From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: More on guys who aren't dating Ed Wright
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 22:26:57 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.92Sep30103015@grover.cs.unc.edu> martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:

>   >   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.

>Ed, you have this consistent problem of conflating "better physical
>shape" with "better in every way, physically, morally and spiritually."

Gosh, I thought a person's outlook on life, creativity, and intelligence
*were* moral, intellectual, and spiritual characteristics.  And when I
referred to your statements on those topics, you didn't deny them; you
attacked me for daring to *question* them.  Now you're backing off again. 

Waffle, waffle.

>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.  

Such as?  If those other things are intellectual, spiritual, and
moral, you have no right to claim you're being misquoted.

>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?

Haven't read it?  You mean there's *more* to it?  You haven't
quoted the *entire* book in soc.singles?  Good Lord, how many
volumes is that thing?

However, *you* never quoted any contraindications to exercise,
and when I stated that there were contraindications, you denied
that there were any and started quoting things from your favorite 
book which you claimed proved it.

>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?

How many?  I've never keep track.  I am a graduate of the USAF medical
service specialist course and DoT crash rescue courses.  I also worked
on an ambulance squad for two years, have taught CPR for the last 16
years, and done several other things I never told you about because
you never asked.   

>   *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.  

>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.

I never said everything had medical *benefits*.  I said that everything
had risks and drawbacks -- "limitations, side effects, and contraindications."
I won't bother to ask whether you misread or misquoted me.

>   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.   

>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. 

Nope, you recommended that *everyone* lift weights.  You said it was
necessary to prevent osteoporesis and broken bones in old age and
quoted chapter and verse to prove it.  (And no, you didn't say that
your recommendation was only for the elderly, either.)  

>Ed, in fact, most people don't walk "briskly" inluess they're being
>chased by something.  

Perhaps.  But not relevent since the advice I've heard most
physicians give is "moderate" not "brisk" walk.

>Mothers of small children may
>well get more excercise than that -- but how many mothers of small
>children are there?  

Huh?  What planet do you live on?  Having small children is unusual?

>There are lots more people whose longest walk is
>from the TV to the refrigerator.  

Are these the people you see at KMart?  No, can't be.  Not unless
KMart is between their refrigerator and their TV.

Okay, look at those KMart shoppers once again.  I think you'll
find that most of them do have families, and most families do
include children.  Many of them own houses and have to do yardwork,
gardening, house repairs, and other work on a regular basis.  Then
there are dogs to walk, errands to run, not to mention the exercise
many of them get on their jobs.  Try telling any waitress that she
doesn't do enough walking -- and then duck!

So, Charlie, where do you meet all these people whose longest walk
is from the TV to the refrigerator?

>   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 --

True, there must have been half a dozen other people who posted
similar things.

>   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?

Maybe, but if I met someone and wasn't *sure* if she was suitable,
wouldn't it be better to go out with her long enough to find out,
instead of relying on vague and possibly inaccurate "impressions?"

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

Oh, yes.  I realize that psychologists have added a few epicycles to
their model since then.

>   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?

Yes, that was the *original* context.  It was not the *immediate*
context, but it was what we started out discussing to begin with.

>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."

I have a bit of trouble figuring out what you were trying to
say there, but I believe that are confusing "care about" with
"care for."

>   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"?  

Take your pick.  The argument was made both ways: that it was wrong
to date someone you didn't find physically attractive and that it
was wrong to date someone who didn't find you physically 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? 

I didn't say "attractive," I said "physically attractive."  You deleted
the qualifier.  I thought we had agreed that being attracted to someone
did not require believing that they were good looking (physically attractive)?
Or are you waffling again?

>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.

If someone has an MS and 20 years of experience, she's probably at
least 44 years old.  Not many women are looking to start a family
at that age.

However, the last time I checked an MS *was* a graduate degree. 


>   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?

I did not volunteer those pronouncements. People demanding that I tell
them why I thought what I did, apparently so that they could attack me
and my reasons.  I believe this is called "picking a fight."

>   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.

Oh, that old canard!  "You can never *really* know what another person
means by what he is saying."  My philosophy of science professor had a
very efficient way of dispensing with that argument.  Whenever someone
brought it up, he would say, "Hm.  Hand me that pencil."  The student
would have him the pencil; he would take it and stand there until the 
lesson sank in. 

>   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.

It was hypothetical, but it was not just an example.  It was a
hypothesis that you advanced as a possible cause of my "problem."
A hypothesis that contradicted something that you had already
stated as fact (although it was a fact you could not possibly
know).  So you still haven't answered my question.  Why do you
bother making up "facts" about me and then advance hypotheses
that are disproven by the fact's you've concocted?  Why not
at least be consistent?


>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.

And I can't help feeling that pretending things were the why I 
wished them to be (or the way you wished them to be), rather than 
the way they are, is likely to make me any more successful.  

>   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.

So your alternative is, what?  Choose a compromise I can't conceive
of?


Newsgroups: soc.singles