Conference back40::soapbox

    
    How about topic 60?
    

    
    
    Yup, I hate it when someone's pet pees on my lawn turning it brown. 
    Even worse is when they crap on my lawn and I don't see it and step in
    it.

    
    
    PP: People who tailgate at 70 MPH.  (Or any speed for that matter.)
    
    PP: People with big degrees treating others like low lifes.
    
    
    
    
    Terrie
    

People who say ,"If I was you...."

    Or  "I'm a-scared" 

    why would anybody want a pet that irritated them....BTW what kind of
    animal is a "peeve"

    
    People who split infinitives or who say "that's a-whole-nother (blah)"
                                                                   

  I hate when news programs go out of their way to show people crying
regardless if it is news or not. 

  George

    
    
    People who say "So wasn't I..."
    
    
    Sheeeeesh!
    

    
    <-- AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!
    
    {shudder}

    Loud gum chewers
    Drivers that camp in the left lane
    Trucks that pass on hills
    The mispronunciation of Westminster Ma as Westminister 
    

    Yes Brian, Marjorie Claprood does it all the time on the radio!!

    Reason enough not to listen IMO.  Gives me the same reaction that some
    folks get to fingernails on a black board.
    
    

    .7
    
    > People who split infinitives
    
    suck on it, mz_deb.  the prohibition against splitting infinitives
    comes out of a 19th-century effort by academics to regularize the
    language.  they needed a model for rules, and they chose latin.  it's
    convenient, isn't it, that it's impossible to split an infinitive in
    latin because latin infinitives are single words.  paintint the rules
    of latin, or of a latin-based language, onto a german-based language,
    is downright stupid.

    people who type "your" when they mean "you're"
    
    oops this isn't ef95
    
    sorry
    
    ric

    Your right, that drives me crazy too! :-)

    
    I once had a pet named peeves, but he was eaten by a walrus.
    
    Mark

Dinning room.
Bumber.

    
    The spelling errors found in the classified_ads file, to wit:
    
    chest of draws
    sweater with sequence
    toy's for sale
    sleaves
    died saturn shoes
    skirt with matching shall
    
    ad infinitum, ad nauseam 8^p 

     One of my favorite typos is fishermen who write that they are going
    stripper fishing. (Supposed to be striper fishing, for you landlubbing
    types.)

fishing for mermaids?

    long lines
    automated answering services
    slow/asian drivers
    

"sweater with sequence"

Could be that it comes with instructions or
something.

    How about "youse" guys?
    

    Being called "miss".

    Re: .24
    
    >"sweater with sequence"
    >Could be that it comes with instructions or something.
    
    Probably along the lines of "Lather.  Rinse.  Repeat."

    .21
    
    i was unaware that typo is another name for a fisherman.  or did you
    mean that fishermen MAKE the "stripper" typo, not that they ARE it?

    
    .26
    
    I'm sorry, I have a cold.

    People who mispronounce application names.
    
    It's CHAMP, not CHAMPS...  Even my boss does this.  Makes us nuts.

	When people are in the lane which says left/right turn only, and when
you get up aside of them, they decide they want to go forward..... 

    Here's mine:
    
    
    *  People who "play" with their hair
    *  Dogs who bark constantly
    *  Friends are planning on coming over for dinner and a few
       drinks...you plan for this and they never show or call to cancel
    *  People who type with the shift key locked
    *  People on welfare who are fat, yet their kids are so skinny they
       look unhealthy
    *  Kids being obnoxious in a restaurant and their parents don't do a
       thing about it
    *  People who are holding up traffic because they are trying to make an
       illegal U-turn
    *  Nice looking people who think they are God's gift to human-kind
    
    

    
    RE: .29
    
    Excuses... excuses....
    

    People saying:
    
    "At this point in time.... In some future point in time"
    
    "I was thinking in my mind"
    
    "I took out a steak from the freezer to unthaw"
    
    "The car was red in colour"

    	re .30
    
    	Well it's a stupid name either way...

    The thimble headed gherkins that insist on using a stall versus a 
    urinal and then proceed to piddle all over the seat AND then don't 
    bother to wipe it up!  
    
    Trucks that need to pass each other leap frog style at 50 mph or less,
    uphills etc.  
    
    People that don't snuff their butts out completely and leave it 
    smoldering in the ashtray especially those right outside the door.  
    
    

    RE: .36
    
    and those same gherkins shake the darn thing... getting it all over
    their hands, and walk outa the bathroom without washing....
    
    
    and people ask me why I never touch a public bathroom door handle...
    

	People who, in the fashion of my college roommate,
	express time as "2AM in the morning."

	Somehow I subdued the urge to dummy-slap her,
	scream "2AM *IS* THE MORNING, YOU IDIOT!!!!!!",
	and jump out the window.

RE:         <<< Note 258.38 by SUBPAC::JJENSEN "Jojo the Fishing Widow" >>>
                     -< As opposed to 2PM in the morning? >-

>	People who, in the fashion of my college roommate,
>	express time as "2AM in the morning."



  Hah! I was going to enter a similar gripe..


 How about people who say " blah blah blah past history"...history *is*
 past, fer cryin out loud.




	
Jim

    No, there is future history, it just hasn't happened yet.  

and people who think the word "woman" is the 
the plural for the word "woman".

    
    I thought "wymyn" was plural for "woman" 8^).

    
    re: champ/champs...
    
    as in the cmc/csc system??  i was guilty of said offense for a
    while...but only because everyone else in the office was calling it
    'champs'...then i happened to re-read the manual one day...
    
    

    	And I think that EIRS is even more stupid for an application name.

    Most of mine are driving related:
    
    People who sit on opposite sides of the road, carrying on a
    conversation from their vehicles, while traffic piles up
    behind them.
    
    People who go slow in the left lane, but when you manage
    to get in front of them, become speed demoms.
    
    People who enter an intersection by sticking their car
    halfway into it before they stop and look if anything
    is coming.
    
    People who don't know the rules of rotaries, and who is
    supposed to yield (the people in the rotary have the
    right of way... MORONS!!!)
    
    People who cut in front of oncoming traffic when turning
    left.
    
    People who "fake" left before turning right, or vice versa...
    
    People who, when coming into a T intersection where they
    intend to turn left, block off the left side of the road
    they're on.
    
    People who rubberneck at traffic accidents, or even
    if a cop has someone pulled over for a trafffic
    violation.
    
    And so on...
    
    -b

    
    
    and don't forget those morons that don't know why they put blinkers
    (turn signals for the more educated) on cars...
    

    
    <--------
    
    My favorite statement to make when I see that is:
    
    "I guess they didn't make them on <make of car> that year!"
    
    
    :) :)
    

    
    listening to TV or radio describe known bums and hoods as kids.
    

    
    
    How about all the cute name changes?
    
    Home Invasion for Breaking and Entering (alleged)
    
    War Lords for Thugs and/or Hoodlums
    
    Just to name a few....
    

    Political commentators doing an analysis after someone makes a speech
    just as though you either did not hear the speech or are too stupid to
    understand what was being said.
    
    People who drive with a little peephole on their windshield because
    they are either too lazy or stupid to clear off the snow/ice. And for
    your morons who may recognize yourselves in this one, how about
    clearing off the snow on your rear bumper and lights so we can see when
    you are braking or signaling a turn, rather than guessing before
    plowing into your rear?
    
    Stupid people who have dogs that bark all the time and somehow just
    can't hear it?
    
    Boomboxes in public. These irritants should be modified so the only way
    you can "enjoy" it is with a headset.
    
    Tailgaters and people who pass in the right hand lane rather than use
    the left. Same category - people who pass you at a high speed and exit
    about 200 feet in front of you. People who follow with highbeams on.
    
    Rap-crap.
    
    

    <--- So, you're one of them sissy drivers that stays in the left lane.

    (Further down the CHAMP rathole)
    
    There are two CHAMP applications
    
    CHAMP/CSC and CHAMP/FLD.
    I use CHAMP/CSC, but fix CHAMP/FLD
    
    Don't blame me, I didn't name them.  I did get to name a piece of
    software internal to our group though:  Software History Installation
    Tracking.

    No sh*t?

    I have many pet peeves but I will mention just one
    
       Cheap people that refuse to get with the times and buy an 
       answering machine.  

    "Friends" whose notion of friendship is that they keep you on the
    shelf like some turned-off, battery-operated toy, ignoring any
    communications from you, forgetting all the things you've shared
    with them, done for them, and so on; and then when they're "ready"
    to play with you, take you off the shelf, flip the switch, and
    sit back expecting you to entertain them like some damned court
    jester.
    
    Chris

    Funny thing about pet peeves... for every thing I have that irritates
    me, I'm sure I do at least three things that irritate someone else! :-)
    
    So, never take your annoyance to an extreme!
    
    -b

	<-- people who preach  ;>

    Well, I guess I still owe you two then Ms. DesMaisons! :-)
    
    -b

    Di:
    
    Are your dollies prepared to eat cheeses?

    people who stand on street corners screaming bible scipture.

>>    Are your dollies prepared to eat cheeses?

	that's pretty personal, jack, don't you think?

| <<< Note 258.40 by CONSLT::MCBRIDE "aspiring peasant" >>>



| No, there is future history, it just hasn't happened yet.


	It depends on if you have a TARDIS Brian....

    Not sure if this is a Southern thing or not, but I really hate it when
    the driver in front of you puts on his/her turn signals indicating that
    the person in FRONT of them is turning.  Whomever came up with this one
    ought to be shot.                                
    
    Dan

    When some non-standard human predilection (e.g., the desire for
    tattoos) is brought up, and 4.78 zillion lurkers pop outta the
    ::SOAPBOX-woodwork to justify their existences by expressing
    theirselfs on this one topic, and then vanish whence they came.
    
    Oh and by the way, apropos of nothing in particular, I just happen to
    think that everyone who polishes their harmonicas with floorwax is
    perverted beyond measure.
    
    OK, out with you!  Which of you no-lives will dispute me???!??
    
    |-{:-)
    

    Iseenit (as it it written)
    
    Not
    
    And sports stars who keep saying  "You Know" when they are trying to
    tell you why they won or lost the game, If we knew they would not have
    to tell us, Would they? 

    o people who pull out in front of you at 90 mph, and then slow way down
    to 30 mph on a road where you can't pass. of course, there was no one
    behind me at the time, so it's not like they couldn't have
    waited..sheesh!
    
    o people who drive with one of their directionals blinking for miles
    and miles and forget to turn it off. then when they do, they make a
    turn WITHOUT a signal! 
    
    o snobs who park their fancy cars at an angle in a parking lot so no
    one can park next to them. (i usually do anyways ;-) if they are really
    afraid of the car getting damaged, then why are they driving it?
    
    o drivers who pull up behind me on the highway and flash their lights
    at me. i slow down and stay put, or i tap the brakes. 
    
     

    o Self Important DORKS who slow down & stay put, or (the truly moronic
      20-watt dimbulb untermenschen subclass thereof) who TAP THEIR BRAKES
      when I pull up behind 'em on the highway and courteously flash my
      lights at them.
    
    |-{:-)
    

    Self-abnegating types who invite the opprobrium of ::SOAPBOX by
    entering superfluous notes just to set up the most licentious and
    marriage-cheapening SNARFs known to 'BoxKind, and then, in an access of
    unwonted altruism, pull out at the last minute and leave the snarf to
    others - and then expect credit for it!!!  THOSE jerks are at the
    bottommost layer of pond scum, in my book.
    

    drdan:
    
    I see from your last note you ain't sleep much at nights...join the
    club!

    watchoo mean, no sleep much @ nites?  I'm down under in OZ, basking in
    the sun, noting from Wallaroo Beach within sight both of Sydney Opera
    House and the Great Barrier Reef...  Why are YOU up so early??
    
    ps -- !NOT!
    
    |-{:-)
    

    
    o  Snarfers
    
    o  People who complain about redundancy in speech. It's not a bug,
       it's a feature. 
    
    o  Handball teammates who slowly stroll to pick up the ball when we're
       3 goals behind with 5 minutes remaining.
    
    o  Customers calling my office-mate at 12:55 every day, just to hear me
       saying "I'm sorry, he's out for lunch. Why don't you call at 13:30,
       when he'll be back." Every day!
    
    Heiko

    Sharing an office with the biggest loser in digital.
    You should see this guy, what a waste...

| <<< Note 258.72 by BIGQ::WELLS >>>



| Sharing an office with the biggest loser in digital. You should see this guy, 
| what a waste...


	Still mad at your personal name in mail being changed to, "I am a
dorkman" Scott? (aka Homer Simpson)


Glen-who-luvs-his-office-mate

    
    No Glen i'm not mad. I was just filling everyone in on what they all
    probably know anyway. Geln takes after the guy who starred in that
    show "Get A Life", and to this day still doesn't have one. He also
    fills in once in awhile for Bart Simpson.

    
    Who is Geln?
    

	Can you now see why he is dorkman??? He can't even talk about the right
person! Ohhhhh Scott..... you're such a dorkman, and now you have just proven
it. How sad it must be to be you....

    
    -  fanatics (of any persuasion)
    -  dog owners who do not scoop after their dogs
    -  negligent/abusive pet owners
    -  left lane hoggers [it is THE passing lane, after all!]
    -  chatty local news anchor - grrrr!!! who cares, just give me
       the alleged news
    -  tabloid news
    -  slobs
    -  drivers who don't know how to merge
    -  talkers during movies
    -  ignorant spellers (not typos)
    -  self-rightious, holier-than-thou of any persuasion
    -  impolite cashiers (especially the ones who ignore you during
       the actual transaction)

    
    re. -.23 on slow/asian drivers
    
    	Oh please... are all asian drivers slow drivers? well, I am not!
    	I've come across my share of slow drivers across ALL racial 
        spectrum, all ages and in all geographies I've driven in.
    
    	haven't driven in asian countries, I assume?
    
    

    Asians as slow drivers, I have heard them refered to as methodical, but
    have you ever been behind a Jananese foursome on the golf course? time
    stands still.

    
    ...when something that is `used' is described as being "pre-owned" or
    "previously enjoyed".
    

    How about "pre-consumed"?
    
    It's already et.

    How about people who say "woorsh" instead of "wash".

    
    How about those who say "schtoopid" rather than "stupid"?

> "previously enjoyed".

Sounds like the topless dancers that lived next to me many years ago.

Bob

    re: .77 and spelling ...
    
    righteous :-) 
    
    

    Political correctness
    
    ME

    <- oxymoron alert!

    
    
    Biggest pet peave of mine:
    
    People who say "Because that's the way we've always done it."
    
    .....doesn't make it right!!!
    
    Kinda like ISO....All it does is determine that a certain task is
    done the same way every time it's done.  Does NOT determine if it's
    done 'right'.  So, if you're doing something wrong, at least you're
    doing it wrong every time you do it.  {ssssiiiiiiigh}
    
    Terrie
    

>    People who say "Because that's the way we've always done it."

YES!!!!!!!!!!!

I've just had this experience recently in DEC... It can be very frustrating.

/scott    

    
    
    I just had that experience here in DEC about 30 minutes ago.
    
    Example....Engineering getting parts from manufacturing.
    The parts must be physically shipped to a stock room, then
    allocated to our cost center and physically shipped to us.
    Why can't someone just come up with a program (Is this not
    a computer company, or what?!?!?!) in which you electronically
    transfer to an on line stock room, charge the cost center,
    and ship them???  Wouldn't this save the company ALOT of $$$$????
    
    But, NNNnnnnnnooooooooooooooooooooo...that's not the way it's
    done, because "that's the way we've always done it."
    
    AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!
    
    Terrie
    

    
    
    that's 'a lot' of money...
    
     :>
    

The bit about news media reports and interviews seeking teary-eyed intervees
has already been mentioned but ...

I really hate it when the interview is going fine, then the voice starts to
crack, the tears start to flow, and then ... the camera slowly zooms into the
face for that ultra-closeup. They do it every time. Give me a break!!

How about people who use those common plural nouns for singular, e.g.,
	- "this phenomena is ..."
	- "the news media is ..."
	- "this criteria is ..."
	- "this data is ..."      /* I confess, I slip on this one sometimes */

    
    News reporters who end their stories with "One thing is certain...this
    is far from over." or any variant on that theme.
    

    Americans who say burglarized instead of burgled!
    

re .94:

>                            -< Inventaword! >-

>    Americans who say burglarized instead of burgled!
    
'Tis you guys that are guilty of "inventaword" here.
You take the noun "burglar" and assume it's "burglEr", that is a verb
plus the -er ending.  You assume that by lopping off the nonexistant -er
ending you get the verb back, when in reality to create a verb from a noun
(that itself wasn't formed from a verb, like "burglar") one of the correct
ways is to add -ize (or -ise if you insist).

-Madman

    .95
    
    wrong.
    
    the word that the brits turn into burgled is burgle.  perfectly proper
    past-tense formation there.

Except "burgle" is itself wrong.

    .97
    
    actually, burgle isn't wrong.  it's a back-formation from burglar.  and
    it's closer than burglarize to the latin root burgo/burgare, meaning to
    commit burglary.

Mindless Snarfing.

re .99:

>    actually, burgle isn't wrong.  it's a back-formation from burglar.

In other words, "make-up-a-word".  Which was the point of .95.

Neither form is "wrong" as they both are used often enough the meaning
is clear.

> Mindless Snarfing.

As opposed to?

BTW, I noticed that my odometer matched my zip code last night.  Except for
that pesky "1" in the 6th place.

    > In other words, "make-up-a-word".
    
    ALL language is created by "make-up-a-word."  including the word
    burglarize, which has always looked to me as if it ought to mean "make
    into a burglar."

re .103:

>    ALL language is created by "make-up-a-word."  including the word
>    burglarize,

The difference is "burglarize" was "made up" using standard rules of the
English language while "burgle" was "made up" because someone made an
incorrect assumption or thought it "looked" right.

    how was burglarize made up using standard rules?  the same way
    cauterize and plagiarize were?  so cauterize is what a cauter does and
    plagiarize is what a plagiar does?  give us a break, please.

re .105:

Look up the definition of -ize in a dictionary.

Just because a word ends in -ize doesn't necessarily mean it was formed
following the rule for the ending -ize, just like "swing" isn't some verb with
the "-ing" ending. 
This is just the "if a then b; therefore if b then a" argument
which is incorrect.

    
    all this talk of burglars is making me hungry, give me a burger with
    everything, and a side of fries.

    some of those classified ad bloopers are classic! 
    
    one classic was "color TV and other household gods for sale..."
    
    maybe /Nassar is the ghost writer for these ads...

| <<< Note 258.92 by DECWET::LOWE "Bruce Lowe, DECwest Eng.,  DTN 548-8910" >>>



| I really hate it when the interview is going fine, then the voice starts to
| crack, the tears start to flow, and then ... the camera slowly zooms into the
| face for that ultra-closeup. 


	It's even worse when that person is Tammy Faye Bakker..... 

    
    .110:
    
    I like it!!!!!  :^)
    

People spend hours in a trance before their TV, so it does resemble a
household god.

    .107
    
    see .108.  my point was, and still is, that all language is created by
    "make-up-a-word" techniques.  there is no such thing as a "standard"
    rule of word formation, just as there is no such thing as a "natural
    law."  there are historical and common usages and precedents, but to
    call them rules is to try to formalize an inherently anarchic system. 
    like the world of nature, language is.  it simply is.  rules imposed on
    it are merely attempts to express an understanding of its mechanism in
    a meaningful way.  and, like the natural world, it grows and changes. 
    as i pointed out the other day here in the box, the whole stupidity
    about splitting infinitives arises from a misguided "scholarly" attempt
    to impose the structure of latin (in which splitting infinitives is not
    prohibited but rather impossible) on english.

    Burgled, burlarized; who cares?  Either way, you wuz robbed :-)
    

    Now to my pet peeve:
    
    
    this effing network!!!  Who was the genuis who decided the network
    needed to be upgraded?  I've never seen so much down-time, etc. in
    years!!!
    

    Is that what this is all about, an upgrade is in progress?

    More like a degrade is in progress.

    
    People who insist on using uncommon words, but don't pronounce them
    properly!
    
    Today I heard fiefdom as FIFEdom and debacle as DEBacle.

| <<< Note 258.119 by POWDML::LAUER "Little Chamber of Organic Jewelry" >>>



| Today I heard fiefdom as FIFEdom 

	Maybe they had watched an episode of the Andy Griffith show that Barney
was in????

    
    
    well, deb, iff'n you weren't so edgeamacated like the rest of us, stuff
    like that wouldn't bother you...
    
    :>
    

 People saying "Myuhn" instead of "mine"

They're graduates of the Lilly Tomlin Institute of Operator Science
and Diction, Jim.

 People saying "Myuhn" instead of "Incan"

	a few of my pet peeves.....

	*  people who leave 2 squares of toilet paper on the roll, and
	   don't put a new roll out

	*  people who leave just a speck of butter on the butter dish
	   and put it back in the cupboard without taking out any more
	   to soften

	*  people who put the milk back in the fridge with about 2 drops
	   left in the bag, instead of putting in a new bag


	All of the above happened at home this weekend...    :*(

    
    people who use their car for 2km drives
    
    people who leave their car running when they leave it/wait for someone

	Chris, you get milk in a bag? Is that like wine in a box?

    
      People who use the ice, but don't refill the tray.
    
      bb

  I thought we had this conversation somewhere else???  (re milk in the
  bag)

  It's supposed to be better for the environment because the bags take
  up a lot less landfill space.  Also, if you don't drink milk fast
  enough, you can buy 4 litres (comes in 3 bags) and freeze a bag or
  two so it's doesn't turn sour.... which leads to an even bigger pet
  peeve...

	people who leave 2 drops of milk in the bag AND don't take
	a new bag out of the freezer to thaw!

	Ice milk.... no fat too! :-)

People who say "It's about 2km from here" (or "People who use their cars
for 2km drives").

I can't relate to 2km. How far izzat, anyway? 

The conversion will take a generation or two.

Art

    
    2km in 5 minutes by bike.

    People who don't know how far a kilometre is (or a kilometer, for that
    matter).
    
    A metre (meter) is 39.37 inches; a kilometre is 1000 metres.
    
    You'll be measuring in cubits and ells next !!   :-)

    .132
    
    > 2km in 5 minutes by bike.
    
    what, were you loafing along?

    I don't bother to look up the meaning of 'loafing' in the dictionary.
    
    Indeed, there is a typo in my reply. It should read
    
      2km iS 5 minutes by bike.
    
    Heiko

    .135
    
    to loaf == ire pigre
    
    2 km is loafing if it takes you 5 minutes.  my usual speed, when i was
    commuting daily, was 12 km through auto traffic in about 21 minutes.

People who don't pick up their print jobs at a shared spool
printer!

    
    
    People who take up two parking spaces, but even more so, the person
    that decides their car can fit into the other half of the parking space
    if they pull in close eough the the driver's side door of the car
    legally parked on the other side.  
    
    
    
    
    Terrie
    

    
    People who leave and don't stay gone!!!

    YOU'RE CRAPPING ME!!!!! :-)

    Jack,
    
    No one needs to crap you, you do it on your own.

    Don't mind Meg, she's pissed at me right now for something that
    transpired in another conference regarding "...a woman's desire shall be
    for her husband".  
    
    I should have just said it means a woman will want to make more money
    or some such....but instead I gave a more abstract possibility.
    
    -Jack

    jack
    
    You might quit making desire and other thingie so one sided.  Or are
    you saying you have no desire for your "exemplary exemption?"  Oh, I
    know.  You just close your eyes and think of Western Europe and the
    perfect stereotypical civilizstion, right?
    
    meg

    But of course Meg.  The male makeup is such that men are attracted to
    the opposite sex by sight.  Everybody who's anybody knows this.  Desire
    and drive, from what I've seen, has a stronger drive in men moreso than
    women.  I acknowledged from the beginning I didn't know what that part
    of the curse meant but you went into Patricia mode and jumped all over
    me anyway!
    
    -Jack

    I disagree that women have less drive than men. Completely.

    Then why are women more apt to be rape victims than men?

>        <<< Note 258.148 by ASGMKA::MARTIN "Concerto in 66 Movements" >>>

>  Desire and drive, from what I've seen, has a stronger drive in men moreso
>  than women. 

	Jack, you can continue these attempts to single-handedly murder
	the English language, but it will survive you, rest assured.

    because they are easier prey for violent men.
    
    That's like asking "why do more men go to war?"

>        <<< Note 258.150 by ASGMKA::MARTIN "Concerto in 66 Movements" >>>

>    Then why are women more apt to be rape victims than men?

	Stupid Question of the Day Award

	It's only 10-ish and we have a winnah.

    If you were to go to your average disco meat market in the late 70's,
    who would have a higher percentage of getting propositioned...women or
    men?

    Di:
    
    I WILL NOT RELENT!!  I will continue to propogate ebonics into out
    every day language!

    More like OJMonics.  
    
    jack, women on a whole are smaller, and as such less likely to
    overpower a male who isn't interested.  However, men are raped (mostly
    by other men)  I find this not to be sexual, but more a power trip.  if
    all a person sees sex with another as is a way to control, hurt or
    masturbate into, then they are the sick ones.  Not those who desire
    something other than a damp hole.
    
    meg

    Meg, I always appreciated your candor.
    
    So based on my stupid question, is it safe to assume there are just as
    many predatorial female wannabees as there are male predators!??

    jack,
    it is safe to assume there are women who are only after some men for
    their bodies.  I have known a few.  Being the receptive partner though,
    most are tapering off.  
    
    However, most women (and I believe most men) are looking for something
    more than a breathing vibrator.  I don't believe most men are
    predatory, although obviously your mileage varies.  it's ok jack,  They
    make counseling a depoprovera for some cases.  You can change if you
    really want to.
    
    meg

    Doubtful, jack, but that has nothing to do with sex drive. You have
    confused violent behaviour with sex.

    To say women have less sex drive because they don't rape or are less likely
    to be predatory shows that you have little or no understanding of what
    makes women tick.

>        <<< Note 258.148 by ASGMKA::MARTIN "Concerto in 66 Movements" >>>

>  The male makeup is such that men are attracted to
>  the opposite sex by sight.

     And this is not the case for women?  Women are attracted to the
     opposite sex by... smell?  taste?  hearing? 

    i think it's "conversation". Di. That's how it works for women.

Jack, you shooooo is, uh, dumb.

    ladfy Di,
    
    didn't you know it was size that attracted women?  We just have
    multiples over a thick wallet and a bouquet of flowers.  We are far too
    frail to have anything in mind other than how good a provider a man
    could be.  Well except for us Dyke witches who love men who are good
    houskeepers and parental units, and are willing to talk in something
    other than monosyllable grunts when they are with us.
    
    Set mode out of sarcasm now
    
    meg

  .161  oh yeah, that's right.  speak to me only with thine baby blues. ;>

   .163  you left out cars!  ;>

    {blink}{blink}

  .166  say no more! ;>

    
    i pay particular attention to a man's diet.

    Oh...I'm dumb huh?  Look, I've been married long enough to know that
    women in general want to be talked to and held.  Men are more inclined
    to go at it.  Women like men to move slowly, men are more inclined to
    go fast.  Do you deny this Dody?

    my my my. sounds like you have a horrible time of it then.

    (Smacks forhead with palm of hand)
    
    Di!  How could I forget cars!  that also shows what sort of providor
    the neandrethal is.  Further the hood extends from the passenger
    compartment bigger other things, right?
    
    Oh porches, camaros and vette's just set my heart aflutter......
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    NOT!  Show up with a vintage though and we might talk.

    Meg, have you been reading a lot of Walter Miller's homepage lately?
    
    {concerned look}

    Nope,
    
    Netscape tends to hang up my system, and I need it for work.  i don't
    need any stinking Dr Watson messages.  
    
    

| <<< Note 258.148 by ASGMKA::MARTIN "Concerto in 66 Movements" >>>

| But of course Meg.  The male makeup is such that men are attracted to
| the opposite sex by sight.  Everybody who's anybody knows this.  

	The above is not completely true.

| desire and drive, from what I've seen, has a stronger drive in men moreso than
| women. 

	Jack, how much do you see in that world of yours?

    
    
    	re: Jack
    
    	That may be how your wife prefers your relationship to be but
    	you can't sterotype all women to be that way.  Some women enjoy
    	being dominant and having rough, steamy sex.  Just because you
    	haven't come across women like that, doesn't mean they don't
    	exist.
    
    

    Oh Judy, don't you know? All women are just like his wife. You are just
    like his wife. So you're not fooling anyone with the steamy sex, you're
    just lying to yourself.

| <<< Note 258.169 by ASGMKA::MARTIN "Concerto in 66 Movements" >>>

| Oh...I'm dumb huh?  Look, I've been married long enough to know that
| women in general want to be talked to and held.  Men are more inclined
| to go at it.  Women like men to move slowly, men are more inclined to
| go fast.  Do you deny this Dody?

	Gee Jack... I guess you just described what your wife wants. How does
that apply to women, in general?

    .175
    
    wooo hooo!

Sterotypes are dumb Jack. This one is pure BS. 

    Hey Dody, first of all I initially asked a question...to which I was
    given condescending replies...which is typical in this file.  Next I
    present a few hypothesis...since you obviously seem to have nothing
    better to say than typical Glenspeak and have massive multiples over
    former Red Sox players.
    
    -Jack

    Glen:
    
    Understandable.  For the sake of arguments, let's exclude the
    lesbian community and keep it to the male/female relationships.
    
    -Jack

Jack,

Exactly how long is "married long enough"? 

daryll

    JJ:
    
    Yes, I understand we all have our own experiences in life.  Have you
    ever seen the top 10 list of things you'll never hear a man
    say...things like, "I'm not in the mood tonight, I just want to be
    held"?  If this is a stereotype, then it is one that is recognized
    widely in society.
    
    -Jack

    10 years...which in this day and age is a credit in my opinion.
    
    -Jack

    So, you're filing for a divorce now that you've been married long
    enough?

| <<< Note 258.181 by ASGMKA::MARTIN "Concerto in 66 Movements" >>>

| Understandable.  For the sake of arguments, let's exclude the
| lesbian community and keep it to the male/female relationships.

	You're pretty good at excluding. Especially when your house of cards
tumbles onto you. 

Since I was an expert for 3 years longer, I assume you'll now 
surrender and admit that it's a silly premise.

Somehow though, I doubt it.

    Gee, look what I started!!   :)
    

 Let's go back to the statement that caused this rauccous....
    
 Z   Desire and drive, from what I've seen, has a stronger drive in men moreso
 Z   than women. 
    
    Excluding grammatical errors and the like, you seem to feel it appropo
    to insult me for suggesting such a proposterous thing.  (Oh and by the
    way Glen, keep your trap shut.  You've offered zilch to the discussion
    and are not qualified to make any perceived cogent statements on the
    matter).
    
    This, Mr. Doda, is not as ridiculous as you think.  Take a look at Wild
    Discovery sometime on A&E (cable channel).  You will find throughout
    the animal kingdom that the males of most if not all species of animals
    are instinctively driven sexually while the females are either more
    passive or not domineering at all.
    
    Now of course there are alot of factors attributed to this; however, I
    find the barrage of condescending insults here to be less sophisticated
    than my perhaps faulty premise.
    
    -Jack
    

    oh, jack.  even in the wild kingdom the females call
    the shots.  estrus, baby.

	Jack, animals will eat their own if they have to. Should we do the
same? You were talking humans, not animals. 

    Ohh...Oh I get it Glen!  We are all a part of the animal kingdom...but
    only when it's convenient for you!  In this particular discussion we
    are made in the image of God eh?!  But get into a philosophical
    discussion about the afterlife and we switch channels over to the
    animal kingdom!  That's rich I'll say!

    TTWA:
    
     What's a "vintage though"? I thought they were all NV.

    Jack, your observations say nothing about female sex drive and the
    strength of desires. You are confusing behaviour with drive. Can't you
    see that?

    Doc,
    
    Vintage automobile == 1940 or earlier Rolls, plymouths, REO's or
    whatever, lovingly restored.  Now that is something much hotter to me
    than a modern, long snouted, appendage extender.  
    
    meg

http://www.product.com/AutoZonLine/carbarn.html


1926 Nash to the 1954 Bently

    >Vintage automobile == 1940 or earlier Rolls, plymouths, REO's or
    >whatever, lovingly restored.  Now that is something much hotter to me
    
     I used to work with a guy that had a 36 Dodge that he was restoring.
    This guy was a perfectionist, too. It was mint. He had a nickname for
    that car (that I can't use here) that reinforces the notion that your
    enjoyment of such cars is shared by other women...

> Let's go back to the statement that caused this rauccous....
> Z   Desire and drive, from what I've seen, has a stronger drive in men moreso
> Z   than women. 

Let's do - it seems something obvious is being missed. I would guess that 
women have just as strong a drive as men, but it's expressed differently, due
to the basic differences between the creatures. Men are fine with the quick
boink - sex is less physically threatening for them, with less need to give
up control, and the possible biological consequences are far less. A drive
to "spread the seed" as far and wide as possible may be at work here. Women
seem to be more interested in linking up with a partner they can trust, which
requires a little more time investment, but once convinced, the drive is there
in spades.

Disclaimer: generalizations of course - obviously there are predatory women,
but they are probably exceptions to the rule. And among men, SNAGdom continues
to rise. But even among snags, the willingness to go with multiple partners
seems widespread.

    >And among men, SNAGdom continues to rise. But even among snags, the
    >willingness to go with multiple partners seems widespread.
    
     Sounds like you have the tail wagging the dog here. :-)
    
     Seems as likely as not that it's the desire to "go with multiple
    partners" that creates SNAGs. :-)

>  Seems as likely as not that it's the desire to "go with multiple
>  partners" that creates SNAGs. :-)

Yes, I think you have a point.

    /A drive to "spread the seed" as far and wide as possible...
    
    this is an old, tired, hackneyed belief/myth/whatever that 
    doesn't apply anymore.  not in the modern world.  let's be
    done with it.
    

    <-- Yea, but if he combs his just right, you can hardly tell.
    
    
    Mike
    

    >/A drive to "spread the seed" as far and wide as possible...
    
    >this is an old, tired, hackneyed belief/myth/whatever that 
    >doesn't apply anymore.  not in the modern world.  let's be
    >done with it.
    
     Why do you say that? It consistent with an awful lot of behavior that
    there is a biological basis. Why are you so eager to discount the
    possibility that underlying biology plays a role in sexual behavior?

    /It consistent with an awful lot of behavior that
    /there is a biological basis.
    
    it's consistent with irresponsible sexual behavior.  i can
    see the cavemen operating on the "primal" need to procreate,
    but us?  come on.  those days are long gone.
    

    >it's consistent with irresponsible sexual behavior.  i can
    >see the cavemen operating on the "primal" need to procreate,
    >but us?  come on.  those days are long gone.
    
     The fact of the matter is that lots of people sleep around.
    How do you explain that, given your belief that primal urges
    are not relevant?

>               <<< Note 258.205 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "Spott Itj" >>>

	i thought Oph was talking about the need to "spread seed"
	not the urge to have sex.


	i agree with her that that's no longer the primary driving
	force.

>    it's consistent with irresponsible sexual behavior.  i can
>    see the cavemen operating on the "primal" need to procreate,
>    but us?  come on.  those days are long gone.

Do not forget that genetically, we are still the same animal that lived in
hunter-gatherer tribes.  There is no time for significant evolution to change
us in the few generations that humans have been living in civilized
environments.  Anything genetic affecting our sexual behavior is still there,
nearly unchanged. 

        /The fact of the matter is that lots of people sleep around.
        /How do you explain that, given your belief that primal urges
        /are not relevant?
    
    	lots of people sleep around, sure.  it's not a primal thing,
    	if anything it's a form of recreation.  there's no deep
    	biological forces lurking underneath the surface of sex.
    	it's 1997, for pete's sake.
    

    2-4-6-8 everybody recreate!

             <<< Note 258.171 by CSC32::M_EVANS "be the village" >>>

>    Oh porches, camaros and vette's just set my heart aflutter......
 
	A V12 Jaguar XKE must make you swoon.

	;-)

Jim

    >	i thought Oph was talking about the need to "spread seed"
    >	not the urge to have sex.
    
     Do you really think that it was the idea of making lots of bebbies
    that lead early man to have sex with multiple partners? I doubt it was
    a conscious effort, personally. I think humans were programmed with the
    desire to screw like bunnies, and lots of bebbies is the natural
    result, thus propagating the species. I don't think it was the desire
    to have lots of bebbies that motivated early man to screw like a bunny.
    
    >	i agree with her that that's no longer the primary driving
    >	force.
    
     I don't think it ever was. Spreading seed is a biological result of
    the innate desire to screw.

>       <<< Note 258.208 by LANDO::OLIVER_B "looking for deep meaning" >>>
>    	lots of people sleep around, sure.  it's not a primal thing,
>    	if anything it's a form of recreation.  there's no deep
>    	biological forces lurking underneath the surface of sex.
>    	it's 1997, for pete's sake.
    
I believe I'll have to diagree. There's obviously a little of both.

    
    it's the "desire to spread the seed" thing that's 
    bunkaroo, imo.

    >/A drive to "spread the seed" as far and wide as possible...
    
    >this is an old, tired, hackneyed belief/myth/whatever that 
    >doesn't apply anymore.  not in the modern world.  let's be
    >done with it.
    
	well fer cry eye, Mark, this was the previous exchange.
	doesn't it sound like she's talking about spreading the
	seed being an old myth?  now it sounds like you're in
	violent agreement.

    I need some serious recreation.

    "spread the seed" as a euphemism for the male urge to do the deed at
    whatever opportunity, especially during the adolescent hormonal tidal
    wave period, is somewhat malaprop when the responsible civilized
    adolescent actually wears a condom and keeps the seed from spreading.
    The original use of the phrase here suffered the malaprop, but the
    hormonally directed primal urge certainly still exists.
    
    DougO

    so, the seed is kind of just glopping, in our modern world.

    See Daniel Dennett's _Darwin's Dangerous Idea_ for discussion of these
    issues.  Evolution does not have intention.  Creatures generally do not
    have any explicit desire to spread their seed.  But creatures do have
    sex because it spreads their seed.  That is, having sex is a
    consequence of the fact that it spreads seed.  (Obviously sex came
    first, but the reason it continues is because it spreads seed.) 
    Furthermore, the enjoyment of and the desire for sex are also
    consequences of the fact that it spreads seed.  So animals do enjoy sex
    because it spreads their seed.  These are deep biological forces.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

>      <<< Note 258.218 by RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." >>>

>    So animals do enjoy sex
>    because it spreads their seed. 

	That sentence looks as though it might need some sort
	of qualifier(s).

    How does this apply to women who do not spread seed?

	It must mean their legs were closed?

    Re .220:
    
    > How does this apply to women who do not spread seed?

    The same evolutionary trend to increase the number of offspring
    applies.  However, since the cost of bearing offspring is greater for
    females than males in many species, it presents a moderating "force". 
    Since it is biologically cheap for males to procreate, it is
    advantageous for their genes that they do so frequently.  Since it is
    biologically more expensive for females to procreate, it is
    advantageous for their genes that they do so with more caution.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    >	well fer cry eye, Mark, this was the previous exchange.
    >	doesn't it sound like she's talking about spreading the
    >	seed being an old myth?  
    
     Well, the phrase "doesn't apply anymore" implies that it did, in fact,
    apply at one time. N'est-ce pas?

>               <<< Note 258.223 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "Spott Itj" >>>
    
>     Well, the phrase "doesn't apply anymore" implies that it did, in fact,
>    apply at one time. N'est-ce pas?

	Yes.  So that's what you were questioning Oph about?  It didn't
	sound that way in .203.  

    >	Yes.  So that's what you were questioning Oph about?  It didn't
    >	sound that way in .203.  
    
     I initially thought she meant copulate when she said "spread seed,"
    which is why .203 sounded the way it did (I thought she was claiming
    there was no biological basis for sexual behavior). In .204, she made
    it clear that she meant "procreate" when she said "spread seed." This
    is what lead to my speculation that it was the sex that was the drive
    and the procreation that was the result vs the other way around.

  .225  okay then.  i love it when you talk like that, btw. ;>

    >i love it when you talk like that, btw. ;>
    
     It must be the 3 syllable limit. ;-)

>               <<< Note 258.227 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "Spott Itj" >>>
    
>     It must be the 3 syllable limit. ;-)

	can't be - you violated that, ooh er, a few times. ;>

I thought we were gonna go into the Ayn Rand-ish "sexual attraction is an
intellectual choice" thing for a while there...

While there's certainly a sort of admiration of the things one values when
they're found a potential partner, Ayn did have a little problem with
ordinary hormone-driven urges.

    .218
    
      /Furthermore, the enjoyment of and the desire for sex are also
      /consequences of the fact that it spreads seed.  So animals do enjoy
      /sex because it spreads their seed.  These are deep biological forces.
    
      do animals enjoy sex or is it just something that they're programmed
      to do?  i wonder.  they certainly don't enjoy it in the same sense 
      that some yumans do.
    

    >So animals do enjoy sex because it spreads their seed.  
    
     Astoundingly anthropomorphic, particularly given the source.

    >While there's certainly a sort of admiration of the things one values
    >when they're found a potential partner, Ayn did have a little problem with
    >ordinary hormone-driven urges.
    
    Those you sleep with for that "hormone-driven" urge are not always the
    one you want to be your life partner.

    Re .230:
    
    > do animals enjoy sex or is it just something that they're programmed
    > to do?
    
    Both, depending on the animal.
    
    > they certainly don't enjoy it in the same sense that some yumans do.
    
    Sure they do.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
    .233
    
    er, humans are sentient beings.  most of them, anyways.  
    a human's capacity to enjoy sex far exceeds a possum's, 
    i would imagine.

    You don't know that though, and you never will. Remember, possums do it
    in trees.

    Sounds exhilarating!

    .235
    
    hmmmm.

    I'd try it. With a human female, that is.
    
    8)

    geez, in the book i'm reading now there's a budding
    love affair happening in the trunk of a big, dead
    cedar tree.  it's kind-a kewl.  all mossy and whatnot.

    hooo boy. That sounds like fun. on a foggy night would be perfect.

    >er, humans are sentient beings.  most of them, anyways.
    >a human's capacity to enjoy sex far exceeds a possum's,
    >i would imagine.
    
    Ahhh, possums, cute, sensitive, and a staple for some.  :)

    Re .234:
    
    > er, humans are sentient beings.  most of them, anyways.  
    
    Are they?  Perhaps the few who participate in college philosophy
    classes display evidence of sentience.  But the bulk of them are
    largely behavioral most of the time.  Certainly sexual intercourse is
    hardly a demonstration of greater intellectual feats.
    
    > a human's capacity to enjoy sex far exceeds a possum's, 
    > i would imagine.
    
    Hey, if you want to imagine possum sex, go right ahead.  But that
    hardly counts as evidence for whether possums have more or less fun
    than humans.
                                                         
    Objectively, there isn't much evidence that humans are much "higher"
    than animals in significant ways.  Most of humans' opinions of
    themselves as "special" can be attributed to ego, not science.
    
    
    				-- edp  
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    > Certainly sexual intercourse is hardly a demonstration of greater
    > intellectual feats.
    
    You're doing it wrong.
    
    DougO

    Re .243:
    
    >> Certainly sexual intercourse is hardly a demonstration of greater
    >> intellectual feats.
    >
    > You're doing it wrong.

    Stop screwing with people's minds.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
    	Nice job.  8^)
    

    >>> Certainly sexual intercourse is hardly a demonstration of greater
    >>> intellectual feats.
    >>
    >> You're doing it wrong.
    >
    > Stop screwing with people's minds.
    
    Stop arguing circularly.  Of course if you stop screwing with your mind
    then your sex won't demonstrate intellectual feats.  I'm talking about
    the cases wherein the mind stays engaged.
    
    DougO

  .246  whoosh?

    I'll keep delivering straight lines as long as he keeps using them ;-).
    
    DougO