Conference quark::mennotes-v1

        Hmmm....when I  was younger, I wanted to be the first and only,
        probably due to  fears  of  comparison or something.  Now?  I'm
        happily married to an  experienced woman and I wouldn't want it
        any other way!
        
        I suppose that the 'danger'  of  marrying  a virgin is that she
        has  no  basis  for  comparison  and    would  possibly  become
        interested in experiencing other men, to the  detriment  of the
        marriage  -  an  experienced woman will usually know  what  she
        wants and know that the grass isn't really greener elsewhere.
        
        FWIW...
        
        Andy

    
    To tell the truth, what my wife did before we got married I consider
    to be none of my business. But in retrospect, an experienced woman
    (in my opinion) would be better; only so she wouldn't wonder if
    she missed anything. Above all, I want to be her last lover.

    I would think "experienced" would be better for the reasons previously
    stated.
    
    - M

    I'm reminded of a joke that involves a conversation between
    a newly married man and his wife's ex-husband:
    
    	Ex: Well, how do you like having "used goods"?
    
    	New: It's great, once you get past the used part!
    
    I think "experienced" is just fine.
    
    				Steve

     I'm not trying to offend anyone, just trying to ask an interesting
    question.  
    
    Just out of curiosity, I'd like to add onto that.  What are the
    'standards' upon which the women are categorized?  I find it
    interesting that you grouped "some experience" on the "virgin" side
    of the comparison.  Is "experienced:"
    
            A)  A woman having more than (X amount) of partners?
                  - but what if they were all within the bounds of
                    "meaningful relationships?"
                  - what if the woman had been "taken advantage of"
                    or had been misguided about sex, and has since
                    discovered "what it was all about" after the fact?
                    (love, caring vs. one night stands, attention)    
                  - how does this theory relate to age?  (An older woman
                    may have had more experience, simply by virtue of
                    being around longer. i.e. a 20 yr. old that has
                    been intimate with 10 men vs. a 40 yr. old ?  Is
                    '10' -'10' no matter how you slice it?
    
    
              Does 'experienced' mean "indiscriminate" or "loose?"
    
      Stacie
               

    
    Benjamin Franklin advocated taking "experienced" women to one's
    bed.  Not in so many words, but...
                                                                   
    What *are* we gonna use for a standard.  It's certainly possible
    to meet an "experienced" woman who's a virgin under the clinical
    definition.
    
    It's never weighed on my mind.  People vary so much that an abstraction
    like virginity ceases to have meaning.
    
    DFW

        Experienced doesn't  mean indiscriminate or loose by definition
        in my opinion  -  for  instance, to a virgin male, a non-virgin
        female would be 'experienced'!    To  a  mature man who had had
        many  partners  during  his  life,    a   prostitute  would  be
        'experienced'.
        
        My  own  feeling is that I'd  prefer  (if  it  was  any  of  my
        business)   that  the  experience  had  been  gained    through
        meaningful    relationships  rather  than  casual  pickups  and
        one-nighters, but  it  doesn't relate to age and numbers - more
        to the mental attitude of the woman (and the man!)
        
        I don't remember  the source of the quotation, but when told he
        was great in bed  and  that he must have loved lots of women to
        have become so good, one  man  replied,  "No,  I just loved one
        woman well."
        
        Andy

    Well, I am a girl and I am just trying to find out what my "label"
    is.  
    
    Stacie

    re 5:
    
    > Is '10' -'10' no matter how you slice it?
    
    Depends if you're talking total or "at any one time".
    
    - M

    RE .8
    
    	Your "label"   how about a person..
    
    	Really, what anyone does before I meet them is none of my buisness,
    	all that matters is what she does after the relationship forms.

>    	Really, what anyone does before I meet them is none of my business,
>    	all that matters is what she does after the relationship forms.

    This attitude seems somewhat incautious, health-wise, now-a-days. It
    can BECOME your business, rather suddenly... (This applies to
    parties of either gender considering a new partner.) 

    RE: .8
    
    	Without ever meeting you I would just label you as 
    	"Stacie Watkins - woman/person/etc.." as I would label any other
    	woman I didn't know.
    
    	What happened before me isn't of my concern. What happens with
    	me would be our concern. 
    
    							mike

    The only question I usualy ask a woman when the subj comes up is:
      
        At the time did you love them?
    
           Id rather marry a woman who's slept with 15 men she loved
    in her life then a woman who slept with one she didnt.As for
    lables I agree with erlier coments(PERSON) gets my vote.

    
    RE: .13
    
    What difference does it make if she -loved- him or not?
    
    How many people, do you think, really loved the people they engaged
    in -sex- with, and then you have to difine, what -type- of love
    are we talking about...
    
    If a girl had been *in-love* with 15 guys already, I'd be pretty
    worried about that, thinking that maybe I'm #16 out of possibly
    100-to-be men!!!
            
    I don't understand your logic.
    
    *Dwight*

       Ive always believed that sex should be 50% heart. I have a
    tendence to be off the wall that way.I meed to have a emotional
    interest.I sapose its part of being a ministers nephew.
       When I say love I meen somthing more then :hay,he has a nice
    ass.

    P.S Frenchmen art saposed to be logical when it comes to our hearts.
    Thats why we are French.

    the emotional connection does not always have to be love in my opinion.
    but some conection emotionally makes it bette whether it be a strong
    friendship or love.
    
    i think that i would be concerned if a possible SO had told me that
    he had been in "love" a lot. i think it would tend to make me believe
    that he did not know the difference between lust and love.
    
    
    i think this is a really good topic as i have always wondered about
    it.most men i have asked have said that they prefer "experienced"
    women,that it dosent change their feelings about them at all.
    
    kelly

    Virgins scare me silly, and that includes the man who has only had
    one-nighters -- gotta couple the coupling with some attachment for
    the other person.  But I guess I don't count, being the wrong gender.
    
    "Fall in love too often"?!?!?!  I would ask if you're from Mars,
    but that would be rude.  Yes it's possible to fall in love too easily,
    I guess.  Perhaps it's confusing lust with love.  I don't think
    so, though.  I look at it more as someone who is open-hearted: falling
    in love again after a big disappointment is [in my eyes] a courageous
    thing.  It speaks to me of someone who has infinite love to give.
     Of course I am ignoring the rotton creep who lpoks at love as an
    act of taking, rather than giving, but I have yet to meet one who
    stayed that way with me [they either leave before things get intense,
    or they mend their ways -- both have happened].
    
    Lee

    Since I was no virgin before I married, why would the woman I married
    have to be a virgin.  This reminds me of a argument I had with a
    friend during high school.  My friend answered a call from a boy who
    was calling for his sister(she was just entering puberty) and he was very
    nasty to the boy.  When I questioned him about this he made some
    statements of the nature "I'll beatup any boy that touches my sister".
    He and I then got into a heated argument because I reminded him
    that the girls we had "been with" the night before, were sisters of
    some boys we knew, and according to his logic we should expect our
    beatings any time.
           
    The above incident took place in 1960 or 61 and here we are in 1987 
    and questions like .0 are still being asked.  When will these double 
    standards stop?
    
    
    JEF     
    

    
                               
    The last time I talked about virginity was with my father. He and his
    friends believe it is essential to a good marriage. As far as I know
    none of his daughters or sons were virgins at the marriage alter, &
    likely not at graduation either though we suspect my eldest sister was
    but won't admit it because she was the sophisticated one. The only
    wedding I've attended where the bride was a certified virgin was for a
    very stuffy friend in his late thirties who made sure everyone knew his
    bride was a virgin. Rather embarassing. Otherwise virgins fell by the
    wayside along with jock straps, knee pads, and teasing Sister Barbara
    about Brother Bob in Algebra IV (they got married later & may have
    been the only know virgin-virgin pairing in a decade). 
    
    Now here's a deflowering for you: I met a young woman in England who
    was from a well-to-do family, not gentry but well monied. She was quite
    stunning & had been courted frequently during her early teens. Her
    parents, discussing the inevitable, selected her first partner for her.
    The father already had a young man in mind, a junior partner at the
    firm, so he spent a few months playing golf with him then sprung this
    tremendous responsibility on him. The poor young man had never seen the
    daughter & saw his career flashing before him as the father suggested
    he meet her in a few nights to get acquainted. What would happen if the
    young man said no to his poweful golfing partner? Meanwhile mother had
    been priming the daughter with talk of life, lover, etc., & some good
    facts on birth control. The daughter had never seen the young man but
    agreed to the plan just to see what happened. They met at dinner & it
    was love/lust at first sight. They became quite attached, so father
    planned an outing for the family & soon the act followed. Mother got a
    detailed account and approved. The only snafu of course was that the
    youngsters fell madly in love but were told to wait 2 years (she was
    16, he was 24) before they could marry. When I met her they had a year
    to go but showed no signs of losing interest. 
    

    I am glad to see how 'liberal' we all have gotten these days.  I
    certainly don't condone casual sex (AIDS is too scary), but it's
    good to see that men have woken up and smelled the coffee on this
    double-standard.  Just because a woman is not a virgin doesn't mean
    she's a tramp.  This is the 80's and it has become a "natural
    progression" in a meaningful relationship.  But, things do happen,
    and all of these relationships weren't meant to end up at the altar.
    It's part of the growing process.
    
    Glad to see men have grown with the times and have left *this* double
    standard behind!  
    
    Stacie

    
    
    Well 23 replies later ... I was right!
    
    I had a lot of faith in the fact that men have kept up with the
    time in their expectations of women.  It's nice to see that men
    in general find sex to be connected with an emotional involvment.
    There are both men and women alike who will engage in the old
    "one night stand" but it seems to be more the exception than the
    rule.  With the concern about AIDS we all need to know and be able
    to trust our partners. Thanks for being so open and honest in your
    responses.
    
    My faith in men has been strengthened!
    
    Donna

    Back when I was in college (and a "virgin"), I would have never
    considered the possibility of marrying a woman that was not a virgin.
    Since then, I think I've become more of a realist.  Modern birth
    control methods remove the strongest reason (unwanted pregnancy)
    for maintaining virginity, so if a woman feels that it is appropriate
    to include that level of intimacy in a relationship, she can.  Since
    men never attached much value to maintaining their virginity, why
    should women?
    
    While my views on pre-marital sex have changed, it doesn't mean
    that I expect it.  If the woman has decided to wait until after
    marriage to experience sex, that's fine with me and it does not
    affect my interest in her.
    
    Rich

	I always, was a romantic sort, and marrying a virgin seemed
	to be the thing to do. However my dad said "I shouldn't, my son,
	'cos they only make a mess of the sheets and what's not good
	enough for your mates isn't good enough for you".
	But then he was like that, my dad.

Richard.

    
    'Make a mess of the sheets?'  A little graphic, don't you think?
    
    :-) Stacie

    
>    What is your viewpoint on marrying a woman who is "experienced"
>    vs virgin (or "some" experience)?  In other words, do you want
>    to be your wife's first, last and only lover?


	To me, I don't know that it matters a whole lot.  As I've always
said, I think the most important stuff is what's inside that person.  If
_that_ is ok, then the other stuff will usually fall into place.  I can
see lots of advantages and disadvantages to being her first or her Nth.
HOWEVER, I would definitely want to be her last and only!!!


	But if I _had_ to choose, I think I would opt for "experienced" as
well, simply because she would know what to expect, and hopefully know what
she wants.  I think that most times it is a mistake for a person to marry
their first lover.  Too often later they get restless and wonder what they're
missing.  I say "most times" because there are many exceptions to that rule!


Brian     

    
    "I'm planning a trip to the "Virgin Islands" soon !!!  WOW!!!  8^)
            
    "Then it's on to Hawaii.... to get a lay!"  8^)
                    
                   
    *Dwight*

    
    
    Do you mean "Lei"???
    
    (maybe not...)
    
    

    
    RE: .31  Wheel
    
    Now what would I do with a "Lei"???  8^)
    
    *Dwight*

    	It appears some of us men have difficulty addressing any topic
    without hiding behind humor.  Sad!
    
    	I question the degree of honesty stated in the replies to this
    note.  I am not attacking any individual and am not suggesting all
    responses are less than the truth.  It is my experience, based on
    discussions with males and females, female virginity is important
    early in most relationships to the men but once the relationship advances
    sufficiently female virginity becomes less of an issue.  Males of
    my age group (40 to 50) whom I know don't appear to have any difficulty
    with the issue but many do talk about the virgins they 'had.'
    
    	I have never, to my knowledge, made love with a virgin.  When
    I was young (<21) female virginity was important but not a major
    stumbling block in important relationships.
    
    Douglas

    
    Some men don't hide behind humor.  They stand in front of it!  8^)
                     
    (surprise)
    A serious thought:  Most men would "probably" prefer a woman to
    have, at least, limited experience.  Some, I'm sure, would prefer
    a virgin.  The problem is really, what happens when you fall in
    love, maybe first, and then find out!  How will it affect you then.
    
    I believe a person has to listen to their heart.  I think that in
    most cases, love will overcome.  I want to believe that anyway.
    I think we have to believe that.
    
    *Dwight*

    The problem with wanting to marry a virgin is that most girls under
    the age of sixteen are too young by law to get married._:-)
    Of course there are women over sixteen who are virgins but they
    may be virgins because they have little or no interest in sex....
    might make for a dull wedding night.

    RE: .35 
    
    On the other hand, a person may be a virgin until marriage because
    the have the maturity and strength of character to with stand peer
    pressure. They may be a virgin because of strong religious belief.
    They may be a virgin because they are willing to wait for the right
    person rather then be satisfied by quick and temporary gratification.
    Remaining a virgin until marriage is only hard for weak and/or
    superficial people or people who do not share religious beliefs
    that are regard virginity as important. I see know reason to consider 
    marriage with people in those categories. To do so would doom the marriage
    at the beginning.
    
    I believe that people who claim that there are no virgins after
    the age of 16 do so out of ignorance (though I know that there are
    fewer virgins over 16 then *I'd* like) or to justify their own actions.
    There are virgins out there and they have good reasons for being
    in that state. 
    
    			Alfred
    
    Note: I used the word person deliberately. I see no reason that both
    partners shouldn't enter the marriage bed virgins.

    re .36
    
>>  Note: I used the word person deliberately. I see no reason that both
>>  partners shouldn't enter the marriage bed virgins.
  
    
    Nor is there any reason why they should.

>>>    Of course there are women over sixteen who are virgins but they
>>>    may be virgins because they have little or no interest in sex....
>>>    might make for a dull wedding night.


       ah yes, add a new category to sexual preference...

       introducing.....................A-SEXUAL!!!

       i hope that note was supposed to have been followed by a ":-)"

       but as a post-question...why do men feel odd/nervous when 
       dating/marrying a virgin???  if it's not supposed to be 
       supposed a big deal for women, how come it's a big deal to men?

�       but as a post-question...why do men feel odd/nervous when 
�       dating/marrying a virgin???  if it's not supposed to be 
�       supposed a big deal for women, how come it's a big deal to men?

    	  Maybe cuz many men aren't used to dating one? In the current
    	world, many people don't wait too long before having sex. It's
    	a "natural" progression nowadays to end up in bed. Personally,
    	I think this is changing and being a virgin eventually not
    	be such a bad idea.
    
    	Still trying to find out how to become a Born-Again Virgin,
    
    						mike

>       but as a post-question...why do men feel odd/nervous when
>       dating/marrying a virgin???  if it's not supposed to be 
>       supposed a big deal for women, how come it's a big deal to men?
    
    How come it's a big deal to men?  It isn't.  Perhaps it's just a
    big deal to the men you know.
    
    I like the way that .36 was worded, so I'll quote it.
    
    I have no problem 'dating women that have the maturity and strength of
    character to with stand peer pressure'. If a woman decides that she
    wants to remain a virgin for some reason (ANY reason), be it religious
    beliefs, desire to 'wait for the right person rather then be satisfied
    by quick and temporary gratification', or whatever, that's just fine
    with me.
    
    I respect my friends (particularly girlfriends) enough to respect their
    wishes.  What's wrong with respecting the wishes of your girlfriend (or
    boyfriend) whom you care about deeply?  Nothing at all.  If you don't
    respect the wishes of those you care about, what sort of a friend are
    you?
    
    	-- Jeff

>>>  Note: I used the word person deliberately. I see no reason that both
>>>  partners shouldn't enter the marriage bed virgins.
>  
>    
>    Nor is there any reason why they should.

    Not any reason? Perhaps not any reason the you accept. There are
    lots of reasons that I can accept.
    
    o Risk of pregnancy - no birth control is 100%
    o Risk of sexually transmitted disease
    o The trivialization of what should be a loving act into just
      recreation.
    o It's immoral - not everyone believes that but many do
    o It's prohibited by many religions
    
    			Alfred    

                           MARRIAGE
    
    Love focuses on the one loved, with thought of self secondary. Lust,
    which is preverted love, focuses on self at the expense of the other
    person. The provisions of love are identity, security and stability.
    
    WHen a woman takes a man's name in marriage, it is her expression of
    submission in relationship which means that if the woman is willing
    to assume the man's name, then the responsibility is to give her an
    identity in his character and worth that she can be pleased to
    identify with.
    
    A woman's security is not primarily found in the home, but in her
    relationship to her husband. A break of marriage vows, shakes and
    destroys that security. Because men have been untrustworthy, many
    women are rebelling against taking the man's name in marriage. The
    reason many women today are working today is not because they want a
    career of their own or help with a second income, but because they
    desire security if or when the husband leaves.
    
    Giving your word in marriage. It is not something to be done
    frivolously. Words can unite or separate, bless or curse, heal or
    wound, edify or demolish, create or destroy, enlighten or obscure,
    liberate or enslave. As long as a man's words live, he lives, when
    his word ceases, he ceases. Great men are known by the greatness
    of their words.
    
    The word a man keeps begins at the place of commitment in marriage.
    If his character is not good before marriage, he will have a difficult
    time trying to produce a good character and keep his word after
    marriage, regardless of how strong the feelings of love are with him.
    Love must be disciplined to be fruitful.
    
    Love and trust go hand in hand.
    
    The man who is considering marriage would do well to count the costs of
    the word he gives in marriage. Men must be prepared to open themselves
    to the Lord for Him to work in their hearts enabling them to love as He
    loves. Let's be a man of our word so be can develop true character.
    
                                   Have a nice day!
    
                                   Ray

    re: .42 (Ray)
    
    I'm wondering if you read the base note (.0) because your
    reply doesn't address those issues at all.  It appears that
    you read the title of the note and assumed that what was being
    asked for was peoples general views on the institution of
    marriage.  The text of the base note was asking entirely 
    different questions.  
    
    Beyond that I can only say that I disagree strongly with notions
    that:
    
    � WHen a woman takes a man's name in marriage, it is her expression of
    � submission in relationship which means that if the woman is willing
    � to assume the man's name, then the responsibility is to give her an
    � identity in his character and worth that she can be pleased to
    � identify with.
    �
    � A woman's security is not primarily found in the home, but in her
    � relationship to her husband. 
    
    Even on a spiritual plane, I believe that there neither need nor
    should be anything submissive about marriage.  Furthermore, I
    find the idea that a woman's security and/or identity should come
    from her relationship with her husband to be repressive.  I believe
    that a woman's spiritual identity and security should come from her 
    relationship with herself and the God of her understanding.
    
    Steve

RE .42

(*heavy sigh*)

I find .42 offensive.  Not because I object to folks believing or 
doing what is described in the note.  What other people do is, for the 
most part, their own business. 

I find the reply offensive and oppressive because it is written in
such a way so as to imply that there is only one way to look at
marriage.  It isn't written with words like, "I believe marriage
is...."  If it was, I, the reader, could say, "No problem!  That's Ray 
telling us what he believes."

However, it is written with words like, "Marriage is...," which makes
me feel like your values, Ray, are being forced onto me. There is no 
room in that writing for me (a gay, male feminist).

My feedback to Ray: I will be able to read and to understand your 
notes better if you made it clear that what you are writing is your 
own beliefs, or if there was some tip of the hat to the fact that 
the ideas you are describing belong to a certain group of people.  

I won't go into any more details here.  If people don't understand 
what I am saying, please contact me offline.  Thanks.


						--Gerry

PS  I hope to get "married" someday, and it ain't gonna involve a 
woman "submitting" to me in any way, if you know what I mean.

re:< Note 144.42 by ACE::MOORE >

�			 Because men have been untrustworthy, many
�    women are rebelling against taking the man's name in marriage. 

rebelling? e gadz. Speaking for myself, if I didn't trust my husband I
never would have married him. And the reason I kept my own name was 
because I couldn't think of any reason why I should change it.

�								   The
�    reason many women today are working today is not because they want a
�    career of their own or help with a second income, but because they
�    desire security if or when the husband leaves.

sigh... I'm not even gonna bother...

Jenna

    Gerry,
    
    I don't reply very often to these notes files. I really do enjoy
    reading them though.  But your replies are a little extreme.  I
    have nothing against gays.  In fact, one of my closest friends is
    gay, and I love him dearly.
    
    Your problem is that you are always *OFFENDED* by people explaining
    things as "male and female".  Well, gays cannot get married.  So
    how are we supposed to make you feel comfortable when we talk about
    marriage?    I am not trying to start an arguement here, but you
    are just too much.
    
    Chill out!!!  It' only a discussion.
    
    TB

    	Why do people keep assuming that when a gay man is bothered by 
    	(what I would certainly consider) SEXIST views, it is because 
    	he doesn't want to hear about heterosexuality????
    
    	*I* am bothered by the same things that he has brought up, and
    	I am a heterosexual woman!
    
    	Has this conference been reduced to gay bashing now, or what?
    	Ger is espousing his views on feminism (which happen to agree
    	with those views of MANY, MANY, MANY heterosexual MEN AND WOMEN
    	that I know!)
    
    	Why do some people get so stuck on stereotypes that when a gay
    	man speaks, they start assuming that he is fighting heterosexuality
    	and/or has some problem with even HEARING about men with women???
    
    	Why do some people have to create *reasons* why someone would
    	go up against the ideas of the majority?  ("OH, those feminists
    	just hate men, that's why they have those opinions."  "Oh, gay
    	people just hate heterosexuals, that's why they have THOSE
    	particular opinions.")
    
    	That's not what it's about!!  Why not try sticking to what people are
    	saying instead of relying on stereotypes???

    
    Why are people accused of holding to stereotypes when they
    disagree with a gay person?
    
    Can someone legitimately disagree with a gay person with being
    accused of gay bashing? 

    re: .47
    
    I'm not sure how you reach the conclusion that Gerry was
    ". . .*OFFENDED* by people explaining things as 'male and female'."
    I believe what he was objecting to was the way that Ray's beliefs
    are stated as facts and I also find that hard to take.  It seems
    to me that the reason that phrases like "I think", "I believe",
    and "I feel" exist is to separate statements of fact from statements
    of opinion.  
    
    � Well, gays cannot get married. 
    
    I think that really depends on how you define marriage.
    
    Steve

    	RE: .49 Holt
    
    	> Why are people accused of holding to stereotypes when
    	> they disagree with a gay person?
    
    	Because they aren't actually addressing what the person SAID,
    	but rather what they READ INTO what the person is saying based
    	on THEIR stereotypical ideas of what he PROBABLY means because he
    	is gay.

    	People are addressing things with Ger that he did NOT say, in
    	other words. 
    
    	> Can someone legitimately disagree with a gay person without
    	> being accused of gay bashing?
    
    	Certainly!  Legitimate disagreements are NOT what is being
    	questioned here. 

    so why do you resort to what feminists are blamed for i.e.
    responding with polemics instead of to the direct issues?
    
    sigh
    
    BJ

Thanks for the amusing note.

Was it authored by Dave Barry?

    Why?? because A one liner is pretty damn hard to twist and distort..
    
    Isnt it true that "the only good man is a dead, quiet, whimp, etal"?
    :-)

I think that men-and-women couples are wicked awesome, tubular, way 
cool, excellent, outa sight.

Seriously.  I mean it.

What I object to is aggressive wording that implies that everyone 
reading a note automatically is in agreement with the author.  

For example:

"According to Nature, God is an ardvark."

I read this and think, "Gee, this is stated as some kind of fact that 
everyone should agree with, but I don't think that God is an ardvark!  
I'm angry!!!  Why is that person trying to put her beliefs on me?"

Whereas, if the person had said:

"To me, Nature proves that God is an ardvark."

I read this and think, "Gee, I don't agree with that.  But that's only 
her opinion.  No big deal."

The offense isn't in the idea being expressed.  It is in the 
assumption or assertion that "this is the way it is...PERIOD," that 
there is no other way to be.  That is what I find offensive.

As for the person who thinks that "I have a problem," well, in my 
mind, I don't have a problem.  As long as I am allowed to express 
myself, I feel fine.  No problem.  Other folks can agree or disagree 
as they see fit.  

And when I read "chill out!", I hear, "shut up."  (Am I wrong?) Thanks
for that feedback, but I choose not to do that.   If you could see me
sitting at my terminal as I've been writing these notes, I think that
you would understand that I am not upset and that I don't need to
chill out. 


							--Gerry

    Re .56
    
      > And when I hear "chill out!", I hear, "shut up."  (Am I wrong?)
    
      By and large, I think you're right. 
    
      Sometimes I think it'd be fun to put together a list of all the phrases 
    noters use to say 'shut up' without actually _saying_ 'shut up'. A useful 
    collection for aspiring polemicists everywhere.
    
    Rob
                 

 re: fact vs. opinion

 There are so few facts in any notes conference, that you should have little
difficulty in differentiating between someone's opinion and a fact.

 "God is an aardvark."

 Even though it is stated somewhat presumptuously, it is not a fact.

 "Heavy metal is awful music."

 Again, an opinion.

 "I think jazz is great."

 Incredibly obvious as an opinion.

 I do not get offended by opinions, whether they are stated as opinions or
whether they are given the aura of fact. It is really not a big deal.

 Anyone who is offended by opinions that are strongly worded has something wrong
with them (in my opinion :-). <--- please do not take this statement seriously,
Ger. It has a smiley face.
                           

 The Doctah

    RE: .56
    
       To make one point that I think several noters miss is that
    *ANYTHING* written by someone is their opinion.  This was one of the
    more important things my English Professor taught.
    
       When you take someone's writing as factual, you are trusting that
    s/he had the correct facts.  One prime example are history books.  On
    most historical events you can find conflicting descriptions of the
    event, but both authors believe that they stated the facts and the
    facts only. 
    
       So why should anyone have to precede everything they say or write
    with "In my opinion..."?  It should be assummed.  If you want the facts
    and only the facts, you'll have to either convince yourself that they are
    telling the facts in a manner you enjoy or research it yourself.
    
       Well, enough said.
    
      Have a good weekend.
        Ike
    
    P.S.  As should be assumed with any writting, this is my opinion.  You
          do not have to agree with it if you think it is wrong.  If you
          have some clear facts that I believe to be true, then maybe I'll
          change my opinion.
    

    Re: .59
    
    >So why should anyone have to precede everything they say or write with 
    >"In my opinion..."?
    
    I don't, though I'll use things like "It seems to me" when I'm really
    moving into the realm of conjecture.  However, "In my opinion" is a
    signal that the *author* realizes that she/he is not stating God-given
    facts.  I'm quite sure that people react differently to people who
    present themselves or come across as know-it-alls.  It makes a
    difference in the tenor and flow of discussion.

    re .56
    
    "chill out" - I didn't mean shut-up, I meant "cool it". 
    
    If I wanted to say shut-up, I would have wrote "shut-up".  I just
    thought, in my opinion, that he was getting a little "steamed".
    
    Tammie

    $set enviorment/temperature=cool/mood=relaxed/process=intelligent
    
    RE: thread regarding "chill out"...
    
    A thought, If everyone said what they ment in clear english instead
    of relying on context sensitive colloquial speech patterns all this
    wouldn't have happend.
    
    $set enviornment/default
    john

    .64 "Chill out" is neither context-sensitive, nor colloquial.
    Thats debatable, however it obviously isn't "clear english" either since
    what Ger "heard" apparently wasn't what was being "said".
    
    I tend to agree with the sentiment of .63, that we avoid "slang"
    expressions that can be missinterpreted (sometimes "clear english"
    isn't that "clear" either)
    
    Barry

    "chill out" is most definitely colloquial.
    
    - ���

    I don't think Gerry needs to chill out, his reply seemed to be clear,
    understandable and calm to me.  Maybe that's because I agree with him,
    maybe not.
    
    While I respect Ray's apparent strong beliefs and convictions I found
    the preachy tone of the note in question (and others by Ray) a bit
    irritating for the same reasons that Ger did.   
    
    This has nothing to do with being gay, straight, male, female or even
    whether I disagree with the points being made, it's just a question of
    noting style and etiquette.  Kind of like using all caps and no paragraphs.
    
    On the same subject I consider some of the replies to Ray's note in this
    topic and in others, less than courteous.  Ray is obviously expressing
    strong beliefs, and I expect that if Ray was to state them as such, the
    responses would be more likely to respectfully discuss those beliefs.
    
    Bob

    Aways back there someone asked why do virgins scare some men?
    
    Well, they always scared me...
    
    1) It seems like a lot of responsibility.  I even felt uneasy about
    teaching my SO to drive, and sex is much more important, except in New
    Hampshire. (: >,)
    
    2) It makes it more likely that it would wreck a friendship.  (A casual
    pickup and one-night-stand with a virgin seems unlikely at my age.) 
    Many people I've talked to have less than pleasant memories of their
    first attempts and some strange feelings can come out, especially if
    the person is still a virgin past their 'teens.
    
    3) If a relationship comes out of it, won't the ex-virgin eventually
    start to wonder about what they missed out on?  Of course, _I_ know
    that this is as good as it gets (: >,) but how can the other person
    know?
    
    Please, y'all, I'm not saying that there aren't many happy marriages
    made virgin-�-virgin - just expressing my own twisted views, which were
    formed long before AIDS.
    
    Ray