Re: Thunderbird and KDE

With neither quill nor qualm, Els quothed:

> 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.

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

>
> >>> 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.

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.

>
> >>>>> 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.

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

>
> > Men tire easily of droll mental meanderings.
>
> 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.

>
> > Women have random headaches.
>
> You believe that?!

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

>
> >>> 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.

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

>
> >>> 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.

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.

>
> >> 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.

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

>
> >>>> 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.

"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.

>
> >>> 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.

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

> > ...
> >>>> 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?

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.

>
> >>>>> 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.

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?

--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
.