In the interview for my first programming job, they asked me if I knew "design patterns". At the time, I had no idea what that phrase meant. So after being hired, I downloaded the original GoF book and started reading. I got about 3 chapters in, flipped through the rest, then deleted it to not waste the 500KB of disk space on such inane blather. Design Patterns are a fancy names for basic algorithms and techniques that should be obvious to anyone who actually understands indirection and a few basic (lists, trees) data structures. What struck me the most was that the authors say this in the first chapter. In fact, the authors actually insult their readers since needing to read the book means they are sub-par programmers to start with. :P This could be because they aren't programmers at all yet (just starting off). But most often in my experience the people who use the names for 'patterns' and harp on the supposed greatness of design patterns simply have no real understanding of what they are doing, and are doubly ignorant in thinking they have reached a professional level of coding. I have unfortunately worked with many of them, and cleaned up their broken, messy, brain damaged code often.
I have nothing against VB or .NET; all Turing-complete languages are respectable. It just seems that some languages attract one echelon of programmers, and other languages attract an entirely different echelon of programmers. :P