🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <43snoi$pok@news.nevada.edu>, amsler@nevada.edu (JOHN AMSLER) wrote:

> John Fereira (fereira@isis.com) wrote:
> : In article <43lsru$44d@aadt.sdt.com> leb@sdt.com writes:
> : >fereira@isis.com (John Fereira) wrote:
> : >>Stop looking for "solutions" to the dating problem.
> : >>Just get out and meet people.
> : >
> : >I think that's a little easier said than done, in this age
> : >of possible psycopaths around every corner (real or imagined).
> 
> : I never said it was easy.  Possible psychopaths around every corner?
> : Isn't that a bit paranoid?  
> 
> [snip]
> 
> Paranoid?  Hmmm.  You might want to ask the victims of Charles Manson,
> Richard Speck, Albert deSalvo, Jeffrey Dahmer, Henry Lee Lucas & Ottis
> Toole, or Gerald Gallego.  Unfortunately, you can't ... because they're
> all dead, viciously murdered not by ghosts or imaginary goblins, but by
> *real* psychopaths!  (Here's an idea:  Polly Klaas's parents are still
> around;  why don't you ask *them* about "paranoia" and "psychopaths?"  I'm
> sure they would have a unique perspective on the subject at which you seem
> to sneer.) In this corrupted, barbaric, morally rudderless, disintegrating
> "society," people -- especially women -- who don't adopt serious measures
> for their own self-defense and preservation are assuming an unacceptable
> risk ... attested to by the roster of any cemetery, the slabs of any
> morgue, or the blotter of any large-city police department!  For you to
> dismiss the matter as "paranoid" is quite haughty and condescending, at 
> least as I interpret it. 
> 
> (No personal offense is intended, of course, I'm merely responding to the
>  "Isn't that a bit paranoid?" crack.)
> 
> - John J. Amsler
>   OK, very funny, Scotty.  Now beam up my clothes!

Damn!  That's a pretty lonely attitude.  Sure!  There may be any number of
people out there who mean you harm.  For all you know, when you go to a
bar with your friends, there could be three or four rapists in there.  So
what?

Are you going to lock yourself in a closet?  You might want to consider
just being smart about it.  Walk with friends.  Never put yourself in a
situation that is asking for trouble.  (Like walking down an alley to your
car all by yourself.  Crossing a dark parking lot when leaving a bar,
restaurant, mall, etc...   Always take an extra couple of seconds to look
around you.  Observe your environment.  Be conscious of your surroundings,
the people around you, the buildings around you, etc...  But to lock
yourself away just because it's possible, is like not driving a car
because there could be a drunk driver ont he road.  Do you do that, or do
you drive defensively, observing those around, etc..

So it might take you longer.  But the length of time will depend on how
protective you THINK you have to be.  I would certainly be more cautious
in WATTS, than I would be in La Jolla.  But would I let it control my
life?  To an extent, maybe, but it really takes little time to take that
extra glance.  And if you start seeing someone, you have to LISTEN to get
any kind of indication about there character.  Do they have a lot of
friends, or just a few friends.  What kind of friend are they?  These
should be questions you always ask anyway.  

I don't think the comment made about paranoia is at all condescending.  It
just asks a question:  "Isn't that a bit paranoid?"

bazinj@vccnw05.its.rpi.edu (Jon SoAL Bazinet) elucidated the thesis:

>Hi all!

Hi Jon!

>dysfunctional

Jon, a friendly word of advice, OK?  "Dysfunctional family" is nothing
more than a trendy new pop-psychology way of saying "original sin."
There are people in this world who profit by convincing us "to be
human is to suck."  The 12-steppers, the Scientologists, the Shady
Divorce Lawyers Who Cater to Battered Women, the TV Evangelists, etc,
etc, are among them.  Take a little reality check and ask yourself
this innocuous question:  has there ever been a family that was not
"dysfunctional" (not counting 50s TV families on Nick at Nite) ???  

So what exactly is all this psychobabble good for?

>My point:
>SEX does not equal LOVE, happiness, intimacy, peace.

That's not exactly a revelation to anybody who's reached the age of
consent in this state.  Nonetheless, Sex is awfully good, even when
it's bad.  Especially when it's bad.  Don't get so hung up waiting for
the big rainbow you forget to deflower the smelly ones, Big Guy.

RB
--
Richard Bennett                                  Cupertino, CA

> >>Katharine A Harrison  <kaharris@mtholyoke.edu> wrote:
> 
> >>> I don't care for you sarcasm, and I don't care for your attitude.  
> >>
As I watch my tired and lifeless net body dragged over the coals I can't 
help but say one thing.  I was not trying to flame anyone by saying 
this.  I don't know how to flame and that is of course obvious.  I was 
just explaining my attitude.  Because I may not be as witty as the next 
does not mean that I can not express my opinions.  I believe there is 
something called free speech.  I have tried to keep from responding to 
some of the comments made about me in my absence but no longer will I 
hide.  You can flame me all you like, but I plan to pick the real 
statements from these "feeble" attempts to theoretically "pierce my 
armor".  Go ahead and try, but just the remember that nothing is worse 
than a woman scorned.

	Katharine

jncox@utsph.sph.uth.tmc.edu (Jo Nell Cox) wrote:

>Duuuhhh...would that be YOU, doc?  Such subtlety.  Nothing like waving your 
>credit limit around to attract the finest in feminine companionship.

Jo

I drove back from Las Vegas on Monday using 95.  There I discover
three places that would love to see a Gold card.  Cottontail Ranch is
only 180 miles north of Vegas, and the parking lot was pretty much
empty on a Monday afternoon.  So just walk in and flash those Gold
cards and you will find women that will attract feminine companionship
and insure that you will get lucky on  the first date.   <g>

Dave Jones

In article <alex.1059.306887F5@cts.com> alex@cts.com (Steve Alexander) writes:
>In article <tombal-2509952149060001@tombal.sna.com> tombal@sna.com (Thomas E. Ballard) writes:
>
>>I think the point here is, from what I have seen on this and related
>>threads, is not so much whether GE delivers or not but their merciless
>>sales tactics in getting people to sign up who might not have otherwise
>>done so.
>
>What a nation of victims the US is becoming. Really, are people soooo weak 
>they can't say "no thank you" to a sales person. If a person is that much of a 
>victim, their life is a mess anyway and GE is unlikely to make it any worse.
>
>"Merciless sales tactics" ???
>
> "Please Mr. salesman, show some mercy. Please don't make me pull out my 
>wallet, give you my credit card, sign the contract in three places, sign the 
>credit card slip, and not change my mind for three days (even though I am at 
>home out of your grasp).  Pleeeease have mercy on my dumb ass."
>
>What a load of rubbish. IMO.
 
I pretty much agree with you on this one...however...

I think a lot of there customers really *are* so weak that they can't
say "no thank you".  I think that GE and other high pressure dating service
actually prey on these kinds of people and use the kinds of sales tactics
that take advantage of desparate souls as much as they can.  GE may not
make these peoples lives any worse but they might not make it any better
either.  

-- 
John Fereira
fereira@isis.com
Isis Distributed Systems - Ithaca, NY

In article <44a1ki$j1c@tweety.sna.com>,  <frodo@sna.com> wrote:
>In article <449nbq$9so@panix3.panix.com>,
>   sethb@panix.com (Seth Breidbart) wrote:
>>In article <446s7o$5og@tweety.sna.com>,  <frodo@sna.com> wrote:
>>>In article <thurlowDFFE4E.1xs@netcom.com>,
>>>   thurlow@netcom.com (Robert Thurlow) wrote:
>>>>In article <Pine.ULT.3.91.950922111538.11088C-100000@mhc.mtholyoke.edu>,
>>>>Katharine A Harrison  <kaharris@mtholyoke.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>>> I don't care for you sarcasm, and I don't care for your attitude.  
>>>>
>>>>Look, if you want to flame Charles, you need to do a *lot* better
>>>>than that.  Trust me on this - I've seen some of the man's best
>>>>flame art :-)
>>
>>>Gee Rob, flaming on the net makes as much sence as lighting farts at the 
>>>movies. Maybe she doesn't want to flame hin at all?
>>
>>Then she shouldn't have done it at all, much less such a feeble
>>job of it.

>Seth - - - you have done such a poor job of snipping the thread I had to think 
>about what you presented here to figure out what I said. 

What a shame, forcing you to think.  I hope you didn't burn out
anything important.

I followed the Usenet guidelines for followups (see
news.announce.newusers) by editing the post I replied to down to the
minimum necessary for comprehension.  You might try that (rather than
quoting the entire post, including signature).

>Saying you don't caring for something such as sarcasm or attitude is the 
>expression or a feeling.  A flame on the other hand is a personel attack (I 
>will get flamed for grammar, spelling and stupidity for using personel 
>{personnel}in place of personal).

Personal attacks are a category of flame.  Aficionados of flaming as
an art form consider it the lowest category.

>Since caring is a feeling; are you saying that the usenet is not an 
>appropriate place to express feelings?

Not at all.  I suggested that if flaming isn't what someone desired to
do, then she shouldn't have done it.  I also pointed out that she did
it poorly.

> An alt binanary newsgroup might not be 
>an appropriate place for feelings but aren't "Singles" newsgroups appropriate 
>places to express feelings? 

Does that include my feelings that the flame was inappropriate (based
on a desire not to flame) and poorly done?

>Seth if you don't agree that a Singles newsgroup is a good place to share 
>feelings, why don't you restart the alt.sex.brothel newsgroup? That would be a 
>grand place to talk about sex between people without feelings or 
>relationships. 

"A" singles newsgroup?  Have you seen the abortion of a Newsgroups:
line up there?

>If you thought Katharine was flaming you must feel like a hotdog at a winnie 
>roast right now.

Hah.  It takes _real_ flames to affect me.  I doubt you're capable
thereof.

>That could be thought of as a personal attack. It wasn't meant as such. I just 
>wanted to point out to you that it was very hard for me to follow who was 
>saying what.

Count the ">" at the left margin.

>If I had wanted to flame you I might have said something like this:
>
>[Seth You are an idiot!  You did such a shit job of snipping the thread I 
>didjn't know who said what. Are you you using your Dad's computer? You write 
>like a 10 year old idiot.]
>
>I trust you can see the difference.

Yes: you can't flame for shit when you're trying to.

>To recap, as I see it.
>
>Katharine said:
>>>>> I don't care for you sarcasm, and I don't care for your attitude.  
>
>Frodo said:
>>>Gee Rob, flaming on the net makes as much sence as lighting farts at the 
>>>movies. Maybe she doesn't want to flame hin at all?
>
>Seth said:
>>Then she shouldn't have done it at all, much less such a feeble
>>job of it.

>Katharine expressed a feeling.
>
>Frodo expressed an opinion on flaming in general and his his feelings 
>reguarding Katharine's post.
>
>Seth launched a personal attack at Katharine for expressing her feelings.

Huh?  Seth said, based on Frodo's claim that Katharine was flaming and
might not have wanted to, that she did it very poorly, and shouldn't
have done it in the first place if she didn't want to.

>Seth if I am missing something here please enlighten me.

Hope this helps.

Seth

In article <43t1d8$b4i@news.onramp.net>,  <forsythe@onramp.net> wrote:
>
>That means so much coming from someone who's -- what -- 20?  15 years from
>now, your chances of getting married with be statistically lower than your
>chances of dying in a car accident.

If the fates are kind to her, 15 years from now she may realize that 
marriage and a car wreck are roughly equivalent and take steps to
distance herself from both.

-- 
Patricia Martin Steward                      pamstewa@nyx.cs.du.edu
I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is; 
I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express senti-
ments that differentiate me from a doormat.	 --Rebecca West, 1913

What a great story. I'm sure it helped a lot of sincere people here. I'm sorry
you had so much trouble. A nice guy like you doesn't deserve that kind of
treatment. We sure do appreciate hearing about your true experiences though.
And we wish you the best in the future. 

Best Regards to you and yours. 

pamstewa@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Patricia Steward) writes:

>If the fates are kind to her, 15 years from now she may realize that 
>marriage and a car wreck are roughly equivalent and take steps to
>distance herself from both.

I remember when Mayhar and Orc used to talk like that.

In article <44c6kk$3c1@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>, d-jones@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> jncox@utsph.sph.uth.tmc.edu (Jo Nell Cox) wrote:
> 
> >Duuuhhh...would that be YOU, doc?  Such subtlety.  Nothing like waving your 
> >credit limit around to attract the finest in feminine companionship.
> 
> Jo
> 
> I drove back from Las Vegas on Monday using 95.  There I discover
> three places that would love to see a Gold card.  Cottontail Ranch is
> only 180 miles north of Vegas, and the parking lot was pretty much
> empty on a Monday afternoon.  So just walk in and flash those Gold
> cards and you will find women that will attract feminine companionship
> and insure that you will get lucky on  the first date.   <g>

sounds interesting but i don't like sharing.

___________________________________________________________
Citizen Kane Gallery   checkout the new "song of the week"                          
  http://rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/rosebud/homepage/   
                                                                            
     "buildings burn...              people die...
         but real love is forever."  

Anybody had any experience with Maria Mancini, Matchmaker?  Her Philadelphia 
Magazine ads seem straightforward enough...

Valerie
GPKG

In article <44d6pn$l0n@nyx10.cs.du.edu>, pamstewa@nyx10.cs.du.edu
(Patricia Steward) wrote:

<snip>
>-- 
>Patricia Martin Steward                      pamstewa@nyx.cs.du.edu
>I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is; 
>I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express senti-
>ments that differentiate me from a doormat.      --Rebecca West, 1913

I hope you are wrong.  However, I stole your quote to send to my boss. 
She will love it.

Thanks,

Karon

------------------------------------------------
Karon G. Campbell                    All Reality is Virtual
 
I am me and only me 
Whatever that may be.

In article <44cti8$orv@panix3.panix.com>, sethb@panix.com (Seth Breidbart)
wrote:

>In article <44a1ki$j1c@tweety.sna.com>,  <frodo@sna.com> wrote:
>>In article <449nbq$9so@panix3.panix.com>,
>>   sethb@panix.com (Seth Breidbart) wrote:
>>>In article <446s7o$5og@tweety.sna.com>,  <frodo@sna.com> wrote:
>>>>In article <thurlowDFFE4E.1xs@netcom.com>,
>>>>   thurlow@netcom.com (Robert Thurlow) wrote:
>>>>>In article <Pine.ULT.3.91.950922111538.11088C-100000@mhc.mtholyoke.edu>,
>>>>>Katharine A Harrison  <kaharris@mtholyoke.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> I don't care for you sarcasm, and I don't care for your attitude.  
>>>>>
>>>>>Look, if you want to flame Charles, you need to do a *lot* better
>>>>>than that.  Trust me on this - I've seen some of the man's best
>>>>>flame art :-)
>>>
>>>>Gee Rob, flaming on the net makes as much sence as lighting farts at the 
>>>>movies. Maybe she doesn't want to flame hin at all?
>>>
>>>Then she shouldn't have done it at all, much less such a feeble
>>>job of it.
>
>>Seth - - - you have done such a poor job of snipping the thread I had to
think 
>>about what you presented here to figure out what I said. 
>
>What a shame, forcing you to think.  I hope you didn't burn out
>anything important.
>
>I followed the Usenet guidelines for followups (see
>news.announce.newusers) by editing the post I replied to down to the
>minimum necessary for comprehension.  You might try that (rather than
>quoting the entire post, including signature).
>
>>Saying you don't caring for something such as sarcasm or attitude is the 
>>expression or a feeling.  A flame on the other hand is a personel attack (I 
>>will get flamed for grammar, spelling and stupidity for using personel 
>>{personnel}in place of personal).
>
>Personal attacks are a category of flame.  Aficionados of flaming as
>an art form consider it the lowest category.
>
>>Since caring is a feeling; are you saying that the usenet is not an 
>>appropriate place to express feelings?
>
>Not at all.  I suggested that if flaming isn't what someone desired to
>do, then she shouldn't have done it.  I also pointed out that she did
>it poorly.
>
>> An alt binanary newsgroup might not be 
>>an appropriate place for feelings but aren't "Singles" newsgroups appropriate 
>>places to express feelings? 
>
>Does that include my feelings that the flame was inappropriate (based
>on a desire not to flame) and poorly done?
>
>>Seth if you don't agree that a Singles newsgroup is a good place to share 
>>feelings, why don't you restart the alt.sex.brothel newsgroup? That
would be a 
>>grand place to talk about sex between people without feelings or 
>>relationships. 
>
>"A" singles newsgroup?  Have you seen the abortion of a Newsgroups:
>line up there?
>
>>If you thought Katharine was flaming you must feel like a hotdog at a winnie 
>>roast right now.
>
>Hah.  It takes _real_ flames to affect me.  I doubt you're capable
>thereof.
>
>>That could be thought of as a personal attack. It wasn't meant as such.
I just 
>>wanted to point out to you that it was very hard for me to follow who was 
>>saying what.
>
>Count the ">" at the left margin.
>
>>If I had wanted to flame you I might have said something like this:
>>
>>[Seth You are an idiot!  You did such a shit job of snipping the thread I 
>>didjn't know who said what. Are you you using your Dad's computer? You write 
>>like a 10 year old idiot.]
>>
>>I trust you can see the difference.
>
>Yes: you can't flame for shit when you're trying to.
>
>>To recap, as I see it.
>>
>>Katharine said:
>>>>>> I don't care for you sarcasm, and I don't care for your attitude.  
>>
>>Frodo said:
>>>>Gee Rob, flaming on the net makes as much sence as lighting farts at the 
>>>>movies. Maybe she doesn't want to flame hin at all?
>>
>>Seth said:
>>>Then she shouldn't have done it at all, much less such a feeble
>>>job of it.
>
>>Katharine expressed a feeling.
>>
>>Frodo expressed an opinion on flaming in general and his his feelings 
>>reguarding Katharine's post.
>>
>>Seth launched a personal attack at Katharine for expressing her feelings.
>
>Huh?  Seth said, based on Frodo's claim that Katharine was flaming and
>might not have wanted to, that she did it very poorly, and shouldn't
>have done it in the first place if she didn't want to.
>
>>Seth if I am missing something here please enlighten me.
>
>Hope this helps.
>
>Seth

Much to do about nothing.

Karon

------------------------------------------------
Karon G. Campbell                    All Reality is Virtual
 
I am me and only me 
Whatever that may be.

In article <44fgdc$6o1@dub-news-svc-4.compuserve.com>,
100416.151@compuserve.com (Brian Drummond) wrote:


>Flame on, you crazy diamond!
>
>>       Katharine
>
>- Brian
>
>My opinion is not my opinion, and therefore it is known as my opinion.

Sorry Brian, I disagree.

Sparkle in your many facets.

Karon

------------------------------------------------
Karon G. Campbell                    All Reality is Virtual
 
I am me and only me 
Whatever that may be.

>> ==========Sammyboy, 9/26/95==========
>> Those companies are a pain in the ass.

Only if you're stupid enough to bend over in front of them...

Any successful business transaction requires going in facing directly front
with eyes open. To avoid PITA just walk away. 

This reply is about taking responsibility for your life instead of constantly
blaming institutions for your lack of well being. 

It's not directed at you, Sammyboy, (you just happened to say the right words)
but to all the readers it might apply to, especially those that won't like
hearing this.

>> ==========Dave, 9/27/95==========
>> ...Cottontail Ranch...180 miles north of Vegas, ....
>> ...you will find women....get lucky on  the first date. <g>

Pretty funny, Dave. But let me offer this: there are no "women" in those
places--only hooers.

>> ==========John Fereira, 9/27/95==========
>> I think a lot of there customers really *are* so weak that they can't
>> say "no thank you".  I think that GE and other high pressure dating
service
>> actually prey on these kinds of people and use the kinds of sales tactics
>> that take advantage of desparate souls as much as they can. 

John, ever hear of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs? It's an accepted principle of
people that says there are basic needs such as food and shelter that man
cannot live without. Only once these needs have been met does man then go out
searching to fulfill other--less urgent-- wants such as love and romance. 

What this tells me is that GE is offering a service for a non-critical
"want"--not a "need". Therefore the only people even considering this service
are those that are already pretty well off in the basic "needs" department. 

Therefore I wonder about your use of the word "desparate souls". 

Additionally, absolutely no reasonably intelligent person goes in for a GE
interview thinking they're going to get a free service. Everyone knows there's
a price attached. So everyone knows they're going into a sales situation. Just
like everyone who buys a car knows the saleman is trying to sell you a car.
You'd have to be pretty much a real idiot not to know that. 

I haven't heard of one case yet where a prospect at GE was tied to a chair and
forced to sign up under threat of physical or mental torture or worse. 

If someone tells you "I can give you a discount price, but if you don't take
it now, you'll have to pay the full price later" does this constitute "the
kinds of sales tactics that take advantage of desperate souls as much as they
can"? 

Do you know ANYONE that would fall for such a technique if they really didn't
want the service to begin with???? 

And no I don't have any other affiliation with GE other than being a happy
customer. And I'm not defending their tactics either. I'm just saying "get
real" to all the people who are flinging blunted arrows at a situation that
looks an awful lot like envy to me. 

-Mike

On 25 Aug, Katharine A Harrison <kaharris@mtholyoke.edu> wrote:

>I just thought you all might like to know that I have given up.  
>I don't care to fight anymore.  
>[[snip]] You won't hear from me again I can promise you that.  Good day.

On 27 Aug, Katharine A Harrison <kaharris@mtholyoke.edu> wrote:
*** Welcome back! ***
>As I watch my tired and lifeless net body dragged over the coals I can't 
>help but say one thing.  I was not trying to flame anyone by saying 
>this.  I don't know how to flame and that is of course obvious.  
Better ... reverse flaming works as well as anything.
>I was just explaining my attitude.  
BIG mistake. Outside of constructive debate, _never_ explain anything.

Above all, _never_never_ explain you were explaining anything!
>Because I may not be as witty as the next 
(tactful omission of subject)
>does not mean that I can not express my opinions.  I believe there is 
>something called free speech.  I have tried to keep from responding to 
>some of the comments made about me in my absence but no longer will I 
>hide.  
Who was it who once said "You have the right to remain silent"?

>You can flame me all you like, but I plan to pick the real 
>statements from these "feeble" attempts to theoretically "pierce my 
>armor".
If you're after the real statements, you may have to wait. 

>  Go ahead and try, but just the remember that nothing is worse 
>than a woman scorned.
Try "Hell hath no fury like ..." (Shakespeare? But then, what would an
ex-physicist net geek like me know). Anyway, there's power in _his_
language. If only he had an account, we'd see some REAL flames!

Glad to see the change of mind. PS if you were originally making a
point, I missed it 'cos the original post fell off my server. But
that's probably irrelevant, it's the journey that matters.

Flame on, you crazy diamond!

>	Katharine

- Brian

My opinion is not my opinion, and therefore it is known as my opinion.

In article <44a1ki$j1c@tweety.sna.com>,  <frodo@sna.com> wrote:

>Seth - - - you have done such a poor job of snipping the thread I had to think 
>about what you presented here to figure out what I said. 

No, he edited his post properly, leaving only relevant stuff
which he was about to comment on.  You should do that, too.
We all have real newsreaders that let us go back and refer
to your original post if we want to, so why make us read it
all again?

>Seth if I am missing something here please enlighten me.

I doubt there's enough wieldable light in the world to do
it, in your case.

Rob T

sethb@panix.com (Seth Breidbart) wrote:

  "Then she shouldn't have done it at all, much less such a feeble
   job of it."

... yes, it pays to prepare ...

thelarch@kalypso.cybercom.net (The Larch) wrote:
>I've often thought that if everyone returned business reply cards for
>products or services in which they were uninterested empty or with a
>polite "No, thanks", there'd be a lot less junk mail. Or at least
>lower postal rates.

Back when companies that put bound-in ad sheets in magazines would
sometimes use a gummed reply form with directions to stick it to an
envelope to send your reply (which form would usually become stuck to
the facing page, tearing it when you tried to peel it loose), rather
than making a two-sided business reply card out of it, I checked with
a post office and verified that, yes, if you pasted that form to a
larger package, the company would have to pay first class return
postage on it. I then return-mailed about a dozen bricks carefully
wrapped in wrapping paper. Not long afterward, these stick-on reply
forms disappeared. I checked, you can't do it with the business reply
cards.

Another trick I used when I had access to the materials was to cut
1/8" lead sheet to size to fit into business reply envelops and mail
them back.


-- 
Sean R. Malloy               | American Non Sequitur
    Naval Medical Center     |       Society
    San Diego, CA 92134-5000 |
malloy@cris.com              | "We may not make sense,
srmalloy@snd10.med.navy.mil  |  but we do like pizza"

amsler@nevada.edu (JOHN AMSLER) wrote:

>John Fereira (fereira@isis.com) wrote:
>: In article <43lsru$44d@aadt.sdt.com> leb@sdt.com writes:
>: >fereira@isis.com (John Fereira) wrote:
>: >>Stop looking for "solutions" to the dating problem.
>: >>Just get out and meet people.
>: >
>: >I think that's a little easier said than done, in this age
>: >of possible psycopaths around every corner (real or imagined).
>
>: I never said it was easy.  Possible psychopaths around every corner?
>: Isn't that a bit paranoid?  
>
>[snip]
>
>Paranoid?  Hmmm.  You might want to ask the victims of Charles Manson,
>Richard Speck, Albert deSalvo, Jeffrey Dahmer, Henry Lee Lucas & Ottis
>Toole, or Gerald Gallego.  Unfortunately, you can't ... because they're
>all dead, viciously murdered not by ghosts or imaginary goblins, but by
>*real* psychopaths!  (Here's an idea:  Polly Klaas's parents are still
>around;  why don't you ask *them* about "paranoia" and "psychopaths?"  I'm
>sure they would have a unique perspective on the subject at which you seem
>to sneer.) In this corrupted, barbaric, morally rudderless, disintegrating
>"society," people -- especially women -- who don't adopt serious measures
>for their own self-defense and preservation are assuming an unacceptable
>risk ... attested to by the roster of any cemetery, the slabs of any
>morgue, or the blotter of any large-city police department!  For you to
>dismiss the matter as "paranoid" is quite haughty and condescending, at 
>least as I interpret it. 
>
>(No personal offense is intended, of course, I'm merely responding to the
> "Isn't that a bit paranoid?" crack.)
>
>- John J. Amsler
>  OK, very funny, Scotty.  Now beam up my clothes!
>

Let's put those things into perspective, John.  There are over 250 Million people
in this country....the number killed by "psychopaths" like you mentioned, percentage
wise is incredibly low...this not including "normal" murders involving people already
acquainted.  You probably have a better chance of hitting the lottery than to get
involved with a "psychopathic" killer.  The corrupt, moral-less society you talk about
in a sense has always existed, the difference is that we didn't have "yellow journalists"
on the TV, Radio, and Newpapers shouting about all the negative things happening.  It's my
contention that we have been intentionally programmed to be "paranoid."  When people
are afraid of each other, there is no unity, no sense of community.  Without unity, there is
no defense against inequity, violations of personal freedom, and police-state tactics.  It has
been a trick of every totalitarian ruler in the 20th century to erode personal freedoms in the 
name of "law and order."  And if we are made to believe that our society has become 
anarchistic, then we will accept any laws, restrictions and violations of our dearest held rights
if they proport to ensure our security.  As a 44 year old man who has seen this country change,
I can attest that we are much less free than we were 30 years ago.  In fact, in reality, we are 
only as free as the powers that be decide we are.  When they decide, for whatever reason, that 
we have become a threat, watch how fast your freedoms evaporate into thin air...with almost no
one to defend you, as there are few lawyers today willing to buck the system as in the 60's.  
It's time we stop being afraid of each other and start regarding strangers, not as a threat, but as 
a potential friend.  Be cautious, but not paranoid.  Careful, but not cold.  A very wise Man once put
it this way..."Be wise as serpents, but harmless as doves."  This applies to men as well as women,
though it seems to many women we men are the "enemy."  Somehow I don't believe "man-hating"
was one of the goals of the early women's movement.  One of the most disturbing phenomena I have
observed is the complete disrespect for anyone else's viewport but our own.  This "flaming" on the 
net is to me symptomatic of the total alienation from each other that has occurred over the last 20 or 
so years.  I was once under the naive belief that computer users by nature were intelligent and somewhat
educated..but the preponderance of intolerance that I've seen here just proves that many of these so-called
cyber-heads are as ignorant as any bigotted, racist redneck.  (and I'm not referring to Southerners...rednecks 
hail from all areas).  In fact, I've seen a lot of them right here in Boston.  I've strayed from the main subject, but
to return...caution in dealing with strangers is prudent, paranoia is destructive...most of the people you meet are
generally just like you...average folks just trying to get by, with the same concerns and probably similar desires in
life that you and I have.  We're lonely and alienated because we're afraid...and that's not good.  I've seen it in some
of the women I've talked to here.  They'll talk on the phone or.online...but won't meet, even in a public, perfectly safe
place.  And these are local women.  I can't understand it.  Why would someone prefer a relationship via electronic 
media rather than personal contact??  Is that the future of romance in this country??  If this is the "Brave New World"...
thanks but no thanks...this life is short and we all have to go sometime...I'd rather take my chances with the real world
than to sit, alone, bored, and frightened of "imaginary" boogiemen out to get me.  That life isn't worth living in my book.
I say imaginary in the sense that the odds are so against it happening as to be miniscule....life isn't worth living if it becomes
little more than an avoidance of death.  
As one of my favorite "philosophers" puts it...."That's just my opinion......I could be wrong."




"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to 
    live in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden

	Mark <dsrice@sgi.net> wrote:

>I'm looking for an answer to my question.  HOW DO I ASK OUT A GIRL WITH 
>THE LEAST RISK OF REJECTION?

Have your chaufer drive you to where she is and hold out a wad of $100
bills for her to see.  

It won't work every time for sure,  but it will work more often than
not.

In article <44i1jg$9df@taurus.sgi.net>, Mark <dsrice@sgi.net> wrote:

>I'm looking for an answer to my question.  HOW DO I ASK OUT A GIRL WITH 
>THE LEAST RISK OF REJECTION?

With a .44 Magnum.  Works once.

You go to jail where you hope to be rejected.

Just joking.  Not funny.  Fairly accurate.

Karon

------------------------------------------------
Karon G. Campbell                    All Reality is Virtual
 
I am me and only me 
Whatever that may be.

Try putting the tip of the revolver into her cheek as you ask the
question.  I saw it in a movie once, and besides, women go for those
strong silent types.

  -- Robert

Mark <dsrice@sgi.net> articulated:

>I'm looking for an answer to my question.  HOW DO I ASK OUT A GIRL WITH 
>THE LEAST RISK OF REJECTION?

amsler@nevada.edu (JOHN AMSLER) wrote:
>John Fereira (fereira@isis.com) wrote:
>: In article <43lsru$44d@aadt.sdt.com> leb@sdt.com writes:
>: >I think that's a little easier said than done, in this age
>: >of possible psycopaths around every corner (real or imagined).
>: I never said it was easy.  Possible psychopaths around every corner?
>: Isn't that a bit paranoid?  
>
>Paranoid?  Hmmm.  You might want to ask the victims of Charles Manson,
>Richard Speck, Albert deSalvo, Jeffrey Dahmer, Henry Lee Lucas & Ottis
>Toole, or Gerald Gallego.  Unfortunately, you can't ... because they're
>all dead, viciously murdered not by ghosts or imaginary goblins, but by
>*real* psychopaths!

And now, in an attempt to cut off all rational discourse on this
subject, hoping that this will cause the thread to die an unnatural
death...

If you're _that_ paranoid about someone leaping out of the bushes or
climbing through a window to assault you, then you should go out and
get yourself a firearm and learn how to use it properly to defend
yourself.

This message has had its crosspost expanded to include
talk.politics.guns, too, just to make sure we drag in all the pro- and
anti-gun people.

Oh, yes, I almost forgot; to make _sure_ the information content drops
to zero, I need to compare someone to Adolph Hitler. But _who_? There
are so _many_ good choices here...


-- 
Sean R. Malloy               | American Non Sequitur
    Naval Medical Center     |       Society
    San Diego, CA 92134-5000 |
malloy@cris.com              | "We may not make sense,
srmalloy@snd10.med.navy.mil  |  but we do like pizza"

I think I know how you all feel.  I was a member of GE maybe 7 years
ago.  Had a high pressure sales presentation, got hooked, did it.
Paid too much money for shitty pictures.  Through the course of my
membership I believe I selected, maybe 50 women to go out on a date
with.  Out of that 50, I only went out with 4 of them.  All the others
declined.

I would advise anyone considering GE, save your money, buy a new
outfit, get a haircut (style) and go out to a club and have a great
time by yourself.  who knows you may even meet someone.  And you'll be
about $1500 ahead of the game.

Later.

What if it doesn't work then what do I do.  And I am trying to be 
serious.

>What if it doesn't work then what do I do.  And I am trying to be 
>serious.

You might try something small.  A female friend told me that she used to
like to go out for coffee with people rather than out to dinner.  It's much
more informal and much less is at stake so (hopefully) you can relax and be
yourself.  I tend to agree.  You can learn a fair amount about a person over
a cup of coffee or an ice cream cone--certainly enough to decide whether to
try for something more substantial later.  And there's something calming
about sitting at a table (particularly outdoors) watching the hustle and
bustle of people, rather than sitting in a dark, quiet restaurant where
there's little to do but stare at your date (I'm not dismissing that, I'm
just saying that it adds anxiety in first-dates). 

Something else--if it doesn't work, find another person to ask.  The problem
with the word "rejection" is that it's so strong.  If you ask a girl out and
she says no, she's not saying "I hate you, you disgust me."  She's just
declining the offer to go out.  She may have good reasons, she may have
stupid reasons, and it may be her loss.  But it isn't like she's cutting you
off at the knees.  If she were freezing to death, and you trudged through a 
blizzard with warm food and clothing, and she said, "go away.  I don't want
it," THAT'S REJECTION.  

This isn't answering your question (how do I minimize the chance of
rejection) but I don't think there is an answer.  It's like being a batter
in baseball--you can't get a hit every time.  Even Ted Williams only hit
safely 4 out of 10 times.  You can do certain things to try and make
yourself more attractive to the opposite sex, but there's no 100% guarantee. 
There's not even a 90% guarantee.  Sometimes you're going strike out. 
Sometimes you're going to fly out.  It may be your fault, and it may NOT be
your fault but you'll be out anyway.
 
The best thing you can do is learn how to deal with the strikeouts and not
let them upset you.  IMO, the worst idea in the world is that there is only
ONE true love out there for everyone, and if you miss her, you never find
another.  It's BS.  I've met a number of truly superlative women.  I don't
meet them often, and when I do they're usually married or interested in
other people.  But every time I do, I'm heartened by the fact that there's
more than one, and they're out there.  It's like (to change similes) finding
gems in a mound of rocks.  A lot of women are sandstone and worthless,
colorless rocks.  But there are sapphires, rubies, emeralds, and even some
diamonds in there (and the best part is, different people think different
rocks are diamonds).  This is the trick--there is more than one diamond in
the pile.  If you find a diamond and you can't keep it--THERE ARE STILL MORE
DIAMONDS in the pile.  You have to dig and sift and it's time consuming and
hard work and it's often frustrating.  If you believe there are more
diamonds, you'll be able to keep searching and (hopefully) you'll find you
can keep.  But if you believe that there is only one diamond and you lose it--
you're going to be miserable.  

Good luck.  I hope you get whatever or whomever it is you're looking for.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Ollinger - jaollnge@netcom.com - Seasons change with the scenery 
weaving time in tapestry; won't you stop and remember me? -- Simon/Garfunkle
The John Barry Resource: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/ja/jaollnge/jbarry.htm
The Lynne Russell Resource: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/ja/jaollnge/lynne.htm

In article <44i1jg$9df@taurus.sgi.net> Mark <dsrice@sgi.net> writes:
>I'm looking for an answer to my question.  HOW DO I ASK OUT A GIRL WITH 
>THE LEAST RISK OF REJECTION?
 
Go into any brothel in Story county Nevada and write your request on 
$100 bill.

-- 
John Fereira
fereira@isis.com
Isis Distributed Systems - Ithaca, NY

Mark <dsrice@sgi.net> wrote:

>I'm looking for an answer to my question.  HOW DO I ASK OUT A GIRL WITH 
>THE LEAST RISK OF REJECTION?

Simply ask her out, no BS or anything fancy.  No quick come on lines
at all!  Having a single rose to give her first might help.  For what
to do, have several plans of fun things to do and skip the romantic
candle lite dinners for two on the first date.  However if she is a
student and has night classes, then a dinner date outside of the
Cafateria with Candles might  be a good idea.  Try to have fun and be
yourself.  




Dave Jones

1935 will go down in History!  For the first time, a civalized
nation has full gun registration!  Our streets will be safer,
our police more efficent and the world will follow our lead 
into the future   ---   Adolf Hitler

Mark <dsrice@sgi.net> elucidated the thesis:

>I'm looking for an answer to my question.  HOW DO I ASK OUT A GIRL WITH 
>THE LEAST RISK OF REJECTION?

The methods with the least risk of rejection have the highest risk of
infection.  Funny how that works.

RB
--
Richard Bennett                                  Cupertino, CA

I'm looking for an answer to my question.  HOW DO I ASK OUT A GIRL WITH 
THE LEAST RISK OF REJECTION?

Mark <dsrice@sgi.net> wrote:

>What if it doesn't work then what do I do.  And I am trying to be 
>serious.

If an honest approach to a gal, doesn't work, it doesn't work!  There
is absolutely nothing that you can do!  So look for another gal.  Some
people go fishing or hunting and don't catch anything, but that
doesn't stop them from going the next time!  

Think of yourselve as a hunk of High Carbon steel.  You approach a gal
and she is looking for a hunk of Pig Iron.  You are not what she is
looking for, and that is that.  However when you find that gal, that
is looking for High Carbon Steel, then you are onto something GREAT!

Ted William struck out more times than he hit the ball.  Yet he didn't
let the strike outs stop him from swinging, did he?  So don't let your
strike outs slow you down, keep swinging!!!

Dave Jones

Sorry if I mispelled your name. Just happened to tune into this area and 
read your message. I don't know the background but you sound like a very 
nice and a reasonable person.  Sorry, you might have been flamed.  I'm in 
Denver (travelling all over the country), wondering if you would like to 
correspond, etc.?

Tim.

Sorry if I mispelled your name. Just happened to tune into this area and 
read your message. I don't know the background but you sound like a very 
nice and a reasonable person.  Sorry, you might have been flamed.  I'm in 
Denver (travelling all over the country), wondering if you would like to 
correspond, etc.?

Tim.

Sorry if I mispelled your name. Just happened to tune into this area and 
read your message. I don't know the background but you sound like a very 
nice and a reasonable person.  Sorry, you might have been flamed.  I'm in 
Denver (travelling all over the country), wondering if you would like to 
correspond, etc.?

Tim.

OK.  If you are serious, then try this one.

I was once told, "In order to have friends, one must first be
friendly."

Mark <dsrice@sgi.net> articulated:

>What if it doesn't work then what do I do.  And I am trying to be 
>serious.

In article <44ij05$rju@bird3.i-link.net>,
Eddie James <edjames@i-link.net> wrote:
>	Mark <dsrice@sgi.net> wrote:
>
>>I'm looking for an answer to my question.  HOW DO I ASK OUT A GIRL WITH 
>>THE LEAST RISK OF REJECTION?

Do you really know how much risk there is?
An interesting exercise suggested in a social skills workshop
is go out to a public place one night a week and talk to people
until YOU are explicitly rejected by three people.  You or mutually
agreeing to end a conversation doesn't count.
I hear the results are that it is hard to complete this assignment.

Mark <dsrice@sgi.net> wrote:

> I'm looking for an answer to my question.  HOW DO I ASK OUT A GIRL WITH 
> THE LEAST RISK OF REJECTION?

Ask someone who obviously has a crush on you.  Someone who always 
goes out of her way to be near you, talk to you.

If you're asking about approaching a specific girl (isn't that 
illegal anyway) or woman then I have no answer for you.

Good Luck,
 
Aqua

How do you ask out a girl with the least risk of rejection?	  
First, find out what the persons interests are.  If she likes 
a certain kind of movie (adventure or comedy) or a certain 
actor, ask her to see the latest movie of the kind she 
perfers.  If she likes needle point or crafts, find out when 
the next craft show is in town, and ask her to it.  People are 
more likely to do something they like to do, even if they are 
not familiar (pre-first date) with the person yet.  Good luck.

   HEY!

  SEE THE CROSSPOSTING! *WHY* IN THE BLOODY HELL DO YOU HAVE TO KEEP THIS 
THREAD ALIVE AND NOT EDIT THE NEWSGROUPS? IF GOD FORBID, I WERE TRYING TO 
FOLLOW A CONVERSATION, IT WOULD BE DROWNED OUT BY SCORES OF POSTS OF THE 
WORLD IN GENERAL.

  (And yes, I am shouting!) Something this global should be in 
soc.singles, it has no place in the regionals. I tried earlier, but then 
people took up on it. I think I speak for other regional groups when I 
say, let's keep them regional! Keep the general in soc.singles. This 
crossposted discussion is drowning out everything else on pgh.singles.
  I've tried applying random warnings to minimize it, however to no avail.

  Bear in mind, you you respond to a crossposted thread, you are 
responding to a lot of groups you can't read anyway, which is considered 
impolite.

   Thank you,

P J Volk
(Not this mean in real life....)

In article <44s1ej$rf3@swsu65.swmed.edu>,
Leslie  <LMiles@Mednet.swmed.edu> wrote:
>How do you ask out a girl with the least risk of rejection?	  
>First, find out what the persons interests are.  If she likes 
>a certain kind of movie (adventure or comedy) or a certain 
>actor, ask her to see the latest movie of the kind she 
>perfers.  If she likes needle point or crafts, find out when 
>the next craft show is in town, and ask her to it.  People are 
>more likely to do something they like to do, even if they are 
>not familiar (pre-first date) with the person yet.  Good luck.
>
>

Concurring 100% !!!

If you don't find someone in H.S. or College,
There's a very good chance you'll be alone for
a long, long, time.

Signed,

Alone at 29 - heading for infinity.....

In article <44vkmk$sft@Twain.MO.NET>,  <commando@MO.NET> wrote:
|Concurring 100% !!!
|
|If you don't find someone in H.S. or College,
|There's a very good chance you'll be alone for
|a long, long, time.

Nonsense.  Agreed that college is a good place to meet people, but
there is something to be said for establishing your *own* life before
getting married and all that.

|Alone at 29 - heading for infinity.....

Bosh.  I met my current GF at my ripe old age of 32.  I have had several
very nice relationships since leaving school.  

Feeling a great pressure to meet the right person and settle down before
leaving college will not promote a healthy relationship.

There is a sea of available women out there, and there are very effective
ways of meeting them available.  Feeling sorry for yourself not only will
not get you anywhere, it will sabotage whatever other efforts you
pursue.

					Dave

A news post an384217@anon.penet.fi (The Kid) spewed: 

>I think I know how you all feel.  I was a member of GE maybe 7 years
>ago.  Had a high pressure sales presentation, got hooked, did it.
>Paid too much money for shitty pictures.  Through the course of my
>membership I believe I selected, maybe 50 women to go out on a date
>with.  Out of that 50, I only went out with 4 of them.  All the others

My cousin and I decided to go in GE at the same time.  I made an appointment,
but inquired as to the fees.  They said they won't discuss fees over the phone,
and I sez forget it.

They called me back a few times, and one of these wenches actually got very
nasty with me after I insisted that I decided against it.  Fuckin CUNT!

In article <4571vq$nrg@what.whytel.com> schow@whytel.com (El Sicko) writes:

>My cousin and I decided to go in GE at the same time.  I made an appointment,
>but inquired as to the fees.  They said they won't discuss fees over the phone,
>and I sez forget it.

>They called me back a few times, and one of these wenches actually got very
>nasty with me after I insisted that I decided against it.  Fuckin CUNT!

I suspect that El Sicko was very wise to avoid GE. Probably wise to avoid 
women altogether. With an attitude such as displayed in his post, the chances 
of success with people of the female persuasion are, IMO, remote. On second 
thought, the chances of success are remote *period*, IMO.

Of course, there's a possibility that El Sicko is actually a wonderful 
person who has lots of friends and enjoys life fully, but I think not.

- Steve

In <4457ka$5rf@shellx.best.com>, richard@bennett.com (Richard Bennett) writes:
>hc.mtholyoke.edu>
>
>Katharine A Harrison <kaharris@mtholyoke.edu> elucidated the thesis:
>>I would like to hurt her and then hurt you.   
>
>Damn, Kathy, I bet you're a lot of fun on a date.
>
>>Wait a second what am I saying.  Let me not lower myself to your 
>>level.  I don't have the time to waste on some low life scum as yourself
>
>Frankly dear, you sound a bit pre-menstrual.  Did you take your
>vitamins this time?  Or are you showing
>haven't-been-laid-in-so-long-I-wanna-kill-anything-that-moves
>symptoms.  Perhaps an electric friend is what you need.
>
>RB, who believes in rechargeables
>--
>Richard Bennett                                  Cupertino, CA
I can recommend the SYBIAN, no need for recharging. A little on the expensive
side, but heck, it'll beat those uncontrollable urges to hurt, maim and kill...even
if it is only in cyberspace!!!

mktentry@wco.com elucidated the thesis:

>I can recommend the SYBIAN, no need for recharging. A little on the expensive
>side, but heck, it'll beat those uncontrollable urges to hurt, maim and kill...even
>if it is only in cyberspace!!!

A testimonial from personal experience?  Perhaps a donation to the
Women's Studies department at Mo Ho is in order.

RB
--
Richard Bennett                                  Cupertino, CA

 any women who want to go out with 6'1,180,brown hair/eyes guy,
please write back for more info

In <4586n0$lq5@shellx.best.com>, richard@bennett.com (Richard Bennett) writes:
>mktentry@wco.com elucidated the thesis:
>
>>I can recommend the SYBIAN, no need for recharging. A little on the expensive
>>side, but heck, it'll beat those uncontrollable urges to hurt, maim and kill...even
>>if it is only in cyberspace!!!
>
>A testimonial from personal experience?  Perhaps a donation to the
>Women's Studies department at Mo Ho is in order.
>
>RB
>--
>Richard Bennett                                  Cupertino, CA
Sure, but how many MO HO's do you want???