S ometimes frivolous thing have their place if you don't want to be intellectually stimulated but simply want to be entertained.
If I don't want to be intellectually stimulated, I sleep. I'd rather return to my normal level of mental acuity quickly after a period of real rest than slow burn a minimally stimulating experience for no good reason.Although, why is that? Just your personal mindset?
If something isn't intellectually stimulating or in some way meaningful, it has no entertainment value to me. With such a lack, engaging it is the same as engagingnothing. Doing something mindless serves no purpose, brings no benefit, precludes other activity (even rest), and leaves no lasting impression. Get off your high horse Rym, you enjoy plenty of things that are mindless entertainment. You like Initial D, and talk of drawing penises on your DS. That is not mentally stimulating entertainment. Beyond that, I have offered you several levels to enjoy professional wrestling on. No one watches it thinking "Oh my God Andre the Giant is going to crush Hulkamania! He's over 7 feet tall and 500 lbs! Even the Hulkster can't bodyslam!!!" No one today, anyway, kayfabe is dead, and has been dead since Vince Macmahon was forced to admit the matches were fixed. You don't like pro wrestling, fine. Don't go acting like you are so very superior because you aren't. I usually like listening and reading to you two, but sometimes you get so very arrogant and it gets darn annoying. And, as I said, wrestling can leave a lasting impression when it's done right. You can do social and political commentary in the ring with stories, or, as they did with Eddie and Benoit, give you a Cinderella story the likes of which are only told in movies and look back specials by NFL Films or ESPN
You take this wrestling shit far too seriously.
I think that there's a few reasons more people don't watch wrestling:
1. The culture around it is, for the most part, hyper-obsessive wrestling nerds and uneducated rednecks
2. I think that if you don't look at it as a "fixed sport" but rather as a cross between soap-opera and ballet with violence, it's a lot better. Granted, the WWF brought it on themselves but not admitting it was fixed and treating it as a legitimate competition for so long (if I recall correctly Vince only admitted the fixing because he didn't want to pay athletic commissions); I suppose that wrestling is kinda a sport in the same way that, say, ice skating is: it's people acting out a preplanned routine and what separates a good wrestling match from a bad one is how that routine looks and the wrestlers not fucking said routine up. I mean, once you abstract it enough, wrestling is just long story with many characters based around a concept (the in-ring matches).
3. The acting in the promos between matches takes getting used to and I'll admit that many wrestlers can't act for shit (this is usually why really big guys, who, for the most part, can't act, either don't talk or have managers that talk for them). It's just really different acting from what, say, acting in a movie is (just like how stage acting is different), it's very exaggerated to tell very exaggerated stories. I mean, stories in wrestling are very classical and non-convoluted in nature (albeit filtered through a lens of trashy pulp fiction): the good guys are good, the bad guys are bad, the damsels are in distress and, eventually, the good guys aways win.
4. The last thing is that when people who only watch wrestling as kids in the 80's (e.g Scott up there) think of wrestling they think of, well, 80's WWF wrestling which is based around a lot of power moves and rest holds and tends to look very boring in retrospect. Wrestling's changed a lot since then, it's a lot more kinetic (for the most part) now.
Anyway, here's a wrestling match that's generally acclaimed as one of the best (just wait for it to load and skip past the promo part at the start) it's Chris Benoit (dude with the red trunks) versus Kurt Angle (dude in the red, white and blue get-up), if you don't like this you'll probably never like pro wrestling and that's cool, I don't try and force my opinions onto others: Here
I dunno, maybe I just like wrestling because my dad (and most of my family, really) really liked wrestling and it was something we could watch together and talk about, it was sorta just the only thing we watched as a family.
On a semi-related note, you'd be surprised at the amount of cross-over between anime fans and wrestling fans (at least from my experience). Everyone I know in my town who's into anime at least somewhat seriously also likes the wrestling and when I wore a Hulk Hogan t-shirt to Anime North (Canadian anime convention) last year a lot of people came up to me and wanted to talk wrestling.
Oh, and you know who else likes pro wrestling, Daryl Surat, and as we all know Daryl's word is law and he is always right.
I think that there's a few reasons more people don't watch wrestling:
Because it's fake, boring, and pointless. If I wanted to see people pretend to kick the shit out of eachother, I would go to a middle school.
Yeah, it's fake but so is every movie you've ever watched, every TV show. Boring and pointless are subjective though, and it's cool that you think that. Though, I suppose I should pose to you the question that: Have you ever been entertained by an action scene in, say, a kung-fu movie or The Matrix? Because that's essentially people pretending to kick the shit out of each other too.
Yeah, it's fake but so is every movie you've ever watched, every TV show.
That is such a bullshit sentence. Please tell me how the Science or Discovery channel is fake. Also, I get your point about the action scenes. I guess it's just a matter of perspective and taste. However, you cannot classify them in the same category. Movies use special effects, and computer simulation, whereas in wrestling, you can see the fist 6 inches away from the face. It just doesn't appeal to me.
Yeah, it's fake but so is every movie you've ever watched, every TV show.
That is such a bullshit sentence. Please tell me how the Science or Discovery channel is fake. Also, I get your point about the action scenes. I guess it's just a matter of perspective and taste. However, you cannot classify them in the same category. Movies use special effects, and computer simulation, whereas in wrestling, you can see the fist 6 inches away from the face. It just doesn't appeal to me.
Sorry, I should've qualified that by saying every TV show or movie that isn't documentary or news, my apologies.
Movies nowadays use special effects and computer simulation but have you ever seen a kung-fu film from, like, the 70's? It's all done through camera trickery, same thing in pro wrestling.
But if it just doesn't appeal to you, that's cool, there's some things you like that I probably don't. I just hate the "wrestling is bad because it's fake" argument.
Yeah, it's fake but so is every movie you've ever watched, every TV show.
That is such a bullshit sentence.
This is a bullshit argument. It is impossible to distinguish "action" in the way you are trying to. You can't distinguish it by describing it as using "special effects" or "camera trickery".
The way I see it, wrestling is monster-of-the-week type of action, while the action movies I tend to like are scifi or martial art related. It is possible to differentiate it that way, but if you are going to try to use directing styles to classify types of action, then all action movies and shows are exactly the same.
If something isn't intellectually stimulating or in some way meaningful, it has no entertainment value to me. With such a lack, engaging it is the same as engaging nothing. Doing something mindless serves no purpose, brings no benefit, precludes other activity (even rest), and leaves no lasting impression.
Rym, I think we are both wrong here. I mean, we both listen to Fast Karate for the Gentleman...
Yeah, it's fake but so is every movie you've ever watched, every TV show.
That is such a bullshit sentence.
This is a bullshit argument. It is impossible to distinguish "action" in the way you are trying to. You can't distinguish it by describing it as using "special effects" or "camera trickery".
The way I see it, wrestling is monster-of-the-week type of action, while the action movies I tend to like are scifi or martial art related. It is possible to differentiate it that way, but if you are going to try to use directing styles to classify types of action, then all action movies and shows are exactly the same.
This is pretty much what I was trying to say. Action is action is action, the only way to really distinguish one from another is what the action is related to.
In my experiences geek is usually used in a more offensive way than nerd. Usually when I hear someone call someone a geek it's when the "geek" brings up a topic like technology or gaming and the "geek" says current news, which anyone can do. When someone is called a nerd, it seems to imply a higher level of intelligence along with decreased social skills. So basically in my experiences some called a "geek" is someone who never shuts up about non-mainstream topics, where as nerds are doctors, physicists and all those high level of education people. This again is based on my observations. Also dorks are just sub-human creatures that dropout of high school and become mailmen.
Most people (aka me) prefer to be called a Geek rather than Nerd. I wonder if the whole "geek vs nerd", in relation to their social vs derogatory status has to do with geographic location. Maybe a economic difference as well in terms of those who refer to them?
It could be, and most likely is, people just using it in the wrong way. I have met self proclaimed nerds and geeks, but I personally think that dork is the only derogatory word.
Geeks: Have a passion for/interest in a wide range of topics and also are able to survive in society. Rym and Scott are prime examples of this
Nerds: Have an overwhelming passion for a single subject, to the point of potentially driving people around them away in disgust and fear (intelligence never really factored into my definition, but I suppose you'd have to be smart to keep up with all of this). Star Trek nerds who will come at you with a bat'leth (which they wield with that would make Kahless himself take notice) for getting an obscure stardate wrong are nerds.
The word "Dork", to my knowledge, is only used as an insult, as there is no group (to my knowledge) campaigning for "Dork Power" or "Dork Supremacy" or the like. It's an insult best handed out to a loser of the highest caliber (such as the guy who's 35, constantly stoned and living in his mom's basement).
Glad to see we got back on the original purpose of this thread. On the subject of Wrasslin'. I watched it in the early to mid- 90s (WCW4EVER!!!) and have since given it up almost entirely. I was there when the NWO was formed. I was there when Sting got his face bloodied and joined the Wolf Pack. Yes, I will admit, I used to love Wrasslin' (as it is known by all true Southern fans of the sport), but mostly the WCW. The WWF always seemed a bit too edgy for my young tastes, and I especially hated it when they caved to the World Wildlife Fund. But enough of that. Suffice it to say that the above link to the Angle/Benoit fight helped me to realize just how fake those fights really are (Not that they aren't a wonder to behold in their own way, HitmanHeart). It was cool when I was younger, but its time is over.
And for the record, Shawn Michaels is the greatest Wrassler that has ever lived.
Suffice it to say that the above link to the Angle/Benoit fight helped me to realize just how fake those fights really are (Not that they aren't a wonder to behold in their own way, HitmanHeart).
Yeah, any type of wrestling looks fake as all fuck, that one's just particularly well choreographed is all
And for the record, Shawn Michaels is the greatest Wrassler that has ever lived.
Your Score: Pure Geek 43 % Nerd, 56% Geek, 34% Dork
A Nerd is someone who is passionate about learning/being smart/academia. A Geek is someone who is passionate about some particular area or subject, often an obscure or difficult one. A Dork is someone who has difficulty with common social expectations/interactions. You scored better than half in Geek, earning you the title of: Pure Geek.
It's not that you're a school junkie, like the nerd, and you don't really stand out in a crowd, like the dork, you just have some interests that aren't quite mainstream. Perhaps it's anime, perhaps it's computers, perhaps it's bottlecaps, perhaps it's all of those and more. Your interests take you to events and gatherings that are filled with people you find unusual and beyond-the-pale, but you don't quite consider yourself "of that crowd." Instead, you consider yourself to be fairly normal.
You scored better than half in Geek, earning you the title of: Pure Geek.
It's not that you're a school junkie, like the nerd, and you don't really stand out in a crowd, like the dork, you just have some interests that aren't quite mainstream. Perhaps it's anime, perhaps it's computers, perhaps it's bottlecaps, perhaps it's all of those and more. Your interests take you to events and gatherings that are filled with people you find unusual and beyond-the-pale, but you don't quite consider yourself "of that crowd." Instead, you consider yourself to be fairly normal.
Which, you are.
I don't consider myself to be fairly normal at all. I feel fairly abnormal and proud of it. Wah. Well at least I'm pure geek! I like that title! XD
Your Score: Pure Nerd 56 % Nerd, 26% Geek, 39% Dork
WHAT THE HELL!? I dislike learning! I roughly agree with the test's definition of each, but they only ask about the main big geek stuff in the US! I HATE MOST SCI FI! Especially the popular Sci Fi TV shows and movies. I'm a geek by their definition, but apparently not by their quiz. *SIGH*
Comments
Get off your high horse Rym, you enjoy plenty of things that are mindless entertainment. You like Initial D, and talk of drawing penises on your DS. That is not mentally stimulating entertainment. Beyond that, I have offered you several levels to enjoy professional wrestling on. No one watches it thinking "Oh my God Andre the Giant is going to crush Hulkamania! He's over 7 feet tall and 500 lbs! Even the Hulkster can't bodyslam!!!" No one today, anyway, kayfabe is dead, and has been dead since Vince Macmahon was forced to admit the matches were fixed. You don't like pro wrestling, fine. Don't go acting like you are so very superior because you aren't. I usually like listening and reading to you two, but sometimes you get so very arrogant and it gets darn annoying. And, as I said, wrestling can leave a lasting impression when it's done right. You can do social and political commentary in the ring with stories, or, as they did with Eddie and Benoit, give you a Cinderella story the likes of which are only told in movies and look back specials by NFL Films or ESPN
You take this wrestling shit far too seriously.
I think that there's a few reasons more people don't watch wrestling:
1. The culture around it is, for the most part, hyper-obsessive wrestling nerds and uneducated rednecks
2. I think that if you don't look at it as a "fixed sport" but rather as a cross between soap-opera and ballet with violence, it's a lot better. Granted, the WWF brought it on themselves but not admitting it was fixed and treating it as a legitimate competition for so long (if I recall correctly Vince only admitted the fixing because he didn't want to pay athletic commissions); I suppose that wrestling is kinda a sport in the same way that, say, ice skating is: it's people acting out a preplanned routine and what separates a good wrestling match from a bad one is how that routine looks and the wrestlers not fucking said routine up. I mean, once you abstract it enough, wrestling is just long story with many characters based around a concept (the in-ring matches).
3. The acting in the promos between matches takes getting used to and I'll admit that many wrestlers can't act for shit (this is usually why really big guys, who, for the most part, can't act, either don't talk or have managers that talk for them). It's just really different acting from what, say, acting in a movie is (just like how stage acting is different), it's very exaggerated to tell very exaggerated stories. I mean, stories in wrestling are very classical and non-convoluted in nature (albeit filtered through a lens of trashy pulp fiction): the good guys are good, the bad guys are bad, the damsels are in distress and, eventually, the good guys aways win.
4. The last thing is that when people who only watch wrestling as kids in the 80's (e.g Scott up there) think of wrestling they think of, well, 80's WWF wrestling which is based around a lot of power moves and rest holds and tends to look very boring in retrospect. Wrestling's changed a lot since then, it's a lot more kinetic (for the most part) now.
Anyway, here's a wrestling match that's generally acclaimed as one of the best (just wait for it to load and skip past the promo part at the start) it's Chris Benoit (dude with the red trunks) versus Kurt Angle (dude in the red, white and blue get-up), if you don't like this you'll probably never like pro wrestling and that's cool, I don't try and force my opinions onto others: Here
I dunno, maybe I just like wrestling because my dad (and most of my family, really) really liked wrestling and it was something we could watch together and talk about, it was sorta just the only thing we watched as a family.
On a semi-related note, you'd be surprised at the amount of cross-over between anime fans and wrestling fans (at least from my experience). Everyone I know in my town who's into anime at least somewhat seriously also likes the wrestling and when I wore a Hulk Hogan t-shirt to Anime North (Canadian anime convention) last year a lot of people came up to me and wanted to talk wrestling.
Oh, and you know who else likes pro wrestling, Daryl Surat, and as we all know Daryl's word is law and he is always right.
Movies nowadays use special effects and computer simulation but have you ever seen a kung-fu film from, like, the 70's? It's all done through camera trickery, same thing in pro wrestling.
But if it just doesn't appeal to you, that's cool, there's some things you like that I probably don't. I just hate the "wrestling is bad because it's fake" argument.
The way I see it, wrestling is monster-of-the-week type of action, while the action movies I tend to like are scifi or martial art related. It is possible to differentiate it that way, but if you are going to try to use directing styles to classify types of action, then all action movies and shows are exactly the same.
I basically agree with ironzealot. To me the difference between a Nerd and a Geek has basically been:
Geek = NERD + Social Skills. And therefore accepted into society.
And for the Dork Equation:
Dork = NERD - "the smarts"
Geeks: Have a passion for/interest in a wide range of topics and also are able to survive in society. Rym and Scott are prime examples of this
Nerds: Have an overwhelming passion for a single subject, to the point of potentially driving people around them away in disgust and fear (intelligence never really factored into my definition, but I suppose you'd have to be smart to keep up with all of this). Star Trek nerds who will come at you with a bat'leth (which they wield with that would make Kahless himself take notice) for getting an obscure stardate wrong are nerds.
The word "Dork", to my knowledge, is only used as an insult, as there is no group (to my knowledge) campaigning for "Dork Power" or "Dork Supremacy" or the like. It's an insult best handed out to a loser of the highest caliber (such as the guy who's 35, constantly stoned and living in his mom's basement).
Glad to see we got back on the original purpose of this thread. On the subject of Wrasslin'. I watched it in the early to mid- 90s (WCW4EVER!!!) and have since given it up almost entirely. I was there when the NWO was formed. I was there when Sting got his face bloodied and joined the Wolf Pack. Yes, I will admit, I used to love Wrasslin' (as it is known by all true Southern fans of the sport), but mostly the WCW. The WWF always seemed a bit too edgy for my young tastes, and I especially hated it when they caved to the World Wildlife Fund. But enough of that. Suffice it to say that the above link to the Angle/Benoit fight helped me to realize just how fake those fights really are (Not that they aren't a wonder to behold in their own way, HitmanHeart). It was cool when I was younger, but its time is over.
And for the record, Shawn Michaels is the greatest Wrassler that has ever lived.
43 % Nerd, 56% Geek, 34% Dork
A Nerd is someone who is passionate about learning/being smart/academia.
A Geek is someone who is passionate about some particular area or subject, often an obscure or difficult one.
A Dork is someone who has difficulty with common social expectations/interactions.
You scored better than half in Geek, earning you the title of: Pure Geek.
It's not that you're a school junkie, like the nerd, and you don't really stand out in a crowd, like the dork, you just have some interests that aren't quite mainstream. Perhaps it's anime, perhaps it's computers, perhaps it's bottlecaps, perhaps it's all of those and more. Your interests take you to events and gatherings that are filled with people you find unusual and beyond-the-pale, but you don't quite consider yourself "of that crowd." Instead, you consider yourself to be fairly normal.
Which, you are.
Congratulations! You're the one on the RIGHT!
65 % Nerd, 52% Geek, 56% Dork
I think it rated me a little higher than I deserved on Dork, but whatever.
65 % Nerd, 52% Geek, 30% Dork
Seems fair enough to me.
Another Modern, Cool Nerd here
Your Score: Modern, Cool Nerd
60 % Nerd, 52% Geek, 30% Dork
What that says about me (or the test) I don't know, but I do expect to have 100% scores across the board by 2012.
56 % Nerd, 73% Geek, 30% Dork
I guess we all flock together.
You scored better than half in Geek, earning you the title of: Pure Geek.
It's not that you're a school junkie, like the nerd, and you don't really stand out in a crowd, like the dork, you just have some interests that aren't quite mainstream. Perhaps it's anime, perhaps it's computers, perhaps it's bottlecaps, perhaps it's all of those and more. Your interests take you to events and gatherings that are filled with people you find unusual and beyond-the-pale, but you don't quite consider yourself "of that crowd." Instead, you consider yourself to be fairly normal.
Which, you are.
I don't consider myself to be fairly normal at all. I feel fairly abnormal and proud of it. Wah. Well at least I'm pure geek! I like that title! XD
56 % Nerd, 26% Geek, 39% Dork
WHAT THE HELL!? I dislike learning! I roughly agree with the test's definition of each, but they only ask about the main big geek stuff in the US! I HATE MOST SCI FI! Especially the popular Sci Fi TV shows and movies. I'm a geek by their definition, but apparently not by their quiz. *SIGH*
100% Nerd, 69% Geek, 43% Dork