Materialism, Values, and Society
The Twonkster
wondered why this society places so much emphasis on material goods. I
mean, it not only includes stuff like BMW's and car phones, but seeing
*people* as objects to be bought, sold, acquired, and owned. Freind of mine
has a $800 waterbed, $1200 stereo, $3000 worth of artwork, and a $700
*lamp*. Reasoning for these objects: "To get the women." His room is a
self-described "pussy trap" (apologies to the women-folk out there). All
the women he goes out with are fairly attractive, but most of them don't
have 2 brain cells to rub together. They too have been fooled into
believing that they must be objects. I guess they want a man who will treat
them as such...
Me, on the other hand, I'm doing OK. I have a free bed, a boombox I bought
in 1989 for $130, 4 posters worth probably $10 total, and a free lamp. The
thing I have probably spent the most money on is my CD collection, but those
were bought for my amusement and no-one elses (most women out there not
being big Dead Milkmen fans :-)). My other high-end money item is books,
again for my entertainment (my friend bought the $40 Hitchhikers hardbound
trilogy. I have all 5 books in paperback). All these things satisfy me as
much as my friend's items would. However, I don't understand how I cannot
connect with any of the women I go out with. They are all fairly
intellegent, wonderful women (maybe not as attractive as the women my friend
goes out with, but that bothers me not at all), and all assure me that I am
a real nice guy (I hate that term), but I am not what they are looking for.
Do even the smart ones want to be treated like dirt, to be treated like
cattle, to be bought and sold and owned? I realise this sounds a little
like my "Relationship" thread from a while abck, but that's not all.
This country's values also confuse me. Somebody please explain to me why
Barry Bonds makes $7 million a year playing a GAME, while the starting
salary for a teacher is $18K? I have nothing against baseball, I love the
sport, but get real! I would get into teaching in a heartbeat, but for the
salary. Teachers have the toughest job in the country, and granted, some do
not do it well, but most do. If I could be guarranteed a job at $25K after
graduation to teach, I would. My only reason for $25K is so I can pay off
the loans I know I will rack up before I leave college, and maybe put away
something toward my retirement. God knows Social Security won't be there.
As is, I am torn between doing something I dislike to put bread on the table
(I'm considering business, even tho it's against my nature, or going back to
epidemiology, which bores the pants off of me), and doing something I'd like
to do that won't pay squat, and that I'll have to take a McJob on the side
to eat. I'd like to get an English degree, or maybe Philosophy, but where's
the practicality? I'd like to do Computer Science, but I don't have the
math skills. Maybe Linguistics....:-)
Comments, criticisms, flames welcome. Let's hear it from y'all...
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Matt Gourley, S.C.W. I "Ducks are definately blues animals....."
MMG...@psuvm.psu.edu I -Brian J. "Biff" Panulla
Chelsea Clinton Cabal I "The tiny light shines twice as bright on
Legion of Dynamic Discord I the only nice part of me" -TMBG
Tim Irvin
The Twonkster <MMG...@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>
>A smalll subject that's been coming up among my friends recently. I have
>wondered why this society places so much emphasis on material goods. I
>mean, it not only includes stuff like BMW's and car phones, but seeing
>*people* as objects to be bought, sold, acquired, and owned. Freind of mine
>has a $800 waterbed, $1200 stereo, $3000 worth of artwork, and a $700
>*lamp*. Reasoning for these objects: "To get the women." His room is a
>self-described "pussy trap" (apologies to the women-folk out there). All
>the women he goes out with are fairly attractive, but most of them don't
>have 2 brain cells to rub together. They too have been fooled into
>believing that they must be objects. I guess they want a man who will treat
>them as such...
lonely than a sugar daddy--even if it meant never getting any. :)
I started going bald when I was 18. My first thoughts were that *no* woman
my age would want anything to do with a bald guy. However, after lots of
introspection, I decided that if a woman didn't want to be with me because I
was bald, then it wasn't the type of woman I wanted to be with anyway.
>Me, on the other hand, I'm doing OK. I have a free bed, a boombox I bought
>in 1989 for $130, 4 posters worth probably $10 total, and a free lamp. The
>thing I have probably spent the most money on is my CD collection, but those
>were bought for my amusement and no-one elses (most women out there not
>being big Dead Milkmen fans :-)). My other high-end money item is books,
>again for my entertainment (my friend bought the $40 Hitchhikers hardbound
>trilogy. I have all 5 books in paperback). All these things satisfy me as
>much as my friend's items would. However, I don't understand how I cannot
>connect with any of the women I go out with. They are all fairly
>intellegent, wonderful women (maybe not as attractive as the women my friend
>goes out with, but that bothers me not at all), and all assure me that I am
>a real nice guy (I hate that term), but I am not what they are looking for.
>Do even the smart ones want to be treated like dirt, to be treated like
>cattle, to be bought and sold and owned? I realise this sounds a little
>like my "Relationship" thread from a while abck, but that's not all.
upon women as "sex symbols," the sad truth is that many women also look at
men as *success* symbols. Much like the stereotypical man looks for
breasts and butts and whatever else, the stereotypical woman looks at the
prestige of a man's career, his earning potential and his possessions.
Most women I've known *still* feel funny about dating a man who is less
financially well-off than they are. Most women I've known seem to feel
strange about dating a man with less education.
The current Cosmo cover describes an article about "how to marry a million-
aire" about something like that. I find that as offensive to men as an
article about "how to get sex from a blonde bombshell" would (understandably)
be to women. It's hard for me to take the "men look at women as sex
symbols" complaint too seriously as long as many women look at men as success
symbols. It's just the way men and women are. Again, how much of this
is social and how much is biological is not known.
>This country's values also confuse me. Somebody please explain to me why
>Barry Bonds makes $7 million a year playing a GAME, while the starting
>salary for a teacher is $18K? I have nothing against baseball, I love the
>sport, but get real! I would get into teaching in a heartbeat, but for the
>salary. Teachers have the toughest job in the country, and granted, some do
>not do it well, but most do. If I could be guarranteed a job at $25K after
>graduation to teach, I would. My only reason for $25K is so I can pay off
>the loans I know I will rack up before I leave college, and maybe put away
>something toward my retirement. God knows Social Security won't be there.
>As is, I am torn between doing something I dislike to put bread on the table
>(I'm considering business, even tho it's against my nature, or going back to
>epidemiology, which bores the pants off of me), and doing something I'd like
>to do that won't pay squat, and that I'll have to take a McJob on the side
>to eat. I'd like to get an English degree, or maybe Philosophy, but where's
>the practicality? I'd like to do Computer Science, but I don't have the
>math skills. Maybe Linguistics....:-)
Well, as a proud owner of a BSCS (and working toward an MSCS), I feel like I
have lots of options available. I think I'd really like to teach math and CS
at a community college when I get the MS. When my wife finishes *her* course-
work and starts working, I could afford to take the pay cut and pursue it.
Right now, even if I did have the education, it wouldn't be an option. In
the meantime, as a grad student, I'm going to investigate the possibility of
teaching an algebra course. I know several MSCS majors who are doing that,
and I think it would give me a good chance to see if I'm teacher material.
I think the job market for math/science types in education is better than it
is for most other areas, since it's hard to make a teaching job (which pays
$25-$30K to start in this overproced area) look good when compared to a $35-
$40K entry level job in private industry. Of course, there haven't been many
entry-level jobs created lately...
Besides, the only reason teacher salaries are relatively low is because many
people are willing to do that work, with relatively few positions available.
If people didn't want to teach, the supply of potential teachers would shrink
and salaries would rise. Let's not forget about the summer vacation, either.
We should be careful when comparing a 9.5-months-a-year job to a 12-months-
per-year job.
*********************************************************************
* Tim Irvin, Programmer/Analyst | *
* Lockheed Missiles and Space Co., Inc. | This space *
* Sunnyvale, California | for rent *
* ***** all standard disclaimers apply ***** | *
*-------------------------------------------------------------------*
* "We had a choice between Democrats who couldn't learn *
* from the past and Republicans who couldn't stop living *
* in it" -- P.J. O'Rourke on the 1988 Presidential election *
*********************************************************************
Chris DelPrete
> In article <94063.030...@psuvm.psu.edu> The Twonkster <MMG...@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
> What is it that causes two people to connect?
Boy! This question hits me on an issue that I've been thinking about for
weeks now.
A few thoughts and experiences ...
For me, a connection is formed when two people are interested in each other
and actively work to understand one another. Recently, I went on
a vacation and met my brothern-law for the first time. For an entire weekend, I asked him all sorts of questions, trying to understand him as a person.
Never once did he ask me a single question. He was so wrapped up in himself
that he couldn't see beyond it. The result is that I know a bit about him,
but he knows nothing of me. No connection = boring.
On the other hand, I have a friend that wants me to reveal all sorts of
intimate details about my life to him, but he offers nothing in return.
He constantly evades my questions. No connection = boring.
These folks (and those like them) bore me to tears.
To me, connections are made when there is a lot of informational
and emotional give and take. If it's one sided ... it's not a connection.
> Advice : Keep looking, and don't change. I'm sure that you will find someone
> eventually. It's easy to find a woman (as your friend has found out), it's
> not easy to find the right woman.
In truth. And, when you go out with her, ask her about herself and her
experiences. Share yours with her. Have a conversation ... not an
information dump.
FWIW.
--
| Chris DelPrete-Delaney | Speaking only for myself, |
| * ch...@xmission.com | one of my many tricks. |
| * * cdel...@novell.com = |
| "If this is paradise, I think I want a lawnmower." - David Byrne |
Erich Schwarz
<MMG...@psuvm.psu.edu> wrote:
>
> All
> the women he goes out with are fairly attractive, but most of them don't
> have 2 brain cells to rub together.
You know, brain cells are rather fragile. Rubbin' 'em together with
your sweaty mitts is likely to make them go oop.
I'm just trying to get over that image...
--Erich Schwarz "You can't microinject too many oocytes,
One *Toe* Out the Door, sequence too many nucleotides,
and Really Punchy from run too many neural-net structure
predictions,
Das Thesis Already or date too many on-the-edge women."
Div. of Biol., Caltech --An Eighth-Year Grad Student
Erich Schwarz
> Do even [smart women] want to be treated like dirt, to be treated like
> cattle, to be bought and sold and owned?
The dysfunctional ones do, at least until their husbands dump them for
a teenager trophy wife when they're in their late forties.
The sane ones don't. I think if they're looking for *anything* in a
potential Love Mate, it's an aura of *quiet, earned self-respect*. Sane
smart women are invited to amplify or correct this hypothesis.
> This country's values also confuse me. Somebody please explain to me why
> Barry Bonds makes $7 million a year playing a GAME, while the starting
> salary for a teacher is $18K?
Two reasons.
First of all: the aggregate amount of money paid into teacher's
salaries is probably much higher than that paid to sports stars, but there
are so many fewer sports stars in this country (as opposed to school
teachers) that the sports money gets sliced up by a much SMALLER dividend.
Ergo, a handful of athletes make big $$$, while a *large* quantity of
school teachers make much less. There is no way that this logic can be
defeated without socialism: if you let people spend even one-twentieth on
sports what they do on schools, but have one-two-thousandth as many
athletes as schoolteachers, this arithmetical force *will* give an athlete
100x the salary of a schoolteacher.
Second reason: America's priorities are totally asinine. Of course we
should be paying $50-70K/yr. for any schoolteacher--it's the most important
job in the country. Of course, I think that we should also throw the job
field open to vigorous competition by abolishing most of the present
certification requirements, which have more to do with the agenda of
teachers' unions than with ensuring the quality of education in our public
schools...but that's a totally different topic.
--Erich Schwarz / schwarze...@starbase1.caltech.edu
James E. Lee
: The Twonkster <MMG...@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
: >A smalll subject that's been coming up among my friends recently. I have
: >wondered why this society places so much emphasis on material goods.
I just wanna take a second and say that my friend just found this group a
couple days ago and mentioned it to me, and I love it! I've been
discussing all kinds of things like this lately with my friends, and we've
all been wondering if there is anyone else out there who thinks (both in
general, and about real stuff) anymore, you know? It's great to be here!
BTW, it's also nice to see so many women on this group! I just told
another friend about it, and the first question he asked is, "Are there
any girls?" I guess I frequent the wrong groups, but it can seem like
there are almost none online compared the to number of guys. I'm glad to
be wrong in this case, anyway...
: (Deleted description of high-priced pussy trap, and of the women who take
: the bait and therefore see themselves as objects..)
: >I guess they want a man who will treat them as such...
: Dating is hell. I have an intelligent, wonderful girlfriend with the same
^^^^^^^^^^^yes!
: damn problem - she also has long legs and a lot of blond hair and so she
: has often heard the "you're a real nice girl but..." after considerable
: dating and eventual sex from guys who did the best imitations of "nice
: guy smitten by true love" you ever did see... they always seemed to develop
: serious relationships with someone else within the year... She's so
I hate hearing about guys doing that--it really does not help things, and
makes being a "nice guy" (has anyone really checked to see if that means
"martyr" in some ancient language?) even WORSE! (Not that *either*
gender as a whole has sterling marks for its treatment of the other!)
: careful these days she probably seems neurotic. Dating is one bad
: experience after another until it isn't and then you aren't dating. It's
: like always finding something in the last place you look.
: >Do even the smart ones want to be treated like dirt, to be treated like
: >cattle, to be bought and sold and owned? (deletia)
: No. Do you? I ran across plenty of guys who thought this way in college,
: I saw their desperate disdainful expressions, with or without pricey
: interior decor, and I avoided them like the plague, as did all my equally
: intelligent and perceptive friends :). Attitudes like this tend to show,
: you know. How do you expect to attract an intelligent attractive woman if
: you think like this? Get yourself together.
I feel I must come to T's defense here--One of the things my (male)
friends and I often complain about is why so many women seem to date
jerks on purpose. I hung out with girls more than guys in high skool,
and I had to watch most of them go through terrible experiences because
they were attracted to guys that treated them horribly. Now, I know that
some of that is just part of youth, but I still see it in college, even
among some of my quite intelligent female friends. I'm not looking for
an explanation, but I wanted to point out that T's question is not absurd.
[Begin rant]
Something that has been a problem for me is finding women who do not
run because I try to have a *real* conversation with them. Why is there
such an apparent need to go through so much non-conversation (bullshit
talk about stupid stuff neither person is interested in or cares anything
at all about) and gobbledygook just so that two people can feel comfortable
enough to talk? I've been told I'm too intense (I tend to avoid
meaninglessness and frivolity) but why should I have to put on a stupid act
(which is not worth it, cuz it's not me) so that I can seem harmless, or
whatever? Why are people so afraid to be real, or to have someone else
get to know them for real?
[End rant]
Okay, I'm done! :)
: >As is, I am torn between doing something I dislike to put bread on the
: table,(deletia)
: >and doing something I'd like to do that won't pay squat, and that I'll
: >have to take a McJob on the side to eat. (more deletia)
Ack, this is a big problem which deserves a lot of consideration and
discussion, however, this is not the time or place for me to get into it...
--
J a m e s E. L e e
je...@othello.ucdavis.edu
Kathleen Hubbard
>The Twonkster wrote:
>
>
>> Do even [smart women] want to be treated like dirt, to be treated like
>> cattle, to be bought and sold and owned?
>
>[...]
> The sane ones don't. I think if they're looking for *anything* in a
>potential Love Mate, it's an aura of *quiet, earned self-respect*. Sane
>smart women are invited to amplify or correct this hypothesis.
Hypothesis confirmed. To amplify, I could cite the list of things we
a.s.g-x women talked about back in December -- humor, good conversation,
some degree of articulateness about your emotions, non-Neanderthal ideas
about sex.
But as for the ranking of material success, I can't even locate it on
my scale, and I think many of my female friends are the same way. Hell,
the last mate I had was a guy with less income AND less education than
me, and that neither made me uncomfortable nor meant that I ran the
the relationship. We felt like equals. And when I meet a man now, the
last thing I wonder is how much money he has in his bank account or
in his stereo rack. Maturity and comfort-with-self rates a lot higher.
--Kathleen
--
Kathleen A. Hubbard | member: GenerationX, 02.10.66 Cohort,
Department of Linguistics | Linguistic Society of America, Queens
U.C. Berkeley | of Disappointment, Icky Man Recovery,
One Foot Out The Door | Early A.M. Linguists Basketball League
steven r kleinedler
oh beautiful for spacious skies
for amber waves of grain...
I own a lot of books, some clothes, a CD player and a computer.
A palmist once told me I will live a long and happy life but I will
never have much money. I thought it was a beautiful fortune.
As long as I have enought to get buy, I'm happy. Don't need no Rolexes.
No wonder marketing types hate us.
Note to Kathleen: Catch that linguist bit? Let's get him while
he's week and make him study GB.
Steve Kleinedler
The Twonkster
>
>The Twonkster <MMG...@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>
>
>(Deleted description of T's more modest posessions)
>> All these things satisfy me as much as my friend's items would. However,
>>I don't understand how I cannot connect with any of the women I go out
>>with.
>
>this?
That wasn't my point. My point was that I buy stuff like CDs, artwork, books
etc. *for me*, not to fit some image of what I think a woman is looking for.
The more perceptive among us can tell the type of person you are by looking
thru your CDs and books (not saying I could). I link it all to beer. MGD,
and Coors Light, sell an image of "if you drink our beer, you too will get
the babe/stud of your dreams, beecause you will instantly have a washerboard
stomach, high cheekbones, the right squint in your eye, the right smirk on
your face, and just the right amount of stubble." And the kids I go to
school with *buy* this image hook, line and sinker, and it scares me. As
Crasher put it in 13GEN, "I drink the beer I think tastes good." I do what
I can to keep these kids from the mediocraty of beer by purchasing cases
of Samuel Smith's Variety Pack, and distributing relatively freely. Maybe,
just maybe, if I can get them to see past the marketing image in beer, they
can see past the image in other things, and keep them from being pigeonholed.
End of rant. :-)
>>They are all fairly intellegent, wonderful women (maybe not as attractive
>>as the women my friend goes out with, but that bothers me not at all)
>
>You don't think they're attractive, or you do but your friends don't?
I do. They don't fit the "image" (see above) of a perfect woman, therefore
my friend won't even give them a second thought (fine by me!!!), but I wouldn't
change a thing
>
>you know. How do you expect to attract an intelligent attractive woman if
>you think like this? Get yourself together.
Been trying to. I was a bit of a basket-case back in December (ask anybody
who remembers the "Relationship Thing" thread :-)), but therapy is helping
(don't let's start that discussion again!), and my friends are too. I'm just
trying to attract the intellegent, attractive woman without compromising my
values, without having to buy into the image. Ain't easy. The bed seems
to get huge around 3AM.
>
>>As is, I am torn between doing something I dislike to put bread on the
>table,(deletia)
>
>Don't Do It!!! Or do you believe in reincarnation?
I believe that I had a really horrible previous life, and am paying for it now.
:-)
>
>>and doing something I'd like to do that won't pay squat, and that I'll
>>have to take a McJob on the side to eat. (more deletia)
>
>Mom always told me to figure out how I wanted to live, and then find someone
>to pay me for it. Mcjobs may fill the interim, but better to go for the
>happiness whenever possible, and "practicality" is a good consideration but
>it can also be a short form for "sit down and shut up". Tell everyone you
>meet what your interests are (compose a short not-boring version) and that
>you're looking for work. Figure out how to do something fulfilling with
>your life, and if that means invent something that isn't out there, do it.
>If you're anti-materialism, you'll have an easier time with this.
>
> - Sara
I'm not exactly anti-materialism, I just believe it's way out of control, and
our values as a society have been skewed by the incessent consumerism. Thank
you, Sara. This was exactly the sort of discourse I was looking for.
(Bonus points to whoever can spot the TMBG reference in this post! :-))
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Matt Gourley, S.C.W. I "Never whistle while you're pissing."
MMG...@psuvm.psu.edu I -Hagbard Celine
Chelsea Clinton Cabal I "The Lovers, the Dreamers, and me....."
Legion of Dynamic Discord I -Kermit the Frog
The Twonkster
srkl...@ellis.uchicago.edu (steven r kleinedler) says:
>Note to Kathleen: Catch that linguist bit? Let's get him while
>he's week and make him study GB.
>
>Steve Kleinedler
Hee! Heck, the only reason I know what a mora is, is because I read Kathleen's
.plan file...:-)
-Matt, who really wouldn't know a mora if it bit him on the butt....
Jonathan Priluck
>In article <94063.030...@psuvm.psu.edu>, The Twonkster
><MMG...@psuvm.psu.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>> This country's values also confuse me. Somebody please explain to me why
>> Barry Bonds makes $7 million a year playing a GAME, while the starting
>> salary for a teacher is $18K?
>
The simple answer. How much people get paid has *nothing* to do with the
moral value of the work, this is why the communists/marxists/socialists/etc
say capitalism is evil. How much people get paid is a matter of supply and
d, which has nothi*nothing* do with the value (whatever that means??) of the
work. The fact that many of us seem to share some gut instinct that there
*ought* should be some connection is irrelevant, cause there just aint none.
The iNventor
--
* Jonathan Aerospace Materials Corp., 41 Naples Road, Brookline MA 02146 *
* Tel (617) 731-3637, Internet: jam...@world.std.com *
* Developers and future manufacturers of Lattice Block Materials ... *
* the world's strongest and lightest materials. *
Jonathan Priluck
>Erich Schwarz wrote:
>
>>The Twonkster wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Do even [smart women] want to be treated like dirt, to be treated like
>>> cattle, to be bought and sold and owned?
>>
>>[...]
>> The sane ones don't. I think if they're looking for *anything* in a
>>potential Love Mate, it's an aura of *quiet, earned self-respect*. Sane
>>smart women are invited to amplify or correct this hypothesis.
>
>
>Hypothesis confirmed. To amplify, I could cite the list of things we
>a.s.g-x women talked about back in December -- humor, good conversation,
>some degree of articulateness about your emotions, non-Neanderthal ideas
>about sex.
>
>But as for the ranking of material success, I can't even locate it on
>my scale, and I think many of my female friends are the same way. Hell,
>the last mate I had was a guy with less income AND less education than
>me, and that neither made me uncomfortable nor meant that I ran the
>the relationship. We felt like equals. And when I meet a man now, the
>last thing I wonder is how much money he has in his bank account or
>in his stereo rack. Maturity and comfort-with-self rates a lot higher.
>
>
>--Kathleen
>
Trust the force, Luke.
Pay attention to what people do not to what they say.
Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner
I think this is because of our nation's Spartan nature. Spartan in the
glorification of body, not Spartan in the minimalist posession meaning.
What else explains this national craze for physical perfection and little,
if any, emphases on mental perfection? For most of our (United States)
history, we have always been struggling to survive in a physical sense
(lions, tigers and bears, oh my! - also Indians, growing crops, etc). Sure,
you had to be intelligent, but most of the work done was physical in nature.
And I'm sure that having Puritanical roots didn't help either.
There's always been this distrust of intellectualism in this country of
ours. We idolize common sense more than we do pure intelligence.
Basically, the difference between Edison, who never made it to high school,
and Tesla, who was college educated. Who do you hear more of in school?
I'm not saying the Edison was dumb, he wasn't. But he was more pragmatic
than Tesla was.
And I never heard of anyone in high school winning a Varsity Letter (TM)
by being able to calculate trigonometric problems without paper.
We, as a nation, like our sports heros. We idolize our sports heros. We
pay our sports heros millions of dollars to go out on the field and scratch
themselves. We love that.
Is it any wonder why John Doe Stadium looks much like the Colloseum in
Rome? They had their gladiator sports, we have ours. Only instead of the
Lions vs. the Christians [1], it's the Lions vs. Dolphins [2].
That, and an uninformed populous is easier lead populous. Bread and
Circuses. Let them eat cake [3], and all that.
>As is, I am torn between doing something I dislike to put bread on the table
>(I'm considering business, even tho it's against my nature, or going back to
>epidemiology, which bores the pants off of me), and doing something I'd like
>to do that won't pay squat, and that I'll have to take a McJob on the side
>to eat. I'd like to get an English degree, or maybe Philosophy, but where's
>the practicality? I'd like to do Computer Science, but I don't have the
>math skills. Maybe Linguistics....:-)
>
The thing to do is find a way to make money doing what you like doing. If
you are good with computers (you did state you would like CS), then maybe
you can charge an arm and a leg to teach techno-illiterate Boomers how to
use their computers. I myself charge $30/hour for personal consultation to
our customers of CyberGate (although I know people who charge more than I
do, up to something like $80/hour for commercial consulting).
And those that say you need math skills to do Computer Science is wrong.
You can easily get by with general algerbra (and maybe not even that). If
you get into the theorectical side of Computer Science, then yes, it does
look like Greek, but for practical (okay, software engineering), the math is
minimal.
Now here's a thought: Combine your interest in English, Computer Science
and Linguistics, and write software to understand natural language.
Imagine, being the first to write DWIM [4] software that actually understands
ENGLISH! You could make millions!
-spc (Hey, I work in the math dept. at FAU as well, and I just don't have
the mindset for math either 8-)
[1] There is no real evidance that Romans ever fed Christians to any
lions, tigers, bears or elephants. Slaves and gladiators, yes. But
Rome did have religious toleration, to a point. That's not to say
it never happened, but that the records didn't state the religion of
the slave/gladiator.
[2] I'm sorry if the Lions and the Dolphins are in different leagues.
I'm not that big of a football fan to know which teams are on what
league. It was just an example.
[3] Yes, she did say this, but the meaning isn't probably what
historical context has given to it. She wasn't being callous to the
peasantry when saying this, she, having grown up in a privilledge
state, probably meant well but was unwise in the ways of peasants to
realize how poor they were.
That, the the 'cake' she was refering to was a type of bread
commonly available at the time.
[4] Do What I Mean, as apposed to DWIS (Do What I Say), which is how
software works today.
Erich Schwarz
Lee) wrote:
> I feel I must come to T's defense here--One of the things my (male)
> friends and I often complain about is why so many women seem to date
> jerks on purpose. I hung out with girls more than guys in high skool,
> and I had to watch most of them go through terrible experiences because
> they were attracted to guys that treated them horribly. [...]
> Something that has been a problem for me is finding women who do not
> run because I try to have a *real* conversation with them. Why is there
> such an apparent need to go through so much non-conversation (bullshit
> talk about stupid stuff neither person is interested in or cares anything
> at all about) and gobbledygook just so that two people can feel comfortable
> enough to talk?
Yes, I saw manifestations of both of those phenomena in college and
elsewhere.
Some points to ponder:
1. You cannot judge a sex by its most conspicuously self-lacerating
members.
2. Women, as a group, are (IMO) *exactly* as lost, deluded, fallible,
and vulnerable as men. No more. No less. The two Great Ideological Lies
of the late 20th century in America consist of asserting either that Men
are More Virtuous (crazy-conservatism) or that Women Are (loony-feminism.)
Both are nonsense.
3. Now look at your own behavior. Totally impressed with yourself?
Then look at your male friends. How about it? Dwell on these things, and
the fact that some women are totally backwards should not astound you quite
so much.
4. What is the solution? How to find a non-masochistic woman who will
talk about something non-trivial? I've never met anybody who thought they
had The Final Answer, even when they themselves were happy with their own
personal life. So one answer is that there is *no* Final Answer. You have
to work out the solution de novo in your own life. Frustrating, but
there's an awful lot of anecdotal experience to support that.
5. Another way to look at it is this: you may find that worthwhile
women become far easier to find--indeed, may go out of their way to find
*you*--when you have forgotten about "finding the right woman" and have
instead been spending some time systematically trying to get your *own*
life into a shape that you are deeply happy with. Efforts of that sort
seem to lead, in my observation, to the kind of quiet *earned self-respect*
that I mentioned in an earlier post.
6. I know (from experience) that when you are in the grip of
love-angst, getting this kind of Zen advice ("You will find the Woman of
Your Dreams by not seeking her, Grasshopper") is pretty exasperating.
Sorry about that. But if somebody has any *better* strategy, *I'd* sure be
interested to know what it is!
--Erich Schwarz
schwarze...@starbase1.caltech.edu
Ian Williams
Matt, let's face it, the entire charade of being a single, compassionate
person trying to find another person to spend some Life with is a
demoralizing and unhappy journey that ends with a giant flash. It's so bad
that it is almost masochistic to compare yourself to others as they
attempt the same pathetic game; being jealous of your friend that
"ensnares pussy" with his waterbed is like being jealous of dogs becouse
you lack the freedom to eat your own poop. You are your *own man*, with
your own distinct passions, rages, smells, tastes, warmth and longings.
Thus, any experiences you observe outside your own sphere are
untranslatable to yourself.
There is no romantic advice worth pigeon shit on a pump handle. The only
way to find the right person is to:
1. Suffer through the breakup of that late-teen, early-twenties sweetie
that you thought you were going to marry
2. Spend the first part of your twenties dating people that are the right
people for you in the philosophically cerebral sense but do nothing for
your soul
3. Continue sleeping with these people from time to time just to keep your
Confuse-o-Quotient meter well into the red
4. Get nice and bitter so that you radiate "I suck" in emotional Morse code
5. Finally come to terms with yourself only when you realize you haven't
even *liked* somebody the good-old fashioned way in years
6. Keep waiting, noticing that by now, every single person you find
attractive is either psychotic or has a boyfriend/girlfriend who is a
*lot* stupider than you are
7. Wait
8. Wait
9. Wait
10. Just as you are about to give up on humanity in general and start
looking in College Encyclopedias for decent film schools, something happens.
Or whatever.
The point is, everybody is looking for something, and it's mostly a matter
of luck to find somebody that will tuck you in at night with a soft kiss
and a warm word to the ear. Nothing you can change about your basic
personality will make any difference, even assuming that's possible. Keep
plugging away and keep your eyes open - remember, as weird as your world
is, as many missteps and triumphs that you have taken to get where you are
now - wherever you are, someone else can end up there too.
That's what keeps me going.
-Ian
--
**********************************************************************
* The above does not represent OIT, UNC-CH, laUNChpad, or its other users. *
**********************************************************************
The Twonkster
Dixie Blackened Voodoo lager as our respective systems can handle, and dance
till we pass out (with a little help from Steve, Kathleen, and the
Linguistic Dance Club of America). Heck, I'll even dance to Kajagoogoo.
:-)
-Matt,who's feeling much better, tho still a bit confused about life.....
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Matt Gourley, S.C.W. I "History is a nightmare from which I am
MMG...@psuvm.psu.edu I trying to awake." -Joyce, _Ulysses_
Chelsea Clinton Cabal I "I've been a miner for a Heart of Gold"
Legion of Dynamic Discord I -Neil Young, _Heart of Gold_
Kelly T. Conlon
>wondered why this society places so much emphasis on material goods. I
>mean, it not only includes stuff like BMW's and car phones, but seeing
>*people* as objects to be bought, sold, acquired, and owned. Freind of mine
>has a $800 waterbed, $1200 stereo, $3000 worth of artwork, and a $700
>*lamp*. Reasoning for these objects: "To get the women." His room is a
>self-described "pussy trap" (apologies to the women-folk out there). All
>the women he goes out with are fairly attractive, but most of them don't
>have 2 brain cells to rub together. They too have been fooled into
>believing that they must be objects. I guess they want a man who will treat
>them as such...
If all you desire is get laid once in a while (or more than once in a
while), it is easy enough to surround yourself with a lot of doo-dads and
fancy trinkets to impress even the coldest of frosh-queens... that just
doesn't sound like YOU, Twonk.
I stopped giving a flying-fart about my room-mates sexual escapades and
misadventures years ago... a good philosophy of life is to mind one's own
business, because frankly life is too short to keep minding everyone else's
business for them. Don't let yourself get hung-up on BS like that!
>Me, on the other hand, I'm doing OK. I have a free bed, a boombox I bought
>in 1989 for $130, 4 posters worth probably $10 total, and a free lamp. The
>thing I have probably spent the most money on is my CD collection, but those
>were bought for my amusement and no-one elses (most women out there not
>being big Dead Milkmen fans :-)). My other high-end money item is books,
>again for my entertainment (my friend bought the $40 Hitchhikers hardbound
>trilogy. I have all 5 books in paperback). All these things satisfy me as
>much as my friend's items would. However, I don't understand how I cannot
>connect with any of the women I go out with. They are all fairly
>intellegent, wonderful women (maybe not as attractive as the women my friend
>goes out with, but that bothers me not at all), and all assure me that I am
>a real nice guy (I hate that term), but I am not what they are looking for.
>Do even the smart ones want to be treated like dirt, to be treated like
>cattle, to be bought and sold and owned? I realise this sounds a little
>like my "Relationship" thread from a while abck, but that's not all.
It sounds to me like you're trying to hard to look... a female friend of
mine told me that women have this 6th sense about men, that they can sense
someone who is a little too desparate. I believe it! I still have a hard
time explaining to other people how I got together with my current
girlfriend... it simply "happened". I also had this awful stereotype about
men that we are the sex that is the most afraid to commitment... It aint' so.
That stereotype was shattered several weeks ago. :( (Don't even ask me
about it, I am still recovering).
Like Jonathon Priluck said on another thread, let go of your rudder...
relax, spend some time alone, read, ride a bike, "change the path your
normally take to the library" (to quote a passage Life After God).
Discover what it is really like being you, and I personally guarrentee you
that someone else will begin to notice what you are really like.
>(I'm considering business, even tho it's against my nature, or going back to
>epidemiology, which bores the pants off of me), and doing something I'd like
>to do that won't pay squat, and that I'll have to take a McJob on the side
>to eat. I'd like to get an English degree, or maybe Philosophy, but where's
>the practicality? I'd like to do Computer Science, but I don't have the
>math skills. Maybe Linguistics....:-)
>
>Comments, criticisms, flames welcome. Let's hear it from y'all...
The worst mistake you could make is to get into something that will bore
your pants off. And who gives a f*ck about practicality? An education
isn't something you eat... I've know plenty of people who went into
engineering with the promise of getting a high-paying, exciting career in
the world of high technology. Trouble was, when they left school they were
so utterly boring, so poorly read and so adherent to the dogma they had
been force-fed throughout their degree program that no-one wanted to touch
them with a ten foot pole. Twonk, nobody wants to hire boring people!! I'm
not saying you shouldn't consider practicality... it's one of MANY
considerations. Just try to understand that cutting yourself off from the
subjects that you love because you don't think it will land you a job is a
SERIOUS MISTAKE. Take my word for it, i've seen how the educational System
de-humanizes it's students. Use this opportunity to find out what YOU are
really like... remove all vestiges of dogmatic and rigid thinking
drilled into your skull since kindergarten from your sphere of existence.
KTC
--
KT Conlon, Mat. Sci & Eng: "Cut the Word lines with scissors or switch :
McMaster University : blade as preferred... The Word lines keep you:
Hamilton, Ont. CANADA : in TIME..." WS Burroughs, "The Exterminator" :
RUB OUT THE WORD FOREVER OUT RUB THE FOREVER WORD THE FOREVER RUB THE OUT
Mark J. Lilback
Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner <s...@inca.gate.net> wrote:
>
> And I never heard of anyone in high school winning a Varsity Letter (TM)
>by being able to calculate trigonometric problems without paper.
Two of my best friends from high school did. They both got their letters
for math team (and I got mine for debate.) Of course, the football
players got much nicer jackets than we did, but at least we got something.
> The thing to do is find a way to make money doing what you like doing. If
>you are good with computers (you did state you would like CS), then maybe
>you can charge an arm and a leg to teach techno-illiterate Boomers how to
>use their computers. I myself charge $30/hour for personal consultation to
>our customers of CyberGate (although I know people who charge more than I
>do, up to something like $80/hour for commercial consulting).
I've been doing the same thing. I've been getting $30/hr. to plug modems
in and configure ms word on a macintosh. Gheez, those boomers sure are
computer-idiots.
> And those that say you need math skills to do Computer Science is wrong.
>You can easily get by with general algerbra (and maybe not even that). If
>you get into the theorectical side of Computer Science, then yes, it does
>look like Greek, but for practical (okay, software engineering), the math is
>minimal.
I'm getting a CS secondary and the last math class I took was trig,
which was over four years ago in high school. I had some problems with a
few concepts in my assembly language class, but I got some math-oriented
friends to explain them to me. Don't worry about the math. If you have
any skill with computers, then math shouldn't give you a problem. If
people can be taking a class on assembly language programming
and not know how to turn a computer on, I'm sure you can swing it.
************************************************************************
* Mark J. Lilback ****** Internet Coordinator, WhoCares Magazine *
* mlil...@cec.org ****** A Journal of Service and Action *
* mlil...@seas.gwu.edu ****** whoc...@cec.org or AOL: WhoCares3 *
************************************************************************
Brian Upton
jam...@world.std.com (Jonathan Priluck) writes:
|>
|> The iNventor
|>
Jonathan, your signature looks like it's two days into digesting a capybara.
--
+-----------------+------------------------+
| Brian Upton | "Elvis needs boats." |
| UNC Chapel Hill | -- Mojo Nixon |
+-----------------+------------------------+
Jonathan Priluck
>In article <CM6M3...@world.std.com>,
>jam...@world.std.com (Jonathan Priluck) writes:
>|>
>|> The iNventor
>|>
>
>
>Jonathan, your signature looks like it's two days into digesting a capybara.
>
The nice thing about it is that you only have to feed it once a month.
Kathy Wienhold
>
>But as for the ranking of material success, I can't even locate it on
>my scale, and I think many of my female friends are the same way.
>money he has in his bank account or in his stereo rack. Maturity and
>comfort-with-self rates a lot higher.
Here we have three potential criteria for desirableness: material
success, maturity, and comfort-with-self. I wonder whether *any* of
these can be separated from judgments about class (the US' dirty,
little, unacknowledged problem), or indeed, whether *any* judgments
regarding people can be made independent of the respective classes of
the judge and the "judgee".
For instance, how much of one's perception of what constitutes
"maturity" is tied up in the values and point-of-view of one's class?
Consider your parents' definition of "maturity": is *that* what you're
looking for? Or, perhaps more importantly, what indicators do you use
to determine if someone is sufficiently "mature"? Are any of them
independent of class markers?
That said, I must admit that I find myself somewhat more ..., well,
careful about dating people outside my own "socio-economic class". (For
the record, I *do* do so; however, there is always a bit more effort
involved in such a relationship.) These kind of judgments are not about
materialism, but rather about the potential for misunderstanding. Think
about all those cultural cues that can be exchanged between college
chums or childhood friends (or even those "Gilligan, drop those
coconuts!" references that someone from another culture would have
trouble interpreting). Shared history (whether personal or cultural)
does take a *lot* of the work out of (at least) the initial stages of a
relationship.
Think about two groups of people:
A. A group of people who were raised in the same socio-
economic group (I really hate that phrase) as yourself; and,
B. A group of people from diverse backgrounds who are
currently in the same economic niche as yourself.
I, personally, think that there may be interesting people in both (and
real bores in both), but from my own observations, I think that people
will find more in common with the group A than group B (this is ignoring
the fact, of course, that rounding up a "group B" would be more
difficult, considering the way in which class contributes to determining
one's economic niche). Having at least *some* commonalities is
important in making a relationship work.
I'm not trying to say that materialism is really always just disguised
classism. I do think, however, that the role of class in dating/mating
is often overlooked.
[Tangentially, I read an article a while back hypothesizing that British
people have this obsession about talking about the weather with
strangers/new acquaintances so that they can hear other people speak,
and place their class by their accent. Whether it is true or not, I
can't say, but it makes an interesting hypothesis [anyone on the other
side of the Pond care to comment?]. Perhaps people in the US use
material possessions in the same way. I know that at least on one level
I do: I can usually tell whether a relationship is worth pursuing
beyond a first date by looking at the books in a potential SO's place;
for example, if there are *no* books, it's see-ya-later-charlie time.]
~kathy
HORNE_EUGNIA_LEE
Tim Irvin <J05...@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> wrote:
>In article <94063.030...@psuvm.psu.edu>
>The Twonkster <MMG...@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
[Editing due to systems limitations...]
>>cattle, to be bought and sold and owned? I realise this sounds a little
>>like my "Relationship" thread from a while abck, but that's not all.
>
>Well, this is interesting. As much as many women complain that men look
>upon women as "sex symbols," the sad truth is that many women also look at
>men as *success* symbols. Much like the stereotypical man looks for
>breasts and butts and whatever else, the stereotypical woman looks at the
>prestige of a man's career, his earning potential and his possessions.
Is their something going around?. This topic is everywhere lately.
(Must be spring, I guess). Anyway, a possible theory which I have seen
put forth based on biological considerations is that the men are looking
for women who are physically healthy and will have healthy children,
while the women are seeking men who have the financial means to
support them and their children.
[Editing...]
>>not do it well, but most do. If I could be guarranteed a job at $25K after
>>graduation to teach, I would. My only reason for $25K is so I can pay off
>>the loans I know I will rack up before I leave college, and maybe put away
>>something toward my retirement. God knows Social Security won't be there.
See below for average teaching salaries.
[Editing...]
>
>I think the job market for math/science types in education is better than it
>is for most other areas, since it's hard to make a teaching job (which pays
>$25-$30K to start in this overproced area) look good when compared to a $35-
>$40K entry level job in private industry. Of course, there haven't been many
>entry-level jobs created lately...
>
>Besides, the only reason teacher salaries are relatively low is because many
>people are willing to do that work, with relatively few positions available.
>If people didn't want to teach, the supply of potential teachers would shrink
>and salaries would rise. Let's not forget about the summer vacation, either.
>We should be careful when comparing a 9.5-months-a-year job to a 12-months-
>per-year job.
Latest national average salaries reported for teachers:
Elementary - High School: $32,478
Professor - 2 Year College: $38,524
Professor - 4 Year College: $50,020
This was reported in a national educators magazine last month.
I have several professors boasting about earning
additional money doing consulting work during their off times.
These guys teaching salaries alone are $60,000 to $65,000.
An accounting degree, working 12 months a year is an average
of about $30,000 in a staff position. (i.e. not a manager
or CEO position - just a regular flunky. Starting salary was
about $18,000. Not everyone gets the legendary Big 8 (now 6)
position.)
Business positions are currently oversupplied. Teaching positions
in certain parts of the country are begging for qualified applicants.
About the student loans; there are currently programs that will
"forgive" part of the loan if the borrower actually takes a teaching
position and works in it for a certain amount of time.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
horn...@cwis.isu.edu
(Eugenia Horne) | The correct spelling.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Owen
|> ...Or, perhaps more importantly, what indicators do you use
|> to determine if someone is sufficiently "mature"? ...
I argue with them about something (politics, philosophy, movie, cooking, etc.).
If I can show them they're wrong and they can't change their minds about
it, then I doubt their maturity. It doesn't have to be anything earth-shattering,
just something that can be nailed down. It's not a particularly good test,
but I do it anyway...
What is maturity?
I think it includes the ability to apply logic and see from different viewpoints.
It often brings confidence and responsibility.
-Jon
--
Jonahood, Rice-ex, Owner of Cisco-the-yellow-wonder-lab, Breaker of Logs,
native to Tennessee, ex-MDC, ex-Noet, ex-MSC, ex-MechE, RoomDog,
Climber waiting impatiently for the season to change
The Twonkster
says:
>Latest national average salaries reported for teachers:
>
>Elementary - High School: $32,478
>Professor - 2 Year College: $38,524
>Professor - 4 Year College: $50,020
>
starting at 32K out of college (note: some). If I got a degree in education,
I'll starve for the first 4 years out of college. I don't want to live with
my mom again, guys....:-)
-Matt
JIM...@nuacvm.acns.nwu.edu
jcowen%asylum.cs...@cs.utah.edu (Jonathan Owen) writes:
>|> ...Or, perhaps more importantly, what indicators do you use
>|> to determine if someone is sufficiently "mature"? ...
>
>I argue with them about something (politics, philosophy, movie, cooking, etc.).
>If I can show them they're wrong
What about if *you're* the one who's wrong? I mean, unless it's something
irrefutable like the area of a circle is pi*r(sqaured) and she said it was
2*pi*r, then who's to say you are correct? And if *you* don't change, does
the mean you're not mature?
>and they can't change their minds about it, then I doubt their maturity.
>It doesn't have to be anything earth-shattering,
>just something that can be nailed down. It's not a particularly good test,
>but I do it anyway...
mature he/she is and how mature you need them to be. But to test someone by
how easily the'll bend to your version of "right" doesn't seem very water-tight
to me.
>What is maturity?
>
>I think it includes the ability to apply logic and see from different viewpoints.
mature. Things like politics and religion and personal taste are beyond the
spectrum of maturity.
>It often brings confidence and responsibility.
another matter.
Jim
Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner
>In article <2lb2a9$n...@inca.gate.net>,
>Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner <s...@inca.gate.net> wrote:
>>
>> And I never heard of anyone in high school winning a Varsity Letter (TM)
>>by being able to calculate trigonometric problems without paper.
>
>Two of my best friends from high school did. They both got their letters
>for math team (and I got mine for debate.) Of course, the football
>players got much nicer jackets than we did, but at least we got something.
>
possibly half a year of Journalism. I'm still trying to forget the time I
was one the Speech/Debate team though.
>> The thing to do is find a way to make money doing what you like doing. If
>>you are good with computers (you did state you would like CS), then maybe
>>you can charge an arm and a leg to teach techno-illiterate Boomers how to
>>use their computers. I myself charge $30/hour for personal consultation to
>>our customers of CyberGate (although I know people who charge more than I
>>do, up to something like $80/hour for commercial consulting).
>
>I've been doing the same thing. I've been getting $30/hr. to plug modems
>in and configure ms word on a macintosh. Gheez, those boomers sure are
>computer-idiots.
>
I sometimes have to wonder if computer illiterate people can even THINK!
I've had people who write down verbatum everything I do. They write things
like:
to change into the mail directory: cd mail
to change into the news direcotry: cd News
to send a message to fred:
pine
c
fr...@foobar.com
subject
message
^X
y
to send a message to bob:
pine
c
b...@anywhere.us
subject
message
^X
y
And then come running to me when something doesn't work. Well no wonder!
Arrrrg! I hate "It's Carved In Stone" people like that.
>> And those that say you need math skills to do Computer Science is wrong.
>>You can easily get by with general algerbra (and maybe not even that). If
>>you get into the theorectical side of Computer Science, then yes, it does
>>look like Greek, but for practical (okay, software engineering), the math is
>>minimal.
>
>I'm getting a CS secondary and the last math class I took was trig,
>which was over four years ago in high school. I had some problems with a
>few concepts in my assembly language class, but I got some math-oriented
>friends to explain them to me. Don't worry about the math. If you have
>any skill with computers, then math shouldn't give you a problem. If
>people can be taking a class on assembly language programming
>and not know how to turn a computer on, I'm sure you can swing it.
>
If they're taking Assembly and they can't even turn a computer on, then
I'm sorry, I don't want them in the same state as my computer. I've seen
enough brain dead CS majors at FAU to really scare me. For instance, in a
third year course, "Unix Systems Programming", the instructor was going over
the memory map of a running process, where one of the students raised their
hand and asked "Where do the comments go?"
Now, I can understand that in a first year course, but THIRD YEAR?
Sorry if I come across as being a technological snob, but answering newbie
questions all day does that to me 8-)
-spc (Who, just once, would love to say RTFM to a user ... )
Jonathan Priluck
Maturity: Its what happens to people as they get older :^) Its like
intelligence; I can't define it, so I ignore it. Same for maturity.
James E. Lee
: In article <CM65H...@ucdavis.edu>, ez00...@hamlet.ucdavis.edu (James E.
: Lee) wrote:
: > Something that has been a problem for me is finding women who do not
: > such an apparent need to go through so much non-conversation (bullshit
: > talk about stupid stuff neither person is interested in or cares anything
: > at all about) and gobbledygook just so that two people can feel comfortable
: > enough to talk?
: Yes, I saw manifestations of both of those phenomena in college and
: elsewhere.
: Some points to ponder:
: 1. You cannot judge a sex by its most conspicuously self-lacerating
: members.
Nor do I care to judge...
: 2. Women, as a group, are (IMO) *exactly* as lost, deluded, fallible,
: and vulnerable as men. No more. No less. The two Great Ideological Lies
: of the late 20th century in America consist of asserting either that Men
: are More Virtuous (crazy-conservatism) or that Women Are (loony-feminism.)
: Both are nonsense.
Quite true...
: 3. Now look at your own behavior. Totally impressed with yourself?
: Then look at your male friends. How about it? Dwell on these things, and
: the fact that some women are totally backwards should not astound you quite
: so much.
Actually, I hang out with some really great guys--they have a lot of
sensitivity, are intelligent, thoughtful, and treat people well.
Nonetheless, most of us find ourselves in this predicament.
: 4. What is the solution? How to find a non-masochistic woman who will
: talk about something non-trivial?
As far as I have seen, most people on here will realize that Erich is
asking this question with regard to "women" NOT because men like this
abound, or because women are the only gender like this, but because it is
what applies in this case. I just wanted to put in this disclaimer for
him because while I WILL NOT be Politically Correct, I have a high regard
for courtesy (which I developed LONG before being PC was in vogue, and
quite OUTSIDE the influence of that kind of thinking) and do not want
there to be any misunderstanding.
: I've never met anybody who thought they
: had The Final Answer, even when they themselves were happy with their own
: personal life. So one answer is that there is *no* Final Answer. You have
: to work out the solution de novo in your own life. Frustrating, but
: there's an awful lot of anecdotal experience to support that.
It's becoming an excercise in patience, but a good one...
: 5. Another way to look at it is this: you may find that worthwhile
: women become far easier to find--indeed, may go out of their way to find
: *you*--when you have forgotten about "finding the right woman" and have
: instead been spending some time systematically trying to get your *own*
: life into a shape that you are deeply happy with. Efforts of that sort
: seem to lead, in my observation, to the kind of quiet *earned self-respect*
: that I mentioned in an earlier post.
This is quite good advice, which I've been following as well as I can for
some time, yet it is difficult not to dwell on looking, (would that I
could!) even while focusing on myself--I seem to find ways to do both.
: 6. I know (from experience) that when you are in the grip of
: love-angst, getting this kind of Zen advice ("You will find the Woman of
: Your Dreams by not seeking her, Grasshopper") is pretty exasperating.
: Sorry about that. But if somebody has any *better* strategy, *I'd* sure be
: interested to know what it is!
Me too!
: --Erich Schwarz
: schwarze...@starbase1.caltech.edu
This is true. In fact, I have heard (and even given it myself) so many
variations of this (wonderful) advice (which I am nevertheless happy to
hear--it inspires hope) that I am thinking of changing my name to
Grasshopper! :)
--
J a m e s E. "Grasshopper" L e e
je...@othello.ucdavis.edu
James E. Lee
: [twonkster's compelling essay deleted]
I might add:
9a. Wait
9b. Wait
9c. Wait
: 10. Just as you are about to give up on humanity in general and start
: looking in College Encyclopedias for decent film schools, something happens.
Is this when? Really? I can do that! :-)
: Or whatever.
: The point is, everybody is looking for something, and it's mostly a matter
: of luck to find somebody that will tuck you in at night with a soft kiss
: and a warm word to the ear. Nothing you can change about your basic
: personality will make any difference, even assuming that's possible. Keep
: plugging away and keep your eyes open - remember, as weird as your world
: is, as many missteps and triumphs that you have taken to get where you are
: now - wherever you are, someone else can end up there too.
: That's what keeps me going.
: -Ian
That was kuhl. (No BNB intended!)
--
J a m e s E. L e e
je...@othello.ucdavis.edu
Peter Dubuque
> I sometimes have to wonder if computer illiterate people can even THINK!
>I've had people who write down verbatum everything I do. They write things
>like:
> to change into the mail directory: cd mail
> to change into the news direcotry: cd News
> to send a message to fred:
> pine
> c
> fr...@foobar.com
> subject
> message
> ^X
> y
> to send a message to bob:
> pine
> c
> b...@anywhere.us
> subject
> message
> ^X
> y
> And then come running to me when something doesn't work. Well no wonder!
>Arrrrg! I hate "It's Carved In Stone" people like that.
Argh. I hate 'em just as much. When they call me for help, I have to
get at some information on their computer. But just try asking these
people to look in a file for something, even when you tell them where to
find it. IT DOESN'T WORK. They can't figure it out. And it's
infuriating to have to dumb down my explanation to the level of "Do you
see either an icon or a window that says "Main"? Good. Now double-click
on the picture of the yellow file cabinet..." And even then you don't always
find out what you need, because the information they give you is
either wrong or completely useless--"I don't know, it just won't work". I
can't count the number of times I've had to tear myself away from
something I was doing to go out and solve a problem at a site, only to
find out that the person was doing something like repeatedly mistyping a
password. Unfortunately I don't get to charge 'em $50/hr either. I
can't help asking myself how these people are going to survive in our
economy 20 years from now--and then I realize, they'll probably be
management types. Whee.
--
_______________________________________________________________________
Peter F. Dubuque dub...@husc.harvard.edu
Everyone has some redeeming quality...their mortality, if nothing else.
_______________________________________________________________________
Sheilagh M.B.E. O'Hare
James E. Lee <ez00...@hamlet.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
> Something that has been a problem for me is finding women who do not
>run because I try to have a *real* conversation with them. Why is there
>such an apparent need to go through so much non-conversation (bullshit
>talk about stupid stuff neither person is interested in or cares anything
>at all about) and gobbledygook just so that two people can feel comfortable
>enough to talk? I've been told I'm too intense (I tend to avoid
>meaninglessness and frivolity) but why should I have to put on a stupid act
>(which is not worth it, cuz it's not me) so that I can seem harmless, or
>whatever? Why are people so afraid to be real, or to have someone else
>get to know them for real?
Here's where I've been on this dilemna lately: two guys, fair minded &
willing to each go out with me & let the other go out with me and all
that time sharing stuff. This is a nice occurance to have happen, as I'd
like to be able to look back from any future monogamies and realize that
indeed there are ways to multiplicity sans horrendous jealousy.
The problem: One of these wondrous fellows in very much on my
level, catches things quick, understands some intrinsic sheilaghisms.
The other is sweet, devoted, and too often lost, when it comes to following
where I'm thinking.. "wish you were here"... the first is a forever friend,
and will likely never end up as my permanent other, the second would be
quite happy to be a permanent other, but It wouldnt work out in regards to
my sanity.
The solution? (sigh) live where I am, and hope that life eventually
takes me into other spheres where I can find someone who is complex enough
and who syncs with my world well enough.
It just sort of seems to go with the idea of scaring people off by being
too intense. I *need* friends who are that intense, wether I end up going
out with them, or not. Yet, finding a guy who would be that intense & not
a psychopath is a little tricky.. intensity often leads to those sorts of
self-beliefs that breed an ego like toledo; some is needed, but something
*beyond* that ego stage is even more necessary.
I feel alone, not lonely, in that the one who would stay couldn't keep my
mind up at that level I usually hover at, and the one who soars that way
all the time is on some other plane--can't connect. {sigh}
sheilagh, cursed in between two blessings.. two *other* women's future
blessings.
James E. Lee
: In article <CM65H...@ucdavis.edu>,
: James E. Lee <ez00...@hamlet.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
: > Something that has been a problem for me is finding women who do not
: >run because I try to have a *real* conversation with them. Why is there
: >such an apparent need to go through so much non-conversation (bullshit
: >talk about stupid stuff neither person is interested in or cares anything
: >at all about) and gobbledygook just so that two people can feel comfortable
: >enough to talk? I've been told I'm too intense (I tend to avoid
: >meaninglessness and frivolity) but why should I have to put on a stupid act
: >(which is not worth it, cuz it's not me) so that I can seem harmless, or
: >whatever? Why are people so afraid to be real, or to have someone else
: >get to know them for real?
: Here's where I've been on this dilemna lately: two guys, fair minded &
: willing to each go out with me & let the other go out with me and all
: that time sharing stuff. This is a nice occurance to have happen, as I'd
: like to be able to look back from any future monogamies and realize that
: indeed there are ways to multiplicity sans horrendous jealousy.
This _is_ kind of surprising, and pretty rare as far as I have seen...
: The problem: One of these wondrous fellows in very much on my
: level, catches things quick, understands some intrinsic sheilaghisms.
: The other is sweet, devoted, and too often lost, when it comes to following
: where I'm thinking.. "wish you were here"... the first is a forever friend,
: and will likely never end up as my permanent other, the second would be
: quite happy to be a permanent other, but It wouldnt work out in regards to
: my sanity.
That's too bad, but at least you have them BOTH. I would think that
could drive one insane after a long time, though.
: The solution? (sigh) live where I am, and hope that life eventually
: takes me into other spheres where I can find someone who is complex enough
: and who syncs with my world well enough.
You are really lucky to have what you do--be thankful for that at least...
: It just sort of seems to go with the idea of scaring people off by being
: too intense. I *need* friends who are that intense, wether I end up going
: out with them, or not. Yet, finding a guy who would be that intense & not
: a psychopath is a little tricky..
Yeah, I'm probably gonna go insane one of these days myself. ;)
: intensity often leads to those sorts of
: self-beliefs that breed an ego like toledo; some is needed, but something
: *beyond* that ego stage is even more necessary.
I don't know that it always leads to a humongous ego, (I know, you said
_often_) but what bothers me more than ego is the pretentiousness I have
seen in some people like this. I differentiate between them by thinking
of ego as overestimation of the self in a personal sense, and
pretentiousness as being caught up in, and having an attitude about _being_
intense, as if it were some elite club...
: I feel alone, not lonely, in that the one who would stay couldn't keep my
: mind up at that level I usually hover at, and the one who soars that way
: all the time is on some other plane--can't connect. {sigh}
Solitude is my new vocab mot du jour...
(Speaking of which, I just finished Gabriel Garcia Marquez' _One Hundred
Years of Solitude_ -- it was really kuhl! Now I want to read it in
Spanish--my sis gave me the English copy for Christmas, and I must say I
was quite impressed with the xlation--it was excellent! [Sorry, I lent it
to my dad, so I don't know who did it...)
: sheilagh, cursed in between two blessings.. two *other* women's future
: blessings.
It's at least kuhl to think that _someone_ will benefit from these
blessings--maybe someone else is currently entertaining your future soulmate!
The Concord Group
: -spc (Who, just once, would love to say RTFM to a user ... )
All my fellow salespeople are totally computer brain dead. As another
salesdroid, I'm suppose to be out there pushing the product, and not
support my peers. So, occasionally, I turn down there requests ("The
boss said I can't help you") and hand them the user manuals (I'm the one
who reads them, so I keep'em at my desk). Feels good after years of tech
support jobs.
- Ray
Yet to say RTFM in full to somebody
Wendi Dunlap
>Argh. I hate 'em just as much. When they call me for help, I have to
>get at some information on their computer. But just try asking these
>people to look in a file for something, even when you tell them where to
>find it. IT DOESN'T WORK. They can't figure it out. And it's
>infuriating to have to dumb down my explanation to the level of "Do you
>see either an icon or a window that says "Main"? Good. Now double-click
>on the picture of the yellow file cabinet..." And even then you don't always
>find out what you need, because the information they give you is
>either wrong or completely useless--"I don't know, it just won't work".
Hey, don't get me started. I used to work at Aldus, doing FreeHand and
PageMaker tech support via telephone, modem, and letter, and you would
*not* believe the extent of stupidity among software users.
"What's a folder?" "How do I select something?" "You mean I'm
supposed to back up my files occasionally?" AAAAUUUUUUGGGHH!
There, I feel a bit better now.
Ann Vanderstoep
Sheilagh M.B.E. O'Hare <mar...@bashful.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
>In article <CM65H...@ucdavis.edu>,
>James E. Lee <ez00...@hamlet.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>> Something that has been a problem for me is finding women who do not
>>run because I try to have a *real* conversation with them. Why is there
>>such an apparent need to go through so much non-conversation (bullshit
>>talk about stupid stuff neither person is interested in or cares anything
>>at all about) and gobbledygook just so that two people can feel comfortable
>>enough to talk? I've been told I'm too intense (I tend to avoid
>>meaninglessness and frivolity) but why should I have to put on a stupid act
>>(which is not worth it, cuz it's not me) so that I can seem harmless, or
>>whatever? Why are people so afraid to be real, or to have someone else
>>get to know them for real?
I don't quite know, and I find it interesting that you, being male,
should bring that up. I have had this problem with a number of people
over time (thought not necessarily romantic involvements). A lot of
people don't like frankness or honesty. I think a lot of people are
brought up to not express thier true emotions, thoughts & feelings, and
it can really throw them off guard when someone does.
But I especially think this is true of women. If a woman speaks her
mind, she can so easily be labeled a bitch, a feminist, or some other
term intended to be insulting. I have been called "intimidating" on more
than one occasion,and I wonder if a man who said the same things would be
perceived as simply self confident and intelligent. Men, especially,
have called me intimidating.
So, I am a bit surprised that you have found this to be the case when
dealing with women.(and unfortunate as well)
- Jennifer
Holly Sommer
Wendi Dunlap <litl...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>[snip]
>Hey, don't get me started. I used to work at Aldus, doing FreeHand and
>PageMaker tech support via telephone, modem, and letter, and you would
>*not* believe the extent of stupidity among software users.
>"What's a folder?" "How do I select something?" "You mean I'm
>supposed to back up my files occasionally?" AAAAUUUUUUGGGHH!
>
>There, I feel a bit better now.
>
>litl...@hebron.connected.com
Tell me about it! I 'm the department head of computer services at
kinko's here in Fayetteville, AR. We have 3 "self-serve" LCIIIs there...
needless to say, I spend as much time answering questions for the people
stiing themselves down there as I do in production on jobs that were
actually left with us for us to do.
Does this sound familiar: Someone did my resume for me in something a
year ago. Can you fix it?
Well, what program ("application" scares the uninformed) did they use?
I dunno.
Do you have the disk?
No.
...
Sheesh, not only am I supposed to teach them Freehand, Photoshop and
PageMaker RIGHT NOW!!, but I'm also supposed to read minds on the fly.
:/
As if that weren't enough, my name must be on the walls in
cyberbathrooms, because I serve as tech support for too many people.
Calls at home at 3 am from someone who knows someone, etc. about how come
I can't print, even though I can see it (buried window or on desktop)?
BLAAAAAAAAAAAAGH...ahem...
I feel better now, too.
A perpetual support line in need of a break,
Holly Sommer
-----------------------------------
"Collectors merely recognize...
experts recognize and utilize,
even that which they do not
recognize." --HS 10.3.94
___________________________________
Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner
>dub...@husc7.harvard.edu (Peter Dubuque) writes:
>
[ Peter and Wendi's computer horror stories deleted to save bandwith for the
following message ]
Came across this in another newsgroups (which itself was posted from yet
another newsgroup to alt.folklore.computers).
-spc (Who is support (uhg!) at CyberGate, as well as the Sysadmin ... )
From: tbs...@cpre1.ee.iastate.edu (Terry B. Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: blindly ignorant computer users
This is a re-post from a local newsgroup - VERY appropriate !)
The following is an article I found in the Wall Street Journal (3-1-94).
I found it rather humorous.
(any typos are not my fault - I scanned it in)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Befuddled PC Users Flood Help Lines,
And No Question Seems to Be Too Basic
By Jim Carlton
Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal
AUSTIN, Texas - The exasperated help-line caller said she couldn't get
her new Dell computer to turn on. Jay Alblinger, a Dell Computer Corp.
technician, made sure the computer was plugged in and then asked the woman
what happened when she pushed the power button.
"I've pushed and pushed on this foot pedal and nothing happens," the
woman replied. "Foot pedal?" the technician asked. "Yes," the woman said,
"this little white foot pedal with the on switch." The "foot pedal," it
turned out, was the computer's mouse, a hand-operated device that helps to
control the computer's operations.
Personal-computer makers are discovering that it's still a low-tech
world out there. While they are finally having great success selling PCs to
households, they now have to deal with people to whom monitors and disk
drives are as foreign as another language.
"It is rather mystifying to get this nice, beautiful machine and not
know anything about it," says Ed Shuler, a technician who helps field
consumer calls at Dell's headquarters here. "It's going into unfamiliar
territory," adds Gus Kolias, vice president of customer service and
training for Compaq Computer Corp. "People are looking for a comfort
level."
Only two years ago, most calls to PC help lines came from techies
needing help on complex problems. But now, with computer sales to homes
exploding as new "multimedia" functions gain mass appeal, PC makers say
that as many as [70% - unsure of accuracy of number due to scanning] of
their calls come from rank novices. Partly because of the volume of calls,
some computer companies have started charging help-line users.
The questions are often so basic that they could have been answered by
opening the manual that comes with every machine. One woman called Dell's
toll-free line to ask how to install batteries in her laptop. When told
that the directions were on the first page of the manual, says Steve Smith,
Dell's director of technical support, the woman replied angrily, "I just
paid $2,000 for this damn thing, and I'm not going to read a book."
Indeed, it seems that these buyers rarely refer to a manual when a phone
is at hand. "If there is a book and a phone and they're side by side, the
phone wins time after time," says Craig McQuilkin, manager of service
marketing for AST Research Inc. In Irvine, Calif. "It's a phenomenon of
people wanting to talk to people." And do they ever. Compaq's help
center In Houston, Texas, is inundated with some 8,000 consumer calls a
day, with inquiries like this one related by technician John Wolf: "A
frustrated customer called, who said her brand new Contura would not work.
She said she had unpacked the unit, plugged it in, opened it up and sat
there for 20 minutes waiting for something to happen. When asked what
happened when she pressed the power switch, she asked, `What power
switch?'"
Seemingly simple computer features baffle some users. So many people
have called to ask where the "any" key is when "Press Any Key" flashes on
the screen that Compaq is considering changing the command to "Press Return
Key."
Some people can't figure out the mouse. Tamra Engle, an AST technical
support supervisor, says one customer complained that her mouse was hard to
control with the "dust cover" on. The cover turned out to be the plastic
bag the mouse was packaged in. Dell technician Wayne Zieschang says one of
his customers held the mouse and pointed it at the screen, all the while
clicking madly. The customer got no response because the mouse works only
if it's moved over a flat surface.
Disk drives are another bugaboo. Campaq technician Brent Sullivan says a
customer was having trouble reading word-processing files from his old
diskettes. After troubleshooting for magnets and heat failed to diagnose
the problem, Mr. Sullivan asked what else was being done with the diskette.
The customer's response: "I put a label on the diskette, roll it into the
typewriter. . ."
At AST, another customer dutifully complied with a technician's request
that she send in a copy of a defective floppy disk. A letter from the
customer arrived a few days later, along with a Xerox copy of the floppy.
And at Dell, a technician advised a customer to put his troubled floppy
back in the drive and "close the door." Asking the technician to "hold on,"
the customer put the phone down and was heard walking over to shut the door
to his room. The technician meant the door to his floppy drive.
The software inside the computer can be equally befuddling. A Dell
customer called to say he couldn't get his computer to lax anything. After
40 minutes of troubleshooting, the technician discovered the man was trying
to fax a piece of paper by holding it in front of the monitor screen and
hitting the "send" key.
Another Dell customer needed help setting up a new program, so Dell
technician Gary Rock referred him to the local Egghead. "Yeah, I got me a
couple of friends," the customer replied. When told Egghead was a software
store, the man said, "oh! I thought you meant for me to find a couple of
geeks."
Not realizing how fragile computers can be, some people end up damaging
parts beyond repair. A Dell customer called to complain that his keyboard
no longer worked. He had cleaned it, he said, filling up his tub with soap
and water and soaking the keyboard for a day, and then removing all the
keys and washing them individually.
Computers make some people paranoid. A Dell technician, Morgan Vergara,
says he once calmed a man who became enraged because "his computer had told
him he was bad and an invalid." Mr. Vergara patiently explained that the
computer's "bad command" and "invalid" responses shouldn't be taken
personally.
These days PC-help technicians increasingly find themselves taking on
the role of amateur psychologists. Mr. Shuler, the Dell technician, who
once worked as a psychiatric nurse, says he defused a potential domestic
fight by soothingly talking a man through a computer problem after the man
had screamed threats at his wife and children in the background.
There are also the lonely hearts who seek out human contact, even if it
happens to be a computer techie. One man from New Hampshire calls Dell
every time he experiences a life crisis. He gets a technician to walk him
through some contrived problem with his computer, apparently feeling
uplifted by the process.
"A lot of people want reassurance," says Mr. Shuler.
--
Greg Wesson
Had a couple good ones yesterday.
First, a user called, and said she wanted to set up some directories. When I
started to tell her how to do it, she said "Can't you just log into my account
and do it for me?" Not likely.
The second call started with the user saying "I called earlier, but was put on
hold, and then I tried calling someone else, but I haven't heard back from
them, so now I'm trying you guys again." All this was said in a snarky and
angry voice. I could tell this call was not off to a good start.
Sometimes I feel like a punching bag. People are upset because something
doesn't work, so they phone a helpline to vent steam. I'm sure it makes them
feel better, but it makes me feel like crap. But then again, it's better then
being a designer, and having to put up with deadlines, and massive overtime,
and all the damn process hell that designers are put through.
Greg
--
+ -- Gregory J. Wesson (lanp...@bnr.ca). + -- + Phone Esn 393-9193 -- +
The opinions in this post are mine, and do not reflect those of BNR.
Quote : "I'm old. Gimme, gimme"
- Abraham Simpson, at the Social Security Office
Ann Vanderstoep
Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner <s...@inca.gate.net> wrote:
>In article <2ldtfn$a...@cronkite.seas.gwu.edu> mlil...@seas.gwu.edu (Mark J. Lilback) writes:
>>In article <2lb2a9$n...@inca.gate.net>,
>>Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner <s...@inca.gate.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> And I never heard of anyone in high school winning a Varsity Letter (TM)
>>>by being able to calculate trigonometric problems without paper.
>>
>>Two of my best friends from high school did. They both got their letters
>>for math team (and I got mine for debate.) Of course, the football
>>players got much nicer jackets than we did, but at least we got something.
>>
> Now I'm mad. Then I should have gotten one for three years of Drama, and
>possibly half a year of Journalism. I'm still trying to forget the time I
>was one the Speech/Debate team though.
A bunch of students at my HS got together and ordered varsity jackets for
the "Hunter Skydiving Team" complete with parachutes on the back. They
were very cool. Some freinds of mine & I found a great cow logo in the
catalog & wanted to order "Hunter Cow Tipping Team" jackets but it never
got past the positions phase (thinking up positions like "hindquarter").
I was pretty bummed as I wanted one of these jackets!
- Jennifer
Joel Irby
> Had a couple good ones yesterday.
>
> First, a user called, and said she wanted to set up some directories. When I
> started to tell her how to do it, she said "Can't you just log into my account
> and do it for me?" Not likely.
Hey, wow! I worked in User Support for BNR in Richardson, Texas back in
1989-91. Small world, eh? Now I'm working in test engineering at TI in
Houston after finishing grad-school (ugh...)
My favorite help-line story was spending 30 minutes going through a checklist
of problems with sombody's workstation only to walk over later and find out
IT WORKS BETTER PLUGGED IN (*%#!!!) Actually, it was the network connection,
but even so, what a klutz...
My favorite part was helping people deal with the intuitive Mac interface.
Some command-line happy engineers had more trouble than the sexy-but-savvy
secretaries (please: no feminist-flames, I just said that for the alliteration
;-)
> The second call started with the user saying "I called earlier, but was put on
> hold, and then I tried calling someone else, but I haven't heard back from
> them, so now I'm trying you guys again." All this was said in a snarky and
> angry voice. I could tell this call was not off to a good start.
>
> Sometimes I feel like a punching bag. People are upset because something
> doesn't work, so they phone a helpline to vent steam. I'm sure it makes them
> feel better, but it makes me feel like crap. But then again, it's better then
> being a designer, and having to put up with deadlines, and massive overtime,
> and all the damn process hell that designers are put through.
Yeah, I know what you mean about the punching bag feeling. The best part for
me was that it was just a summer job, and I made nice $$$ for a kid in college.
I thought BNR was a pretty good place to work, pressure-wise, but then I wasn't
in a high-pressure group, either.
> Greg
> --
> + -- Gregory J. Wesson (lanp...@bnr.ca). + -- + Phone Esn 393-9193 -- +
> The opinions in this post are mine, and do not reflect those of BNR.
> Quote : "I'm old. Gimme, gimme"
> - Abraham Simpson, at the Social Security Office
--Joel (ji...@video.sc.ti.com)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Spent four years prostrate to the Higher Mind,
Got my paper and I was free..." ---Indigo Girls (Closer to Fine)
steven r kleinedler
perfect file on an IBM disk that I could not access because the
disc was damaged; or rather, that file was damaged. I could get into
every other file on the disk, but this particular file was a 20 page
diglossia paper I needed.
The computerdude at the university computer site was only a macgeek,
and I needed a dosgeek.
Well, after screaming a bit, I went into DOS. What an alien place.
I did the only thing I knew how: DIR. Then I thought, hmmmm....
HELP. And it gave me a list of commands. And I chose RECOVER.
And all but one paragraph of my 20-page paper came back. And
I was so very very happy, especially since I am such a
computer illiterate.
Just had to share....
Steve
Peter Dubuque
>doesn't work, so they phone a helpline to vent steam. I'm sure it makes them
>feel better, but it makes me feel like crap. But then again, it's better then
>being a designer, and having to put up with deadlines, and massive overtime,
>and all the damn process hell that designers are put through.
I actually *like* my massive overtime. Makes me feel like I'm middle
class. ;)
Peter Dubuque
>Just had to share....
You mean you started screaming *before* going into DOS?
steven r kleinedler
>srkl...@ellis.uchicago.edu (steven r kleinedler) writes:
>
>>Well, after screaming a bit, I went into DOS. What an alien place.
>>I did the only thing I knew how: DIR. Then I thought, hmmmm....
>>HELP. And it gave me a list of commands. And I chose RECOVER.
>>And all but one paragraph of my 20-page paper came back. And
>>I was so very very happy, especially since I am such a
>>computer illiterate.
>
>>Just had to share....
>
>You mean you started screaming *before* going into DOS?
>--
that rude....
Well, I'd never worked with DOS before, and no one suggested trying
it. I thought it was a good intuition on my part.
Steve Kleinedler
Wendi Dunlap
>First, a user called, and said she wanted to set up some directories. When I
>started to tell her how to do it, she said "Can't you just log into my account
>and do it for me?" Not likely.
When I was at Aldus a few years ago, someone called needing help with
PageMaker -- it wasn't working in the way she expected. I tried to get her
to describe what she was doing with the software, and she said: "Can't you
just see what I'm doing on your monitor as I do it?"
Ummm.... I don't think so. :)
>Sometimes I feel like a punching bag. People are upset because something
>doesn't work, so they phone a helpline to vent steam. I'm sure it makes them
>feel better, but it makes me feel like crap.
It's true. That's why Aldus gave us toys to play with, like squeeze balls
to squeeze to get rid of the frustration of dealing with silly people.
And a lot of us played computer games when we weren't supposed to. :) I
had quite a few calls during which I was playing Tetris without pausing
while at the same time dealing with the customer's tech support needs.
Multitasking is fun.
But it does get frustrating. There is an extremely high burnout rate in
tech support. If I had not had to leave TS because of an arm injury, I
probably would have left the department within a year. (I had been there
for almost 2 years. I was applying for every suitable job that opened up
within the company.)
>But then again, it's better then
>being a designer, and having to put up with deadlines, and massive overtime,
>and all the damn process hell that designers are put through.
Actually, I've done design too, and I prefer it any day. There is a lot of
pressure, but at least you aren't spending your days listening to people
screaming at you because they can't print Color PostScript graphics on an
Imagewriter with FreeHand. (You want to say, "You spent $400 on a
PostScript drawing program and you don't even want to buy a PostScript
printer to go with it?")
--
Wendi A. Dunlap | litl...@hebron.connected.com * Seattle, Washington
words,music,art | Sysop of Slumberland BBS, (206) 547-2629, 3/12/24/96
I'm listening to: "So Like Candy" -- Elvis Costello
Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner
actually used his brain when using a computer!
Ah, heck! I will kiss you! <smack>
-spc (And fill in a dance spot after Carl for me! Even though I don't
dance, what you did ... it made my day! 8-)
Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner
First the bit about the yak, now a sky diving team? I'm almost afraid to
ask what next ...
But in the spirit of the "Hunter Cow Tipping Team", I'm now thinking of
doing up an "FAU Tunneler Team" jacket, as, strange as it may seem, FAU,
only about three feet above sea level, does have a tunnel system my friends
and I explored. And seeing how our mascot is the burrowing owl, it kind of
fits.
Either that, or the "FAU Roof Hopping Team" jacket.
-spc (Let me just pick up my chin off the floor here ... )
steven r kleinedler
>>Just had to share....
>>
> If only all our users were like you! Ah, I could kiss you! A person who
>actually used his brain when using a computer!
>
> Ah, heck! I will kiss you! <smack>
What do I get if I master UNIX? :)
Steve Kleinedler
Steven J. Rapaport
Sheilagh M.B.E. O'Hare <mar...@bashful.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
>James E. Lee <ez00...@hamlet.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>> Something that has been a problem for me is finding women who do not
Mindless Repartee Is The Lubricant Of Social Intercourse.
-steve and bonita and dan, buzzed on screwdrivers.
--
Steve Rapaport, | s...@isgtec.com
ISG Technologies, Inc. Mississauga ONTARIO Canada | *905* 672-2100 (x306)
"Well, what would you do with a brain if you had one?" - Dorothy
Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner
>In article <2luhic$1o...@inca.gate.net> s...@inca.gate.net (Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner) writes:
>>>Just had to share....
>>>
>> If only all our users were like you! Ah, I could kiss you! A person who
>>actually used his brain when using a computer!
>>
>> Ah, heck! I will kiss you! <smack>
>
>What do I get if I master UNIX? :)
>
find a job starting at about $30-40K/year. For Unix programming (application
level), a job starting at about $40-50K/year. And for Systems Level
Programming (real low level, dirty device driver hacking), a job starting at
about $50-60K/year.
Oh, without a CS degree, mind you.
And if you can master the sendmail.cf file, instant Godhood among Unix
Hackers.
-spc (And hundreds of clueless people asking you how to fix their mail
boxes 8-)
Wendi Dunlap
rotfl! :)
That was amazing. I laughed so hard I spilled my Coke. :)
The scary thing is, it's all true. I had many calls just like that.
Daniel B Case
>And a lot of us played computer games when we weren't supposed to. :) I
>had quite a few calls during which I was playing Tetris without pausing
>while at the same time dealing with the customer's tech support needs.
>Multitasking is fun.
I recently racked up a personal record on the Microsoft version of Centipede
while talking to my fiancee at the same time (45,000+) on the phone. She didn't
know until I told her.
Daniel Case State University of New York at Buffalo
Prodigy: WDNS15D | GEnie: DCASE.10
Ceci n'est pas une pipe
V140...@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu dc...@acsu.buffalo.edu
Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner
>s...@inca.gate.net (Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner) writes:
>[extremely amusing article about Tech Support Hell]
>
>rotfl! :)
>
>That was amazing. I laughed so hard I spilled my Coke. :)
>
>The scary thing is, it's all true. I had many calls just like that.
>
have been reading alt.folklore.computers, where's there been an ongoing
thread (in one incantation or another) about stupid users.
I think the major problem is that most people just don't understand how
this stuff works, they just accept that it does (it's MAGIC!). When the
interface is simple, like a plain 12 button phone (or even a rotary dialed
phone), people have no problem in using it, since a lot of thought has gone
into the design.
Computers, on the other hand, have not reached that stage yet, and
probably never will, as the only thing a phone is good for is calling, while
a computer can do just about anything, and there's only about a billion
standard ways of doing all these things.
But now, a CLEAR! BLUE! FROSTY! PLAID! GAY! STEVE! GERUND FREE! computer
may be the answer ...
-spc (The only good computer is one you can't see ... )
James E. Lee
: In article <2limur$3...@bashful.cc.utexas.edu>,
: Sheilagh M.B.E. O'Hare <mar...@bashful.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
: >In article <CM65H...@ucdavis.edu>,
: >James E. Lee <ez00...@hamlet.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
: >> Something that has been a problem for me is finding women who do not
: >>such an apparent need to go through so much non-conversation (bullshit
: Mindless Repartee Is The Lubricant Of Social Intercourse.
Kuuuuuuhhhhhhlll! That is a dope saying!
: -steve and bonita and dan, buzzed on screwdrivers.
Had a good effect, I'd say. Cheers! :^)
: --
: Steve Rapaport, | s...@isgtec.com
: ISG Technologies, Inc. Mississauga ONTARIO Canada | *905* 672-2100 (x306)
: "Well, what would you do with a brain if you had one?" - Dorothy
--
_________________________
Dave Mooney
> [...] And I chose RECOVER.
> And all but one paragraph of my 20-page paper came back. And
> I was so very very happy, especially since I am such a
> computer illiterate.
I hope you raced out and bought yourself a lottery ticket while your streak of
luck was intact... RECOVER is as likely to irretrievably trash your data as
recover it. Actually, there is an advantage in being a naive new user. If
something goes wrong, you can console yourself in the knowledge that the reason
that something went wrong was because the designers of the system made it
too easy for newbies to screw up. Whenever something goes wrong on *my*
machine, it is almost always because I did something that I should have known
better than to do. And once that something goes wrong, I know immediately
that it was my own stupidity that was the cause of the problem.
% rm -r *
"SH*T!!! I forgot that I was logged on as root!!! ^C^C^C^C^C"
dave
--
Dave Mooney d...@vnet.ibm.com
"Forgive me Father, for I have not sinned enough" -- Jane Siberry
Greg Wesson
>>And a lot of us played computer games when we weren't supposed to. :) I
>>had quite a few calls during which I was playing Tetris without pausing
>>while at the same time dealing with the customer's tech support needs.
>>Multitasking is fun.
I can usually get through 2 or 3 articles in this newsgroup during a call.
Sometimes, they require a little more attentions though. (Actually, I am not
sure whether that meanst he articles, or the calls, or both!)
Steve Conley
>srkl...@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>What do I get if I master UNIX? :)
[various levels of magehood deleted]
> And if you can master the sendmail.cf file, instant Godhood among Unix
>Hackers.
And *that* is no lie.
> -spc (And hundreds of clueless people asking you how to fix their mail
> boxes 8-)
And not-so-clueless people as well. I'm about ready to break down and
buy the documentation for that thing...
Steve
--
This message has been brought to you by the letter X and the number 13.
steveconleyprodukt 1994 st...@bronze.coil.com
Life is short. Slack hard. Customer Service
My opinions are not COIL's. Central Ohio Internet Link, Inc.
Wendi Dunlap
> I think the major problem is that most people just don't understand how
>this stuff works, they just accept that it does (it's MAGIC!). When the
It is magic and we, the Tech Support gods, are the magicians. With one
word we can make all their problems disappear in a puff of nothingness. :)
Unfortunately, it doesn't always work that way.
But if the users think that way, then they don't have to take the
responsibility to understand anything about their computers themselves. >:(
> But now, a CLEAR! BLUE! FROSTY! PLAID! GAY! STEVE! GERUND FREE! computer
>may be the answer ...
Hey, I would love a clear Mac. I think the new Power PCs should be clear.
And some of them could be a frosted blue like the new colorful pagers...
Many people have already named their computers "Steve"... hmm, these ideas
have potential. :)
Ms. Julie Kent
ALL of my users are professional IS people. Can you explain how you can get
a master's in CS and still not know what a script file is? For that matter
I had one individual complain that I could not actually change a file
because I was not on site (I was logged in via my modem). Aaaahhhh!
Actually, the best recent story just proves we all over look the obvious
sometimes. During a recent installation a particular X-terminal locked up
whenever the user entered the application. It would boot-up fine but as
soon as the user entered the application it just locked up. The user's
supervisor checked the terminal and could not find a problem. The systems
person checked that the workstation had enough memory and the most recent
chip set and a few other things that involved taking the front of the box
off and calling the distributer. Then the application developer got on the
scene and started checking the number of database licenses and looking for
bugs in the code that might affect the maximum number of users logged in.
The project lead went down to the workstation to try and offer words of
advice. This went on all morning and half the afternoon. Finally, and I can
take NO credit here, I went down to check on where everyone had gone to.
I tripped over absolutely nothing but my own two feet, went sprawling head
first down the assembly line and as ten people tried to help me to my feet I
noticed that the keyboard cable was not plugged in all the way so as soon as
the track-ball was used to bring up the application it appeared the terminal
locked up since the application did not use the track-ball! Talk about the
first thing someone should have checked. Now if only I could solve these
things without falling flat on my face.
Just Julie
Norm Abram
[among other things...]
> But in the spirit of the "Hunter Cow Tipping Team", I'm now thinking of
>doing up an "FAU Tunneler Team" jacket, as, strange as it may seem, FAU,
>only about three feet above sea level, does have a tunnel system my friends
>and I explored. And seeing how our mascot is the burrowing owl, it kind of
>fits.
> Either that, or the "FAU Roof Hopping Team" jacket.
Uh, feel free to ask how stupid it can be to advertise that you've been
spelunking in the steam tunnels....
My community service is _almost_ over... -Brian
--
"Never underestimate the power of soup." -Campbell's
"Whoa" -Joey Lawrence
:barf: -me
Kathy Wienhold
>>James E. Lee <ez00...@hamlet.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>>>Something that has been a problem for me is finding women who do not
>>>there such an apparent need to go through so much non-conversation
>>>(bullshit talk about stupid stuff neither person is interested in or
>>>cares anything at all about) and gobbledygook just so that two people
>>>can feel comfortable enough to talk?
>
>I don't quite know, and I find it interesting that you, being male,
>should bring that up. I have had this problem with a number of people
>over time [snip] But I especially think this is true of women. If a
>woman speaks her mind, she can so easily be labeled a bitch, a
>feminist, or some other term intended to be insulting. I have been
>called "intimidating" on more than one occasion [snip]
First off, I must say that I think Ann has an excellent point here. I
have run into the same situation, even with acquaintances with whom I
have spent significant periods of time.
However, I think there is a factor which is missing from this
discussion: *trust*. I always feel that someone who tries to have an
"intense" conversation with me without going through the "bullshit
talk" is someone who's trying to take a shortcut to closeness/
friendship/intimacy (take you pick). It comes across as trying to
assert a claim to my dearest thoughts that hasn't been earned.
I also sense a deep note of falseness in almost all of these
encounters. It makes me suspicious when someone claims to be sharing
(with apologies to Jack Handy) "deep thoughts" on first acquaintance
-- what the hell makes them think that *I* have earned that level of
trust? I almost always think that they're lying, setting out snares
to make me reveal myself while they keep to themselves what the
*really* think. In short, it looks like a power play to me, and I
avoid it ike the plague. (In fact, the "almost"s in this paragraph
are a hedge. I have yet to meet *anyone* who tried this whom I didn't
perceive as false.)
In case it isn't sufficiently obvious, I'm a big fan of getting to
know people gradually, by what they say, how they act, how they treat
their friends, how they treat my friends, etc. A man who tries to
skip that phase comes across to me as a man with ulterior
(manipulative) motives, who's not interested in getting to know me in
depth (as contradictory as that may seem), and as a man who can't be
trusted.
~kathy
(For the logic impaired: Never having met any of the posters on this
thread, I make no claims about their motives: I speak only of *my*
perceptions about having been in similar situations.)
Mark J. Lilback
Ms. Julie Kent <jk...@umbc.edu> wrote:
>I tripped over absolutely nothing but my own two feet, went sprawling head
>first down the assembly line and as ten people tried to help me to my feet I
>noticed that the keyboard cable was not plugged in all the way so as soon as
>the track-ball was used to bring up the application it appeared the terminal
>locked up since the application did not use the track-ball! Talk about the
>first thing someone should have checked. Now if only I could solve these
>things without falling flat on my face.
I see this all the time. I'll go by the computer lab and people will
have put signs on computers saying they are broken and techs have been
notified. Then I play around and it's something simple like the
keyboard is not plugged in or someone unplugged the ethernet connection.
Having computer knowledge is a great way to get a computer around finals
time. I just sit down at a "broken one", make sure everything's plugged
in, and run Norton Utilites if I have too. I can make the computer
usable 60-70% of the time.
************************************************************************
* Mark J. Lilback ****** Computer Guru, Who Cares Magazine *
* mlil...@cec.org ****** A Journal of Service and Action *
* mlil...@seas.gwu.edu ****** whoc...@cec.org or AOL: WhoCares3 *
************************************************************************
Brian R Hauser
>discussion: *trust*. I always feel that someone who tries to have an
>"intense" conversation with me without going through the "bullshit
>talk" is someone who's trying to take a shortcut to closeness/
>friendship/intimacy (take you pick). It comes across as trying to
>assert a claim to my dearest thoughts that hasn't been earned.
>
>I also sense a deep note of falseness in almost all of these
>encounters. It makes me suspicious when someone claims to be sharing
>(with apologies to Jack Handy) "deep thoughts" on first acquaintance
>-- what the hell makes them think that *I* have earned that level of
>trust? I almost always think that they're lying, setting out snares
>to make me reveal myself while they keep to themselves what the
>*really* think. In short, it looks like a power play to me, and I
>avoid it ike the plague. (In fact, the "almost"s in this paragraph
>are a hedge. I have yet to meet *anyone* who tried this whom I didn't
>perceive as false.)
>
>In case it isn't sufficiently obvious, I'm a big fan of getting to
>know people gradually, by what they say, how they act, how they treat
>their friends, how they treat my friends, etc. A man who tries to
>skip that phase comes across to me as a man with ulterior
>(manipulative) motives, who's not interested in getting to know me in
>depth (as contradictory as that may seem), and as a man who can't be
>trusted.
>
> ~kathy
>
This is a good point, but there are those of us (I'm sure men and women) who
take a different perspective on trust. I know a lot of people including
myself who feel that trust is ultimately *given* no matter what kind of
evidence you have that makes it seem earned. We give the trust right from the
start and then re-evaluate if that trust is broken somehow. There are alot of
different reasons for looking at trust this way. Personally, I jump right into
"deep, meaningful conversations" with people because I have a sense of how
short our time with some people can be and I have a fixation with quality over
quantity.
I don't think that either view of trust is better, or whatever, just that
people generally have their own way of going about assigning trust to the
people they meet.
My $0.02,
Doctor Hauser
bha...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
"The Lurker on the Threshold"
Christine Delaney
bha...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Brian R Hauser) writes:
>I know a lot of people including
>myself who feel that trust is ultimately *given* no matter what kind of
>evidence you have that makes it seem earned.
>We give the trust right from the
>start and then re-evaluate if that trust is broken somehow.
>...Personally, I jump right into
>"deep, meaningful conversations" with people because I have a sense of how
>short our time with some people can be and I have a fixation
>with quality over quantity.
Yes. If I intuitively like someone and sense that there is a kind of depth I
can appreciate, I give them a reasonable amount of trust right off the bat. I
like to take large risks in relationships. Sometimes it pays off in a big way.
Sometimes it hurts like hell. But, the hurt is worth it to me, I'm a strong
woman and I can pick up the pieces. The warm and wonderful friendships I've
found by jumping in feet first have far outbalanced the pain I've endured from
this approach.
>My $0.02,
k'ching k'ching.
>Doctor Hauser
>bha...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
>"The Lurker on the Threshold"
oops. you've overstepped your bound!
--
| Christine DelPrete-Delaney | Speaking only for myself, |
| * ch...@xmission.com | one of my many tricks. |
| * * cdel...@novell.com = |
| "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower." - David Byrne |
James E. Lee
: Ann Vanderstoep writes:
: >>James E. Lee <ez00...@hamlet.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
: >>>Something that has been a problem for me is finding women who do not
: >>>run because I try to have a *real* conversation with them. Why is
: >>>there such an apparent need to go through so much non-conversation
: >>>(bullshit talk about stupid stuff neither person is interested in or
: >>>cares anything at all about) and gobbledygook just so that two people
: >>>can feel comfortable enough to talk?
: >
: >I don't quite know, and I find it interesting that you, being male,
: >should bring that up. I have had this problem with a number of people
: >over time [snip] But I especially think this is true of women. If a
: >woman speaks her mind, she can so easily be labeled a bitch, a
: >feminist, or some other term intended to be insulting. I have been
: >called "intimidating" on more than one occasion [snip]
Actually, I think it is quite natural that I, as a male, am making this
point. I am speaking from my point of view of a man relating to women,
and *it has been my experience, and I have observed* that males have been
seen more readily by women as threats, and I wonder if this does not
contribute to the problem?
Steve K., I would be quite interested in your perspective on this
situation. Does this problem apply to you as well? (I hope you don't
mind me bringing you into this in this manner and for this reason, but
you seem quite secure in yourself.)
[chomp]
: However, I think there is a factor which is missing from this
: discussion: *trust*. I always feel that someone who tries to have an
: "intense" conversation with me without going through the "bullshit
: talk" is someone who's trying to take a shortcut to closeness/
: friendship/intimacy (take you pick). It comes across as trying to
: assert a claim to my dearest thoughts that hasn't been earned.
Hmmm... You make a good point here. While I understand that it can
take a while to develop friendships/closeness, etc., what I am concerned
with is not instantly knowing every deep and personal thing about a person,
but rather the problem of not being exposed to anything other than the
"generic personality" I mentioned in another thread. That can get to be
tedious and tiresome, however, and although I realize the apparent need for
it, I am really sad that I must demonstrate my "benignty" (thanx to Kathleen
and the person who researched that!) before I can begin to really get to know
someone. I myself try not to make this necessary, but each person must
do as he or she feels is best. I personally would like it if people didn't
feel so threatened by others, but I understand that it would be unrealistic
to hope that everyone would be open with each other.
There is something here I do not understand. I have never felt
psychologically or emotionally threatened (on a personal basis) by another
person (beyond adolescent mindgames, which weren't a big deal once
recognized), and I am curious to know what the (apparently) perceived threat
is? How have people been so terrible after you (not just you kathy) open
up to them? I do not mean to discount or devalue anyone's feelings or
fears; I am honestly curious about this.
: I also sense a deep note of falseness in almost all of these
: encounters. It makes me suspicious when someone claims to be sharing
: (with apologies to Jack Handy) "deep thoughts" on first acquaintance
: -- what the hell makes them think that *I* have earned that level of
: trust? I almost always think that they're lying, setting out snares
: to make me reveal myself while they keep to themselves what the
: *really* think.
I do not doubt that this has often been the case, but not everyone is
like this. The trust you mentioned earlier may be applied here too, by
*trusting* (and I realize this may seem less-than-cautious, but they may
be sticking their necks out too) that the other person is in fact showing
you who he or she really is.
: In short, it looks like a power play to me, and I
: avoid it ike the plague. (In fact, the "almost"s in this paragraph
: are a hedge. I have yet to meet *anyone* who tried this whom I didn't
: perceive as false.)
That is truly sad. Again, it does not mean that all people who do this
have nefarious designs... Haven't people gone about it in different
ways? I would think that the way a person is and the feeling you get
from him might play a part in how he is perceived. (Though I will agree
that there are men and women out there who do a good job of fooling
people...)
: In case it isn't sufficiently obvious, I'm a big fan of getting to
: know people gradually, by what they say, how they act, how they treat
: their friends, how they treat my friends, etc. A man who tries to
: skip that phase comes across to me as a man with ulterior
: (manipulative) motives, who's not interested in getting to know me in
: depth (as contradictory as that may seem), and as a man who can't be
: trusted.
Well, many people feel the way you do about getting to know people
gradually, and I am not arguing that everyone should know each other
intimately within the first five minutes of meeting, but it sometimes
seems to me that we are not terribly far from the other extreme.
: ~kathy
: (For the logic impaired: Never having met any of the posters on this
: thread, I make no claims about their motives: I speak only of *my*
: perceptions about having been in similar situations.)
Well said! I respectfully ask you this: Have you found what you
described above to be the case often enough that it is now a "policy"? Do
you ever still give the benefit of the doubt to anyone?
Dave Mooney
> And if you can master the sendmail.cf file,
.. then it is time for you to go.
Dave "R$*<@vnet.ibm.com>$* $#exttcp$@vnet.ibm.com$:$1<@vnet.ibm.com>$2" Mooney
steven r kleinedler
>Kathy Wienhold (ka...@lumina.camb.inmet.com) wrote:
[some cool stuff which got deleted along the way]
>: Ann Vanderstoep writes:
>: >
>: >I don't quite know, and I find it interesting that you, being male,
>: >should bring that up. I have had this problem with a number of people
>: >over time [snip] But I especially think this is true of women. If a
>: >woman speaks her mind, she can so easily be labeled a bitch, a
>: >feminist, or some other term intended to be insulting. I have been
>: >called "intimidating" on more than one occasion [snip]
>
James:
> Actually, I think it is quite natural that I, as a male, am making this
>point. I am speaking from my point of view of a man relating to women,
>and *it has been my experience, and I have observed* that males have been
>seen more readily by women as threats, and I wonder if this does not
>contribute to the problem?
>
> Steve K., I would be quite interested in your perspective on this
>situation. Does this problem apply to you as well? (I hope you don't
>mind me bringing you into this in this manner and for this reason, but
>you seem quite secure in yourself.)
>
I'm not exactly sure what is being asked. I guess men, for
stereotypical reasons, are more threatening than women, on the
whole, but individually, it depends. I also think, or
it
has been my experience that some men are easily threatened
by women perceived to be intimidating; it is these sam
e men who seem fearful of me as a queer because they think
I want to fuck them or something (what may be going on is
that they fear I think of them the way they think of women, and
it makes them uncomfortable.) But I'm not sure those thoughts
relate exactly to the thread prior to my post.
If you were asking my thoughts on whether gay males could be
threatened by women for being aggressive or what have you,
I guess sure, I mean, there are certainly sexist gay men,
so I guess so. I'm not sure what you're asking.
Steve Kleinedler
Ann Vanderstoep
steven r kleinedler <srkl...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>In article <CMq90...@ucdavis.edu> ez00...@othello.ucdavis.edu (James E. Lee) writes:
>>Kathy Wienhold (ka...@lumina.camb.inmet.com) wrote:
>>
>James:
>
>> Actually, I think it is quite natural that I, as a male, am making this
>>point. I am speaking from my point of view of a man relating to women,
>>and *it has been my experience, and I have observed* that males have been
>>seen more readily by women as threats, and I wonder if this does not
>>contribute to the problem?
>>
>it
>has been my experience that some men are easily threatened
>by women perceived to be intimidating; it is these sam
>e men who seem fearful of me as a queer because they think
>I want to fuck them or something (what may be going on is
>that they fear I think of them the way they think of women, and
>it makes them uncomfortable.) But I'm not sure those thoughts
>relate exactly to the thread prior to my post.
Thanks, Steve - that was the point I was trying to make. (aside from the
one about straight men who flatter themselves by thinking every gey man
they meet would want to fuck them!)
A lot of men are intimidated by strong women who say what they think,
don't pander to them, and don't expend all their energy asking men about
themselves (while men just talk & talk & talk about themselves). I have
been called things (by men) that I know I wouldn't have been if I were a man
(i.e. bold, abrasive).
- Jennifer
James E. Lee
: In article <CMq90...@ucdavis.edu> ez00...@othello.ucdavis.edu (James E. Lee) writes:
: >Kathy Wienhold (ka...@lumina.camb.inmet.com) wrote:
: [some cool stuff which got deleted along the way]
: >: Ann Vanderstoep writes:
: >: >
: >: >I don't quite know, and I find it interesting that you, being male,
: >: >should bring that up. I have had this problem with a number of people
: >: >over time [snip] But I especially think this is true of women. If a
: >: >woman speaks her mind, she can so easily be labeled a bitch, a
: >: >feminist, or some other term intended to be insulting. I have been
: >: >called "intimidating" on more than one occasion [snip]
: >
: James:
: > Actually, I think it is quite natural that I, as a male, am making this
: >point. I am speaking from my point of view of a man relating to women,
: >and *it has been my experience, and I have observed* that males have been
: >seen more readily by women as threats, and I wonder if this does not
: >contribute to the problem?
: >
: > Steve K., I would be quite interested in your perspective on this
: >situation. Does this problem apply to you as well? (I hope you don't
: >mind me bringing you into this in this manner and for this reason, but
: >you seem quite secure in yourself.)
: >
: I'm not exactly sure what is being asked. I guess men, for
[snip]
: Steve Kleinedler
Actually, I was wondering if you have found that men are less concerned
than (some) women appear to be with being open and close quickly. I know
many of my male friends like to be "real" and intense rather quickly, but
that's with women. What have your (or anyone else who can comment)
observations been WRT men relating to men? Does anyone see significant
diffs with women relating to women? I suppose my question is essentially
do people tend to be more comfortable opening up more quickly (in a
potentially romantic situation) with people of their own gender, or does it
even matter?
--
Spearwielder
Mark J. Lilback <mlil...@seas.gwu.edu> wrote:
>In article <2m3dvt...@umbc7.umbc.edu>,
>Ms. Julie Kent <jk...@umbc.edu> wrote:
>>I tripped over absolutely nothing but my own two feet, went sprawling head
>>first down the assembly line and as ten people tried to help me to my feet I
>>noticed that the keyboard cable was not plugged in all the way so as soon as
>>the track-ball was used to bring up the application it appeared the terminal
>>locked up since the application did not use the track-ball! Talk about the
>>first thing someone should have checked. Now if only I could solve these
>>things without falling flat on my face.
>
>I see this all the time. I'll go by the computer lab and people will
>have put signs on computers saying they are broken and techs have been
>notified. Then I play around and it's something simple like the
>keyboard is not plugged in or someone unplugged the ethernet connection.
>Having computer knowledge is a great way to get a computer around finals
>time. I just sit down at a "broken one", make sure everything's plugged
>in, and run Norton Utilites if I have too. I can make the computer
>usable 60-70% of the time.
>
the first line of the followup and I thought tripping over your own two
feet and therefore discovering how to repair a computer was a comon
occurance. Whew! I was wondering what they taught in CS classes today :).
--SW-->
steven r kleinedler
>
>
> Actually, I was wondering if you have found that men are less concerned
>than (some) women appear to be with being open and close quickly. I know
>many of my male friends like to be "real" and intense rather quickly, but
>that's with women. What have your (or anyone else who can comment)
>observations been WRT men relating to men? Does anyone see significant
>diffs with women relating to women? I suppose my question is essentially
>do people tend to be more comfortable opening up more quickly (in a
>potentially romantic situation) with people of their own gender, or does it
>even matter?
>
intense people of either gender for intense conversation.
Back when I was single, as far as that goes, when I wanted a one night
stand, conversation really wasn't a key issue, and as long as the
basic criteria were met, the issue was irrelevant.
I think the issues you brought up are gender irrelevant and depend on
the intensity of the individual. I've known way intense men and
women, and way unintense ones... so... Intense people of either
gender seem to come on strong (I don't mean in a sexual sense)
when they get to know you.
Steve Kleinedler
Kathy Wienhold
>Kathy Wienhold wrote:
>>James E. Lee <ez00...@hamlet.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>>>Something that has been a problem for me is finding women who do not
>>>run because I try to have a *real* conversation with them. Why is
>>>there such an apparent need to go through so much non-conversation
>>>(bullshit talk about stupid stuff neither person is interested in or
>>>cares anything at all about) and gobbledygook just so that two people
>>>can feel comfortable enough to talk?
>>
>>discussion: *trust*. I always feel that someone who tries to have an
>>"intense" conversation with me without going through the "bullshit
>>talk" is someone who's trying to take a shortcut to closeness/
>>assert a claim to my dearest thoughts that hasn't been earned.
>
>Hmmm... You make a good point here. While I understand that it can
>take a while to develop friendships/closeness, etc., what I am
>concerned with is not instantly knowing every deep and personal thing
>about a person, but rather the problem of not being exposed to anything
>other than the "generic personality" I mentioned in another thread.
[Sorry, must have missed that "generic personality" thread.]
Perhaps we should use some examples here, so that we can be sure we're
both talking about the same thing when we say "*real* conversation",
"intense" conversation, "gobbledygook", "bullshit talk", etc. So, for
the following list of examples, I've given my judgments. (Where I say
"part" below, I mean that one should feel comfortable discussing these
topics before proceeding on to others.) What are yours?
1. Weather, Classes/Majors (students only), Work/Job ("real world"
[heavy sarcasm] people only): topics for first acquaintance --
my definition of trivia/gobbledygook, used generally with people
I've just met.
2. Current/favorite movies, books, plays, sports, rec. activities,
mutual friends: topics for first "part" of acquaintance -- my
definition of "social conversation"/"bullshit talk", used generally
among acquaintances and "friends" from whom I would not yet feel
comfortable requesting a mild favor.
3. Family, childhood, politics, religion, social values: topics for
second "part" of acquaintance -- my definition of "real"
conversation, used generally among friends with whom I feel
comfortable enough to request a (moderately) serious favor.
4. Personal history/questions/philosophies: topics for third "part"
of acquaintance -- my definition of "intense" conversation, used
among people I trust absolutely.
Now these are not hard-and-fast rules and there's some blurring between
levels, but on 5 minutes thought, I think they're pretty accurate. I
generally start in the 1-2 phase, or on *very* rare, unusual occasions
(for instance, with friends of people I truly trust already) *perhaps* 3
-- *never* 4, and my remarks regarding my (negative) perceptions of
"intense" conversationalists are applied to people who *routinely*
*start* in the 3-4 range.
>There is something here I do not understand. I have never felt
>psychologically or emotionally threatened (on a personal basis) by
>another person [snip], and I am curious to know what the (apparently)
>perceived threat is? How have people been so terrible after you (not
>just you kathy) open up to them? [snip]
It doesn't have so much to do with feeling "threatened", as it does with
being *very* annoyed. As I said, it comes accross as manipulative, as a
form of presumption, and worse yet, as an assumption that one is
*entitled* to something. (I can feel myself getting a bit steamed up
just thinking about it.) Haven't you ever met people who thought that
they were *entitled* to something from you that you did not feel they
were even entitled to ask? I'll bet that you didn't feel "threatened"
by the situation, but didn't it piss you off (just a bit)?
>>I also sense a deep note of falseness in almost all of these
>>encounters. [snip]
>
>I do not doubt that this has often been the case, but not everyone is
>like this. The trust you mentioned earlier may be applied here too, by
>*trusting* [snip] that the other person is in fact showing you who he
>or she really is.
That's just the point. Perhaps this is a problem of interpretation, but
by definition, I perceive anything that comes with introductory
conversation as being, in a sense, trivial and unimportant -- a kind of
sounding board. If someone is talking to me on first acquaintance, and
tries to introduce or extract personal material, I take that either as
manipulative or (at best, if this is what "he or she really is") as an
indication that s/he considers that topic as trivial and/or unimportant.
Both these reactions correspond to some rather negative deductions on my
part.
>>(For the logic impaired: Never having met any of the posters on this
>>thread, I make no claims about their motives: I speak only of *my*
>>perceptions about having been in similar situations.)
>
> Well said! I respectfully ask you this: Have you found what you
>described above to be the case often enough that it is now a "policy"?
>Do you ever still give the benefit of the doubt to anyone?
Hardly ever. The closest I can recall was meeting the friend of a
friend whom I respected greatly. This new acquaintance kept trying to
build a rather "personal" conversation, which I eluded (more and more
blatantly as the conversation went on), until the hint was finally
taken. I was willing to try to continue the acquaintance, but it never
progressed past the nodding-acquaintance stage. It seemed that if I
wasn't willing to "bare my soul" on first meeting, he wasn't interested.
However, I must in truth confess that the *only* reason I was even
willing to pursue the acquaintance was the fact that he was a friend of
someone I already trusted (so I figured that there just *had* to be
something worthwhile hiding in there). Had that not been the case, I
wouldn't have bothered.
I guess what it comes down to is what I said above. There are some
standard assumptions I make about people who probe for things I think
they have no right to, and those assumptions are pretty darned far from
flattering. I might be willing to give someone a second chance,
provided the first hint of inappropriate conversation (gods! I'm
starting to talk like a Victorian novel) was taken, and s/he backed off.
However, people who pursue such a conversation in the face of some
fairly obvious hints to the contrary (the seemingly standard situation
for these types of encounters) only reinforce the perception that they
have their own agenda. I feel that if they were truly interested in
getting to know me, their "antennae" would be a bit more attuned to my
reactions instead of merely to whatever they might be able to "mine"
from my conversation.
Now it's my turn for a question (okay two questions):
1. If you meet someone and try to start a conversation at a
particular level, how attuned are you to "back off" signals, and if you
receive one, how inclined are you to continue the conversation through
the "bullshit" phases in hopes of reaching a more meaningful level
later? (I realize there are probably a lot of factors involved here,
but I am curious about which ones contribute to the "worth the bother"/
"not worth the bother" decision.)
2. Just how many times must one dodge a particular subject
before it sinks in that it is unwelcome and that no response to it will
be forthcoming?
~kathy
Christine Delaney
Wienhold) writes:
>There are some
>standard assumptions I make about people who probe for things I think
>they have no right to, and those assumptions are pretty darned far from
>flattering.
I think that it's grossly unfair to pass a highly unflattering judgement on
someone because they initially operate at a different level of 'intensity' or
'intimacy' than you do. Giving off ambiguous, subtle 'signals' that the
conversation level is too deep for you just isn't good enough, IMO. When you
choose that method of communication, you are guilty of the same assumptions
that the intrusive person is: you assume that the other person should be on the
*same level* as you and that they *should* respond to your chosen form of
'communication' (i.e., subtle signals). If they don't, then you label them and
reject them. Direct communication is a much healthier choice.
I've been confronted with people that wanted more intimacy/depth from me sooner
than I was willing. When that happens, I tell 'em that I don't feel comfortable
discussing that information with them yet. I try to say this in the most
compassionate and nondefensive way that I can. Most folks seem to take this at
face value and back off. By telling them outright that I am uncomfortable, I
give them a chance to continue pursuing a relationship with me.
>I might be willing to give someone a second chance,
>provided the first hint of inappropriate conversation (gods! I'm
>starting to talk like a Victorian novel) was taken, and s/he backed off.
Why do you expect others to be able to read your mind? I don't. If 'hints'
don't work, do the person a favor and just tell them kindly and calmly what you
feel. Most people respect that honesty and are consequently better able to
operate because they *know what the parameters are.* This takes some
confidence on your part ... but it becomes easier with practice and success.
>However, people who pursue such a conversation in the face of some
>fairly obvious hints to the contrary
Fairly obvious to *you*. Not necessarily to others. For instance, Japanese
cultural messages are so foreign to me that I routinely misinterpret them - for
better *or* for worse. Another example: I knew a guy that went ballistic when I
used the word "whatever" to attempt to close off a minor disagreement. I
thought I was capitulating; he thought I was telling him to fuck off. That
example had to do with *words*. Imagine the difficulty in interpreting, or even
recognizing, nonverbal hints!
>I feel that if they were truly interested in
>getting to know me, their "antennae" would be a bit more attuned to my
>reactions instead of merely to whatever they might be able to "mine"
>from my conversation.
You expect too much from people. I assume people are well meaning and when they
cross my boundaries, I let 'em know it. Maybe it is arrogant of me, but I feel
that if they are making an effort to talk with me, then I want to make an
effort to return the favor and communicate with them accurately and
sensitively.
>1. If you meet someone and try to start a conversation at a
>particular level, how attuned are you to "back off" signals, and if you
>receive one, how inclined are you to continue the conversation through
>the "bullshit" phases in hopes of reaching a more meaningful level
>later?
I am very attuned to back off signals - at least I am to signals that are part
of my cultural experience. *If* I pick up on the signals, then I simply back
off - no hard feelings. I understand the need to set personal boundaries; I do
it all the time.
> 2. Just how many times must one dodge a particular subject
>before it sinks in that it is unwelcome and that no response to it will
>be forthcoming?
Twice? Five times? Never? Once again, you cannot assume that other people
carry around the same set of social signals in their back pockets.
Nothing substitutes for accurate, compassionate communication, IMO. And a
'hint' often is not recognized or interpreted properly by receiver. This does
not make the receiver a bad person ... it simply makes 'em human.
- chris (who just yesterday told a coworker to leave her alone when she was
trying to get some work done - worked fine, and we're still on
good terms.)
Brett J. Kottmann
...
>A lot of men are intimidated by strong women who say what they think,
>don't pander to them, and don't expend all their energy asking men about
>themselves (while men just talk & talk & talk about themselves). I have
>been called things (by men) that I know I wouldn't have been if I were a man
>(i.e. bold, abrasive).
Well, in part that stems from a society that tells them *they*
have to be bold n abrasive since they're men.
Thus anyone else (including other men) who is bold n abrasive is
"competition" for whatever it is they are after.
Heh, maybe they think you'll get the girl :).
Personally, I've always been more attracted to bold n abrasive
(hey, good name for a cleanser) than shy n quiet.
Brett
James E. Lee
[aging part of our discussion euthenized (sp?)]
: >Hmmm... You make a good point here. While I understand that it can
: >take a while to develop friendships/closeness, etc., what I am
: >concerned with is not instantly knowing every deep and personal thing
: >about a person, but rather the problem of not being exposed to anything
: >other than the "generic personality" I mentioned in another thread.
: >[snip]
: [Sorry, must have missed that "generic personality" thread.]
(It was called "ORANGE", FYI)
: Perhaps we should use some examples here, so that we can be sure we're
Well, I hope you won't immediately dislike me, [*grin*] but I generally
try to start as close to 4 as possible, if not at (an undefined) 5 or
6, yet I haven't ever really categorized it either. I just kinda try to
talk about life, happiness, hopes, fears, whatever. I don't discount the
1-2 phase either, and sometimes that's nice for filler to smooth out the
akwardness of not knowing someone, I just approach things differently.
The thing is, people can find commonality in "real" things too, so if I
find that someone is comfortable talking about her fears and dreams, or what
made her who she is, then I'll jump right in and leave all the other stuff
about the weather, music, etc., till later. I still like knowing what kind
of music and books, etc. people like, and think that's often a significant
part of someone, but I find that (as someone else mentioned) there is not
always as much time as we all might like when getting to know someone, so I
try to make as real and meaningful a contact I can in the time available.
Time is not the only factor in this however -- I also want a woman to know
that I am interested in knowing about *her*, not anyone who can tell me what
the temperature is or critique the latest movies -- I can read both a
thermometer and a newspaper. ;-) (Yes, I am still human, and I _do_
complain about the weather sometimes, and I *love* discussing movies, but I
think you know what I mean.) As far as discussing skool/career type stuff, I
usually only talk about that WRT what it means to the person -- If, for
example I happen to meet a marine biologist, I will not feign interest in
marine bio, but would ask why she chose to study that, what she likes about
it, and how does it figure into her life and being.
For me, a *real* conversation begins when people talk about those
things which make them unique; what they want from life, what they *think
about*, what their passions are, how and why they became the person they
are, their estimation of themselves, their outlook on life, etc. I realize th
at not everyone feels comfortable talking about *all* of these things
immediately, but some certainly do.
[I asked what the "threat" is in opening up to people quickly]
: It doesn't have so much to do with feeling "threatened", as it does with
: being *very* annoyed. As I said, it comes accross as manipulative, as a
: form of presumption, and worse yet, as an assumption that one is
: *entitled* to something. (I can feel myself getting a bit steamed up
: just thinking about it.) Haven't you ever met people who thought that
: they were *entitled* to something from you that you did not feel they
: were even entitled to ask? I'll bet that you didn't feel "threatened"
: by the situation, but didn't it piss you off (just a bit)?
I completely understand what you mean. I think what you are referring
to is the type of person I call a "Mindhawk". It really gets my goat to
meet someone who seems to be interested, and asks all about me, but does
not share anything with me. The fact that she does not share with me is
NOT the problem -- what bothers me (and I am NOT saying this is always the
case when people don't share too) is when I sense (I know, that's a
dangerous word!) that she is intersted in me because she is attracted
*primarily* to the fact that I am intense, and is therefore trying to
harvest my intensity by plowing my mind. (Sorry, it just came out that
way, honest! :)
To me, that is analogous to someone who is just out for sex (which is not
necessarily a bad thing, but I will explain in a moment) -- *she does not
need me, she just needs to "feed" on intensity*. Sometimes people who
are "just out for sex" will make that clear to others, and I think that's
great -- I have a big problem when people hornswoggle unsuspecting people
into it. When one's intentions are made clear, then the other person has
the option to decide whether or not they want to just have sex. In the case
of the mindhawk, she (or he) rarely even realizes (in my experience) that is
what she (maintaining a sense of grammatical coherence, NOT emphasizing
that women do this!) is doing, which kind of precludes her from stating her
intentions, and I would not begrudge her this. I do not, however, want
to be cheap stimulation for someone's mind or ego.
: >>I also sense a deep note of falseness in almost all of these
: >>encounters. [snip]
: >
: >I do not doubt that this has often been the case, but not everyone is
: >like this. The trust you mentioned earlier may be applied here too, by
: >*trusting* [snip] that the other person is in fact showing you who he
: >or she really is.
: That's just the point. Perhaps this is a problem of interpretation, but
: by definition, I perceive anything that comes with introductory
: conversation as being, in a sense, trivial and unimportant -- a kind of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ...that is
exactly what I'm trying to avoid!
: sounding board. If someone is talking to me on first acquaintance, and
: tries to introduce or extract personal material, I take that either as
: manipulative or (at best, if this is what "he or she really is") as an
: indication that s/he considers that topic as trivial and/or unimportant.
: Both these reactions correspond to some rather negative deductions on my
: part.
I hope what I said above will give you another perspective to think
about...
[clip]
Me:
: >Do you ever still give the benefit of the doubt to anyone?
Kathy:
: Hardly ever. The closest I can recall was meeting the friend of a
: friend whom I respected greatly. This new acquaintance kept trying to
: build a rather "personal" conversation, which I eluded (more and more
: blatantly as the conversation went on), until the hint was finally
: taken. I was willing to try to continue the acquaintance, but it never
: progressed past the nodding-acquaintance stage. It seemed that if I
: wasn't willing to "bare my soul" on first meeting, he wasn't interested.
: However, I must in truth confess that the *only* reason I was even
: willing to pursue the acquaintance was the fact that he was a friend of
: someone I already trusted (so I figured that there just *had* to be
: something worthwhile hiding in there). Had that not been the case, I
: wouldn't have bothered.
This is intended as constructive criticism: Think about what you said
above -- you mentioned that he was trying to build a "personal"
conversation, and noted that you thought there must be "something
worthwhile hiding in there". Did it occur to you that he may have been
trying to show you That Which Is Worthwhile about him, and that you were
not allowing him to, while at the same time not telling him? You said
that you only pursued it *because* there might be something worthwhile,
yet it does not seem as though you were willing to experience it on any
but your own terms. Since it "takes two to tango", if you *really* want
to dance, you have to allow for someone else's way too...
I think I can say that I Christine speaks for me on the following, but
I do have a bit more to say below...
: I guess what it comes down to is what I said above. There are some
: standard assumptions I make about people who probe for things I think
: they have no right to, and those assumptions are pretty darned far from
: flattering. I might be willing to give someone a second chance,
: provided the first hint of inappropriate conversation (gods! I'm
: starting to talk like a Victorian novel) was taken, and s/he backed off.
: However, people who pursue such a conversation in the face of some
: fairly obvious hints to the contrary (the seemingly standard situation
: for these types of encounters) only reinforce the perception that they
: have their own agenda. I feel that if they were truly interested in
: getting to know me, their "antennae" would be a bit more attuned to my
: reactions instead of merely to whatever they might be able to "mine"
: from my conversation.
: Now it's my turn for a question (okay two questions):
: 1. If you meet someone and try to start a conversation at a
: particular level, how attuned are you to "back off" signals, and if you
: receive one, how inclined are you to continue the conversation through
: the "bullshit" phases in hopes of reaching a more meaningful level
: later? (I realize there are probably a lot of factors involved here,
: but I am curious about which ones contribute to the "worth the bother"/
: "not worth the bother" decision.)
It really depends. I try very hard to keep in mind that most people
are not like me, and I know there are many wonderful people out there who
aren't comfortable "baring their souls" immediately. I suppose it depends
on how we relate otherwise. I am not particularly adverse to
superficiality, and I know that for some people it is just a matter of
time and feeling safe. As I said in another thread, I got to know many
girls in high skool who at first could have easily been perceived as
superficial or "fake". I even defended their "position" from a female
friend who was terribly negative and resentful towards "fake" girls, and
who thought they could not really be worthwhile people. *Every one of
them* was wonderful underneath all that, and I thought it quite "worth the
bother" -- I do not hold myself above others if I am aware of it (though it
may sometimes appear as though I do.) My point is, I don't want to *always*
have to spend all that time and *energy* going through all that. I still
do it, but it's not what I *look for*, know what I mean?
: 2. Just how many times must one dodge a particular subject
: before it sinks in that it is unwelcome and that no response to it will
: be forthcoming?
Again, Christine speaks quite well on this...
: ~kathy
--
James E. Lee
I tend to agree that this may indeed be gender irrelevant, but I think
I was not as clear as I could have been about what I wanted to know from
your perspective Steve; When you were single, did you ever find that men
would have less of a problem with you being intense specifically _because_
you too are a man? Did being the same gender tend to mitigate the latent
threat, or did you find that men felt just as "threatened" (for what it's
worth) by men as some women seem to?
: Steve Kleinedler
ta...@utdallas.edu
> [ Posts by Sean, Peter and Emily deleted for ease of reading ]
> Had a couple good ones yesterday.
> First, a user called, and said she wanted to set up some directories. When I
> started to tell her how to do it, she said "Can't you just log into my account
> and do it for me?" Not likely.
Sheeeyah as if...
> The second call started with the user saying "I called earlier, but was put on
> hold, and then I tried calling someone else, but I haven't heard back from
> them, so now I'm trying you guys again." All this was said in a snarky and
> angry voice. I could tell this call was not off to a good start.
Whoops hit the RLS on accident ;-)
> Sometimes I feel like a punching bag. People are upset because something
> doesn't work, so they phone a helpline to vent steam. I'm sure it makes them
> feel better, but it makes me feel like crap. But then again, it's better then
> being a designer, and having to put up with deadlines, and massive overtime,
> and all the damn process hell that designers are put through.
Teehee I'm the one that gets to throw the nasty crap code back to the
designers.;^) My job is to find out if the BNR designer's modules will
actually run in the switch. Love it.
Kerry Lutz
ta...@utdallas.edu
> Well, after screaming a bit, I went into DOS. What an alien place.
> I did the only thing I knew how: DIR. Then I thought, hmmmm....
> HELP. And it gave me a list of commands. And I chose RECOVER.
> And all but one paragraph of my 20-page paper came back. And
> I was so very very happy, especially since I am such a
> computer illiterate.
Young man I want you to drop to your knees and thank the almight Bill the
Gates right now.8-) In his infinte wisdom he finally FUCKING woke up and
realized that in DOS 6.0 a decent help menu would be a help!. No excuse
for short-sightedness.
Try the 'man' function in UNIX. sooo kewl
Kerry Lutz
> Just had to share....
> Steve
Jennifer Basil
: an...@u.washington.edu (Ann Vanderstoep) writes:
: ...
: >A lot of men are intimidated by strong women who say what they think,
Hmmmm...I think a lot of *people* are intimidated by this. Both men
*and* women. Actually...the only times I've ever had anyone express
distain regaring my outspoken-ness...which is about 4 times...they've
been *women* who thought I was "out of place". Older women. Actually,
one of them refused to let me take money out of my *joint* account without
a letter of permission! hello! 20th century! Anyone? Anyone?
I don't bank there anymore... :)
: >don't pander to them, and don't expend all their energy asking men about
: >themselves (while men just talk & talk & talk about themselves). I have
Yow..."men just talk&talk&talk about themselves" ?! Oh dear, not that's just
not true on the whole. There are plenty of egotistical boors out there, both
men *and* women. Granted...perhaps women may be more inquisitive in their
conversational style ( I just judged a 7th grade science fair...*already*
the little girls were ending their sentences with an upward inflection...
"I did this project? It was a descriptive study of snail behavior?" Egad...
I talked with all of them about gender differences in speech patterns...and
*asked* them to concentrate on sounding certain and confident of their
wonderful scientific work...later I heard one of the girls being very
adamant about her project: "I did this project! It was a descriptive
study of snail behavior!!" *phew* She was trying anyway!). So...maybe that's
what you mean....I don't know...
: >been called things (by men) that I know I wouldn't have been if I were a man
: >(i.e. bold, abrasive).
I don't like abrasive anybodies! Bold is one thing, blunt is one thing even...
but that doesn't necessarily mean abrasive. I see that a bold woman is often
called "abrasive" while a man would be "bold". One is bad, the other good.
Frustrating...especially when another woman says it! *sigh*
: Well, in part that stems from a society that tells them *they*
: have to be bold n abrasive since they're men.
Yeah...a lot of men I know *hate* this. Yuk...I say we just ignore all
this garbage and concentrate on being human! One of my male friends the
other day sat through a long tirade on the "evil white male" and finaly
said..."You know, I don't like that guy either! Who *is* he anyway?" He
was sincere..
*sigh*
I think I"ll just be Jenny,
Jenny
--
Jennifer Basil (ba...@bio.bu.edu)
"O sun, that wakenest all to bliss or pain,
O moon, that layest all to sleep again,
Shine sweetly; twice my love hath smiled on me."
...Tennyson, "Gareth and Lynette", _Idylls of the King_
steven r kleinedler
>
> I tend to agree that this may indeed be gender irrelevant, but I think
>I was not as clear as I could have been about what I wanted to know from
>your perspective Steve; When you were single, did you ever find that men
>would have less of a problem with you being intense specifically _because_
>you too are a man? Did being the same gender tend to mitigate the latent
>threat, or did you find that men felt just as "threatened" (for what it's
>worth) by men as some women seem to?
>
>
I think when women knew I was gay and wasn't a threat, they were every
bit as intense as men. (I mean, once you're in an established setting,
the people you meet are generally friends of friends, so I wasn't
in the habit of meeting total strangers much.) Both men and women
I didn't know I think exhibited the same sense of pullback until
you get to know someone.
Here is the real difference - in *my* intensity.
1. In my interactions with women, I was my usual intense self *unless*
I perceived the woman was coming on to me, which would make me a
little uncomfortable (not becuase she was a woman coming on to me,
but because I didn't want to embarrass her or make her think she
was wasting her time when she found out I was gay. Not too many
women hit on me though --- usually it was in dorm party situations
on another floor when I didn't know that many people.)
2. Interactions with men who I knew were bi/gay: no problem.
3. Interactions with men who I knew were straight: no problem.
4. Interactions with men who I didn't know what they were: Problem
Usually, if I just wanted to be friends with them, I'd get
whacked out, because I didn't want them to think I was coming on
to them, and there was often that wishful thinking portion of
my brain that went into hormonal overdrive. So, like if I knew
a guy was completely straight, cool, that settled it, and I
didn't have to worry about sexual tension. If I knew a guy
was great, I had the option: I could make a play or just
be friends, but really no tension.
If I didn't know... I was in a quandary as to how to
proceed, not knowing which manner to flirt, and I didn't want
to freak the guy out either... Sometimes I go out of my way
to find things to be paranoid about.
Maybe that's part of the mystery of hetero boy-girl type stuff--
all the wishful thinking that's going on in the back of someone's
mind, and not knowing the proper way to respond.
Steve Kleinedler
big moose flirt
Kathy Wienhold
>Kathy Wienhold writes:
>>There are some standard assumptions I make about people who probe for
>>things I think they have no right to, and those assumptions are pretty
>>darned far from flattering.
>
>I think that it's grossly unfair to pass a highly unflattering
>judgement on someone because they initially operate at a different
>level of 'intensity' or 'intimacy' than you do. Giving off ambiguous,
>subtle 'signals' that the conversation level is too deep for you just
>isn't good enough, IMO. When you choose that method of communication,
>you are guilty of the same assumptions that the intrusive person is:
>you assume that the other person should be on the *same level* as you
>and that they *should* respond to your chosen form of 'communication'
>(i.e., subtle signals). If they don't, then you label them and reject
[Large areas of miscommunication deleted - sigh! This is going to
get a bit long in return, but this time, I will try to be explicit
enough.]
[Although, before I get into that, a few word quibbles:
1. I must note that your use of the word "healthier" is mildly
inflammatory. You seem to be implying that my style of conversation is
(psychologically? socially?) "unhealthy", to which I take serious
exception. (Talk about passing judgments.)
2. I also wish to note that I do not believe (not having my original
posting any longer, I cannot be sure) that I ever used the words
"ambiguous" or "subtle" (see SCDSD later in this posting for appropriate
context in which to decode these words). (On second thought (sensing
yet another opportunity to be misinterpreted), let me be explicit: I
realize that what you are implying is that signals I think are obvious
may come across as ambiguous or subtle. This actually was not clear
from my posting, so let me explicitly state that I consider signals as
(implicitly received) signals (in the sense that those that don't get
through don't count). What I object to are people who get the signals
and continue anyway, or are so wrapped up in themselves that they would
not get *anyone*'s signal, even if it were a 2x4 and you rapped them
upside the head with it. (See later note about determining if a
signal has been received.))
3. One last thing: in the following discussion, I am taking the word
"culture" to apply not only to national/societal cultures, but also to
subcultures within a particular society. I am also leaping to the
conclusion that an individual's conversational style has at least some
(and most often many) components which are culturally (and
subculturally) determined; if you do not wish to leap along with me,
just change "culture" to "culture and/or (potentially unconscious)
individual style" (with the understanding that "individual style" is not
to be construed so loosely as to encompass choice of topic) consistently
through the rest of this posting.]
Now, first off, I must apologize: Sorry. I had thought that
assumptions about adjusting one's communication style to take into
account differences of culture should be so obvious as to make the
consistent (tiresome) inserting of disclaimers unnecessary. As this is
"obviously" not the case I would suggest rereading my post, and
inserting "with, of course, appropriate adjustments made for the
cultures of the participants" wherever necessary. (I make these "real
life" conversational adjustments so often and so well (note the modesty
:-) that I don't even notice that I'm doing it any more (although I will
admit to seeming to have a bit more trouble with this across the net (or
else I wouldn't have made *such* a goof about what's "obvious")).) Mea
maxima culpa.
Now, to repeat a part of Christine's post:
>I think that it's grossly unfair to pass a highly unflattering
>judgement on someone because they initially operate at a different
>level of 'intensity' or 'intimacy' than you do. [deleted - part about
>how signals can be misconstrued, and my insistence on them is merely
>an insistence on using my conversational "level", not theirs]
You seem to be confusing ideas of a conversational style (this is where
I include the notion of signals, since all cultures have them (albeit
different ones)), and choice of topic (which, granted, must also be
measured in the context of the speaker's culture). I do not insist that
others (who are not involved with me) follow my (previously posted)
heirarchy of subject matter on the road to friendship/intimacy (that was
a purely personal example). The distinction I make is the following:
I'm willing to change the signals of conversations in order to achieve a
mutually agreeable level of discourse -- that is, I will make stylistic
adjustments. However, I am *not* willing to abdicate my own judgment
about what is appropriate material.
I think this is where we differ. I think that judging people by where
they start a conversation is perfectly reasonable. Let's take a
(slightly exagerated) example: If someone I just met starts querying me
about, for instance, my sexual practices, or discussing his/hers/its
with me, I find that inappropriate, and make (some rather negative)
judgments about the individual which reflect that (among which,
"clueless" is perhaps the most kind). I then start trying to
communicate that I do find this inappropriate, and start probing for
other directions to take the conversation.
Now it just may be that I'm misreading this person's cultural (and/or
individual) style, and that this conversation opener didn't at all have
any of the (negative) implications that I read into it. However, that
doesn't change that first impression, and I think myself perfectly
justified in deducing a few (negative) things from this opening --
wouldn't you? (And, of course, my new acquaintance is perfectly free to
conclude that I am incredibly shallow/conventional/prudish. C'est la
vie.)
As I said (slightly paraphrased), if someone is willing to back off
after (receiving) a signal that I'm not happy with a particular aspect
of a conversation, fine, I'm willing to try again; however, as I also
stated, this hasn't often been the case. (Now maybe (obviously? :-)
I've just been meeting the wrong sort of people.) (To head off another
dispute at the pass: Determining whether a signal has been received
*is* tricky, but like a Supreme Court Justice (I'm drawing a blank on
which one) once said about pornography: I may not be able to define it,
but I know it when I see it. I may not be able to define the exact
parameters I use to determine when a signal has been received, but I
definitely know it when I see it.)
That said, I must in truth add that while I *may* be able to maintain a
friendship with someone who can't read my "subtle" (see [] note #2,
above) signals (as long as he/she/it seemed interested in a reciprocal
arrangement of learning to do so), I *very* seriously doubt I could do
so in a (potential) romantic relationship. All the wonderful levels of
human communication are fascinating to me, and an integral part of such
a relationship. In fact, it is such a *big* part of attraction to me
that someone who can't operate with me on some of these very important,
"subtle" levels is at such a disadvantage in the attraction department
that I find I have no interest in pursuing a relationship. Unfair
perhaps, but all of us have different, little quirks about what we find
attractive. This just happens to be one of mine.
I also must note that you excised my paragraph regarding *why* I make
these negative assumptions, so let me restate it. Someone who tries to
take a conversation "deeper" than I think is warranted on whatever level
of acquaintance we happen to be operating comes across in one of two
ways: manipulative, or seeming to take whatever area they are
approaching less seriously than I do. Now I will grant you (not wanting
to cause the same miscommunication twice), that across cultural lines,
one must be *very* careful with these judgments, since different
cultures regard different subjects as denoting different levels of
intimacy, and these different cultures often have different
conversational styles. (Sigh! -- so wordy! For the remainder of this
discussion, can we just abreviate this idea as "standard cultural
difference sensitivity disclaimer"? SCDSD?) However, once one has
accounted for SCDSD, I still feel justified in making these kind of
judgments, and I think that if we're honest with ourselves, we all do.
What we're discussing now is the best method of communicating one's
discomfort. I will grant you that there are some situations in which
one *must* speak plainly. I will even grant you that speaking plainly
often has the advantage of a surer communication of what one wishes to
express. However, I still prefer, where possible (taking into account
SCDSD), the subtler varieties of communication. I will admit that there
is a greater potential for miscommunication here. However, these
subtler forms of communication often have the advantage that they
protect feelings and avoid embarrassment, and so leave the door open for
continued relationships with people for whom hurt feelings and
embarrassment are impediments.
I also feel that we get enough *direct* conversation and not-so-"subtle"
conversation (of the manipulative variety (see any ad)) in our
day-to-day lives. Like writing letters by hand, I prefer a less
(haughty sniff, nose in air) "common" form of expression (putting on
Foghorn Leghorn personna: "yes, that's a joke, son" :-).
~kathy
(Again, for the logic impaired: By handling the idea of cultural
sensitivity disclaimers *slightly* facetiously in the above posting, I
do not at all intend to belittle the idea of cultural sensitivity
itself. On the contrary, I *strongly* support cultural sensitivity.
However, I do find *the need to keep inserting the SCDSD* rather
annoying. (Half-sarcastic, half-wistful tone) Wouldn't it be nice if we
lived in a society where such a disclaimer would be perceived as oddly
as a we would perceive a "with, of course, appropriate adjustments made
for the hair styles of the participants" disclaimer in the same context?
(Meaning: "if it's an issue, you deal with it, and if it's not, you
don't, and this is all so obvious why do I have to say it?!") Sigh!)
Wilf Leblanc
>In article <CMu3u...@ucdavis.edu> ez00...@othello.ucdavis.edu (James E. Lee) writes:
>>
[...]
>4. Interactions with men who I didn't know what they were: Problem
> Usually, if I just wanted to be friends with them, I'd get
>whacked out, because I didn't want them to think I was coming on
>to them, and there was often that wishful thinking portion of
>my brain that went into hormonal overdrive. So, like if I knew
>a guy was completely straight, cool, that settled it, and I
>didn't have to worry about sexual tension. If I knew a guy
>was great, I had the option: I could make a play or just
>be friends, but really no tension.
> If I didn't know... I was in a quandary as to how to
>proceed, not knowing which manner to flirt, and I didn't want
>to freak the guy out either... Sometimes I go out of my way
>to find things to be paranoid about.
>Maybe that's part of the mystery of hetero boy-girl type stuff--
>all the wishful thinking that's going on in the back of someone's
>mind, and not knowing the proper way to respond.
You are making it *less* complicated that it really is.
Rather than the possibility of them being gay/straight, you
are also missing the single/married states.
So category 4 is really split up into:
a. Gay and married
b. Gay and single
c. Straight and single
d. Straight and married
(And that doesn't even include bi-sexual people ....).
>Steve Kleinedler
>big moose flirt
mooooooooooooooooooooose
--
wilf
martini
THIS is what I'd like to see in a genX movie.. .. some cool rock&roll dude
who hates dancing in clubs and other frustrating qualities (even on other-
wise lovable guys) .. the type of guy that many in an audience would iden-
tify with .. and then this girl he likes woud be wisked away by another
woman who is brash..
Kathy Wienhold
>Kathy Wienhold wrote:
>> 1. Weather, Classes/Majors, Work/Job
>> 2. Current/favorite movies, books, plays, sports, rec. activities
>
>Well, I hope you won't immediately dislike me, [*grin*] but I generally
>try to start as close to 4 as possible, if not at (an undefined) 5 or
>6, yet I haven't ever really categorized it either. I just kinda try
Well, I hope you won't immediately class me as "superficial", but I
would find that (at best) a bit off-putting. It's kind of like diving
off the deep end without seeing if there's any algae in the pool (I
*like* that "checking the water" phase). I *am* curious. Do you do
this with *everyone* you meet? (I would think that being that "intense"
all the time would get exhausting.) (Hey, maybe that's part of it!
Maybe I'm deep-down bone-lazy! :-) Seriously, are you that intense
with, say, random friends of your parents? (Yeah, I know this is
jumping into 3-range territory -- so, call me inconsistent. :-)
>For me, a *real* conversation begins when people talk about those
>things which make them unique; what they want from life, what they
>*think about*, what their passions are, how and why they became the
>person they are, their estimation of themselves, their outlook on life,
>etc. I realize that not everyone feels comfortable talking about *all*
>of these things immediately, but some certainly do.
I think that there are aspects of this in just about every "level" of
conversation. Someone's work, classes, books, sports, etc. can tell
you one heck of a lot about "what they want from life, what they *think
about*", etc., you just need to disinter it (granted, one can
misinterpret -- always a danger to watch out for). (BTW, I do like that
word: "disinter", second only to "cudgel", as it "cudgelling one's
brains to disinter meaning". :-) I guess this may just be another
manifestation of my affection for indirect over direct communication
(see the last paragraph of my post to Christine on this thread).
> I completely understand what you mean. I think what you are referring
>to is the type of person I call a "Mindhawk". It really gets my goat to
>meet someone who seems to be interested, and asks all about me, but does
>not share anything with me. [snip]
>
>> [original story deleted]
> This is intended as constructive criticism: Think about what you said
>above -- you mentioned that he was trying to build a "personal"
>conversation, and noted that you thought there must be "something
>worthwhile hiding in there". Did it occur to you that he may have been
>trying to show you That Which Is Worthwhile about him, and that you were
>not allowing him to, while at the same time not telling him? You said
>that you only pursued it *because* there might be something worthwhile,
>yet it does not seem as though you were willing to experience it on any
>but your own terms. Since it "takes two to tango", if you *really* want
>to dance, you have to allow for someone else's way too...
My point was that it *was* *hiding* in there (maybe). No attempt was
made to "show" me anything about himself. Perhaps this is the sex-
reversed version of your "Mindhawk" story, but I never saw anything
slightly personal on his side of the conversational revelations. Or
maybe since he started it, I perceived it as a "first you reveal
yourself, *then* I reveal myself" kind of situation, which also pisses
me off.
Now, in fairness, I must confess that I never requested anything
personal from him, and perhaps he was waiting for me to do so. However,
I just don't do that, because I figure that any questions I ask I ought
to be willing to likewise answer when posed myself. When cast in that
light, I guess it comes down to two very different conversational styles
in conflict. I think you're correct when you say that I was unwilling
"to allow for someone else's way too", but that's life. If my way was
too tedious for him, and his was was too over-the-top for me, it
probably wasn't worth pursuing in the first place.
> I think I can say that I Christine speaks for me on the following, but
>I do have a bit more to say below...
I've already replied to Christine's post. If there's something in
there that I didn't cover, I'm sure you'll let me know.
>>[on my question about whether to pursue relationships with people
>> who insist on less-meaningful conversational levels]
>
>It really depends. I try very hard to keep in mind that most people
>are not like me, and I know there are many wonderful people out there
>who aren't comfortable "baring their souls" immediately. I suppose it
>depends on how we relate otherwise. [snip] My point is, I don't want
>to *always* have to spend all that time and *energy* going through all
>that. I still do it, but it's not what I *look for*, know what I mean?
Actually, I perceive it as just the opposite. "Social" conversation
takes virtually no energy at all, and if one is reasonably attentive,
one *can* learn a lot from it. It is being "intense", being *real*,
that requires energy. I don't want to do on that short acquaintance for
a multitude of reasons, not the least of which is that I *don't* *have*
all that energy to do so with every person I meet.
~kathy
John Jenks
Kathy Wienhold <ka...@lumina.camb.inmet.com> wrote:
>
>Actually, I perceive it as just the opposite. "Social" conversation
>takes virtually no energy at all, and if one is reasonably attentive,
>one *can* learn a lot from it. It is being "intense", being *real*,
>that requires energy. I don't want to do on that short acquaintance for
>a multitude of reasons, not the least of which is that I *don't* *have*
>all that energy to do so with every person I meet.
>
> ~kathy
Very pleased to meet you Kathy. Hope you don't mind me dropping in
like this (seriously.)
For me (and I don't claim that this applies to everyone), "normal"
social interaction is one of the most energy consuming things I
could try to do...I have to spend all my time thinking (and I really
mean consciously thinking) about what the appropriate thing to do/say
is at any moment. Nothing easy about it. "Intense" conversation can
also be draining, of course, but in a different way that seems to
suit me better.
That said, I don't really have any disagreement with your points,
which I consider to be concerned with what's appropriate rather than
what's easy.
johnj
Christine Delaney
I agree that you have to go through the more superficial stages of a
relationship to engender trust. I also agree that there are people
out there who would suck the contents out of your brain and give
nothing in return. Further, I agree that people like this must be
judged rather harshly.
But.
I think our disagreement is in the area of conversational
styles and whether it is healthy to use a person's ability to
interpret your signals as a basis from which to judge them
"manipulative" or "trivial." (Kathy's words.)
These signals are easy to misinterpret .. especially by people who
are shy, insecure, or easily intimidated by you. A healthy response
when someone misses your cues is to be straightforward with
them.
Why limit someone because they are a Conversation Geek?
Now, for those of you who don't want to take this any further,
hit N and go to the next post.
For those of you who are masochists and really want to wade
through this with me, keep reading. :^)
(It's a long one ....)
(You've been warned.)
In a previous post, Kathy Wienhold wrote:
>>There are some standard assumptions I make about people who probe for
>>things I think they have no right to, and those assumptions are pretty
>>darned far from flattering.
In a previous post, I responded:
>I think that it's grossly unfair to pass a highly unflattering
>judgement on someone because they initially operate at a different
>level of 'intensity' or 'intimacy' than you do. Giving off ambiguous,
>subtle 'signals' that the conversation level is too deep for you just
>isn't good enough, IMO. When you choose that method of communication,
>you are guilty of the same assumptions that the intrusive person is:
>you assume that the other person should be on the *same level* as you
>and that they *should* respond to your chosen form of 'communication'
>(i.e., subtle signals). If they don't, then you label them and reject
>them. Direct communication is a much healthier choice.
Now for the post at hand .....
Kathy writes:
"I must note that your use of the word "healthier" is mildly
inflammatory. You seem to be implying that my
style of conversation is (psychologically? socially?)
"unhealthy", to which I take serious
exception. (Talk about passing judgments.)"
I respond:
Let me clarify what I find unhealthy.
First off, in your second post, you said
several times that you do not explicitly tell
people when they are crossing your boundaries.
For instance, you write the following (I've starred
the words that trouble me):
[Kathy on]
"This new acquaintance kept trying to
build a rather "personal" conversation, which I
*eluded* (more and more blatantly as the conversation
went on), until the *hint* was finally taken."
[ ... ]
"I might be willing to give someone a second chance,
provided the *first hint* of inappropriate conversation ...
was taken, and s/he backed off."
[ ... ]
"However, people who pursue such a conversation
in the face of some fairly obvious *hints* to
the contrary (the seemingly standard situation
for these types of encounters) only reinforce
the perception that they have their own agenda."
[ ... ]
"Just how many times must one *dodge* a particular subject
before it sinks in that it is unwelcome and that
no response to it will be forthcoming?"
[Kathy off]
Being elusive and relying on hints is just not explicit enough, IMO.
And if you insist on making (your words)
"some standard assumptions ... about people
who probe for things [you] think they have no right to, and those
assumptions are pretty darned far from flattering" ... well, I call
that pretty darned unhealthy.
When your hints fail, you must communicate more effectively.
Holding the other party responsible and judging them harshly
for missing signals is not very effective.
Kathy writes:
I also wish to note that I do not believe (not having my original
posting any longer, I cannot be sure) that I ever used the words
"ambiguous" or "subtle" (see [cultural diffences conceded]
later in this posting for appropriate
context in which to decode these words).
I respond:
No, you didn't use the words 'subtle' or 'ambiguous' ...
you used the words 'hint' and 'elude.'
Hints are typically subtle. Elusiveness is often subtle and
ambiguous. Some people might even interpret elusiveness as
coyness .. and would pursue with renewed energy.
Kathy writes:
What I object to are people who get the signals
and continue anyway, or are so wrapped up in themselves that they would
not get *anyone*'s signal, even if it were a 2x4 and you rapped them
upside the head with it.
I respond:
OK, I can agree that people are idiots if they *actually*
*receive* your 'signals' indicating you are uncomfortable
with the level of conversation and *still*
insist on pursuing it. I have no quarrel with this.
Kathy writes:
Now, first off, I must apologize: Sorry. I had thought that
assumptions about adjusting one's communication style to take into
account differences of culture should be so obvious as to make the
consistent (tiresome) inserting of disclaimers unnecessary.
I respond:
My objection was not to your failure to
take cultural differences into account. I used the cultural
differences idea to illustrate an inherent problem in what
you described as your approach.
Kathy writes:
Now, to repeat a part of Christine's post:
>I think that it's grossly unfair to pass a highly unflattering
>judgement on someone because they initially operate at a different
>level of 'intensity' or 'intimacy' than you do.
You seem to be confusing ideas of a conversational style (this is where
I include the notion of signals, since all cultures have them (albeit
different ones)), and choice of topic (which, granted, must also be
measured in the context of the speaker's culture).
I respond:
The quote you chose really needs to be read in context.
In the post you quoted, I was trying to discuss a
nonverbal conversational style and how
that style is used to deal (inappropriately, IMO)
with conversational topics that are
uncomfortable.
Kathy writes:
I'm willing to change the signals of
conversations in order to achieve a
mutually agreeable level of discourse -- that is,
I will make stylistic adjustments. However, I am
*not* willing to abdicate my own judgment
about what is appropriate material.
I respond:
I don't think you should "abdicate [your] own judgment
about what is appropriate material." I think you should
consider communicating your discomfort more clearly
and, until you do, you should not judge others so harshly
when they bump against your boundaries.
Kathy writes:
I think this is where we differ. I think that
judging people by where they start a conversation
is perfectly reasonable.
I respond:
Barring the extreme, I think that it is *unreasonable* to
judge a person until you have attempted to communicate
directly. Judging them simply on their initial choice
of topic is harsh, IMO.
Kathy writes:
As I said (slightly paraphrased), if someone is willing to back off
after (receiving) a signal that I'm not happy with a particular aspect
of a conversation, fine, I'm willing to try again; however, as I also
stated, this hasn't often been the case.
I respond:
But that is *not* what you said in your other post, where you wrote:
"... If someone is talking to me on
first acquaintance, and tries to introduce or extract
personal material, I take that either as manipulative
or ... as an indication that s/he considers that
topic as trivial and/or unimportant.
Both these reactions correspond to some rather
negative deductions on my part."
Perhaps, you would be willing to "try again," but you seem to
pass some pretty harsh judgements against those people in
the mean time. That's what got *my* knickers in a twist.
Kathy writes:
That said, I must in truth add that while
I *may* be able to maintain a
friendship with someone who can't read
my ... signals (as long as he/she/it seemed
interested in a reciprocal arrangement of learning
to do so), I *very* seriously doubt I could do
so in a (potential) romantic relationship.
I respond:
I think it's perfectly legitimate to reject a
possible romantic relationship if the other is
poor at reading your signals. That's a hopelessly
healthy thing to do.
Kathy writes:
I also must note that you excised my paragraph regarding
*why* I make these negative assumptions, so let
me restate it. Someone who tries to
take a conversation "deeper" than I think is
warranted on whatever level of acquaintance we happen
to be operating comes across in one of two
ways: manipulative, or seeming to take whatever area they are
approaching less seriously than I do.
[immaterial cultural argument deleted]
However, once one has accounted for [cultural differences],
I still feel justified in making these kind of
judgments, and I think that if we're honest with ourselves, we all do.
I respond:
Sure, we all make judgements. I assert that your
judgements are too quickly made and too harsh for my taste.
To sum up, I quote from my previous post:
> Nothing substitutes for accurate, compassionate
> communication, IMO. And a 'hint' often is not
> recognized or interpreted properly by receiver.
> This does not make the receiver a bad person ...
> it simply makes 'em human.
- chris (who's going to bed now ...)
Ian Williams
Wow, Kathy - the last thing I'd like to do is pull a more-one-with-nature-
than-thou move, but I've never even *thought* of half the conversational
social theorems you just stated. I did my share of intimate psychology for
my thesis, but it was mostly on a removed, clinical level; I found that if
I over-intellectualized my own conversations, I was taken right out of my
game, and I suddenly saw myself become a stilted, scripted, stuttering dork.
If you are able to have these conscious delineations and levels of
conversational intimacy, and *still* be a good conversationalist, you're a
better woman than I.
I will say this, though - I tend to get fairly personal pretty quickly
with people that I like, and I think it's more of a litmus test for their
spontanaiety level than a desire to be a nosy bonehead. I assume from your
last post that when you say "personal," you tend to mean subjects that
skirt the areas of our romantic and sexual lives; I don't tend to dwell on
those things, but I definitely try to push the envelope of a normal
conversation. It's my way of keeping everybody and everything
extraordinary and interesting.
So I guess we shouldn't be talking - I'd only piss you off!
-Ian
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\ The above does not represent OIT, UNC-CH, laUNChpad, or its other users. /
------------------------------------------------------------------------
christopher arthur
John Jenks <jo...@access1.digex.net> wrote:
>For me (and I don't claim that this applies to everyone), "normal"
>social interaction is one of the most energy consuming things I
>could try to do...I have to spend all my time thinking (and I really
>mean consciously thinking) about what the appropriate thing to do/say
>is at any moment. Nothing easy about it. "Intense" conversation can
>also be draining, of course, but in a different way that seems to
>suit me better.
applies to me, as well. Although, I guess most of the difficulty that
arises in sustaining silly conversation stems from my insecurity and
indecision. If someone, particularly a member of the opposite sex, initiates
a conversation with me in a common social situation like at a party or a
night club, I seem to dedicate an enormous amount of energy to trying to
gauge this person's intentions and to trying figure out if I like these
extrapolated intentions. I usually spend more time on the latter, oddly
enough.
"Intense" conversation is much easier. It rolls right off the tounge.
--
Christopher Arthur
amad...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
UT-Austin.
James E. Lee
: James E. Lee writes:
[snip]
: >Well, I hope you won't immediately dislike me, [*grin*] but I generally
: >try to start as close to 4 as possible, if not at (an undefined) 5 or
: >6, yet I haven't ever really categorized it either. I just kinda try
: >to talk about life, happiness, hopes, fears, whatever. [snip]
: Well, I hope you won't immediately class me as "superficial", but I
: would find that (at best) a bit off-putting. It's kind of like diving
: off the deep end without seeing if there's any algae in the pool (I
: *like* that "checking the water" phase). I *am* curious. Do you do
: this with *everyone* you meet? (I would think that being that "intense"
: all the time would get exhausting.) (Hey, maybe that's part of it!
: Maybe I'm deep-down bone-lazy! :-) Seriously, are you that intense
: with, say, random friends of your parents? (Yeah, I know this is
: jumping into 3-range territory -- so, call me inconsistent. :-)
Sorry I've taken so long to reply -- _I've_ been being lazy for a while...
I don't plan the way I'm going to be with people, but I think I tend to
be as "intense" as I can with whomever I encounter if I feel like it. I
try to be as open as I can be, but sometimes I just don't get into that
kind of thing, for example, I often get into debates with people, etc.
It also depends on whether I am talking to just one or two people, or in
a group. I don't alwasy *force* intensity, if that's what you are
asking, in fact it's not what I want in *every* situation.
I am "real" with "random friends of [my] parents" when it's possible --
I'm not some Conversation Overlord who wrenches it into the depths of
sincerity if I feel it's to light or anything. :) It really depends if
I *want* to know them to that extent: I *am* subjective about spending
time and energy getting to know people (as I think most of us are) and
interactions with my parents' friends are often completely different than
say, meeting someone in a cafe. I _do_ make it a point, however, *not* to
just have "polite" conversations with my parents' friends, but to really
*talk* to them. I am often more direct with them than my parents would be,
but I am always respectful and I've never had any complaints from them
(directly or through my parents) or from my parents. I am confident that
if someone ever had been uncomfortable, they would have said something,
_at least_ to my parents, if not to me.
: >For me, a *real* conversation begins when people talk about those
: >things which make them unique; what they want from life, what they
: >*think about*, what their passions are, how and why they became the
: >person they are, their estimation of themselves, their outlook on life,
: >etc. I realize that not everyone feels comfortable talking about *all*
: >of these things immediately, but some certainly do.
: I think that there are aspects of this in just about every "level" of
: conversation. Someone's work, classes, books, sports, etc. can tell
: you one heck of a lot about "what they want from life, what they *think
: about*", etc., you just need to disinter it (granted, one can
: misinterpret -- always a danger to watch out for). (BTW, I do like that
: word: "disinter", second only to "cudgel", as it "cudgelling one's
: brains to disinter meaning". :-) I guess this may just be another
: manifestation of my affection for indirect over direct communication
: (see the last paragraph of my post to Christine on this thread).
I think this is just a matter of preference...
[chop]
: If my way was
: too tedious for him, and his was was too over-the-top for me, it
: probably wasn't worth pursuing in the first place.
And sometimes that just how it is...
: Actually, I perceive it as just the opposite. "Social" conversation
: takes virtually no energy at all, and if one is reasonably attentive,
: one *can* learn a lot from it. It is being "intense", being *real*,
: that requires energy. I don't want to do on that short acquaintance for
: a multitude of reasons, not the least of which is that I *don't* *have*
: all that energy to do so with every person I meet.
It's not that I find myself wheezing after every light conversation I
have, but rather that I often find a lot of "blah, blah, blah" to be
trivial. This isn't always the case, and I even (get ready) *enjoy*
light conversations sometimes -- I don't want to know *everyone* deeply.
As I said before, however, it is just not something I _seek out_ -- if I
initiate or pursue conversation with someone, it is most likely because I
have an interest in really getting to know that person, and I will
usually do that as personally as possible.
I am not discussing this to show that other ways are wrong, but rather
because (initially) I wanted to know what others' feelings on the issue
are. Later, I took issue with your statement about feeling that most
people who present themselves this way are manipulative, or have some
ulterior motive. I wanted to provide an example of someone who is not
like that, and perhaps get you (and others who might feel the way you do
but aren't getting into it) to entertain another perspective.
Kathy Wienhold
phrasing like mad to get to what I consider the meat of the discussion
(if the vegetarians out there will pardon the expression :-).
However, this post is still on the long side. You've been warned.]
Christine Delaney writes:
>I agree that you have to go through the more superficial stages of a
>relationship to engender trust. I also agree that there are people
>out there who would suck the contents out of your brain and give
>nothing in return. Further, I agree that people like this must be
>judged rather harshly.
Okay, then we'll consider those issues as laid to rest. Now, on to
the rest...
Christine writes (taken from a variety of places, none out of context,
I hope):
>
>I think our disagreement is in the area of conversational
>styles and whether it is healthy to use a person's ability to
>interpret your signals as a basis from which to judge them
>"manipulative" or "trivial." (Kathy's words.)
>I don't think you should "abdicate [your] own judgment about what is
>appropriate material." I think you should consider communicating your
>discomfort more clearly and, until you do, you should not judge others
>so harshly when they bump against your boundaries.
>Barring the extreme, I think that it is *unreasonable* to judge a
>person until you have attempted to communicate directly. Judging them
>simply on their initial choice of topic is harsh, IMO.
>Perhaps, you would be willing to "try again," but you seem to
>pass some pretty harsh judgements against those people in
>the mean time. That's what got *my* knickers in a twist.
Well, I can see how this is getting all a bit confused (to which I
have contributed, I admit). So, let me try to sort it out a bit (this
is one of the things I love about these (good) USENET discussions,
they help you sharpen up your ideas).
There are actually two different kinds of judgments being made here
(which got rolled into one in the preceeding discussion):
1. Judgments made about people by where the start a conversation
on first acquaintance: This the context where I made the
initial comments about people coming across as "manipulative"
or as having rather different standards for what's "trivial"
than I do (I never said I considered the people themselves as
"trivial"). The *basis* for this judgment was their initial
conversation, *not* whether they got any subsequent signals.
2. Judgments made about people by whether they get the "signals"
I send regarding conversation that I consider inappropriate:
Here, I made some comments about some behaviors which only
reinforced those original perceptions -- such as not taking a
hint to back off.
I'll address each of these topics separately.
* * * Judgements Based on Where One Starts a Conversation * * *
I think we all make judgments in this first catagory -- it's called
"first impressions" (anyone out there going to claim that where a new
acquaintance starts a conversation doesn't contribute to their first
impression?). That is largely what the original few posts on this
thread were about (even if they were not labelled as such). We got
off onto the topic of "signals" because of James's (?) question about
whether I give people second chances after a bad first impression
(based on where they start a conversation), and my rather signal/hint-
laden reply to that question.
Now, I must say that I still feel perfectly free to judge people, and
perhaps even to judge them "harshly" if need be, by where they *start*
conversations (regardless of whether I've told them (in one way or
another) to back-off yet or not). It may be the case (and in light of
your above remarks, I think it probably *is* the case) that we will
never agree on this. That's life. I, however, continue to believe
that where people start conversations tells me one heck of a lot about
them -- and, it tells me one heck of a lot about how they see me, too.
[You excised my "(slightly exagerated)" example from your reply (and
it's not really worth repeating), but I do want to say in reference to
it, that it *is* only *slightly* exagerated from some of the
experiences I've had with a few self-styled "free thinkers" out there.
(As an aside, why is it that people who style themselves as "free
thinkers" are most often neither?:-)]
Now, I *don't* think that you're saying that one can start a conversation
on just any old topic, that the choice of topic means *absolutely*
*nothing*, and that one should make absolutely *no* judgments
regarding an individual based upon it. (At least I *hope* that's not
what you're saying. :-) I guess I don't understand what kind of
judgments (if any) you are advocating and/or allowing on first
acquaintance.
1. Are you saying "no judgments allowed", no matter *what*
the topic?
2. Are you saying that there are certain topics which are so
universally accepted as out-of-bounds that some negative
judgments are allowed, and that everything else is fair
game, no judgments allowed? [This seems to allow for no
shades of gray.]
3. Do you allow for varying degrees of judgment, but only on
the zero->positive side of the scale?
I *am* really curious about this point.
Maybe you're objecting to the "standard" part of what I previously
said: that I make some *standard* deductions about people in that
situation that are pretty far from flattering. [Would it make it any
better if I said that I make absolutely *unique* unflattering
judgments about people like this? Would it be better if I explicitly
said that they were not unrebuttable?]
* * * Judgements Based on Whether Conversational Signals are
Received or Not * * *
Now I will continue on to the question of judging people by whether
they get my signals or not. Well, let me kind of break down the
(major) possible scenarios.
1. Appropriate (by my measure) conversation -- no problem.
2. Inappropriate (by my measure) conversation -- initial
negative judgment; next, send a signal to that effect and
determine if the signal has gotten through or not (see
note #1)
A. Signal received
1. Individual backs off -- no problem, even a few
positive judgments for being reasonably perceptive
2. Individual continues -- more negative judgments
B. Signal not received: Here, I have to admit to
having two different standards, and which one (or
potentially both) kicks in rather (subjectively)
depends upon just how inappropriate/offensive I find
the proposed subject, and how different the speaker's
culture (see note #2 below) is perceived as being from
my own.
1. *Does* the speaker have the cultural awareness to
get my signals?
a. Yes -- more negative judgments
b. No -- try some different signals
2. *Should* (see note #3 below) the speaker have the
cultural awareness to get my signals?
a. Yes -- more negative judgments
b. No -- try some different signals
Note #1: I realize that determining if someone has received a signal
is not always easy. I do, however, consider myself as generally
pretty good at it, and when in doubt, I error on the side of
believing that it hasn't gotten through.
Note #2: Your last post got me thinking about what, for me, truly
defines a culture. It may not be used in sociology, but to me, a
culture is a group of people who can with reasonable reliability
read each other's signals and referents. ({shrug} -- works for me)
I hope this explains why, in my last post, I considered the topic of
"cultural sensitivity" as so important (and at the same time, so
annoying).
Note #3: I will admit that what I mean by *should* is rather
nebulous. However, I do feel that there are certain topics which
people *should* recognize as being a bit too controversial, or a bit
too personal, for some people. If nevertheless one chooses to start
a conversation with one of these topics, it is incumbent upon the
*initiator* to have the skill necessary to read any signals that
the topic is unwelcome. (Yes, it's an entirely arbitrary judgment
siding with the forces of propriety over those of "initiative", and
one could as easily say that it is incumbent upon the listener to
express disapproval. This is how I make my judgments; others are
free to conduct their own conversations/judgments according to their
own sensibilities. (see note #4))
I feel that if you're not reasonably sure you can read
someone's signals in that way, you shouldn't start the conversation
with potentially inappropriate material.
I think that in a few of my previous posts, I had in mind
conversations with people whom I felt were in the "*should* be
getting my signals" catagory, and that may have colored what I had
to say.
Note #4: The problem, of course, is when an incumbent-upon-the-
initiator kind of person (like me) meets an incumbent-upon-the-
listener kind of person (like (I presume) you). All I can say is
that in these kinds of cases, I try to be aware of them and
compensate, and failing that, I'm willing to have equally "harsh"
judgments passed on me (elusive, evasive, conventional, prudish,
dull, what-have-you).
[Arghh! Where is hypertext when you need it?!]
Now, I also realize that precisely *what* these inappropriate topics
might be is sometimes not too clear, which is why I have a few hedges
in there (in part B) about how offensive a subject it is, and how much
I perceive that the speaker *ought* to know better. *Highly*
subjective? Absolutely. Is it the way the world operates? I think,
in large part, yes.
I think that people, in general (although I must admit to hating being
lumped in with the crowd :-), make some rather negative judgments
about others who start inappropriate conversations without having the
skills to determine if the topic is welcome or not. Do you think
otherwise? Or are you making the argument that it is acceptable to
function in the conversational world as you believe it *ought* to be
instead of how it is? (I consider this an acceptable, if potentially
hazardous, alternative.)
* * * Miscellaneous Stuff * * *
The two sections above are the "meat" of the discussion, as I see it.
However, there are a few more things I'd like to clear up.
>These signals are easy to misinterpret .. especially by people who
>are shy, insecure, or easily intimidated by you. A healthy response
>when someone misses your cues is to be straightforward with
>them.
I see ... I'm conversing with someone who's "shy, insecure, or easily
intimidated", and I'm supposed to tell them that I don't want to talk
about what they do because I consider it inappropriate or too
personal? If they're really all those things, that's about as
effective a conversation stopper as I can think of, short of simply
walking away. In that type of situation, I really prefer just dodging
(yes, I'm using that word purposefully) the issue and redirecting the
conversation, for as long as it takes for the hint (yes, I'm using
that word purposefully too) to get through.
You seem to be criticizing signals because they can be ambigous,
missed and/or misinterpreted. To me, that very ambiguity is their
greatest strength. It may take longer for the point to get across, it
may, indeed, never be gotten across, but it *can* save the people's
feelings.
>Why limit someone because they are a Conversation Geek?
Well, in general, I find "Conversation Geeks" annoying as..., well I was
going to say "hell", but it's really a matter of degrees -- some are
tolerable, some are worse, some you want to cudgel about the ears for a
while, in hopes of improving the conversation. (I mean, what were they
*doing* all those years when the rest of us were learning to
communicate? :-)
>When your hints fail, you must communicate more effectively.
>Holding the other party responsible and judging them harshly
>for missing signals is not very effective.
Saying something is "effective" is an implicit value judgment -- it
implies a certain goal, against which "effectiveness" can (by one
means or another) be measured.
I think that (stop me if I'm wrong here), this is what you're saying (or
at least this is how it's coming across to me):
If one's most important goal is to arrive at a mutually
satisfactory subject of conversation, and the (potentially
rather hurt) feelings of your (potentially rather sensitive)
conversational partner which may be caused by being rebuffed
by you, are not as important, then direct communication of
one's desires is effective.
What I'm saying is the following:
*My* goal is *both* to find an appropriate topic *and equally*
to try not to hurt anyone's feelings in doing so, in which
case direct communication of one's desires carries an element
of risk (are you arguing that this is not the case? -- I'd be
interested in seeing that argument). Now granted, there is
also the element of risk that the mutually acceptable topic
will never be found.
You're choosing your risks one way (towards clarity, at the risk of
hurting someone's feelings). I'm choosing mine another (towards
protecting the feelings of others, at the risk of not being clear). I
think it has to do with the relative weights (there are those nasty
value judgments popping up again :-) one places on clarity vs. (if
you'll pardon the word) sensitivity.
Now perhaps you're not so much objecting to my conversational methods
as to the judgments I make when using them. What would your judgment
be in the following scenario: someone starts a conversation with you
about something you considered inappropriate; you directly communicate
that you consider it inappropriate; [they have their feelings hurt and]
any potential future friendship between you ceases. Can you honestly
say that you wouldn't be making a few negative judgments yourself
(such as: too sensitive, not strong enough to take a direct approach,
only interested in "sucking the contents out of my brain", etc.)? If
you can, they you're a better [being] than I am, Gunga Din.
The potential for making (potentially wrong) negative judgments runs
in both directions. I'm sure that we both try to be careful so as not
to make those kinds of mistakes. However, it is not as if your
approach is entirely risk-free in that regard. Both depend upon the
skills of the people involved.
>Hints are typically subtle. Elusiveness is often subtle and
>ambiguous. Some people might even interpret elusiveness as
>coyness .. and would pursue with renewed energy.
I think this has really already been replied to in the two sections
above, but I just had to leave it in, if only for the opportunity to
say, "BWA HA HA HA HA...." (don't make me laugh that hard when I'm
drinking a soda -- it would be hard to explain the results to a
sysadmin :-) I'm sorry, but anyone who on 2 seconds acquaintance could
possibly consider me "coy" is *so* far beyond clueless as to make any
other negative judgments I might pass pale by comparison.
* * * Conclusion * * *
In closing, I must quote my absolutely favorite author, Jane Austen
(yes, it figures, doesn't it?). From _Emma_, this is from Chapter 24,
with Emma Woodhouse talking with Frank Churchill about Jane Fairfax,
Emma starting (in mid-paragraph):
"[...] And then, her reserve! I never could attach myself to
anyone so completely reserved."
"It is a most repulsive quality, indeed," said he.
"Oftentimes very convenient, no doubt, but never pleasing.
There is safety in reserve, but no attraction. One cannot
love a reserved person."
"Not till the reserve ceases towards one's self; and
then the attraction may be the greater. [...]"
Austen was truly a keen observer. I *like* the process of getting
past someone's reserve (as long as in the end I find that there's
actually something worthwhile inside). Others find it annoying. The
world would be a dull place if we were all alike.
~kathy
Christine Delaney
Wienhold) writes:
>
>Christine Delaney writes:
>>
Arrgh. I just finished a response to this post and my newsreader killed it. And
then I retyped it ... and server killed it AGAIN. Seems the fates are
conspiring against me.
Since it's late and I want to go home, I will simply summarize.
I am not interested in arguing about the different judgements we might each
levy against another in any given situation. Initially (and consistently), my
point has been that *if* your goal is to get someone to back off or lighten up,
then it is *up to you* to effectively communicate that to them. And if you fail
to do that, you shouldn't harshly judge the other person.
You write:
>Saying something is "effective" is an implicit value judgment -- it
>implies a certain goal, against which "effectiveness" can (by one
>means or another) be measured.
Truth. And the goal is to get the other to back off or lighten up. A goal
against which the effectiveness of the communication *can* be measured.
Our difference seems to lie in how we rank our 'interactional' goals. You
write:
>You seem to be criticizing signals because they can be ambigous,
>missed and/or misinterpreted. To me, that very ambiguity is their
>greatest strength. It may take longer for the point to get across, it
>may, indeed, never be gotten across, but it *can* save the people's feelings.
To you, the overriding goal seems to be saving the people's feelings. My
overriding goal is to keep my boundaries intact - especially with those I don't
know and trust. The ideal solution is to do both; we both recognize that.
Sometimes you can't, and that's where a value judgement comes in and where we
differ.
In this case, I will choose to tell them to back off (in a very polite,
nonthreatening way - for instance "I'm sorry <sheepish look>, I'm just a little
uncomfortable talking about this until I get to know you better ... d'ya
understand? <raised eyebrows>."
You probably won't choose this course of action.
You write:
>What would your judgment
>be in the following scenario: someone starts a conversation with you
>about something you considered inappropriate; you directly communicate
>that you consider it inappropriate; [they have their feelings hurt and]
>any potential future friendship between you ceases.
Frankly, this hasn't happened to me. When I've communicated my discomfort the
other has never had a negative response. It depends on how you handle it. I
would never use the word "inappropriate" with them, however. I would handle it
much more tactfully.
>Can you honestly
>say that you wouldn't be making a few negative judgments yourself
>(such as: too sensitive, not strong enough to take a direct approach,
>only interested in "sucking the contents out of my brain", etc.)? If
>you can, they you're a better [being] than I am, Gunga Din.
I guess that I'm Gunga Din, then :^) I just don't know the person well enough
to judge them. Hell, *I* may have bunged it up!!!! Maybe it was the color of my
lipstick. Maybe their Aunt Ethel died yesterday.
And, frankly, the only reason to react with anger and judgement in this case is
if I cared what they thought of me. I can't and don't take seriously a
rejection from a stranger who knows little-to-nothing about me. If a virtual
stranger chooses to reject me based on a perceived slight, then ... there it
is. I cannot control or mediate their response.
Because I *refuse* to internalize the rejection, I don't get particularly
angry. Consequently, I don't feel compelled to judge them. Simple and true.
Anyway, I've tried to identify our fundamental difference and address it. I
really don't have much more to say. Except this:
If we end up conversing and I am making you uncomfortable, you *don't* need
to pull any punches. OK? :^)
- chris (who is about to buy an Uzi and strafe the news server)
--
Peter Dubuque
>When I came to the States about two years ago I was amazed at the amount of
>trivial conversation you have to wade through until you get to something
>"deeper". And I still hesitate at "What's up?" or "How's it going?".
How 'bout those conversations about places? "So where are you from?"
"Iowa." "Really? I had a cousin who lived there for a few years..."
>Usually I decide in favor of the polite answer (versus honest) so that
>the mental peace of the other person is not disturbed.
I *like* disturbing others' mental peace. If somebody wants to ask you
how you're doing, that's a free license to dump on 'em. One of these
days I'm going to just burst into tears when someone asks me how I'm
doing, just to see what kind of reaction I get.
--
_______________________________________________________________________
Peter F. Dubuque dub...@husc.harvard.edu
Everyone has some redeeming quality...their mortality, if nothing else.
_______________________________________________________________________
James E. Lee
I would just like to say, HOLY *COW*!! Kathy, you went off! I am not
gonna get into it, but WHOOOOOEEEEEEEE, that was something!
I stand in awe of your keyboard-based stamina.
_________________________
J a m e s E. L e e (who is thinking of offering to become Kathy W.'s
je...@othello.ucdavis.edu agent and marketing her as a Keyboard
Endurance Tester) :-)
Kathy Wienhold
Sorry to hear that your newserver is being a pain in the butt. (Hey!
watch where you're pointing that Uzi! :-) In any case, I think this
thread is winding down, so more mega-posts shouldn't be necessary. (I
hope :-)
Christine writes:
>Initially (and consistently), my point has been that *if* your goal is
>to get someone to back off or lighten up, then it is *up to you* to
>effectively communicate that to them. And if you fail to do that, you
>shouldn't harshly judge the other person. [snip]
And my point has always been that *regardless* of whether I do *any*
communicating *at* *all*, *regardless* of whether I fail or succeed at
*any* attempts at communicating that they should back-off, I *still*
feel it is perfectly reasonable to judge people by where they *start*
conversations. You don't. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
>Our difference seems to lie in how we rank our 'interactional' goals.
>[snip] To you, the overriding goal seems to be saving the people's
>feelings. My overriding goal is to keep my boundaries intact -
>especially with those I don't know and trust. The ideal solution is to
>do both; we both recognize that. Sometimes you can't, and that's where
>a value judgement comes in and where we differ.
Close. I would call them "generally more important", as opposed to
"overriding" goals. I don't give up my boundaries to save others'
feelings (which is what "overriding" would imply) -- I merely go about
the process of preserving *both* my boundaries *and* someone else's
feelings with more emphasis on indirectness/protecting feelings than on
directness/clarity. You take the opposite road.
If it ever came down to a flat choice between the two, I *would*
directly tell someone to back-off rather than let them invade my
personal space in an unacceptable manner. However, that has never even
come *close* to happening. The worst I've experienced so far was that
evening spent dodging rather personal questions. If you're agile enough
on your conversational feet, it works {shrug}.
We'll just have to agree to disagree here as well.
I think the above is a fairly accurate summation. As far as I'm
concerned, we can consider both of these topics as finished. Now, on to
a few miscellaneous things:
>In this case, I will choose to tell them to back off (in a very polite,
>nonthreatening way - for instance "I'm sorry <sheepish look>, I'm just
>a little uncomfortable talking about this until I get to know you
>better ... d'ya understand? <raised eyebrows>."
>
>You probably won't choose this course of action.
Worse than that. I couldn't even *picture* myself doing this -- ever.
For one thing, I can't make myself look sheepish if I don't think I'm
doing anything that requires it, such as admitting a fault; I don't
consider my conversational preferences as "faults". Yes, I know that
you don't consider yours as such either, and that this is an example of
exercising tact. However, I can only exercise that kind of tact if it
doesn't lead to a fundamentally false idea of something important to
what I am and/or what I think/believe. (Subtly) redirecting a
conversation away from matters that I consider too personal, dropping a
few hints to that effect, evading the topic altogether -- these
generally give people a pretty darned accurate sample of my modus
operandi (whereas looking "sheepish" would be completely misleading) --
they can decide for themselves if they like my methods or not.
[my scenario deleted]
>[snip] I just don't know the person well enough to judge them. Hell,
>*I* may have bunged it up!!!! Maybe it was the color of my lipstick.
>Maybe their Aunt Ethel died yesterday.
>
>And, frankly, the only reason to react with anger and judgement in this
>case is if I cared what they thought of me. I can't and don't take
>seriously a rejection from a stranger who knows little-to-nothing about
>me. [snip]
>
>Because I *refuse* to internalize the rejection, I don't get
>particularly angry. Consequently, I don't feel compelled to judge
>them.
This is most likely a different topic, but why do you lump together
rejection, anger and judgment? Did you think I was? What I meant by my
little scenario was related to what I think most people do: we try to
create explanations for the behavior of others (you thoughtfully
supplied a few yourself :-). My point was that in that kind of
situation (while leaving the possibilities open for all kinds of other
explanations), the most *likely* ones people tend to find are the
negative ones (and being angry may have from "nothing" to "a lot" to do
with it, depending upon the individuals involved). We may rationally
*realize* these explanations may be entirely erroneous, but we usually
can't help ourselves from (at least) thinking about them. If you really
don't have that kind of dark side, well..., I'm impressed...,
astonished, but impressed.
OTOH, perhaps the word "judgment" pushes a few too many buttons (gods
know I've had a few of my own pushed on this thread :-). Shall we try
"discriminating" (in the old-fashioned sense of the word)? When I speak
of judging people, I most often mean that in the literal (discrimi-
nating) sense of the word -- judging character like judging hogs or
apple pies (not to imply that they are at all in the same rank). For
instance, the judgments/discriminations I make on first meeting people
tend to be along the lines of:
Where are they coming from?
Is this someone I'd like to get to know better?
Does this person have a view on society that I can at least
tolerate?
Does this person even know what s/he is talking about?
The "harsh judgments" corresponding to these questions are (in order):
Nowhere I want to be.
No, because s/he seems [insert your own favorite negative
characteristic(s) here -- my own happens to be "pushy"].
Not unless I were a duck. (inside joke :-)
No.
~kathy
Christine Delaney
Wienhold) writes:
>Christine writes:
>[my scenario deleted]
>>[snip]
>>And, frankly, the only reason to react with anger and judgement in this
>>case is if I cared what they thought of me.
>This is most likely a different topic, but why do you lump together
>rejection, anger and judgment?
In *this* case it's because most people, when they feel rejected, react with
anger (i.e., "feel upset") and then pass a negative judgement (i.e., label) to
assuage their hurt feelings. This is a common pattern that I've often seen in
myself and others. That's why I chose to lump them together.
>Did you think I was?
I made no assumptions about you whatsoever. I was simply describing my reaction
and a reaction I've typically seen in others.
>My point was that in that kind of
>situation (while leaving the possibilities open for all kinds of other
>explanations), the most *likely* ones people tend to find are the
>negative ones (and being angry may have from "nothing" to "a lot" to do
>with it, depending upon the individuals involved).
I think that negative conclusions are typically based in anger and
defensiveness (which is fear). *If* someone cares enough to try and draw some
conclusions ... sure, they will often be negative ones. But the fact that they
are concerned enough to try and explain the other's behavior to themself
indicates to me that they have too much of their self image wrapped up on the
other's reaction. I value my self image too much to make it vulnerable to
virtual stranger.
>We may rationally
>*realize* these explanations may be entirely erroneous, but we usually
>can't help ourselves from (at least) thinking about them.
Speak for yourself. In all the scenarios you mentioned (which all involve
almost-strangers), ultimately, I am apathetic if they 'reject' me. Trying to
figure out and assign a reason for their behavior is a useless and futile
endeavor, in my world. Any conclusions I make are just *bound* to be wrong.
>If you really
>don't have that kind of dark side, well..., I'm impressed...,
>astonished, but impressed.
It's not that I don't have a dark side; I am simply apathetic about rejection
from those I do not know and those that do not know me.
- chris
James E. Lee
: In article <Cn4p...@inmet.camb.inmet.com> ka...@lumina.camb.inmet.com (Kathy
: Wienhold) writes:
: >> [snip] ** recycled! **
: >My point was that in that kind of
: >situation (while leaving the possibilities open for all kinds of other
: >explanations), the most *likely* ones people tend to find are the
: >negative ones (and being angry may have from "nothing" to "a lot" to do
: >with it, depending upon the individuals involved).
: I think that negative conclusions are typically based in anger and
: defensiveness (which is fear). *If* someone cares enough to try and draw some
: conclusions ... sure, they will often be negative ones. But the fact that they
: are concerned enough to try and explain the other's behavior to themself
: indicates to me that they have too much of their self image wrapped up on the
: other's reaction. I value my self image too much to make it vulnerable to
: virtual stranger.
I agree completely!
: >We may rationally
: >*realize* these explanations may be entirely erroneous, but we usually
: >can't help ourselves from (at least) thinking about them.
: Speak for yourself. In all the scenarios you mentioned (which all involve
: almost-strangers), ultimately, I am apathetic if they 'reject' me. Trying to
: figure out and assign a reason for their behavior is a useless and futile
: endeavor, in my world. Any conclusions I make are just *bound* to be wrong.
Exactly! There is no data, (unless one solicits it) so there's not
really a point in analysing why it happened. It would *certainly* be an
assumption to put any values on it. If you don't know, you don't know.
I got into this with someone else, and they seemed to think you HAVE to
have a feeling about it -- I disagree wholeheartedly.
: >If you really
: >don't have that kind of dark side, well..., I'm impressed...,
: >astonished, but impressed.
: It's not that I don't have a dark side; I am simply apathetic about rejection
: from those I do not know and those that do not know me.
Couldn't have said it better myself!
: - chris
: --
: | Christine DelPrete-Delaney | Speaking only for myself, |
: | * ch...@xmission.com | one of my many tricks. |
: | * * cdel...@novell.com = |
: | "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower." - David Byrne |
--
_________________________
J a m e s E. L e e
eisen...@cobra.uni.edu
> eisen...@cobra.uni.edu writes:
>
>>When I came to the States about two years ago I was amazed at the amount of
>>trivial conversation you have to wade through until you get to something
>>"deeper". And I still hesitate at "What's up?" or "How's it going?".
>
> How 'bout those conversations about places? "So where are you from?"
> "Iowa." "Really? I had a cousin who lived there for a few years..."
Germany. I'm a "rude" Bavarian, to be precise.
>>Usually I decide in favor of the polite answer (versus honest) so that
>>the mental peace of the other person is not disturbed.
>
> I *like* disturbing others' mental peace. If somebody wants to ask you
> how you're doing, that's a free license to dump on 'em. One of these
> days I'm going to just burst into tears when someone asks me how I'm
> doing, just to see what kind of reaction I get.
>
Cool. As for me, a lot of people on campus know me already. And whenever I say
something funny (in my opinion), they look at me with that lets-get-outa-here-
look, at least if they don't know me very well. The other time I answered the
obligatory greeting phrase "How're you doin'" with something like "Really
shitty", I can't remember. He just stared at me (he really looked young, in his
late 20s I thought) and said "_You_ must be the German teacher of my daughter".
I strongly resembled a ripe tomato for the rest of the day.
Now I think twice before my psychoanalytical interests in other human beings
overwhelm me.
> --
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> Peter F. Dubuque dub...@husc.harvard.edu
> Everyone has some redeeming quality...their mortality, if nothing else.
> _______________________________________________________________________
--Sylvia
.sig and .planless in Iowa.
moo.
oink.
Christine Delaney
writes:
>Kathy Wienhold (ka...@lumina.camb.inmet.com) wrote:
>
>: >Kathy Wienhold writes:
>: >>We may rationally *realize* these explanations may be entirely
>: >>erroneous, but we usually can't help ourselves from (at least)
>: >>thinking about them.
>
> (Christine writes):
>: >Speak for yourself. In all the scenarios you mentioned (which all
>: >involve almost-strangers), ultimately, I am apathetic if they 'reject'
>: >me. Trying to figure out and assign a reason for their behavior is a
>: >useless and futile endeavor, in my world. Any conclusions I make are
>: >just *bound* to be wrong.
>
> (Kathy again):
>: And so you *really* don't make *any*?!!!
James writes:
>For me, there is a significant difference between analyzing the potential
>reasons for which someone behaves, and being affected by my interpretation
>of that analysis. I also sometimes enjoy thinking about why someone might
>have treated me in a certain way, but _unless I have some indication_
>*directly from the person* as to why she behaved the way she did, whether it
>pleased me or not, I *always* do this hypothetically, and am never affected
>by whatever reasons I might think of.
[ ... ]
> If I were to go about life seriously considering and/or being affected by
>what I think of how people treat me based primarily on *my* hypotheses, I
>should think I would be creating a large potential for miscommunication. I
>generally don't dwell on the possible reasons, but if I do think about them,
>I always keep in mind that I can *only* be guessing;
>this still allows me
>to lead the "Examined Life" you mentioned above, (if I so choose; mostly
>I don't dwell on it *because* of the fact that it's just guessing, and that
>doesn't usually do much for me unless my only point is to engage in
>hypothetical speculation) while not being affected (negatively *or*
>positively) by any misinterpretation on my part.
James and I are on the same wavelength. That wavelength may be 53 miles west of
Venus, but it makes sense to me.
James, thank you for your post. You clarified what I have been trying to say
for the past three posts. If this doesn't clear it up for Kathy and any
interested lurkers, then I hereby declare myself beyond understanding and put a
bullet in the head of this thread.
- chris (who is too busy to argue the same points over and over and over again)
Kathy Wienhold
>(Please also note that this dead horse is almost expired; we shall soon
>be forced to find another to beat -- just let me get in one more blow!
>;)
Whack! Whack! (one for you, one for me :-)
>For me, there is a significant difference between analyzing the
>potential reasons for which someone behaves, and being affected by my
>interpretation of that analysis.
Now here is where I sense a significant difference of opinion. I don't
think it is *possible* to remain *unaffected* by any such analysis.
>I also sometimes enjoy thinking about why someone might have treated me
>in a certain way, but _unless I have some indication_ *directly from
>the person* as to why she behaved the way she did, whether it pleased
>me or not, I *always* do this hypothetically, and am never affected by
>whatever reasons I might think of. [snip]
Amazing! There really are some truly astonishing people on the net.
Can you *really* pose all those hypotheses and *not* be (at least
slightly) affected by the exercise?
I guess I'm a big fan of "the very act of observation changes the thing
observed" school of thought (in this case, the thing observed being the
conversation). I *really* don't think it is possible to regard someone
in exactly the same way whether or not one has "introspected" in this
manner. The acts of introspection and analysis at the very least change
you (at least slightly -- in your mind there now exist multiple
constructs regarding the meaning of the conversation, whereas before
there was only one). After all, if such introspection didn't affect you
in *any* way, what would be the point? :-)
Maybe what you mean to say (she said, boldly putting words in someone
else's keyboard :-) is that while you *think about* these hypotheses,
you don't actually *believe* any of them to be "the truth". I'd buy
that. I seldom think any of mine are either -- they tend to be along a
more/less likely scale. Maybe you just dump all yours into an
undifferentiated "possibilities" category? I'd buy that as a reasonable
stylistic difference in conversational analysis.
>In my mind, and in this context, it would be unreasonable for me to be
>affected by something *I* thought up. I know that for many people
>emotions aren't often dictated by reason, but since this "emotion"
>would only exist as a result of *my* hypothesis, I think I can say that
>it would be unreasonable to be affected by it.
Unreasonable or not, I think it an inevitable concomitant of such a
conversational analysis. One can try not to let this negatively change
how one might interact with this individual in the future -- that I
think is certainly possible. One can try to keep a mind open to all
possible hypotheses, even the one stating that none of the current
hypotheses are correct -- that I think is possible as well.
But for it to have absolutely *no* effect on your conduct, to say that
one's conduct is *exactly* what it would have been if one had not
engaged in such hypothesizing is, I think, pretty darned close to
impossible. Note that hedge: I'm not saying that *you* can't do this,
I'm saying that *I* can't, and that I'm so astonished I'm pretty darned
close to flabbergasted (<- another great word there) that anyone thinks
they could (okay, so it's not *much* of a hedge :-).
>If I were to go about life seriously considering and/or being affected
>by what I think of how people treat me based primarily on *my*
>hypotheses, I should think I would be creating a large potential for
>miscommunication.
I think that potential for miscommunication exists regardless of what
one does. Without analysis, one may miss a few clues that could explain
a lot and prevent future miscommunication; with it, one may misinterpret
those clues, and miscommunicate anyhow. As with everything else, I
think that this comes down to the conversational skills of the people
involved.
~kathy "Cold pizza for breakfast, a warm Coke
ka...@inmet.camb.inmet.com to wash it down..." Christine Lavin