From: auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer)
Subject: Re: Please explain this quote
Organization: Swarthmore College, PA
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 09:13:51 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.234042.14797@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>Just one last note from me on the male/female sex drive thread.... 

Which thread was that?  There are so many.  I can never keep track.

>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>
>>No, you omit every instance where you actually have fucked up, and ignore
>>all references to them when I point them out. Funny how some text keeps
>>disappearing...

I have the same problem with my socks in the laundry room.  Say do you know
where my socks went, too?

>Rich, this is because, very much unlike you,

Is this one of those masculine/feminine differences I keep hearing about?

>I believe in trying to keep my responses short and to the point.

I have a friend who is like that.  I will be telling him this long story
about how I did this or that and he'll tell me, "David, you told me that all
ready."  It really burns me, you know?

>Yes, I know it's *radical*, but I believe in *editing* the posts I reply to,

Me too.  I took the double 't' out of the *editting* from your original post.

>to preserve only the most relevent and pressing issues.

That is a novel concept.  You must have an organized room too.  But, I digress.

>(Perhaps you might meditate for a moment on the possible benefits of such
>practice.)

I did.  Do I win a prize?

>IMHO, the "did not!"/"did TOO!" banters

Aren't they fun?

>you seem to have a habit of getting involved in

Rich is terrible that way isn't he?  I am glad I am not him.

>(which result in huge cascading attribution lines

I love the waterfall imagery.

>and dozens of screenfuls of already-been-read text...) 

I have a larger screen than most, being on a workstation and all.  It is
probably closer to half a dozen screenfuls for me.

>are pretty damn silly.

I hate silliness.  Detest it.  No more silliness, alright folks?

>In any case,

Even a suit case?  No, obviously you had more of a brief case in mind.

>I've said what I wanted to say

Isn't it cathartic?

>on this thread to the point

Which point?  I must have missed it somewhere back there with all the
screenfuls of text.

>that I'm confident

That makes one of us.  I feel a bit uneasy right now.

>that anyone who had an inclination

I did!

(I bent towards the screen at one point during the post.)

>to try to understand me

I have tried, but women can be such irrational creatures.  Really you should
be direct-speaking like men.

>has gotten the chance.

We're gonna play monopoly!

>You may continue

Thank you.  (I'll let you in on a secret, though.  Even if you had not given
me permission, I would have anyway.)

>to say that

Really? I had only heard one.  Maybe I should page back up the screen and look
for the original quote?

>I lied

Really now, rini!  I thought you had better manners than that!

>or that I'm no fair or whatever,

A carnival then perhaps?  No a circus!  Definitely a circus!  But, then again
_you_ knew that all along. (;

>if you want to.

Don't bring my desires into this.  Or, did I misunderstand that line of text?

>I'm sure you have a huge

Let us not get into that.  I don't want you to be disappointed.

>audience just panting

Or maybe the dog is panting too.  We do not want to be overly specific with
our assertions either.

>for your next follow-up

No, more than four, maybe even ten.

>on this thread.

Oops, was I getting off this thread.  I must apologize.

>:)

When you attribute a smile to someone, it actually looks like it has horns.
Did you ever notice that?

>But keep in mind

Good suggestion.  I hate going out of it.  (It is the feet of a contortionist,
though.)

>that I just feel

Me too.  I never bother to think.

>no compulsion 

Glad you think so.  Some folks find me neurotic.

>to address arguments

Just, don't forget the postage rates just increased recently.

>that have gone around sixteen

Wasted youth.  Pity, no?

>times already,

I forgot the running total.  What was I supposed to multiply?

>never

Never?  If you say so...  Never times already is 63.  Did I get that right?

>had much merit

Are you trying too imply that not any more?  Really now, I resent those sly
implications!

>or importance

This passage is a bit cryptic.  Would you care to expound upon it?

>in the first place,

That was a Biblical reference, right?

>and are obviously

Try always to be obvious.  It is the last thing they suspect.  (wink, wink)

>going nowhere.

Finally!  Something we can both agree upon!

>I'm so finicky.

I don't think so.  What was it you thought you were finicky about anyway?

>rini

Is that your real name?  If not, where'd you get it from?

simply--dave