the only recent reliable telephone poll i've seen in ontario has the pcs slightly ahead, but the situation pretty much in a tie at 35 - and the ndp at a not-so-catastrophic 24.

i think the headlines of a liberal majority are more or less a scare tactic.

official prediction: liberal minority, with very little changes overall in seat count or distribution.

a few points.

1) the green movement is not new, but in twenty-some years and dozens of opportunities i have to say i've never seen a green candidate control a debate, until now. but, it's a bit of a pyrrhic victory because...

2) ....if you look up on the stage, you have four factions of what should be a liberal party. the socialist candidate hardly sounds like a socialist, but would make a good left liberal. likewise, the kind of conservatism juncker is promoting really sounds like the right-wing end of the liberal spectrum. that leaves the self-identifying liberal in the centre, which is about right, and the greens as a special interest party. but, if these different strains of liberalism were to put aside their petty squabbling and integrate into a single party, it would be the greens that would be offering the most compelling and thought out vision moving forward. something that really stood out was the green candidate's understanding that the economy is not driven by monetary policy or tax rates but by aggregate demand. she's the only of the four that seemed to understand this.

3) worse, this is clearly political theatre. the body they're being elected to is almost powerless. so, what is this talk of forming a grand coalition to stop the anti-immigration parties from taking over the powerless parliament? it sounds like an excuse to ignore what little democracy exists in this process. are they seriously trying to paint a wide far-right brush over those that oppose the euro? because it turns history upside down. when will the european left stand up and declare that europe will no longer be crucified on a cross of gold?

4) as creepy as these anti-immigration groups are, it's becoming clearer and clearer that they're boogeymen that have been created by the banks to frighten the population into the status quo. and, should they not like the status quo, the alternative is crippling austerity. i've seen this movie already.

deathtokoalas
my experience is that geeks are actually generally jocks deep down that couldn't hack the hierarchy, so they end up hanging out with nerds (who tend to be more open-minded) by default and build up these passive aggressive inferiority complexes against them as a result of being constantly incapable of keeping up with them. over time, it just seethes into this sort of animosity, and in the end their inner jocks come out and they end up acting like assholes, which creates a more hostile reaction from the nerds.

in the end, it's really the geeks that are actual outcasts, as they end up hated by the jocks they couldn't compete with and the nerds they feel inferior to. nerds, on the other hand, generally remove themselves from society out of a lack of any interest.

i don't fit all the stereotypes. i don't game, for example. and i'm a guitarist (albeit a classical guitarist). but i definitely identify more with nerds.

A Typical Guy.
Mind blown..

TheWondermittens 
Beautifully said

Alice Pan
I'm more of a geek than a nerd, but I don't get what you're trying to say? I'm not really social (if I could I wouldn't go have social interaction with more than 3 people) and trying to hang out with jocks or nerds, I have some friends who are nice and they're not really nerds, geeks or jocks.

deathtokoalas
i think i made myself clear. is there a specific aspect that isn't?

people aren't numbers so these categories aren't perfect, but geeks are generally people that would be jocks if the jocks didn't look down on them because they fail at jock things and consequently never really drop the type of hierarchical thinking that nerds tend to absolutely categorically reject.  so, in their own minds, they end up trapped in between two different rungs on the hierarchy - they perceive of themselves as better than nerds but not as good as jocks and really "settle" for nerds as companions until they're able to somehow climb to the next rung, and all the while holding them in contempt. the thing is that they're actually generally not good at nerd things, either. over time, it tends to eat away at them and cause them all kinds of self-doubt, as they're constantly unable to keep up with the nerds at nerd things. that feeling of inadequacy is a direct result of that kind of jockish hierarchical thinking, which is the core of the problem. as they perceive of nerds as below them, and they have this persistent kind of competitive jock thinking, losing to nerds at nerd things sets off all these weird reactions and strange behaviours to try and keep themselves above the nerds in their own minds. it ultimately results in them behaving like the jocks that they really are.

i suppose the odd geek might grow out of high school, but my experience is that they usually don't. but i think you'd have to be in your late 20s at the least to have an experience of what happens to geeks as they age. as more of a self-identified nerd, i'd really caution younger nerds to avoid them as they grow older, because almost all of them will eventually turn into jerks.

is that clearer or is there something else you want a better explanation of? 

GabeCoding
I can't tell what gender you are OP

deathtokoalas
how does it have anything to do with the contents of the post?