Home > Archive > Cobol > November 2006 > [OT] Rather Polite of Him, Wouldn't You Say?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
[OT] Rather Polite of Him, Wouldn't You Say?
|
|
|
|
Warning... it might be a Very Good Idea to make sure one's mouth is clear
of liquids before bringing up the belowgiven URL.
From http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/488120/895064 :
--begin quoted text:
The wanted man eventually gave himself up.
--end quoted text
DD
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-11-18, 9:55 pm |
|
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:ejo7an$4nq$1@reader2.panix.com...
>
> Warning... it might be a Very Good Idea to make sure one's mouth is clear
> of liquids before bringing up the belowgiven URL.
>
> From http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/488120/895064 :
>
> --begin quoted text:
>
> The wanted man eventually gave himself up.
>
> --end quoted text
>
> DD
>
ROFL!
Thanks for that, DOC.
You can see why we don't want the Police to have guns... :-)
Pete.
| |
| HeyBub 2006-11-19, 7:55 am |
| docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> Warning... it might be a Very Good Idea to make sure one's mouth is
> clear of liquids before bringing up the belowgiven URL.
>
> From http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/488120/895064 :
>
> --begin quoted text:
>
> The wanted man eventually gave himself up.
>
> --end quoted text
I post dozens of these on tx.guns
Check the one: "Kidnapper shoots self in testitcle...Ouch!"
| |
| HeyBub 2006-11-19, 7:55 am |
| Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> Thanks for that, DOC.
>
> You can see why we don't want the Police to have guns... :-)
>
We often suggest the cops have more training. There was a case in NY a
couple of years ago where four detectives shot at a goblin 42 times, from 15
feet, and only scored 19 hits.
In general, however, we Texans encourage most people - not just the
constabulary - to carry guns. "An armed society is a polite society" as the
saying goes.
Of the 50 states in the U.S. (plus D.C.) only four prohibit absolutely the
carrying of a concealed weapon. Of the 47 that do permit such, 38 are "shall
issue" states. That is, if you meet the legislative requirements (able to
stand up, see lightning, and hear thunder) the responsible agency MUST issue
the permit - no discretion allowed.
In my state, Texas, there is no requirement that the applicant be able to
see - that is, legally blind folks can, and do, obtain concealed handgun
permits.
Works out pretty well. Oh, there's the occassional child or innocent
bystander that's annoyed by an errant shot, but that's true of automobiles
too.
| |
|
| In article <4sa2piFup9cdU1@mid.individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:ejo7an$4nq$1@reader2.panix.com...
[snip]
[color=darkred]
>ROFL!
>
>Thanks for that, DOC.
Glad you enjoyed, old boy... actually, it was you I first thought of when
I read it.
DD
| |
|
| In article <12m0mstdjc9ptd2@news.supernews.com>,
HeyBub <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
>We often suggest the cops have more training. There was a case in NY a
>couple of years ago where four detectives shot at a goblin 42 times, from 15
>feet, and only scored 19 hits.
>
>In general, however, we Texans encourage most people - not just the
>constabulary - to carry guns. "An armed society is a polite society" as the
>saying goes.
That saying, of course, accounts for the *exquisite* politesse of the
Japanese... ummmm, the Chinese... ummmmm, the Swedes... oh well, it
accounts for the well-known politesse of Dodge City... ummmmmm,
Tombstone... ummmmm... hey, a lot of those 'sayings' are just old wives'
tales, anyhow.
(Before anyone trots out that fine, old chestnut about how the murder
rate in Dodge City during the height of the Wild West Daze was half that
in Washington, DC in the 1990s... remember, the assertion was about being
*polite*, not about committing murder; the phenomenon of politesse is, I
would say, an intricate social phenomenon having to do more with the
aspiring towards a reified ideal than a fear of unlawful death... as the
saying goes, 'Cowards die a thousand deaths, the valiant taste of death
but once'.)
DD
| |
| HeyBub 2006-11-19, 6:55 pm |
| docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
> That saying, of course, accounts for the *exquisite* politesse of the
> Japanese... ummmm, the Chinese... ummmmm, the Swedes... oh well, it
> accounts for the well-known politesse of Dodge City... ummmmmm,
> Tombstone... ummmmm... hey, a lot of those 'sayings' are just old
> wives' tales, anyhow.
That is, if "A implies B" it is NOT the case that "B implies A."
I'm afraid you've fallen into the trap of the fallacy of affirming the
consequent.
And, far from being an "old wive's tale" the expression came from Robert
Heinlein, and old writer.
>
> (Before anyone trots out that fine, old chestnut about how the murder
> rate in Dodge City during the height of the Wild West Daze was half
> that in Washington, DC in the 1990s... remember, the assertion was
> about being *polite*, not about committing murder; the phenomenon of
> politesse is, I would say, an intricate social phenomenon having to
> do more with the aspiring towards a reified ideal than a fear of
> unlawful death... as the saying goes, 'Cowards die a thousand deaths,
> the valiant taste of death but once'.)
Hmm. I've never met a coward I had to kill more than once. Cats may have
multiple lives, but cowards? I'm afraid not.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-11-19, 9:55 pm |
|
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:ejpri3$of7$1@reader2.panix.com...
> In article <4sa2piFup9cdU1@mid.individual.net>,
> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
> Glad you enjoyed, old boy... actually, it was you I first thought of when
> I read it.
>
Not in the role of policeman, I hope... :-)
Pete.
| |
|
| In article <12m128anscmdo31@news.supernews.com>,
HeyBub <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>That is, if "A implies B" it is NOT the case that "B implies A."
Not in the least... I made my attempts, noticed that a few of them didn't
fit and arrived at no conclusion; I believe that I've stated before that
''implication' is in the mind of the beholder.
>
>I'm afraid you've fallen into the trap of the fallacy of affirming the
>consequent.
Your fears are obviously unjustified... but Being Cautious is a good
thing, or so some have said. Tombstone, AZ, USA during the period between
1870 and 1900 was, by some standards, a rather well-armed society; I do
not recall it ever having been referred to as a 'polite society'... and
likewise for Dodge City... but perhaps we are using different definitions;
can you point to an example or two which might bolster you assertions?
>
>And, far from being an "old wive's tale" the expression came from Robert
>Heinlein, and old writer.
Quite the sociologist, I've heard... do tell, where and when did he do his
field studies? Was there a particular methodolgy applied... or did he
just sit in a house-trailer and write Tall Tales? When an opinion is
bolstered by 'something I read in a novel' it might do well to give it as
much weight as an opinion bolstered by 'something I saw in a movie'.
DD
| |
|
| In article <4scf1iFus6fqU1@mid.individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:ejpri3$of7$1@reader2.panix.com...
>
>Not in the role of policeman, I hope... :-)
Nor in the role of the 21-year-old daughter, either... just as a resident
of that part of the globe.
DD
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-11-19, 9:55 pm |
|
"HeyBub" <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:12m0mavmuobu16a@news.supernews.com...
> docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
> I post dozens of these on tx.guns
>
> Check the one: "Kidnapper shoots self in testitcle...Ouch!"
Bit of a balls up, so to speak?
>
When you live on an island inhabitated by less than 3 million people, there
really isn't much point in NOT giving yourself up...
Where can you go? The nearest land mass is 1400 miles away... too far to
swim or steal a dinghy. Airports and docks are subject to surveillance; the
justice system is pretty liberal (no capital punishment - even when there
SHOULD be...), might as well have your day in court and get it over with.
Although Doc thinks it was polite of the man to give himself up (and I
suppose, in a way, it was) it is just simple common sense in the long run.
Besides, after seeing the hilarious incompetence of the cop on the scene, he
probably was too weak from laughing to make an escape...:-)
Pete.
| |
|
| Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> Although Doc thinks it was polite of the man to give himself up (and I
> suppose, in a way, it was) it is just simple common sense in the long run.
>
> Besides, after seeing the hilarious incompetence of the cop on the scene, he
> probably was too weak from laughing to make an escape...:-)
He probably did it to save the innocent bystanders! :)
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or
a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine
| |
| HeyBub 2006-11-19, 9:55 pm |
| docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
> Not in the least... I made my attempts, noticed that a few of them
> didn't fit and arrived at no conclusion; I believe that I've stated
> before that ''implication' is in the mind of the beholder.
Um, no. You said: "That saying, of course, accounts for the *exquisite*
politesse [sic] of the Japanese..."
Which sounds like a conclusion. It is, however, a false conclusion inasmuch
as the Japanese are not well-armed. You might as well have said "Of course
this explains why the Japanese like purple."
>
>
> Your fears are obviously unjustified... but Being Cautious is a good
> thing, or so some have said. Tombstone, AZ, USA during the period
> between 1870 and 1900 was, by some standards, a rather well-armed
> society; I do not recall it ever having been referred to as a 'polite
> society'... and likewise for Dodge City... but perhaps we are using
> different definitions; can you point to an example or two which might
> bolster you assertions?
It could be you don't travel in circles where politeness is discussed and
therefore missed the reference. Or, it could be that the relative politeness
of Tombstone et al need not be mentioned inasmuch as it is implied - by
right-thinking people - in the "well-armed" description. Or it could be you
just forgot you heard it. In any event, that you cannot recollect something
is not a proof at all.
>
>
> Quite the sociologist, I've heard... do tell, where and when did he
> do his field studies? Was there a particular methodolgy applied...
> or did he just sit in a house-trailer and write Tall Tales? When an
> opinion is bolstered by 'something I read in a novel' it might do
> well to give it as much weight as an opinion bolstered by 'something
> I saw in a movie'.
Opinion bolstered by something read in a novel? That has nothing to do with
whether an expression is an 'old wives tale?' That is, 'old wives tale' is
usually defined as a) of unknown provenance, and b) wrong. Neither of which
fit the assertion.
As to Heinlein's methodology, he was (evidently) an observer of human nature
with the ability to put common-sense observations in a succinct form. That
was his gift. Scientific rigor can give us such silliness as man-made global
warming, crop circles, and human-tracking-dinosaur (or vice-versa)
footprints. Plus, if science gets in the way of a good story, something has
to yield.
| |
|
| In article <12m29epent1fv1d@news.supernews.com>,
HeyBub <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>Um, no. You said: "That saying, of course, accounts for the *exquisite*
>politesse [sic] of the Japanese...
http://m-w.com/dictionary/politesse
>
>Which sounds like a conclusion.
My apologies for the obscurity; it might have sounded like a conclusion
were one to have stopped at the ellipsis... but that might be one of the
reasons for my dislike of midsentence interruptions. Following that
fragment were several other suggestions (ie, Chinese and Swedish), the
intention of the ellipsis was a shorthand 'no, wait a moment, that's not
quite right, let me try again'... in the fashion that one might say 'He
gave very precise directions, he told me 'At the sign you take a right...
a left... go straight ahead... well, it's around there, someplace.'
>It is, however, a false conclusion inasmuch
>as the Japanese are not well-armed.
Now that's a curious point... so, if the Japanese are a society which is
not well-armed and is polite. What's an example, then, of a society which
is armed and nearly so polite?
>You might as well have said "Of course
>this explains why the Japanese like purple."
When predilection towards color-schemes are discussed I just might do
that, perhaps.
>
>It could be you don't travel in circles where politeness is discussed and
>therefore missed the reference. Or, it could be that the relative politeness
>of Tombstone et al need not be mentioned inasmuch as it is implied - by
>right-thinking people - in the "well-armed" description.
That would seem to be committing the logical fallacy of 'assuming the
conclusion'... or using an entirely different definition of 'polite'.
>Or it could be you
>just forgot you heard it. In any event, that you cannot recollect something
>is not a proof at all.
That is why I asked for an example... second request, then: can you point
to an example or two which might bolster your assertion that 'an armed
society is a polite society'?
>
>
>Opinion bolstered by something read in a novel? That has nothing to do with
>whether an expression is an 'old wives tale?' That is, 'old wives tale' is
>usually defined as a) of unknown provenance, and b) wrong. Neither of which
>fit the assertion.
I'm sorry... according to http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Robert_A._Heinlein
the saying is *attributed* to Heinlein, not sourced... and I'm still
trying to find an example which proves it right. You've been asked twice
now to supply at least one.
DD
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-11-20, 7:55 am |
|
"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:c14d1$4561173c$454920f8$17624@KNOLO
GY.NET...
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> He probably did it to save the innocent bystanders! :)
LOL! I hadn't thought of that... :-)
Pete.
| |
| HeyBub 2006-11-20, 6:55 pm |
| docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
> Now that's a curious point... so, if the Japanese are a society which
> is not well-armed and is polite. What's an example, then, of a
> society which is armed and nearly so polite?
Any of the southern states. We did not change our notions of civility after
the recent conflict.
>
>
> When predilection towards color-schemes are discussed I just might do
> that, perhaps.
>
>
> That is why I asked for an example... second request, then: can you
> point to an example or two which might bolster your assertion that
> 'an armed society is a polite society'?
Sure. My neighborhood. Mostly.
>
> I'm sorry... according to
> http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Robert_A._Heinlein the saying is
> *attributed* to Heinlein, not sourced... and I'm still trying to find
> an example which proves it right. You've been asked twice now to
> supply at least one.
>
Well, if Robert Heinlein DID NOT write the phrase, then it was written by
someone else who, coincidentally, was also named Robert Heinlein.
| |
|
| In article <12m3kbf8vtskld3@news.supernews.com>,
HeyBub <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>Any of the southern states.
I've lived in a variety of states, in a variety of parts of the country,
and find that this assertion is incorrect... folks is folks, no matter
where one goes.
>We did not change our notions of civility after
>the recent conflict.
The 'recent conflict'... you mean the one in which Lee surrendered to
Grant at the Appomattox Court House? States accustomed to surrender might
know a bit about submission, certainly... but submission is not
necessarily politesse.
[snip]
>
>Sure. My neighborhood. Mostly.
Well, that settles things nicely... so since it rains regularly there it
must rain regularly in the Kalahari, as well.
DD
| |
| Howard Brazee 2006-11-20, 6:55 pm |
| On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 10:37:30 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:
>Now that's a curious point... so, if the Japanese are a society which is
>not well-armed and is polite. What's an example, then, of a society which
>is armed and nearly so polite?
It is interesting to observe polite societies which are also cruel
(read Dickens). We love to have erudite, polite villains in our
fiction. And some societies have in-your-face insulting - combined
with love and caring. A lot of politeness is just habit.
On the other hand, I can see how a violent society might be a
considerate society. We have a lot of clueless behavior which might
be bread out if there were immediate adverse consequences. A road
rage incident might slow down people cutting in front of a line of
cars at a freeway exit - for a couple of w s.
But how many people are ready to use their weapons against someone who
is impolite? Are people in a more heavily armed state in the U.S.
more likely to shoot an impolite person than people in states with
tighter gun controls?
| |
|
| In article <ict3m21nmpgl0qimpr6l7n4lvhjpgm7dmq@4ax.com>,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 10:37:30 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:
>
[snip]
[color=darkred]
>But how many people are ready to use their weapons against someone who
>is impolite? Are people in a more heavily armed state in the U.S.
>more likely to shoot an impolite person than people in states with
>tighter gun controls?
I'm not sure... and I tried, earlier, to move the discussion away from
murder and towards politesse. It becomes even more complex when one
attempts a measure of 'being polite'... it might be that an act of good
manners, in one place and time, is an insult or an admission of weakness
in others.
('He let me go through the door first because he realises that I am
superior to him.')
How a 'good person' treats others - and how treating others causes one to
be seen as a 'good person' - is, to my mind, a wee bit more involved than
a simple 'You do (x) because if you don't you may precipitate an incident
involving weapons'.
DD
| |
| Howard Brazee 2006-11-20, 6:55 pm |
| On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 19:02:21 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:
>('He let me go through the door first because he realises that I am
>superior to him.')
>
>How a 'good person' treats others - and how treating others causes one to
>be seen as a 'good person' - is, to my mind, a wee bit more involved than
>a simple 'You do (x) because if you don't you may precipitate an incident
>involving weapons'.
People who use particular phrases that they were taught to use as a
child come across as polite - but when those words are only words,
said out of habit - I'm not going to assume that they are any more
considerate than someone whose parents taught him different.
I look for consideration in actions - and in appearing to be
attentive.
But lots of people demand the rote "polite" over anything real.
| |
|
| docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
> I'm not sure... and I tried, earlier, to move the discussion away from
> murder and towards politesse. It becomes even more complex when one
> attempts a measure of 'being polite'... it might be that an act of good
> manners, in one place and time, is an insult or an admission of weakness
> in others.
>
> ('He let me go through the door first because he realises that I am
> superior to him.')
This is a very good insight. Of course, we have this even in our own
society between men and women. A man opens the door for a woman - she's
either a) grateful for the show of respect, b) spoiled to the point
where she doesn't even recognize the gesture, or c) offended because she
was treated differently. Same problems if you let them get their own
door, but in reverse.
(Of course, my answer to those who respond with "c" is usually something
like "I'm not treating you differently; I'm respectful to men and women
both!")
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or
a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine
| |
|
| In article <dd54m2tqtjqut98kjv3971ckc989oqmusp@4ax.com>,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 19:02:21 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:
>
>
>People who use particular phrases that they were taught to use as a
>child come across as polite - but when those words are only words,
>said out of habit - I'm not going to assume that they are any more
>considerate than someone whose parents taught him different.
I'm going to assume that folks are capable, at times, of exercising what
maight be called 'choice' in their actions. Beyond that a bit of mire
might begin.
DD
| |
|
| In article <4733$45624909$454920f8$31734@KNOLOGY.NET>,
LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>This is a very good insight.
I can't say it is original... but I've had it for so long that I don't
know where I found it.
>Of course, we have this even in our own
>society between men and women.
I've noticed similar things a few other places and not limited to
interactions between the sexes... but maybe that's only because one may
find what one looks for.
DD
| |
| Howard Brazee 2006-11-21, 6:55 pm |
| On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 18:32:22 -0600, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>This is a very good insight. Of course, we have this even in our own
>society between men and women. A man opens the door for a woman - she's
>either a) grateful for the show of respect, b) spoiled to the point
>where she doesn't even recognize the gesture, or c) offended because she
>was treated differently. Same problems if you let them get their own
>door, but in reverse.
This isn't a problem where we have double doors at a building. One
person opens the first door - and the other person opens the 2nd door.
| |
| Michael Mattias 2006-11-21, 6:55 pm |
| > This is a very good insight. Of course, we have this even in our own
> society between men and women. A man opens the door for a woman - she's
> either a) grateful for the show of respect, b) spoiled to the point where
> she doesn't even recognize the gesture, or c) offended because she was
> treated differently. Same problems if you let them get their own door,
> but in reverse.
Um, you weren't looking for a predictable outcome, were you? That would
assume women are logical creatures.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2006-11-21, 6:55 pm |
| On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 14:52:15 GMT, "Michael Mattias"
<mmattias@talsystems.com> wrote:
>Um, you weren't looking for a predictable outcome, were you? That would
>assume women are logical creatures.
Predictable and logical aren't necessarily the same thing - as women
know by looking at men.
| |
| HeyBub 2006-11-21, 6:55 pm |
| docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
> I can't say it is original... but I've had it for so long that I don't
> know where I found it.
Then it's possible you read about it in a book by Robert Heinlein.
> I've noticed similar things a few other places and not limited to
> interactions between the sexes... but maybe that's only because one
> may find what one looks for.
It is, in most places, unlawful to try and determine whether the subject
action is an interaction between the sexes or whether you are, in fact,
monitoring an intra-sex interaction. To be blunt, don't lift the skirt. No,
best to go with the first impression and not s confirmation.
| |
| HeyBub 2006-11-21, 6:55 pm |
| Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 14:52:15 GMT, "Michael Mattias"
> <mmattias@talsystems.com> wrote:
>
>
> Predictable and logical aren't necessarily the same thing - as women
> know by looking at men.
Sure they are. Sperm are cheap. The male's best reproductive strategy is to
impregnate as many femals as possible. That tactic is both predictable and
logical. Ova are dear. The female's best reproductive strategy is to get the
best sperm possible (or sperm from the best candidate). Predictable and
logical.
The problem women have in looking at men is two-fold. First, in answer to
the common distaff lament "Why are all the good men married?" it will be
found that it is marriage that makes men good. Women SHOULD be looking at
men as "raw material" not as a "finished product."
Secondly, often women drape their man with an imaginary cloak of perfection,
as in:
"Billy-Bob don't have much book-learnin', but he has a way of just knowin'
when you can trust somebody..."
| |
| Howard Brazee 2006-11-21, 6:55 pm |
| On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 12:32:16 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>Sure they are. Sperm are cheap. The male's best reproductive strategy is to
>impregnate as many femals as possible. That tactic is both predictable and
>logical.
First, men do other things besides reproduce. Many of those things
are illogical - and predictable.
Second, reproduction strategy doesn't stop at impregnation. That's
why the middle class are having fewer children - to optimize our
resources in providing them with the best opportunities to thrive -
and get us grandchildren with the same types of opportunities.
>Ova are dear. The female's best reproductive strategy is to get the
>best sperm possible (or sperm from the best candidate). Predictable and
>logical.
More important than "the best sperm" is "the best post-natal support".
Any caring Dad is better for the child's survival (and success) than
the best genes without the Dad.
| |
|
| In article <12m6h4gc23envb0@news.supernews.com>,
HeyBub <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>Then it's possible you read about it in a book by Robert Heinlein.
It's also possible that I've never read about anything worth quoting here
in a book by Robert Heinlein... but the world is just full of
possibilities.
>
>
>
>It is, in most places, unlawful to try and determine whether the subject
>action is an interaction between the sexes or whether you are, in fact,
>monitoring an intra-sex interaction.
Like many Americans I try to remember my country's Revolutionary
Inception; this may allow for the lawfulness of an action to be seen in a
slightly different light.
>To be blunt, don't lift the skirt. No,
>best to go with the first impression and not s confirmation.
Tune in next w when the lesson is... Pay No Attention to that Man
Behind the Curtain.
DD
| |
| HeyBub 2006-11-21, 6:55 pm |
| Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 12:32:16 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> First, men do other things besides reproduce. Many of those things
> are illogical - and predictable.
>
> Second, reproduction strategy doesn't stop at impregnation. That's
> why the middle class are having fewer children - to optimize our
> resources in providing them with the best opportunities to thrive -
> and get us grandchildren with the same types of opportunities.
There is some merit to that position. In the past, children were necessary
for the survival of the family unit. At present, with so many couples
electing to not have children at all, it's hardly a "what's best for the
children" motive driving them.
>
>
> More important than "the best sperm" is "the best post-natal support".
> Any caring Dad is better for the child's survival (and success) than
> the best genes without the Dad.
Well, yeah. But I get my information from a book entitled: "Sexual Choices:
Why women pick the men they do" which puts the whole choice thingy on a
biological standard. The author, herself a woman who objects to the phrase
"Gold-digger," prefers to denominate the custom as "resource accrual."
Resource accrual is in her top five reasons.
A (partial) consequence of Resource Accrual is the fact that old geezers
don't pick young chicks; it's the young chicks that choose the old geezers.
And one of the reasons they do, is we elder-care citizens have more, um,
resources accrued. Should I desire, I can probably pick up more
fresh-squeezed with my Lamborghini than the hip-hoppers can with their
stainless steel protuberance piercings. [To be fair, another reason is that
we seniors have demonstrated, through our longivity, that our offspring are
unlikely to inherit a congenital early-death gene.]
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-11-21, 6:55 pm |
|
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:ejvmo0$c3p$1@reader2.panix.com...
<snip>
>
Absolutely... and better a skirt lifter than a shirt lifter... right?[color=darkred]
>
> Tune in next w when the lesson is... Pay No Attention to that Man
> Behind the Curtain.
Dead for a ducat...
Pete.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-11-21, 6:55 pm |
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:uk16m21ojf8kl92rei8tv2tbdqr0736nhk@
4ax.com...
> On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 18:32:22 -0600, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
> This isn't a problem where we have double doors at a building. One
> person opens the first door - and the other person opens the 2nd door.
I once observed, on entering a revolving door with a girl named Susan,
"First Susan I've ever been round with..." She was amused. (unlike
Victoria...).
"City girls seem to find out early
How to open doors with just a smile"
But their country cousins learn how to marry wealthy farmers and never have
to worry, either...:-)
Pete.
| |
|
| Michael Mattias wrote:
>
>
> Um, you weren't looking for a predictable outcome, were you? That would
> assume women are logical creatures.
heh... I should probably not comment on that, but to say that my first
sentence above applies here as well. :)
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or
a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine
| |
|
| In article <4shheeF1010qhU1@mid.individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:ejvmo0$c3p$1@reader2.panix.com...
><snip>
>
>Absolutely... and better a skirt lifter than a shirt lifter... right?
That might depend on 'better... for what'; it could be better to have a
shirt lifter about when one needs cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
DD
| |
| Howard Brazee 2006-11-22, 6:55 pm |
| On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 17:19:56 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>Well, yeah. But I get my information from a book entitled: "Sexual Choices:
>Why women pick the men they do" which puts the whole choice thingy on a
>biological standard. The author, herself a woman who objects to the phrase
>"Gold-digger," prefers to denominate the custom as "resource accrual."
>Resource accrual is in her top five reasons.
>
>A (partial) consequence of Resource Accrual is the fact that old geezers
>don't pick young chicks; it's the young chicks that choose the old geezers.
>And one of the reasons they do, is we elder-care citizens have more, um,
>resources accrued. Should I desire, I can probably pick up more
>fresh-squeezed with my Lamborghini than the hip-hoppers can with their
>stainless steel protuberance piercings. [To be fair, another reason is that
>we seniors have demonstrated, through our longivity, that our offspring are
>unlikely to inherit a congenital early-death gene.]
Those resources are a better indicator of children thriving than sperm
are.
It is interesting to note what societies set up as standards of
attractiveness. For example, in poor rural societies, plump pale
people were wealthy - and laborers covered themselves up to look pale.
In richer city societies, the laborers use tanning saloons and fat
farms to look like the leisured class.
When women's main wealth is producing babies, the standard for beauty
for women is "young". Even early movies and Miss America pageants
showed much younger women than we see as the Hollywood ideal of today
- and we had them falling for older men (who could support those
babies).
In a modern western societies, optimizing the children's success means
funneling more money to fewer children - and the standard for beauty
has women older and possibly professional.
Also - in many societies, having lots of neighbors was useful for
survival - to protect against the Huns and such. Any behavior which
didn't optimize this was frowned upon - the acceptable way to avoid
having kids was to be married to your church. People praised big
families. Old Maids were pitiful, and homosexually had to be
part-time. Onin's crime was not making babies.
To optimize our own children's success, society no longer looks
favorably on big families, except within some minority societies. We
like later marriages.
|
|
|
|
|