🚀 go-pugleaf

scsmith@ix.netcom.com (Stranger) wrote:
>On Wed, 18 Dec 1996 20:30:11 -0500, Dan Scheraga
><scheraga@webspan.net> wrote:
>
>>Tommy the Tourist wrote:
>>> 
>>> In article <57od8p$8k4$1@info1.fnal.gov>,
>>> Robert Kutschke <kutschke@fnpspa.fnal.gov> wrote:
>>> >          33 specified a minimum height of 5'7'' or more
>>> >           3 specified a minimum height of 5'5'' or 5'6''
>>> >           4 specified no minimum height
>>> 
 to be tall.
>>> 
>>> This is a bummer for short men.  We are all born into this world with
>>> various gifts and various difficulties.
>>> 
>>
>>Bummer is an understatement.
>>But I...and most every other guy I know tall or short, require women to be slim, or at least not 
>>obese...when us short guys who know damn well what it's like to be ignored for such a 
>>superficial reason keep physical requirements for our mates, it's hypocrisy.

>There's any number of things that make people attractive to one
>another.  Physical appearance is just the most immediate, superficial
>thing.  It's also the thing that ultimately means the LEAST, precisely
>BECAUSE of its superficiality.
>
>If people aren't willing to look beneath skin-deep appearances, they
>aren't IMO worth getting to know.

Are we talking about ISOs or about one's ultimate criteria.  Physical 
characteristics are, at least, specifications that can be written in an ad 
and understood by the reader; and if the responder ignores one's wishes, 
his or her noncooperation is palpable.  So even if height or weight have 
less substantive importance than other matters, they may still be worth 
including in an ISO.  Trying to tell people that what they care about is 
all wrong, is a nonstarter.  People should view ISOs as a mechanism for 
classifying people into categories that can be easily classified with a 
minimum potential for cheating.  The things that really matter will be 
dealt with face to face