Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site timeinc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!timeinc!greenber From: greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: PMS Message-ID: <418@timeinc.UUCP> Date: Sat, 17-Aug-85 09:46:48 EDT Article-I.D.: timeinc.418 Posted: Sat Aug 17 09:46:48 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 20-Aug-85 05:37:20 EDT References: <934@druxo.UUCP> <1765@mnetor.UUCP> <399@timeinc.UUCP> <994@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> Reply-To: greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) Organization: Time, Inc. - New York Lines: 80 Summary: In article <994@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> (Mitchell Marks) writes: > >Ross, your algorithm as posted just won't do the job. All that it gets >to is the conclusion that someone is `inexplicably irritable' or >something like that. The problem is, how do you know what cause to >attribute that to? > (Amazing how a question can be asked without anger. Thanks, Mitch!) This is subjective, and those of you who feel I'm off base can attribute it to me being anything you like. I really don't know the right words for this, so forgive me the loose content below: Some on the women that I've gone out with, some XSO's and some co-workers have, from time-to-time, experienced pretty radical personality shifts. The delta of the shift seems to be consistent. And when it's with an SO, XSO, ex-wife, or close friend, they'll often state "I'm getting my period. Sorry Iat you". The is different in each of them, and oftentimes there is no change. But when there is, it is recognizable. Remember the poster a while ago who stated that he was able to recognize when each of the three women that he roomed with was getting their period? Same thing holds for me. So maybe it is reasonable to recognize the same shift in others and to attribute it to the same thing that causes the shift in those I know. You may think it is an invalid attribution. I don't fault you at that --- but how you fault me at my attribution. It is my opinion, based on my observations, which is based on my experience. Obviously I wrote the algorithm in question in anger, because I'm trying to end this futile discussion. I'm tired of the hate mail, I'm tired of being called a woman-hater, and I'm tired of doing battle in a public forum of close-mindedness. I'm tired of the "*I* don't suffer from PMS, so you're full of shit" routine. I'm tired of the "Men suffer from cycles, too!" hypothosis. And I'm just tired of trying to hold a discussion with people that refuse to even consider another viewpoint. There have been a few in this discussion that have made some very good points (Ms. Regard, for example), but mostly we've been hashing over the same ground, again and again and again. I'm dropping out of it. Responding to most of it just isn't worth the keystrokes. >So the point remains unanswered: do those who think they have solidly >observfed the ill effects of PMS (in others) have any basis? Not >that there couldn't be -- just that it hasn't generally been explained >along with these claims. Now here is someone who calmly states: what is your basis of proof, what have you observed? And he seems willing to take *my* observations as being valid (at least for me). How nice! Nothing more ridiculous than some of the other posters telling me that my *opinion* is wrong. > >... Or is it a over-quick one-step inference: she's >irritable, hence it must be hormonal. > I would hope that the above answers your question. As a final note, rather than pollute the net with further inane, pointless discussion, please feel free to mail it to me. No flames, though --- they'll just get dumped. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York --------->{vax135 | ihnp4}!timeinc!greenber<--------- I highly doubt that Time Inc. would make me their spokesperson. ---