🚀 go-pugleaf

Alex Osinski wrote:
> 
> takworld <takworld@sirius.com> wrote:
> >Ken McKinney wrote:
> >>
> >> (Katy qualifies her previous statements re: cars, houses, and datability)
> >>
> >> OK Katy,
> >>
> >> I'm sorry that I overreacted to your earlier post -- I agree that
> >> different
> >> people "plateau" at different levels of maturity, and understand why
> >> you want to date someone with a maturity level comparable to your own.
> >>
> >> Just out of curiosity, what factors do you associate with maturity in
> >> men?
> >> I mean, I have my own ideas, but it would be interesting to hear yours.
> >>
> >> Ken
> >
> >It's getting so hard to figure out just where your reply should be
> >dropped in, so, just jump in and worry about the pirranah later.  We all
> >have these triggers that make certain people stand out in a crowd to us.
> > And they are all individual tastes.  When asked, "what is the first
> >thing you notice about a person?" or "what initially (before you
> >even talk to him/her) attracts you to a person?" we all usually have a
> >few things that are completely superficial -- hair color, size/shape,
> >the sound of a laugh, the motion, etc.  I once followed a guy off my
> >commuter train (not even my stop and I was already late) just because of
> >his cologne, and he was completely not someone I really wanted to even
> >meet, he just smelled so good.  So, what Katy (I think she is the one
> >who mentioned BMW's) said about what might attract a woman's attention
> >was just mentioning some of the myriad of stuff women might "upon first
> >impression" (which we all know is not always the truest) judge a man.
> >Of course, when he turns out to be a jerk, his cars and houses and stuff
> >mean nothing.  Personally, since I don't drive (so the rest of you can
> >continue to live) anyone with any kind of car that runs is just fine
> >with me.  I know enough people with really raggedy cars (the seats are
> >almost no better than just the bear steel frames, there is no longer any
> >upholstery on the ceiling, you can sometimes ses the road whizzing by
> >under your feet as you sit there, windows don't work...) that get me
> >around to see things just fine and that's all that matters.  Well, good
> >conversation while traveling is always good too.  And heat on a cold
> >day, good brakes, good steering (ok, there's a lot of things that count
> >but you know what I mean).  Houses?  I own my own place so I know what
> >trouble it is and I know enough folks who prefer to rent and avoid all
> >this money drain business, they put their money someplace else and I
> >sometimes envy them (because, now that I own this thing, I kind of have
> >to continue to own something similar or else pay a heavy tax bill and my
> >goal in life is to try to keep as much money out of government hands as
> >possible since they don't utilize money well at all).  I have a good
> >male friend who owns his house, owns a nice yuppie car, has a
> >professional (in the tradition sense) job, and is basically society's
> >idea of ideal, but he can't find a mate (probably because he's looking
> >for someone who can't ever be).  Everything he has looks like no one
> >lives there but is a lovely picture out of GQ or something -- no
> >fingerprints on anything, no shoes tossed under a chair, no "what am I
> >suppose to do with this?" mail stacked on a table, no dishes in the sink
> >(no food in the frig).  I almost feel like I shouldn't track my
> >invisible footprints through his house when I visit -- but I do, just
> >out of a sort of duty to mess things up (chaos is good).  He's a nice,
> >nice, nice guy (really, I have had far too many experiences with rats
> >and snakes and evil and know the difference).  Just is always going to
> >have trouble accepting the filth and untidiness of real life.  So, what
> >Katy said cannot be interpreted as "the definitive" anything and I'm
> >real sure Katy didn't mean it as the onliest criteria, or even the most
> >important -- for simplicity, she just put out there *one* set of
> >judgment values that sometimes affect how we pick our people.  And you
> >know we all have our own, so don't get on her case without first
> >examining your own.  Cha-cha-cha.
> >
> >
> You have a lot of good things to say, but try to break them up into
> paragraphs so they are easier to read.

I don't think in paragraphs.  Nor, as far as I am aware, do I talk in 
paragraphs.  I wonder in the future when everything is voice-read, how 
the machinery will deal with that -- will we have to actually proofread 
what the machine has heard us say and edit?  Or will we have to 
incorporate "new paragraph" as a way of thinking?