From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Intro to me and question for all
Date: 12 Dec 92 08:59:44 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <MUFFY.92Dec11202447@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>
>I see you don't "pratice what you preach," eh, Philip?

    Meaning what, exactly?


    I'll try and trim down the quotes a bit - if you've gotten this
far into the thread you probably have clues as to the subject matter.


>In article <1992Dec11.194314.14772@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>In article <MUFFY.92Dec9234317@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec09.195829.8886@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>>>In article <MUFFY.92Dec8191112@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>>>>Frightening.  I'm both bi and poly:
>>>>>
>>>>>Bisexuality does not specify the "acceptable number of genders."  I
>>>>>don't *care* how many genders my lovers have (and there are theories
>>>>>that there are more than two).  Gender is basically *irrelevant* to me,
>>>>>as far as attraction goes.
>>>
>>>>Shouldn't it be called "polysexuality" then?  If you're going
>>>>to complain about Vicka playing fast-and-loose with the language,
>>>>you shouldn't be doing it yourself.  (Insert smiley if necessary)
>>>
>>>In other words, you'll take any opportunity to take a stab at me, eh?  I
>>>did not make up the word, and, frankly, I am not completely comfortable
>>>with it.  However, if I use that word, everyone I use it with will
>>>understand it in a basic way (i.e. I will have sex with either men or
>>>women).
>>In your previous post you say that bisexuality is independent of
>>gender.
>
>Nope.  It's right there, read it again.  Boy, you people sure have
>trouble with the English language.  I said that bisexuality does not
>specify an "acceptable number of genders."  I never said anything about
>it being "independent of gender."

    Unfortunately we're playing at pedantics here, so I couldn't
find anything to delete above.
    To the average person, bixsexuality definitely specifies an
"acceptable number of genders".  You use the word regardless of the
definition of the majority.


>>The most commonly used definition of the word, however, would
>>specify an either/or condition, since most people recognize only two
>>genders.
>
>So?  That is how our society looks at it.  Unlike Vicka, I try to use
>words in the way that the people around me use them, so that I will be
>understood.

     No, the word as society uses it doesn't mean the same thing
that it means when you use it, by your own admission above.


>> So, by your own admission, you are using a definition of the
>>word "bisexual" that doesn't match the definition used by the majority
>>of the population.
>
>Where do you get this?  I'm using exactly the definition that society
>uses.  It doesn't completely suit how I *feel*, but I use it because it
>gets the basic idea right.

     Ah - I see... you're getting partial understanding by using
the word, then need to clarify your position with further discussion.
Just like Vicka with "monogamous".  Right?


>>This is exactly what you are complaining about Vicka doing with
>>respect to the word "monogamous".
>
>No, I'm "complaining" because her definition is in *conflict* with the
>commonly accepted definition.

     It appears that the only person seeing a conflict is you.


>Speaking of which, I posted to soc.couples today asking for people's
>definitions of "monogamy."  Here is the one I have received so far:
>
>*Personally, my definition of "being monogamous"  has always been that you are
>*in a sexual relationship with only one person, which usually means you're either
>*married or in a committed relationship (like the dictionary states)  

     Is this supposed to prove something?


>>>You seem to have imagined it quite well, actually.  Most people don't
>>>even negotiate relationships this far, they just assume monogamy.
>
>>And you're lumping Vicka into this category, despite repeated
>>statements to the contrary.  And you continue to do so.
>
>She goes around saying she is monogamous.  If the person does not think
>that that is ambiguous (see below), they won't feel that they need to
>question further.

     I dare say that the people who could potentially be hurt by
a misunderstanding (this was your original objection, if you can
remember back that far) would be informed enough by the time they
got into the relationship.  Believe it or not, most people don't go
into relationships with their eyes closed.


>>>If you persist in
>>>calling a small furry animal a "lamp," that's going to seriously impede
>>>your communications with people.
>
>>There is clearly a difference between a concrete noun like "lamp"
>>and an ambiguous term like "polyamorous", or "bisexual", or "monogamous".
>>You've chosen a poor analogy again.
>
>What is ambiguous about "bisexual" and "monogamous"?  "Polyamorous,"
>being new, has not got a well-defined usage yet.

     I can point to a lamp, and say "lamp", and you'll know exactly
what I mean.  "Bisexual", "Monogamous", and "Polyamorous" are all
abtract terms, and subject to ambiguity.


>>It's important for _both_ parties to recognize the vagaries of
>>the English language, and request clarification of any term they
>>find potentially ambiguous.
>
>I've never met anyone who found the term "monogamous" ambiguous.  Again,
>please tell me how it is that it is ambiguous.

     It clearly has multiple meanings - the problem here is that
you refuse to recognize any definition but your own as valid.


>> Muffy, you called her relationship a "cruel lie".  The burden
>>of proof is on you to back that statement up, or else retract it.
>
>Now you are lying, or maybe you have just been misled by Vicka's claims
>of what I have said.  Show me this text where I "called her
>relationships a cruel lie."

     I've done this in a separate post.  I'm kind of surprised you
posted this challenge without going back to examine your own words.

					-Phil
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.