🚀 go-pugleaf

wendy c wrote:
> 
> In article <33EBD194.2C2C@is3.nyu.edu>
> Terence <tqn6803@is3.nyu.edu> wrote:
> 
> > wendy c wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <33E930D8.5DEA@is3.nyu.edu>
> >> Terence <tqn6803@is3.nyu.edu> wrote:
> >>[on considering groups other than hetersexuals in considering the
> hypothesis "there is someone for everyone"]
> >> > Every thing was going so smooth, why did you have to bring this up?  Why
> >> > must everything involve this?
> >>
> >> because it is implicit in the original hypothesis.  the set of
> >> 'everyone' includes people of every sexual inclination,
> >> as well as celibate priests and nuns, polygamists, children,
> >> and homophobic internet geeks.
> >>

There is nothing implicit when you say men and women and describe their
interactions together. It's just a group wanting to be included.

> >
> > Not true, it does not matter past the way the hypothesis was meant to be
> > shaped.
> 
> the original poster proposed a pseudo-mathematical proof of
> a broad and vague theorem.  the phrase 'someone for' cannot be
> defined rigorously, so it is impossible to approach such a proof
> rigorously -- since it was all in fun, it doesn't really matter.
> 
> the term 'everyone', on the other hand, can be subjected to
> mathematical scrutiny and means the set of all individuals.
> 

someone for everyone is also a phrase that has been used heterosexually
in the past.

> > They do it in economics, he can do it here.
> 
> in economics, they define their terms and state their premises
> prior to the discussion.  if experts in the field of economics
> defined their terms by way of context, they would be taken
> about as seriously as fortune tellers, astrologers, and people
> who guess your weight at the carnival.
> 

In economics they make economic models that adhere to one point of view
or the other. They do not take everything into account, they never have
and never will. They are no different than fortune tellers, astrologers,
etc. But they do use a little better information.

> >  Besides the
> > original writer saying that he is not concerned with this group - there
> > are only two sexes, those that make ova, and are called women, and those
> > that produce sperm, those that are called men.
> 
> a:  thread drift
> b:  the original writer did not state that heterosexuality was a
> fundamental premise.
> 
> > Homophobic internet geeks?  I haven't met any of them. Maybe you are a
> > heterosexually challenged female that is scared that if the sperm met
> > the egg, and you had a kid, you wouldn't know what to do.
> 
> or maybe i am a mother of three with a mathematics background
> who doesn't care much for faulty logic.
> 
> > What set you
> > off? A boyfriend treat you badly? Or if not you, a friend of yours?
> 
> no, what 'set me off' was a closed-minded remark, and an attempt
> to dictate what people may or may not discuss in a public forum.
> 
> > I don't care what you do, but I will not read a lie being spread as the
> > truth, religiously, and this thread did not include them.  That has been
> > explained and proven as a fact.  What I can't speak anymore without
> > having to include them?  I think I can. That doesn't make anyone
> > homophobic, that means they want the friends that they want, or want to
> > talk as they want.
> 
> please, feel free to ignore any posts, ideas, or realities of life
> you choose.
> 
> wendy c
> 

As you do? No thank you. I will not ignore anything, but there was only
two people mentioned in the original post. Men and women. No other
groups, so your addendum is really unnecessary and unwarranted. It said
men and women.


Realism? Do you want to be realistic? Consider that Everyone has a
mother and a father - you tell me the realism there. Anything else is
just sex.

You want realism? How many gays were tired before their discovery? How
many were convinced that love can be anything - which is what the
message is now.

> I'm an ad man, not a red herring!
> -- Cary Grant in 'North by Northwest'


Terence