7 ms·

Nerds are unpopular for a lot of different reasons. This essay seems incomplete. Probably the biggest reason is that nerds don't make any attempt to fit in. Wh

by tpeng 12y ago

Nerds are unpopular for a lot of different reasons. This essay seems incomplete. Probably the biggest reason is that nerds don't make any attempt to fit in. While this may seem like the same as popularity, it's not. Popularity is the goal, fitting in is a prerequisite. Many nerds don't even realize this. Some realize it but value their independence over popularity. Another reason is that nerds are simply lacking in social skills. Social skills are learned, not innate, and they take a great deal of effort, intelligence, and awareness. The essay to some extent acknowledges this but I think it makes excuses that sound a lot like sour grapes. "Sure, we're bad at social skills -- but only because we don't care so much about them!" I think if we are all honest with ourselves, most of us would love to be good at both social skills and our intellectual/scientific/engineering pursuits. Another big reason is physical attractiveness. If I could make the rules, being good looking wouldn't matter as much as it does. But I don't make the rules and it matters a great deal to most people. Good looks help with social skills too because good looking people get more practice. Over time that advantage builds up. This is why you don't see a lot of really good looking nerds, even though many good looking people are in fact quite intelligent. Another reason is movies/TV. Hollywood stereotypes really affect people's perceptions of outgroups a great deal. What movies gets wrong about nerds is this: they correctly display the negatives about nerds (extreme social awkwardness) while completely glossing over the positives (brilliance). This is because most actors and screenwriters are not brilliant (other than perhaps in an artistic sense). So to the average person who learns about people from movies, nerds seem like average intelligence people who are really weird. Again, if I made the rules, people wouldn't be affected by media. Nobody thinks they are, but nobody thinks they are affected by advertising either, yet it's a half trillion dollar industry. TL;DR: There are a lot of reasons why nerds are unpopular. And "because we don't want popularity" is not one of them.

grimtrigger 12y ago
> Social skills are learned, not innate They're a combination of both.
- iliis 12y ago
  How much of our skills are learned and how much is genetic ability is an old debate ("nature vs. nurture"). I come down quite hevily on the learning side: You can remove half the brain of a person and if you do it slowly or early enough he will grow up into a quite normal human. I mean, even walking is mainly a learnt skill!
- gnudon 12y ago
  It's very dangerous to assume too much about genetic pre-dispositions - most commonly they are just assumptions & they're dangerous.
  - mercer 12y ago
    But isn't assuming that something is a combination of both the least dangerous kind of assumption in this context?
- nickthemagicman 12y ago
  I agree with you. Social interaction is the one thing no one has ever been able to 'scientifically' figure out. Otherwise we could all just read some books and be good at socializing. There's people with just born 'charisma', the entertainers, the storytellers,the comedians, the incredible sales people. And it's a spectrum of people who have this innate social ability from the terrible to the genius socializers. No matter how many books people read they will never be as quick witted as Robin Williams or as empathetic as Oprah.
  - sheepmullet 12y ago
    "I agree with you. Social interaction is the one thing no one has ever been able to 'scientifically' figure out. Otherwise we could all just read some books and be good at socializing." "No matter how many books people read they will never be as quick witted as Robin Williams or as empathetic as Oprah." Think about it: you can't get good at programming just by reading books. And programming is logic based and requires much slower reaction times etc than holding a conversation. You can definitely improve your social skills by reading and more importantly practicing. Once you can pick up if somebody is interested and engaged with what you are saying you can try all sorts of conversation skills to try and find patterns to how they work. And again just like programming you cannot simply expect that because you are good at writing webapps (talking to a particular social/cultural/age/gender group) that you will be good at writing embedded systems.
gnudon 12y ago
Agreed. In part 'we' (US) have a cultural mythos that intelligence (or nerdy smartness) and social skills are antithetical to one another. There's also a frequent assumption that social skills are innate. Sure, some people master social skills more quickly. But nerds and nerd-caregivers need to understand that social skills serve a purpose and can and should be trained. I think of it in game theory terms / cost-benefit analysis - advantages vs. disadvantages of having (no/limited) social skills. [The same stereotypes and problems with implicit bias and nerds are also commonly true with regards to physical fitness.]
Pacabel 12y ago
Where do you see "hipsters" fitting in to all of this? There has, obviously, been a huge influx of "hipsters" into the software industry as of late. And I think they're very distinct from "nerds". I define "nerds" as those with an interest in technology, science, mathematics, and perhaps science fiction. "Hipsters" are different, however, because they have limited interest in such things, but instead focus on design, aesthetics, fashion, trends, "obscurity", social media, and so forth. Yet there is a lot of overlap in the areas that you mention. Take the lack of social skills, for example. In the case of "nerds", this often seems to be because they just don't relate well to other people. But in the case of "hipsters", it's more about having an inherently obnoxious attitude and personality. Just look at the severe backlash that is common when a large number of "hipsters" migrate into established neighborhoods, for example. Even dealing with them in professional workplace settings is unpleasant. In terms of physical attractiveness and appearance, we see "hipsters" going out of their way to look as weird and "unique" as they possibly can. They wear clothing that purposefully clashes. They intentionally style their physical in ways that will make them stand out, in the oddest way possible. Even so-called "nerds" can obviously tell that something is out of place with these people's appearances. The television/movie representation of these people is perhaps the most interesting. We've seen people who are clearly "hipsters" being mislabeled as "nerds" in sitcoms and other media, for example. That Sheldon character from that American sitcom is a good example of this. His social obnoxiousness is far closer to what we typically see from "hipsters" than from "nerds". And the so-called "Reddit culture", for example, may have involved "nerds" at the very beginning, but they were very, very quickly overwhelmed by "hipsters". "Hipsters" have defined Reddit's culture for years now. It will be interesting to see how the dynamics of this plays out over time. Even if they've co-existed so far, I expect to see more hostility towards "hipsters" from "nerds". As odd as it may sound, I think that "nerds" tend to have more in common with society at large than "hipsters" do. And I think that society at large is starting to strongly see "hipsters" as greater outcasts than "nerds" are.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- psychometry 12y ago
  You'd think after reading the article you're commenting on on, you'd refrain from a pointless rant about how you marginalize a certain "type" of person because of their looks and interests, which are different from yours. As such, I think you're tilting at windmills here and have proven not to be above the kind of people PG is railing against. He uses the example of poor whites being racist against blacks. Are "hipsters" the only people you feel you can demonstrate superiority over? That's the only reason I can come up with for your post.
afarrell 12y ago
Growing up, I think the reason I as a nerd was unpopular was: 1) Lack of a sense of style: I did not give any thought to dressing well until I took a UX design class in Junior year in college. Before then, I thought of it as something utterly frivolous. 2) Lack of common conversation topics: I wanted to talk about military history and politics and physics. Very few people in elementary and high school were interested in that. So I got very little practice in conversation skills. 3) Not just of social skills, but knowledge of how to learn social skills: I had been painfully aware since 3rd grade that I lacked "social skills", but I really didn't know what these were or how to learn them. I did read How to Win Friends and Influence People in Jr. High, but it taught me little about how to hold a conversation. Even to this day, I don't actually know how to go about gaining social skills or what those skills actually are. Just one month ago, I learned that there was a skill to conversing so as to make sure everyone present had the context to understand the conversation and wouldn't feel excluded. If I'm now 24 and only just now realized this, what other things have I missed? Why might nerds in general have the problems I had? #1 takes money, which kids don't have until starting age 16. #2 sort of defines nerdiness: if you have this set of interests you're a nerd. If other people have these interests, you're lucky. #3 is hard because it must be learned by a means that are different from academic knowledge or a fandom's canon. You can't really read things[1] and tinker with things and work through problem sets to figure out. Near as I can tell, you just have to have a lot of social interaction and be very aware and attentive to people as you do so. [1] There are some books and blogs that are useful: - How to Win Friends and Influence People (general; a classic) - What Every Body is Saying (Body language) - Dr. Nerdlove (dating) - Cpt. Awkward (dating & other relationships) - Getting to Yes (negotiation) - Difficult Conversations (understanding emotional impact of words)
- karmelapple 12y ago
  For #3, I strongly recommend Leil Lowndes's How to Talk to Anyone. It directly addresses those ways to make people comfortable that are typically not plainly laid out. Everything is in easy to digest chunks, the book can be read nonlinearly, and it's held up over time. A few years ago I cracked it open again after having it read it very carefully many years before that. I was shocked how many techniques I had internalized to the point that I thought they were my own ideas, but paging through the book reminded me how much I learned. Thanks Leil! http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/007141858X?pc_redir=1400207054&robot_redir=1 http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/007141858X?pc_redir=1400207054...
Jugurtha 12y ago
Ditto. I was, and am a nerd. In junior school I was on the popular side, despite being shorter than the most popular dudes (partly because I was smart, I was dressed sharply and I was a cool kid: Everyone loved me ('tough' kids because I didn't treat them as "less intelligent brutes", smart kids because we were on the same level, and those in between because I knew how to talk to them). Plus the two most popular girls were in my class and had frequent cat fights for me(Gotta love women, they may want you, but they crave for validation more than anything)). In High-School, my friend and I were amongst the most popular: We spent our days missing classes and playing basket ball and football, we got used to our "fandom". We were known to the Administration by first names. And of course, when you were seen around a lot, people knew who we were (even years after). But to come back to the point: I have been blessed and lucky in my life. I did sports (Judo (since age 6 or so to 17, competitions with lots of people, trained with many boys and girls in my club, both my age and older), football (many, many people cheering at your feats helps), basket ball, running, working out (body weight only)). But I was also pretty cute, dressed nice, and was clean. These points lack to a lot of nerds (Cuteness isn't something you can change, but you can take showers and dress respectably). I was also blessed in the sense that I hang around girls since I could remember, like since I could talk. And I hang with a clique of older girls and guys who had me, and few other girls and boys my age with them, so I had a lot of socializing way before I got to high-school. Having girls have a crush on you wasn't a big deal, it was all part of normal. So it's not the same thing, when you already had thousands upon thousands of interactions with people, and if you only talked with one friend or something. There are things they can do, though, and it's not to be popular per se, but if I were like those kids who had it hard growing up (like being mocked or stuff like that), I would ask myself questions and hack it. It's not even to fit in or something, but taking showers and dressing okay doesn't make you less smart.
- Jugurtha 12y ago
  To summarize it: It's great to be a nerd, as long as you're not nerdy. Nerdy makes your life miserable. Nerd doesn't. Anyone who's good at something is a nerd, there's no way around it. But you can be a nerd and be cool, which makes you even more frigging cool.
- funky_lambda 12y ago
tomphoolery 12y ago
> If I could make the rules, being good looking wouldn't matter as much as it does. It actually doesn't. And you probably look better than you think you do, because if you were unpopular in high school you were not "groomed" to be beautiful. So you may not realize how beautiful you actually are. From what I've seen, here's what seems to matter most (in no particular order): Money, self-confidence, and doing something interesting with your life. If you're rich, confident enough to ask girls out on dates (comes with practice, "fake it till you make it" is the name of the game here), and you're doing interesting things that you can talk about passionately, some beautiful person is going to be with you at some point. It's inevitable. Being "good looking" is less about actual physical traits and more about how you carry yourself.
- Iftheshoefits 12y ago
  Studies show that people who are on the "good looking" side of the spectrum have distinct advantages over the rest of us. Taller men, men who are more "handsome" and have more "manly" features (e.g. chin, deep voice, etc.) consistently have advantages in negotiations for jobs, pay, status, etc. A casual search turns up a plethora of articles covering everything from getting interviews to pay to grades in school (here's one near the top, just as a starting point: http://www.businessinsider.com/beautiful-people-get-more-job-interviews-2013-9 http://www.businessinsider.com/beautiful-people-get-more-job...). Being "good looking" is more about actually having physically "good looking" features than anything else you mentioned. What you mentioned are things the rest of us can do to try to compensate for a lack of physical attractiveness.
  - thenerdfiles 12y ago
    "Beauty is only skin deep" — "Looks only go so far" — and the plethora of other cultural restrictions on "beauty". As is always pertinent to this discussion: Do we worship the Gods because they are beautiful, or are the Gods beautiful because we worship them? We could generalize this to those interests that particularly come from reports of these demographics, and subdemographics. Or we could go abstract into architecture: Xer functions, functions which are more "readable" or have more "examples"; or classes which have more "features" consistently have advantages in negotiations for place in a codebase, frequency of reuse, event-state participation.
jseliger 12y ago
"Probably the biggest reason is that nerds don't make any attempt to fit in" is very similar to what Graham writes, and is actually compatible with it: The main reason nerds are unpopular is that they have other things to think about. Their attention is drawn to books or the natural world, not fashions and parties. They're like someone trying to play soccer while balancing a glass of water on his head. Other players who can focus their whole attention on the game beat them effortlessly, and wonder why they seem so incapable. Even if nerds cared as much as other kids about popularity, being popular would be more work for them. The popular kids learned to be popular, and to want to be popular, the same way the nerds learned to be smart, and to want to be smart: from their parents. While the nerds were being trained to get the right answers, the popular kids were being trained to please.
- thenerdfiles 12y ago
  I'm just surprised we're not talking about changing the PSS (Popularity Style Sheets) on A-E. Or are we? I noticed this immediately, before even reading the pg article (OP), I saw this post and knew that it was instigating a counterpoint, only to re-brand the point in a different set of words.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]

by tpeng 12y ago

grimtrigger 12y ago

> Social skills are learned, not innate They're a combination of both.

iliis 12y ago
How much of our skills are learned and how much is genetic ability is an old debate ("nature vs. nurture"). I come down quite hevily on the learning side: You can remove half the brain of a person and if you do it slowly or early enough he will grow up into a quite normal human. I mean, even walking is mainly a learnt skill!
gnudon 12y ago
It's very dangerous to assume too much about genetic pre-dispositions - most commonly they are just assumptions & they're dangerous.
- mercer 12y ago
  But isn't assuming that something is a combination of both the least dangerous kind of assumption in this context?
nickthemagicman 12y ago
I agree with you. Social interaction is the one thing no one has ever been able to 'scientifically' figure out. Otherwise we could all just read some books and be good at socializing. There's people with just born 'charisma', the entertainers, the storytellers,the comedians, the incredible sales people. And it's a spectrum of people who have this innate social ability from the terrible to the genius socializers. No matter how many books people read they will never be as quick witted as Robin Williams or as empathetic as Oprah.
- sheepmullet 12y ago
  "I agree with you. Social interaction is the one thing no one has ever been able to 'scientifically' figure out. Otherwise we could all just read some books and be good at socializing." "No matter how many books people read they will never be as quick witted as Robin Williams or as empathetic as Oprah." Think about it: you can't get good at programming just by reading books. And programming is logic based and requires much slower reaction times etc than holding a conversation. You can definitely improve your social skills by reading and more importantly practicing. Once you can pick up if somebody is interested and engaged with what you are saying you can try all sorts of conversation skills to try and find patterns to how they work. And again just like programming you cannot simply expect that because you are good at writing webapps (talking to a particular social/cultural/age/gender group) that you will be good at writing embedded systems.

gnudon 12y ago

Agreed. In part 'we' (US) have a cultural mythos that intelligence (or nerdy smartness) and social skills are antithetical to one another. There's also a frequent assumption that social skills are innate. Sure, some people master social skills more quickly. But nerds and nerd-caregivers need to understand that social skills serve a purpose and can and should be trained. I think of it in game theory terms / cost-benefit analysis - advantages vs. disadvantages of having (no/limited) social skills. [The same stereotypes and problems with implicit bias and nerds are also commonly true with regards to physical fitness.]

Pacabel 12y ago

Where do you see "hipsters" fitting in to all of this? There has, obviously, been a huge influx of "hipsters" into the software industry as of late. And I think they're very distinct from "nerds". I define "nerds" as those with an interest in technology, science, mathematics, and perhaps science fiction. "Hipsters" are different, however, because they have limited interest in such things, but instead focus on design, aesthetics, fashion, trends, "obscurity", social media, and so forth. Yet there is a lot of overlap in the areas that you mention. Take the lack of social skills, for example. In the case of "nerds", this often seems to be because they just don't relate well to other people. But in the case of "hipsters", it's more about having an inherently obnoxious attitude and personality. Just look at the severe backlash that is common when a large number of "hipsters" migrate into established neighborhoods, for example. Even dealing with them in professional workplace settings is unpleasant. In terms of physical attractiveness and appearance, we see "hipsters" going out of their way to look as weird and "unique" as they possibly can. They wear clothing that purposefully clashes. They intentionally style their physical in ways that will make them stand out, in the oddest way possible. Even so-called "nerds" can obviously tell that something is out of place with these people's appearances. The television/movie representation of these people is perhaps the most interesting. We've seen people who are clearly "hipsters" being mislabeled as "nerds" in sitcoms and other media, for example. That Sheldon character from that American sitcom is a good example of this. His social obnoxiousness is far closer to what we typically see from "hipsters" than from "nerds". And the so-called "Reddit culture", for example, may have involved "nerds" at the very beginning, but they were very, very quickly overwhelmed by "hipsters". "Hipsters" have defined Reddit's culture for years now. It will be interesting to see how the dynamics of this plays out over time. Even if they've co-existed so far, I expect to see more hostility towards "hipsters" from "nerds". As odd as it may sound, I think that "nerds" tend to have more in common with society at large than "hipsters" do. And I think that society at large is starting to strongly see "hipsters" as greater outcasts than "nerds" are.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
psychometry 12y ago
You'd think after reading the article you're commenting on on, you'd refrain from a pointless rant about how you marginalize a certain "type" of person because of their looks and interests, which are different from yours. As such, I think you're tilting at windmills here and have proven not to be above the kind of people PG is railing against. He uses the example of poor whites being racist against blacks. Are "hipsters" the only people you feel you can demonstrate superiority over? That's the only reason I can come up with for your post.

afarrell 12y ago

Growing up, I think the reason I as a nerd was unpopular was: 1) Lack of a sense of style: I did not give any thought to dressing well until I took a UX design class in Junior year in college. Before then, I thought of it as something utterly frivolous. 2) Lack of common conversation topics: I wanted to talk about military history and politics and physics. Very few people in elementary and high school were interested in that. So I got very little practice in conversation skills. 3) Not just of social skills, but knowledge of how to learn social skills: I had been painfully aware since 3rd grade that I lacked "social skills", but I really didn't know what these were or how to learn them. I did read How to Win Friends and Influence People in Jr. High, but it taught me little about how to hold a conversation. Even to this day, I don't actually know how to go about gaining social skills or what those skills actually are. Just one month ago, I learned that there was a skill to conversing so as to make sure everyone present had the context to understand the conversation and wouldn't feel excluded. If I'm now 24 and only just now realized this, what other things have I missed? Why might nerds in general have the problems I had? #1 takes money, which kids don't have until starting age 16. #2 sort of defines nerdiness: if you have this set of interests you're a nerd. If other people have these interests, you're lucky. #3 is hard because it must be learned by a means that are different from academic knowledge or a fandom's canon. You can't really read things[1] and tinker with things and work through problem sets to figure out. Near as I can tell, you just have to have a lot of social interaction and be very aware and attentive to people as you do so. [1] There are some books and blogs that are useful: - How to Win Friends and Influence People (general; a classic) - What Every Body is Saying (Body language) - Dr. Nerdlove (dating) - Cpt. Awkward (dating & other relationships) - Getting to Yes (negotiation) - Difficult Conversations (understanding emotional impact of words)

karmelapple 12y ago
For #3, I strongly recommend Leil Lowndes's How to Talk to Anyone. It directly addresses those ways to make people comfortable that are typically not plainly laid out. Everything is in easy to digest chunks, the book can be read nonlinearly, and it's held up over time. A few years ago I cracked it open again after having it read it very carefully many years before that. I was shocked how many techniques I had internalized to the point that I thought they were my own ideas, but paging through the book reminded me how much I learned. Thanks Leil! http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/007141858X?pc_redir=1400207054&robot_redir=1 http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/007141858X?pc_redir=1400207054...

Jugurtha 12y ago

Ditto. I was, and am a nerd. In junior school I was on the popular side, despite being shorter than the most popular dudes (partly because I was smart, I was dressed sharply and I was a cool kid: Everyone loved me ('tough' kids because I didn't treat them as "less intelligent brutes", smart kids because we were on the same level, and those in between because I knew how to talk to them). Plus the two most popular girls were in my class and had frequent cat fights for me(Gotta love women, they may want you, but they crave for validation more than anything)). In High-School, my friend and I were amongst the most popular: We spent our days missing classes and playing basket ball and football, we got used to our "fandom". We were known to the Administration by first names. And of course, when you were seen around a lot, people knew who we were (even years after). But to come back to the point: I have been blessed and lucky in my life. I did sports (Judo (since age 6 or so to 17, competitions with lots of people, trained with many boys and girls in my club, both my age and older), football (many, many people cheering at your feats helps), basket ball, running, working out (body weight only)). But I was also pretty cute, dressed nice, and was clean. These points lack to a lot of nerds (Cuteness isn't something you can change, but you can take showers and dress respectably). I was also blessed in the sense that I hang around girls since I could remember, like since I could talk. And I hang with a clique of older girls and guys who had me, and few other girls and boys my age with them, so I had a lot of socializing way before I got to high-school. Having girls have a crush on you wasn't a big deal, it was all part of normal. So it's not the same thing, when you already had thousands upon thousands of interactions with people, and if you only talked with one friend or something. There are things they can do, though, and it's not to be popular per se, but if I were like those kids who had it hard growing up (like being mocked or stuff like that), I would ask myself questions and hack it. It's not even to fit in or something, but taking showers and dressing okay doesn't make you less smart.

Jugurtha 12y ago
To summarize it: It's great to be a nerd, as long as you're not nerdy. Nerdy makes your life miserable. Nerd doesn't. Anyone who's good at something is a nerd, there's no way around it. But you can be a nerd and be cool, which makes you even more frigging cool.
funky_lambda 12y ago

tomphoolery 12y ago

> If I could make the rules, being good looking wouldn't matter as much as it does. It actually doesn't. And you probably look better than you think you do, because if you were unpopular in high school you were not "groomed" to be beautiful. So you may not realize how beautiful you actually are. From what I've seen, here's what seems to matter most (in no particular order): Money, self-confidence, and doing something interesting with your life. If you're rich, confident enough to ask girls out on dates (comes with practice, "fake it till you make it" is the name of the game here), and you're doing interesting things that you can talk about passionately, some beautiful person is going to be with you at some point. It's inevitable. Being "good looking" is less about actual physical traits and more about how you carry yourself.

Iftheshoefits 12y ago
Studies show that people who are on the "good looking" side of the spectrum have distinct advantages over the rest of us. Taller men, men who are more "handsome" and have more "manly" features (e.g. chin, deep voice, etc.) consistently have advantages in negotiations for jobs, pay, status, etc. A casual search turns up a plethora of articles covering everything from getting interviews to pay to grades in school (here's one near the top, just as a starting point: http://www.businessinsider.com/beautiful-people-get-more-job-interviews-2013-9 http://www.businessinsider.com/beautiful-people-get-more-job...). Being "good looking" is more about actually having physically "good looking" features than anything else you mentioned. What you mentioned are things the rest of us can do to try to compensate for a lack of physical attractiveness.
- thenerdfiles 12y ago
  "Beauty is only skin deep" — "Looks only go so far" — and the plethora of other cultural restrictions on "beauty". As is always pertinent to this discussion: Do we worship the Gods because they are beautiful, or are the Gods beautiful because we worship them? We could generalize this to those interests that particularly come from reports of these demographics, and subdemographics. Or we could go abstract into architecture: Xer functions, functions which are more "readable" or have more "examples"; or classes which have more "features" consistently have advantages in negotiations for place in a codebase, frequency of reuse, event-state participation.

jseliger 12y ago

"Probably the biggest reason is that nerds don't make any attempt to fit in" is very similar to what Graham writes, and is actually compatible with it: The main reason nerds are unpopular is that they have other things to think about. Their attention is drawn to books or the natural world, not fashions and parties. They're like someone trying to play soccer while balancing a glass of water on his head. Other players who can focus their whole attention on the game beat them effortlessly, and wonder why they seem so incapable. Even if nerds cared as much as other kids about popularity, being popular would be more work for them. The popular kids learned to be popular, and to want to be popular, the same way the nerds learned to be smart, and to want to be smart: from their parents. While the nerds were being trained to get the right answers, the popular kids were being trained to please.

thenerdfiles 12y ago
I'm just surprised we're not talking about changing the PSS (Popularity Style Sheets) on A-E. Or are we? I noticed this immediately, before even reading the pg article (OP), I saw this post and knew that it was instigating a counterpoint, only to re-brand the point in a different set of words.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]