From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: Any Available Jewish Men Out There??
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 22:58:14 GMT

 
in <ewright.726426809@convex.convex.com>
    ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
 
] In <1993Jan7.005033.10849@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
]     tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
]
] >As you can see, the implication (correct in this case) is that I've met
] >lots of people in the last few years (or at least "no shortage" of them).
]
] And none of them serious athletes.  I find that hard to believe.
 
Or, rather, not many of them--I have a few friends who are reasonably
seriously into martial arts and one employee who is a martial arts
instructor and another who is a fairly serious hockey player.  Still,
they're a pretty small minority compared to the number of
non-athletically inclined folks I meet.  Remember, in meeting people,
there is a certain selection process that takes place--if most of the
people you know aren't involved in anything athletic, then most of the
people they introduce you to will probably not be athletic either.  The
same applies to meeting people in places that tend to attract the
intellectually inclined more than the athletically inclined (again, this
doesn't require that these characteristics be mutually exclusive, but
neither are these characteristics always found together).
 
] >] >My point, therefore, is that sources of people who are, on the average,
] >] >more interested in science than in athletics do exist and are not
] >] >especially difficult to find.
]
] Yet sources of serious amateur athletes are.  Since even you
] admit that amateur athletes are much more numerous than amateur
] scientists, this is also hard to believe.
 
Nope, actually sources of serious amateur athletes aren't hard to find
either--I just haven't invested a substantial amount of time looking for
them.  Remember, a few messages ago, I even listed several ways that I
could tap into such sources without difficulty.  (Another one that leaps
to mind right at the moment:  Denver contains one of the most impressive
networks of bicycle paths in the country--there's even one that goes for
over twenty miles from north Denver down to the southernmost part and
only crosses two streets in the process (everywhere else there are
underpasses)--many of the places where it intersects other good-sized
paths have parks at them which usually have a reasonable number of
spandex-clad cyclists lounging around; I usually don't stop to rest
while on my cycling treks, but if I were to take up hanging around
there, no doubt I'd meet lots of serious cyclists.)
 
Serious amateur athletes aren't particularly hard to find; neither are
scientifically-inclined folks.  All you have to do is go to a place
where you're likely to find what you want and look there.  (There's a
lovely, romantic song by Barnes and Barnes called "Linoleum" that you
might want to listen to; it'll help make all of this clearer.)
 
] >Well, I can't claim any first-hand knowlege of the Dallas chapter of
] >Mensa, but here in Denver, Mensa is pretty close to evenly distributed
] >between male and female
]
] I think that may be true in Dallas, too.  But the people who attend
] meetings (as opposed to the membership) are mostly men.
]
] >(I think this may have become less so recently, but the "management"
] >of Denver Mensa tends to have more women than men)
]
] The "management" in Dallas is mostly female also.  But the people
] at meetings are mostly men.
 
Oh, well; you may want to try going to a few more SIGs to see if that's
always the case.  Out here "Relationship SIG," "Trivial Pursuit,"
"Games," and the philosophy and reading oriented SIGs seem to attract
quite a number of women.  (Actually, so did massage SIG, though I don't
think that's been around for a while.)  You might also try just making
your own SIG that would appeal to someone you'd be interested in;
remember, even having more men than women doesn't mean that one of the
women won't decide you're the one she's interested in.
 
] >by now I've listed more than a
] >dozen groups and events that fit the bill.  This at least fits the
] >dictionary definition of "support" and the one that most people use.
]
] No, those examples only show that "sources... do exist", not
] that they "are not especially difficult to find."
 
Oh; OK.  Of the following things that I've mentioned, which do you find
especially difficult:  going to BBS-sponsored parties; getting a Mensa
calendar and attending a few meetings; attending SF cons; talking to a
few people at cons or whatever until you find your local equivalent to
the Mad Scientists club or whatever happens to appeal to you; attending
informal talks and lectures at your local universities; going to
museums, science-oriented specialty shops, etc., and starting
conversations with the people there.  If any of the other suggestions
I've made sound incredibly difficult or impossible, feel free to bring
them up too and we'll see if we can come up with an easier method of
implementing them.
 
] And your claim that serious amateur athletes, who are much more
] common, are difficult to find, shows that you have a double standard
] here when it comes to defining "difficult."
 
Well, I suppose I might if I'd been saying that they were difficult to
find--except I've been saying that they're not hard to find and have
even listed ways to locate them without too much effort in previous
messages.
 
] >Well, maybe I'll have to take a closer look next time--to tell you the
] >truth, I don't recall seeing people who were obviously T2 or Predator
] >fans at the last few cons I've been to; Trekkies seemed to be the most
] >common, followed by fantasy types.
]
] Well, you can probably do a lot better if you choose the cons
] you go to.  If it's got T2 in the name or advertising, you're
] probably going to get more Terminator fans than Trekkies.
]
] Alternatively, you could enter the costume competition dressed
] as Arnie.  That would give you a chance to show off your muscles
] to any Arnold or Linda Hamilton wannabes, wouldn't it?  And since
] most competitions give you the opportunity to say something, you
] could put in a plug for an exercise partner.
 
I suppose I could, but it really isn't particularly important to me.
(I've only entered one costume contest at a con, but I did take second
place at it.  However, when I do come up with costumes, I prefer for
them to be original--it doesn't strike me as being nearly as
entertaining to come as something from someone else's imagination when I
could just as easilly come up with something that no one has ever seen
before.  Plus, doing the costume contest takes a fair amount of time
that I could be spending doing more enjoyable things.)
 
] >] I can't recall anyone coming to my office seeking a romantic partner,
] >] though.
] >
] >Well, I just don't know what the problem is, then--maybe it's your
] >decor;
]
] Since I work in a building >95% male, and no outsider can enter without
] a security badge, I don't think decorating my office with Al Gore
] photographs would help.
 
Well, then, it sounds like you might be more successful meeting people
somewhere besides your office.  (Oh, that's "Art Gore"; he's primarilly
a nature photographer and does a lot of very nice stuff.)
 
] >] If you're so smart, how come you're still single? ;-)
] >
] >Lotsa reasons--1) I still have to run across someone willing to put up
] >with me for that long;
]
] Oh?  But you claim that you're better than me, or anyone else who
] doesn't exercise.  More healthy, more mentally alert, etc., etc.
 
Actually, I haven't claimed that.  I've claimed that I personally derive
enjoyment and benefits from physical exercise and that it is reasonable
to conclude that it is possible for other people to derive benefits from
exercise as well.  This does not imply that every person who exercises
is "better" than every person who doesn't.  I'm not into trying to
classify people as "better" or "worse" on any sort of universal,
absolute scale; personally, I don't think it's even useful to try making
such judgments.
 
] If no one will put up with you, why do you believe they would
] put up with someone who doesn't have those advantages?
 
Why not?  It's been my experience that the kind of person you are and
the subtle details of your personality are much more important to the
success of a relationship than any set of easilly quantified indices.
If someone meets a suitable MOTAS and comes to feel that he or she does
(or doesn't) belong with her/him long-term, it's unlikely that the
MOTAS's ability to pick up major home appliances will be very important.
Superficial qualities and even common interests doesn't matter much
when compared to feelings.
 
]  You've
] been pretty vehement in denying that non-athletes might have any
] other qualities that make up for their lack of exercise.
 
Gosh; I'm going to have to see these articles sometime.  Seems to me
that all I said (quite a while ago) was that exercise doesn't reduce
one's mental powers.
 
] Another inconsistency.
 
Oh, well; at least it's not a foolish consistency.
 
] >2) I don't mind being single, so I don't put much effort into working
] >to change it;
]
] Maybe someday someone will say this without sounding like "sour grapes."
]
] Maybe.
 
Feel free to interpret it any way you want; I'll go on having a great
time here regardless of what you're imagining my feelings to be.
 
Remember, many people I know (myself included) have had periods of
time--sometimes long ones--in which we didn't want to date anybody at
all and went so far as to turn down what would otherwise have been
appealing offers.  This isn't "sour grapes," it's simply taking care of
one's emotional needs of the time, which aren't always best served by
being in a relationship.
 
At the moment, my feelings are that it might be nice to be in a
relationship, but I'm enjoying the advantages of being unattached
enough that it would take a fairly appealing offer to sway me.
 
] >3) I'm certainly not everybody's idea of Prince Charming;
]
] It doesn't take everybody; it only takes one.
 
Good point.  Well, perhaps I'm not anybody's idea of Prince Charming....
 
] Besides, you've told me that most women aren't into the Prince
] Charming image -- tall, handsome, slays dragons with his bare
] hands -- anyway.
 
Also true--in fact, most women I know rather like dragons and wouldn't
take kindly to someone who was in the habit of slaying them.
 
] >4) being single lets me flirt shamelessly with any woman in range,
]
] "But if I catch a fish, I would have to stop fishing."
 
It can be more important to enjoy the journey than to get where you
intended.  Why shouldn't I enjoy "fishing" for its own sake?  You ought
to try it some time--it's fun.  (And, the worst I have to risk is that
I'll get caught--and I'd enjoy that too.)
 
] >7) I'm still in my twenties and am not in any particular danger
] >of running out of time;
]
] Only good reason you've come up with yet.  In fact, I don't think
] they should let you kids out of the barrel until your thirtieth
] birthday.
 
Well, I can't speak for the rest of the world, but I found it much
easier to create and establish a de-facto global standard for CATV
design, design and build electronic equipment, publish papers and a
magazine, and start and run companies when I'm not inside a barrel.
(Keep in mind that there is a number of over-30 and over-40 people whose
continued employment depends on my ability to do these things.)
 
] >10) I'm just too close to the traditional "nice guy" type...
] >and we all know that nobody wants to be involved with a nice guy.
]
] Sorry, I don't buy this one either.  The traditional phrase is,
] "You're a nice guy, but..." -- not that being a nice guy is a
] disadvantage, but that it's not enough.
 
Would you feel better if I'd tacked a smiley onto the end of that one?
 
Trygve
--
"I loved it--I couldn't put it down once I got to the part about the hot
 fudge and the bathtub.  Ah, what I would have given to be a rubber duck
 at that moment!"
   -- Wellington Beef, book reviewer for the Spam Francisco Comical
Newsgroups: soc.singles