Geekbox.net Community Discussion Forums

KindGalaxy wrote:I don't even watch Star Trek, always looked like a shitty show. I saw the movie, the new one with some friends, boring fucking shit in space. When the Vulcan old dude came out, and we found out it was all a parallel dimension or something from our dimension, or now this is our dimension and star trek was always in another dimension, this was the debate they had after, so I went in for a $2 peep show and left them debating at the gelato shop.

I submit to the court "Exhibit A", in order to prove that KindGalaxy is, in fact, a terrible fucking human being.

Was it me hating on Star Trek, or me going to the $2 peep show?

The former.

Bobloblaw wrote:

Raine wrote:

Bobloblaw wrote:The Tales from the Crypt episode Ryan was talking about is:

Dig That Cat... He's Real Gone (TV episode 1989 #1.3)

Ironically, it was directed by Richard Donner.

Joe Pantoliano a bum who meets Dr. Emil Manfred which gives him money to do and experiment on him trying to transfer the nine lives of a cat. When Ulric wakes up he now has nine lives, so he and Dr.Manfred go into business in a carnival side show marketing his remarkable survivability. All of his unique story is told in a series of flash backs told from his last and greatest stunt of being buried alive with the view jumping between flash backs and his current pov in the coffin.

Spoiler: show

At the end of the show, it occurs to the main character that in calculating the number of nine lives he didn't count the life the cat lost when nine lives were transferred from the cat to him.

Wouldn't he expend any extra lives in the coffin anyways? I mean, if he asphyxiated and then snapped back to life wouldn't he just asphyxiate again and immediately burn another life?

There is ample evidence that thinking this stunt through didn't occur.

That was kind of the point of the episode. He was just some schmuck thug who stumbled his way into this "superpower." I mean, if you knew you had 9 lives to burn you'd probably do something more productive than be a sideshow freak.

kenzo wrote:I dunno what you're on, Ko... maybe it's a Canada-thing, or a young-people-thing. For me and where/when I grew up, being a nerd was less a 'how much you knew' thing, and more of a lifestyle. Nerds were the dorks, the social pariahs, the weak dweebs on campus. They were hopelessly awkward - lacking in style, flair, and any social graces. Nerds were that stereotype straight out of Revenge of the Nerds.

Geeks on the other hand, is just a word for someone who is hopelessly infatuated with their hobby or whatnot, not a social group or anything. It's just a label you put onto someone who know way too much or was way too enthusiastic about a certain subject. So you had tech-geeks, band-geeks, theater-geeks, sports-geeks, math-geeks, and so on. Having the label 'geek' back in school wasn't necessarily a bad thing, or the kiss of death is social circles - it just meant you knew a fuck-ton about something very specific. Me and most of my friends in High School were geeks of some kind or another, and we ruled that school.

Dude did you listen to the podcast yet. That was who I was agreeing with. They said that a geek was someone who had a very specific focus/obsession on one thing (kind of similar here although for the most part it was a connotation associated more with technology)

Nerds however are more intelligent than their peers and have a broad knowledge base. Master Higgins summed it up in this quote.

Milhouse wrote:I'm not a nerd Bart. I'm a geek, nerds are smart.

That said the crossover between Nerds and Geeks has made the two terms almost become synonyms of each other.

Here is an essay by Paul Graham (programmer who made viaWeb) detailing why nerds are unpopular citing their above average intelligence and knowledge compared to their peers.
Although I will say growing up myself and some other nerds who I'm friends with weren't persecuted for being smart because we were all fairly charismatic along with being physically imposing [even if we were all didn't really like violence] and although some of our peers wouldn't understand why we enjoyed learning things outside of what was needed to pass and get a decent mark we were never laughed at for this. This is likely somewhat skewed as the size of my school was somewhat small so everyone was fairly close knit together. (amount of students in each grade was maybe 80 to 100 or so) The only people who were really social outcasts was hardcore goths who were very inward looking. This kind of changed towards the end of high school with only the most anti-social of that group being left alone in their own little clique. Everyone still had a group of closer friends but for the most part all of us were friends with each other on some level.

This site also describes nerds as being intelligent (again limiting it to the relams of science, technology and math)

Whatis.com again associates nerds with intelligence along with social awkwardness.

If you want to talk about a fucked up definition here is a New York Times article about nerds. The author talks to a linguist from UoC Santa Barbara about what is a nerd. (The linguist tries to boil it all down to race and the idea that nerds are all hyperwhite. Also included is the assumption that the majority of African-American youths want to grow up to be gangsters and rappers [I'm not super knowledgable on that last particular subject but I think it's an exaggeration/misconception on the linguist's part])

I think that your definition is the one that is quite different than everyone else's definition seeing as you don't associate nerds with some degree of higher than average intelligence.


Also just for kicks here's what Spike found when asking cosplayers at Comic Con what is a nerd. Although it kind of just led to people saying if the con-goers should be called nerds or not instead of a real definition. (you should click on it anyway at 1:55 and 2:27 two hot nerds talk about why they embrace being called a nerd)

I always assumed that it was regional. I seem to use the word "nerd" in the midwest as coasters use the word geek. IDK, food for thought.

Nice show guys but... why quantify the nerd/geek. Let it be.

darfox8 wrote:Nice show guys but... why quantify the nerd/geek. Let it be.

Compared to some things we argue about the classification of nerd/geek is sort of tame.

Bobloblaw wrote:

darfox8 wrote:Nice show guys but... why quantify the nerd/geek. Let it be.

Compared to some things we argue about the classification of nerd/geek is sort of tame.

Oh I know most our conversations are bizarre and pointless if you think about it for a little. But the nerd/geek thing is even more so in my mind.

darfox8 wrote:

Bobloblaw wrote:

darfox8 wrote:Nice show guys but... why quantify the nerd/geek. Let it be.

Compared to some things we argue about the classification of nerd/geek is sort of tame.

Oh I know most our conversations are bizarre and pointless if you think about it for a little. But the nerd/geek thing is even more so in my mind.

Maple Syrup.

Mr_eX wrote:Maple Syrup.

You had to go there didn't you?

I regret nothing.

I'd always heard it as "nerd" was for academia (science, maths, yadda) and geek was for obsessions. For instance, I can be a gaming geek, and a maths nerd.

flufflogic wrote:I'd always heard it as "nerd" was for academia (science, maths, yadda) and geek was for obsessions. For instance, I can be a gaming geek, and a maths nerd.

Agree; this is how I've always thought of (and used) the terms.

Hi,

I'm a bit LTTP here but I've only just finished listening to episode 86.

You mentioned in this episode that Reservoir Dogs was 18 years old and "you should have watched it by now". I know this was a jokey flippant comment but it's entirely possible that some of your listeners might not be old enough today to watch an 18 rated film, let alone to have seen it at some point over the last 18 years.

Just remember that not everyone is as "mature" as you guys

I'm 30 by the way so am definitely getting towards "mature" (old and crotchety) but I thought it was worth mentioning

I love the show and listen to it as soon as I can each week (real life permitting) Keep up the good work but please .... No spoilers!!!

CodeThief wrote:Hi,

I'm a bit LTTP here but I've only just finished listening to episode 86.

You mentioned in this episode that Reservoir Dogs was 18 years old and "you should have watched it by now". I know this was a jokey flippant comment but it's entirely possible that some of your listeners might not be old enough today to watch an 18 rated film, let alone to have seen it at some point over the last 18 years.

Just remember that not everyone is as "mature" as you guys

I'm 30 by the way so am definitely getting towards "mature" (old and crotchety) but I thought it was worth mentioning

I love the show and listen to it as soon as I can each week (real life permitting) Keep up the good work but please .... No spoilers!!!

I turned 18 3 years ago....I saw it 7 years ago

I watched Terminator 2 in theaters when I was like, 5 or 6. I don't think an R rating ever stopped any kid from watching a film.

Hell I watched Reservoir Dogs when I was about 13 too but some people might not

Either way I hate spoilers

There is a statute of limitations on spoilers. It doesn't matter if the person was born after the movie came out, we can't always pay attention to that thing. If something is over two years old, maybe even less time than that, I say it's not spoiling it. It's talking about something that happened two years ago, anyone that cared enough not to be spoiled would have seen it by now. Older things follow the same rules, there is a point in time where something is old enough to be talked about freely without caring if people have seen it or not. An eighteen year old movie you figure anyone who wants to see it has seen it by now, and anyone who hasn't is too young to care. It isn't like some kid is going to go "Oh yeah! Reservoir Dogs, I've wanted to see that, too bad they spoiled it." If they wanted to see it they should have, it's old enough to be easily obtainable.

BEARinaMANSUIT wrote:There is a statute of limitations on spoilers. It doesn't matter if the person was born after the movie came out, we can't always pay attention to that thing. If something is over two years old, maybe even less time than that, I say it's not spoiling it. It's talking about something that happened two years ago, anyone that cared enough not to be spoiled would have seen it by now. Older things follow the same rules, there is a point in time where something is old enough to be talked about freely without caring if people have seen it or not. An eighteen year old movie you figure anyone who wants to see it has seen it by now, and anyone who hasn't is too young to care. It isn't like some kid is going to go "Oh yeah! Reservoir Dogs, I've wanted to see that, too bad they spoiled it." If they wanted to see it they should have, it's old enough to be easily obtainable.

That's all true, but imagine how great Empire Strikes Back or Planet of the Apes would have been if pop culture hadn't spoiled it. Also there are some movies that have been out for a while but haven't quite gone to full mainstream pop culture (Usual Suspects, aforementioned Reservoir Dogs, for instance) that while the statue of limitations has expired, it never hurts to throw up a quick spoiler warning.

Raine wrote:That's all true, but imagine how great Empire Strikes Back or Planet of the Apes would have been if pop culture hadn't spoiled it. Also there are some movies that have been out for a while but haven't quite gone to full mainstream pop culture (Usual Suspects, aforementioned Reservoir Dogs, for instance) that while the statue of limitations has expired, it never hurts to throw up a quick spoiler warning.

Absolutely.

My favourite way of doing it is how the GamersWithJobs guys do, they do a spoiler section at the end where they can go into massive detail on things for those who want to know.

I still think you can have a decent conversation about games / films / books etc without having to jump straight to the ending or spoiling major plot points.

BEARinaMANSUIT wrote:There is a statute of limitations on spoilers. It doesn't matter if the person was born after the movie came out, we can't always pay attention to that thing. If something is over two years old, maybe even less time than that, I say it's not spoiling it. It's talking about something that happened two years ago, anyone that cared enough not to be spoiled would have seen it by now. Older things follow the same rules, there is a point in time where something is old enough to be talked about freely without caring if people have seen it or not. An eighteen year old movie you figure anyone who wants to see it has seen it by now, and anyone who hasn't is too young to care. It isn't like some kid is going to go "Oh yeah! Reservoir Dogs, I've wanted to see that, too bad they spoiled it." If they wanted to see it they should have, it's old enough to be easily obtainable.

I honestly wish there wasn’t a statute of limitations on spoilers. There are so many old games that are story heavy that have been spoiled for me. A lot of the time it’s for games that I’ve been meaning to get around to or I had completely flown under my radar. I can’t be the only one who waits for certain games to get cheaper before I buy them, right? Some games are worth full price to me, for others I can wait, but it’s a shame I have to be careful about what I read or listen to.

I don’t get the argument of “if they wanted to find out for themselves, they should have played it already”. It’s not always as cut and dry as that. I didn’t get around to Reservoir Dogs until well after it was released, since I was too young when it came out. It would have sucked if someone spoiled the story for me.

Not that there’s anything I can do to stop that kind of thing. People will continue spoiling things and I’ll continue treading carefully. It just kind of sucks that almost everyone has that attitude towards spoilers that you do.

I don't mind spoilers. Spoilers only end up ruining already shitty movies even further for me. I just end up going when I hear spoilers before going into a movie I end up going, "oh okay, I still want to see how they get there!" Same thing for games, it's kinda feels a 2nd playthrough of viewing off the bad because then you're already looking for clues and hints of foreshadowing that lead to whatever conclusion got spoiled

For example, I knew well before going into The Usual Suspects that Verbal was Keyser Soze, and I still absolutely loved that movie.
By the by, no spoiler tag for you. Buck up

IRL_Troll wrote:I don't mind spoilers. Spoilers only end up ruining already shitty movies even further for me. I just end up going when I hear spoilers before going into a movie I end up going, "oh okay, I still want to see how they get there!" Same thing for games, it's kinda feels a 2nd playthrough of viewing off the bad because then you're already looking for clues and hints of foreshadowing that lead to whatever conclusion got spoiled

For example, I knew well before going into The Usual Suspects that *******************, and I still absolutely loved that movie.
By the by, no spoiler tag for you. Buck up

Oh come on, that's blatant trolling. Please change that to a spoiler tag as it's an incredibly important twist in a brilliant film.

EDIT: I've just noticed your rather fitting username. In the words of Wil Wheaton:

"Don't be a dick"

Personally I try to avoid anything about the plot of things before seeing / playing them. I know that's rather extreme and probably not the majority but what you've just posted above is unacceptable in my eyes.

Do you get some sort of twisted joy from spoiling someone's potential enjoyment from one of the most enlightening scenes of a film?

CodeThief wrote:

IRL_Troll wrote:I don't mind spoilers. Spoilers only end up ruining already shitty movies even further for me. I just end up going when I hear spoilers before going into a movie I end up going, "oh okay, I still want to see how they get there!" Same thing for games, it's kinda feels a 2nd playthrough of viewing off the bad because then you're already looking for clues and hints of foreshadowing that lead to whatever conclusion got spoiled

For example, I knew well before going into The Usual Suspects that *******************, and I still absolutely loved that movie.
By the by, no spoiler tag for you. Buck up

Oh come on, that's blatant trolling. Please change that to a spoiler tag as it's an incredibly important twist in a brilliant film.

EDIT: I've just noticed your rather fitting username. In the words of Wil Wheaton:

"Don't be a dick"

Personally I try to avoid anything about the plot of things before seeing / playing them. I know that's rather extreme and probably not the majority but what you've just posted above is unacceptable in my eyes.

Do you get some sort of twisted joy from spoiling someone's potential enjoyment from one of the most enlightening scenes of a film?

I almost think you're trying to counter troll, because I refuse to believe people are this capable of getting worked up over this. It is possible to still enjoy a film or a book knowing how it goes. Hell, even knowing how Godfather goes, and seeing virtually every parody of the famous scenes in it 1st, I still loved it. Besides, if you're a long time listener, I'm pretty sure Higgins or Scott casually dropped the Verbal=Keyser Soze spoiler during an episode. How sheltered do you have to be to miss that?

Oh well, I'm sorry to disappoint you then but I really do care that much about spoilers

...and yes, they did drop that spoiler but not quite as descriptively as you meaning it would have been obscure enough to be missed by anyone who hadn't yet seen the film.

Anyhow, great episode other than that