Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utcsrgv.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!ray
From: ray@utcsrgv.UUCP (Raymond Allen)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: wearing rings
Message-ID: <657@utcsrgv.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 11-Jan-85 14:41:40 EST
Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.657
Posted: Fri Jan 11 14:41:40 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 11-Jan-85 15:04:33 EST
References: <954@utastro.UUCP> <902@dual.UUCP> <646@utcsrgv.UUCP> <648@utcsrgv.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Lines: 91

[oh boy, a controversy!]

> >	    The raw fact of the situation is that if you are in a
> >	    place where the majority of people don't know each other
> >	    and people are introducing themselves to others, then they
> >	    probably ARE "on the make", looking for a SO, etc, etc, etc.
> 
> WHAT? Garbage!  When I join a group of strangers, I am looking for somebody
> having the same interests as myself or somebody with opposing views who is
> willing to defend themselves!  I strongly doubt that looking for an SO is
> foremost on most people's minds when meeting a new group.
> 
When I made this statement I was referring specifically to "social places" of
the type Helen alluded to in her article.  I accept that your criticism is
valid but if we restrict the definition of "social places" to be those that
have this aura of "pick-up" about them (bars, discos, etc.) then I still
feel my statement is valid.

> >	    If I want to talk to friends, I pick up the phone and call
> >	    them.  Anyone who claims to frequent social places (especially
> >	    bars and discos) and insists that s/he is looking for friends
> >	    is either (a) lying, or (b) entitled to the Jesus Christ
> >	    award for mortal and spiritual purity.  I suppose there is
> >	    also (c) and (d) wants a drink or enjoys the atmosphere but
> >	    this is not likely to be true of many single people who
> >	    FREQUENT such places.  At least (c) and/or (d) aren't likely
> >	    to be the only reasons.
> 
> Define social places.  I consider most of the University a 'social place',
> and am happy to be there for reason (e) to meet people of similar
> interests (make friends, I guess) or (f) to find a good debate.  This
> idea that people pursue the opposite sex with all available resources
> and time when freed from work is a bit ridiculous.  SOs
> may develop from friendship, but you can't tell me that people go out
> specifically with that in mind.
>   Then again, if one is only including bars and dancing facilities, you 
> might be correct.  I would assume that people going there like dancing (or
> or drinking :-)) and would be looking for people of other similar interests.
> That's the way it works for 'social places' outside bars and discos, anyway.
> In my opinion, terminal sites at three in the morning while waiting for long
> compiles is a social place.  What better time to strike up a conversation
> and get to know someone?  I would consider that a 'social place'.  Medals
> for mortal(sic) purity?  Come off it.  SOs are only SOs, but friends are
> a lot of fun for (probably) a lot longer.  (Unless, as is ideal, one's
> SO is one's friend, although I can't see that happening if one is going
> trawling for SOs).

I should have put a :-) after my own statement.  I really was typing a bit
tongue-in-cheek there.

>   Spiritual purity?  Hah.  I go for maximizing my happiness.  Friends every
> time.  If it happens to grow to something greater, then even better.  If it
> doesn't, it's a whole lot of fun anyway.
> 
> >	Enough long-windedness.  Helen, personally, I think you have a
> >terrible attitude towards other people (read: MEN).  You should be
> >flattered by these "pestering morons" who consider you attractive
> >enough to want to get to know you.  (OK OK you probably want to be
> >respected for more than your appearance, but what other criteria
> >is apparant to people who are in such situations?)  Try to have
> >respect for the imperfections of others.
> 
> Good grief, you really have gone off track (in my opinion).  If she is truly
> accosted by men who aren't interested in being a friend, then I can see
> wanting to get rid of them any way possible.  What is she going to get out
> of it?  Not friendship, and if she's not interested in acquiring an SO at
> that moment, or more likely, not interested in acquiring an SO without 
> being a friend as well, then I don't blame her for finding the men a pest.
>   A terrible attitude?  Well, if there really are many men trawling for
> SOs, the attitude *is* well founded. (I find it hard to believe, but I
>  might move in the wrong circles.)
> 

The reason I spoke of "bad attitude" is that Helen's article implied that
she was prejudging people.  If she doesn't want attention from men, fine.
But reducing all men who approach her to a neat compact stereotype of being
somewhat beneath your local slime-mold is (to me) unwarranted and (worst
for her) likely to result in circular reasoning -- "A man is approaching
my table.  This is a bar.  He must be on the make.  He must be a (insert
suitable description of disgusting creature here)."  Of course I'm
exaggerating (but not much).  Still I know many people who get caught in
this sort of circular argument quite a bit.

> >			Ray Allen         (at utcsrgv)
> 
> Me.  
> Tom West
>  { allegra cornell decvax ihnp4 linus utzoo }!utcsrgv!west

Me, again
			Ray Allen @ utcsrgv!ray