Re: Thunderbird and KDE

Neredbojias wrote:

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

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

>>> 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.
>
> That's simply because they lack a definitive pointer.

Doubt that's the cause.

>>>>> In any case, all such phrases are just "casual" references to *how*
>>>>> the thinking does or does not transpire. Men's biggest objection
>>>>> is often simply the lack of such transpiration.
>>>>
>>>> Or rather, their *perceived* lack of such transpiration.
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> 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?!

>>> Of
>>> course men can exhibit the same trait, but clueless naivety seems
>>> primarily a woman's forte.
>>
>> I doubt that. Even generally speaking.
>
> 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.

>>> 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)
>
> 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 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.

But only on her free Saturday.

>>>> When a woman needs to do a job on the computer at home, she has to
>>>> simultaneously feed and bathe the kids, talk to the neighbour who
>>>> wants to borrow some sugar, bring a beer to the husband who's working
>>>> on his car, answer the telephone, vacuum the floor, do the dishes...
>>>>
>>>> Very generally speaking, I know. And most of it is dictated by
>>>> nature, biologically, but it still means that men have more time for
>>>> what they are doing.
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> 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.

>>> 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.
>
> 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.

> ...
>>> You forgot cigarettes.
>>
>> 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.

Okay, I'll give you that one.

> ...
>>>> That's one of the reasons I don't voice my opinion on the subject
>>>> here.
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> I'm usually the epitome of decorum.

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

>>>>> Oh, I wasn't talking about me but my ancestors. 'Don't like to
>>>>> talk about myself much; people usually think I'm bragging...
>>>>
>>>> Try me ;-)
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> 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.

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
Now playing: Marcus Miller - Summertime
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Thunderbird and KDE
    ... In the case her husband was not an inventor, ... > things involves the woman baking cookies, ... Yes, I said God. ...
    (alt.html)
  • Re: Thunderbird and KDE
    ... >> responsibilities you chose earlier in life perhaps via a different kind ... I thought that's what gives an inventor his ideas. ... Excuse me for being sarcastic in a way not particularly genteel. ... >>> If she was single, chances are she was not baking cookies, but most ...
    (alt.html)
  • Re: Dawkins Site
    ... aspect is why man has throughout history been a serial inventor of gods. ... Partly this must have been a need to explain the unknown aka the god ... Most religionists see all but theirs as invented. ... It is this muddle that critics have traditionally used to ridicule ...
    (uk.philosophy.atheism)
  • Re: The Roman Catholic "Church" is NOT Christian
    ... would not be considered an "inventor". ... reportedly attended a divinely taught 40-day seminar in the Negev. ... he was taught that God wants those he created to forgive each ... Jesus reportedly said his dad wanted mercy, ...
    (alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic)
  • Re: Thunderbird and KDE
    ... > Okay, ... I thought that's what gives an inventor his ideas. ... What's your profession, English ... The oldest excuse in the book. ...
    (alt.html)