From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: More on guys who aren't dating Ed Wright
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 04:13:40 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.92Sep29210821@grover.cs.unc.edu> martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:

>   Contrast this attitude to the smug arrogance of Arnold Schwarzennger,
>   the official head of the US fitness program.  Or the self-righteous,
>   nose-in-the-air superiority of Nancy 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.

Waffling again, eh, Charlie?  You denied saying that exercise made a person
superior in any way except the physical.  You said no one else remembered
your saying that, and you accused me of misquoting you.  Now, you're right
back to defending it.  

Let me explain to you the difference between a *Doctor* and someone
with a medical-school diploma, MISTER Martin.  One of the things that
students should learn in medical school, but often don't, as your statements
attest. The human being you find described in textbooks is the average
statistical human being.  What they obviously didn't teach you in medical
school is that there are no average statistical human beings in the real
world.  Everyone has differences and peculiarities and no one program or
treatment is appropriate for everyone, *including* the DUMB Book of Diet
and Exercise.  *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.  I have treated more athletic
injuries than you've even read about.  I have seen some of the effects of
your guaranteed effective, 100% no-risk miracle cure. When you have treated 
as many patients as I have, you *might* have some idea what you're talking 
about, MISTER Martin. 


>Once again you're having a little trouble with close reading.  I'm tired
>of quoting in chunks to show where, but if you read closely you'll
>discover that you've rather reslanted what I said -- at best.

Yes, I said you could rant all you want about my not including every
chunk of your lurid, voluminous prose.  But it's still there for anyone
who's really interested to go look at.  Chill out.


>And once again, we slide away from the point.  A "moderate exercise
>program" that includes walking the dog briskly for 30 minutes three
>times a week is all that the DUMC -- aren't you rather tired of the
>childish DUMB thing yet -- is all that the DUMC book recommends.  It's
>considerably more than many people get.  

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.  In fact, you claimed than medical
research recommended more than that in another article you posted
today.  When I asked for evidence that this much exercise was not
sufficient, you accused me of a "conspiracy theory." 

Secondly, if the average American does not get 90 minutes of brisk
walking every week, how do you think he gets around?  Do you think
dogs get walked, lawns get mowed, fences get painted, etc. all by
themselves?  Do you think the average Joe has servants to do these
for him?  Any mother who has a small child can tell you she spends
much more time than that chasing him around the house -- often at
much more than a "brisk walk."  Hell, 30 minutes of brish walking
is one trip to the mall.

>It's also the central point in
>my argument that -- since you ahve said that you do that much exercise
>-- you must be moderately fit.  Not unfit, as you style yourself.

Yet I probably get less exercise than 98-99% of the people I know.
If I am moderately fit, then so is the average American.  If the
average American is not, then neither am I.


>Hold on a second.  "Not again"?  You mean that you've had a relationship
>of this (more or less idealized) sort once, and you've broken up?

No, I meant I *met* a woman who fulfilled that ideal type.  It never
got nearly as far as a relationship.

>Again, this is inferrence (look it up) but ... first of all, I hope
>you'll brace yourself and take seriously for the nonce that I *really*
>and *truly* sympathize with how much that hurts.  Honest.  (That's some
>of where I am myself right now.)   But then, secondly -- have you
>considered the possibility that the reason you have trouble seeing
>yourself in another relationship is that you've not completely resolved
>your feelings about the last one?

Your reading way too much into this.  It never got far enough for
"feelings" of that sort to come into it.  I will admit that I do
sometimes wonder if I'll find another woman who I'll *want* to have
a relationship with as much as her -- someone who'll be more than
second best -- but that's all there is to it.  And I don't dwell on
that, either -- it's something I think about maybe once a month or so 
-- so, again, don't read too much into this.


>One thing that seems to keep coming through in what you write is some
>very "all or nothing" boolean thinking.  Somehow, this appears to draw
>the distinction between someone who only has a very slight interest in
>sports and someone who won't be completely satisfied with a man who
>doesn't like sports a lot.

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.


>But isn't there some room for compromise?  If you found (Edwina -
>epsilon), someone who otherwise fit your criteria but had season tickets
>to the Cowboys games, would she be unsuitable?  

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.

>Again, if so, it seems self-defeating: in pretty much any relationship,
>there are going to be little mismatches.

The trick, it seems to me, is to find someone with whom those mismatches
are in areas that neither person cares very strongly about.  

(I already have hay fever by the way -- have for the last 30 years 
-- so your medical advice there is a bit late.)

>But expecting someone to have an undergrad science degree in order to
>demonstrate their interest in that other culture seems a bit extreme,
>don't you think?  I don't think weither of us has an English degree, but
>that doesn't mean we can't be interested in poetry.  

You missed the point, Charlie.  It's not about *demonstrating* that
interest.  People who don't have a science degree are unlikely to *have*
an interest.  The crossover interest generally only goes one way.  Read
Snow's essays for a complete discussion.


>   It's not necessary, I already believe that.  I believe I can improve the
>   odds by a factor of 10 quite easily and a factor of 100 with some effort.
>   Beyond that, I'm not quite so sure.

>Arguable.  Hmmm.  This area is a poor sample -- more PhDs per capita
>than anywhere else in the world, the Chamber of Commerce says -- 

I believe the Chamber of Commerce at Los Alamos says the same thing. 

>   >I don't know -- why?  Why do you insist on something in a mate that
>   >would make her different from the people you consider friends?

>Any of your male friends who bear children will be able to pay for their
>own child support through media fees.

Okay, I'll admit I hadn't thought of that angle.  Nevertheless, I still
believe my approach may be a wee bit more practical.


>All smart-ass remarks aside, there is a whole *helluva* lot of
>perfectionism implicit here: the idea that your wife will have an
>interest in all the things in which your friends aren't interested.  The
>idea that once you've got your One True Love that you will be completely
>satisfied by her, rather than needing to have other friends.

Not "rather than", "in addition to."  The flip side of this is that
there things I *don't* insist on finding in a wife because I already
get enough from my friend.  (Not to mention things that I don't insist
on because I can, if necessary, provide for both of us -- such as cooking.)


>Ed, I'm in therapy.  If I suggest to you that therapy might help, it's
>because I've found it very useful.  "Check into a psychiatric hospital
>and get your head examined" has a very different connotation.

Yes, but they have the same *denotation*.

>A lot of people who can't tell the difference have real fear that the
>psychiatrists will tell them they really *are* crazy.  Or that they'll
>reveal Secrets.

Or they've just realized that the empirer has no clothes.  I will believe
in psychiatry when you can show me an id, ego, or superego stretched out
on the dissection table, thank you.

>If it was a misquotation, you should be able to show where it is.  Do
>so.

Charlie, I showed you roughly half a dozen cases where you've misquoted
me.  You quibbled with each of them, excpet the last, where you simply
changed the subject.  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? 

>OI've had no trouble quoting your misquotations.

Yes, you do have a promising career as a fiction writer.


>Okay, let's take this example then:  You want someone who would answer
>(c) or (d) to #2.  (Or perhaps you insist on (d) only.)  But "like" and
>"dislike" in context must *certainly* be interpreted to connote --
>notice the word I chose, Ed -- connote whether or not their actions
>would be influenced.  If they would be uninfluenced, they "don't care." 

Nonsense.  I may like or dislike the design of a breakfast cereal
package.  That doesn't mean I will buy the package because of it.
As I said, two separate parameters,

>At the very least, my interpretation is a legitimate one.
>   attractive was for the good of the person being turned down.)

>I think you slipped up on the connotations again.  I don't think anyone
>said -- or intended to say, at least -- that it was *wrong* to date
>someone who they didn't find attractive.  Just that it was legitimate
>for them to choose attractive people over unattractive people of
>appearance was important to them.

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.

>There are even reasons to argue that people ought to consider dating
>unattractive people -- Dawn and her sweetie being a prime example.  If
>*she'd* refused to date him because he was funny looking, she'd have
>missed out big time.

>But then, those arguments apply to you and your feelings about people
>who don't have the right resume too.

And extending that argument into the employment field, it's just
as wrong to consider a job applicant's resume as it is to base
your decision on the way he parts his hair, huh?

>   I don't care what the hell you do with your life as
>   long as you don't try telling me how to live mine.  You crossed that
>   line as soon as you pulled out the DUMB Book of Diet and Fitness.

>Well, I don't know.  If you said "I don't care to exercise and I don't
>believe any of that medical data" I'd have said "the more fool you
>then".  I might have tried to convince you otherwise, but I don't give a
>damn if you die young. 

But you just said I was getting more than enough exercise to be considered
"reasonably fit."  Now you say that you were concerned that not getting any
exercise beyond the everyday "dog-walking" type things was endangering my
health?  Another inconsistency.

>But I certainly read what you said -- and I think by far the majority of
>others here read what you said -- as rather stronger: the assertion that
>people who *do* exercise for whatever reason are wastrels, not really
>intellectual, etc.  Not just *different* but *bad*.

Of course.  People asked -- demanded, really -- to know the reasons why
I chose not to exercise.  Well, if I choose not to do something, it's
because I consider it undesireable -- "bad" -- to me.  At least, less
desireable than something I might otherwise do.  Making a decision
requires holding one choice to be better than another.  If the choices
are merely "different," there's no basis on which to make a decision.
I choose not to participate in sports because I regard the person I
would become if I did to be worse, not better, than the person I am now.
 
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? 

>   >Ed, either you believe you are unworthy of other's love -- the *very*
>   >strong impression or inference I draw from your writing -- or you
>   >believe what you seem to be saying in this posting, which is that no
                      ^^^^ ^^ ^^ ^^^^^^
>   >woman (at least that you meet) is worthy of your love.  

>   Or it could be choice C -- not what my post "seemed to say" but what
>   it actually *did* say.  That I do know [do not?] meet many women who
>   share the same *interests*.  However, you love to set up these little
>   dichotomies that are constructed so that they prove your argument
>   either way.  Sorry, I'm not going to bite.

>You've already bitten, Ed.  That's the problem.  All I can read is what
>I read.  I can't know what you *really* mean.  

That would be an improvement over your present pattern of reading what
I "seem to be saying."

>And what I read says that
>you don't meet women who share *all* your interests and you can't
>imagine spending your life with a woman who doesn't completely fit your
>template.  

What you *read* may have said that, but what I *wrote* said something
quite different.  "Those things (interests) that I can't share with
my friends" somehow became "all my interests."

>    So, how about an answer, Charlie?  Since you were making up facts
>   you could not possibly know, why didn't you at least make up a consistent
>   set of facts?

>Go back and check out the sentence: there were a number of
>possibilities, each separated by "or".  A list of hypothetical
>possibilities.  Now, I admit I didn't include in that list any direct
>oppositions, but I don't think anyone literate in English would have
>trouble interpreting the sentence.  

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?  

>   >   I arrived at the restaurant first and was
>   >   waiting just outside the door when she pulled up, saw me, turned
>   >   around, and drove back out of the parking lot.  Afterward, she
>   >   would not accept any of my phone calls.

>No, I'm going to syuggest that a self-confident mature man would have
>said "fuck her, then" 

Really?  I figured that was no longer a realistic possibility when 
she drove out of the parking lot. ;-)

>and gotten on with life.  You *don't* appear to be getting on with life.  

I don't?  Dear me.  I really thought my life was "on".  I mean, I have
a pulse, I buy food every week and it disappears from the refrigerator
(well, except for that fuzzy green-and-yellow stuff in the back, but
I'm not sure you can call that food any longer).  I may not be getting
on with it well enough to please you, but I am certainly am getting on
with it.  Oh, I see.  You meant, "get on with my life and pretend that
she, like all women, found me so handsome she had a loss of bladder
control."  Sorry, Charlie, self-delusion's not my bag.

>   I do not consider physical attractive or physical fitness to be an
>   admirable characteristic.  If you read the things I wrote, you might
>   have noticed that I mentioned that, oh, 50 or 60 times.  How many more
>   times do I have to repeat it before I reach comprehension level?

>Do you then consider them un-admirable?  I know what you *wrote*, Ed --
>but it doesn't seem to stand up to scrutiny.

As Spock would say, "I do not consider them admirable or unadmirable,
Captain, any more than I consider gravity to be admirable.  I simply
note them as properties that exist."


>   This is based on the assumption that I would be happier with a
>   serving girl/topless dancer who does not provide the things I
>   am looking for than I am now.  I am not convinced that is the
>   case.

>But, Ed, you've demonstrated mathematically -- to your own satisfaction
>if not mine -- that what you are looking for is LITERALLY a million to
>one shot.  

"Nothing worthwhile is ever easily accomplished."  Or, as Bret Maverick
put it, "Luck don't have a thing to do with how you play the game."

I think that your standards aren't just high -- my standards
>are damned high -- but impossibly high.  And that you can't conceive of
>any compromise that might lead to a happier life.

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.