From: kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown)
Subject: Re: Various ramblings...
Reply-To: kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown)
Organization: I can't see any organization here...:-)
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 04:05:20 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.172257.25033@zooid.guild.org> Ross Ridge <ross@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>>Are you accounting for my age here?  Are you accounting for my field of
>>expertise?
>
>How is that relevent?  If even you are making less than you should be
>than you're still better off (ie. greater disposable income) than most.

Okay.  I'll buy that.

>>But I'm *not* complaining about my financial situation. 
>
>You're complaining about it affecting your ability to get dates.

Sigh.  Man's got a point.  Okay, I'll not do that anymore.

>>The reality remains: my *insufficiently high* income rules out an entire
>>class of people that might otherwise be interested in me, because I'm
>>not making enough money to support someone else.
>
>It's not a large number of people, nor are you especially disadvantaged here.  

It's *not* a large number of people????  Hmm...then just how large, small,
or whatever a group are we talking here?

I'll accept that I'm not especially disadvantaged here, so you'll hear no
more complaints from me about this.

>>>Unless you're only into super models, the amount of money you make is no
>>>excuse.  
>>
>>Not that I disagree with you or anything, Ross, but why do you suppose
>>the amount of money I'm making would make any difference to a supermodel?
>>I mean, if it doesn't make any difference to any of the other classes
>>of women...
>
>Because the set of supermodels is rather small and easily enumerable, 
>and I don't believe any of them have showed any interest in dating someone
>who was dead broke. 

Fair enough, but you've failed to answer the question: *why* does the
amount of money make a difference to supermodels but not to other women?

And if it does make a difference to supermodels, *why* doesn't it make any
difference to other women?

I'm not asking for observations here, because I basically *agree* with
your observations.  I'm asking for an explantion for those observations.

Now, I *have* an explanation for these observations, but it's not very
popular (Despite the fact that it accounts for male behavior as well as
female behavior.  Maybe it's "politically incorrect" or something :-).  But
I want *your* explanation for these observations.

>Ever passed out?  If not then you can breathe well enough.  The reason
>you don't go Jazz clubs is that you don't want to, not that you can't.

In other words, I should just deal with it.  Fair enough (though I hate
to think of what it'll do to my health, such as it is.  Ah, the
tradeoffs we make in life...).

>>How can anyone possibly succeed at something they don't understand,
>>except through sheer luck?
>
>Did Newton fully understand Physics?  He didn't understand relativity,
>quantum mechanics or the wave-partical duality of light, still he
>could make some accurate predictions on what would happen when an
>apple falls or light goes through a prism.  

Right.  Newton (and any other physicist you care to name) partially
understood physics.  That's sufficient to do a lot with, it seems.

It would be nice, of course, if I had a full understanding of
relationships (or anything else, for that matter :-), but I'll settle
for a partial, but good enough, understanding.

>People, through observation,
>through trial and error, and with a bit of luck, build there own
>models of how relationships work, for them.  Their model undoubtably
>has more holes than swiss-cheese, but it only has to work a small
>fraction of the time to be sucessful.  

How do you tell the difference between them succeeding as a result of
their model being right and succeeding purely by chance?  If their
successes are so limited, why are they bothering with the model at
all?  Peace of mind or something?

>The unfortunate problem
>with these models, is that they're are not often transferable,
>especially to someone as different as apparently you are.  This means
>your pretty much on your own, and you're going to need to do a lot
>of experimenting to find out what works for you. 

This does seem to be the case, which is why I'm getting into a few things
that I haven't gotten into in a long time.

Not to mention the fact that they were fun the last time I tried them.  :-)

Hmm...anyone know of a good jazz bar here in Houston?

>Also, please stop bitching about how poor and ugly and how few women
>you meet, because I'm poorer, uglier and meet fewer women than you
>and I might just start getting depressed about it.

Okay, you got yourself a deal.

So: what have you found works best for you?

>							Ross Ridge


-- 
				Kevin Brown

			    kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com
			    kevin@taronga.taronga.com