Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rti-sel.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!rti-sel!wfi
From: wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: Living alone
Message-ID: <398@rti-sel.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 6-Sep-85 15:16:20 EDT
Article-I.D.: rti-sel.398
Posted: Fri Sep  6 15:16:20 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 8-Sep-85 16:38:03 EDT
References: <1296@hound.UUCP> <5290001@acf4.UUCP>
Reply-To: wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly)
Organization: Research Triangle Institute, NC
Lines: 24
Summary: 

In article <268@whuts.UUCP> amc@whuts.UUCP (Andy Cohill) writes:

>As I have said over and over again, I stated that living alone could lead 
>to these modes of behavior, not that they would.

And that wasn't the reason people were getting bent out of shape about
your posting. There is no way you can prove that living alone is more
likely to lead to irresponsibility, self-indulgence, and intolerance
than living with an SO, two SOs, or a whole commune of people. If you
feel that you CAN demonstrate this, show us. And that's the implication 
of tying self-indulgence and intolerance to living alone: that one is 
more likely to end up as a self-indulgent and intolerant person if one 
doesn't 'share' one's life by living under the same roof with another 
person. One of my original claims (which as far as I can see you've 
failed to address up to this point) is that those of us who live alone 
have rich and rewarding relationships with people who don't happen to 
be cohabitors, and that these relationships are just as likely to reduce 
tendencies toward self-indulgence and intolerance as relationships 
with cohabitors. You seem to feel there's something 'mystical' about
having a person under your roof, and we'd certainly like to have you
describe this 'mystical' something to us.

                   -- Not quite as slightly unamused
                      as I was, Bill Ingogly