From: auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer)
Subject: Re: Please explain this quote
Organization: Swarthmore College, PA
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 08:33:27 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.152935.19553@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <1992Nov4.172926.26193@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>
>>>>                                                      Let's try this again.
>>>>You said, in essence, "A and B cannot both be true."  I merely replied,
>>>>"They can, on the condition that either C or D is also true." Now what is 
>>>>so hard about that? Why all the backbending?  I didn't even claim 
>>>>that C and D were true.
>>>
>>>After your quoting statistics in another thread, why even make assumptions?
>>>Why not see if the statistics validate your "if"'s?
>>
>>First, I didn't assume -- I hypothesized.  Second, the statistics I posted 
>>are consistent with my if's.
>
>Which statistics show that most men do only what they want, and are 
>unwilling to do anything to satisy their female partner?

Statistics are silly.  I can run a regression showing that, too.

>>>>Men want sex more than women.  How can this be?  Well, it *could* be that
>>>>the sex that they get is less satisfying for women.  
>>>
>>>Then you are saying that their sex drive is not the same, are you not?
>>
>>Well, it must be that we define sex drive differently.  I mean it to be
>>the state of being horny, and wanting orgasm.  The act of having sex may or
>>may not satisfy the sex drive.  
>
>You were talking orgasm and satisfaction, I was talking about the desire
>for sex. It seems that now you are saying something different.

Deborah Tannen would have a field day with this conversation.

>>I guess you define the sex drive as the desire to have sex.  So, maybe
>>what we have here is a symantics problem.   
>
>Is that not how you just defined it above?

Yup, yup.  A tin of popcorn and we can make a day out of this.

>>Maybe to fix this problem, you could ask the people who hold 
>>what you deem to be contradictory views what *they* define as 
>>sex drive.  That's all it should take.
>
>Since the conversation is between yourself and myself, their usage would
>be irrelevant. All that is required is that we have a common usage.

Just Rich, Rini, and alt.feminism.  It is so romantic -- it gives me
goosebumps.

>>>>                        And Carol is completely welcome to tell me (or the
>>>>whole net, for that matter) that I fucked up.   
>> 
>>>But I am not.
>>
>>You're welcome to tell me Rich.  I have no reason to believe you though.
>
>No, you omit every instance where you actually have fucked up, and ignore
>all references to them when I point them out. Funny how some text keeps
>disappearing...

That solves it!  I had found some electrons on some derelict socks in the
laundry room the other day...  Now I know what they were!

>>>>>How about of I request that either you reply to myself, or the other
>>>>>poster, and not to myself -for- the other poster? 
>>>>
>>>>Nope.  Sorry.  We are all free to offer our exegeses of the postings here.
>> 
>>>Then offer yours.
>>
>>Rich!  Who is that complained that I'm the "interpreter for the masses"!!??
>
>Well, -self styled- "interpreter for the masses". 

Rini, perhaps you could trim my do for me; It is so difficult to find
proficient stylists these days...

>>That's *exactly* what I do!!  It was MY exegesis of Carol's post that
>>got us into this thread, remember????  First you want me to stop 
>>interpretting, now you want me to start?????  Sheez!  Stick to one 
>>opinion, can you?
>
>There is another word problem here <sigh>. Let me clarify, Offer "exegeses"
>for -your- posts as needed.

I think the actual word should be telexes.

>>>>>I only have threads in my KILL files. You can always add -my- name to
>>>>>your KILL file.
>>>>
>>>>No no, you're too much fun!! 
>>>
>>>Then what are you complaining about?
>>
>>Your posts!  It's *fun* to complain about 'em!!  
>
>So rini has "*fun*" complaining. 

I think she has a fever.  (I might have gotten it mixed up with a social
symptom though.)

>This is a terrible shock  <ack!!!!^&#(*^)(*&#)*^$^^@   NO CARRIER

Yeah, same thing happened to me when I picked up those dang socks...

>>rini

-dave