From: martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: More on guys who aren't dating Ed Wright
Date: 30 Sep 92 14:30:15 GMT
	<MARTINC.92Sep28105441@grover.cs.unc.edu>
	<ewright.717737097@convex.convex.com>
	<MARTINC.92Sep29210821@grover.cs.unc.edu>
	<ewright.717826420@convex.convex.com>
Distribution: soc
Organization: UNC Department of Computer Science
In-reply-to: ewright@convex.com's message of 30 Sep 92 04:13:40 GMT

In article <ewright.717826420@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:

   In <MARTINC.92Sep29210821@grover.cs.unc.edu> martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:

   >   Contrast this attitude to the smug arrogance of Arnold
   >   Schwarzennger, the official head of the US fitness program.  Or
   >   the self-righteous, nose-in-the-air superiority of Nancy
   >   Colucci's post.  Or your quotations from the DUMB Book of Diet
   >   and Fitness about how exercise improves a person's outlook on
   >   life, increases creativity and intelligence, improves your sex
   >   life, etc., etc.

   >Ah.  We're back to "is that your medical opinion, Dr. Wright?"  You've
   >neither the expertise nor the data to have an opinion.  You've proven it
   >time and again.

   Waffling again, eh, Charlie?  You denied saying that exercise made a person
   superior in any way except the physical.  You said no one else remembered
   your saying that, and you accused me of misquoting you.  Now, you're right
   back to defending it.  

Ed, you have this consistent problem of conflating "better physical
shape" with "better in every way, physically, morally and spiritually."
If you're in better physical shape, you will indeed look better and feel
better.  If you feel better, you may well find yourself doing better at
other things.  I doubt very much that being in better physical shape
will make you a saint.  But then, being in worse physical shape doesn't
seem to have qualified you for sainthood either.  However, if you
persist in saying that I said that being in better physical shape makes
you a better person physically, mentally, morally, and spiritually, then
I'll persist in feeling I've been misquoted.

   Let me explain to you the difference between a *Doctor* and someone
   with a medical-school diploma, MISTER Martin.  One of the things that
   students should learn in medical school, but often don't, as your
   statements attest. The human being you find described in textbooks is
   the average statistical human being.  What they obviously didn't
   teach you in medical school is that there are no average statistical
   human beings in the real world.  Everyone has differences and
   peculiarities and no one program or treatment is appropriate for
   everyone, *including* the DUMB Book of Diet and Exercise.

Since you haven't read it, I assume you aren't aware of the sectons on
contraindications, exercise programs for people with physical
limitations, etc.  But why let mere facts into the argument, eh, Ed?

   *Everything* in medicine has limitations, side effects, and
   contraindications.  When someone comes along and claims he has
   something without side effects or limitations, such as you and the
   exercise program you are peddling, it is a sure sign of quackery.  I
   have treated more athletic injuries than you've even read about.  I
   have seen some of the effects of your guaranteed effective, 100%
   no-risk miracle cure. When you have treated as many patients as I
   have, you *might* have some idea what you're talking about, MISTER
   Martin.

Okay, Ed, tell us how many patients you've treated.  Up to now you've
not demonstrated much medical knowledge -- where did you treat those
patients?  What was your medical background?  And why has this *never*
come up before?

But in any case, this is the same argument that cigarette companies
make: "you can't say that cigarettes are bad, because they aren't bad
for *everybody*.  Some people can handle them and some can't."  Like any
medical thing, you have to play the odds.

   >And once again, we slide away from the point.  A "moderate exercise
   >program" that includes walking the dog briskly for 30 minutes three
   >times a week is all that the DUMC -- aren't you rather tired of the
   >childish DUMB thing yet -- is all that the DUMC book recommends.  It's
   >considerably more than many people get.  

   Balderdash.  First of all, the exercise program you've recommended
   in the past involves weightlifting and a lot more than 30 minutes
   of walking three times a week.  In fact, you claimed than medical
   research recommended more than that in another article you posted
   today.  When I asked for evidence that this much exercise was not
   sufficient, you accused me of a "conspiracy theory." 

Say what!?  I've said that *I* try to get 3 3-4 mile walks a week --
because I'd like to lose a little weight I raise it a bit above the
minimum -- and about an hour and a half of weightlifting a week.  I have
specific reasons for myself (rehabilitation from an injury, lowering
body fat to -gasp- be better looking in my own eyes) for adding to the
minimum. 

   Secondly, if the average American does not get 90 minutes of brisk
   walking every week, how do you think he gets around?  Do you think
   dogs get walked, lawns get mowed, fences get painted, etc. all by
   themselves?  Do you think the average Joe has servants to do these
   for him?  Any mother who has a small child can tell you she spends
   much more time than that chasing him around the house -- often at
   much more than a "brisk walk."  Hell, 30 minutes of brish walking
   is one trip to the mall.

Ed, in fact, most people don't walk "briskly" inluess they're being
chased by something.  After some years of walking, a 3.5 mile/hour walk
is about my natural pace.  This is what is called a brisk walk.  I
overrun people in malls all the time.  Mothers of small children may
well get more excercise than that -- but how many mothers of small
children are there?  There are lots more people whose longest walk is
from the TV to the refrigerator.  Once again, however, the medical
evidence is clear -- it isn't evidence that's the problem.

   >It's also the central point in
   >my argument that -- since you ahve said that you do that much exercise
   >-- you must be moderately fit.  Not unfit, as you style yourself.

   Yet I probably get less exercise than 98-99% of the people I know.
   If I am moderately fit, then so is the average American.  If the
   average American is not, then neither am I.

Ed, I'll give you another look at that sentence.  Try to think
critically about it, try to think scientifically about it.

   >Hold on a second.  "Not again"?  You mean that you've had a relationship
   >of this (more or less idealized) sort once, and you've broken up?

   No, I meant I *met* a woman who fulfilled that ideal type.  It never
   got nearly as far as a relationship.

   >Again, this is inferrence (look it up) but ... first of all, I hope
   >you'll brace yourself and take seriously for the nonce that I *really*
   >and *truly* sympathize with how much that hurts.  Honest.  (That's some
   >of where I am myself right now.)   But then, secondly -- have you
   >considered the possibility that the reason you have trouble seeing
   >yourself in another relationship is that you've not completely resolved
   >your feelings about the last one?

   Your reading way too much into this.  It never got far enough for
   "feelings" of that sort to come into it.  I will admit that I do
   sometimes wonder if I'll find another woman who I'll *want* to have
   a relationship with as much as her -- someone who'll be more than
   second best -- but that's all there is to it.  And I don't dwell on
   that, either -- it's something I think about maybe once a month or so 
   -- so, again, don't read too much into this.

Okay, fine.

   >One thing that seems to keep coming through in what you write is some
   >very "all or nothing" boolean thinking.  Somehow, this appears to draw
   >the distinction between someone who only has a very slight interest in
   >sports and someone who won't be completely satisfied with a man who
   >doesn't like sports a lot.

   Well, nothing has yet convinced me that someone who has more than
   a passing interest in sports would be interested in someone who doesn't.
   Certainly all the posts from people like Nancy giving (in their opinion)
   good, solid reasons for not dating someone who isn't physically fit don't
   convince me of that.

Nance isn't everyone --

   >But isn't there some room for compromise?  If you found (Edwina -
   >epsilon), someone who otherwise fit your criteria but had season tickets
   >to the Cowboys games, would she be unsuitable?  

   How the hell do I know?  I don't have a book that gives me all the answers.
   All I can do, when that happens, is to date her long enough to find out.
   I'm afraid that this is one of those questions it's impossible to answer
   in hypothetical terms because I don't have the experience.

You seem to have pretty strong opinions of what you would and wouldn't
accept, from your other posts.  Don't you have some impression?

   >Again, if so, it seems self-defeating: in pretty much any relationship,
   >there are going to be little mismatches.

   The trick, it seems to me, is to find someone with whom those mismatches
   are in areas that neither person cares very strongly about.  

Right, sure.  And maybe to be open minded enough to figure out which
mismatches are really important.

   (I already have hay fever by the way -- have for the last 30 years 
   -- so your medical advice there is a bit late.)

   >But expecting someone to have an undergrad science degree in order to
   >demonstrate their interest in that other culture seems a bit extreme,
   >don't you think?  I don't think weither of us has an English degree, but
   >that doesn't mean we can't be interested in poetry.  

   You missed the point, Charlie.  It's not about *demonstrating* that
   interest.  People who don't have a science degree are unlikely to *have*
   an interest.  The crossover interest generally only goes one way.  Read
   Snow's essays for a complete discussion.

Snow's essays are about an England of 30-50 years ago.  Maybe it's my
saintly demeanor and my physical fitness, but I meet lots of lawyers who
talk about the neat things they do with their computers, English grad
students who talk about the implications of virtual reality on
literature, musicians who wonder about MIDI hardware.... I don't think
the separation is as clean as it was for Snow.  (Pure as the driven
Snow?) 

   >   It's not necessary, I already believe that.  I believe I can
   >   improve the odds by a factor of 10 quite easily and a factor of
   >   100 with some effort.  Beyond that, I'm not quite so sure.

   >Arguable.  Hmmm.  This area is a poor sample -- more PhDs per capita
   >than anywhere else in the world, the Chamber of Commerce says -- 

   I believe the Chamber of Commerce at Los Alamos says the same thing. 

I think any reference to Chamber of Commerce statistics is equivalent to
saying "believe this at your peril".

   >   >I don't know -- why?  Why do you insist on something in a mate that
   >   >would make her different from the people you consider friends?

   >Any of your male friends who bear children will be able to pay for their
   >own child support through media fees.

   Okay, I'll admit I hadn't thought of that angle.  Nevertheless, I still
   believe my approach may be a wee bit more practical.

I don't recommend trying to get any of your male friends pregnant.

   >Ed, I'm in therapy.  If I suggest to you that therapy might help, it's
   >because I've found it very useful.  "Check into a psychiatric hospital
   >and get your head examined" has a very different connotation.

   Yes, but they have the same *denotation*.

If you believe that denotation alone is what prose is made on, you're
not handling the "two cultures" thing yourself.  "Motherfucker" and
"incest survivor" are very different things.

   >A lot of people who can't tell the difference have real fear that the
   >psychiatrists will tell them they really *are* crazy.  Or that they'll
   >reveal Secrets.

   Or they've just realized that the empirer has no clothes.  I will believe
   in psychiatry when you can show me an id, ego, or superego stretched out
   on the dissection table, thank you.

Do you believe in happiness?  Unhappiness?  Depression?  Schizophrenia?
(By the way, the id, ego, superego Freudian thing is *years* out of date.)

   >If it was a misquotation, you should be able to show where it is.  Do

   >so.

   Charlie, I showed you roughly half a dozen cases where you've misquoted
   me.  You quibbled with each of them, excpet the last, where you simply
   changed the subject.  

Every place I've "quibbled" as you say, it has turned out that you've
recast what I said into something stronger and less defensible.

   Just as you've attempted to do again here.  Do you
   *really* believe that 40,000 people is a small attendance for a live event
   and that 40,000 people at a single Giants game proves most people aren't
   interested in sports? 

No, but that wasn't the original context, was it?

   >Okay, let's take this example then:  You want someone who would answer
   >(c) or (d) to #2.  (Or perhaps you insist on (d) only.)  But "like" and
   >"dislike" in context must *certainly* be interpreted to connote --
   >notice the word I chose, Ed -- connote whether or not their actions
   >would be influenced.  If they would be uninfluenced, they "don't care." 

   Nonsense.  I may like or dislike the design of a breakfast cereal
   package.  That doesn't mean I will buy the package because of it.
   As I said, two separate parameters,

Doesn't stand up.  Either they care about the design or they don't if
they don't they don't care.  If you walk up and say "is this box
attractive" they might say yes or no; if you say would you buy this on
the basis of the box, they say "no, I don't care about the box."

   >At the very least, my interpretation is a legitimate one.
   >   attractive was for the good of the person being turned down.)


   >I think you slipped up on the connotations again.  I don't think anyone
   >said -- or intended to say, at least -- that it was *wrong* to date
   >someone who they didn't find attractive.  Just that it was legitimate
   >for them to choose attractive people over unattractive people of
   >appearance was important to them.

   Nope, they were quite explicit.  It was wrong to date someone
   who you didn't find you attractive because everyone *deserved* a
   mate who found him (or her) physically attractive.  Not that there
   was no consideration of whether the other person *wanted* that, just that
   he or she deserved it.

Was that sentence supposed to be "who you didn't find attractive" or
"who didn't find you attractive"?  I really doubt anyone said "it's
wrong to date someone who doesn't find you attractive" and in any case,
how do you propose one go about it?  Hold a gun to the other person's
head? 

   >There are even reasons to argue that people ought to consider dating
   >unattractive people -- Dawn and her sweetie being a prime example.  If
   >*she'd* refused to date him because he was funny looking, she'd have
   >missed out big time.

   >But then, those arguments apply to you and your feelings about people
   >who don't have the right resume too.

   And extending that argument into the employment field, it's just
   as wrong to consider a job applicant's resume as it is to base
   your decision on the way he parts his hair, huh?

All-or-nothing, again.  If you get a resume for a PhD level job from a
person with an A.A. degree and no applicable experience, you'd be an
idiot  to interview that person (unless you have other motiviations,
like he's your nephew and you want to tell him why he's an idiot for
applying for that job.)  On the other hand, if you get a resume for the
same job from someone with an MS in the field, 20 years of experience,
and 150 publications, but no PhD, you'd be an idiot *not* to consider
her.

Which is my point in a nutshell -- is your insistence on a persoanl
"resume" leading you to not consider perfectly viable candidates?

   >   I don't care what the hell you do with your life as
   >   long as you don't try telling me how to live mine.  You crossed that
   >   line as soon as you pulled out the DUMB Book of Diet and Fitness.

   >Well, I don't know.  If you said "I don't care to exercise and I don't
   >believe any of that medical data" I'd have said "the more fool you
   >then".  I might have tried to convince you otherwise, but I don't give a
   >damn if you die young. 

   But you just said I was getting more than enough exercise to be considered
   "reasonably fit."  Now you say that you were concerned that not getting any
   exercise beyond the everyday "dog-walking" type things was endangering my
   health?  Another inconsistency.

You really have trouble with that subjunctive, don't you?  I said "IF
you said" you don't care to exercise.  We already know you *do* care to
exercise -- loathe though you are to call it that -- at least to the
extent of brisk walks, and that this is sufficient.  You need to take a
little more care in your reading -- the subjunctive mood is very
important in English.

   >But I certainly read what you said -- and I think by far the majority of
   >others here read what you said -- as rather stronger: the assertion that
   >people who *do* exercise for whatever reason are wastrels, not really
   >intellectual, etc.  Not just *different* but *bad*.

   Of course.  People asked -- demanded, really -- to know the reasons why
   I chose not to exercise.  Well, if I choose not to do something, it's
   because I consider it undesireable -- "bad" -- to me.  At least, less
   desireable than something I might otherwise do.  Making a decision
   requires holding one choice to be better than another.  If the choices
   are merely "different," there's no basis on which to make a decision.
   I choose not to participate in sports because I regard the person I
   would become if I did to be worse, not better, than the person I am now.

Not too long ago, someone else posted to the effect that "no
non-monogamous relation ship can be committed."  We eventually figured
out that she meant "I don't think I could be in a committed non-
monogamous relationship."  There's a whole LOT of difference between
them. 

   Has it occured to you that it is irrational to demand that a person
   tell you his reasons for not doing something when you don't want to
   hear anything less than laudatory about the option he has decided against? 

Has it occurred to you that it's irrational to demand people accept your
pronouncements that conflict with their opinions without questioning them?

   >   >Ed, either you believe you are unworthy of other's love -- the *very*
   >   >strong impression or inference I draw from your writing -- or you
   >   >believe what you seem to be saying in this posting, which is that no
			 ^^^^ ^^ ^^ ^^^^^^
   >   >woman (at least that you meet) is worthy of your love.  

   >   Or it could be choice C -- not what my post "seemed to say" but what
   >   it actually *did* say.  That I do know [do not?] meet many women who
   >   share the same *interests*.  However, you love to set up these little
   >   dichotomies that are constructed so that they prove your argument
   >   either way.  Sorry, I'm not going to bite.

   >You've already bitten, Ed.  That's the problem.  All I can read is what
   >I read.  I can't know what you *really* mean.  

   That would be an improvement over your present pattern of reading what
   I "seem to be saying."

No, Ed, it wouldn't.  Try to read more closely: I'm making the specific
point that I can only read your words and interpret them, and that I
can't *know* what you mean; I can only know what you seem to be saying.

   >And what I read says that
   >you don't meet women who share *all* your interests and you can't
   >imagine spending your life with a woman who doesn't completely fit your
   >template.  

   What you *read* may have said that, but what I *wrote* said something
   quite different.  "Those things (interests) that I can't share with
   my friends" somehow became "all my interests."

Okay, so you've clarified that.  I'm suspicious that my first reading is
closer to the reality of what you feel, but what the hell.

   >    So, how about an answer, Charlie?  Since you were making up facts
   >   you could not possibly know, why didn't you at least make up a consistent
   >   set of facts?

   >Go back and check out the sentence: there were a number of
   >possibilities, each separated by "or".  A list of hypothetical
   >possibilities.  Now, I admit I didn't include in that list any direct
   >oppositions, but I don't think anyone literate in English would have
   >trouble interpreting the sentence.  

   Again, you're trying to change the subject.  Why did your list of
   hypothetical possiblities include one possibility that contradicted
   a "fact" about me that you'd already stated?  

Because it was hypothetical.  It was just an example.

At least look up subjunctive, okay?  You're *really* having trouble with
a common part of english grammar.

   >   >   I arrived at the restaurant first and was
   >   >   waiting just outside the door when she pulled up, saw me, turned
   >   >   around, and drove back out of the parking lot.  Afterward, she
   >   >   would not accept any of my phone calls.

   >No, I'm going to syuggest that a self-confident mature man would have
   >said "fuck her, then" 

   Really?  I figured that was no longer a realistic possibility when 
   she drove out of the parking lot. ;-)

You still are catching the straight lines, anyway.

   >and gotten on with life.  You *don't* appear to be getting on with life.  

   I don't?  Dear me.  I really thought my life was "on".  I mean, I have
   a pulse, I buy food every week and it disappears from the refrigerator
   (well, except for that fuzzy green-and-yellow stuff in the back, but
   I'm not sure you can call that food any longer).  

Well, *something* is eating it.

   I may not be getting
   on with it well enough to please you, but I am certainly am getting on
   with it.  Oh, I see.  You meant, "get on with my life and pretend that
   she, like all women, found me so handsome she had a loss of bladder
   control."  Sorry, Charlie, self-delusion's not my bag.

Ed, either you are happy with your life as it stands or you're not.  It
doesn't seem like you are.  If it's self-delusion to say "I don't know
what bothered her, but I'm not going to let it bother me", then maybe
you could *use* some self-delusion.  But I can't help feeling that if
you were really happy with your life, this whole conversation wouldn't
have been so important to you.

   >   I do not consider physical attractive or physical fitness to be an
   >   admirable characteristic.  If you read the things I wrote, you might
   >   have noticed that I mentioned that, oh, 50 or 60 times.  How many more
   >   times do I have to repeat it before I reach comprehension level?

   >Do you then consider them un-admirable?  I know what you *wrote*, Ed --
   >but it doesn't seem to stand up to scrutiny.

   As Spock would say, "I do not consider them admirable or unadmirable,
   Captain, any more than I consider gravity to be admirable.  I simply
   note them as properties that exist."

   >   This is based on the assumption that I would be happier with a
   >   serving girl/topless dancer who does not provide the things I
   >   am looking for than I am now.  I am not convinced that is the
   >   case.

   >But, Ed, you've demonstrated mathematically -- to your own satisfaction
   >if not mine -- that what you are looking for is LITERALLY a million to
   >one shot.  

   "Nothing worthwhile is ever easily accomplished."  Or, as Bret Maverick
   put it, "Luck don't have a thing to do with how you play the game."

   I think that your standards aren't just high -- my standards
   >are damned high -- but impossibly high.  And that you can't conceive of
   >any compromise that might lead to a happier life.

   Well, if I can't conceive of any compromises that might lead to
   a happier life, that only leaves compromises that won't lead to
   a happier life.  I don't see much point in those.

Which means you end up unhappy.  Great deal.
--
Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/martinc@cs.unc.edu/(ne crm@cs.duke.edu) 
O/Dept. of Computer Science/CB #3175 UNC-CH/Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3175
H/3611 University Dr #13M/Durham, NC 27707/(919) 419 1754
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"I am he who walks the States with a barb'd tongue, questioning every
one I meet,/Who are you that wanted only to be told what you knew
before?/ Who are you that wanted only a book to join you in your
nonsense?"  _Leaves of Grass_ xxiii.4.