Rather Polite of Him, Wouldn't You Say?
in [Cobol]
|
From: Alistair on 22 Nov 2006 09:46 docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: > In article <4shheeF1010qhU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > > > ><docdwarf(a)panix.com> wrote in message news:ejvmo0$c3p$1(a)reader2.panix.com... > ><snip> > >> > >>>To be blunt, don't lift the skirt. No, > >>>best to go with the first impression and not seek confirmation. > > > >Absolutely... and better a skirt lifter than a shirt lifter... right? > > That might depend on 'better... for what'; it could be better to have a > shirt lifter about when one needs cardiopulmonary resuscitation. > > DD Obviously cpr has changed since my day as we never needed to adjust shirts. BTW, shame upon you gentlemen (especially PD) for engaging in this line of thought.
From: Howard Brazee on 22 Nov 2006 10:47 On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 17:19:56 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybubNOSPAM(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> More important than "the best sperm" is "the best post-natal support". >> Any caring Dad is better for the child's survival (and success) than >> the best genes without the Dad. > >Well, yeah. But I get my information from a book entitled: "Sexual Choices: >Why women pick the men they do" which puts the whole choice thingy on a >biological standard. The author, herself a woman who objects to the phrase >"Gold-digger," prefers to denominate the custom as "resource accrual." >Resource accrual is in her top five reasons. > >A (partial) consequence of Resource Accrual is the fact that old geezers >don't pick young chicks; it's the young chicks that choose the old geezers. >And one of the reasons they do, is we elder-care citizens have more, um, >resources accrued. Should I desire, I can probably pick up more >fresh-squeezed with my Lamborghini than the hip-hoppers can with their >stainless steel protuberance piercings. [To be fair, another reason is that >we seniors have demonstrated, through our longivity, that our offspring are >unlikely to inherit a congenital early-death gene.] Those resources are a better indicator of children thriving than sperm are. It is interesting to note what societies set up as standards of attractiveness. For example, in poor rural societies, plump pale people were wealthy - and laborers covered themselves up to look pale. In richer city societies, the laborers use tanning saloons and fat farms to look like the leisured class. When women's main wealth is producing babies, the standard for beauty for women is "young". Even early movies and Miss America pageants showed much younger women than we see as the Hollywood ideal of today - and we had them falling for older men (who could support those babies). In a modern western societies, optimizing the children's success means funneling more money to fewer children - and the standard for beauty has women older and possibly professional. Also - in many societies, having lots of neighbors was useful for survival - to protect against the Huns and such. Any behavior which didn't optimize this was frowned upon - the acceptable way to avoid having kids was to be married to your church. People praised big families. Old Maids were pitiful, and homosexually had to be part-time. Onin's crime was not making babies. To optimize our own children's success, society no longer looks favorably on big families, except within some minority societies. We like later marriages.
From: Pete Dashwood on 22 Nov 2006 18:07 "Alistair" <alistair(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:1164206812.798404.290380(a)m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... > > docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: >> In article <4shheeF1010qhU1(a)mid.individual.net>, >> Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >> > >> ><docdwarf(a)panix.com> wrote in message >> >news:ejvmo0$c3p$1(a)reader2.panix.com... >> ><snip> >> >> >> >>>To be blunt, don't lift the skirt. No, >> >>>best to go with the first impression and not seek confirmation. >> > >> >Absolutely... and better a skirt lifter than a shirt lifter... right? >> >> That might depend on 'better... for what'; it could be better to have a >> shirt lifter about when one needs cardiopulmonary resuscitation. >> >> DD > > Obviously cpr has changed since my day as we never needed to adjust > shirts. > > BTW, shame upon you gentlemen (especially PD) for engaging in this line > of thought. > Yes, on re-reading it I thought I could have done better... it was supposed to be ironic but it verged on the cheap shot, and that isn't like me. Hopefully I don't need to reaffirm that I have no prejudices towards any particular section of our societies; I try to treat them all with the same contempt :-) Pete (who knows where his heart is...)
From: Pete Dashwood on 22 Nov 2006 18:09 "Alistair" <alistair(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:1164206689.916371.276560(a)k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Pete Dashwood wrote: >> "Alistair" <alistair(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:1164111732.314982.277480(a)h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... >> > >> > Pete Dashwood wrote: >> >> "Alistair" <alistair(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message >> <snip> >> > >> > Geeks, not Greeks, surely? >> > >> >> Nah, Geeks are a dying breed... they don't get to reproduce... :-) >> >> Pete. > > So Bill Gates is not a geek? > Ask his wife.... Pete.
From: on 22 Nov 2006 18:45
In article <4sk3gpF10c8huU1(a)mid.individual.net>, Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: [snip] >Pete (who knows where his heart is...) You got a heart? During my Sergeanting-Daze there were those who swore that I had no such organ... just a thumpin' gizzard. DD |