NOTE: This was originally (as
the title implies) a statement
of a few of my hypotheses
on 'acheiving high Xomba-Rank'
(i.e. Xombytography). I now hope
it's more of a clarification
of the difference between
geeks, nerds, and dorks.

Below is the previous post (with a few changes, as I am not a 'dork').

This post was--for the most-part--my geekyy way of finding out how one gets-- getting onto the "Hottest Xombytes"-list.

(Some people obviously didn't read that I'm NOT asking anyone to do the following): I'm sure I could just 'ask the Xomba-admin.' or 'beg you, my fellow Xombytographers, to find out for yourselves and tell me,' but I've usually enjoyed the geekwise-method of finding things out since I learned it in the fourth grade: Hypothesize, Experiment, Observe, and "React" (the 'reaction' is usually "recording the result," but I'm being a more-creative geek now).

(... and I know that "Research" is also one of the steps, but that's just 'reading' until you hypothesize an idea out of it!)

I had several 'hypotheses' ("hypothesises" for you who slept through the fourth grade) on achievement of Hot Xombyte-ness (though I never claimed to list all the possible hypotheses): I said I thought maybe it was calculated by the hit-volume of the post, or maybe the subscription-quantity, or maybe the number of comments, or maybe the re-re-re-repetition of the word "comment."

As you can see above, I don't really "care" how we get this Xombyte put on the hot-list as long as it does get listed there. Above I've listed all the ways I think it might; do all those, and your contribution will leave you feeling worthy.

As you might be able to see below, one Xombee (at least) went 'nerdy' and rehd the FAQ's to tell me that (as you might see in the title) it's quantity- and quality-of votes that gets a Xombyte listed in the Hottest- and Highest Rated-lists (respectively).

At first I thought he was a 'dork' about it; as he told me that votes were the "moving power," but then cast no votes and urged other readers to do the same.

But truly he was a brother-'geek,' patiently awaiting my "coming around to the solution."

Let me clarify here: To me, anyway; "nerds" are the ones who read, and who see- and hear-things as if they were reading them. Often, a nerd must be an assumer (assuming that readings are as true as base-logic would make them 'claim' to be);

"geeks" are Gnostic nerds (they do the reading required of nerds; but--if the urge to learn more overtakes them--theu actually find out rather than 'reading it somewhere');

and "dorks," the evil third of the Literati Triumvirate, are Passive-Conservative nerds (they read about things to know how things are, but then don't act to change the bad things or conserve/improve the good).

Oh, you might say that the 'dorks' are sort of like Buddhist Monks and shouldn't be scorned for "doing nothing"; but they shouldn't read if they aren't going to commit to the situations learned.

And I know that there
are further differences between
the persons of the Triumvirate, but
I'm not attempting to fully
differentiate them.