[Lush]

I think the article is pretty cool, if a little late in the writing (geek-chic has been in since Bill Gates started making gajillions).

Actually, one of the few powerful figures in the Western world today who does not fit the standard definition of a nerd would be the current U.S. President (and no, this is neither a criticism nor a compliment, so keep your rotten eggs for a better occasion).

In general, I think the term for the so-called outcast, the nerd", is quickly being replaced by the more general label of "loser," one that cuts across all sorts of previous boundaries.

The loser is not neccessarily classified by what sort of books he or she reads, movies he or she watches, or light-sabers he or she plays with (although it often ends up that way). The definition is more based on an almost subconscious assessment of whether or not the person in question successfully functions in society.

Is this particular label fairly deserved? In most cases, probably not.

Overall, I am against both the stereotyping of the "outcasts" and the so-called "in-crowd."

I don't think it's classy to think less of a person for spending the entire weekend reading, but I also disapprove of looking down on someone for spending the entire weekend clubbing (or something even more interesting).

Also, some people can easily do both in two consecutive weeks, earning the label of both "dorky" and "vapid" (or whatever it is that the party people are being referred to these days).

Personally, I am for people being able to enjoy themselves wherever they venture, and to hell with what someone might think.

***EDIT***

For an environment that encourages both the "nerd" persona and the "in-crowd" image, look no further than my own Duke University, where we "work hard and play hard." Let me tell you, this sort of lifestyle leaves you exhausted.

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 1:54 AM December 16, 2003: Message edited by: Lush ]