From: kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown)
Subject: Re: Exactly what I mean by "unattached"...
Organization: I can't see any in the immediate vicinity...
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 05:06:45 GMT

In article <kiran.714125702@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle) writes:
>kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes, apparently about me:
>>I love the net.  Where else can you expect to run across someone who has
>>the same basic handle on things that you do?  :-)
>
>Arrrgh.  I had best get outta here while the gettin's good.  

Hah!  Too late!

>See y'all on the flip side.... 
>(Where does the other side of a Mobius strip go?)

Infinity...

>kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>>What I find to be particularly amusing is the fact that so many women,
>>when asked what they're looking for in a guy, will list the traits that
>>are required for relationship maintenance rather than the ones that are
>
>Yes, this is quite amusing.  In fact, if i could take more pleasure
>from others' misfortune, life would be quite a hoot.  But I generally
>only feel that way about politicians.  

What sort of misfortune do you refer to here?

[referring to net.relationships...]
>Dunno.  I have seen some sucesses.  One case (Hi Dawn) involved
>her current SO romancing her in email and overcoming her initial
>negative reactions. 

How many successes have you seen?  How many failures?  How does the
success rate compare with that of other environments?

>>The net might make *excellent* hunting ground for a female, just like a CS
>>class might.  But it makes poor hunting ground for a male, just like a CS
>>class would.  :-)  
>
>Why?  If you are the most charming guy in the CS course, and you can
>talk with the few women about things other than coursework, you
>probaby have a pretty good chance.  Remember, you only have to
>convince 'em you're better than their other choices.  A woman on the
>net has thousands of prospects--but how many attractive prospects? 

Right.  Then again, how many of those thousands of prospects are trying
to be attractive?  Same in the CS course: how many of the guys are trying
to be attractive?

That's the real question.  If a lot of them are, then you've got a
competition on your hands, and it's only how good you are at being
attractive that will ultimately win you the prize.  In short, the
more guys there are, the harder you'll have to work, right?

>(I am not suggesting you take a course in order to meet people.  I
>would suggest something involving more single people.)

Definitely.

>>And for the same reasons, of course: there are lots more males than
>>females on the net, because there are lots more males than females 
>
>Again, so what?  I have several female correspondents.  
>Some I met here, some on other groups.  (You _do_ read other groups?)

Yes: sci.energy, sci.environment, rec.humor.funny, comp.os.linux,
and rec.autos.tech.  I only read the first three all the way through.
I scan the rest.

Where are the females on these newsgroups?  I haven't seen any...

>All you have to do is write, and be able to distinguish yourself from
>the hundreds of other emails they have just gotten.  
>(*laugh* Big joke.  I always figured that women got piles
>of email every time they posted, simply because they were female, but
>several of them report otherwise.) 

*Really*?  This surprises the hell out of me.  Maybe all the other guys
expect the same thing (that they're competing against hundreds of other
emails) and don't bother.

>Damn.  Now all the net-women are going to kill me.  
>Guess that'll save me the trouble of doing it meself.

Yup.  :-)

>>limiting the signal (due to the medium).  But in both cases, you're
>>carefully controlling the information that makes it to the other person.
>
>So what?  Would you prefer full telepathic communication, no privacy
>at all?  

Ooops.  *Still* doesn't hit on the main point, that being that the way
to go seems to be to lie through your teeth about things that would
otherwise be strikes against you (obviously you try not to talk about
such things first, but sometimes you're forced to).

Of course, you have to make yourself look appealing, but realistic, so
you can (and probably must) talk about *some* things that would be strikes
against you, but only if they're minor.

Of course, now I've done it, because now none of the net.women will ever
believe me if I ever get in an email conversation with them.  :-)

>>Unless you're just naturally attractive to women, there's no other way.
>
>*laugh* there are other ways, they just don't always work.

Other ways?  Such as?

>>People won't "take you as you are" unless "as you are" is appealing
>>to them.  
>
>Tautology of the week. :-)
>Would you take someone as she was if she weren't appealing to you?

Ooops.  Guess you got me there.  :-)

And here is where guys have an *advantage*, because it's easier to change
your financial situation, your outward confidence level, etc., than it is
to change your physical appearance significantly.

>Kiran Wagle                             <kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
>P.O.Box 2083 Bloomington IN 47402-2083      (812) 336-7478 [8p-1a EST]


-- 
				Kevin Brown

			    kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com
			    kevin@taronga.taronga.com
Newsgroups: soc.singles