Frontpage

[Ed Jay]

With neither quill nor qualm, Els quothed:


True, it's a generalization. You may be the next Newton for all I know.
But on the whole, women as a group are less adept at math than men as a
group. This is probably because they have less interest in it when they
are young, daydreaming about boys instead.

Harvard University recently had something to say about this.

Well that's debatable but I'll admit there's likely to be large
differences between separate individuals in each of the sexes.

So very true. In fact, some women take both sides of the discussion the
two of you are involved in. My take is that as long as the women remain
split, the men will always be on top.

Ed Jay (remove M to respond)

 

[Els]

True, it's a generalization. You may be the next Newton for all I know.

Well, no. Not enough time on my hands ;-)

But on the whole, women as a group are less adept at math than men as a
group.

Yup, true.

This is probably because they have less interest in it when they
are young, daydreaming about boys instead.

If that were the cause, what's the reason for daydreaming and having
less interest? Young girls don't daydream about boys btw, it's about
mothering - interest in boys comes much later. Even I played with
dolls at the age of 4.
I reckon it's mostly genetic, and only partly upbringing and
stimulation.

Well that's debatable but I'll admit there's likely to be large
differences between separate individuals in each of the sexes.

Sure, but comparing as groups again, women are certainly less sexually
orientated than men.

How does anyone know anything except by perception? I submit that when
a women *thinks* she knows what she's doing (whether it's valid or not,)
she is often oblivious to how and even if it is perceived by others.

The same goes for men.

Of
course men can exhibit the same trait, but clueless naivety seems
primarily a woman's forte.

I doubt that. Even generally speaking.

Yes, for the most part, because their jobs were as inventors. They had
the foresight, daring, and determination to risk financial well-being if
not basic sustenance on something that could very well not pan-out.
Some were foolhardy, yes, but even some of those had scintillating
success. -And what was the old lady doing during these times of trial
and tribulation? At home baking cookies?

Not if her husband was an inventor. Someone had to earn the money to
buy food. In the case her husband was not an inventor, I'd say both
she and her husband were busy raising a family. (which among other
things involves the woman baking cookies, yes)

If she was single, chances are she was not baking cookies, but most
likely teaching schoolkids how to read and write, or working in an
office.

Men don't have foibles, they have character.


Complex tasks require undivided attention. Would you dis a man for
being capable?

Nope.
Nor for working on that car all afternoon without accomplishing
anything.

Well, yes and no. Men "multitask", too, but on a larger scale. Fixing
the car is equivalent (not equal) to feeding the baby or answering the
door, etc. However, that doesn't mean they have more time; it may mean
that their time is sectioned into larger chunks

Which gives them more time to focus on the one job they're doing in
such a time section.

but even these chunks
can be subdivided into smaller bits by such things as domestic
exigencies and uncooperative wives/significant_others.

In which case it's unlikely they'll invent any difficult scientific
things during such subdivided times.

And no, it's not men's fault that women don't

Women's tasks are generally smaller in scope and extent, that's all.
This is not to say they are less important, particularly when linked
together. Each single part of the act of raising a child may be
trivial, but the conglomerate whole is the racial primary.
True.

It was a man who said, "Oh woe is me." He was undoubtedly married.



You forgot cigarettes.

They're a definite want. No need. People don't die of nicotine
deprivation.

I couldn't agree with you more on this one. Fairness necessitates
fairness to all, not just those who have been treated unfairly in the
past. Having someone promoted "over your head" when you are better-
qualified creates resentment and resentment breeds child processes not
very conducive to the ideal of fairness or its pragmatic application.
Perhaps the "powers that be" don't see this, but I really think they do
and consider it a political liability.
Indeed.


Well... I'm not that familiar with feminist issues but have been
involved in racial ones and have seen instances in which I could at
least somewhat agree with giving a minority a bit of a boost in the
positive direction, so to speak. This might sound like anathema to the
ideal of fairness but when the situation was analyzed, it proved
otherwise. Still, cases like these are rare, -the exception, not the
rule, and corporate- or governmental-policy do *not* establish equitable
guidelines under which they should be handled.
Indeed.


Maybe as a man, I'm an exception in this, but I believe there is nothing
as important as raising a family. Nothing. Oh, yeah, men can
rationalize thusly: "Well, if I work harder and longer hours, I can
make more money and eventually get a better job or higher position and
provide for my family a better standard of living and eventually have to
work less hours and eventually blah blah blah blah blah."

That's all crap. If you *really* want a family, you make time for them.
Lots of time. I'm saying "family" now, not mate || lover || vacuum
cleaner. Of course, as with anything, most people are somewhere between
the apex and the base on the slopes of this analogical mountain but it
is the highest mountain in the universe.
Amen.


I can understand. Besides, it always gives me a little thrill when a
woman stifles herself.

It's good that you left that last remark in context.

Well, this is a bit awkward, but, you see, I'm God. Yes, I said God.
Oh, I don't have any supernatural powers or anything, nor do I behave in
a particularly divine or saintly way, but I didn't set Adam and Eve in a
garden naked and expect them not to "eat of the forbidden tree", either.
Still, I'm God. Well...let me qualify that. I'm part God, part of God,
and will always be no matter what the future has in store. Now you know
who I am.

I don't think 'bragging' is the right word for what you just said.

No - indefinitely.

Good point.

 

[Els]

<http://www.aes-intl.com/dl2/harvardmath.jpg>

There are a couple of errors in the definitions, as well as an error
in the math.
#1 time and money does not equate to time x money.
#2 women don't cost time and money. They cost money, but give you
time. Some even give you money, but let's leave that for now.
#3 money is the root of all evil, not the root of all problems.

 

[Ed Jay]

There are a couple of errors in the definitions, as well as an error
in the math.

Of course, but then most jokes have errors, omissions and all sorts of
incorrect premises.

#1 time and money does not equate to time x money.
#2 women don't cost time and money. They cost money, but give you
time. Some even give you money, but let's leave that for now.
#3 money is the root of all evil, not the root of all problems.

Ed Jay (remove M to respond)

 

[Els]

Of course, but then most jokes have errors, omissions and all sorts of
incorrect premises.

Oh, I know that, just felt like pointing out the errors on this one

 

[Ed Jay]

Oh, I know that, just felt like pointing out the errors on this one

lol. I have an advanced degree in math. I knew them before I sent it. )

Ed Jay (remove M to respond)

 

[Els]

lol. I have an advanced degree in math. I knew them before I sent it. )

Erm.. by 'pointing out' I didn't mean 'enlighten you', really, I have
no doubt that anyone above the age of 6 knows that x != + <g>

 

[Neredbojias]

With neither quill nor qualm, Els quothed:

Well, no. Not enough time on my hands ;-)

Which is another way of saying you have responsibilities, -
responsibilities you chose earlier in life perhaps via a different kind
of creative compulsion.

....

Sure, but comparing as groups again, women are certainly less sexually
orientated than men.

That's simply because they lack a definitive pointer.

The same goes for men.

Not in the same areas. Men tire easily of droll mental meanderings.
Women have random headaches.

I doubt that. Even generally speaking.

Oh, but it's a sexual aide. Surely you've encountered it sometime or
other.

....

Not if her husband was an inventor. Someone had to earn the money to
buy food. In the case her husband was not an inventor, I'd say both
she and her husband were busy raising a family. (which among other
things involves the woman baking cookies, yes)

So, all non-inventor married men are involved in raising a family with a
woman who bakes cookies? Okay...

If she was single, chances are she was not baking cookies, but most
likely teaching schoolkids how to read and write, or working in an
office.

If she's single, she needs to support herself, yes, but that's not her
main goal. Her main goal is unquestionably a "man goal", ergo, to make
herself appealing to a perspective mate, which, among other things, may
involve baking cookies.

Which gives them more time to focus on the one job they're doing in
such a time section.

This sounds like an excuse. Of course efficient time-management comes
so naturally to men that perhaps we overlook the possibility of its
deficiency elsewhere.

In which case it's unlikely they'll invent any difficult scientific
things during such subdivided times.

I dunno, men can be pretty darn inventive on the spur of the moment.
Just look at the lines they come up with while dating.

....

They're a definite want. No need. People don't die of nicotine
deprivation.

They may not die, but they'd kill for a cigarette. Preventing murder is
a needful thing in my book.

....

It's good that you left that last remark in context.

I'm usually the epitome of decorum.

I don't think 'bragging' is the right word for what you just said.

Of course not, but alas, I detect incomprehension. What I said is the
humblest thing I could have said.

 

[Neredbojias]

With neither quill nor qualm, Ed Jay quothed:

Harvard University recently had something to say about this.
<http://www.aes-intl.com/dl2/harvardmath.jpg>

He he. However, I fear that example is an equation for animosity from
the opposite sex. Your prime numbers will probably be in stasis for at
least a googolplex of inordinately lengthy temporal subdivisions during
which squaring the root may be your only rational equalizer.

So very true. In fact, some women take both sides of the discussion the
two of you are involved in. My take is that as long as the women remain
split, the men will always be on top.

Well, um, I suspect that women will indeed remain split for many eons to
come.

 

[Els]

Which is another way of saying you have responsibilities, -
responsibilities you chose earlier in life perhaps via a different kind
of creative compulsion.

I didn't have enough time before that either though.
Call it prioritizing due to different interests.

That's simply because they lack a definitive pointer.

Doubt that's the cause.

Not in the same areas.

That doesn't matter.

Men tire easily of droll mental meanderings.

You reckon? I thought that's what gives an inventor his ideas.

Women have random headaches.

You believe that?!

Oh, but it's a sexual aide. Surely you've encountered it sometime or
other.

I'm afraid I'm gonna have to say that I haven't. Not
personally/consciously anyway. Have seen other women use it, yes.

So, all non-inventor married men are involved in raising a family with a
woman who bakes cookies? Okay...

No, of course not. They could have been unmarried shopkeepers too.

If she's single, she needs to support herself, yes, but that's not her
main goal. Her main goal is unquestionably a "man goal", ergo, to make
herself appealing to a perspective mate, which, among other things, may
involve baking cookies.

But only on her free Saturday.

This sounds like an excuse. Of course efficient time-management comes
so naturally to men that perhaps we overlook the possibility of its
deficiency elsewhere.

Okay, you got me there. Proof I'm a woman. Efficient time-management?
That's certainly not me.

I dunno, men can be pretty darn inventive on the spur of the moment.
Just look at the lines they come up with while dating.

If those were a measurement of men's inventiveness, we'd still be
lighting our paraffin (kerosene for you) lamps every night, if that.

...

They may not die, but they'd kill for a cigarette. Preventing murder is
a needful thing in my book.

Okay, I'll give you that one.

...

I'm usually the epitome of decorum.

No kidding!
You sure have a way with words. What's your profession, English
teacher?

Of course not, but alas, I detect incomprehension. What I said is the
humblest thing I could have said.

See? That's where the major trouble with intersexual communication
lies. Women have found a flaw in men, and men react with 'she doesn't
understand'. The oldest excuse in the book. Or at least the most used
one in newspaper cartoons.

 

[Leonard Blaisdell]

Neredbojias wrote:

Doubt that's the cause.

A 'definitive pointer' is something that women do not anatomically
possess ;-) And trust me, I haven't misread this thread.
Back to HTML. I'm having trouble with dock types, can you help me ?
Pay attention to those smileys and winkeys.

leo

 

[Els]

A 'definitive pointer' is something that women do not anatomically
possess ;-)

I didn't say they didn't lack it. I said I doubt that's the cause.

And trust me, I haven't misread this thread.

Me neither

Back to HTML. I'm having trouble with dock types, can you help me ?

dock - should I or shouldn't I notice the typo?

Pay attention to those smileys and winkeys.

I know, I know.
I can see them even when they're not there.

 

[Leonard Blaisdell]

I didn't say they didn't lack it. I said I doubt that's the cause.

But all women 'do' lack it! It's male specific.

Me neither

Not the gist, but perhaps the above quoted text.

dock - should I or shouldn't I notice the typo?

Now I'm really confused. 'Dock types' being rough men on a wharf.
Time for me to go to bed, obviously.

leo

 

[Els]

But all women 'do' lack it! It's male specific.

But I didn't say they didn't! I /know/ they lack it!
I'm only saying that I don't think it is the cause of the fact that
women aren't as sexually orientated as men are.

Not the gist, but perhaps the above quoted text.

Nope, I'm thinking you misread a double negative in my text and failed
to perceive the difference between "having something" and "blaming
something" ;-)

Now I'm really confused. 'Dock types' being rough men on a wharf.

You didn't notice the smiley - or maybe I should have written a winkey
;-)

Time for me to go to bed, obviously.

erm.. you're living in that part of the world?
I didn't think it was bedtime in Nevada?

 

[Leonard Blaisdell]

But I didn't say they didn't! I /know/ they lack it!
I'm only saying that I don't think it is the cause of the fact that
women aren't as sexually orientated as men are.

Touche, with that funny accent mark somewhere. Above the 'e'?

Nope, I'm thinking you misread a double negative in my text and failed
to perceive the difference between "having something" and "blaming
something" ;-)

Ah, the infamous double negative. I am not not, therefore I'm still
typing. I generally don't parse that finely.

You didn't notice the smiley - or maybe I should have written a winkey
;-)

I was looking for a winkey :-(

erm.. you're living in that part of the world?
I didn't think it was bedtime in Nevada?

It's 12:24 AM PST. There is no bedtime in Nevada. It's when we pass out.

leo

 

[Els]

Touche, with that funny accent mark somewhere. Above the 'e'?

é ;-)

Ah, the infamous double negative. I am not not, therefore I'm still
typing. I generally don't parse that finely.

Men (generalization!) and the (in)ability to parse language spoken by
women ;-)

I was looking for a winkey :-(

Sorry ;-)

It's 12:24 AM PST. There is no bedtime in Nevada. It's when we pass out.

Got it

 

[Neredbojias]

With neither quill nor qualm, Els quothed:

I didn't have enough time before that either though.
Call it prioritizing due to different interests.

Okay, I shall so call it. Maybe I'll even yodel it down a mountain or
something.

Doubt that's the cause.

Sure it is. -A classic case of penis-envy. Women don't know what to do
without what they don't have and become desperately discombobulated,
exhibiting behavior Freud cataloged quite scientifically over a century
ago. On the other hand, this was somewhat of a vanity on the part of
the "first psychologist" because any man worth his salt knows what they
need instinctively.

That doesn't matter.

This seems to be an irreconcilable point of debate so I shall sublimate
my current perceptions of same with a discrete non-response.

You reckon? I thought that's what gives an inventor his ideas.

Inspiration is what motivates an inventor. For example, the guy who
invented the bra probably wanted nothing so much as to become familiar
with what his psychological makeup made difficult for him to grasp.

You believe that?!

Actually, no. I believe they use the headache stratagem quite
tactically.

I'm afraid I'm gonna have to say that I haven't. Not
personally/consciously anyway. Have seen other women use it, yes.

Of course. I wasn't accusing *you* of such a base gambit.

No, of course not. They could have been unmarried shopkeepers too.

Excuse me for being sarcastic in a way not particularly genteel.
It's just that talk about creativity and baking somehow makes me feel
the stove's been on for a lengthy time and I have to get my cookies off.

But only on her free Saturday.

Yeah, once a week if you're lucky sounds about right.

Okay, you got me there. Proof I'm a woman. Efficient time-management?
That's certainly not me.

"Efficient" doesn't mean "spartan". There can be plenty of time to do
the things you want to do and still accomplish all that is necessary if
you use your time wisely. Men tend to learn this during puberty by
multitasking on the commode.

If those were a measurement of men's inventiveness, we'd still be
lighting our paraffin (kerosene for you) lamps every night, if that.

Harrumph, I detect a note of disparagement in your redoubtable rebuttal.
Or is it a misinterpretation on my part and your just into wax?

No kidding!
You sure have a way with words. What's your profession, English
teacher?

On the professional level, I'm actually rather the antithesis of an
academician but would prefer to say no more about this as it tends to
cause paranoia in teenage girls and underwear manufacturers.

See? That's where the major trouble with intersexual communication
lies. Women have found a flaw in men, and men react with 'she doesn't
understand'. The oldest excuse in the book. Or at least the most used
one in newspaper cartoons.

Well... Regarding the first part, the only "flaw" in men on a universal
level is that they have a singleness of purpose whereas women, as you've
pointed out, seem to harbor numerous purposeful requisites in the course
of their multifarious lives. Newspaper cartoons notwithstanding, I
don't consider this difference a fault of men nor a flaw attributable to
either of the sexes. Sometimes you have to view the situation
pragmatically and just do what you do as good as you can do it. (That
could even be why a young male's whizzer is called a "do-do".)

As for your less-than-subtle intimation that men often respond to
women's voicings with "She doesn't understand," it may very well be the
oldest excuse in the book but I doubt it predates the oldest profession
in the world which succinctly delineates the reasoning of at least some
of the fairer sex. Would you say such reasoning is conducive to
promoting confidence in that same sex?

 

[Els]

Okay, I shall so call it. Maybe I'll even yodel it down a mountain or
something.

When you do, please have someone videotape it and send me a copy?

Sure it is. -A classic case of penis-envy.
Ahem.

Women don't know what to do without what they don't have

Don't include me in that!
I'm entirely happy without what I don't have.
(not giving out details on what to do without it though)

and become desperately discombobulated,

Never.
Btw, it's men who have a lack of blood in their brain cells when they
use what they do have. Recipe for discombobulation.

exhibiting behavior Freud cataloged quite scientifically over a century
ago.

And which behaviour would that be exactly? As I've never been
discombobulated[1] in the slightest possible way, I have no idea what
behaviour would go with that (lack of) state of mind.

On the other hand, this was somewhat of a vanity on the part of
the "first psychologist" because any man worth his salt knows what they
need instinctively.

I reckon he should have been an inventor; he had too much time on his
hands and therefore started rationalizing what everybody knew already
without a need for words.

This seems to be an irreconcilable point of debate so I shall sublimate
my current perceptions of same with a discrete non-response.

Wise choice. And the longest non-response I've ever seen.

Inspiration is what motivates an inventor. For example, the guy who
invented the bra probably wanted nothing so much as to become familiar
with what his psychological makeup made difficult for him to grasp.

I think you're quite right about that. If it were really a functional
item meant for support, it would have been a women who invented it.

Actually, no.

Impression of clever man rescued.

Of course. I wasn't accusing *you* of such a base gambit.

Somehow this sounds as if I'd be wise to act naive, or stupid to act
wise...

[baking cookies vs inventing modern technologies]

Excuse me for being sarcastic in a way not particularly genteel.
It's just that talk about creativity and baking somehow makes me feel
the stove's been on for a lengthy time and I have to get my cookies off.


Yeah, once a week if you're lucky sounds about right.
Hmpf.


"Efficient" doesn't mean "spartan".

Ow, I know that, point still holds though. I'm certainly not
time-efficient.

There can be plenty of time to do
the things you want to do and still accomplish all that is necessary if
you use your time wisely. Men tend to learn this during puberty by
multitasking on the commode.

Ah /that/'s what they call it!

Harrumph, I detect a note of disparagement in your redoubtable rebuttal.
Or is it a misinterpretation on my part and your just into wax?

No misinterpretation, sir. Well detected I might say. Not to be taken
personally of course, I'm sure your good self would be quite a bit
more inventive than most of today's one-lining attention seekers.

On the professional level, I'm actually rather the antithesis of an
academician but would prefer to say no more about this as it tends to
cause paranoia in teenage girls and underwear manufacturers.

I find that hard to believe, really.

Well... Regarding the first part, the only "flaw" in men on a universal
level is that they have a singleness of purpose whereas women, as you've
pointed out, seem to harbor numerous purposeful requisites in the course
of their multifarious lives. Newspaper cartoons notwithstanding, I
don't consider this difference a fault of men nor a flaw attributable to
either of the sexes.
Agreed.

Sometimes you have to view the situation
pragmatically and just do what you do as good as you can do it. (That
could even be why a young male's whizzer is called a "do-do".)

That must be an American expression, surely. Never heard it being
called that before

As for your less-than-subtle intimation that men often respond to
women's voicings with "She doesn't understand," it may very well be the
oldest excuse in the book but I doubt it predates the oldest profession
in the world which succinctly delineates the reasoning of at least some
of the fairer sex. Would you say such reasoning is conducive to
promoting confidence in that same sex?

You really have to ask?
Of course it isn't. Rather the opposite.

 

[Neredbojias]

With neither quill nor qualm, Els quothed:

Gesundheit.


Don't include me in that!
I'm entirely happy without what I don't have.
(not giving out details on what to do without it though)

Sure, I have no problem with that. I was as happy as a coon hound in a
skunk swamp the day my ex-wife left although I did perform one final
solemn ritual when I burned her picture in effigy and spread the ashes
haphazardly around the ring in the bowl of the commode prior to a hearty
and renewing flush of life.

Never.
Btw, it's men who have a lack of blood in their brain cells when they
use what they do have. Recipe for discombobulation.

Not exactly. Men are proficient at redistributing bodily fluids for
their vital purposes and can always take a nap after mating if they feel
fatigued.

exhibiting behavior Freud cataloged quite scientifically over a century
ago.

And which behaviour would that be exactly? As I've never been
discombobulated[1] in the slightest possible way, I have no idea what
behaviour would go with that (lack of) state of mind.

Irrationality, petulancy, pettiness, rudeness, inconsideration,
haughtiness, coldness, vileness, pruriency, and flatulence just to name
a few. With some thought, most men could make a list several pages
long.

I reckon he should have been an inventor; he had too much time on his
hands and therefore started rationalizing what everybody knew already
without a need for words.

It sounds to me like you have one giant hang-up regarding the supposedly
enormous amount of optional time men hypothetically have at their
disposal. Well, to rectify your conceptual miscegenation, men seldom
have "time on their hands." They may have interludes of lesser
productivity with something in their hands, but that is an eel on a
different reel.

Wise choice. And the longest non-response I've ever seen.

Men are used to such things which, ironically, seem to occur in times of
greatest need.

I think you're quite right about that. If it were really a functional
item meant for support, it would have been a women who invented it.

I could refute that but let's just say that when walking along skid row,
men simply got tired of seeing old hags sag in the wrong kind of bag.

Impression of clever man rescued.

Unfair censorship! You fight dirty.

....

Somehow this sounds as if I'd be wise to act naive, or stupid to act
wise...

If you have to "act", you're acting like a woman.

[baking cookies vs inventing modern technologies]

Excuse me for being sarcastic in a way not particularly genteel.
It's just that talk about creativity and baking somehow makes me feel
the stove's been on for a lengthy time and I have to get my cookies off.

<g>
(be careful - they may be hot)

He he he. If you think they're hot, you should see the cannoli.

Ow, I know that, point still holds though. I'm certainly not
time-efficient.

Whose fault is that? -Your mother's? Geesh, woman, it's the modern
world! Get on the stick! -Er, the ball. Oh, just get with it.

Ah /that/'s what they call it!

Generally I call it a crapper but I try to watch my language when I'm
speaking to a dame.

No misinterpretation, sir. Well detected I might say. Not to be taken
personally of course, I'm sure your good self would be quite a bit
more inventive than most of today's one-lining attention seekers.

Moi? Nah. Why reinvent the wheel when you can do things in established
circles.

I find that hard to believe, really.

That must be an American expression, surely. Never heard it being
called that before

Yes, I was hesitant about including that little snippet. Just out of
curiosity, what do young Australian males call it, -a "willie-wong" or
something?

You really have to ask?
Of course it isn't. Rather the opposite.

Hmm, I didn't expect agreement here and am temporarily at a loss for
words. You're saying then that women's words are to be taken
salaciously? Well, okay by me.

That's what I thought about "do".

 

[Els]

Danke.

I was as happy as a coon hound in a
skunk swamp the day my ex-wife left although I did perform one final
solemn ritual when I burned her picture in effigy and spread the ashes
haphazardly around the ring in the bowl of the commode prior to a hearty
and renewing flush of life.

She was that bad, huh?

Not exactly. Men are proficient at redistributing bodily fluids for
their vital purposes and can always take a nap after mating if they feel
fatigued.

May I assume then that thinking straight is not a vital purpose?

exhibiting behavior Freud cataloged quite scientifically over a century
ago.

And which behaviour would that be exactly? As I've never been
discombobulated[1] in the slightest possible way, I have no idea what
behaviour would go with that (lack of) state of mind.

Irrationality, petulancy, pettiness, rudeness, inconsideration,
haughtiness, coldness, vileness, pruriency, and flatulence just to name
a few. With some thought, most men could make a list several pages
long.

Right! Now I'm even more sure I've never been in that state. Ow, I can
say I've at times displayed each single one of those traits, but never
all at the same time. And never combined with discombobulation. Traits
like these are mostly invoked by the male partner's behaviour. Haven't
had to display any of them since my divorce.

It sounds to me like you have one giant hang-up regarding the supposedly
enormous amount of optional time men hypothetically have at their
disposal.

To be entirely honest: no. I merely tried to glue the fallen apart
topic together by linking a chunk about 'psychology' back to
'inventive males'. I really don't mind what men do with their time, as
long as it's their time, not mine.

Well, to rectify your conceptual miscegenation, men seldom
have "time on their hands." They may have interludes of lesser
productivity with something in their hands, but that is an eel on a
different reel.

Indeed it is. I wouldn't call that 'lesser productivity' though.
Different maybe, not necessarily lesser. BTW, when I said 'time on
their hands', I was /not/ meaning to refer to idle time. Rather
dedicated time. Which is a good thing too.

Men are used to such things which, ironically, seem to occur in times of
greatest need.

Not sure what you're saying they're used to; irreconcilable points of
debate, giving long non-responses, or wise choices? All three?
I'm guessing you mean that men are used to women giving them
non-responses especially when men need non-non-responses from those
same women? Maybe you're right. But if I'd get a non-response when I
really needed one, I'd force a response.

I could refute that

Correct. Cause imo, it was indeed women who invented it, only the
current form was invented by a man who forgot to patent it.

but let's just say that when walking along skid row,
men simply got tired of seeing old hags sag in the wrong kind of bag.

You'd think that, wouldn't you. But that's not exactly how it
happened. Read up on the facts:
http://www.nzgirl.co.nz/articles/2511

Unfair censorship! You fight dirty.
Sorry.


If you have to "act", you're acting like a woman.

I meant the second occurrence of "act" to mean "do" or "behave", not
"act" as in "actress". If there's one thing I don't do, it's act like
something I'm not. Ever.

[baking cookies vs inventing modern technologies]

Excuse me for being sarcastic in a way not particularly genteel.
It's just that talk about creativity and baking somehow makes me feel
the stove's been on for a lengthy time and I have to get my cookies off.

<g>
(be careful - they may be hot)

He he he. If you think they're hot, you should see the cannoli.

No need to spell it out for me, I got the joke the first time.

<grin> (I like it when a woman corroborates my assertions with a
humble, begrudging act of silence.)

I'll leave you think that that's what it meant then.

[time-efficiency coming naturally to men]

Whose fault is that? -Your mother's?

No, don't think so. If it is indeed a fault, I'd say it's mine.

Geesh, woman, it's the modern
world! Get on the stick! -Er, the ball. Oh, just get with it.
Why?


Generally I call it a crapper but I try to watch my language when I'm
speaking to a dame.

That's how this thread started I think? You calling colourful language
the 'mystique' of a man.

Moi? Nah. Why reinvent the wheel when you can do things in established
circles.

I don't believe you. With this obviously artistic way with words you
have, you still use lines like "I haven't seen you here before" ?

And then you wonder why it doesn't work?
If a man in a bar asks you why he never saw you there before, it
simply implies that a) the man hangs out there virtually every day (or
weekend), and b) so far didn't have success finding a mate. This
proves that a) he's only after a one-night-stand, or b) there's
something wrong with him, so basically, you don't want him either.

Nice snippage

Yes, I was hesitant about including that little snippet. Just out of
curiosity, what do young Australian males call it, -a "willie-wong" or
something?

Sounds like a reasonable guess. Can't tell for sure though, as I don't
know any young Australians.

Hmm, I didn't expect agreement here and am temporarily at a loss for
words. You're saying then that women's words are to be taken
salaciously?

Only sometimes. Not as often as men interpret those words like that

Well, okay by me.
Good.

[1] That sure is a funny word, especially when you say it a couple of
times in a row.

That's what I thought about "do".

I agree. I've so far only found one example where repeating the word
'do' doesn't sound too funny. Maybe 'cause they put some music behind
it and combined it with 'da'.