stuff, mainly
Meredith L. Giberson
In article <555klq$q...@izzy4.izzy.net>, se...@izzy5.izzy.net (Sanford E.
Walke IV) wrote:
--> A male friend of mine (JT) and I were emailing back and forth earlier today
--> about relationships and such. One of his responses to me makes a LOT
of sense,
--> to me at least, and I'm going to share it with you all. Aren't you lucky?
-->
--> This is also to explain the background behind my new sig quote.
-->
--> In response to:
-->
--> "Women are liars."
-->
--> (which I wrote)
-->
--> JT wrote:
--> I don't know that I totally agree with that...in fact, I can only agree
--> with that if it is amended to read:
-->
--> "Most women find it impossible to quickly and accurately define the truth"
This reminds me of a conversation I had with my husband last night. "Did
we get any email?" he said, passing me on the way to the computer.
"No," I said.
Five minutes later, he was standing in the doorway of our bedroom, looking
puzzled. "There were three new messages from the Couples-L and two letters
from Tom," he said.
"I didn't think you'd want to read them," I replied.
"But you said there wasn't any mail," he whined.
"I meant there wasn't any IMPORTANT mail," I answered.
Now, from my husband's point of view, I was lying. But from my point of
view, I was simply telling him more of the truth than he, as a man, had any
right to know. He saw it as concealing the truth; I saw it as doing him a
favor. By telling him there was no mail, I was saving him from the
disappointment of -thinking- there was something interesting there only to
realize seconds later that there was not. I mean, isn't that one of the
worst things about the net? "You have 1 new message!" your account tells
you happily, and you get all excited. Then you open up your mailbox and
find a letter from the Astrologists of America who, for fifty bucks, will
send you email telling you what you had for lunch last Tuesday. Oh, the
disappointment!
And I was saving him from that. But was he grateful? NO! And that's the
moral of this story. Men are ingrates.
--> I've had a great many women tell me things, then later they found out that
--> they didn't really understand how they felt.
After a great deal of thought, I have come up with what I believe is a
workable theory with regards to how men and women communicate.
Men, the good ones anyway, say what they believe to be true.
Women, both sorts, say what they *want* to be true.
This, of course, will not apply to all women or all men. It's just my own
personal generalization.
Therefore, a man who says "I love you" will more often than not be making a
statement of truth.
A woman who says "I love you", however, could mean A) that she loves you,
or B) that you're so pathetic that she feels really sorry for you and would
really LIKE to love you, because that would probably make you feel better
about things, or C) that she doesn't really love you but is afraid she's
not capable of loving anyone so she's going to pretend she loves you and
hope it turns out to be true, or D) that she really wants to be in love.
I think basically it works like that because most men live in the present
and most women live in the future, but that's just a theory based on the
men and women I've known in my life, admittedly a very small percentage of
the total number of men and women in existence today.
Apologies to all women who feel that I have utterly betrayed my gender with
the preceding statements. To make up for it, I'll add that:
Women, IMHO, have to deal with emotions much more complex than those of
men. Men have straightforward emotions that translate readily into
english. Women have those, but we temper them with things like hope,
compassion, and envy. All of which are much harder to explain than the
simple ("I love you", "You disgust me", "Where's dinner?"), shallow
feelings of men.
(That last paragraph was written solely for my own amusement).
--> So at the time they said it,
--> they firmly believed it to be the truth.
I doubt that very seriously.
--> Men tend
--> to decide what they feel and that's it. We don't question it. Women think
--> that they are better than us because they are exploring their feelings,
--> when in reality they are unconsciously shifting and confusing them.
It just seems like that. Our emotions shift and confuse on their own; by
talking about them, we are attempting to fix them in place long enough to
get a really good look at them.
--> There is no real difference between a woman who is confused and a woman
--> who is true evil. Both will hurt you to the same extent.
There may be no difference to the man, but there's a WORLD of difference to
the woman. A truly evil woman will have much more fun than a confused
woman. One who is confused suffers almost constantly from pangs of
conscience, being torn between doing what she wants and what will make
someone else happy, etc.
Seriously, though...
Sounds like you and JT have been hurt by a woman who claimed not to know
her own mind. I think there -are- many women in the world who hurt men in
this way; they simply don't understand that it's okay to say "I don't
really know what I feel; I'm confused; I need time to think about this."
Most women are taught that men are impatient, fickle creatures; as a
result, we often feel like asking for time to straighten out our heads will
put us in the "reject" pile of a man's heart. This isn't an excuse; it's
just a reason. Of course, we shouldn't use some outdated cliche drilled
into us by our mothers as a standard by which to judge men. Unfortunately,
some do.
--Kestrel
--Kestrel
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----+
Hastur, Hastur, Hast%^()"
NO CARRIER
Sanford E. Walke IV
A male friend of mine (JT) and I were emailing back and forth earlier today
This is also to explain the background behind my new sig quote.
In response to:
"Women are liars."
(which I wrote)
JT wrote:
I don't know that I totally agree with that...in fact, I can only agree
with that if it is amended to read:
"Most women find it impossible to quickly and accurately define the truth"
I've had a great many women tell me things, then later they found out that
they didn't really understand how they felt. So at the time they said it,
they firmly believed it to be the truth. So, they were NOT lying so much
as incorrect. Why this doesn't make it any less of a vice is that they
aren't honest with themselves. They can spend all this time TALKING about
their feelings, but it's just talk, and they dwell on their feelings so
much that they contort, distort, and veil them from themselves. Men tend
to decide what they feel and that's it. We don't question it. Women think
that they are better than us because they are exploring their feelings,
when in reality they are unconsciously shifting and confusing them.
There is no real difference between a woman who is confused and a woman
who is true evil. Both will hurt you to the same extent.
JT
--
Sandy se...@izzy.net
"There is no real difference between a woman who is confused and a woman
who is true evil. Both will hurt you to the same extent." -- JT
I don't speak for anyone but myself, and sometimes not even that.
Ieuan
On 29 Oct 1996, Sanford E. Walke IV wrote:
> JT wrote:
> "Most women find it impossible to quickly and accurately define the truth"
{Snipped: women, truth etc}
I'd point out that men are just as capable of self-deception on
a grand scale. A `friend' of mine believes some very strange things
about himself and the world in general. He also appears to truly
believe his own bullshit. This appears to be a `guy' thing.
However, a lot of guys I know don't really concern themselves with
truth and feelings, and girly stuff like that. Is that better or worse?
On the other hand, a largish proportion of the women I know well
are reasonably forthright about their emotions. (Exceptions: all of my
ex-girlfriends... but that's another story.) A case in point is my
flatmate (Juliet), my closest friend. She holds a number of
self-deceptions, but seems paradoxically aware of them. While she's
aware of her emotional state and some of her motivations, and able
to talk freely about them (at least to me), she often
ignores this completely when acting.
Which makes trying to help her understand her motivations a thankless
and fruitless task. Hey ho.
What I mean to say is that it's awkward making generalisations on this
topic. Which is why I prefaced all of mine with `It's been my experience
that...' or words to that effect. People behave in many different ways
and I've given up trying to categorise them. It's been easier to try to
just deal with them on a one-off basis, although I can't help occasionally
stereotyping people.
I've found that my first impressions of others wear off quite rapidly.
Ieuan
*--------------------------------------------------*
"It might be unbelievable, but let's not say so long
It just might be fantastic, don't get me wrong."
Leslie
On 29 Oct 1996 19:07:38 GMT in alt.callahans,
Sanford E. Walke IV <se...@izzy5.izzy.net> said:
+
+ "Women are liars."
"So are men," Leslie remarks, somewhat acidly.
Leslie. It all evens out that way, don't you think?
--
** Find the alt.callahans FAQs here ---> http://www.io.org/~deirdre/ **
* "Why -admit- it?" "Because it's -true-. Because we're here to get *
* telepathic, and we can't have telepathy based on bullshit." *
**** If we couldn't laugh, we would all go insane -- Jimmy Buffett ****
Judy Gerjuoy
On 29 Oct 1996, Sanford E. Walke IV wrote:
[snip]
> There is no real difference between a woman who is confused and a woman
> who is true evil. Both will hurt you to the same extent.
Even if I agreed with your initial reason as to why women get confused -
and I don't, but I don't think your thoughts or my disagreement can be
"proved", I must disagree with you conclusion.
Whatever the situaion, hurt done deliberately *is* a lot different from
hurt done accidently/unintentionally. They both may hurt the same amount
to begin with, but long term, the deliberate hurts a lot more, and is
harder to recover from.
Jaelle
jae...@access.digex.net
If the world were merely seductive, that would be easy. If it were merely
challenging, that would be no problem. But I arise in the morning torn
between a desire to improve the world, and a desire to enjoy the world.
This makes it hard to plan the day. - E. B. White
barbara trumpinski
sandy:
>[snip]
>> There is no real difference between a woman who is confused and a woman
>> who is true evil. Both will hurt you to the same extent.
jaelle:
>Even if I agreed with your initial reason as to why women get confused -
>and I don't, but I don't think your thoughts or my disagreement can be
>"proved", I must disagree with you conclusion.
>Whatever the situaion, hurt done deliberately *is* a lot different from
>hurt done accidently/unintentionally. They both may hurt the same amount
>to begin with, but long term, the deliberate hurts a lot more, and is
>harder to recover from.
"AMEN!!!!" kitten raises her glass to agree with jaelle.
--
kit...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu barbara trumpinski
/\ /\ smotu "my life's a soap opera, isn't yours?"
{=.=} 'how can you be in two places at once when you're
~ not anywhere at all?'
Sanford E. Walke IV
Meredith L. Giberson (mgib...@genmagic.com) wrote:
: Now, from my husband's point of view, I was lying. But from my point of
: view, I was simply telling him more of the truth than he, as a man, had any
: right to know. He saw it as concealing the truth; I saw it as doing him a
: favor.
Hopefully, you meant this post as a joke. Here's a serious comment, though,
addressed to nearly all women I've known: STOP DOING US FAVORS!!!! Grant us
the courtesy that we *MAY* be able to make our *OWN* decisions, if *ONLY* we
could get all the information right up front. STOP KEEPING THINGS FROM US
"for our own good"!!!
: By telling him there was no mail, I was saving him from the
: disappointment of -thinking- there was something interesting there only to
: realize seconds later that there was not.
Gosh, and by not telling me that she was having troubles with our relationship,
Kelly kept me from the disappointment of thinking that all was not perfect.
That really worked well to save on my pain, didn't it?
Do you really think this is funny?
--
Sandy se...@izzy.net
"There is no real difference between a woman who is confused and a woman
Sanford E. Walke IV
Ieuan (iwi...@matu15.math.auckland.ac.nz) wrote:
Stuff, which I've snipped. JT had some responses, and some preliminary stuff
that I should have posted when I posted the other stuff. This is as reasonable
a place to put it as any.
I noticed that there was some response to your posting of stuff I wrote
you.
One of the people (Ed: Ieuan) indicated that he didn't like to make blanket
statements without prefacing it with something like "It has been my
experience..."...how exactly did he think I came to have the opinion that
was expressed? How does ANYONE develop their opinions? The fact is that
the things that have happened to me, and the things I have seen happen to
my male friends, leads me to believe that this is quite likely a common
trait in women (notice I said "Most" earlier). It is possible that there
are men out there doing the same thing, and women who don't have this
problem. I just haven't met more than one or two of each of these
oddities.
If everytime I see a Great Horned Fleeglebeast it bites off one of my
fingers, and everyone I know who's talked to a Great Horned Fleeglebeast
is missing fingers, then I will probably be quite wary of ALL GHFs I
encounter in the future. And I won't feel any guilt about it.
One thing to remember, though, is that finding examples of bad behavior in
another group doesn't excuse it in your own. I don't know any men who act
this way - if they do then they should stop. They shouldn't keep it up
just because women do it. Any time I've mentioned to a female friend of
mine (yes, I have them) that maybe they were in the wrong in the way they
handled a relationship, they've fallen back on 'well, men do it all the
time.' It goes back to what you didn't post, where I talked about how they
keep us so guilty and worried that we're the awful 'MEN' that we don't
think that maybe they're doing these things more often.
You should remind everyone that I'm bitter, so they can probably discount
my opinions.
Here's the part he refers to just above, that I didn't post earlier:
But again, they know what we think better than we do. (Ed: I'm pretty
sure this line was meant sarcastically. You never can be too certain with
JT, though.)
They keep us on the defensive, you realize. We're so busy shielding our
heads and backpedaling from their constant proclamations that "men can't
commit", that we don't realize that they are the ones that are always
leaving, and most of the time it's for these nebulous reasons like "I need
to find myself" or "I just need space"...but remember, it is the MAN that
cannot commit. We are taught to be disgusted by our gender, in the same
way that we are taught to be disgusted by our race, these days.
And finally, here's the response to the beginning of Ieuan's post:
I sent you something that sounded like a response to the responses to the
thing you posted that was my response to your Email...ok, that was
confusing...let me try again.
I just sent you a mail message that responds to two people who talked
about women and men and honesty...I don't think you should post that,
because it's far too long...but I found THIS interesting, so you might
post THIS piece:
***********************************************************************
In response to this statement by Ieuan:
"On the other hand, a largish proportion of the women I know well
are reasonably forthright about their emotions. (Exceptions: all of my
ex-girlfriends... but that's another story.)"
Is this a joke? It didn't sound like it. The parenthetical bit is quite
interesting, though. Inside a well-written description of women and
relative honesty levels, we find this disclaimer. If this isn't just a
joke, then maybe we've found the real problem. Can Ieuan's personal
experience be accurately summarized as:
'Most women are reasonably forthright about their emotions unless it
involves a romantic relationship'
????
That seems to be what he's saying. Most of the women he knows are
reasonably forthright, except every one that he was romantically involved
with. But that's really the only area that's causing men pain. If a woman
wants to be confused about whether or not they like gouda or swiss better,
it probably won't cause me to lose sleep for a year.
I don't have a problem with people changing - it's EVERYONE's right. If a
woman tells me that she's fallen out of love with me, it hurts but that
happens. If a woman who has told me she loves me daily for two years now
tells me that she never really loved me, she was just confused, that's a
crime. Or if she tells me she doesn't know how she feels, and keeps me
hanging forever, that's wrong, too.
Feel free to call me an idiot...I often feel that way.
JT
*****************************************************************
Just trying to keep the lines flowing. Other than his bizarre like of
"Natural Born Killers", I tend to agree with JT on `most ever'thang.
barbara trumpinski
>kit...@staff.uiuc.edu (barbara trumpinski) writes:
>>> Whatever the situaion, hurt done deliberately *is* a lot different from
>>> hurt done accidently/unintentionally. They both may hurt the same amount
>>> to begin with, but long term, the deliberate hurts a lot more, and is
>>> harder to recover from.
>> "AMEN!!!!" kitten raises her glass to agree with jaelle.
gp:
>I'm not entirely convinced of this. Hurt done deliberately is, I think,
>-easier- to deal with; at least you can write the person off. It's a lot
>more difficult to do that when it might have been accidental and you
>care about the person so you'll forgive it just one more time....
"been there, done that, got the bloody t-shirt. (from both sides,
dear...i am not speaking from the pain of being trashed alone (i have
done my share of being careless, nasty, a heartless
bitch...whatever)."
kitten doesn't know whether it is better to be oversensitive or hard
as a rock. either way, it's a defense.
Gian-Paolo D Musumeci
gdm>> I'm not entirely convinced of this. Hurt done deliberately is, I think,
gdm>> -easier- to deal with; at least you can write the person off. It's a lot
gdm>> more difficult to do that when it might have been accidental and you
gdm>> care about the person so you'll forgive it just one more time....
kitten> "been there, done that, got the bloody t-shirt. (from both sides,
kitten> dear...i am not speaking from the pain of being trashed alone (i have
kitten> done my share of being careless, nasty, a heartless
kitten> bitch...whatever)."
There's nothing wrong with being a bitch. I respect the ability to be a
careless, nasty, heartless bitch: it takes a lot of practice.
Sorry, that's the systems administrator in me speaking. [cough and slight
grin]
I'm not sure we can quantify pain. Hurt is hurt and pain is pain, and no
matter how that pain is inflicted, it still _hurts_.
kitten> kitten doesn't know whether it is better to be oversensitive or hard
kitten> as a rock. either way, it's a defense.
I've always preferred bitterly cold if I have to be defensive. I think it
hurts less that way. YMMV.
gdm
Sanford E. Walke IV
Sam Voeller (sa...@netcom.com) wrote:
: "To which he replied 'If there was no demand, there'd be no supply.'"
There are those of us men who *DON'T* demand liars.
Judy Gerjuoy
On Wed, 30 Oct 1996, dreiss wrote:
[snip]
> The fox chuckles a bit.
> "There is no functional difference between hurt done deliberately
> and hurt done accidentally."
>
> "If you allow yourself to make a mistake and someone gets hurt, then
> you are at fault. 100% absolute, no excuses. If anything, the person
> who is *deliberately* causing the pain is more to be respected. They are
> more likely to be aware of their own motivations, and are thus being
> more honest with themselves. They know the consequences of their
> actions. They know who and what they are destroying."
>
> "The person who causes pain 'accidentally' does it indiscriminately,
> and often doesn't recognize what evil they have wrought. They take no
> responsibility, and all they offer in compensation for the pain they
> have caused is perhaps self-flagelation or guilt."
>
> "The person who causes pain purposefully offers more, in that they
> conciously decide to become a focus for that pain, and accept the ill
> will of those they hurt."
And, here i will disagree with you, probably close to 100%.
Why do you say that the person who causes pain 'accidently' takes no
responsiblity and (paraphrasing you) give no real compensation.
Perhaps it is different elsewhere, but not with the people I know.
Example, one of my friends at an SCA tourney accidently fell over another
friend and *badly* broke his ankle.
They drove him to the doctor and home - his *very* pregnant wife couldnt'
drive the car. They came over once a week, cleaned the house and did
things that he couldn't do because of the ankle - eg clean the cat box
that his pregnant wife couldn't do while she was pregnant. Additionally
he did a bunch of repairs, etc. around the house to help make up for what
he did.
Additionally, a bunch of us chipped in, and came over to cook and clean to
help out as well.
Meredith L. Giberson
In article <557rbo$7...@izzy4.izzy.net>, se...@izzy5.izzy.net (Sanford E.
Walke IV) wrote:
--> Meredith L. Giberson (mgib...@genmagic.com) wrote:
-->
--> : Now, from my husband's point of view, I was lying. But from my point of
--> : view, I was simply telling him more of the truth than he, as a man,
had any
--> : right to know. He saw it as concealing the truth; I saw it as doing him a
--> : favor.
-->
--> Hopefully, you meant this post as a joke.
You get a gold star.
--> Here's a serious comment, though,
--> addressed to nearly all women I've known: STOP DOING US FAVORS!!!! Grant us
--> the courtesy that we *MAY* be able to make our *OWN* decisions, if *ONLY* we
--> could get all the information right up front. STOP KEEPING THINGS FROM US
--> "for our own good"!!!
Since you don't know me, I won't take that personally.
--> : By telling him there was no mail, I was saving him from the
--> : disappointment of -thinking- there was something interesting there only to
--> : realize seconds later that there was not.
-->
--> Gosh, and by not telling me that she was having troubles with our
relationship,
--> Kelly kept me from the disappointment of thinking that all was not perfect.
-->
--> That really worked well to save on my pain, didn't it?
Sandy, I'm sure that in your mind everyone who ever lived knows all about
you and this Kelly, and is thus able to be sensitive to your special
circumstances by never posting anything that might be construed as relating
to you and your situation.
This is what is known as a delusion.
I don't mean to be callous, Sandy, but you're responding to my post as if I
were someone familiar with your situation, and I am not such a person. I
responded to the post you made, not to the emotions behind it; there's
personal angst, and then there's general angst, and your post sounded to me
like the latter.
Now, I will put aside the fact that responding to general statements with
personal anecdotes designed to make me aghast with horror at the wrong I
have done you is patently unfair and besides that, a very cheap tactic.
It's obvious that you're bitter about something, and equally obvious that
what you're bitter about has nothing to do with me (though given that, I'm
not sure why I'm the one who got splattered).
I will even put aside the fact that you sent out a post in which you stated
that approximately half of the population of this newsgroup holds
membership in a group which accepts only liars, and apparently expected no
one to mind.
What I can not, and WILL not, set aside, is the fact that you seem to think
the pain in your past gives you the right to be publicly insulting to all
women, and to make generalizations about all women based on your experience
with a few or one who hurt you.
I believe you stated once, in a different thread and a while back, that you
are incapable of grasping subtlety. So I'm not going to get upset that you
weren't able to see that everything before the "seriously, though..." in my
post was meant to satirize the blatant generalizations in JT's post. I
might be willing to have a discussion regarding the difference between
"incapable" and "unwilling", but beyond that...I'll let it go.
--> Do you really think this is funny?
What exactly are you asking here, Sandy? This looks an awful lot like a
trick question, so I'm going to be really careful in answering it.
Do I think your pain is funny? No. I think it's tragic that you've been
so damaged by one woman that you have formed a low opinion of the entire
gender. And it *does* sound like damage--it sounds as if you've had your
world-view seriously warped by some woman. Is that funny? Of course not.
It's terrible, and *I* hurt at the thought that you went through so much
pain.
Do I think my post was funny? Well, yes, actually I do. If you recall,
there was no mention of any personal pain in your original post; you didn't
mention that until later, when you wanted to make me feel bad. (Note: I'm
about as receptive to that tactic as you are to subtlety; file that).
All that said, I'm sorry if my previous post brought up bad memories for
you; I had no way of knowing about it, and I'll be careful to remember it
in my responses to you in the future.
--Meredith/Kestrel
Meredith L. Giberson
--> Meredith L. Giberson (mgib...@genmagic.com) wrote:
-->
--> : Now, from my husband's point of view, I was lying. But from my point of
--> : view, I was simply telling him more of the truth than he, as a man,
had any
--> : right to know. He saw it as concealing the truth; I saw it as doing him a
--> : favor. By telling him there was no mail, I was saving him from the
--> <snip>
--> : And I was saving him from that. But was he grateful? NO! And that's the
--> : moral of this story. Men are ingrates.
-->
--> "Doing him a favor?", "Saving" him? Apparently you seem to think that
--> you have married the Scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz. Does he not have a
--> mind of his own? Is it ungrateful, to not appreciate it when things are
--> done for you that you feel perfectly capable of doing on your own? I
--> have had women attempt to think for me before, and decide what is best
--> for ME, and they are no longer around because I tossed them out of my
--> life...
I think the source of all my troubles in the world is that I underestimate
the prevalence of idiocy in the human race.
So far, approximately two people have recognized that my story about email
and my husband was meant as humor. So, I struck out on this one.
I believe, however, that I struck out NOT because my subtlety wasn't
humorous, but rather because my humor was too subtle. And by the way, how
DO you spell subtlety?
Here's my reasoning. I assumed that because I personally would never say
such chauvinistic things against men while serious, everyone else would
recognize that I was NOT serious. I think the problem is that in my world,
among my friends and family, such statements as those I made above would be
such blatant generalizations that they could only be made in jest. I
project that atmosphere, I suppose, on Callahans. Unfortunately, it seems
to me that here in Callahans people are accustomed to a much higher level
of chauvinism than I am in my life; instead of taking my words as subtle
humor, people take them as not-so-subtle chauvinism.
I think it's just a difference in what you hear every day. My post was, in
my own eyes, an exaggeration of stereotypes so extreme it couldn't be
serious; I was caricaturing. But I guess if you see people say stuff like
that and actually MEAN it, you can't see the difference.
--> : Women, IMHO, have to deal with emotions much more complex than those of
--> : men. Men have straightforward emotions that translate readily into
--> : english. Women have those, but we temper them with things like hope,
--> : compassion, and envy. All of which are much harder to explain than the
--> : simple ("I love you", "You disgust me", "Where's dinner?"), shallow
--> : feelings of men.
--> :
--> : (That last paragraph was written solely for my own amusement).
--> Back to disagreeing here...this smells like a pure cop-out, an
--> excuse to wallow in self-pity or whatever is the emotion of the moment.
--> Are you saying that men do not feel hope, compassion or envy?
Please note that I cut and paste above so that the part of my post you
snipped, which was the most important part, is still included.
Please look again at my parenthetical statement: THAT LAST PARAGRAPH WAS
WRITTEN SOLELY FOR MY OWN AMUSEMENT.
Disclaimer, my friend. No excuse for missing that one, I said out loud
that it was said for the purpose of amusement only.
Sam Robinson
barbara trumpinski wrote:
>
> sandy:
> >[snip]
>
> >> There is no real difference between a woman who is confused and a woman
> >> who is true evil. Both will hurt you to the same extent.
First, a minor quibble, I think you could say person instead of woman,
and this statement would still be as true as it ever was.
>
> jaelle:
>
> >Whatever the situaion, hurt done deliberately *is* a lot different from
> >hurt done accidently/unintentionally. They both may hurt the same amount
> >to begin with, but long term, the deliberate hurts a lot more, and is
> >harder to recover from.
>
> "AMEN!!!!" kitten raises her glass to agree with jaelle.
>
Second, I'm not sure that unintended damage doesn't hurt worse than the
malicious sort. At the moment the pain was given, I was never easily
able to tell the difference. Later, being less able to be angry about
the continuing pain from the scars sometimes robs me of some of the
comfort that I derive from considering the person that hurt me to be
unusual/evil, making the situation unlikely to re-occur. This whole
issue is down at that emotional level where, at a given moment, there is
no objective truth. We perceive our pain and those who hurt us
individually, and choose our reactions based on our individual bents.
Some will single out one sex or the other, or some other group. All that
I know for sure is that pain hurts.
A comment, which came to me third hand from source I don't remember,
"Telling a depressed person that they aren't seeing the world accurately
is very dangerous, quite often they are completely accurate. It's the
happy people who are often delusional."
--
Sam Robinson Sams...@mindspring.com
---------------------------------------------------------------
If you don't know what you want, you can never ever have it.
dreiss
Jareth said:
>> "The person who causes pain 'accidentally' does it
>> indiscriminately,and often doesn't recognize what evil
>> they have wrought. They take no responsibility, and all
>> they offer in compensation for the pain they have caused
>> is perhaps self-flagelation or guilt."
Jaelle responded:
> Why do you say that the person who causes pain 'accidently'
> takes no responsiblity and (paraphrasing you) give no real
> compensation?
(Jaelle went on to describe a beautiful example
of a nice person taking responsibility for a
physical injury he had caused)
The fox nods in response to Jaelle's points.
"You are right to point out my rather broad generalization. I
should not imply that >all< people who cause harm accidentally take
no responsibility. Based on my experiences and the experiences of
those I have talked to, I *will* say that I feel the vast majority do
not take adequate responsibility for their own actions."
"Exceptions exist to almost every rule."
"I do wish to note that my comments were mostly oriented towards
emotional pain, not the physical. I thought that this thread was aimed
at the discussion of lie-ing and manipulation, not tripping and
accidentally hurting a genuine friend."
"While I still consider my point valid, I also want to say that
Jaelle's account of the chivalrous actions of her friend >do< comfort
me. It is nice to know that good people exist."
-- Jareth Atian
Jim Walke
Meredith L. Giberson (mgib...@genmagic.com) wrote:
: Now, from my husband's point of view, I was lying. But from my point of
: view, I was simply telling him more of the truth than he, as a man, had any
: right to know. He saw it as concealing the truth; I saw it as doing him a
: favor. By telling him there was no mail, I was saving him from the
<snip>
: And I was saving him from that. But was he grateful? NO! And that's the
: moral of this story. Men are ingrates.
"Doing him a favor?", "Saving" him? Apparently you seem to think that
you have married the Scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz. Does he not have a
mind of his own? Is it ungrateful, to not appreciate it when things are
done for you that you feel perfectly capable of doing on your own? I
have had women attempt to think for me before, and decide what is best
for ME, and they are no longer around because I tossed them out of my
life...
: Men, the good ones anyway, say what they believe to be true.
: Women, both sorts, say what they *want* to be true.
: This, of course, will not apply to all women or all men. It's just my own
: personal generalization.
<snip of how this theory applies to love>
This, I agree with completely, even down to the part about the
generalizations. I was with a woman once who lived in the present, (I
guess you could call our relationship *presents* of minds!) but I didn't
realize it until after it was over.
: Women, IMHO, have to deal with emotions much more complex than those of
: men. Men have straightforward emotions that translate readily into
: english. Women have those, but we temper them with things like hope,
: compassion, and envy. All of which are much harder to explain than the
: simple ("I love you", "You disgust me", "Where's dinner?"), shallow
: feelings of men.
Back to disagreeing here...this smells like a pure cop-out, an
excuse to wallow in self-pity or whatever is the emotion of the moment.
Are you saying that men do not feel hope, compassion or envy? Men and
women feel things differently, but there is no scale for comparison on
which to measure either the depth or the complexities of the emotions
felt. Apples and oranges... Why do humans have the tendency, when faced
with obstacles that others have already overcome, to exaggerate the
difficulty of THEIR task? (I.e.: Mine must be harder, because you solved
yours too easily!) If two people are faced with exactly the same problem
(make it anything: physics, logic puzzle, physical challenge), and they
attack the problem using two entirely different philosophies, styles,
abilities, whatever, one of them will always reach the solution quicker,
better, cheaper. That does NOT mean that their original problem was
easier!!! Do you see what I am trying to say here? Men and women
when facing the problems of applying their emotions to another's,
approach the situation differently. If men (get the big broom, Jimbo
is making a sweeping generaliztion here) can figure out how they feel,
and tell the truth about it without the constant self-analyzation and
torment that women seem to need, it does not necessarily mean that we
are shallow. We just cut out the extraneous parts and get on with
acting on how we feel.
Just a man's not-so-humble POV...
--
Jim
tig...@izzy.net
Home of the Cheezy Weasel.
Gian-Paolo D Musumeci
kit...@staff.uiuc.edu (barbara trumpinski) writes:
>> Whatever the situaion, hurt done deliberately *is* a lot different from
>> hurt done accidently/unintentionally. They both may hurt the same amount
>> to begin with, but long term, the deliberate hurts a lot more, and is
>> harder to recover from.
> "AMEN!!!!" kitten raises her glass to agree with jaelle.
I'm not entirely convinced of this. Hurt done deliberately is, I think,
-easier- to deal with; at least you can write the person off. It's a lot
more difficult to do that when it might have been accidental and you
care about the person so you'll forgive it just one more time....
GP
Michael D. Bartman
mgib...@genmagic.com (Meredith L. Giberson) came right out and said:
>This reminds me of a conversation I had with my husband last night. "Did
>we get any email?" he said, passing me on the way to the computer.
>"No," I said.
>Five minutes later, he was standing in the doorway of our bedroom, looking
>puzzled. "There were three new messages from the Couples-L and two letters
>from Tom," he said.
>"I didn't think you'd want to read them," I replied.
>"But you said there wasn't any mail," he whined.
>"I meant there wasn't any IMPORTANT mail," I answered.
>Now, from my husband's point of view, I was lying. But from my point of
>view, I was simply telling him more of the truth than he, as a man, had any
>right to know. He saw it as concealing the truth; I saw it as doing him a
>favor.
"He asked a specific question, and you gave an incorrect answer. You
answered the question, 'did we get anything I'd be interested in in
the e-mail today?', but that was *not* what he asked. Your answer
*was* a lie, regardless of your motivation for it, since it created an
impression in his mind that did not match reality."
"If you want to do him the same favor without lying, try something
like, 'Yeah, two or three, but nothing you'd be interested in.' This
is a truthful answer to his question, while also providing extra
information that he might find useful."
"I do some customer support work now and then, and when I ask a
question, and the customer answers, I *always* assume that they are
lying to me by answering some question that I didn't ask in preference
for one *they* think is more important. Unfortunately, *they* are not
in a position to determine importance, since they don't have a clue as
to why I asked the question I did. Some are stuborn enough to
continue doing this even when I repeat the question, emphasizing the
important aspects, and explain to them that their answer makes no
sense at all, and would they please just answer the question as it was
asked."
"There was one guy (see? it isn't just women who do this!) who came
in saying that his program had suddenly stopped working. It had run
fine a week earlier, but today it was giving bad answers. My first
question, 'Have you changed the program or the data at all?' was
responded to with a lie: 'No, nothing has been changed.' I knew
nothing had been changed on the system in terms of the OS or the
compiler, so I *knew* what he was saying was impossible, so I asked
again and got the same answer. I explained that if the program and
data and environment were all the same, there was no way he would get
the output he was seeing. He persisted in claiming that nothing had
been changed."
"Luckily for me we were on a VMS machine. VMS machines keep old
versions of files around until you purge them, so I went to where his
program was kept and found two versions. I did a DIFFerence command
on them and found that one routine had two new lines of code. I
pointed to them and said, 'That's different...and the modification
date on the file is yesterday...' His repsponse? 'Well, yeah, *that*
changed, but that couldn't be causing the error I'm seeing...' He was
wrong, and I proved it to him by walking him through the code with his
data and showing him where it went wrong...and how to fix it."
"We wasted a number of minutes looking in the wrong place until I
decided that he had to be lying to me and went to confirm for myself
what he was telling me...which turned out to be lies. If he'd just
answered the question I'd asked, rather than some variant he'd made up
in his own mind, we'd have found the problem instantly."
"Always answer what was asked, and if you see other information as
relevent, add it and label it, but don't substite an answer meant for
a question that wasn't asked and fail to label it as such. You will
only cause confusion or worse...and be guilty of intentionally
creating a misimpression of reality: a lie."
>And I was saving him from that. But was he grateful? NO! And that's the
>moral of this story. Men are ingrates.
"No, the moral of the story is that when you lie to people it pisses
them off. I'd guess that this wasn't the first time you've done this,
since your husband went and checked what you'd told him. Eventually
he'll skip asking you and just check for himself...and you'll start to
wonder why you two never talk..."
>Women, IMHO, have to deal with emotions much more complex than those of
>men. Men have straightforward emotions that translate readily into
>english. Women have those, but we temper them with things like hope,
>compassion, and envy. All of which are much harder to explain than the
>simple ("I love you", "You disgust me", "Where's dinner?"), shallow
>feelings of men.
"Ah! So women lie to *themselves* too! Yeah, I can see how that
would be much more complicated than the way men do it..." Berek
grins, and holds up a copy of Kestrel's disclaimer about
generalizations.
>(That last paragraph was written solely for my own amusement).
"Sorry, others are playing with it too now!"
--Berek "that's the way it is....for now" Halfaxe--
Michael Holmes
Meredith L. Giberson (mgib...@genmagic.com) wrote:
: In article <555klq$q...@izzy4.izzy.net>, se...@izzy5.izzy.net (Sanford E.
: Walke IV) wrote:
[...Sandy opens QUITE the little can o' worms...]
[Kestrel makes some good points, some with tongue firmly in cheek...]
: Women, IMHO, have to deal with emotions much more complex than those of
: men. Men have straightforward emotions that translate readily into
: english. Women have those, but we temper them with things like hope,
: compassion, and envy. All of which are much harder to explain than the
: simple ("I love you", "You disgust me", "Where's dinner?"), shallow
: feelings of men.
/* smiles, and notes that Kestrel has already acknowledged that she
is speaking in generalities, so he won't say anything about *that*. :-)
But he does have what he thinks is an interesting side note...
"I think I've probably mentioned this before, but a few years back
I took a course in language development which was quite interesting."
"One subject that came up was in early differences in _vocabulary_
between boys and girls. Y'see, adults tend to use a lot of 'feeling'
words when talking with infant girls, significantly more so than
with infant boys."
"And, of course, infants learn language through interaction with
adult speakers -- so girls acquire a much more *rich* emotional
vocabulary than boys do -- from a very early age."
"So... it may be more likely that women get _used_ to speaking
about their emotions earlier, and more fully, than most men. And,
as well, they have a better vocabulary in regards to emotional states."
/* grins. "This also tends to be true in regards to colors, as well.
Women tend to have a much richer vocabulary for colors than men."
/*, the plum, violet, lavender, amethyst, grape man. :-)
--
/* -> Mike Holmes, Happiness Patrol // Happiness Will Prevail! \\
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"Few things are needful to make the wise man happy, but nothing
satisfies the fool; and this is the reason why so many of mankind
are miserable." -- Duc Francois de La Rochefoucauld
Sanford E. Walke IV
On Wed, 30 Oct 1996, Meredith Giberson wrote:
> --> Hopefully, you meant this post as a joke.
>
> You get a gold star.
But if you did respond to that question (or anything like that) in that way at
all, ever, then you still did something that just bugs the shit out of most
guys (basing that on the guys that I know). Whether you meant this post as a
joke doesn't matter, because if you actually would answer that question that
way in real life, then you are a liar, whether you care to admit it or not.
Most adults I've met *don't* need the world filtered for them, yet most women
I've met have automatically done just that, or attempted to at the least.
> Sandy, I'm sure that in your mind everyone who ever lived knows all about
> you and this Kelly, and is thus able to be sensitive to your special
> circumstances by never posting anything that might be construed as relating
> to you and your situation.
I was trying to point out a similar situation. I used the first thing that
came to mind that happened to fit, and happened to be related to the discussion
at hand, that of women withholding information from men in order to "save"
them from something. It's fully applicable, whether it's personal to me or not.
> This is what is known as a delusion.
The idea that it's funny to withhold information in response to a direct
request from someone who is entitled to have that information is as well.
> I don't mean to be callous, Sandy, but you're responding to my post as if I
> were someone familiar with your situation, and I am not such a person.
I apologize for assuming that you would understand that example. I'll be
sure to make them generic from now on.
> Now, I will put aside the fact that responding to general statements with
> personal anecdotes designed to make me aghast with horror at the wrong I
> have done you is patently unfair and besides that, a very cheap tactic.
And not one I used.
> I will even put aside the fact that you sent out a post in which you stated
> that approximately half of the population of this newsgroup holds
> membership in a group which accepts only liars, and apparently expected no
> one to mind.
I only left that statement in as a lead-in to JT's stuff. I left out the
context of the email that it originated from, in which context it fit.
This clearly was an error on my part.
> What I can not, and WILL not, set aside, is the fact that you seem to think
> the pain in your past gives you the right to be publicly insulting to all
> women, and to make generalizations about all women based on your experience
> with a few or one who hurt you.
I'm seriously trying to present a viewpoint, a way of looking at how men and
women relate, that I've never thought of before, in the hopes that it might
help someone somewhere. This viewpoint is entirely based on personal experience,
and nothing else. Since it apparently wasn't obvious, feel free to insert "Most",
"I've known", "In my experience", and "Many" wherever you feel they might be
necessary.
> I believe you stated once, in a different thread and a while back, that you
> are incapable of grasping subtlety. So I'm not going to get upset that you
> weren't able to see that everything before the "seriously, though..." in my
> post was meant to satirize the blatant generalizations in JT's post.
I had to check several times to see that that was meant as a "joking" post,
because it's been done to me and to every guy I know so many times it's hardly
a joke, or even abnormal. Both in cases dealing with innocuous things (any
mail?) and not so innocuous things (do you love me?). *IN* *MY* *EXPERIENCE*,
it's SOP, the norm, the usual, for women to decide what men "need" to know,
and seldom to answer a question fully without filtering it through that
preconception that they know what's best for us.
> --> Do you really think this is funny?
>
> What exactly are you asking here, Sandy? This looks an awful lot like a
> trick question, so I'm going to be really careful in answering it.
Do you think that it's funny to withhold information in response to a direct
request from someone who is entitled to have that information?
Do you think it's funny to make serious statements when you have no solid
data with which to back them up?
Do you think it's funny to withhold information relating to an important issue
from an entity with whom you maintain an otherwise open exchange of
information, a "full-disclosure agreement", as it were, which is meaningful to
that entity?
Feel free to substitute "reasonable behavior" for "funny" above. Feel free to
ask for examples if you don't understand what I'm trying to say.
> And it *does* sound like damage--it sounds as if you've had your
> world-view seriously warped by some woman.
Or by my observance of most of the women I know, and my observance of how
"their" men are affected by what they do.
> Do I think my post was funny? Well, yes, actually I do. If you recall,
> there was no mention of any personal pain in your original post; you didn't
> mention that until later, when you wanted to make me feel bad. (Note: I'm
> about as receptive to that tactic as you are to subtlety; file that).
Then why are you so quick to point it out, even in cases where it's not being
used?
> All that said, I'm sorry if my previous post brought up bad memories for
> you; I had no way of knowing about it, and I'll be careful to remember it
> in my responses to you in the future.
Bullshit. That's not why I responded to your post that way, and I don't give
a shit how you respond to me as long as you are HONEST. Honesty is all that
matters.
Sandy se...@izzy.net
"There is no real difference between a woman who is confused and a woman
dreiss
The fox chuckles a bit.
"Well, I suppose that my feelings in this are fairly predictable."
"There is no functional difference between hurt done deliberately
and hurt done accidentally."
"If you allow yourself to make a mistake and someone gets hurt, then
you are at fault. 100% absolute, no excuses. If anything, the person
who is *deliberately* causing the pain is more to be respected. They are
more likely to be aware of their own motivations, and are thus being
more honest with themselves. They know the consequences of their
actions. They know who and what they are destroying."
"The person who causes pain 'accidentally' does it indiscriminately,
and often doesn't recognize what evil they have wrought. They take no
responsibility, and all they offer in compensation for the pain they
have caused is perhaps self-flagelation or guilt."
"The person who causes pain purposefully offers more, in that they
conciously decide to become a focus for that pain, and accept the ill
will of those they hurt."
-- Jareth Atian
Sanford E. Walke IV
On Wed, 30 Oct 1996, Judy Gerjuoy wrote:
> > There is no real difference between a woman who is confused and a woman
> > who is true evil. Both will hurt you to the same extent.
>
> Even if I agreed with your initial reason as to why women get confused -
> and I don't, but I don't think your thoughts or my disagreement can be
> "proved", I must disagree with you conclusion.
It wasn't my thoughts, it was JT's, I just agreed with him.
> Whatever the situaion, hurt done deliberately *is* a lot different from
> hurt done accidently/unintentionally. They both may hurt the same amount
> to begin with, but long term, the deliberate hurts a lot more, and is
> harder to recover from.
I disagree. Deliberate hurt, you can say to yourself "She's a bitch, what
she did doesn't matter." Unintentional/accidental hurt, you say to yourself
"She cares so little about me and knows me so poorly that she destroys me
without even thinking or trying."
At the bottom line, there's no difference in the final result.
Sanford E. Walke IV
Sanford E. Walke IV (se...@izzy5.izzy.net) wrote:
: A male friend of mine (JT) and I were emailing back and forth earlier today
: about relationships and such. One of his responses to me makes a LOT of sense,
: to me at least, and I'm going to share it with you all. Aren't you lucky?
: This is also to explain the background behind my new sig quote.
: In response to:
:
: "Women are liars."
: (which I wrote)
:
: JT wrote:
: I don't know that I totally agree with that...in fact, I can only agree
: with that if it is amended to read:
:
: "Most women find it impossible to quickly and accurately define the truth"
And herein lies an important point: Yes, I did say "Women are liars." up
above. And then JT disagreed. And I agreed with his disagreement, that's
why I made the post that started all this.
SO, what I'm trying to point out is this: All you folks that are slamming
me for saying "Women are liars." can stop now, since in THE VERY FIRST POST
IN THIS THREAD, I admitted that I don't agree with that statement. Clear?
--
Zaphkiel
In article <555klq$q...@izzy4.izzy.net>, se...@izzy5.izzy.net says...
> In response to:
>
> "Women are liars."
>
>(which I wrote)
>
>JT wrote:
> I don't know that I totally agree with that...in fact, I can only agree
> with that if it is amended to read:
>
> "Most women find it impossible to quickly and accurately define the truth"
>
> I've had a great many women tell me things, then later they found out that
> they didn't really understand how they felt. So at the time they said it,
> they firmly believed it to be the truth. So, they were NOT lying so much
> as incorrect. Why this doesn't make it any less of a vice is that they
> aren't honest with themselves. They can spend all this time TALKING about
> their feelings, but it's just talk, and they dwell on their feelings so
> much that they contort, distort, and veil them from themselves. Men tend
> to decide what they feel and that's it. We don't question it. Women think
> that they are better than us because they are exploring their feelings,
> when in reality they are unconsciously shifting and confusing them.
>
> There is no real difference between a woman who is confused and a woman
> who is true evil. Both will hurt you to the same extent.
By my experience, the number of women who think that they are better
than men is far lower than the number of men who think that they are
better than women.
The last statement is bitter bullshit. A woman who is truely evil
will hurt you far more often, and do a better job of it when she does,
than a woman who's goal is to be in a relationship, and sometimes hurts
you by accident. This is a cheap attempt to equate the two so you can
hate them both without guilt. Talk about contorting and shifting your
feelings! Must be your feminine side peeking out.
By the way, I saw this post last night, and waited until tonight to
answer it. I knew when I read it that it was going to get a lot of
response. I was right. Over 30 by my count in less than 24 hours. Say
what you want about political incorrectness, but it's a real conversation
starter!
--Zaphkiel
st95...@pip.cc.brandeis.edu
#+ "Women are liars."
#
#"So are men," Leslie remarks, somewhat acidly.
#
#
#Leslie. It all evens out that way, don't you think?
"why don't we just say 'humans' lie? which sums it all up nicely...and also
exempts a considerable portion of the patronage. :-)"
the transylvanian
Sanford E. Walke IV
Leslie (dei...@zap.io.org) wrote:
: On 29 Oct 1996 19:07:38 GMT in alt.callahans,
: "So are men," Leslie remarks, somewhat acidly.
Yup.
I only included that line because it was the lead-in to JT's comments.
It wasn't meant personally about anyone here, and it's a bit of a broad
statement (no pun intended).
--
Sandy se...@izzy.net
"There is no real difference between a woman who is confused and a woman
Shonias
In article <558hn7$o...@news.bu.edu>, Michael Holmes <mj...@bu.edu> wrote:
>: Women, IMHO, have to deal with emotions much more complex than those of
>: men. Men have straightforward emotions that translate readily into
>: english. Women have those, but we temper them with things like hope,
>: compassion, and envy. All of which are much harder to explain than the
>: simple ("I love you", "You disgust me", "Where's dinner?"), shallow
>: feelings of men.
I suspect I agree with this, and then...
>"One subject that came up was in early differences in _vocabulary_
>between boys and girls. Y'see, adults tend to use a lot of 'feeling'
>words when talking with infant girls, significantly more so than
>with infant boys."
/* comes up with an emminently plausible explanation for it. :)
Seems quite possible, if I ever have children and any of them happen
to be boys, I'll be sure to talk to them lots about emotional stuff
right from birth...
>/*, the plum, violet, lavender, amethyst, grape man. :-)
Well, see it obviously worked on you, you can't be *all* those colours,
they're all completely different!
Shonias
--
******************************************
All through your life
Everyday and every night
You should know that I'll be watching you.
******************************************
Paul de Anguera
In article <555klq$q...@izzy4.izzy.net>,
se...@izzy5.izzy.net (Sanford E. Walke IV) wrote:
..
Men tend
> to decide what they feel and that's it. We don't question it. Women
think
> that they are better than us because they are exploring their
feelings,
> when in reality they are unconsciously shifting and confusing them.
..
The problem with this analysis is that it mis-identifies the two
groups being compared. We are not really talking about men vs.
women here. We are talking about leaders and followers. People who
have the following role in relationships are more concerned about the
nature of the relationships than are people who have the leading
role, because they are dependant on them in a way that the leaders
are not. Coincidentally, most relationships of interest are between
men and women, and in most of these relationships the man is cast in
the leading role. The more unequal the relationship, the more this is
true.
Shall we criticize women for occupying the position in which we have
put them?
And now, before you all have a chance to light your flame throwers, I
am out of here! 8-)
.......................................
"The seafarer knows that the land, not
the sea, is where the dangers lie."
- Nigel Calder, The English Channel
----------------------------------------
Paul de Anguera
A(((/______ Seattle, Washington, USA
========================================
Jim Walke
The Gentleman (elcab...@aol.com) wrote:
: } If men (get the big broom, Jimbo
: }is making a sweeping generaliztion here) can figure out how they feel,
: }and tell the truth about it without the constant self-analyzation and
: }torment that women seem to need, it does not necessarily mean that we
: }are shallow. We just cut out the extraneous parts and get on with
: }acting on how we feel.
: }
: "Bullshit. We aren't any better, just different. <broom>Men tell what
: they believe to be the truth. What they believe may have little contact with
: reality, but they believe it.</broom>"
Where out of this quote of mine have you gotten the word
"better"? I'm assuming that you read the entire example which I used,
which clearly stresses DIFFERENT, and nowhere says that any one method is
better than another. As for your sweep, I agree, but the word "men" IMO
could be "humans". As far as I know, my dog has never lied to me.
LIN KA-MING (Magus Firecow)
Sam Robinson wrote:
<SNIP>
> > jaelle:
> >
> > >Whatever the situaion, hurt done deliberately *is* a lot different from
> > >hurt done accidently/unintentionally. They both may hurt the same amount
> > >to begin with, but long term, the deliberate hurts a lot more, and is
> > >harder to recover from.
> >
> > "AMEN!!!!" kitten raises her glass to agree with jaelle.
> >
>
> Second, I'm not sure that unintended damage doesn't hurt worse than the
> malicious sort. At the moment the pain was given, I was never easily
> able to tell the difference. Later, being less able to be angry about
> the continuing pain from the scars sometimes robs me of some of the
> comfort that I derive from considering the person that hurt me to be
> unusual/evil, making the situation unlikely to re-occur. This whole
> issue is down at that emotional level where, at a given moment, there is
> no objective truth.
<SNIP again so's I can interrupt like the rude boor that I am.>
"And that's a shame. Being able to put things into perspective might
help.
eg. We know - You were hurt. We don't know why. Is it more comforting
to
believe that the reason is because there is someone out there who enjoys
hurting people, someone who is evil and derives pleasure from inflicting
suffering? I know that I feel a lot better if I attribute the hurt to
some
sort of misunderstanding or accidental/unintentional aberration of the
behaviour off otherwise decent persons. My comfort comes in 'knowing'
that
there isn't some one out there 'gunning' for me. This may seem naive
and
innocent and just plain dumb, but I honestly believe in the goodness of
the
human spirit. Okay now that you've stopped laughing, here's the bonus:
IF someone is trying to intentionally hurt you, the best revenge is to
just
get over it. Dwelling on it, and getting mad at them, and nursing hate
only lets those who hurt you to keep on doing so, even after they've
stopped. IF someone is trying to hurt you, why do their job for them?
IF
they are going out of their way just to get at you, and you don't even
pay
any attention..."
> A comment, which came to me third hand from source I don't remember,
> "Telling a depressed person that they aren't seeing the world accurately
> is very dangerous, quite often they are completely accurate. It's the
> happy people who are often delusional."
"Yep. Delusional I am, just read the above passage. But I think we're
all
delusional to some extent, and I'd much rather have my delusions making
me
happy than stress ridden and paranoid. Reminds me of a scene from I
can't
reemember what story/show about a man being too old to entertain such
indecent thoughts. His reply was- "I'm not entertaining them, they're
entertaining me." Now that's a good use for delusions."
Magus Firecow.
Sanford E. Walke IV
Shonias (a...@Physics.usyd.edu.au) wrote:
: >/*, the plum, violet, lavender, amethyst, grape man. :-)
: Well, see it obviously worked on you, you can't be *all* those colours,
: they're all completely different!
At the risk of looking dumb, which is what I'm best at, they're all purple.
Sam Robinson
Actually, most of the things that have hurt me are pretty much back in
the past. I was responding in a general way to the concept that
unintended (emotional) pain is somehow "better" than the intended sort.
I was thinking of it from both sides, I've been the giver and recipient
of both kinds of pain. I honestly believe that those occasions where I
intentionally hurt someone (usually by terminating a relationship) did
less damage than the times I accidentally hurt someone. My use of the
word malicious is ill chosen in some ways, had I wished to be malicious,
I would have striven to make it look like a series of accidents.
I have had people try to hurt me for reasons that I still don't fully
understand, or care to. On these occasions, I could act to remove the
threat of further pain. The advantage of identifying an enemy is that
the enemy can be neutralized. This feeling of control is the "benefit"
that comes in this case. Just knowing what the causes are can help here.
I've never been guilty of believing that those who intentionally hurt me
did so for (to them) unjustifiable reasons. I figure that they've got
what they consider to be a good reason. So perhaps our postitions aren't
that far apart in some ways. The worst monster in the history books
probably felt justified in their actions, and mis-understood by those
who opposed them. So on one level, I probably am "attribute(ing) the
hurt to some sort of misunderstanding or accidental/unintentional
aberration."
> IF someone is trying to intentionally hurt you, the best revenge is to
> just get over it. Dwelling on it, and getting mad at them, and nursing
> hate only lets those who hurt you to keep on doing so, even after
> they've stopped. IF someone is trying to hurt you, why do their job
> for them?
> IF they are going out of their way just to get at you, and you don't
> even pay any attention..."
>
Absolutly excellent advice. "The best revenge is living well."
> > A comment, which came to me third hand from source I don't remember,
> > "Telling a depressed person that they aren't seeing the world accurately
> > is very dangerous, quite often they are completely accurate. It's the
> > happy people who are often delusional."
>
> "Yep. Delusional I am, just read the above passage. But I think we're
> all delusional to some extent, and I'd much rather have my delusions
> making me happy than stress ridden and paranoid. Reminds me of a scene
> from I can't reemember what story/show about a man being too old to
> entertain such indecent thoughts. His reply was- "I'm not entertaining them,
> they're entertaining me." Now that's a good use for delusions."
>
And this is also excellent and true.
Pat Kight
In article <55b06h$4...@izzy4.izzy.net>,
Sanford E. Walke IV <se...@izzy5.izzy.net> wrote:
>Shonias (a...@Physics.usyd.edu.au) wrote:
>
>: >/*, the plum, violet, lavender, amethyst, grape man. :-)
>
>: Well, see it obviously worked on you, you can't be *all* those colours,
>: they're all completely different!
>
>At the risk of looking dumb, which is what I'm best at, they're all purple.
>
illustration of ...
(ta-DAAAAA)
"... the difference between women and men!"
--Jezebel
kig...@peak.org
(Said with a REALLY BIG GRIN, just in case anyone is dense enough to
think I really buy into these generalities. But sometimes a snippet of
dialogue comes along that just ... *frames* the whole discussion ...)
Judy Gerjuoy
On Wed, 30 Oct 1996, Sanford E. Walke IV wrote:
[snip]
> On Wed, 30 Oct 1996, Judy Gerjuoy wrote:
[snip]
> > Whatever the situaion, hurt done deliberately *is* a lot different from
> > hurt done accidently/unintentionally. They both may hurt the same amount
> > to begin with, but long term, the deliberate hurts a lot more, and is
> > harder to recover from.
>
> I disagree. Deliberate hurt, you can say to yourself "She's a bitch, what
> she did doesn't matter." Unintentional/accidental hurt, you say to yourself
> "She cares so little about me and knows me so poorly that she destroys me
> without even thinking or trying."
>
> At the bottom line, there's no difference in the final result.
I disagree with you still though I think I may understand what you mean.
Let me give you some (simplistic examples) of why I don't agree with you.
Let us assume that it is important to you that I remember your birthday
and get you a present. Let us then assume I don't get you a present.
This could have happened because of a number of different reasons.
1. I am a nasty person, and I deliberately didn't do anything so to make
you unhappy.
2. I am a very scattered brained person, and I just plain forgot - along
with forgetting my parent's birthdays, my other friends, etc.
3. I did write it in my day runner and it was stolen so I forgot (slightly
different situation from above, as I did make a real effort).
4. I did remember, but the day before my father died and I was too caught
up in the situation of dealing with that to remember (more distant from
#2.
5. I don't celebrate *my* birthday, and therefore don't celebrate
*anyone's*.
6. I don't celebrate *my* birthday - and (and this is the interesting
part) don't see why you are trying to make me do something I don't want
to.
In any of these cases I will hurt you by not acknowledging your birthday -
but in all but #1, there are reasons which you may or may not judge valid
- even though you have been hurt by my actions.
As far as I am concerned every "me" in these scenarios *except* for the
first "me" could still be a nice, caring person. Like all people I may
have good or bad points - but just because I hurt you by not acknowledging
your birthday does not mean that we can't have a good relationship.
I think by knowing the reasons *behind* the actions is what makes the
person worth being with or not.
raven
In article <558b5f$9...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
g...@kestrel.scs.uiuc.edu "Gian-Paolo D Musumeci" writes:
> >> "To which he replied 'If there was no demand, there'd be no supply.'"
> > There are those of us men who *DON'T* demand liars.
>
> In fact, there are those of us men who demand honesty.
>
> GP
>
And spend years thinking we were getting honesty, till we find
that we don`t know this person at all and are not even sure what
honesty is any more!
Conversly, we can ask for honesty and the lass in question dosn`t
know how to cope with someone who plays the game with their cards
face up on the table!
We can`t win!!!!
--
"-when, with many a flirt and flutter,
In there stepped a stately Raven of the saintly days of yore.
Not the least obeisance made he; not a minute stopped or stayed he;
But, with mien of lord or lady, perched above my chamber door-"
(E.A.Poe 1845-49)
Sanford E. Walke IV
On Thu, 31 Oct 1996, Judy Gerjuoy wrote:
> I disagree with you still though I think I may understand what you mean.
> Let me give you some (simplistic examples) of why I don't agree with you.
None of which have anything to do with personal romantic relationships,
which is what this entire conversation revolves around.
Sanford E. Walke IV
Pat Kight (kig...@kira.peak.org) wrote:
: Sanford E. Walke IV <se...@izzy5.izzy.net> wrote:
: >At the risk of looking dumb, which is what I'm best at, they're all purple.
: "And there, ladies and gentleman, we have an almost archetypal
: illustration of ... (ta-DAAAAA) "... the difference between women and men!"
: dialogue comes along that just ... *frames* the whole discussion ...)
It was intended to. There's also a serious point to it. To me, they
*are* all purple. I mean, *all* of them are purple. Some are lighter
purple, and some are darker, but how can you remember which is which?
And why would you want to? What value are arbitrary names of colors
better defined by wavelengths? I often think that women can *see* colors
differently than men, since to me everything I've ever seen described as
plum or grape looks *identical*. My mother had me sort embroidery floss
for her once, until she realized that I was sorting by what the colors
looked like to me and not by the numbers. (If she'd told me she wanted
them in numerical order, it would have helped. Poorly specified task.)
Admittedly, I'm apparently slightly yellow-blue colorblind (Cyan and white,
for one example, look identical to me, and some colors on some backgrounds
are just plain invisible), but is that a good enough explanation for my
total confusion at the silly names people hang on only slightly different
shades of the same color? Are there people in the world who can look at
a color and *know* that it's rose and not dusty pink (substitute two close
colors, if necessary)? I'm asking, I guess, are there people that see
those sorts of gradations as REALLY obvious differences, obvious enough
that they need individual names, or is this just another example of an
unnecessary added layer of confusion?
Another example is cream, ivory, eggshell, off-white, and so on. They're
brown, or maybe tan, which is really just a light brown.
--
Sanford E. Walke IV
raven (ra...@greywolf.demon.co.uk) wrote:
GP wrote:
: > In fact, there are those of us men who demand honesty.
: And spend years thinking we were getting honesty, till we find
: that we don`t know this person at all and are not even sure what
: honesty is any more!
Wait, did I post this when I wasn't looking?
Matthew T. Russotto
In article <55cujb$s...@izzy4.izzy.net>,
Sanford E. Walke IV <se...@izzy5.izzy.net> wrote:
}Pat Kight (kig...@kira.peak.org) wrote:
}: Sanford E. Walke IV <se...@izzy5.izzy.net> wrote:
}: >At the risk of looking dumb, which is what I'm best at, they're all purple.
}: "And there, ladies and gentleman, we have an almost archetypal
}: illustration of ... (ta-DAAAAA) "... the difference between women and men!"
}: (Said with a REALLY BIG GRIN, just in case anyone is dense enough to
}: think I really buy into these generalities. But sometimes a snippet of
}: dialogue comes along that just ... *frames* the whole discussion ...)
}It was intended to. There's also a serious point to it. To me, they
}*are* all purple. I mean, *all* of them are purple. Some are lighter
}purple, and some are darker, but how can you remember which is which?
}And why would you want to? What value are arbitrary names of colors
}better defined by wavelengths?
For one thing, wavelengths aren't sufficient. What wavelength is
brown? How about magenta?
}I often think that women can *see* colors
}differently than men, since to me everything I've ever seen described as
}plum or grape looks *identical*.
I think that they can see colors better than you, since you have a
form of colorblindness. In general, I don't know. I know that most
forms of colorblindness, including the subtle ones, are much more
common among men than women.
}are just plain invisible), but is that a good enough explanation for my
}total confusion at the silly names people hang on only slightly different
}shades of the same color? Are there people in the world who can look at
}a color and *know* that it's rose and not dusty pink (substitute two close
}colors, if necessary)? I'm asking, I guess, are there people that see
}those sorts of gradations as REALLY obvious differences, obvious enough
}that they need individual names, or is this just another example of an
}unnecessary added layer of confusion?
I can see the difference if they are together, though I'm sure I
couldn't instantly see a color and say "Aha, that's light reddish-purple"
or whatever. Especially because they aren't standardized.
}Another example is cream, ivory, eggshell, off-white, and so on. They're
}brown, or maybe tan, which is really just a light brown.
And brown is just an unsaturated orange, if you want to be minimalist
about it.
To me, ivory and cream are yellows. Eggshell is a very light gray.
However, when it comes down to it, I'd probably call all those funny
shades of purple "purple", even though I can see the difference.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russ...@pond.com
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."
Sanford E. Walke IV
Matthew T. Russotto (russ...@wanda.vf.pond.com) wrote:
I wrote:
: }It was intended to. There's also a serious point to it. To me, they
: }*are* all purple. I mean, *all* of them are purple. Some are lighter
: }purple, and some are darker, but how can you remember which is which?
: }And why would you want to? What value are arbitrary names of colors
: }better defined by wavelengths?
: For one thing, wavelengths aren't sufficient. What wavelength is
: brown? How about magenta?
Fine, then, they're defined on color charts. Speaking of shades of purple,
though, they are all different wavelengths, right?
: I can see the difference if they are together, though I'm sure I
: couldn't instantly see a color and say "Aha, that's light reddish-purple"
: or whatever. Especially because they aren't standardized.
Can you tell which is which? I can often see that they're different, but
that doesn't mean I could tell you which was ivory and which was cream.
And why would anyone need to know? "Is this the color you want?" "No, more
of a cream" is far less meaningful, imo, than "No, a lighter shade" or "No,
a darker shade".
And colors *are* standardized, by Pantone number.
: However, when it comes down to it, I'd probably call all those funny
: shades of purple "purple", even though I can see the difference.
Okay, here's another question about all this: Do people really *know*
what the different colors are by sight? If I ask you to bring me a lavender
swatch of fabric, can you just look and tell it from amethyst, or do you
just bring light purple and call it lavender, and then when asked for
amethyst bring light purple again and call it amethyst? (substitute two
similar colors if necessary, I don't know what amethyst actually looks
like, just like I'm not too sure what lavender looks like, although it's
sort of lighter than the average purple, isn't it?)
This reminds me of a Foxtrot cartoon, where Paige is ordering copies and
specifying the colors she wants. "50 <some fancy name that means yellow>,
50 <some other fancy name that means yellow>, 50 <you get the picture>"
and the clerk says "Okay, 150 yellow".
Or the first prom I went to. My date, Ann, had a thing about purple,
and wore a garish dress, with multiple colors of purple, including two
different colors of purple sequins. Guess how she described the colors?
"Light purple, dark purple, darker purple, lightest purple", and so on.
I wore a lavender cummerbund and tie, but the only way I knew it was
lavender was because it's what the stock boy at the tux shop gave me
when I asked for lavender. I only knew to get lavender because Ann
told me to.
Gian-Paolo D Musumeci
ra...@greywolf.demon.co.uk (raven) writes:
>>>> "To which he replied 'If there was no demand, there'd be no supply.'"
> And spend years thinking we were getting honesty, till we find
> that we don`t know this person at all and are not even sure what
> honesty is any more!
> know how to cope with someone who plays the game with their cards
> face up on the table!
> We can`t win!!!!
Gian-Paolo grins tiredly. "Yes, we can win."
gdm
Pat Kight
In article <55db7d$b...@izzy4.izzy.net>,
>
printers' ink. It doesn't apply to, for instance, fabric dyes, house
paint, artists' watercolors or the gel media used by theatrical and
rock-concert lighting technicians to change the colors of light on a
stage. (Don't even get me started on stage lighting, which brings up the
difference between 'additive' and 'subtractive' color, all based on
principles of physics that I can't begin to keep straight).
"As for why people feel compelled to name colors, I'd guess it's because
people feel compelled to name *everything* ... and that, depending on
your field of endeavor, those specialized names can actually have useful
meaning.
"As a scenic painter, for instance, I know I can tell another scenic
painter 'I want a wash of raw umber on that wall' and s/he will be able
to duplicate the color *exactly.* Whereas you might look at the wall and
think 'brownish stain.' But trust me, raw umber is a *completely*
different brown than burnt umber, and both are very different from raw
and burnt sienna ...
"Can people really tell one tone from the next? If we need to, we can. If
someone says 'fuschia' to me, I visualize a specific shade very different
(hotter, brighter, more vibrant) from the one I visualize when they say,
'lavender,' (softer, duller, with bluer tones) even though both are in the
purple family."
--Jezebel
kig...@peak.org
Firesong
Firesong notes that Leslie spake thusly.
>On 29 Oct 1996 19:07:38 GMT in alt.callahans,
>+
>+ "Women are liars."
>
>"So are men," Leslie remarks, somewhat acidly.
>
Down to base principles eh?
"I am lying," Firesong states, paradoxically.
Firesong (well someone's gotta lighten the tone)
P.S. Can anyone else make a decent sentence using either the word
'Alkali' or the word 'Litmus' 'cos I can't.
>
>Leslie. It all evens out that way, don't you think?
--
New Web Page : http://www.firesong.demon.co.uk/
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
John Palmer
Judy Gerjuoy (jae...@access.digex.net) wrote:
: On 29 Oct 1996, Sanford E. Walke IV wrote:
: Whatever the situaion, hurt done deliberately *is* a lot different from
: hurt done accidently/unintentionally. They both may hurt the same amount
: to begin with, but long term, the deliberate hurts a lot more, and is
: harder to recover from.
That kinda depends, actually. The fact that you weren't worth the
effort to prevent the unintentional hurt to can be pretty nasty. . . and
deliberate hurt based on a fallacious assumption can be fleeting. ("Yes, I
deliberately hurt you because I believed you had done X; now that you know
in retrospect how I believed you had done X, you understand why I did it.
Now that we know that you didn't, I can apologize and you can forgive, I
hope.")
If you're talking about deliberate, unnecessary hurt vs. accidental
unnecessary hurt, you're correct, I think. . . but things can go a lot
deeper than that.
John Palmer
This topic's always been of interest to me, because I have a kind of
unusual vision of "truth". Y'see, when most people ask for information,
especially about emotional topics, they don't want "a set of facts". They
want "the truth".
My favorite example is that sometimes I get pissed off at someone,
and know that it's not their problem. . . it's me, getting annoyed at
something I have no business being annoyed with. Honestly speaking, I'm
not angry at that person, in the slightest. . . I'm just in an upset kind
of mood that happens to be focused at them. If that person asks if I'm
angry at them, my response will be either "No" or "no, I'm just in a cruddy
mood in general" (depending on how much information they might have about
the situation.) If I were reciting facts, I'd probably have to say "yes,
I'm angry at you", causing that person more confusion and transmitting less
information than otherwise. (Of course, there are exceptions; if a person
knows I'm angry at them, it's time to say that I am, but that it's MY
problem, NOT theirs.)
I think that kinda hits the whole issue. . . there are a lot of times
when it's quite accepted that people WANT certain information. The trouble
is, sometimes that people NEED other information. A person who tries to
give people information that's true and is what they want *AND* need is
being fair-to-middling honest. . . it's when people either shade the truth
to give people what they want (but NOT what they need) that you start
seeing a lot of deception.
Me, I have nothing against a few types of truths being shaded when
they still, upon distillation, reveal a "real" truth. What bugs me is that
many people do not look to see when their habits are hiding the real truth.
And I don't think either sex has a monopoly on THAT.
Firesong
Firesong notes that Michael D. Bartman spake thusly.
>mgib...@genmagic.com (Meredith L. Giberson) came right out and said:
>>This reminds me of a conversation I had with my husband last night. "Did
>>we get any email?" he said, passing me on the way to the computer.
>
>>"No," I said.
>
>>Five minutes later, he was standing in the doorway of our bedroom, looking
>>puzzled. "There were three new messages from the Couples-L and two letters
>>from Tom," he said.
>
>>"I didn't think you'd want to read them," I replied.
>
>>"But you said there wasn't any mail," he whined.
>
>>"I meant there wasn't any IMPORTANT mail," I answered.
>
>>Now, from my husband's point of view, I was lying. But from my point of
>>view, I was simply telling him more of the truth than he, as a man, had any
>>right to know. He saw it as concealing the truth; I saw it as doing him a
>>favor.
>
I had a girlfriend once who used to think for me like this. I was forced
to kill her. My mother still practices the habit. We avoid asking her
any questions we need the answers to. My father on the other hand is
worse. He won't tell you an edited version of the truth. He will invent
a truth that sounds good during his answer. (This BTW is the standard
and analogous male annoyance)
>"He asked a specific question, and you gave an incorrect answer. You
>answered the question, 'did we get anything I'd be interested in in
>the e-mail today?', but that was *not* what he asked. Your answer
>*was* a lie, regardless of your motivation for it, since it created an
>impression in his mind that did not match reality."
>
>"If you want to do him the same favor without lying, try something
>like, 'Yeah, two or three, but nothing you'd be interested in.' This
>is a truthful answer to his question, while also providing extra
>information that he might find useful."
>
>"I do some customer support work now and then, and when I ask a
>question, and the customer answers, I *always* assume that they are
>lying to me by answering some question that I didn't ask in preference
>for one *they* think is more important. Unfortunately, *they* are not
>in a position to determine importance, since they don't have a clue as
>to why I asked the question I did. Some are stuborn enough to
>continue doing this even when I repeat the question, emphasizing the
>important aspects, and explain to them that their answer makes no
>sense at all, and would they please just answer the question as it was
>asked."
>
I also work in support. And I can only say Amen sibling!
The statement, "That error message does not appear in that program, this
error message which might be similar to the one you are telling me about
does, or conversely the error message you've given me is in this other
program.", (punctuation be damned) is in standard use in my office.
The worst, absolutely the worst, beyond any shadow of a doubt, in my
experience, of my clients, is an..... an...... American! (There I said
it.)
>>Women, IMHO, have to deal with emotions much more complex than those of
>>men. Men have straightforward emotions that translate readily into
>>english. Women have those, but we temper them with things like hope,
>>compassion, and envy. All of which are much harder to explain than the
>>simple ("I love you", "You disgust me", "Where's dinner?"), shallow
>>feelings of men.
>
>"Ah! So women lie to *themselves* too! Yeah, I can see how that
>would be much more complicated than the way men do it..." Berek
>grins, and holds up a copy of Kestrel's disclaimer about
>generalizations.
>
It is my honestly held and personal opinion, that the female in this
case is telling you the exact truth as she sees it. That they are
actually capable of consigning the facts of the case to some limbo, not
reachable through the filters in place, unless the filters are
specifically circumvented in the original question.
The correct question to ask such a woman if you wish to know whether
there was any mail is, "How was your day dear?", then while she's
telling you, you can check the mail box.
>>(That last paragraph was written solely for my own amusement).
>
>"Sorry, others are playing with it too now!"
>
Including me.
Firesong
Paul de Anguera
In article <84690383...@firesong.demon.co.uk>,
Firesong <fire...@firesong.demon.co.uk> wrote:
..
>P.S. Can anyone else make a decent sentence using either the word
>'Alkali' or the word 'Litmus' 'cos I can't.
Sure, Firesong. How about "Litmus alkali-fornians are always polite
at the beach."?'","".... gee, I hope those nitpickers did't see this.
.......................................
"It is better to be deceived by people
than to be on the lookout for deception."
- Hanchu Daoren, Back to Beginnings
----------------------------------------
Paul de Anguera
>8-)-----E Seattle, Washington USA
========================================
Louis Bookbinder
In article <558cf6$p...@izzy4.izzy.net>, se...@izzy5.izzy.net (Sanford E.
Walke IV) wrote:
> SO, what I'm trying to point out is this: All you folks that are slamming
> me for saying "Women are liars." can stop now, since in THE VERY FIRST POST
>
"No," says a puzzled Tin Man
Nick Chopper -ax not....
Louis Bookbinder bo...@leland.stanford.edu (415) 725-0639
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~booky
Louis Bookbinder
In article <Pine.SUN.3.94.96103...@access1.digex.net>,
Judy Gerjuoy <jae...@access.digex.net> wrote:
> They drove him to the doctor and home - his *very* pregnant wife couldnt'
> drive the car. They came over once a week, cleaned the house and did
> things that he couldn't do because of the ankle - eg clean the cat box
> that his pregnant wife couldn't do while she was pregnant. Additionally
> he did a bunch of repairs, etc. around the house to help make up for what
> he did.
>
> Additionally, a bunch of us chipped in, and came over to cook and clean to
> help out as well.
>
"COOOL!" remarks the Tin Man
Louis Bookbinder
In article <Pine.SUN.3.90.96103...@izzy5.izzy.net>,
"Sanford E. Walke IV" <se...@izzy.net> wrote:
> I disagree. Deliberate hurt, you can say to yourself "She's a bitch, what
> she did doesn't matter." Unintentional/accidental hurt, you say to yourself
> "She cares so little about me and knows me so poorly that she destroys me
> without even thinking or trying."
>
> At the bottom line, there's no difference in the final result.
>
Klunk. "OK," he says. "The only distinction I see is that an intentional
hurt will not likely get an intention to correct the hurt. An accidently
hurt likely will, if made obvious. It is the FOLLOW-UP, which the hurter
does next, which may count more than the original intention (another
paving stone on the road to hell)"
The tin man returns to his month-end exercise in futility. "Work - if only
it would at least pay the bills....."
Randolph Fritz
In article <55dcl0$ak_...@library.airnews.net>,
The Gentleman <elcab...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> "I have a table that lists the RGB values for every color of DMC floss.
>Would that satisfy you?"
"Such a table is, of necessity, an approximation, and dependent on the
particular red, green, and blue used as well."
--
Randolph Fritz
rand...@teleport.com
The Gentleman
In article <55isuj$5...@nadine.teleport.com>,
rand...@teleport.com (Randolph Fritz) wrote:
}In article <55dcl0$ak_...@library.airnews.net>,
}The Gentleman <elcab...@aol.com> wrote:
}>
}> "I have a table that lists the RGB values for every color of DMC floss.
}>Would that satisfy you?"
}
}"Such a table is, of necessity, an approximation, and dependent on the
}particular red, green, and blue used as well."
}
created by the people at DMC. But the second part, no way."
"There are several ways of describing colors. There are three that are
accurate in computer terms, Pantone (sometimes abbr. as CYMB, somewhat
falling out of use), HSV (Hue, Saturation, and Value, also becoming less
used), and RGB (Red, Green, Blue, the easiest for computers to deal with).
When I say RGB, I mean the 24-bit color used by Windows. The actual accuracy
of the reproduced color is dependant on your display equipment, but the RGB
value itself is fairly exact. When a piece of hardware or software talks
about '16.7 million colors', they are talking about 24-bit RGB."
UT
--
The confidence of ignorance will always overcome indecision of knowledge.
//.sig created by Inscrutable V0.2a
//Please report any irregularities to elcab...@aol.com
Shonias
In article <55cujb$s...@izzy4.izzy.net>,
Sanford E. Walke IV <se...@izzy5.izzy.net> wrote:
>It was intended to. There's also a serious point to it. To me, they
>*are* all purple. I mean, *all* of them are purple. Some are lighter
>purple, and some are darker, but how can you remember which is which?
>And why would you want to? What value are arbitrary names of colors
<Cringe> Colours as we see them are *not* wavelengths. You can't add
two wavelengths and get a third wavelength. In terms of why you'd want to...
well I'll wait till your next comment...
>differently than men, since to me everything I've ever seen described as
>plum or grape looks *identical*. My mother had me sort embroidery floss
>for her once, until she realized that I was sorting by what the colors
>looked like to me and not by the numbers. (If she'd told me she wanted
>them in numerical order, it would have helped. Poorly specified task.)
This is the answer. I don't know why, (how much of it is biology and
how much is parenting as the comment which started this suggested) but
men, in general, *don't* see as many colours as women. So the answer
is, plum and grape look *way* different to me, so asking why I would
want to give them different names is like asking you why you give
pink and red different names (assuming you can see them).
>Admittedly, I'm apparently slightly yellow-blue colorblind (Cyan and white,
>for one example, look identical to me, and some colors on some backgrounds
>are just plain invisible), but is that a good enough explanation for my
>total confusion at the silly names people hang on only slightly different
>shades of the same color? Are there people in the world who can look at
>a color and *know* that it's rose and not dusty pink (substitute two close
>colors, if necessary)? I'm asking, I guess, are there people that see
>those sorts of gradations as REALLY obvious differences, obvious enough
>that they need individual names, or is this just another example of an
>unnecessary added layer of confusion?
Yes, because rose might clash with something, while dusty pink would not.
Which would result in an offensive sight (or at least annoying).
>Another example is cream, ivory, eggshell, off-white, and so on. They're
>brown, or maybe tan, which is really just a light brown.
>
--
No, they all be different, and clash with one another often.
But, it's not a nit-picky thing, if you can't see it, you don't need
multiple names for it. But, its important people realise how different
colour perception is between people. I learned the hard way by
presentig a talk with hand outs that had galaxies coloured flourescent
pink and QSOs coloured flourescent yellow. When I referred to the
galaxies I couldn't understand why I was getting distinctly confused
looks. Later on I discovered out of a room of a doxen or so males, only
2 of them could see the flourescent pink dots. It never occurred to
me that *anyone* wouldn't be able to see flourescent pink...
Shonias
--
**********************************************
Walk by my side, and follow my dreams,
And bear with my pride, as strong as it seems.
Will you be there tomorrow?
**********************************************
grammarfascist
On 30 Oct 1996, Sanford E. Walke IV wrote:
> Meredith L. Giberson (mgib...@genmagic.com) wrote:
>
> : Now, from my husband's point of view, I was lying. But from my point of
> : view, I was simply telling him more of the truth than he, as a man, had any
> : right to know. He saw it as concealing the truth; I saw it as doing him a
> : favor.
>
> Hopefully, you meant this post as a joke. Here's a serious comment, though,
> addressed to nearly all women I've known: STOP DOING US FAVORS!!!! Grant us
> the courtesy that we *MAY* be able to make our *OWN* decisions, if *ONLY* we
> could get all the information right up front. STOP KEEPING THINGS FROM US
> "for our own good"!!!
All right. I was doing my best to stay quiet up in the peanut gallery, but
this one I have _got_ to reply to.
To all the would-be knights in shining armor out there: stop trying to
save us! Chivalry is a beautiful thing. I don't mind people holding doors
for me. But dammit, I can fight my own fucking battles! I am _so_ tired of
<idiot> Rose: you suck
<friend> hey, don't say things like that about Rose!
when I can tell him off just as well _if not better_ than you can, and
_want_ to tell him off! We aren't fragile, believe it or not, in anything
besides (comparative to men) bone structure. We can think just as well as
you can and snarl and snap and retort and fight and be vicious just as
well as you can if not better--and you know what? Sometimes we _like_ to.
People see me doing embroidery with my legs curled up under me and want to
cuddle and coddle me, and it startles the hell out of them when I rip
someone's heart out and shove it down his throat for being crass. Stop
being startled and get used to it. We're hardly always gentle, and
repressing the occasional vicious streak doesn't do anyone any good. Let
us fight for our own honor!
--Rose
ROSEv1.2b * Projected release date: May 2000 * Email for details
grammarfascist
On 30 Oct 1996, Gian-Paolo D Musumeci wrote:
> In fact, there are those of us men who demand honesty.
And I will always be grateful that you did, and do.
For most of my life, I haven't been particularly honest. There wasn't any
need to be. I lived in, as one friend puts it, "New York City, man, land
of stolen goods." My mother tried to explain why honesty was more
important than anything else, but I didn't really understand it, and later
on I rebelled against it as part of the general teen-rebellion thing. I've
lied a little and lied a lot, white lies and tall tales and--only once--a
lie deliberated and one of the hardest things I've ever done, but said,
and never retracted. I never really forgave myself for it, either. But
telling the truth wouldn't have done anyone any good and would only have
hurt more, and no matter which way I played Devil's Advocate, there were
more reasons to lie than to tell the truth. So I lied.
And then I met the only person I know with a truly developed sense of
_honor_, and it blew me away. He was the one person I could trust--I trust
my mother 99% of the time, but there's still that 1%--and because of my
pride and my own honor, I couldn't tell him I loved him if I didn't think
myself worthy of him. (I still don't, but I'm getting there.) So I grabbed
the pullup bar and yanked myself up as close to his level as I could get,
which meant being honest.
Honesty here is defined as telling _all the truth_. Not just not lying.
Big difference.
Honesty only hurts when it comes on top of lies, when it reveals the wood
and thumbtacks holding up the pretty windowdressing of delusion and
deception. Some of it is societal and ingrained--"That dress looks _awful_
on you" is something that people simply don't say to people they don't
know well, honest or no, and honesty isn't expected in most public social
settings. But we all knew the world was screwy that way.
When you're someone's acquaintance, it's hard to know when to be honest.
Some people will say "Honesty is the most important thing to me"--and some
of them even mean it. The rest, however, will get sulky or upset when you
tell them the truth that they don't want to hear. I recommend testing this
attitude with small truths and seeing how they react.
I'm not making any gender generalizations, you'll note. This applies to
males and females equally. I think I've said "some" and "many" and "most"
enough to not get jumped on for this.
With some friends I'm automatically honest. With others, I have to force
myself to be honest, because I know they need to hear things and I can
deal with them being mad at me for killing their self-delusions. And with
some, there's no point in being honest all the time, because I can't count
on them to be honest with me, so why bother? But those last aren't very
high on my friends list, or even really friends at all.
Enough blathering. I think I'm going to go read the rest of the thread
before I reply to any other four-day-old posts.
grammarfascist
On Thu, 31 Oct 1996, Paul de Anguera wrote:
> groups being compared. We are not really talking about men vs.
> women here. We are talking about leaders and followers. People who
> have the following role in relationships are more concerned about the
> nature of the relationships than are people who have the leading
> role, because they are dependant on them in a way that the leaders
> are not. Coincidentally, most relationships of interest are between
> men and women, and in most of these relationships the man is cast in
> the leading role. The more unequal the relationship, the more this is
> true.
What about take-turns relationships? *)
Sexual metaphors aside, I think this has some validity, but it's not the
whole picture. And really, sometimes I'm the "leader" in this relationship
and sometimes I'm not--and do you know how damned difficult it is to be a
good leader without a good follower? Leaders are absolutely dependent on
their followers. Don't think for a moment that that isn't true.
> Shall we criticize women for occupying the position in which we have
> put them?
A friend recently dismissed a comment I made with "That makes as much
sense as giving the women the vote because they'll vote to stay in the
kitchen." Another, female, friend replied, "Well, we kind of have, haven't
we." And we all couldn't help but agree. Women hardly had no say about
being put in this "position", but that's as may be.
(Just don't forget to vote on Tuesday, all my fellow Americans-over-18.)
--Rose, who knows just who she's voting _against_, but isn't yet sure who
she's voting _for_
grammarfascist
On 1 Nov 1996, Gian-Paolo D Musumeci wrote:
> ra...@greywolf.demon.co.uk (raven) writes:
> >>>> "To which he replied 'If there was no demand, there'd be no supply.'"
> >>> There are those of us men who *DON'T* demand liars.
> >> In fact, there are those of us men who demand honesty.
> > And spend years thinking we were getting honesty, till we find
> > that we don`t know this person at all and are not even sure what
> > honesty is any more!
> > Conversly, we can ask for honesty and the lass in question dosn`t
> > know how to cope with someone who plays the game with their cards
> > face up on the table!
> > We can`t win!!!!
>
> Gian-Paolo grins tiredly. "Yes, we can win."
Admittedly, love, our situation is neither of the ones described above.
Yes, you can win--but not if the other person either refuses to be honest
or is totally baffled by the concept. In our case, that didn't matter,
because we both understand honesty and the potential for pain that goes
with it and agreed to it anyway. But then, our situation is damned rare on
all counts, so I'm not sure this is anything to base anything on. *)
--Rose
grammarfascist
On Sat, 2 Nov 1996, Firesong wrote:
> Firesong (well someone's gotta lighten the tone)
>
> P.S. Can anyone else make a decent sentence using either the word
> 'Alkali' or the word 'Litmus' 'cos I can't.
The words "alkali" and "litmus" are very difficult to use in a sentence.
How's that? *)
grammarfascist
On 3 Nov 1996, Randolph Fritz wrote:
> In article <55dcl0$ak_...@library.airnews.net>,
> The Gentleman <elcab...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > "I have a table that lists the RGB values for every color of DMC floss.
> >Would that satisfy you?"
>
> "Such a table is, of necessity, an approximation, and dependent on the
> particular red, green, and blue used as well."
And of course there's Josef Albers' opinion that everyone who looks at a
wall sees it as a slightly different color. He created a number of
paintings called "Homages to the Square" which looked like this:
////////// **********
/::::::::/ *<<<<<<<<*
/:\\\\\\:/ *<\\\\\\<*
/:\\\\\\:/ *<\\\\\\<*
/:\\\\\\:/ *<\\\\\\<*
/:\\\\\\:/ *<\\\\\\<*
/:\\\\\\:/ *<\\\\\\<*
/:\\\\\\:/ *<\\\\\\<*
/::::::::/ *<<<<<<<<*
////////// **********
(Each character is a different color.)
The center squares were the same color--but they looked totally different
because of their surroundings. I don't know about anyone else, and I
wasn't even trying for this effect, but the \s in the second "square" look
a lot denser and darker than the ones in the first, even though it's still
just 6 by 6.
Taking this back to actions and truth and pain, the action is the same no
matter what. But its context--the situation and the reasons behind it--can
make it look very, very different from the same action in a different
context.
Ilene H. Morgan
In article <Pine.SUN.3.90.96103...@izzy5.izzy.net>,
"Sanford E. Walke IV" <se...@izzy.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Oct 1996, Judy Gerjuoy wrote:
> > > There is no real difference between a woman who is confused and a woman
> > > who is true evil. Both will hurt you to the same extent.
> > Even if I agreed with your initial reason as to why women get confused -
> > and I don't, but I don't think your thoughts or my disagreement can be
> > "proved", I must disagree with you conclusion.
> It wasn't my thoughts, it was JT's, I just agreed with him.
But you put the quote into your .sig, which offers some evidence that
it's now your conclusion as well.
> > Whatever the situaion, hurt done deliberately *is* a lot different from
> > hurt done accidently/unintentionally. They both may hurt the same amount
> > to begin with, but long term, the deliberate hurts a lot more, and is
> > harder to recover from.
> I disagree. Deliberate hurt, you can say to yourself "She's a bitch, what
> she did doesn't matter."
This overlooks the possibility that you (general "you") did something to
bring the hurt on yourself, or that she might think you did.
Unintentional/accidental hurt, you say to yourself
> "She cares so little about me and knows me so poorly that she destroys me
> without even thinking or trying."
This is very unfair. People aren't mind readers. Even people with excellent
people instincts sometimes make mistakes, and sometimes people give off
mixed or misleading signals.
> At the bottom line, there's no difference in the final result.
>
> Sandy se...@izzy.net
> "There is no real difference between a woman who is confused and a woman
> who is true evil. Both will hurt you to the same extent." -- JT
> I don't speak for anyone but myself, and sometimes not even that.
For instance, you're probably unaware that it causes me pain every time
I read this quotation. I'm not saying that that's a reason for you to
change what you're doing--just something you may not have been aware of.
A few months ago, a patron said some things I disagreed with strongly, but
I understood why he felt the way he did and why he was saying what he was
saying. The same thing is going on here. I know you've been hurt, and,
while I understand the motivation behind what you're saying, I think you
should be aware that some of it has the potential to insult and hurt people.
What you do with that information is up to you.
Ilene
--
Ilene H. Morgan, Ph. D. |Ph: 573-341-4652/Fax: 573-341-4741
Assistant Professor of Mathematics| If at first you don't succeed,
University of Missouri-Rolla | call it version 1.0
e-mail: imo...@umr.edu | Standard disclaimers apply. <*>
Pat Kight
In article <55j3u0$r...@library.airnews.net>,
The Gentleman <elcab...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> "There are several ways of describing colors. There are three that are
>accurate in computer terms, Pantone (sometimes abbr. as CYMB, somewhat
>falling out of use), HSV (Hue, Saturation, and Value, also becoming less
>used), and RGB (Red, Green, Blue, the easiest for computers to deal with).
"All well and good," Jezebel interjects, "but Sandy's original question
about the usefulness (or lack thereof) of color names was *not*, AFAIK,
computer-related.
"Remember, people have been naming, mixing, comparing and defining colors
for eons before computers came along ... and the only ones who *use* the
computer standards are ... (tadaaaaa) computer users. Which, last time I
checked, still was't most of the world."
Jez looks out her window and across the tree-tops to the hills beyond ...
wishing she knew a *lot* more words for "green."
--Jezebel
kig...@peak.org
grammarfascist
On 30 Oct 1996, Gian-Paolo D Musumeci wrote:
> kitten> kitten doesn't know whether it is better to be oversensitive or hard
> kitten> as a rock. either way, it's a defense.
>
> I've always preferred bitterly cold if I have to be defensive. I think it
> hurts less that way. YMMV.
Being oversensitive gives you lovely weaponry, though. If everything hurts
somehow, you can guilt-trip _anyone_. And it's easier to turn down the
sensitivity than to stop being cold, something which very few people
consider.
Maybe women do live in the future more--but in the far future. I think
about two, three, four years from now, about getting married and having
kids, about _generalities_, and I know a lot of other women who do, but
it's November--three years to the day, in fact, since my first ever signon
as blue...@phantom.com--and I'm doing my best _not_ to think about 1997.
At least, not about anything past about January 15th.
Quote from class discussion last Thursday:
"Men see. Women perceive."
Of course, how we describe what we see or perceive differs widely. But
this might throw a bit of light on a corner of this.
grammarfascist
On Fri, 1 Nov 1996, Sanford E. Walke IV wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Oct 1996, Judy Gerjuoy wrote:
>
> > I disagree with you still though I think I may understand what you mean.
> > Let me give you some (simplistic examples) of why I don't agree with you.
>
> None of which have anything to do with personal romantic relationships,
> which is what this entire conversation revolves around.
One of the stereotypical lovers' arguments is "You forgot my birthday/our
anniversary!" Having said that, let's put it in different terms:
Jaelle wrote:
> Let us assume that it is important to you that I remember your birthday
> and get you a present. Let us then assume I don't get you a present.
> This could have happened because of a number of different reasons.
Let us assume that my SO has a sexual fantasy that sie's wanted to act
out for a while, which involves my initiating all the action, setting the
scene, and so on, and has requested that I do so as a birthday present.
Let us then assume that I don't do any of the preparations or make any
move to start anything out of the ordinary. This could have happened
because of a number of different reasons.
> 1. I am a nasty person, and I deliberately didn't do anything so to make
> you unhappy.
This stands.
> 2. I am a very scattered brained person, and I just plain forgot - along
> with forgetting my parent's birthdays, my other friends, etc.
This stands.
> 3. I did write it in my day runner and it was stolen so I forgot
> (slightly different situation from above, as I did make a real effort).
We wrote down everything I'd need to get and do in a file on my computer,
which then died/the file was accidentally erased (slightly different
situation from above, as I did make a real effort).
> 4. I did remember, but the day before my father died and I was too
> caught up in the situation of dealing with that to remember (more
> distant from #2.
Or was too upset to even think about celebrating. This stands.
> 5. I don't celebrate *my* birthday, and therefore don't celebrate
> *anyone's*.
I've never made a request like this of you or anyone else, and don't
understand why I should go through the extra preparation and so on when an
ordinary present would do just as well--or don't have any fantasies that
require preparation on someone else's part or anything but my own
imagination, and so on.
> 6. I don't celebrate *my* birthday - and (and this is the interesting
> part) don't see why you are trying to make me do something I don't want
> to.
I don't have fantasies like that, and they don't particularly excite me,
and I don't want to act this one out, and no matter how much I love my SO,
this does absolutely nothing for me, so I don't understand why, if sie
loves me, sie wants me to do this.
The important thing in all of this, though, is that _the person whose
birthday it is understands why sie didn't get the requested present_.
"Knowing is half the battle," and knowledge is great comfort against pain.
These all hurt equally if no one says anything--but the first hurts _much_
more than any of the others if an explanation is made. And we're back to
honesty issues.
John Palmer
Sanford E. Walke IV (se...@izzy5.izzy.net) wrote:
: John Palmer (jpa...@infinet.com) wrote:
: : Judy Gerjuoy (jae...@access.digex.net) wrote:
: : : On 29 Oct 1996, Sanford E. Walke IV wrote:
: : : Whatever the situaion, hurt done deliberately *is* a lot different from
: No, I most assuredly did NOT write that above paragraph. Careful with
: the attributions, folks.
Grin. I was, but I forgot to chop your name out. Since you have
"(you) wrote" with (in this case 3) attributions, anything you DID write
would have *4*. Jaelle is the one who wrote that you wrote something.
Sorry about the messup, though. . . I *SHOULD* have chopped your name
out.
Gian-Paolo D Musumeci
>> "There are several ways of describing colors. There are three that are
>> accurate in computer terms, Pantone (sometimes abbr. as CYMB, somewhat
>> falling out of use), HSV (Hue, Saturation, and Value, also becoming less
>> used), and RGB (Red, Green, Blue, the easiest for computers to deal with).
>> When I say RGB, I mean the 24-bit color used by Windows. (snip)
Gian-Paolo pipes up. "The gentleman forgot Hexachrome. It's a six-color
scheme that is designed as the successor to the Pantome color space system."
> "Remember, people have been naming, mixing, comparing and defining colors
> for eons before computers came along ... and the only ones who *use* the
> computer standards are ... (tadaaaaa) computer users. Which, last time I
> checked, still was't most of the world."
Gian-Paolo grins at Jez. "Still can't define the beautiful red of my
beloved's hair, or the not-quite-green of corroded copper on top of Foellinger
Hall -- it's just not the same on a screen (or even on a dye-sublimation
proof)."
gdm
Gian-Paolo D Musumeci
On Sat, 2 Nov 1996, Firesong wrote:
> P.S. Can anyone else make a decent sentence using either the word
> 'Alkali' or the word 'Litmus' 'cos I can't.
"After the reaction has been carried to completion (approximately 2 hours at
vigorous reflux), make the solution basic to litmus paper with 3M potassiu
hydroxide."
Yes, I'm taking an organic chemistry lab class. Is it that obvious? ;-)
gdm
Randolph Fritz
In article <55j8cg$c...@metro.ucc.su.OZ.AU>,
Shonias <a...@Physics.usyd.edu.au> wrote:
>
>This is the answer. I don't know why, (how much of it is biology and
>how much is parenting as the comment which started this suggested) but
>men, in general, *don't* see as many colours as women. So the answer
>is, plum and grape look *way* different to me, so asking why I would
>want to give them different names is like asking you why you give
>pink and red different names (assuming you can see them).
>
"It probably has more to do with fashion; most men haven't paid much
attention to styles and colors since about 1850--gods know why. It's
a genuinely eerie cultural change--before that time, both sexes
competed in style and taste; after that time mostly women did, and
such interest was denigrated by most men.
"As far as I know, non-colorblind men perceive as many distinct colors
as women and abilities at color discrimination vary quite a bit from
person to person--if there were such an obvious psychophysical
difference between the sexes, it would certainly have been noted by now!"
--
Randolph Fritz
rand...@teleport.com
Sanford E. Walke IV
Ilene H. Morgan (imo...@umr.edu) wrote:
: Unintentional/accidental hurt, you say to yourself
: > "She cares so little about me and knows me so poorly that she destroys me
: > without even thinking or trying."
: This is very unfair. People aren't mind readers. Even people with excellent
: people instincts sometimes make mistakes, and sometimes people give off
: mixed or misleading signals.
All of this is in the context of a romantic relationship. Part of your JOB
in that relationship is to know the other person. Failure to do so, in so
blatant a manner as to injure the other person emotionally, is an example
of a lack of caring or a lack of trying, not a lack of ability. If you
were able to get close enough to them that what you do matters, then you
basically *can't* "accidentally" hurt them, because you've already
demonstrated that you know them well enough not to do so.
Interesting. Now I'm onto a whole `nother thing. By this reasoning, *all*
pain caused by an SO is deliberate. Hmmmmm.
: > "There is no real difference between a woman who is confused and a woman
: > who is true evil. Both will hurt you to the same extent." -- JT
: For instance, you're probably unaware that it causes me pain every time
: I read this quotation. I'm not saying that that's a reason for you to
: change what you're doing--just something you may not have been aware of.
We're not in a romantic relationship, either, are we?
--
Sanford E. Walke IV
grammarfascist (mic...@kestrel.scs.uiuc.edu) wrote:
: And it's easier to turn down the sensitivity than to stop being cold,
: something which very few people consider.
I think that's a very personal thing. For *some* people, it's probably
easier the other way around.
BetNoir
This thread has lead my brain off on some tangental wandering on the
subjects of gender and inflicting hurt...
I am firmly convinced that we females are much harsher, brutal, and
nastier to one another than we are to the males of the species. If a
male screws up (in our opinion) the likely response is 'Well, he's just a
dumb male and doesn't know any better.'
But if one of our OWN screws up (again, in our opinion), I have noticed
the response more likely runs along the lines of 'She should have known
better...' or 'I saw that one coming, why couldn't she?'
The implication here being that men are just too hopelessly head-dumb to
'get it' when it comes to relationships, whereas if a female messes up in
a relationship, it becomes a case of 'I told you so, why didn't you
listen?'
OTOH, I grit my teeth when I hear anyone of either gender go off on a
major rant about the evils of the other gender as a whole. I do not
think that whatever hurt a small group inflicts should condemn the gender
as a whole.
Yeah, I know some men who are complete assholes, and should be wiped out.
And I know some females who deserve the same treatment. I also know some
men whose presence makes the universe a better place to inhabit, as well
as some women for whom I could say the same thing.
--
BetN
'We close our eyes...and the world has turned around again...' D. Elfman
'It's just the night in my veins....' C. Hynde
NEVER parry with your head
Sam Robinson
Randolph Fritz wrote:
>
> In article <55j3u0$r...@library.airnews.net>,
> The Gentleman <elcab...@aol.com> wrote:
> >}
> >}particular red, green, and blue used as well."
> >}
> >created by the people at DMC. But the second part, no way."
> >
>
> colors--it would be interesting to know which standard was used."
>
[some text removed]
> "The displayed color still varies, depending on the monitor and the
> graphics card--most monitors used with MS-Windows systems only
> actually display one or two million colors. And scanners vary, too,
> so a scanned RGB value isn't reliable without careful calibration.
> Also, RGB doesn't cover the full gamut of colors that can be
> seen. There are colors that RGB simply cannot describe (or display) at
> all--to do that one has to use a better color model.
>
> "Microsoft has not, to my knowledge, adopted any color calibration
> system, so RGB color on an MS-Windows system isn't particularly
> reliable.
>
The monitors used with MS-Windows are the same monitors used with almost
everything else except extreme high-end graphics workstations. Mine (a
relatively inexpensive NEC unit) has a user adjustable white point (most
software expects 6500 degrees) and various other adjustments for
calibrating its output. The vidio card I use is not as good, but Matrox
makes several that can handle the D/A resolution to drive most of the
better monitors to a reasonable accuracy (reasonable being pretty much
to acheivable pantone standards). The color model is a funtion of
software and bit resolution. I have seen both HLS and RGB discussed, and
yes the rgb 8,8,8 model (24 bit) is not as the 32 bit true color
standard, but that is as I said a function of display adaptor, driver,
and graphics package integration. You are absolutely correct in that
Microsoft hasn't adopted any particular color calibration system, but
the calibration of a monitor or scanner to pantone standards is a
function of any decent graphics package. I use Corel, and although I
accepted defaults, I could have calibrated to my heart's content to get
the monitor set right. I did have a really thrilling time doing just
that with my color printer.
Incidentally, what sort of system do you think doesn't have these
problems? The only systems that come with this stuff are typically from
SGI, and even then, there is a fairly involved set of calibrations,
which ultimately end up with human beings making some judgements. Way
back when, there were colormatching systems, and those systems still
exist, and then as now, the calibration of the monitor was and is a time
consuming process. I can tell you from experience, that the current PC
stuff is a hell of a lot easier than setting up one of those old analog
strokers (analog vector displays)
Randolph, I realise that this may sound flamish... but where does
Microsoft enter into this? Are we blaming the Intel/Microsoft based
platforms for the fact that color matching required good hardware? Are
we saying that Apple, or SGI, or Sun, or Amiga is inherently better for
graphics? (which might have been true in 1988) I've had some of the best
graphics hardware available. (Tektronix 4115b with 4091 color printer
and the rasterizer box... I forget the number, running off of a
PDP-11/23 or a PDP-11/44) I personally put the whole thing under the
hammer when I realized that a $6500.00 PC had the hardware to blow the
system away, and that same PC can run UniGraphics solids and shading to
produce images that are as good as anything I've seen. A full blown
system is not one of those friggin' Packard Bell chop boxes for
$1199.99, but that's a choice that the buyer makes and has nothing to do
with operating systems or the underlying hardware archetecture. I can
buy a cheap SGI box or a cheap Apple that won't do what the better ones
will.
Sorry, but this OS/Archetecture snobbery (or my perception of it <G>) is
getting to be a major hot button with me. As I've mentioned to a few
folks, I run or program on 6 different operating systems. Each of them
has different strengths and weaknesses, and because there are so damn
few people who know more than one of them well, they keep being
misrepresented. I perceived that you were saying that a Microsoft OS
couldn't handle graphics, I know for a fact that this is not true. For
corroboration, please refer to the Corel Artshow series from their
yearly contest.
Sam carefully gets down off of the soapbox, and then goes over to the
bar, collecting Randolph on the way, and asking what he could get him to
drink.
--
Sam Robinson Sams...@mindspring.com
---------------------------------------------------------------
If you don't know what you want, you can never ever have it.
grammarfascist
On 4 Nov 1996, Gian-Paolo D Musumeci wrote:
> Gian-Paolo grins at Jez. "Still can't define the beautiful red of my
> beloved's hair, or the not-quite-green of corroded copper on top of Foellinger
> Hall -- it's just not the same on a screen (or even on a dye-sublimation
> proof)."
"It's not red, dammit!
"...But damned if I know what it _is_. I don't think we have _enough_
names for colors!"
Shonias
In article <55js2b$l...@nadine.teleport.com>,
Randolph Fritz <rand...@teleport.com> wrote:
>"As far as I know, non-colorblind men perceive as many distinct colors
>as women and abilities at color discrimination vary quite a bit from
>person to person--if there were such an obvious psychophysical
>difference between the sexes, it would certainly have been noted by now!"
So that means I managed to hit on 10 out of 12 men in a room being colour
blind? Most of them reported not being colour blind. (2 out of 10 said they
were colour blind). I think there has to be more to it than fashion.
Shonias
--
************************************
I know it makes no difference
To what you're going through.
But I've seen the tip of the iceberg
And I worry about you.
************************************
Slywlf
In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.961103184518.7655I-100000@kestrel>,
grammarfascist <mic...@kestrel.scs.uiuc.edu> writes:
>And then I met the only person I know with a truly developed sense of
>_honor_, and it blew me away. He was the one person I could trust--I
trust
>my mother 99% of the time, but there's still that 1%--and because of my
>pride and my own honor, I couldn't tell him I loved him if I didn't think
>myself worthy of him. (I still don't, but I'm getting there.) So I
grabbed
>the pullup bar and yanked myself up as close to his level as I could get,
>which meant being honest.
This brought tears to my eyes, and a series of powerful memories
to my mind. The potency of a good example cannot be appreciated
until it hits you right between the eyes, IMHO. After my first encounter
with a truly honest and honerable man, I recalled something my mom
once told me, in completely un-related circumstances. If you want a
really fine 'mate', try to imagine what they would want and/or expect
in their 'mate'. Then decide if you live up to that expectation. If not,
you either have work to do, or you'd better be prepared to lower your
own standards and expectations.
Randolph Fritz
In article <55j3u0$r...@library.airnews.net>,
The Gentleman <elcab...@aol.com> wrote:
>}
>}"Such a table is, of necessity, an approximation, and dependent on the
>}particular red, green, and blue used as well."
>}
> "Okay, I'll give you the first part, although this 'approximation' was
>created by the people at DMC. But the second part, no way."
>
"Ah. The DMC people probably used a particular standard for the
colors--it would be interesting to know which standard was used."
> "There are several ways of describing colors. There are three that are
>accurate in computer terms, Pantone (sometimes abbr. as CYMB, somewhat
>falling out of use), HSV (Hue, Saturation, and Value, also becoming less
>used), and RGB (Red, Green, Blue, the easiest for computers to deal with).
>When I say RGB, I mean the 24-bit color used by Windows. The actual accuracy
>of the reproduced color is dependant on your display equipment, but the RGB
>value itself is fairly exact. When a piece of hardware or software talks
>about '16.7 million colors', they are talking about 24-bit RGB."
>
"The displayed color still varies, depending on the monitor and the
graphics card--most monitors used with MS-Windows systems only
actually display one or two million colors. And scanners vary, too,
so a scanned RGB value isn't reliable without careful calibration.
Also, RGB doesn't cover the full gamut of colors that can be
seen. There are colors that RGB simply cannot describe (or display) at
all--to do that one has to use a better color model.
"Microsoft has not, to my knowledge, adopted any color calibration
system, so RGB color on an MS-Windows system isn't particularly
reliable.
"This is actually one of the large and frustrating issues in computer
art, publishing, and certain kinds of CAD as well--one never quite
knows what color one is going to get and the industry has not yet seen
fit to standardize color calibration."
--
Randolph Fritz
rand...@teleport.com
Shonias
In article <55l5b8$p...@izzy4.izzy.net>,
Sanford E. Walke IV <se...@izzy5.izzy.net> wrote:
>All of this is in the context of a romantic relationship. Part of your JOB
>in that relationship is to know the other person. Failure to do so, in so
>blatant a manner as to injure the other person emotionally, is an example
>of a lack of caring or a lack of trying, not a lack of ability. If you
>were able to get close enough to them that what you do matters, then you
>basically *can't* "accidentally" hurt them, because you've already
>demonstrated that you know them well enough not to do so.
This is all very valid, assuming SO is completly unveiled and makes
no attempt to hide who they really are. Otherwise, if it's my JOB to
know my SO, I may as well quit now, because without his help, it's
a hopeless task. I have *never* met someone who presents themselves
exactly as who they are, making every aspect of their personality
plain, even to their SO. Therefore, in order to know this person
well enough to never accidentally hurt them, one has to be psychic.
I pass. I'm not playing that game, one year of computer science was
enough for me to decide I'm not psychic.
LIN KA-MING (Magus Firecow)
Firesong wrote:
>
> Firesong notes that Leslie spake thusly.
> >On 29 Oct 1996 19:07:38 GMT in alt.callahans,
> >Sanford E. Walke IV <se...@izzy5.izzy.net> said:
> >+
> >+ "Women are liars."
> >
> >"So are men," Leslie remarks, somewhat acidly.
> >
>
> Down to base principles eh?
>
> "I am lying," Firesong states, paradoxically.
"No paradox there, you are lying because you're actually sitting
down and not lying after all..." adds Magus Firecow.
"To get the paradox really going you have to go down to the harbour
and find a nice pair of docks. Or you could say:
'This statement is a lie.' which isn't really a paradox, just a
self-contradiction. If you want a real paradox then you are
looking for the wisdom of The Boy (Bart Simpson) who said:
'You're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't.'"
> P.S. Can anyone else make a decent sentence using either the word
> 'Alkali' or the word 'Litmus' 'cos I can't.
"Beautiful, another self-contradiction. By saying that you could
not use those two words in a sentence, you did. Your words litmus
of my screen except the dark corner where my mail icon sits."
Magus Firecow.
Shonias
In article <55db7d$b...@izzy4.izzy.net>,
Sanford E. Walke IV <se...@izzy5.izzy.net> wrote:
>: For one thing, wavelengths aren't sufficient. What wavelength is
>: brown? How about magenta?
>
>Fine, then, they're defined on color charts. Speaking of shades of purple,
>though, they are all different wavelengths, right?
Wavelength is vaguely related to colour, in that our eyes respond to three
different peaks of wavelength distribution. What we see as different
shades of purple are no doubt different combinations of different
intensities of different wavelengths, but it there is also no doubt there
are some different combos some people (or even all people) see as the same
colour. Therefore in terms of perception, wavelength is a useless concept.
Incidentally, how can you define it on a colour chart? It's *perceived*.
Colour (unless defined by all that wavelength nonsense, which probably has
no relation to what we see) is not a universal thing. I think that's
what this thread is showing clearly. But it is true. Colour as we see
it is personal, the main colour classes are percieved similarly enough
to be usefully named.
>Can you tell which is which? I can often see that they're different, but
>that doesn't mean I could tell you which was ivory and which was cream.
>And why would anyone need to know? "Is this the color you want?" "No, more
>of a cream" is far less meaningful, imo, than "No, a lighter shade" or "No,
>a darker shade".
Yes, I do. But lighter and darker aren't the same as more cream. More cream
might mean more or less yellowish, or more or less brownish, depending
on the original colour.
>And colors *are* standardized, by Pantone number.
And then we all see them differently, and it depends on what produces them.
>Okay, here's another question about all this: Do people really *know*
>what the different colors are by sight? If I ask you to bring me a lavender
>swatch of fabric, can you just look and tell it from amethyst, or do you
>just bring light purple and call it lavender, and then when asked for
>amethyst bring light purple again and call it amethyst? (substitute two
>similar colors if necessary, I don't know what amethyst actually looks
>like, just like I'm not too sure what lavender looks like, although it's
>sort of lighter than the average purple, isn't it?)
I would bring the same shade every time for lavender, and a different
shade every time for amethyst. However, there's a real good chance
someone else would call them somethng else. Also, all those shade colours
are often more useful in the context you gave above. *more* lavender
rather than amethyst is probably more meaningful than the colours
on their own.
Shonias
--
*********************
Wave your little wand
Weave a little spell
Make a little magic
Raise some hell!
*********************
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH
Also sprach kig...@kira.peak.org (Pat Kight) (<55jbpt$o...@kira.peak.org>):
+-----
| "Remember, people have been naming, mixing, comparing and defining colors
| for eons before computers came along ... and the only ones who *use* the
| computer standards are ... (tadaaaaa) computer users. Which, last time I
| checked, still was't most of the world."
Ummm, not quite. Pantone(tm) describes process print colors, which predate
graphical use of computers. The Pantone(tm) system itself is a cross
reference of CMYK process colors to RGB video colors.
BTW to the original: it's "CMYK" (cyan, magenta, yellow, black) and
"HSB" (hue, saturation, brightness). CMYK is best suited to printing,
because it's an "inverted primary color" scheme and printed images rely
on subtractive colors; RGB is best suited to computer screens and the like,
where colors are additive. (I could go into further detail, but is there
a reason to? We start getting into the physics of light in order to
explain the above.) CMYK was in wide use before computers; RGB only began
to see wide use with the advent of graphical computer displays (NTSC TV,
at least, is IIRC best described by HSB).
--
++brandon s. allbery ahead warp four! b...@kf8nh.apk.net
telotech's "loup-guru" :-) FORZA CREW! b...@telotech.com
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH
Also sprach grammarfascist <mic...@kestrel.scs.uiuc.edu> (<Pine.SOL.3.95.961103182807.7655G-100000@kestrel>):
+-----
| To all the would-be knights in shining armor out there: stop trying to
| save us! Chivalry is a beautiful thing. I don't mind people holding doors
+--->8
"...charging in balls-forward..." ---me, describing one such incident
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH
Also sprach BetNoir <bet...@earthlink.net> (<327E36...@earthlink.net>):
+-----
| The implication here being that men are just too hopelessly head-dumb to
| 'get it' when it comes to relationships, whereas if a female messes up in
I know an awful lot of men who appear to consider *feeling* shameful.
They're not quite certain how to cope with me, since I tend to mix
feeling and thinking and am quite unashamed of doing so.
For that matter, most *women* appear unable to figure out what makes me
tick as well. Are we so bound up in our stereotypes that we can't see
the real person behind them?
Anne Gwin
In article <55dcl0$ak_...@library.airnews.net>, elcab...@aol.com (The
Gentleman) wrote:
> }For one thing, wavelengths aren't sufficient. What wavelength is
> }brown? How about magenta?
>
> "I have a table that lists the RGB values for every color of DMC floss.
> Would that satisfy you?"
Anne's eyes light up. "YES! Over here! Do you have it for Anchor too?
Which set of DMCs, old or new?" She takes a breath and looks slightly
abashed. "Oops, sorry, let my obsessions take over for a second..."
--
Machine shared by Anne Gwin (ag...@mail.utexas.edu) and Nyarlathotep (nyarla...@mail.utexas.edu). Sometimes we forget to change the name on the post.
"ZOG!!"--The Brady Bunch Tiki
"Where do you want to go today?"--Micro$oft
"Never ask that question..."--Kosh
P. Kight
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
>
> Also sprach kig...@kira.peak.org (Pat Kight) (<55jbpt$o...@kira.peak.org>):
> +-----
> | "Remember, people have been naming, mixing, comparing and defining colors
> | for eons before computers came along ... and the only ones who *use* the
> | computer standards are ... (tadaaaaa) computer users. Which, last time I
> +--->8
>
> Ummm, not quite. Pantone(tm) describes process print colors, which predate
> graphical use of computers. The Pantone(tm) system itself is a cross
> reference of CMYK process colors to RGB video colors.
"Right. Check my response again - I'd already mentioned the Pantone
scale as a printers' tool - I was responding, above, to someone's (John
DeLaughter's?) remarks specifically referring to computer screen color
definitions *distinct* from the Pantone system. Or at least that's what
I understood him to be saying."
"I think you and I are making the same point, Brandon." (-;
--Jezebel
kig...@peak.org
DNakano195
In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.961103184518.7655I-100000@kestrel>,
grammarfascist <mic...@kestrel.scs.uiuc.edu> writes:
>
>> In fact, there are those of us men who demand honesty.
>
>And I will always be grateful that you did, and do.
>For most of my life, I haven't been particularly honest. There wasn't any
>need to be. I lived in, as one friend puts it, "New York City, man, land
>of stolen goods." My mother tried to explain why honesty was more
>important than anything else, but I didn't really understand it, and
later
>on I rebelled against it as part of the general teen-rebellion thing.
I've
>lied a little and lied a lot, white lies and tall tales
Kristen's ears prick up, as she listens to Rose. "Mmm...a complete Kinko's
copy of that..." She mumbles before killing off her Blessing.
>And then I met the only person I know with a truly developed sense of
>_honor_, and it blew me away. He was the one person I could trust--I
trust
>my mother 99% of the time, but there's still that 1%--and because of my
>pride and my own honor, I couldn't tell him I loved him if I didn't think
>myself worthy of him. (I still don't, but I'm getting there.) So I
grabbed
>the pullup bar and yanked myself up as close to his level as I could get,
>which meant being honest.
>Honesty here is defined as telling _all the truth_. Not just not lying.
>Big difference.
Setting her empty mug on the bar, she nods solemnly. "Yes, there is. And
often, it's more difficult to be honest than to lie... At least, that's
*my* experience..."
>Some people will say "Honesty is the most important thing to me"--and
some
>of them even mean it. The rest, however, will get sulky or upset when you
>tell them the truth that they don't want to hear. I recommend testing
this
>attitude with small truths and seeing how they react.
The patrons watch as Kristen scribbles on a notepad balancing on her lap.
Raising her head, she smiles innocently. "Just taking notes, guys."
>With some friends I'm automatically honest. With others, I have to force
>myself to be honest, because I know they need to hear things and I can
>deal with them being mad at me for killing their self-delusions. And with
>some, there's no point in being honest all the time, because I can't
count
>on them to be honest with me, so why bother? But those last aren't very
>high on my friends list, or even really friends at all.
"I count those as my *aquaintances*... Not my friends... And sadly as it
is, I don't have many friends... And aquaintances, I usually try to keep
my distance from. If I don't feel like friendship is equally returned,
that being in the honesty sense... I don't *want* to be around them...
It's about the equivalency as to ramming my head into a wall" Sighing,
Kristen slouches in her seat.
--kristen, who now is holding a pack of ice to her forehead and wincing...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Pour your misery down on me"
Garbage - "Only Happy When It Rains"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim M. Pierce
grammarfascist wrote:
[] The words "alkali" and "litmus" are very difficult to use in a sentence.
[]
[] How's that? *)
Well, as a reader of Ze Old West... I got this one for you.
Of course its made up, cow men didn't carry litmus paper around with
them. But I'll bet they would have made an attempt if it was available
to them. At least carry it in the chuck wagon.
"Zeke, ya better test that water with litmus paper before ya drink it,
or let the cattle drink it, as alkali water can kill ya !"
--
Dreamy Jim aka Jim Pierce Bach. of Sc. Disclaimer:Standard.
Video: Grace Jones 'Slave to the Rhythm'
Sam Robinson
Randolph Fritz wrote:
>
> "Only in that MS-Windows 24-bit color was set out as a model of
> accuracy, which it isn't."
>
True enough, but other color models are supported, at least at the
driver level. I'm not sure where calibration is on the feature schedule
for the 'softies. I've sort of expected it for a while, but I think the
plug and pray fiasco is still eating up the hardware folks. That and
having to write drivers for every two bit hardware company in the world.
It's certainly a non-trivial problem when you don't know what hardware
you're going to be running on.
--
Sam Robinson Sams...@mindspring.com
____________________________________________________________
Randolph Fritz
In article <327E3D...@mindspring.com>,
Sam Robinson <Sams...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>The monitors used with MS-Windows are the same monitors used with almost
>everything else except extreme high-end graphics workstations.
"The calibration problem isn't the choice of monitor--though that
helps--but the way the reds, greens, and blues vary from monitor to
monitor.
>The color model is a funtion of software and bit resolution.
"First, the number of parameters and their significance has to be
chosen. Then one talks about resolution. RGB has some serious
problems in acurately modelling perceived color--look to the
Commission Internationale d'Eclirage (CIE) for superior color models."
>You are absolutely correct in that Microsoft hasn't adopted any
>particular color calibration system, but the calibration of a monitor
>or scanner to pantone standards is a function of any decent graphics
>package. I use Corel, and although I accepted defaults, I could have
>calibrated to my heart's content to get the monitor set right. I did
>have a really thrilling time doing just that with my color printer.
"Except, of course, that colors are then only accurate with the Corel
tools, unless Corel provides a color-correcting hack for the operating
system or one adjusts the monitor directly. So one gets good color
with Corel Draw and random color with your web browser."
>Incidentally, what sort of system do you think doesn't have these
>problems?
"They all do. Apple has made an effort with ColorSync, and that works
with many applications--this is better than anyone else, as far as I
know!--but so far as I know ColorSync has not been adopted by major
graphics software vendors, so the problem continues."
>Randolph, I realise that this may sound flamish... but where does
>Microsoft enter into this?
"Only in that MS-Windows 24-bit color was set out as a model of
accuracy, which it isn't."
--
Randolph Fritz
rand...@teleport.com
Shonias
In article <Pine.SUN.3.90.961030...@izzy5.izzy.net>,
Sanford E. Walke IV <se...@izzy.net> wrote:
>I had to check several times to see that that was meant as a "joking" post,
>because it's been done to me and to every guy I know so many times it's hardly
>a joke, or even abnormal. Both in cases dealing with innocuous things (any
>mail?) and not so innocuous things (do you love me?). *IN* *MY* *EXPERIENCE*,
>it's SOP, the norm, the usual, for women to decide what men "need" to know,
>and seldom to answer a question fully without filtering it through that
>preconception that they know what's best for us.
Well, sticking with the in my experiences, yes, I do tend to filter
my answers to men when they ask direct questions if I think the answer
is one they don't want to hear. To provide an example of when I would
adopt this, if asked if something is wrong, I will inevitably say no,
pretty much regardless. Why? Because if I say yes, I have to say what
is wrong, if it has anything at all to do with him, he will feel guilty.
When he feels guilty, he takes it out on me, thereby making my life
miserable. Clearly an effective evolutionary trait. Whatever he's doing
to upset me could never be as bad as the consequences of him feeling
guilty.
And if it has nothing to do with him you ask? Well then he feels guilty
because he can't do anything about it, doesn't he?
And to bring in sweeping generalisations, whenever I have complained
about this trait, women have laughed at me hysterically and made
comments like "He has a Y chromosome doesn't he?".
Is this habit a Good Thing? No. Is it because I am lying female? In
your eyes Sandy, probably yes. But, I have to ask, all you men
complaining about a lack of truth, has it ever occurred to you that
your actions may help bring it about?
Now to put some balance back into it, I do think, at least in my
circle of friends and acquaintances, a lot of women consider themselves
a little more emotionally mature than men, and some witholding of
information no doubt comes out of arrogance, but some is just plain
self defence. I'm not protecting him, I'm protecting *me*.
Shonias
--
************************************************
Surrender now or face my spite
I grant you it may be Friday night
But did you know this day also numbers thirteen?
************************************************
Bill Longley
In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.961103182807.7655G-100000@kestrel>,
grammarfascist <mic...@kestrel.scs.uiuc.edu> writes
>To all the would-be knights in shining armor out there: stop trying to
>save us! Chivalry is a beautiful thing. I don't mind people holding doors
>
><idiot> Rose: you suck
><friend> hey, don't say things like that about Rose!
>
>when I can tell him off just as well _if not better_ than you can, and
>_want_ to tell him off! We aren't fragile, believe it or not, in anything
>besides (comparative to men) bone structure. We can think just as well as
>you can and snarl and snap and retort and fight and be vicious just as
>well as you can if not better--and you know what? Sometimes we _like_ to.
>People see me doing embroidery with my legs curled up under me and want to
>cuddle and coddle me, and it startles the hell out of them when I rip
>someone's heart out and shove it down his throat for being crass. Stop
>being startled and get used to it. We're hardly always gentle, and
>repressing the occasional vicious streak doesn't do anyone any good. Let
>us fight for our own honor!
>
>--Rose
Well done! I admire your independence and spirit (and I'm NOT trying to
be patronising).
I've had similar experiences to your embroidery when I've sat rug-making
and more "Macho" friends have decided to "save" me from snide comments.
What I don't admire is your generalisation - I have been dumped by a
woman that COULD "tell him off just as well _if not better_ than I
could" and (literally and physically) have the scars from the
conversation where she pointed out that she still expected ME to do it
for her. I try to be chivalrous when that is what is wanted, and stay
out of things when it is not. I get it wrong at times: some people get
me wrong at times: but I would say your "Let us fight for our own
honour!" is dangerous for several women, and will lead to a lot of
disappointments for some men that take that advice..... let us learn
this in our own time and it might work out: make sweeping
generalisations like that and you screw up an awful lot of women that
want a knight in shining armour and a lot of men that want to be one...
Sorry to make your acquaintance in such a controversial thread. I'm a
nice guy really....
Bill (Bill_L...@callahans.demon.co.uk)
"Wisdom is knowing when to RTFM - Common Sense is doing
this out of sight of those that admire your wisdom."
Turnpike evaluation. For information, see http://www.turnpike.com/
Bill Longley
In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.961104134711.8716c-100000@kestrel>,
grammarfascist <mic...@kestrel.scs.uiuc.edu> writes
>
>"It's not red, dammit!
>"...But damned if I know what it _is_. I don't think we have _enough_
>names for colors!"
>
>--Rose
Okay, Clarke wrote "The nine billion names of God" - would you be happy
with the 16.7 million names of colour? Beware, I might send you a very
large email some time!
Bill Longley
In article <55dq9i$a...@kira.peak.org>, Pat Kight <kig...@kira.peak.org>
writes
>In article <55db7d$b...@izzy4.izzy.net>,
>Sanford E. Walke IV <se...@izzy5.izzy.net> wrote:
>>
>>And colors *are* standardized, by Pantone number.
>>
>printers' ink. It doesn't apply to, for instance, fabric dyes, house
>paint, artists' watercolors or the gel media used by theatrical and
>rock-concert lighting technicians to change the colors of light on a
>stage.
>"As for why people feel compelled to name colors, I'd guess it's because
>people feel compelled to name *everything* ... and that, depending on
>your field of endeavor, those specialized names can actually have useful
>meaning.
>
>"As a scenic painter, for instance, I know I can tell another scenic
>painter 'I want a wash of raw umber on that wall' and s/he will be able
>to duplicate the color *exactly.* Whereas you might look at the wall and
>think 'brownish stain.' But trust me, raw umber is a *completely*
>different brown than burnt umber, and both are very different from raw
>and burnt sienna ...
>
Doesn't this imply that scenic painters have their own standard colour
scheme even if its not Pantone?
Bill Longley
In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.961103184518.7655I-100000@kestrel>,
grammarfascist <mic...@kestrel.scs.uiuc.edu> writes
>Big difference.
>and thumbtacks holding up the pretty windowdressing of delusion and
>deception.
Lovely definition.
That has just made me think enough to reappraise major chunks of my
life: for instance when my fiancee left me because I lied about how much
in debt I was, I was offended because I never lied to her. I was
truthful, but by your definition, not honest. I can understand her view
a little better now.
I can no longer count myself an honest person (usually). I'll
revise that down to truthful (usually), honest (often). I'd be
interested in hearing your definition of lying though.... I get the
feeling there's another level at that end of the scale I haven't
thought of.
John Palmer
Sanford E. Walke IV (se...@izzy5.izzy.net) wrote:
: Ilene H. Morgan (imo...@umr.edu) wrote:
: : Unintentional/accidental hurt, you say to yourself
: : > "She cares so little about me and knows me so poorly that she destroys me
: : > without even thinking or trying."
: : This is very unfair. People aren't mind readers. Even people with excellent
: : people instincts sometimes make mistakes, and sometimes people give off
: : mixed or misleading signals.
: All of this is in the context of a romantic relationship. Part of your JOB
: in that relationship is to know the other person. Failure to do so, in so
: blatant a manner as to injure the other person emotionally, is an example
: of a lack of caring or a lack of trying, not a lack of ability.
Sorry, but that's bull. . . first off, people are different, and
there are parts of a person that you just *CAN NOT* understand; at best,
you can acknowledge those parts, without understanding them.
So there *IS* a lack of ability involved. As importantly, there are
times when people are not consistent. What annoys me today might be
meaningless tomorrow; what crushed me then might roll of my back tomorrow.
Oh, there *ARE* times when you're correct. . . if I'm having a
particularly crummy week, and Chris planned a surprise party to "cheer me
up", my internal response is "God DAMN it, now I have to pretend to be
cheerful so as not to hurt people who care about me. That STUPID BITCH! How
could she do this to me!"
But that's because Chris knows, or should know, that my response to
crumminess is to become tired and cranky.
: If you
: were able to get close enough to them that what you do matters, then you
: basically *can't* "accidentally" hurt them, because you've already
: demonstrated that you know them well enough not to do so.
: Interesting. Now I'm onto a whole `nother thing. By this reasoning, *all*
: pain caused by an SO is deliberate. Hmmmmm.
Chuckle. Which should be a reality check to your theory, and make you
think that it's not complete.
Sanford E. Walke IV
Shonias (a...@Physics.usyd.edu.au) wrote:
: When he feels guilty, he takes it out on me, thereby making my life
: miserable.
Then find a new man. Seriously. I don't do that, and I don't see it as
a common trait in men.
: Is this habit a Good Thing? No. Is it because I am lying female? In
: your eyes Sandy, probably yes. But, I have to ask, all you men
: complaining about a lack of truth, has it ever occurred to you that
: your actions may help bring it about?
Not mine.
--
Sandy se...@izzy.net
Why be politically correct when you can just be correct?
sa...@fc.net
> JT wrote:
> [snip] they [women]
> aren't honest with themselves. They can spend all this time TALKING about
> their feelings, but it's just talk, and they dwell on their feelings so
> much that they contort, distort, and veil them from themselves. Men tend
> to decide what they feel and that's it. We don't question it. Women think
> that they are better than us because they are exploring their feelings,
> when in reality they are unconsciously shifting and confusing them.
Is this an interpretation of the quantum physic problem, whereby measuring
something alters the thing being measured? This may be the case with
memories and emotions, where examination might cause changes in the
memories/emotions themselves (not usually major ones, though).
But is the unmeasured, unexamined emotion "purer" than that which has been
recognized and accounted for? Why?
I think JT needs to examine his beliefs on this to explain why recognizing
ones emotions makes those emotions "less worthy" than those unexamined.
NOTE: My news server's acting funny. If you want to reply to this, please
e-mail me a copy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This article was posted to Usenet via the Posting Service at Deja News:
http://www.dejanews.com/ [Search, Post, and Read Usenet News!]
sa...@fc.net
"Sanford E. Walke IV" and Judy Gerjuoy wrote:
> > > There is no real difference between a woman who is confused and a woman
> > > who is true evil. Both will hurt you to the same extent.
...
> It wasn't my thoughts, it was JT's, I just agreed with him.
Judy> > Whatever the situaion, hurt done deliberately *is* a lot different from
Judy> > hurt done accidently/unintentionally. They both may hurt the same amount
Judy> > to begin with, but long term, the deliberate hurts a lot more, and is
Judy> > harder to recover from.
> I disagree. Deliberate hurt, you can say to yourself "She's a bitch, what
> she did doesn't matter." Unintentional/accidental hurt, you say to yourself
> "She cares so little about me and knows me so poorly that she destroys me
> without even thinking or trying."
Again, I disagree with you, Sandy. Sometimes it's not as easy as "He's a bastard,
what he did doesn't matter." I've been told that women are more prone to this
than men (I have no evidence that women are more prone to it, though), but I
often wonder, when I am deliberately injured by another, "What's wrong with me?
What did I do to cause this?" Studies of rape victims (reported rape victims -
mostly female) find a lot of this sort of self-battering thought because it's
easier to take the blame oneself than it is to admit that you were helpless and
submit to the terror that induces.
Unintentional or accidental hurt such as you describe is hurtful and deeply
painful, but less likely to cause you to turn on yourself and cause more
injury.
NOTE: My news server isn't working correctly, so if you would like a
response to your reply, please e-mail me a copy. :-) Thanks
sa...@fc.net
> : > "She cares so little about me and knows me so poorly that she destroys me
> : > without even thinking or trying."
Ilene> : people instincts sometimes make mistakes, and sometimes people give off
Ilene> : mixed or misleading signals.
> All of this is in the context of a romantic relationship. Part of your JOB
> in that relationship is to know the other person. Failure to do so, in so
> blatant a manner as to injure the other person emotionally, is an example
> basically *can't* "accidentally" hurt them, because you've already
> demonstrated that you know them well enough not to do so.
> Interesting. Now I'm onto a whole `nother thing. By this reasoning, *all*
> pain caused by an SO is deliberate. Hmmmmm.
This should be a clue to you that this reasoning is faulty. When you become the
SO of another, are you instantly imbued with a total and complete knowledge of
the other person and every possible way to hurt them or make them happy? If so,
I'd love to visit your planet sometime. <- Sarcasm.
A romantic relationship is formed by the dedication of those involved to continue
to strive towards a level of closeness (not always the *same* level of closeness).
Mistakes are made. Depending on the coping skills and dedication of the
individuals involved (and a large dash of random chance), those mistakes may be
overcome. Or not.
Even in marriages 50 years old, mistakes are still made. You could take that to
mean many things:
1. Whoever made the mistake must be flawed or evil.
2. Marriage, as an institution, is flawed or evil.
3. People make mistakes.
4. 50 years isn't long enough to completely know another person.
Some of these conclusions are more reasonable than others.
> : > "There is no real difference between a woman who is confused and a woman
> : > who is true evil. Both will hurt you to the same extent." -- JT
> : For instance, you're probably unaware that it causes me pain every time
> : I read this quotation. I'm not saying that that's a reason for you to
> : change what you're doing--just something you may not have been aware of.
> We're not in a romantic relationship, either, are we?
I feel you're doing a disservice to yourself in expecting a telepathic lover,
Sandy.
NOTE: My news server's still acting funny. If you reply to this, please
send me a copy via e-mail. :-) Thanks
grammarfascist
On Thu, 7 Nov 1996, Bill Longley wrote:
> Well done! I admire your independence and spirit (and I'm NOT trying to
> be patronising).
I have absolutely no problem with being honestly complimented. Thank you.
*)
> What I don't admire is your generalisation - I have been dumped by a
> woman that COULD "tell him off just as well _if not better_ than I
> could" and (literally and physically) have the scars from the
> conversation where she pointed out that she still expected ME to do it
> for her.
I certainly was generalizing, as much as or more so than anyone else
posting to this thread. It doesn't always happen, and there are times when
it makes sense to sit back and let someone else do the fighting. Take the
recent fracas in the "NITPICK: Punctuation" thread: it sounds much better
and is much more effective for someone to say sie agrees with me than for
me to say that I agree with myself. *) Hence my decision to stay out of
it, having said my piece.
I'm sorry to hear about that conversation and your scars. It seems to me
that this was yet another awful example of miscommunication. There are so
many stereotypes and antistereotypes and PCers floating around that it's
hard to know whether a woman is the sort of feminist who will bite your
head off for trying to defend her, or whether she wants you to fight for
her and protect her because all women belong on pedestals, or whether she
wants you fighting by her side. I do my best to make it clear from
instance to instance, since for me it changes depending on the context and
the people involved. If a particular rival and I get into a fight, then I
don't want anyone interfering. If, on the other hand, someone I don't know
attacks me out of the blue and unreasonably, I have no objections to other
people telling him where to get off. *)
In general, for me (and ONLY for me; don't try to apply this to women or
people in general), if it's a matter of my honor then I'll want to fight
myself. Otherwise, I'm always glad to have people fighting alongside me.
In one-on-one combat, people _shouldn't_ interfere; on the other hand,
there are usually at least implicit rules. But in melee, what matters is
having someone you trust at your back.
> I try to be chivalrous when that is what is wanted, and stay
> out of things when it is not. I get it wrong at times: some people get
> me wrong at times: but I would say your "Let us fight for our own
> honour!" is dangerous for several women, and will lead to a lot of
> disappointments for some men that take that advice..... let us learn
> this in our own time and it might work out: make sweeping
> generalisations like that and you screw up an awful lot of women that
> want a knight in shining armour and a lot of men that want to be one...
Hell, sometimes _I_ want a knight in shining armor (and I had to explain
my post to My Sweetie and make sure he knew that it wasn't directed at
him). In fact, I'm more often mistakenly defended by women than by men. My
belief is that if you want something, want to be something or someone,
there is someone out there somewhere who wants you to be that something or
someone. There's always a perfect match somewhere in the world. The
problems come when you pretend to be what the other person wants you to
be, or pretend to like what the other person wants to be, and don't
communicate honestly.
> Sorry to make your acquaintance in such a controversial thread. I'm a
> nice guy really....
And I'm a nice, wholesome, all-American girl. *grin* I'm not sorry to make
your acquaintance at all; you pointed out a definite flaw, and I'm glad
you gave me a chance and reason to explain. I hope I get to know you
better in the future.
--Rose, who often succumbs to the fault of posting as though in a
conversation, instead of putting all the points and qualifications into a
single piece of writing
ROSEv1.2b * Projected release date: May 2000 * Email for details
grammarfascist
On Thu, 7 Nov 1996, Bill Longley wrote:
> grammarfascist <mic...@kestrel.scs.uiuc.edu> writes
>
> >Honesty here is defined as telling _all the truth_. Not just not lying.
> >Big difference.
> >Honesty only hurts when it comes on top of lies, when it reveals the wood
> >and thumbtacks holding up the pretty windowdressing of delusion and
> >deception.
>
> Lovely definition.
Thank you, again. *)
> That has just made me think enough to reappraise major chunks of my
> life: for instance when my fiancee left me because I lied about how much
> in debt I was, I was offended because I never lied to her. I was
> truthful, but by your definition, not honest. I can understand her view
> a little better now.
Glad to have helped.
> I can no longer count myself an honest person (usually). I'll
> revise that down to truthful (usually), honest (often). I'd be
> interested in hearing your definition of lying though.... I get the
> feeling there's another level at that end of the scale I haven't
> thought of.
A lie is the statement of something as truth which you _know, beyond all
doubt_, is untrue. Saying "So-and-so won the election" before all the
returns are in is speculation; saying today that "Bob Dole is President of
the US" is a lie.
My family has added another dimension to lying, rather akin to the
practice of telling tall tales or spinning yarns. A good, believable tall
tale is referred to simply as a narf, and putting one over on someone is
called narfing. _However_, it is a matter of honor that if someone calls
you on it--says "You're narfing" or simply calls out "Narf!"--you _must_
admit if you are. An example narf: at the dinner table, we were discussing
the streaker at... I think it was Wimbledon, and my stepfather (who had
been watching it while the rest of us were out of the house) said, "The
most amazing part was when the Dutchess of York was down on the court
chasing after [the streaker]." My mother, completely taken in, said,
"Really?" She had, quite effectively, been narfed. My stepfather held the
straight face for just long enough to make sure that my mother had bought
the story, and then grinned and said, "No, not really." We didn't let her
live it down for a week.
So we put rules around lying, and hence avoid miscommunication. My brother
will happily lie straight-faced about whether he brushed his teeth, and
stick to the lie even if called on it--but he'll never claim that a narf
is the truth if he's asked (though he does stretch it a bit--"Clinton was
arrested for shoplifting when he was fifteen" "Narf!" "Well, I don't know
that he _wasn't_... it _could_ be true!"). The rules help to mark the
difference between a lie told simply for the fun of making other people
look gullible, and a lie told to withhold information from someone, which
is a BIG distinction. Lying to my mother is shameful; getting my
stepfather to believe a narf is applauded as artistry.
Hope that was something like what you were looking for. *)
--Rose