Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mnetor.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!sophie From: sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) Newsgroups: net.social,net.women Subject: Re: Rampant misinterpretation on the net (so what else is new?) Message-ID: <1301@mnetor.UUCP> Date: Mon, 15-Jul-85 10:57:22 EDT Article-I.D.: mnetor.1301 Posted: Mon Jul 15 10:57:22 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 15-Jul-85 12:22:44 EDT References: <11494@brl-tgr.ARPA> Distribution: net Organization: Computer X (CANADA) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada Lines: 22 Xref: utcs net.social:785 net.women:6440 > Your problem is related to something that was discussed a few months > back on net.social -- I had posted a comment about "defining" people by > their jobs -- that it was common and seemingly unavoidable, but that it > was a bad thing. People are *NOT* characterized by *work* -- *work* is > what you do to earn money to really *live* the rest of the time. If you > want to "define" or "characterize" a person (assign them to some slot > for classification purposes, maybe to sort them in your mind or > whatever), you will be much more accurate and much better served by > looking at ther HOBBIES than at their jobs. > > Will Martin > Right on! Something I have noticed is how difficult it is to NOT define oneself by one's job. I wonder if there is anybody who has ever successfully been able to introduce themselves and project an accurate impression of who they are without mentioning their job. Maybe what is wrong is the idea that it is possible to get an accurate impression of someone from very limited contact with them. -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie