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