cylinder head!  That looks like fun!

John Reimer wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 15:50:09 +1100, Matthew wrote:
> 
> 
>>I think geeks are, despite obvious social, sexual and hygiene challenges, nice people. I'd rather be marooned on a planet with a few million awkward, ugly, smelly geeks than with 5.2 billions religious zealots intent on killing each other and taking the rest of us along with 'em.
>>
>>:-(

Exactly why I support the priviatization of the space industry!

> It's kind of funny. My own personality is adverse to any social
> interaction.  Strangely I got myself into a job that requires every ounce
> of grace, manners, and friendliness to maintain a relaxed and
> approachable atmosphere in situations of complete chaos. I don't
> know how I've survived.  At the end of the day (night?), I'm quite
> satisfied to sequester myself into quiet surroundings (translated: me and
> my laptop).  
> 
> Contrary to the social butterfly's affinity for people, I actual
> find myself slightly exhausted after a day of putting people at ease.  It
> has got easier over the years, though, I admit. :-)
> 

Actually, I know I few people on my volunteer EMT squad who are also introverts.  Myself included.

John Demme wrote:

> 
> Actually, I know I few people on my volunteer EMT squad who are also introverts.  Myself included.

Ah well, good to know I'm not the only one.  I hear introversion is a not-so-uncommon quality in actors and actresses.  Actually, EMT's and actors aren't a whole lot different. ;-)