From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Any Available Jewish Men Out There??
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:13:29 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1993Jan7.005033.10849@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:

>] I don't assume that at all.
> 
>OK, but since it's a logical requirement to draw the conclusion you drew
>from the statement I made, you either have to have assumed it or just be
>really inept and sloppy with logic.

No, it may be a logical requirement for *you* to draw a conclusion
from statements you made, but not for me.  I'm not responsible for
your statements and don't necessarily agree with them.  However, I
suspect from the way that sentence is constructed that it wasn't
really what you meant to say.
 

>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.

 
>] >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.

 
>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.


>Actually, apart from Mensa, there's a woman I know who runs a sort of
>informal group where people get together to discuss classic literature
>(recent selections including "Othello" and "Art of War") as well as a
>waltzing group; the participants are mostly in their twenties and
>reasonably even as far as gender distribution.  Perhaps you could start
>up something like that in Dallas?

Perhaps, if I had the time.  Of course, to do that I'd have to
know a reasonable number of people interesting in such things,
or have a good idea how to find them.  In which case, I wouldn't
need to start a group, would I?


>] >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.

>] Oh.  That may be true, but nothing you've said so far supports it.
 
>Depends on your definition of "support"--

Support: Prove, defend, provide evidence for, lend credence to...


>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."

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, 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.



>Personally, I enjoyed the people dressed up as fantasy types more--
>their costumes are much more, ah, inspiring.  

Then dress as Conan instead of Terminator.


>] 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.



>] 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.

If no one will put up with you, why do you believe they would
put up with someone who doesn't have those advantages?  You've
been pretty vehement in denying that non-athletes might have any
other qualities that make up for their lack of exercise. 

Another inconsistency.

 
>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.

>3) I'm certainly not everybody's idea of Prince Charming; 

It doesn't take everybody; it only takes one.

Besides, you've told me that most women aren't into the Prince
Charming image -- tall, handsome, slays dragons with his bare
hands -- anyway. 

>4) being single lets me flirt shamelessly with any woman in range, 

"But if I catch a fish, I would have to stop fishing."

>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.

>8) my financial condition makes me slightly cautious about leaping into
>anything that might wind up being very expensive; 

Seems to conflict with what you've said in the past, but I'll let
that go.

>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.