Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 Fluke 8/7/84; site fluke.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!fluke!dan
From: dan@fluke.UUCP (Dan Everhart)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: more ambiguous signals
Message-ID: <1549@vax2.fluke.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 2-Nov-84 11:05:38 EST
Article-I.D.: vax2.1549
Posted: Fri Nov  2 11:05:38 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 5-Nov-84 21:06:22 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Everett, WA
Lines: 55

[ Heisenberg may have been here ]

A couple of comments on some of the responses, and then I'll tell you what
really happened.

> [Chuq Von Rospach]
> Lot's of possibilities spring to mind-- her crispness on the phone may
> simply have been because she doesn't feel comfortable talking on the phone.
> She could have been on the way out the door, had a bad day at the office,
> or she might have had company that she wanted to get back to. 

I agree.  (Several people pointed this out by email, too.)  However I feel
that its much more courteous to give your caller a few words of explination
than to simply be brusque.  ESPECIALLY in the early stages of getting to
know someone (assuming you would like to know them better).  Myself, I try
extra hard at times like that to make the other person more comfortable and
I would like others to do the same for me.  I object to the attitude of some
women who expect the men to take all the risks and initiative.

= [Laurie Sefton]
= The people who [make excuses instead of saying no] are also trying to save
= themselves from any anger, real or perceived, that they feel might be
= directed toward them from the refusee.

What a counter-productive tactic.  The first couple of times it was pulled
on me I got really mad at the women.  (As soon as I caught on; duhhhh...)
But I see your point:  There's no reasonable way to direct any anger at
them, (after all, they did have an excuse) so they're safe.  But I
completely agree with Steve Ratcliff when he says, "I myself would prefer
that people who MEAN 'no', SAY 'no'."  I would not have been angry at all if
they had simply said, "No, I don't want to go out with you."--  I know,
because its happened.  Disappointed yes, angry no.  Do you suppose some
people are not afraid of angering someone, but of causing them
disappointment?

Anyway:  After organizing my thoughts by posting that article I recognized
that the principle that I was working from, "if she's interested she'll call
because she said she would" was too simplistic.  And, as many of you pointed
out, there was little to lose by calling her.  So I did.  It turned out that
a couple of days after she got back from vacation her grandmother died so
she had to leave town again for some more days.  Getting back from that
hiatus she was naturally swamped with work.  We went out on a date and had a
wonderful time.

Still, if the situation had been reversed, I would have called and left a
message on the answering machine explaining about my problems.  Why risk
someone making the wrong assumption if prevention is so trivial?

I was delighted by the way things were going and called her up a few days
later to see if we could get together again.  She said she was busy on both
the days I suggested and did not suggest alternatives, so back up in the air
am I.

Dan Everhart
{ decvax!microsof, uw-beaver, allegra, lbl-csam, ssc-vax } !fluke!dan