From: kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle)
Subject: Re: Exactly what I mean by "unattached"...
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 08:15:02 GMT

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

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.  

Good evidence for the claim that they [people, esp. women] have no
idea what they are _really_ looking for (falling for, actually) can be
found in _Smart Women, Foolish Choices_. 

>confidence.  But since self-confidence is good for both initial selection
>*and* relationship maintenance

Perhaps.  Self-confidence and/or the lack thereof is an overused straw
man, IMO.  I have known people happy in their relationships who did
_not_ have a lot of self-confidence (let alone real self-esteem.)

>I didn't much like the idea of "conning" someone
>into getting into a relationship with me.

>I no longer have such problems with idealism.

Good for you!  Philosophy is a _tool_ to help humans achieve their
ends, not just a bloody set o' rules!  Do what works.  Find principles
that make your life happier.

>Yes.  But as you say, the successes are small.  I also wager that they're
>few and far between.  

Dunno.  I have seen some sucesses.  One case (Hi Dawn) involved
her current SO romancing her in email and overcoming her initial
negative reactions. 

>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? 

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

>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?)
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.) Also, remember that some women post
only occasionally, so it helps to be quick on the 'r' key, to be
able to write well about many things, and to be able to turn the
conversation to things you are both interested in.  Nothing more
boring that a conversation that has outlived itself.  

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

>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?  

>Unless you're just naturally attractive to women, there's no other way.

*laugh* there are other ways, they just don't always work.

>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?

>You have to change for them because they won't change for you.

And that is another can of worms, for another day.

-- 
"The Moropus of the Miocene Period tried to be a Horse, a Tapir, and a
 Rhinoceros, all at the same time.  As he discovered, it can't be done.
 .....................Will Cuppy, footnote from _How To Become Extinct_
-- 
Kiran Wagle                             <kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
P.O.Box 2083 Bloomington IN 47402-2083      (812) 336-7478 [8p-1a EST]
Newsgroups: soc.singles