Re: Thunderbird and KDE

Neredbojias wrote:

>> Call it prioritizing due to different interests.
>
> 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, 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.

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.

>>>> 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.

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

>>> 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.

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.

>>> Women have random headaches.
>>
>> You believe that?!
>
> Actually, no.

Impression of clever man rescued.

>>>>> 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.

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.

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

>>> 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.

Hmpf.

>>> 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".

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!

>>> 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?

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.

>>> 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.

I find that hard to believe, really.

>> 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.

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.

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

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
.

Quantcast