Entrenched Bachelors - the story of ASS?
The Mighty Brad
the guys in this forum:
These are guys who could live their entire lives in one room.
Mxsmanic
The problem is that the author treats "entrenched bachelors" as if there is
something wrong with them. Overall it's an expression of personal opinion
disguised as objective psychology (if there is such a thing).
Jared
> The problem is that the author treats "entrenched bachelors" as if there is
> something wrong with them. Overall it's an expression of personal opinion
> disguised as objective psychology (if there is such a thing).
You can't know how sick you are, or if you're sick, until you
experience at least some form of remission. There's no point in
rubbing someone's nose in a diagnosis of pathology if there is no
treatment.
The Mighty Brad
> The Mighty Brad writes:
> > I found what I think is a very good psychological profile of many of
> > the guys in this forum:
>
>
> > These are guys who could live their entire lives in one room.
>
> The problem is that the author treats "entrenched bachelors" as if there is
> something wrong with them. Overall it's an expression of personal opinion
> disguised as objective psychology (if there is such a thing).
Not entirely, I think. Overall, it's a step in the right direction.
This guy finally said what we've known all along - some guys are meant
to live their entire lives alone and they like it that way. That there
is nothing *wrong* with them, and that they don't need "fixing" and,
in fact, are often better left alone.
Nil
wrote:
> I found what I think is a very good psychological profile of many of
> the guys in this forum:
>
>
> These are guys who could live their entire lives in one room.
But nobody wants to live alone for an entire life. Time
comes they would realize, What is life for? This
information is not real, just only an opinion.
Nil
Jared
Nobody would want to if they could understand what the alternative
feels like.
But you don't necessarily appreciate what pain or emptiness is, if
you've lived with it all your life.
Mxsmanic
> Not entirely, I think. Overall, it's a step in the right direction.
> This guy finally said what we've known all along - some guys are meant
> to live their entire lives alone and they like it that way. That there
> is nothing *wrong* with them, and that they don't need "fixing" and,
> in fact, are often better left alone.
That profile doesn't match many men here, since so many of them whine about
not having girlfriends or sex and are obviously unhappy in their solitary
lives.
Mxsmanic
> But nobody wants to live alone for an entire life.
Nobody? Explain hermits. And there are many urban and rural hermits, not just
those who live on mountaintops.
> Time comes they would realize, What is life for?
There are lots of things to do in life, and many of those things do not
involve any significant social interaction.
Mxsmanic
> But you don't necessarily appreciate what pain or emptiness is, if
> you've lived with it all your life.
People who are addicted to something often find it hard to believe that anyone
could be happy without it. I see that a lot with respect to sex, drinking
alcohol, taking other drugs, etc.
Nil
You don't know me! I have been there before. For
8 years of emptiness and pain. For 8 years that
I kept deeply what do I felt. I'm telling this because
I know what the feeling of a person living alone. But
it's depend on the person if they would stay alone for
the rest of their lives. What is life without nothing?
Nil
Mxsmanic
> You don't know me! I have been there before. For
> 8 years of emptiness and pain. For 8 years that
> I kept deeply what do I felt. I'm telling this because
> I know what the feeling of a person living alone. But
> it's depend on the person if they would stay alone for
> the rest of their lives. What is life without nothing?
As you say, it depends on the person. Living alone is fine with me. The real
path to happiness is paved with money, not romance. Without money, there's
nothing.
Nil
Nope, I disagree with that. Sorry, but what is the used of money if
there is
no romance? I do prefer the two should be in my life. Money with
romance...lol!
Nil
PandoraElpis
As it has already been pointed out in this group, such 'science' has
little currency beyond its rhetorical appeal.
PandoraElpis
> On Dec 27, 5:43 pm, Mxsmanic <mxsma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The Mighty Brad writes:
> > > I found what I think is a very good psychological profile of many of
> > > the guys in this forum:
> >
> > >http://books.google.com/books?id=59XX5P0DcFMC&pg=PA105&dq=entrenched+...
> >
> > > These are guys who could live their entire lives in one room.
> >
> > The problem is that the author treats "entrenched bachelors" as if there is
> > something wrong with them. Overall it's an expression of personal opinion
> > disguised as objective psychology (if there is such a thing).
>
> Not entirely, I think. Overall, it's a step in the right direction.
> This guy finally said what we've known all along - some guys are meant
> to live their entire lives alone
Where such a dynamic suggests a systemic decline in effective female
availability(with implications for sub-fitness replacement), it tends
to evolutionary instability in large populations.
> and they like it that way.
It is not plausible to assume that any significant population of males
would evolve to 'like it that way'.
The reason why males don't visably complain about marginalization
through female choice is for lack of a sympathetic audience(borne out
of limiting dynamics in dimorhic sex), where they fear such complaint
will only serve to validate their grievances in the form of social
reproachment/punishment(which focuses selection pressure).
> That there
> is nothing *wrong* with them, and that they don't need "fixing"
And how would one even propose to do that?
If honest signals of male quality were equivalently attainable, they
would no longer be meaningful, and females would no longer privilege
them.
Thus, handicapping focuses selection such that success must be
indicated with relative ease more than exceptional effort or prolonged
difficulty(as someone else has already been kind enough to point out).
Ultimately, the nexus of human conflict reduces to balancing selection
dynamics in time varient fitness strategies which weigh against male
success(for limiting reasons of dimorphic sex) - understand that, and
you understand everything there *is* to understand about human
condition 'problems'.
> and,
> in fact, are often better left alone.
Indeed, as male selectivity is not limiting, the only real 'solutions'
must be culled from sexual conflict(ie. they are female pessimal).
PandoraElpis
lol, so we're to believe you are a shinning example of 'happy'
solitude?
PandoraElpis
Nonsense.
Money is a function of direct benefits, and thus can only be justified
through fitness proxy in female choice(which is no longer sensetive to
direct benefits, given welfare state dynamics have eroded it's
selective value as a significant factor in female choice).
Mxsmanic
> lol, so we're to believe you are a shinning example of 'happy'
> solitude?
Believe whatever you want. It doesn't bother me at all to live alone, and
indeed, it's hard to imagine what it would be like to have to live with
someone else in the same house.
Mxsmanic
> Where such a dynamic suggests a systemic decline in effective female
> availability(with implications for sub-fitness replacement), it tends
> to evolutionary instability in large populations.
You may be confusing rats with human beings.
> It is not plausible to assume that any significant population of males
> would evolve to 'like it that way'.
Since a significant number of men (and women) like this do indeed exist,
either you are wrong or their existence has nothing to do with evolution.
Mxsmanic
> Nope, I disagree with that. Sorry, but what is the used of money if
> there is no romance?
What's the use of romance if there is no money?
> I do prefer the two should be in my life. Money with romance...lol!
Romance without money is no better than no romance at all, and if you have
money, you don't need romance.
PandoraElpis
Mxsmanic wrote:
> PandoraElpis writes:
>
> > Where such a dynamic suggests a systemic decline in effective female
> > availability(with implications for sub-fitness replacement), it tends
> > to evolutionary instability in large populations.
>
> You may be confusing rats with human beings.
And you are confusing humans with a special case that evades
scientific investigation.
>
> > It is not plausible to assume that any significant population of males
> > would evolve to 'like it that way'.
>
> Since a significant number of men (and women) like this do indeed exist
My explanation precludes their existence.
> ,
> either you are wrong or their existence has nothing to do with evolution.
The laws of evolution are no less observable or subject to scrutiny
than the laws of gravitation - you are a singular fool if you hold
otherwise.
Beau Boy
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f76lj512c5j4f9caq...@4ax.com...
Indeed.
I'd have to put up with somebody telling me not to wear shorts
all the time.
But I *like* to wear shorts, I think my white legs look absolutely
fantastic, on a shopping trip, at the cinema, in the pub or out clubbing.
To have somebody telling me I should wear trousers, rather than
show the bare skin of my legs, never!
nSCOURGE
Mxsmanic wrote:
> Nil writes:
>
> > Nope, I disagree with that. Sorry, but what is the used of money if
> > there is no romance?
>
> What's the use of romance if there is no money?
Absurd.
> > I do prefer the two should be in my life. Money with romance...lol!
>
> Romance without money is no better than no romance at all, and if you have
> money, you don't need romance.
Habituation of a hostile fitness landscape remains, of course, a
loser's privilege.
nSCOURGE
PandoraElpis wrote:
> The Mighty Brad wrote:
> > On Dec 27, 5:43 pm, Mxsmanic <mxsma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The Mighty Brad writes:
> > > > I found what I think is a very good psychological profile of many of
> > > > the guys in this forum:
> > >
> > > >http://books.google.com/books?id=59XX5P0DcFMC&pg=PA105&dq=entrenched+...
> > >
> > > > These are guys who could live their entire lives in one room.
> > >
> > > The problem is that the author treats "entrenched bachelors" as if there is
> > > something wrong with them. Overall it's an expression of personal opinion
> > > disguised as objective psychology (if there is such a thing).
> >
> > Not entirely, I think. Overall, it's a step in the right direction.
> > This guy finally said what we've known all along - some guys are meant
> > to live their entire lives alone
>
> Where such a dynamic suggests a systemic decline in effective female
> availability(with implications for sub-fitness replacement), it tends
> to evolutionary instability in large populations.
>
> > and they like it that way.
>
> It is not plausible to assume that any significant population of males
> would evolve to 'like it that way'.
Such entrenched bachelors need not only represent repudiated males,
but could also describe short-term strategists whose evolutionary
optima is not served by long-term investments, so long as more
profitable options present themselves(which is why these kinds of
males tend to pair off only at an age after their physical
attractiveness has dimished - or eliminated - such options).
PandoraElpis
True, but it depends upon what one means by 'alone'(what the mating
implications are).
Still, we should not assume that all males have an equivalent
lattitude of choice.
nSCOURGE
Nil wrote:
> On Dec 28, 12:32 pm, Jared <jared4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 28, 8:58 am, Nil <janila...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Dec 27, 1:22 pm, The Mighty Brad <themightybrad...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > > I found what I think is a very good psychological profile of many of
> > > > the guys in this forum:
> >
> > > >http://books.google.com/books?id=59XX5P0DcFMC&pg=PA105&dq=entrenched+...
> >
> > > > These are guys who could live their entire lives in one room.
> >
> > > But nobody wants to live alone for an entire life. Time
> > > comes they would realize, What is life for? This
> > > information is not real, just only an opinion.
> >
> > Nobody would want to if they could understand what the alternative
> > feels like.
> >
> > But you don't necessarily appreciate what pain or emptiness is, if
> > you've lived with it all your life.
>
> You don't know me! I have been there before. For
> 8 years of emptiness and pain. For 8 years that
> I kept deeply what do I felt. I'm telling this because
> I know what the feeling of a person living alone.
Given that the problems under consideration are sexually dimorphic, do
you honestly think you can relate to the males who have been(and will
likely continue to be) alone for their entire lives?
> But
> it's depend on the person if they would stay alone for
> the rest of their lives.
If female problems of mate(male) availability can be characterized as
an existential dimemma(cognitive dissonance from a conscious
unwillingness to trade off between evolutionarily conflicted mate
benefits - this is what females mean when saying they won't 'settle')
of female choice, the same cannot be said of female availability with
respect to male choice, as male function is not limiting(as has been
pointed out in this thread already).
So, if females find themselves without long-term mates, it is a
problem of entangled selectivity(excepting anomolous ugliness on their
part), where their receptivity tends to genetic quality, and thus
(ironically) the very kinds of males who tend to short term mating(as
an optimal evolutionary strategy).
As has already been noted, females do not effect active solutions to
problems that entail sharing a small male population(which must be the
case given their greater selectivity and limiting function) - these
problems resolve stochastically.
Mxsmanic
> And you are confusing humans with a special case that evades
> scientific investigation.
Evades or defies?
If it cannot be scientifically investigated, then there is something wrong
with the theory.
> My explanation precludes their existence.
And yet there they are. So your explanation must be incorrect.
> The laws of evolution are no less observable or subject to scrutiny
> than the laws of gravitation - you are a singular fool if you hold
> otherwise.
The theory of gravitation can be verified by experiment. The theory of
evolution cannot.
Mxsmanic
> Absurd.
Translation: You disagree.
Mxsmanic
> so how come you hang around alt.support.shyness instead of the
> plethora of forums that discuss money and how to make it?
Money is not interesting to discuss, it is only interesting to spend.
Mxsmanic
> Given that the problems under consideration are sexually dimorphic ...
This has not been established.
There are many entrenched bachelorettes.
deaf
I have checked some of your posts and you were posting in the newsgroup
alt.suicide.methods recently. I hate to agree with Pandora but it seems
that in your case, he's right.
Nil
Maybe I am not of a kind. I am still longing
for romance, despite that I have a money
if ever. I cannot bring money when I die. But
if I am happy because of Romance, I die
with full of smile in my heart.
Nil
Nil
Agree....
In addition to... much money makes people a fool.
Nil
ThePuttKing
> "Mxsmanic" <mxsma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
You seem obsessed about wearing shorts !
Mxsmanic
> I have checked some of your posts and you were posting in the newsgroup
> alt.suicide.methods recently. I hate to agree with Pandora but it seems
> that in your case, he's right.
I post in all sorts of groups. If you do a complete search, you'll see a lot
of variety. In fact, I've made over 155,000 posts to USENET under this
pseudonym alone.
Mxsmanic
> Maybe I am not of a kind. I am still longing
> for romance, despite that I have a money
> if ever. I cannot bring money when I die. But
> if I am happy because of Romance, I die
> with full of smile in my heart.
How ... romantic. If money is not making you happy, give it to me. It will
definitely make me happy. You can keep the romance.
Mxsmanic
> In addition to... much money makes people a fool.
Money makes people happy. It has no effect on their intelligence.
Beau Boy
LOL, not 'obsessed' as such but my shorts wearing is very
important to me.It helps 'define' me. It's the one thing I do
that hardly anybody else does and gets me noticed.
nSCOURGE
They are single for reasons of female selectivity(ie. they must share
a select population of choice males, which, obviously, tends to short-
term matings).
*Not* the same thing at all, as the 'bachelors' under consideration.
Nil
Bulls eye....
Nil
PandoraElpis
Mxsmanic wrote:
> PandoraElpis writes:
>
> > And you are confusing humans with a special case that evades
> > scientific investigation.
>
> Evades or defies?
>
> If it cannot be scientifically investigated, then there is something wrong
> with the theory.
That phenotypic varience is empirically culled by the forces of
selection(chance and opportunity), *is* observable, and well known to
science.
Take a fucking class in community college, since your ignorance is
obviously beyond the remedy of self-mediated erudition(with a mind to
blunt Occam's Razor).
> > My explanation precludes their existence.
>
> And yet there they are. So your explanation must be incorrect.
I was assuming 'bachelorhood' in the ASS sense(ie. where a tendency to
solitude implies a fitness disadvantage, and thus can *not* be
evolutionarily strategic).
Since we should not expect such tendencies would 'evolve', evident
frequencies can only be reasonably explained by evolutionary flux in
the fitness landscape which weighs against the success of handicapped
organisms(like you).
So, these passive 'choices' people are inferring, are nothing more
than the subjective manifestation of steep gradients in a hostile
fitness landscape(no one 'chooses' to be a loser, regardless of how
they care to rationalize it).
> > The laws of evolution are no less observable or subject to scrutiny
> > than the laws of gravitation - you are a singular fool if you hold
> > otherwise.
>
> The theory of gravitation can be verified by experiment. The theory of
> evolution cannot.
See above.
PandoraElpis
Mxsmanic wrote:
> nSCOURGE writes:
>
> > Given that the problems under consideration are sexually dimorphic ...
>
> This has not been established.
There is no problem/concern of life-history which is not entangled in
sexual dimorphism - there is no escaping this, if one accepts evolution
(which you obviously don't).
Mxsmanic
> true, but intelligence has an enormous effect on the ability to make
> money.
For IQ scores, there's a good correlation between IQ and socioeconomic status
for scores within two standard deviations of the mean. For scores outside
that, SES tends to deteriorate at both ends of the curve. At the low end, this
is probably the result of pure cognitive incompetence; at the high end, it's
usually a problem with interactions with others.
> I know you think you are highly intelligent ...
I don't ever recall saying anything about myself, other than to assert that
I'm not stupid, which I think is true.
> How many years is it going to take you to solve that little problem
> that about 90% on average of Western populations manage to succeed
> in doing?
Which problem?
> Have you got a plan or are you just going to keep whinging about it
> for the rest of your life?
I need to know what you're talking about in order to answer the question.
ThePuttKing
Oh I see, well good for you then !
deaf
You're naive trying to dissimulate. You were reading that group on *25th
of december*, the day most people enjoy their familiar life, and in
Christmas people tend to judge how fulfilling or miserable are their
lives. Did you suscribe and were reading it for any other reason? I
can't imagine anyone who's content with his life (like you say you're)
posting/reading in that group...
Jared
Well, it should go without saying there are more choices than just
keeping one's money or giving it to you.
Jared
[...]
> you are thinking. The bit thats puzzling me and the cause of my
> interest is in whether you are so deluded that you really beleive your
> exceptional intelligence is the cause of your social disability ( and
I don't think there's any contradiction between being disabled and
being intelligent.
The human mind is multifaceted.
Mxsmanic
> You're naive trying to dissimulate.
I am not dissimulating. I have a wide and eclectic set of interests.
> You were reading that group on *25th of december*, the day most
> people enjoy their familiar life, and in Christmas people tend
> to judge how fulfilling or miserable are their lives.
That may be how you feel about Christmas, but it's just another day to me.
In fact, there are only two types of days: days when I work, and days when I
don't. I don't work on Christmas (everything is closed), so I have time to do
other things. On more than one occasion I've forgotten holidays and had to be
reminded of them, although fortunately I've always recalled them before
actually getting up and going to work (as far as I can remember).
> Did you suscribe and were reading it for any other reason?
I believe it started with looking up some chemicals on Wikipedia, then
drifting towards information on toxicity, and then eventually ending up
looking at the newsgroup.
> I can't imagine anyone who's content with his life (like you say
> you're) posting/reading in that group...
Then you need to develop your imagination more. Don't assume that what applies
to you applies to everyone else.
Mxsmanic
> That phenotypic varience is empirically culled by the forces of
> selection(chance and opportunity), *is* observable, and well known to
> science.
>
> Take a fucking class in community college, since your ignorance is
> obviously beyond the remedy of self-mediated erudition(with a mind to
> blunt Occam's Razor).
From "phenotypic varience [sic]" to "fucking." I find it difficult to take you
seriously.
Mxsmanic
> Well, it should go without saying there are more choices than just
> keeping one's money or giving it to you.
What's wrong with giving it to me?
When people say that money can't buy happiness, I always tell them to give it
to me. If it cannot make them happy, then its absence cannot make them
unhappy, so there is no reason not to give it all away. But they never do
that. Instead the sulk after having their bluff called. I keep hoping someone
actually will give me the money someday.
Mxsmanic
> and what % of the population do you think dont see through this
> comment
For those who don't project, there's nothing to see behind it.
> ... you have no idea that most everyone else can see through your clumsy
> self justifying explanations like a pane of glass.
A lot of people think they see all sorts of things. The problem is that almost
all of them see something different. Their mistake is in believing that I'm
like them, when in fact I am not.
> The lack of correlation ( if it exists, as you are simply stating it
> as a fact with no reference to any research as usual but I will give
> you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have read it and are in
> regurgitation mode again ) of high IQ and socio economic status might
> be because exceptionally intelligent people are often involved in
> creative or research type occupations that may not pay exceptionally
> well ( as in executive type remuneration) , but such people would
> normally still be living quite comfortably above the poverty line.
No, according to the research I've read, it's mostly because of a social
desynchronization between them and mainstream society. Being on two different
wavelengths, essentially. Some such people actually do live below the poverty
line, or have very modest incomes. It's hardly guaranteed, but it's
surprisingly common.
> I didnt say you did say it, I said I know you think it.
Based on what you say here, I can safely say that you don't know anything
about what I think (and if I describe what I think, you disagree with it). As
I've already indicated, I'm not like you.
> ... to hide the pain of your loneliness?
Being alone is not painful to me, and in fact I often choose it over being
with other people. Most social activities bore me terribly, and I enjoy being
at home alone more.
> ... I take no joy in your problems ...
You don't even recognize them, so I'd hardly expect you to take joy in them.
> ... after many years of reading your posts on aviation groups it saddens
> me more than anything.
How long have you been fascinated by me?
Mxsmanic
> Do you think there are people out there that are just so intelligent
> they cannot bear to socialise with people of ordinary intelligence
> because of the pure boredom that would entail?
There may be, but that's not the usual problem. The usual problem is simply a
huge difference in thinking patterns that makes social interaction difficult.
Very smart people don't hate their fellow human beings, they just aren't on
the same frequency.
The same is true for very stupid people, of course.
> And even if such people existed dont you think that intelligence
> would enable them to make a living somehow?
Most of them do make a living, somehow, but usually it is quite modest in
comparison to what people tend to expect of a person who is highly
intelligent. There are a lot of truck-driving geniuses around.
> Again why would a person with
> apparently such distaste for social interaction hang out for years
> giving advice ( sorry making statements) about such topics as shyness,
> loneliness and as another poster mentioned even suicide.
Objective, detached observers often have a great advantage over active
participants.
> What I see is someone who has been crying out for help for years.
What you see may differ greatly from what is real.
> And I dont believe in assexual males either ...
I suppose if you don't believe it, it must not exist, right? See above.
> ... but I can see that someone who has
> self proclaimed his ugliness ( and I know not if he is ugly , handsome
> and dont particularly care about that aspect) might again want to hide
> behind the assexual mask in the hope that he might at least gain some
> female companionship... as he has said many times on this forum ..
> females feel less threatened by a male not interested in sex.
No hiding necessary. Interest in sex fades significantly after adolescence,
and I haven't had any real interest in sex for a very long time. I still like
women, because they are pretty to look at and they are less emotional and
irrational than men, but looking at them or conversing with them and engaging
in sex with them are very different things. Friendship is more durable and
enjoyable than sex, so I value my many friendships with women.
> If this reallly is a support group others would be trying to
> encourage him to seek professional help, but unfortunately he just
> pisses most people off with his impersonal arguments that serve only
> one purpose and that is to try to bolster his fragile ego by trying to
> prove he knows more than everyone else on just about anything. I am
> way past being pissed off by him. I'd rather help him.
No, you would not. But I don't need help, so that isn't a problem.
What I find amusing is your fascination with me. I should start a fan club,
as you're not the only one who exhibits this bizarre fascination.
deaf
> deaf writes:
>
>> You're naive trying to dissimulate.
>
> I am not dissimulating. I have a wide and eclectic set of interests.
>
I think you're still very naive. You may have a wide range of
interests (or
just bored replying random nonsense to whatever you read, like someone
said you always do) but I really *doubt* your explanation, my
interpretation is much more plausible than your pretext. Anyway I admit
I might be wrong respecting the seriousness of your suicidal feelings.
But dont the groups alt.support.short support.shyness
soc.singles
support.loneliness talk.rape where you have posted a lot
(_proportionally_ to the frecuency of posts in that groups), help to
define your profile?
Also I don't believe that you're absolutely indifferent to Christmas,
thats a plain lie. Plus your tendency to post too much and talk *crap*
everywhere about everything means that you're not satisfied with the
solitary activities you say you enjoy doing and you long for company.
deaf
>
> Being alone is not painful to me, and in fact I often choose it over being
> with other people. Most social activities bore me terribly, and I enjoy being
> at home alone more.
>
Then you can spend the rest of your time posting, lol.
Nil
I know money is not important to you. The more important to you
is your keyboard. Ever since your life revolve on posting. That is
the happiness of a loner people.
Nil
Mxsmanic
> I think you're still very naive. You may have a wide range of
> interests (or just bored replying random nonsense to whatever
> you read, like someone said you always do) but I really *doubt*
> your explanation, my interpretation is much more plausible
> than your pretext.
Or you simply cannot adopt viewpoints other than your own, and thus always
attempt to project your own mindset onto the observed behavior of others.
The reason I do something may not be the same as the reason you might do it.
> Anyway I admit I might be wrong respecting the seriousness of
> your suicidal feelings.
What suicidal feelings?
> But dont the groups alt.support.short support.shyness
> soc.singles support.loneliness talk.rape where you have posted a lot
> (_proportionally_ to the frecuency of posts in that groups), help to
> define your profile?
It gives an indication of topics in which I have taken an interest at one time
or another. I don't remember posting to some of these groups, much less
remember having posted "a lot," but it's hard to recall nearly 160,000 USENET
posts. I know that at least a few people have impersonated me on occasion,
although the number of posts impersonated appears to be extremely small.
> Also I don't believe that you're absolutely indifferent to Christmas,
> thats a plain lie.
See above. Most of the world is indifferent to Christmas, even though that's
hard for practicing Christians to believe.
> Plus your tendency to post too much and talk *crap*
> everywhere about everything means that you're not satisfied with the
> solitary activities you say you enjoy doing and you long for company.
How much is too much, and what does "talking crap" mean?
Mxsmanic
> Then you can spend the rest of your time posting, lol.
Actually I don't spend a lot of time on USENET, and in fact I've only recently
begun posting again.
ThePuttKing
No disrespect to Mxsmanic but he does seem to get into long winded
arguments with people on here. He always seems to want the last word
on everything and will argue forever. He also seems very arrogant and
has a superior attitude.
I don't mean any harm by saying this, it's just something I have
noticed.
nSCOURGE
Mxsmanic wrote:
> PandoraElpis writes:
>
> > That phenotypic varience is empirically culled by the forces of
> > selection(chance and opportunity), *is* observable, and well known to
> > science.
> >
> > Take a fucking class in community college, since your ignorance is
> > obviously beyond the remedy of self-mediated erudition(with a mind to
> > blunt Occam's Razor).
>
> From "phenotypic varience [sic]"
If you could actually comprehend the term, you would not find it
suspicious or controversial.
> to "fucking."
So, I guess you are sensetive to abuse, despite your dispassionate
pretension.
nSCOURGE
This wouldn't be such a problem if it was not evident to the extent
which he is emotionally invested in the certainty of his posts(despite
protests to the contrary).
So, when he is shown to be wrong (which seems to happen about every
other post he commits in A.S.S.), he refuses to concede a point made
in error or ignorance(instead, opting to equivocate).
This doesn't earn him much credibility.
nSCOURGE
dotcom wrote:
> I agree but the questions is whether one causes the other, as Anthony
> implies , he says that the correlation of IQ with socio economic
> status breaks down at high IQ levels... usually because of problems
> interacting with other people
>
>
> Do you think there are people out there that are just so intelligent
> they cannot bear to socialise with people of ordinary intelligence
> because of the pure boredom that would entail.? And even if such
> people existed dont you think that intelligence would enable them to
> make a living somehow?
> Anthony may be intelligent, I certainly dont think he is stupid, and
> he is disabled but sadly in denial. Again why would a person with
> apparently such distaste for social interaction hang out for years
> giving advice ( sorry making statements) about such topics as shyness,
> loneliness and as another poster mentioned even suicide. What I
> see is someone who has been crying out for help for years. And I dont
> believe in assexual males either, but I can see that someone who has
> self proclaimed his ugliness ( and I know not if he is ugly , handsome
> and dont particularly care about that aspect) might again want to hide
> behind the assexual mask in the hope that he might at least gain some
> female companionship... as he has said many times on this forum ..
> females feel less threatened by a male not interested in sex.
>
> If this reallly is a support group others would be trying to
> encourage him to seek professional help
If he is impervious to instruction, then he is beyond remedy of an
information medium like usenet.
> , but unfortunately he just
> pisses most people off with his impersonal arguments that serve only
> one purpose and that is to try to bolster his fragile ego by trying to
> prove he knows more than everyone else on just about anything. I am
> way past being pissed off by him. I'd rather help him..
Mxsmanic
> If you could actually comprehend the term, you would not find it
> suspicious or controversial.
If it were spelled correctly, it might be easier to recognize.
> So, I guess you are sensetive to abuse, despite your dispassionate
> pretension.
It's not a reference to abuse. I'm just pointing out the vast changes in
register in the post, indicating that someone is trying to write far more
"intelligently" than is normal for him.
Mxsmanic
> I know money is not important to you. The more important to you
> is your keyboard. Ever since your life revolve on posting. That is
> the happiness of a loner people.
Actually, I spend most of my free time flying these days.
nSCOURGE
Mxsmanic wrote:
> nSCOURGE writes:
>
> > If you could actually comprehend the term, you would not find it
> > suspicious or controversial.
>
> If it were spelled correctly, it might be easier to recognize.
So, you can't infer 'phenotypic variance' from 'phenotypic varience'?
If so, who has the bigger problem here?
>
> > So, I guess you are sensetive to abuse, despite your dispassionate
> > pretension.
>
> It's not a reference to abuse. I'm just pointing out the vast changes in
> register in the post, indicating that someone is trying to write far more
> "intelligently" than is normal for him.
I think it is just a communication tangent from reason to abuse(an
excercise in rhetoric), as your comprehension appears insoluble to the
former.
Mxsmanic
> So, you can't infer 'phenotypic variance' from 'phenotypic varience'?
I can't take someone seriously if he's always trying to talk above his natural
level. If his arguments are persuasive, he doesn't have to try to talk big.
nSCOURGE
Mxsmanic wrote:
> nSCOURGE writes:
>
> > So, you can't infer 'phenotypic variance' from 'phenotypic varience'?
>
> I can't take someone seriously if he's always trying to talk above his natural
> level.
Again you are appealing to a (fallacious) 'style over substance'
argument.
Grammatical minutia seems a trivial reason to dismiss something(of
course, this is merely the pretext you use to justify your irrelevant
diversion tactics).
PandoraElpis
There are evolutionary reasons he should not believe you.
Just because you can't get laid, doesn't make you asexual.
> > ... but I can see that someone who has
> > self proclaimed his ugliness ( and I know not if he is ugly , handsome
> > and dont particularly care about that aspect) might again want to hide
> > behind the assexual mask in the hope that he might at least gain some
> > female companionship... as he has said many times on this forum ..
> > females feel less threatened by a male not interested in sex.
>
> No hiding necessary. Interest in sex fades significantly after adolescence
BS.
> ,
> and I haven't had any real interest in sex for a very long time. I still like
> women, because they are pretty to look at and they are less emotional and
> irrational than men
Nonsense.
> , but looking at them or conversing with them and engaging
> in sex with them are very different things. Friendship is more durable and
> enjoyable than sex, so I value my many friendships with women.
Sorry, but for a heterosexual male to profess a platonic/asexual
interest in female companionship is not very plausible(again, for
evolutionary reasons).
> > If this reallly is a support group others would be trying to
> > encourage him to seek professional help, but unfortunately he just
> > pisses most people off with his impersonal arguments that serve only
> > one purpose and that is to try to bolster his fragile ego by trying to
> > prove he knows more than everyone else on just about anything. I am
> > way past being pissed off by him. I'd rather help him.
>
> No, you would not. But I don't need help, so that isn't a problem.
No, the problem is that you are beyond help.
PandoraElpis
dotcom wrote:
> On Dec 31, 6:44 pm, Jared <jared4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree but the questions is whether one causes the other, as Anthony
> implies , he says that the correlation of IQ with socio economic
> status breaks down at high IQ levels... usually because of problems
> interacting with other people
>
>
> Do you think there are people out there that are just so intelligent
> they cannot bear to socialise with people of ordinary intelligence
> because of the pure boredom that would entail.? And even if such
> people existed dont you think that intelligence would enable them to
> make a living somehow?
> Anthony may be intelligent, I certainly dont think he is stupid
Then you are more easily convinced than others.
> , and
> he is disabled but sadly in denial. Again why would a person with
> apparently such distaste for social interaction hang out for years
> giving advice ( sorry making statements) about such topics as shyness,
> loneliness and as another poster mentioned even suicide. What I
> see is someone who has been crying out for help for years. And I dont
> believe in assexual males either, but I can see that someone who has
> self proclaimed his ugliness ( and I know not if he is ugly , handsome
> and dont particularly care about that aspect) might again want to hide
> behind the assexual mask in the hope that he might at least gain some
> female companionship... as he has said many times on this forum ..
> females feel less threatened by a male not interested in sex.
>
> If this reallly is a support group others would be trying to
> encourage him to seek professional help, but unfortunately he just
> pisses most people off with his impersonal arguments that serve only
> one purpose and that is to try to bolster his fragile ego by trying to
> prove he knows more than everyone else on just about anything. I am
> way past being pissed off by him. I'd rather help him..
nSCOURGE
Mxsmanic wrote:
> dotcom writes:
>
> > Do you think there are people out there that are just so intelligent
> > they cannot bear to socialise with people of ordinary intelligence
> > because of the pure boredom that would entail?
>
> There may be, but that's not the usual problem. The usual problem is simply a
> huge difference in thinking patterns that makes social interaction difficult.
> Very smart people don't hate their fellow human beings, they just aren't on
> the same frequency.
>
> The same is true for very stupid people, of course.
>
> > And even if such people existed dont you think that intelligence
> > would enable them to make a living somehow?
>
> Most of them do make a living, somehow, but usually it is quite modest in
> comparison to what people tend to expect of a person who is highly
> intelligent. There are a lot of truck-driving geniuses around.
>
> > Again why would a person with
> > apparently such distaste for social interaction hang out for years
> > giving advice ( sorry making statements) about such topics as shyness,
> > loneliness and as another poster mentioned even suicide.
>
> Objective, detached observers often have a great advantage over active
> participants.
And this applies to you how?
nSCOURGE
dotcom wrote:
> On Jan 1, 3:22 pm, PandoraElpis <PandoraEl...@live.com> wrote:
> > dotcom wrote:
> > > On Dec 31, 6:44 pm, Jared <jared4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Dec 30, 5:34 pm, dotcom <tfm...@iprimus.com.au> wrote:
> > > > [...]
> >
> > > > > you are thinking. The bit thats puzzling me and the cause of my
> > > > > interest is in whether you are so deluded that you really beleive your
> > > > > exceptional intelligence is the cause of your social disability ( and
> >
> > > > I don't think there's any contradiction between being disabled and
> > > > being intelligent.
> > > > The human mind is multifaceted.
> >
> > > I agree but the questions is whether one causes the other, as Anthony
> > > implies , he says that the correlation of IQ with socio economic
> > > status breaks down at high IQ levels... usually because of problems
> > > interacting with other people
> >
> > > Do you think there are people out there that are just so intelligent
> > > they cannot bear to socialise with people of ordinary intelligence
> > > because of the pure boredom that would entail.? And even if such
> > > people existed dont you think that intelligence would enable them to
> > > make a living somehow?
> > > Anthony may be intelligent, I certainly dont think he is stupid
> >
> > Then you are more easily convinced than others.
>
> well he can read and write and much of what he says is true, just
> usually inapropriate and totally irrelevent to the subject at hand.
If this is true outside of A.S.S(don't know or care), then here the
veracity of his posts take a nosedive...
Jared
> There is no problem/concern of life-history which is not entangled in
> sexual dimorphism - there is no escaping this, if one accepts evolution
> (which you obviously don't).
You are too much engrossed in your theories; observation and
experimentation could show you things you don't expect.
PandoraElpis
Jared wrote:
> On Dec 30 2009, 4:27 pm, PandoraElpis <PandoraEl...@live.com> wrote:
> > There is no problem/concern of life-history which is not entangled in
> > sexual dimorphism - there is no escaping this, if one accepts evolution
> > (which you obviously don't).
>
> You are too much engrossed in your theories
Perhaps for the moment.
> ; observation and
> experimentation could show you things you don't expect.
Yes, it could, and this has previously been(and will continue to be)
the case.
Error and refinement are critical in converging upon knowledge.
Mxsmanic
> Again you are appealing to a (fallacious) 'style over substance'
> argument.
Talking above one's normal level is an attempt to put style over substance;
it's an affectation intended to impress those to whom the contrived style of
speech might seem educated.
Mxsmanic
> I might be wrong, and I am sure you will tell me if I am, but flying
> involves leaving the ground, usually via a mechanical means, but I
> supose you could be jumping out your window?
Or I could be using a flight simulator.
Mxsmanic
> Just because you can't get laid, doesn't make you asexual.
True, but just because you can't get laid doesn't mean you aren't asexual,
either. The two things are independent.
> Sorry, but for a heterosexual male to profess a platonic/asexual
> interest in female companionship is not very plausible(again, for
> evolutionary reasons).
_When Harry Met Sally_ was a comedy, not an instructional text.
However implausible it might seem to you, it is routine for me. I'm not like
you.
Mxsmanic
> And this applies to you how?
I am an objective and detached observer.
nSCOURGE
Mxsmanic wrote:
> nSCOURGE writes:
>
> > Again you are appealing to a (fallacious) 'style over substance'
> > argument.
>
> Talking above one's normal level is an attempt to put style over substance;
Maybe, but it should not detract from substantive argument.
And this is where *you* are commiting the fallacy - by strategically
considering style to the exclusion of substance, with respect to
preceding discourse.
Don't you get it?
nSCOURGE
Mxsmanic wrote:
> PandoraElpis writes:
>
> > Just because you can't get laid, doesn't make you asexual.
>
> True, but just because you can't get laid doesn't mean you aren't asexual,
> either. The two things are independent.
This would imply that you are mutant of a kind where it is difficult
to see how one might evolve via sexually mediated replication.
You have already confessed to a prior sexual interest in females, so
you are clearly not such a hypothetical mutant.
More likely, you are rationalizing an absence of choice as a self-
determined outcome, in forming a tenuous psychological anchor(to
sanity?).
nSCOURGE
And this is the biggest bullshit claim you've made in the entire
thread.
Nil
Free time??? You have that? I don't think so?
Nil
nSCOURGE
dotcom wrote:
> if you were playing monopoly would you tell people you were out doing
> real estate business?
Yes, he probably would.
Mxsmanic
> Maybe, but it should not detract from substantive argument.
The whole purpose of it is to detract from substantive argument. A person
talking in this way is trying to hide his lack of knowledge or intelligence.
> And this is where *you* are commiting the fallacy - by strategically
> considering style to the exclusion of substance, with respect to
> preceding discourse.
In this case, there is only style, but no substance, so considering style
alone is the only option.
> Don't you get it?
I understand it very well, as I've been seeing it for years. Indeed, you see
people on TV every day trying to do this; that's why cops on TV say "proceeded
to do" instead of "did."
Mxsmanic
> Does any definition of flying, include playing games on a computer?
Flight simulation does, although there are important differences between games
and simulators.
Mxsmanic
> if you were playing monopoly would you tell people you were out doing
> real estate business?
Monopoly is a game, not a simulation.
Mxsmanic
> Free time??? You have that? I don't think so?
I usually have money or free time, but not both. Sometimes I have neither.
Mxsmanic
> This would imply that you are mutant of a kind where it is difficult
> to see how one might evolve via sexually mediated replication.
Perhaps if you were open to other concepts it would not be so difficult to
see.
> You have already confessed to a prior sexual interest in females, so
> you are clearly not such a hypothetical mutant.
I still take a sexual interest in females, but it is quite weak and rather
rare.
> More likely, you are rationalizing an absence of choice as a self-
> determined outcome, in forming a tenuous psychological anchor(to
> sanity?).
More likely, you're projecting your own conception of what might produce my
apparent behavior onto me, because you are not able to adopt any viewpoint
other than your own. I'm not like you.
nSCOURGE
Mxsmanic wrote:
> nSCOURGE writes:
>
> > Maybe, but it should not detract from substantive argument.
>
> The whole purpose of it is to detract from substantive argument. A person
> talking in this way is trying to hide his lack of knowledge or intelligence.
The only person trying to evade is *you*.
If not, then why don't you try addressing the arguments instead of
brushing them off with a logical fallacy?
> > And this is where *you* are commiting the fallacy - by strategically
> > considering style to the exclusion of substance, with respect to
> > preceding discourse.
>
> In this case, there is only style, but no substance, so considering style
> alone is the only option.
Donning your tinfoil crown again, I see.
nSCOURGE
I doubt that anyone would find that more likely(even yourself).
Does the tinfoil crown ever chafe?
nSCOURGE
An abudance of free time is quite possibly the only thing he does
have.
> Nil
ThePuttKing
> deaf writes:
> > I think you're still very naive. You may have a wide range of
> > interests (or just bored replying random nonsense to whatever
> > you read, like someone said you always do) but I really *doubt*
> > your explanation, my interpretation is much more plausible
> > than your pretext.
>
> Or you simply cannot adopt viewpoints other than your own, and thus always
> attempt to project your own mindset onto the observed behavior of others.
>
> The reason I do something may not be the same as the reason you might do it.
>
> > Anyway I admit I might be wrong respecting the seriousness of
> > your suicidal feelings.
>
> What suicidal feelings?
>
> > But dont the groups alt.support.short support.shyness
> > soc.singles support.loneliness talk.rape where you have posted a lot
> > (_proportionally_ to the frecuency of posts in that groups), help to
> > define your profile?
>
> It gives an indication of topics in which I have taken an interest at one time
> or another. I don't remember posting to some of these groups, much less
> remember having posted "a lot," but it's hard to recall nearly 160,000 USENET
> posts. I know that at least a few people have impersonated me on occasion,
> although the number of posts impersonated appears to be extremely small.
>
> > Also I don't believe that you're absolutely indifferent to Christmas,
> > thats a plain lie.
>
> See above. Most of the world is indifferent to Christmas, even though that's
> hard for practicing Christians to believe.
>
> > Plus your tendency to post too much and talk *crap*
> > everywhere about everything means that you're not satisfied with the
> > solitary activities you say you enjoy doing and you long for company.
>
> How much is too much, and what does "talking crap" mean?
talking rubbish or nonsense