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: <461@timeinc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 23-Aug-85 22:35:47 EDT
Article-I.D.: timeinc.461
Posted: Fri Aug 23 22:35:47 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 25-Aug-85 00:12:59 EDT
References: <3688@decwrl.UUCP> <417@timeinc.UUCP> <604@rtech.UUCP>
Reply-To: greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg)
Organization: Time Inc. (Edit Tech), New York
Lines: 57
Summary: 

In article <604@rtech.UUCP> jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) writes:
>
>Ross, once again you have managed to miss the point, and responded abusively.
>She did *not* say that some men experience PMS.  She said that your criteria
>for deciding whether a woman has PMS would, if applied to a lot of men, show
>that they had PMS too.  It was a reductio ad absurdum argument, and you
>completely missed it.  Also, she never said that there's no such thing as
>PMS.
>

Jeff, I'm not as dumb as I make myself appear.  Even I, a man suffering
from the dreaded TP, can see and understand such arguments.  I obviously
wrote the piece that you refer to in anger, something I'm trying not
to do anymore. It wasn't supposed to be taken seriously.

What Ms. Chabot was saying, at least to me, was that the silly little
algorithm that I posted was invalid because men could also fit into the
list, and that therefore the algorithm was invalid.  It was, due to other
silliness.

But, even with all the stuff that could set a man/women off, there *is*
the idea of PMS.  Men don't suffer from it.  Women do.  So, it is
still reasonable to assume that there is one *additional* facet that
I feel still has not been adequately discussed.  But I've already agreed
not to discuss it on the net.  Email is a different story, however.

>You have a habit of consistently misinterpreting other's arguments, and then
>abusing them for positions which *you* attribute to them.  This is getting
>really annoying.

Hmmmm.  So when I write an article, and someone mis-interprets it, it
must be my sloppy writing.  But, of course, sarcasm, even with the cute
little smiles, is often not suitable for the net.  Henceforth I'll
try not to use it.

I mean.....there were actually people that took that silly little algorithm
seriously, and not as a flame.

>  Why don't you give it up, Ross?  You're proving yourself
>to be a real twit.

"For those that believe, no proof is necessary.  For those that do not,
no proof will suffice."

I guess your mind is already made up.


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ross M. Greenberg  @ Time Inc, New York 
              --------->{vax135 | ihnp4}!timeinc!greenber<---------

I highly doubt that Time Inc.  would make me their spokesperson.
---
"You must never run from something immortal. It attracts their attention."
	  -- The Last Unicorn