From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: More on guys who aren't dating Ed Wright
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 00:57:32 GMT
Distribution: soc
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 <MARTINC.92Sep27145032@grover.cs.unc.edu> martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:

>You notice where it says "the seats are not empty"?  Or "You may not
>*go* *to*"? And actually, I *didn't* know the Super Bowl and World
>Series are the highest rated shows on network television -- in fact, it
>isn't even true -- but assuming it were, is the Bay Area the only market
>to which network television is sent?

Most football fans don't attend every game. More fans watch a typical
game on television than attend in person.  Just as classical music fans
spend more hours listening to CDs than live concerts.  But a single
football game, as you noted, may have 40,000 live spectators (and thousands
more on TV), while a free Shakespeare performance may draw 400 spectators
and a public lecture on astronomy may draw 40 -- with no live TV coverage.
What does this suggest about the relative numbers of people who enjoy
sports, Shakespeare, and astronomy?

And the World Series *is* the highest-rated program on television.  It
has only been beaten in the ratings once, by an episode of the Cosby
show.  Networks generally avoid putting anything but repeats up against
it, because they know no other show has a chance.

>Why are you so *devoted* to defending the idea that ANY interest in ANY
>sport whatsoever is morally wrong?

I do not believe that an interest in sports is morally wrong.  What I
do believe is morally wrong is the idea, popularized by the sports and
fitness movement, that athletes are better than nonathletes.  This much
I already explained to you, in the email that you refused to acknowledge.
I do not have anything against "sports" (yes, if it pleases you, I will
concede that they are sports) such as hiking, motor racing, martial arts,
etc. that do not make such claims.


>Yeah, I know.  Any time spent on sports detracts from improving your
>mind.  I remember that argument.  It's still asinine.

So, please explain to us how a human being with a lifetime of X minutes
can spend Y minutes playing/watching sports and still have a total of
X minutes to do other things.  Enquiring minds want to know.  Next you'll
be telling us you can sleep 12 hours a day and still have as many waking
hours as someone who only sleeps 8.  Sorry, Charlie, it's a logical 
impossibility.

However, you still miss the point.  It's a *value judgement*, Charlie.
A real nerd wouldn't choose to play softball because he could doing
something else, like reading or computer programming, that he enjoys
more instead.  It is someone with those interests and values that I
am looking for.  Why should I look for someone who likes to spend her
free time playing/watching/talking sports when I am *not* looking for
someone to play/watch/talk sports with? 

>But in the mean time, you carefully deleted the *point*, didn't you?
>The part where I wrote:

>      Hunks with Porsches are in the distinct minority, and while they
>      often seem to get the "trophy" women, you're not looking for a
>      trophy anyway, are you?

There.  This time I didn't delete a single word.  Happy, Charlie?

>You see, there are lots of physically inept, unfit, bright and ambitious
>but merely salaried computer people who *do* have relationships, get
>married, all that stuff.

Unfortunately, the world is not as simple as you'd like.  There are
other categories of people in between "unfit" and Arnold Schwartzenegger.


>(Also, by the way, you're making some pretty strong assumptions if you
>presume that the ONLY women you're likely to be interested in will have
>GRADUATE DEGREES in SCIENCE or ENGINEERING.  How about lawyers?  M.D.s?)

I've always considered medicine to be a scientific discipline.  As
far as lawyers go, unless they have an undergraduate science degree,
their background and range of interest is likely to be quite limited.
(Read C.P. Snow's "The Two Cultures" and "The Two Cultures Revisited"
for a more detailed explanation.)  I have, however, compromised on this
criterion from time to time, to the extent of asking out women who didn't
completely fulfill it.  In fact, right now I am dating a woman who is a
CPA.  (Or at least, as you would say, I think we're dating.)  However, I
have not yet been able to convince myself that I could be *serious* about
any of these women.  So it's not an assumption, it's the result of my own
experience.


>I doubt you regularly go to church socials and AARP meetings, 
>so that narrows the age range.

Why do you doubt that?  I haven't attended any church social functions
in the last six months or so, for lack of time, but prior to that I
probably attended an average of three or four every month.  

>You're much more likely to go to plays than to Cowboys games -- thus
>you'll likely meet women who are interested in the theater and
>literature, and who are bright in the bargain. 
 
>You work for a high-tech company, so unless you're the night 
>janitor you're much more likely to
>meet women with technical degrees, or at least college degrees, than you
>would in the general population. 

That depends.  Do you mean as a percentage or in absolute numbers?
If the former, I might agree, but in fact there are so few women
working here that perentages don't really matter.


>In fact, if you think about it, the women you meet in day-to-day life
>are most likely interested in the same things you are, or at least some
>of them, simply because they're there!  

The operative phrase there is "some of them."  The things I'm looking
for in a woman are precisely the things that I *don't* find in people
I meet.  After all, why would I insist on something in a mate if I had
lots of other friends who could provide it?   


>Why?  Because I *asked*.  Because I met women I thought were
>interesting, and asked them out.  I also got turned down a lot, but what
>the hell?

"Asking" requires that I have already met someone who I would
like to go out with if she said "yes."  It seems you have conceded
that it might not be a snap to find women like that -- otherwise,
why would you have suggested that I modify my requirements?


>See, that's just what I mean.  What you've actually done is
>*consistently* mistaken my honest attempts to help for personal attacks.
>But Ed, if I just wanted to *insult* you I could do a *helluva* sight
>better job on you than I've done.  (Remember what Dawn wrote to you a
>few days ago: about how I'd said "Wait a minute, I think this guy really
>needs help" and told you about my therapy?  *She* certainly thinks I was
>trying to help.)

Oh, alright, Charlie.  If you insist, I'll play your silly little
game.  I apreciate your sincere desire to help, and I am grateful
for it.  I am every bit as concerned about you.  I think you should
phone the nearest psychiatric hospital and have your head examined
*immediately*.  And I am every bit as sincere in saying that as you 
are.  I hope you're satisfied now.

>I don't know what happened, or how -- if it
>was your childhood or your karma or your stars or your genes -- but you
>have this massive investment in hopelessness and your own worthlessness.

Sounds like something out of Orwell's "1984."  The fact that I tell you
I am not worthless proves that I believe am worthless.  The only way you
will believe that I don't think I am worthless is if I tell you that I am.
"Ignorous is knowledge, truth is falsehood."


>Ed, so far in this most recent exchange, at one point you've accused me
>of saying that your fat friend "deserved to die".  I'm quite certain I
>didn't say that -- nor have you responded to my request that you show me
>where I said it.  When pressed, you said that I said she had low
>self-esteem and that being fat was all her fault.  I don't think I said
>*that* either, but it doesn't matter: it certainly isn't the same as
>saying she deserved to die.  Misquotation.

No, selective quotation -- on your part.  What you ommitted was my 
statement that I spent several hours on the phone with her trying to 
talk her out of a state which seemed, to me, to border on suicidal.  
You said anyone who did not follow the DUMB Book of Diet and Fitness
deserved to be in that state -- "their own fault."

And believe it or not, I'm not recording the Gospel According to Charlie
for posterity.

>You've also said that I said I "didn't have a girl" in this very post.
>I don't remember saying that, and doubt you can find a post in which I
>said it.  Misquotation.

Mistake.  I make them sometimes.  Often, in fact.  Unlike some
people, I'm not afraid to admit them.

>You twisted your own argument from "seats in a stadium" to "watching
>television" -- misquoting *yourself* for Christ's sake! -- in order, I
>guess, to avoid the idea that maybe some people other than yourself
>didn't watch sporting events.

I *refined* my argument in an attempt to convince the twit on the
other end that "only" 40,000 people showing up for a single Giants
game does not prove that most people in Silicon Valley don't enjoy
sports -- your claim.


>If *I've* misquoted you, show me the quote and what I said that
>misquoted, and I'll apologize.  

Oh?  Well, most recently, you've accused me of saying that I bike
long distances. The closest thing I've ever coming to that
was saying that I was of afraid of being run *over* by bicycles.

You accused me of saying that you were a bronze god when, in fact,
what I said was that I thought you were reasonably fit.

You accused me of saying that most women only want to date men who
look just like Arnold Schwarzenegger when what I actually said was
"men who are physically fit."  In fact, almost every time I use a
phrase like "athletic" or "reasonably fit", you replace it with a
reference to Schwarzenegger.

When I said I wanted to date women who didn't care what I looked
like, you twisted this into "will not date women who like or dislike
his apearance."

Although I stated from the start that my primary problem was meeting
women who shared my *interests*, and that being turned down for my
looks and athletic *in*ability was a secondary problem after that,
you continually accused me of believing that my physical appearance
was the only reason why I hadn't found a woman.

Then there's all that nonsense about my believing I am "worthless."

Will this do for starters?


>You, however, are not a strong, assertive, self-confident man.  

Let me get this straight.  Because I am confident enough to stand
up to you and assert my own opinions, I am not an assertive, self-
confident man.  "Black is white, right is wrong...."

>You're still a poor kid who can't get over his mommy calling him skinny,
>or his daddy calling him a klutz, or his grade school gym teacher
>laughing at him when he fell down, or something.  

On another occassion, you accused me of saying that my mother
was the only the only person who could fidn me physically attractive.
Now, you say that my mother thought I was skinny.  Which is it, Charlie?
If you're going to make up a life history for me, at least make it
consistent.

Of course, you left out possiblity D.  Last year, I placed a personal
ad in a local paper.  I talked to one of the women to one of the women
who responded, on the phone, several times, and we agreed to meet at a
restaurant.  We gave each other vague, general discriptions of our physical
appearances in order to recognize one another.  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.  Okay, you're pretty creative,
Charlie.  Please tell me how this reaction could be due to anything
*other* than my physical appearance.


>Don't you see something of yourself in
>your own list of accomplishments?  Don't you think, down deep, that if
>you were only admirable in all things that it might get you what you
>*really* want: love that you can value and accept, love that makes you
>feel, finally, good about yourself?

No, I've been around too long to think that life is always fair and
people always get what they deserve.  And I believe that I *am* admirable
in all things.  (Yet another one you owe me, Charlie.)


>That scene is always played with the serving girl looking at Cyrano with
>awe, and admiration, and maybe even love -- and Cyrano is always blind
>to it.  He can't see past his nose when it comes to seeing that someone
>*might* love him even with his disfigurement.

Yes, and I have even experienced the real-life analog of that scene.
I was in a restaurant with a group of friends one night when a woman
came over and started coming on to me.  She was dressed in an outfit
that covered about 2/3 of the areas it really needed to cover, had hair
dyed a very unnatural shade of red and lipstick of an equally unnatural
color, and talked more like a "Valley Girl" than anyone I would expect
to find in Texas.  In the course of some polite conversation, she informed
our group that she was employed as a topless dancer.  She was visible under
the influence of alcohol (at least) and was, as one of my friends said
later, "seriously in lust" with me.

>Ed, it's time you learned to see past your own nose.

If you mean that I should settle for "serving girls," I can only
repeat what I have said before.  I am sure that if I was willing
to settle for just anyone, rather than someone who shares the interests
I desire in a woman, that I could have found someone long ago.  But
I won't.  You can say that's irrational -- you may even be right --
but it's as simple as that.  I will not because I choose not.

Newsgroups: soc.singles