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 I  at 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.
---