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