🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4nfrmh$qom@badger.3do.com> Ken McKinney <ken.mckinney@3do.com> writes:
>Gary thinks I'm getting overly defensive in my earlier reply to 
>Katy's post.  Furthermore, he says that I've failed to disprove 
>Katy's assertion that nice cars and fully owned houses are good
>indications of how much of a catch men are. 

   First, perhaps we read different posts: I recall people talking
about *tendancies*: e.g., that I think I'm more likely to enjoy being
with someone who drives a certain type of car, because I think that
that's an indication (albeit imperfect) of what they're like.  Given
that, I could not determine any reason other than defensiveness which
would prompt your reply.

   If one of us misread the initial post, that might explain my gross
misinterpretation of your motives.

   Second, you *did* fail do disprove Katy's assertion.  You asserted
that you disagreed, and you provided a counterexample, but you most
assuredly did not *disprove* it.  If, as you claim, you're not
interested in working to disprove such claims, then the fact that you
have not done so should not bother you.

   Third, I think you mischaractarize the original point by talking
about "nice" cars, "fully owned" houses, and men being a "catch."  I
think that the *style* of car (as opposed to its cost) says something
about a person's personality; that, depending on one's age, whether
you own property says something about either your personality or your
lifestyle (whether or not you're financially capable of doing it); and
that indicators like these will tell you something about whether
someone is compatible with you.

   Note the term "compatible," and not being a "good catch," as in
wanting to catch a rich guy so I can settle down to being an
upper-middle-class housewife in some affluent suburb.

>Next, Gary assumes that my reply indicates that I am unhappy with
>the way women perceive me in general, and suggests that I shape
>up my life, or just shut up about it.  

   This follows from my first point, above, and therefore requires
only the same response.

>He then follows with a pithy
>analogy about going to a job interview and putting on a suit for it,
>conveniently forgetting that the suit is not a lifestyle choice with
>broad implications, while investing lots of money in a nice car, or
>buying a house in the Bay Area, is.  

   Actually, I didn't forget at all.  First, the analogy (being an
analogy) holds quite well: my point, and the reason that the two
situations are *analogous*, is that in both cases people will make all
sorts of inferences from facts that are, in themselves, unrelated.

   If anything, the analogy holds *better* because of the broad
implications of decisions like owning property, because the inferrer
is less likely to be wrong.  The more direct effects a choice has on
one's life, the more accurately I can determine what one's life is
like based on my knowledge of their making or not making that choice.

>Gary, I'm not terribly worried about the way women perceive me.  I'm
>attractive, young, intelligent, hip, and eclectic.  If anything, I have an
>inflated ego and sense of confidence.   So don't worry about me -- I'll
>do fine without any of your Fatherly Advice!

   Don't worry, I haven't lost any sleep yet.

			-Gary

-- 
|Gary Brainin                     | "...the right to be let alone--the most    
|garygm@goonsquad.spies.com       | comprehensive of rights and the right most  
|Ramblings and PGP public key at: | valued by civilized men." Olmstead v. U.S.  
|http://www.spies.com/garygm/     | (Brandeis, J., dissenting)