Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sphinx.UChicago.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!mmar From: mmar@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Mitchell Marks) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: PMS Message-ID: <994@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> Date: Fri, 16-Aug-85 12:58:27 EDT Article-I.D.: sphinx.994 Posted: Fri Aug 16 12:58:27 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 20-Aug-85 04:27:57 EDT References: <934@druxo.UUCP> <1765@mnetor.UUCP>, <399@timeinc.UUCP> Organization: U Chicago -- Linguistics Dept Lines: 29 [] {Sophie Quigley asked how people posting comments about PMS *know* where in her cycle the woman they claim to observe might be} {Ross Greenberg supplies an algorithm} 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? 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. In other words, when you post something along the lines of "7 out of 10 women in this office get cranky when it's PMS time", tell us why you think that's the cause. Do they say so themselves? Do you keep a big chart, names against dates of irritability, and look for cycles of about 28 days? Or is it a over-quick one-step inference: she's irritable, hence it must be hormonal. (Note: ``you'' in the above does not necessarily mean RMG) -- -- Mitch Marks @ UChicago ...ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!mmar