🚀 go-pugleaf

Robert H Ruskin <ruskinr@aruba.ccit.arizona.edu> wrote:
>I am a 44 y.o. male, average 
>looks, a champion of women's causes (!), and a decent all round nice 
>fellow, in the next few months I will have earned my Ph.D. in Science.

John Cooley <jcooley@world.std.com> wrote:
>Robert, I couldn't help but notice how you (and some other guys) like to
>mention that you're a champion of women's causes in describing yourself.
>Why do you do this?

Oops, I didn't say this clearly.  I'm not asking why do you champion
women's cause, but why do you make it a point of mentioning that you do.

  - John

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  __))    "Glass ceilings?  Name ANY ex-goat farmer who's made management!"
 /_ oo  
  (_ \   Holliston Poor Farm                                   - John Cooley
%//  \"  Holliston, MA 01746-6222           part time Sheep & ex-Goat Farmer
%%%  $   jcooley@world.std.com       full time contract ASIC & FPGA Designer

John:

Why NOT do this??? Especially if it is true!!! No I'm no big time 
crusader out in the public lime-light type of women's right's champion; 
no most of my acts are quiet. But far to many men are NOT women's right's 
champions who prefer to keep a woman "barefoot and pregnant". I love 
women for the people they are, and their contributions to the world. I 
have no problem with dealing with women as equals [but then again I have 
worked in a field for the past 22 years where there are many, many bright 
and talented women. And would you believe me if I told you I am a former 
member of the League of *Women* Voters?!?!? 

Why do this?? Chalk it up to having a HORRIBLE STREAK of the Don Quixote in 
me who firmly believes with all his heart in a woman's potential, and who 
hates seeing them thought as as some man's toy, who have no brains in 
their heads. The women I run with will slice a man's intellect in half 
with little effort -- and we are talking about men with a professional 
background, not truck drivers. Why do this? Because this is a 
qualification -- just as age, occupation, height -- that I am proud of, 
that's why.

While I may not be found to be some woman's type of man, that does not 
prevent me from having several deep and close relationships with some 
very bright and talented women (many recognized as among the top in 
their field). It is because I can form such relationships that I can 
find out what a woman want's, what a woman expects, what a woman feels.
Who knows, maybe I'll someday meet THE woman who can truly appreciate 
me for the many, many parts of me; a woman who places SUBSTANCE before 
IMAGE. I may not be the best, the brightest, the richest, the.... but I 
am more than a catch for any woman who wants a good husband. In the 
meantime I intend to explore relationships regardless of form and 
appreciate each as a unique gift crafted between two people.

Least you think I am in the "enemy's camp", I also hate seeing women 
taking men for a ride, and there are far, far too many who do. That too 
is not right. Women should not just automatically be given rights simply 
because they are women -- that is wrong. And there are many women who are 
men's rights advocates.

The biggest crime about the "Third Date Rule" is that it boils everything 
down to sex. If sex is not in the works, then then relationship should be 
abandoned. Somehow if you go out on a "date" [I no longer know what that 
is] three times, you should know whether you want to go to bed with 
him/her. How stupid can you get!!!! Ah, but if you are a "friend" somehow 
you don't count as a possible romantic interest, you NEVER go out on a 
"date" with a friend. If there is one thing that angers me about today's 
generation, it is this application of the "Third Date Rule" because it is 
so dehumanizing. [It is interesting to note that women in their 20's who 
consider themselves pretty, and who based upon their self evaluation 
of their looks discard men because they are not "My type", tend to beg 
for men when they hit 40-50 when their beauty is fading]. 

We need to see each other less as sexual objects to be sought and 
possessed, and more as people with a sexual identity who we wish to 
understand and share ourselves with. Love is an unfolding of a flower 
that has no set schedule, and comes in many forms each needing 
exploration. Because you can jump into bed with a person does not by 
itself signify that a "relationship" has been born; nor does lack of sex 
in a relationship signify that a loving relationship does not exist.  

-- 

In a recent message jcooley@world.std.com (John Cooley) tells us:
*
*Oops, I didn't say this clearly.  I'm not asking why do you champion
*women's cause, but why do you make it a point of mentioning that you do.
*
*  - John

-- 
   I am: mom, attorney, fathers' rights advocate, founder of F.R.E.E.(tm)
*--> Fathers' Rights & Equality Exchange info: http://www.vix.com/free/
    To join the Fathers' Rights & Equality Exchange:  free-join@vix.com
		    1996 - a great year to be F.R.E.E.!

Anne P. Mitchell Esq. <shedevil@vix.com> wrote:
>In a recent message jcooley@world.std.com (John Cooley) tells us:
>*
>*Oops, I didn't say this clearly.  I'm not asking why do you champion
>*women's cause, but why do you make it a point of mentioning that you do.
>*
>*  - John
>
>-- 
>   I am: mom, attorney, fathers' rights advocate, founder of F.R.E.E.(tm)
>*--> Fathers' Rights & Equality Exchange info: http://www.vix.com/free/
>    To join the Fathers' Rights & Equality Exchange:  free-join@vix.com
>		    1996 - a great year to be F.R.E.E.!

Yea, yea, yea, Anne, you're a Father's Rights Advocate....  and it happens
to draw in an awful lot of business for your legal practice so, in my very
small brain, you're doing it (at least partially) for business reasons.

  - John

In a recent message jcooley@world.std.com (John Cooley) tells us:
*Anne P. Mitchell Esq. <shedevil@vix.com> wrote:
*>In a recent message jcooley@world.std.com (John Cooley) tells us:
*>*
*>*Oops, I didn't say this clearly.  I'm not asking why do you champion
*>*women's cause, but why do you make it a point of mentioning that you do.
*>*
*>*  - John
*>
*>-- 
*>   I am: mom, attorney, fathers' rights advocate, founder of F.R.E.E.(tm)
*>*--> Fathers' Rights & Equality Exchange info: http://www.vix.com/free/
*>    To join the Fathers' Rights & Equality Exchange:  free-join@vix.com
*>		    1996 - a great year to be F.R.E.E.!
*
*Yea, yea, yea, Anne, you're a Father's Rights Advocate....  and it happens
*to draw in an awful lot of business for your legal practice so, in my very
*small brain, you're doing it (at least partially) for business reasons.


Well gosh John - that'd be a brilliant deduction, if it were true.

As a matter of fact, I keep my (very small, limited, exclusive) practice
*completely* separate from F.R.E.E. - always have, in part because I
knew there'd be folks like you who would *assume* such behaviour, and
make such allegations without bothering about the little details like..oh..
the facts, and the truth.


-- 
   I am: mom, attorney, fathers' rights advocate, founder of F.R.E.E.(tm)
*--> Fathers' Rights & Equality Exchange info: http://www.vix.com/free/
    To join the Fathers' Rights & Equality Exchange:  free-join@vix.com
		    1996 - a great year to be F.R.E.E.!

In article <Dr3FEp.10I@world.std.com>,
John Cooley <jcooley@world.std.com> wrote:

	[stuff removed]

>Yea, yea, yea, Anne, you're a Father's Rights Advocate....  and it happens
>to draw in an awful lot of business for your legal practice so, in my very
                                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^
>small brain, you're doing it (at least partially) for business reasons.
^^^^^^^^^^^^

Well, at least you admit it, John.  It's quite clear that you simply cannot
accept the fact that, to some people, information you see one way they see
in an entirely different way.  This weight loss business is one example.

This thread is another.  Someone posted that he's a champion of women's
rights, which might be important to some women.  I see no problem with this.
He's only emphasizing one of his qualities.  Your argument that Anne is
posting to gain business does not refute her reason(s) for posting.  It's 
important for her; that's all that counts.


					Robert
-- 
--------------------------
Robert Becker                                      robertb@world.std.com
Erstwhile bicyclist, avid father, longtime breather

Robert H Ruskin wrote:
> 
<edit>
> 
> The biggest crime about the "Third Date Rule" is that it boils everything
> down to sex. If sex is not in the works, then then relationship should be
> abandoned. Somehow if you go out on a "date" [I no longer know what that
> is] three times, you should know whether you want to go to bed with
> him/her. How stupid can you get!!!! Ah, but if you are a "friend" somehow
> you don't count as a possible romantic interest, you NEVER go out on a
> "date" with a friend. If there is one thing that angers me about today's
> generation, it is this application of the "Third Date Rule" because it is
> so dehumanizing. 
<edit>
> 
> We need to see each other less as sexual objects to be sought and
> possessed, and more as people with a sexual identity who we wish to
> understand and share ourselves with. Love is an unfolding of a flower
> that has no set schedule, and comes in many forms each needing
> exploration. Because you can jump into bed with a person does not by
> itself signify that a "relationship" has been born; nor does lack of sex
> in a relationship signify that a loving relationship does not exist.
> 
> --

   BINGO!  ...IMO, you hit the nail right on the head.

   Thank you very much Robert. It was about time some one got down
   to the real problem that the thread was originally attempting to 
   deal with.

-- 
-terry rasmussen (email: trr@ontos.com)
<standard disclaimers apply>

To weed out all of those pesky submissive women who might
respond, otherwise ?

John Cooley (jcooley@world.std.com) wrote:
: Robert H Ruskin <ruskinr@aruba.ccit.arizona.edu> wrote:
: >I am a 44 y.o. male, average 
: >looks, a champion of women's causes (!), and a decent all round nice 
: >fellow, in the next few months I will have earned my Ph.D. in Science.
: 
: Robert, I couldn't help but notice how you (and some other guys) like to
: mention that you're a champion of women's causes in describing yourself.
: Why do you do this?

-- 
Edward A. Bertsch (eab8)
Technical Intelligence   - voice 612 225 0954   fax 612 222 2353
PO Box 11145             - sales@twin-cities.com
Saint Paul, MN 55111 USA - http://www.twin-cities.com

In <Dr2Jvz.Fpu@world.std.com> jcooley@world.std.com (John Cooley)
writes: 
>
>Robert H Ruskin <ruskinr@aruba.ccit.arizona.edu> wrote:
>>I am a 44 y.o. male, average 
>>looks, a champion of women's causes (!), and a decent all round nice 
>>fellow, in the next few months I will have earned my Ph.D. in
Science.
>
>John Cooley <jcooley@world.std.com> wrote:
>>Robert, I couldn't help but notice how you (and some other guys) like
to
>>mention that you're a champion of women's causes in describing
yourself.
>>Why do you do this?
>
>Oops, I didn't say this clearly.  I'm not asking why do you champion
>women's cause, but why do you make it a point of mentioning that you
do.
 
In some circles that phrase is better than owning a Corvette or
possessing good dope in the quest to pick up chicks.  I'm surprised a
Mensanite didn't know that.. That's the reason 90% of the male members
join Mensa isn't it?.. hoping to get lucky with someone who doesn't
park her chewing gum on the headboard (only to retrieve it after).

ruskinr@aruba.ccit.arizona.edu (Robert H Ruskin) wrote:

<SNIP>

>The biggest crime about the "Third Date Rule" is that it boils everything 
>down to sex. If sex is not in the works, then then relationship should be 
>abandoned. Somehow if you go out on a "date" [I no longer know what that 
>is] three times, you should know whether you want to go to bed with 
>him/her. How stupid can you get!!!! Ah, but if you are a "friend" somehow 
>you don't count as a possible romantic interest, you NEVER go out on a 
>"date" with a friend. If there is one thing that angers me about today's 
>generation, it is this application of the "Third Date Rule" because it is 
>so dehumanizing. [It is interesting to note that women in their 20's who 
>consider themselves pretty, and who based upon their self evaluation 
>of their looks discard men because they are not "My type", tend to beg 
>for men when they hit 40-50 when their beauty is fading]. 

Perhaps I'm naive, or have lived a sheltered like, but this is the very first
time in my 35 years I have ever heard of this three date "rule". Are you sure
you didn't just make it up?

Jack

In article <Dr3FEp.10I@world.std.com>, jcooley@world.std.com (John Cooley)
wrote:

>Anne P. Mitchell Esq. <shedevil@vix.com> wrote:
>>In a recent message jcooley@world.std.com (John Cooley) tells us:
>>*
>>*Oops, I didn't say this clearly.  I'm not asking why do you champion
>>*women's cause, but why do you make it a point of mentioning that you do.
>>*
>>*  - John
>>
>>-- 
>>   I am: mom, attorney, fathers' rights advocate, founder of F.R.E.E.(tm)
>>*--> Fathers' Rights & Equality Exchange info: http://www.vix.com/free/
>>    To join the Fathers' Rights & Equality Exchange:  free-join@vix.com
>>                   1996 - a great year to be F.R.E.E.!
>
>Yea, yea, yea, Anne, you're a Father's Rights Advocate....  and it happens
>to draw in an awful lot of business for your legal practice so, in my very
>small brain, you're doing it (at least partially) for business reasons.

Could it be that Annie is doing it because it's something she believes
in?  Could it be that she's believed in it for years before she got her
law degree?  Could it be that she could actually make lots more money in
other areas of law practice, but chose not to because she saw a crying
need for fathers to be represented in custody and other family-law cases?

Having known Annie since a few years before she graduated law school, I
think that it no only could be, but that's how it is.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
|      Michelle Steiner        | ...and then the day came when the risk  |
|      steiner@best.com        |    to  remain tight in a bud was more   |
| http://www.best.com/~steiner |painful than the risk it took to blossom.|
|                              |                             --Anais Nin |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <Dr1z8t.BC2@world.std.com>,
   jcooley@world.std.com (John Cooley) wrote:

>Robert H Ruskin <ruskinr@aruba.ccit.arizona.edu> wrote:
>>I am a 44 y.o. male, average 
>>looks, a champion of women's causes (!), and a decent all round nice 
>>fellow, in the next few months I will have earned my Ph.D. in Science.
>
>Robert, I couldn't help but notice how you (and some other guys) like to
>mention that you're a champion of women's causes in describing yourself.
>Why do you do this?
>
>  - John
>

Maybe he wants a date or something. 
And theres nothing wrong with that. Just I wouldnt go out with him :)
Meaghan Walker'

In article <Dr3FEp.10I@world.std.com>, jcooley@world.std.com (John Cooley) writes:
> 
|> Yea, yea, yea, Anne, you're a Father's Rights Advocate....  and it happens
|> to draw in an awful lot of business for your legal practice so, in my very
|> small brain, you're doing it (at least partially) for business reasons.
|> 

Now, now, don't go around abusing our Shedevil!   

							Stefan

PS: There used to be a newsgroup called "alt.fan.shedevil" or something
    like that. Two or three years ago a particularly lurid murder
    case popped up in Canada, with one of the accused a young, 
    attractive woman. When "alt.fan.karla-homolka" was "suppressed" (I won't
    go into that ...), posters decamped to the other group .... much
    the dismay of F.R.E.E. folks ;->

    

Sorry Jack, I wish I could say that I made it up, but did not. I first 
encountered this attitude in 1983. Today it is more common than ever, 
especially with people under 32.

-- 

In article <4mqhud$9pl@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
Michael A. Knowlton  <mikek13@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <Dr2Jvz.Fpu@world.std.com> jcooley@world.std.com (John Cooley)
>writes: 
>>
>>Robert H Ruskin <ruskinr@aruba.ccit.arizona.edu> wrote:
>>>I am a 44 y.o. male, average 
>>>looks, a champion of women's causes (!), and a decent all round nice 
>>>fellow, in the next few months I will have earned my Ph.D. in
>Science.
>>
>>John Cooley <jcooley@world.std.com> wrote:
>>>Robert, I couldn't help but notice how you (and some other guys) like
>to
>>>mention that you're a champion of women's causes in describing
>yourself.
>>>Why do you do this?
>>
>>Oops, I didn't say this clearly.  I'm not asking why do you champion
>>women's cause, but why do you make it a point of mentioning that you
>do.
> 
>In some circles that phrase is better than owning a Corvette or
>possessing good dope in the quest to pick up chicks.  I'm surprised a
>Mensanite didn't know that.. That's the reason 90% of the male members
>join Mensa isn't it?.. hoping to get lucky with someone who doesn't
>park her chewing gum on the headboard (only to retrieve it after).

In some circles we look on men that claim to be women's rights champions
with deep, deep suspicion. I mean, the Corvette and the good dope are
easily empirically verified, but there are some men who would say just about
anything to pick up chicks. Now, men that ARE women's rights champions,
in a dependable way, are total babe magnets. We just don't take the claims
at face value after we've been burned once.

Incidentally, does Arizona really offer a PhD in "Science?" Here at Iowa
they make you choose a particular science - guess they're just nit-picky.
It makes me think of the "Ask Mr. Science" radio spots... "Remember, he
knows more than you do." "I've got a master's degree - in SCIENCE!"

Rebecca

ruskinr@aruba.ccit.arizona.edu (Robert H Ruskin) wrote:

>Sorry Jack, I wish I could say that I made it up, but did not. I first 
>encountered this attitude in 1983. Today it is more common than ever, 
>especially with people under 32.

Oh, shit, you mean it doesn't apply to me? (and I was just getting my "hopes"
up!) :)

ruskinr@aruba.ccit.arizona.edu (Robert H Ruskin) writes:

>Sorry Jack, I wish I could say that I made it up, but did not. I first 
>encountered this attitude in 1983. Today it is more common than ever, 
>especially with people under 32.

I think this attitude is much more common with people under age 32 in every
era. ;-)

Jackie

Rebecca,

You found me out!!! O.K. my Ph.D. is in Watershed Management with 
emphasis in Water Quality and Environmental Policy; and a Minor in 
Microbiology and Immunology. I used "Science" in a general sense to 
distinguish it from Education, or Business, or..... I've been a 
practicing Environmental Microbiologist for 22 years.

Bob

-- 

Why can't a person describe oneself as he/she wishes, without a lot of
attacking going on?  If someone is a champion of a particular cause, then
he/she should be proud to acknowledge it, and prospectively look to meet
someone who shares similar beliefs.  Just because you may not agree with
their motives, obvious or underlying, does not mean that someone else will
not, as well.  Let people live and rejoice in their ideologies; save your
criticisms for debates and other arenas where it is more apropos.

-CMR-

-- 
"Not loving is but a long dying..."

PLEASE: Do not send me email; posting works just as well.

CMR (c.moore.2@m.cc.utah.edu) wrote:
: Why can't a person describe oneself as he/she wishes, without a lot of
: attacking going on?  If someone is a champion of a particular cause, then

Everyone I know that claims to not be a murderer is just a latent murderer.

Some alive guy with a bad experience told me that, so I let him share
his feelings in a support group to convince him I wasn't at all like
those "other" non-murderers.

GMS
http://www.svs.com/users/gmark