I expect simple behaviours here. Friendship, and love. Any advice should be from the perspective of the person asking, not the person giving! We have had to make new membership moderated to combat the huge number of spammers who register
Location: Berkshire, UK
Registered: March 2005
Messages: 3281
Surely you need a 'none of the above', as otherwise you'll have no idea who would have voted but can't (like me). Once a few people have voted it'll either give the spurious impression that all gay people are geeky in one way or another, or it'll be evident that it's meaningless.
In my case, I would say I have sufficient interest in aircraft to visit museums and airshows from time to time, but not enough to make a hobby out of it.
Location: Berkshire, UK
Registered: March 2005
Messages: 3281
I'm surprised you didn't manage to work any sort of small-scale technology into there. Technology is the quintessential geekery. I would say I was both a camera-spotter and a computer-spotter (and a linux-spotter).
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
the poll is far too restricted to make any good sense.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
Location: Israel
Registered: October 2004
Messages: 1367
I agree with David and Marc. What about opera buffs and music nuts, for example? What about computer geeks? What about soccer fans - or even cricket fans? What about stamp collectors?
I remember when I was a kid that we used to spot tube train carriage numbers. I don't think that would interest me now.
J F R
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)