Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-vax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!mit-vax!joy From: joy@mit-vax.UUCP (Joy Hoppe) Newsgroups: net.singles Subject: Re: Words from an Osseous Edifice Message-ID: <2152@mit-vax.UUCP> Date: Mon, 18-Jun-84 16:03:51 EDT Article-I.D.: mit-vax.2152 Posted: Mon Jun 18 16:03:51 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 21-Jun-84 05:20:33 EDT Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA Lines: 115 For them that care to read a flame from afar: Re: Subject: Words from an Osseous Edifice >Never data a secretary you work with. sHe'll be somebody else outside >of work and if things get serious, a continual sore point when, due to >the inevitable fickleness of the breed, things fall through. After all, >what motivated person would be a secretary anyway? I do agree with "don't date anyone you work with." I don't agree that it should be limited only to secretaries. As to the "fickleness of the breed" if you are referring only to secretaries then you are a dolt-- if you refer to females in general, you are an ass. For your last statement.... You twit. There are loads of people who are forced to work in jobs they are overqualified for, for a variety of reasons. Necessity, lack of jobs in your field.... I know, as I have stated before, women here at MIT who have masters' degrees who, out of necessity, must work as secretaries. This doesn't mean they are not motivated. Then there are people like my sister, who has motivations in directions other than career. She doesn't much care what kind of work she does but she insists about doing whatever she does to the best of her ability and insists on getting the respect that she deserves for doing so. She is a very good secretary, and her bosses would be lost without her-- and they admit it! >Figure that whatever you say, it *will* be taken seriously, parsed >according to a set of rules totally alien to your own, and when >all else fails, obstinantly misunderstood. Remember, Murphy bears >a resemblance to a vacuum cleaner, but is more tolerant then a >MOTOS. Boy are you messed up. You must see yourself as totally misunderstood. In truth, you are a jerk. You seem to be unwilling to look at anyone elses' viewpoint and regard yours as "THE WORD". I can see why you are divorced. Nobody could possibly be more intolerant than you. >On to gross pomposity: What do you mean, "On"...???? I thought... oh. you mean you *weren't* being grossly pompous before???? >Christianity is not universally important, 'tis only the basis for all >Western culture. As long as people believe in God(s), tHey exist(s). >Disregard at own risk. Personal beliefs reserved. your sheet is showing! hm.. does this mean that i don't exist because i don't believe in God(s)? what about Islam or Judaism? didn't they contribute to the base of western culture? >A long term commitment (be it formal and called marraige, or informal >and called living together) should offer opportunities for growth, >immortality, and development of a sense of purpose difficult to >otherwise achieve. If children are to be involved, various considerations >as to the welfare of said progeny dictate a pooling of resources so as >to guarantee support and inheritance. One way to accomplish this is >through massive support of the legal system as we know it. Alternately, >$25 and a few minutes of time also works. opportunities for immorality? i'm confused. but i do see that your divorce left you feeling rather burned. did her lawyer do better than your lawyer? ($25 ---> is that what prostitutes go for nowadays?) >It seems relatively easy to make a friend a lover. It only involves >converting a few illusions into knowledge. But breaking up is harder to >do. You ever successfully unlearned anything? I've not. Forgotten with >time, but never unlearned. no comment. > :-) My sympathies to you heavily burdened women of the world. It must be >hard dealing with us self righteous men, who can do naught else but to >demean women to support our own fragile egos. Being a male is actually >quite simple, allowing vast opportunities for finding new and better >ways to degrade the weaker sex. (-: Vast rivers of odious brown goo >flow over them that think so. Could intelligent humans declare a truce >so as to guarantee that stupidity doesn't become a Darwinian selection >criterium? snarl. just because you use the ":-)" doesn't mean that we should ignore the anger in your statement. did someone accuse you of that once? you certainly *sound* self righteous..... >Wherefore shall I find another pompous comment? Ah yes: >Never knock desperation. It's a great impetus to self-inspection >if somewhat mocking. are you desperate? or are you mocking? i can't tell. >I've met intelligent women, and I've met sensible women. The only >intelligent, sensible women I've met were married or facsimile. Why >is that, I wonder? >I must retract the above statement, at least tentatively. It's my side >of the fence speaking. I tolerate more from a MOTSS, since I've no >particular interest in trying to live with one, but the same follows. obviously you don't seem to be a very happy person. and i can understand why any intelligent, sensible woman would stay miles away from you, from all this "brown goo" you've been stuffing onto net.singles...... >Flames welcome, since we don't get net.flames. Avidly awaiting even >the most miniscule notice. aha! so that's why he dumped on us! >P.S. Why lovedav? Explainable, but nonsensical. Beg! no lovedav, it's you who seem to beg. joy hoppe mit lab for computer science secretary/computer operator {allegra,decvax,mit-eddie}!mit-vax!joy joy@mit-vax