Insidious Facebook
in [Cobol]
|
Prev: New to COBOL
Next: Correction
From: Alistair on 10 Aug 2010 07:18 On Aug 10, 3:47 am, "HeyBub" <hey...(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: > Howard Brazee wrote: > > On Sat, 7 Aug 2010 07:56:23 -0500, "HeyBub" <hey...(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> > > wrote: > > >> The whole book looks like a re-work of a master's thesis. But the > >> most interesting part was how the author (a woman) put the whole > >> business on a biological, evolutionary, basis. She starts with two > >> unprovable axioms and from these develops a cogent whole. The two > >> axioms are: > > >> * Everybody has a genetic mandate to reproduce, to spread their > >> genes, and > >> * It is the woman that does the choosing. > > > It is mostly true that the woman does the choosing, at least where > > she's allowed to. > > > But guys usually get married when they are ready to get married, as > > opposed to when they find the right woman, or when the woman wants to > > get married. > > I dunno. I suggest that (almost) any woman can have (almost) any man she > wants. The only thing holding her back is insufficient skill. > Or just being plain ugly. Sorry, but there are some women I know who are visually off-putting so much that I could never be interested.
From: Anonymous on 10 Aug 2010 08:18 In article <0o-dnYY-O7CsIP3RnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, HeyBub <heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: >Pete Dashwood wrote: >>> >>> You did mention emotion. "Raison d'etre" = "intense emotional >>> attraction to a course of action." >> >> Not sure where this definition came from, but "raison d'etre" just >> means (literally) "reason to be" or "reason for existence". It >> doesn't necessarily involve emotion. A shark's "raison d'etre" may be >> to clean up the oceans... for example. > >The original definition, from the French, is as you say. That definition is >in some circles, however, archaic. It seems that at least one readily-accepted source for definition (already given here) is willing to hasard an attempt to... .... have archaic and eat it, too. DD
From: Anonymous on 10 Aug 2010 08:21 In article <9OGdnc-wr4goIP3RnZ2dnUVZ_rWdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, HeyBub <heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: >Howard Brazee wrote: [snip] >> Still, simplifying human behavior can be useful. > >As in: "A man chases a woman until she catches him." Just as everyone knows that a statement containing 'everyone knows' is wrong so might everyone knows that a woman with her skirts up can ran faster than a man with his pants down. DD
From: Pete Dashwood on 10 Aug 2010 10:31 docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: > In article <0o-dnYY-O7CsIP3RnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, > HeyBub <heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: >> Pete Dashwood wrote: >>>> >>>> You did mention emotion. "Raison d'etre" = "intense emotional >>>> attraction to a course of action." >>> >>> Not sure where this definition came from, but "raison d'etre" just >>> means (literally) "reason to be" or "reason for existence". It >>> doesn't necessarily involve emotion. A shark's "raison d'etre" may >>> be to clean up the oceans... for example. >> >> The original definition, from the French, is as you say. That >> definition is in some circles, however, archaic. > > It seems that at least one readily-accepted source for definition > (already given here) is willing to hasard an attempt to... > > ... have archaic and eat it, too. > > DD LOL! You excell yourself Master Dwarf... Outstanding... :-) Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: HeyBub on 10 Aug 2010 20:47
Alistair wrote: > On Aug 10, 3:47 am, "HeyBub" <hey...(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: >> Howard Brazee wrote: >>> On Sat, 7 Aug 2010 07:56:23 -0500, "HeyBub" <hey...(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> >>> wrote: >> >>>> The whole book looks like a re-work of a master's thesis. But the >>>> most interesting part was how the author (a woman) put the whole >>>> business on a biological, evolutionary, basis. She starts with two >>>> unprovable axioms and from these develops a cogent whole. The two >>>> axioms are: >> >>>> * Everybody has a genetic mandate to reproduce, to spread their >>>> genes, and >>>> * It is the woman that does the choosing. >> >>> It is mostly true that the woman does the choosing, at least where >>> she's allowed to. >> >>> But guys usually get married when they are ready to get married, as >>> opposed to when they find the right woman, or when the woman wants >>> to get married. >> >> I dunno. I suggest that (almost) any woman can have (almost) any man >> she wants. The only thing holding her back is insufficient skill. >> > > Or just being plain ugly. Sorry, but there are some women I know who > are visually off-putting so much that I could never be interested. The "skill-set" in which she may be lacking might involves knock-out drops and hallucinogens. |