From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Please explain this quote
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 15:29:35 GMT

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?
 
>>>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.
 
>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?
  
>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.
 
>>>                        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...
 
>>>>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". 

>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 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. 

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

>rini