From: cbe@unlinfo.unl.edu (cbe)
Subject: Re: Ah, Fashion.
Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 04:33:05 GMT

drp@dosbears.UUCP (David R. Preston) writes:

>Colburn Eigen writes:
>>drp@dosbears.UUCP (David R. Preston) writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct2.044952.15321@unlinfo.unl.edu> cbe@unlinfo.unl.edu (cbe) writes:
>>>>rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue) writes:
>>>>
>>>>>	You don't *need* to wax to look good, sexy, interesting, etc.
>>>>>You don't *need* to be thin, tan, blond, smooth, muscular, young
>>>>>to have self-worth and to be found attractive by other people.
>>>>
>>>>I swear, we must be living in mutually exclusive gay universes.

>>>No, you're living in Lincoln, Nebraska. Perhaps if you were
>>>in Boston or San Francisco this wouldn't seem such a radical
>>>idea.

>>Oh My!  Dear Me!  How could I have conceivably forgotten about where 
>>the *real* center of the universe is.  I cower in abject humiliation 
>>before one who has achieved such sophistication, insight and wisdom by 
>>virtue of location....rather than intelligence.

>Fuck off, twit. Your contention was that one must fit some standard
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I fail to see where the posting was clearly *my* contention.  What was
intended was mirroring the general attitude of many, especially those 
addicted to the properly waxed look or current fashion.  *That* is the
gay universe I have most often been exposed to in more locales than I 
would care to enumerate.  However, your gorge apparently rises quickly 
and you react in ad hominem vituperation, viz.:

>of good looks to get laid and/or have a mate. Since I know this to
>be false I was giving you the benefit of a doubt as to why your
>perception is off. I meant to excuse your bullshit by suggesting 
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Who appointed you judge?      


>that you hadn't been off the farm and didn't know what the fuck you 
>were talking about. I can see now that there is no getting around
>the fact that you are an immature, unperceptive, looksist twit.
                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

One need only read your posting to judge to whom these terms are 
applicable.


>As far as geographic differences go: big cities have bear bars and
>parties, girth & mirth clubs, etc. Smaller cities and towns tend
>to have only a few gay bars, which tend to cater to people like you.

Again, your foolish and untoward assumptions only further illuminate 
your inability to read in other than your biases.  Not that I need 
explain myself to a simpleton, but if I am in a bar more than twice a 
year it is a miracle.

>And Colburn Eigen writes:
>>Sigh.....is irony possible on motss without smileys?

>Irony? So when you wrote:
>	bbc>You don't *need* to be thin, tan, blond, smooth, muscular, young
>	bbc>to have self-worth and to be found attractive by other people.

>	cbe>I swear, we must be living in mutually exclusive gay universes.

>You were being ironic?

Gee, maybe you *will* get it.

>And when you wrote:
>	bbc>	It's time our community started casting off these things
>	bbc>in favor of liking each other for who we are, not who we're told to be.

>	cbe>Hmmmm....I wonder when Hell will freeze over.

>You were being ironic?

Perhaps repeating E. Lit. 101 would help??  Or perhaps taking it the 
first time? 

>And when you wrote:
>	bbc>BBC, beautiful, sexy,
>	bbc>cuddly, unwaxed, not
>	bbc>blonde, not thin, and
>	bbc>without designer clothes,

>	cbe>but with mate?



>That was irony, too? Fortunately, bbc does have a mate, so
>it wasn't as cruel a thing to say as it might have been....

At this point it perhaps became sarcasm.

>I think you were right, you are living in another universe.

One, merciful heaven, which does not include you.

>One in which a shallow, immature, unperceptive, looksist twit
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                         

Repetition: at best, a hallmark of the unimaginative; at worst, the 
casting of an atrophied brain.


>can post crap and people will believe he was being ironic.

>In yet another post, Colburn Eigen writes:

>>oops....I think I forgot to sign my reply to Mr. David R. Preston 
>>re geographic wisdom.

>>Colburn Eigen              H|u>  =  E|u>

>Ah, so in addition to your many other faults, you're st00pid too.
>For one thing, you don't need to "sign" every post, and posting
                          ^^^^

Did I say I *needed* to?  Again: unwarranted assignment of motive.  At
least your pattern is consistent, if not tiresome.

>another posting saying you forgot to sign your previous posting
>is just stupid. Also, if you are on a UNIX machine, you can put

Oh dear, oh dear....I must admit I'm laughing.  This is *too* much!

>your signature in a file named .signature. To get your name to
>show up in the from: line, instead of just the name of your
>account, put setenv NAME 'Colburn Eigen, twit' in your .login
>file. If you aren't on a UNIX machine, ask your sysadmin, or RTFM.

The question of a sig. file, as well as your opinion, is of little 
import to me.  I would, however, urge you to follow your own advice in
the question of a proper personal attribution; for you, I'd suggest "fool."


Colburn Eigen                             H|u> = E|u>