OT: History of manners WAS Re: VSAM doubt

<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:de61r7$itp$1@panix5.panix.com...
>
> In article <3mn23tF17obvsU1@individual.net>,
> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> 
>
> Even when it goes to a married woman or a man?
>
ESPECIALLY when it goes to a married woman or a man...
(In both those cases it is NOT going (to) a miss...)

While it may be true that "Manners maketh the Man", research is still
continuing as to what 'maketh'  the Women...

Hard cash and precious stones have been successful in some cases, but no
universal formula seems to work...

Hitting them on the head with a club and dragging them off by the hair was
effective for thousands of years; then some of the girls who weren't getting
clubbed decided to get together and protest. (It started as a small group,
so they called it a 'club' because that's what they were missing....) They
decided that the existing procedure, although successful and simple,
favoured the males because the prettier girls got consistently clubbed every
Saturday night, and the plainer ones didn't.

If each man could only have ONE partner (for life) there'd be more chance of
the less desirable girls getting into the gene pool also (the centerfold
chicks would all soon be 'allocated'...), but how to 'sell' this idea to a
population of men who were used to just clubbing a mate whenever they felt
the urge?

It had to have authority so it was presented as the will of God. The priests
wanted a cut for their co-operation, so a more elaborate, failure prone
ritual, that could involve revenue generation for the Church, had to be
implemented. Before we knew it people were writing books on 'etiquette', and
getting 'married' with great pomp and circumstance. 'Politeness' and
'manners' were the 'in' thing; blokes who didn't go for it, didn't get to do
any clubbing....  This was confusing for the males, who realised they'd been
had, but, as it was Divine Requirement, couldn't do anything about it. The
Church became the richest organization in the history of the world, the
priests went clubbing whenever they wanted to, the girls all had a great
time, and the new etiquette involved them receiving items of value, dressing
up in white and getting made a big fuss of. So the female descendants of the
original club took control of everything, and the world has been going to
Hell in a hand cart ever since...

Pete.

In article <3movi0F16o6hpU1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:de61r7$itp$1@panix5.panix.com...
 
>ESPECIALLY when it goes to a married woman or a man...
>(In both those cases it is NOT going (to) a miss...)

Glad to have that one cleared up, thanks.

>
>While it may be true that "Manners maketh the Man", research is still
>continuing as to what 'maketh'  the Women...

Gah... I've known some Very Polite People who were otherwise 'empty suits'
and some folks of rather... rough-hewn demeanor with whom I would march
into Hell.

>
>Hard cash and precious stones have been successful in some cases, but no
>universal formula seems to work...
>
>Hitting them on the head with a club and dragging them off by the hair was
>effective for thousands of years; then some of the girls who weren't gettin
g
>clubbed decided to get together and protest.

Ummmmm... my studies into anthropology are limited, Mr Dashwood, but I
*have* run across research done into several societies which appear to
have survived with a goodly amount of continuity attributable to the late
Neolithic period... the Inuit, the Yanomamo, the Taay and similar
folks.  I believe that the club-whacking-hair-dragging stereotype
developed in the United States some time in the 1950s; I believe that it
is similar to Hobbes' 'state of nature' in that neither can be found in
any human society.

(damnation... am I taking humorous things seriously again?)

DD

<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:de7k0e$g0$1@panix5.panix.com...
>
> In article <3movi0F16o6hpU1@individual.net>,
> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote: 
>
> Glad to have that one cleared up, thanks.
> 
>
> Gah... I've known some Very Polite People who were otherwise 'empty suits'
> and some folks of rather... rough-hewn demeanor with whom I would march
> into Hell.
> 
>
> Ummmmm... my studies into anthropology are limited, Mr Dashwood, but I
> *have* run across research done into several societies which appear to
> have survived with a goodly amount of continuity attributable to the late
> Neolithic period... the Inuit, the Yanomamo, the Taay and similar
> folks.  I believe that the club-whacking-hair-dragging stereotype
> developed in the United States some time in the 1950s; I believe that it
> is similar to Hobbes' 'state of nature' in that neither can be found in
> any human society.
>
> (damnation... am I taking humorous things seriously again?)
>
Perish the thought...:-)

Pete.

>

In article <3mpqdaF17iqlsU1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:de7k0e$g0$1@panix5.panix.com...

[snip]
 
>Perish the thought...:-)

Some might rather wish the perishing upon the action, aye.

DD

Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> While it may be true that "Manners maketh the Man", research is still
> continuing as to what 'maketh'  the Women...

Well, "making" the woman is much like making the bed - it'll last about
14-18 hours before getting messed up and having to be done again...


--
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        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++++                                            ~
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
 news:5d0fa$4308f6bb$45491c57$29304@KNOLO
GY.NET...
> Pete Dashwood wrote: 
>
> Well, "making" the woman is much like making the bed - it'll last about
> 14-18 hours before getting messed up and having to be done again...
>

Hahaha!  Ever considered a hammock, Daniel? :-)

Pete.

Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
>
> "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
>  news:5d0fa$4308f6bb$45491c57$29304@KNOLO
GY.NET...
> 
>
> Hahaha!  Ever considered a hammock, Daniel? :-)

I'll probably need one if she saw that post...  ;)

I did sleep in a hammock one night, when I was much younger and staying
with my grandparents over the summer.  They asked me "are you sure"
about 3 or 4 times, and asked if I was sure I wouldn't be cold.  (Highs
were in the mid-nineties (F), so I thought they were crazy.)  Turns out,
I was the crazy one - I hadn't counted on the dew.  When I woke up the
next morning, the hammock (which was a cloth one, that could be flipped
up to make sort of a cocoon) and I were both covered in dew, and it was
in the lower seventies.  Brrrrrr!

--
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        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++++                                            ~
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In article <3movi0F16o6hpU1@individual.net>,
"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:

>
>
> <docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:de61r7$itp$1@panix5.panix.com..
. 
> ESPECIALLY when it goes to a married woman or a man...
> (In both those cases it is NOT going (to) a miss...)
>
> While it may be true that "Manners maketh the Man", research is still
> continuing as to what 'maketh'  the Women...
>
> Hard cash and precious stones have been successful in some cases, but no
> universal formula seems to work...
>
> Hitting them on the head with a club and dragging them off by the hair was
> effective for thousands of years; then some of the girls who weren't getti
ng
> clubbed decided to get together and protest. (It started as a small group,
> so they called it a 'club' because that's what they were missing....) They
> decided that the existing procedure, although successful and simple,
> favoured the males because the prettier girls got consistently clubbed eve
ry
> Saturday night, and the plainer ones didn't.
>
> If each man could only have ONE partner (for life) there'd be more chance 
of
> the less desirable girls getting into the gene pool also (the centerfold
> chicks would all soon be 'allocated'...), but how to 'sell' this idea to a
> population of men who were used to just clubbing a mate whenever they felt
> the urge?
>
> It had to have authority so it was presented as the will of God. The pries
ts
> wanted a cut for their co-operation, so a more elaborate, failure prone
> ritual, that could involve revenue generation for the Church, had to be
> implemented. Before we knew it people were writing books on 'etiquette', a
nd
> getting 'married' with great pomp and circumstance. 'Politeness' and
> 'manners' were the 'in' thing; blokes who didn't go for it, didn't get to 
do
> any clubbing....  This was confusing for the males, who realised they'd be
en
> had, but, as it was Divine Requirement, couldn't do anything about it. The
> Church became the richest organization in the history of the world, the
> priests went clubbing whenever they wanted to, the girls all had a great
> time, and the new etiquette involved them receiving items of value, dressi
ng
> up in white and getting made a big fuss of. So the female descendants of t
he
> original club took control of everything, and the world has been going to
> Hell in a hand cart ever since...
>
> Pete.

ROFL!

That reminds me of one of the collected sayings of our greatest icon of
punditry here in the US:

"Feminism was established to enable unattractive women easy access to
the mainstream of dating."

Or something like that.

ROFLMAO!

In article <joe_zitzelberger-E8686B.23594024082005@ispnews.usenetserver.com>
,
Joe Zitzelberger  <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
>In article <3movi0F16o6hpU1@individual.net>,
> "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:

[snip]
 

[snip]

>That reminds me of one of the collected sayings of our greatest icon of
>punditry here in the US:
>
>   "Feminism was established to enable unattractive women easy access to
>the mainstream of dating."
>
>Or something like that.

Hmmmmmm... is that like 'Talk Radio was established to give men a forum to
whine about the priveleges they saw themselves losing in an increasingly
egalitarian society'?

DD

In article <3n5vt7F13rjU1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:dek9sp$gm9$1@panix5.panix.com...
 
>It is my belief that talk radio was established so that people who never ha
d
>an original idea in their lives, could express their agreement (or
>disagreement) with someone else's thought, deluding themselves that this is
>profound and important political commentary and debate, when really it is
>just background noise that helps elderly folk with a transistor radio under
>their pillow, go to sleep...

I see... they want to be individuals, just like everybody else!

DD