🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <319F84D1.47F1@sirius.com>, takworld  <takworld@sirius.com> wrote:
>Alex Osinski wrote:
>> 
>> takworld <takworld@sirius.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >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?

I beg to differ.  You do think in paragraphs -- first, you wrote
a paragraph about the factors affecting initial attraction to a
stranger.  Then there was a paragraph on "car philosophy."  Then
houses.  Then your friend with the perfect GQ possessions and no
life.  Then you summed everything up by relating it to your first
point, about how we choose our partners.  All in all, a brief but
well-organized and well-written essay.  The paragraphs are there,
you just didn't provide any visual cues as to their beginnings 
and endings.

I'll bet you talk in paragraphs too, only it's probably easier
for people to follow because the rhythm of your speech provides
auditory cues that humans can follow today, and perhaps computers
will be able to follow tommorrow.

Will