Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!ll-xn!mit-amt!mit-eddie!nessus From: nessus@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU (Doug Alan) Newsgroups: soc.singles Subject: Lucy in the Sky with Dianeh Message-ID: <3254@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU> Date: Thu, 18-Sep-86 00:26:03 EDT Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.3254 Posted: Thu Sep 18 00:26:03 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 23-Sep-86 00:06:22 EDT References: <3160@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU> <3552@ism780c.UUCP> <3223@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU> <3573@ism780c.UUCP> Reply-To: nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) Organization: MIT, EE/CS Computer Facilities, Cambridge, MA Lines: 125 > From: dianeh@ism780c.UUCP (Diane Holt) > Keywords: insipid vapid flat jejune banal inane puerile childish trite Gee, what did I say to receive such flattery? > Summary: And the guy wonders why he can't get a date... I *never* wondered why I couldn't get a date, Diane. This is just typical of how you seem to misread everything I say. I know *exactly* why I was having trouble getting dates: I was too shy to ask women out and too shy to flirt back to women who would flirt with me. Before my recent posting in the subject, I'd only asked four women out, ever. Two said yes. Two said no. The two that said no were random women I met in bars. And all this has been in the past few months. >> Now, now, Diane. I don't want to restart this debate in >> net.singles,[...] > Yet you go right ahead and do it anyway... I don't want to have this debate, but for some reason you have decided to insult me and present a gross distortion of my views in a public forum. I'd just like to make it clear that what I have said and what you say I have said are two completely different things. > Doug, your contention that you presented merely an *opinion* is the > most bogus bit of meadow-muffins that I've heard in a long time. You > jumped up and down, screamed and shouted till you were red in the > face that *you* *knew*, just absolutely *knew* (and anybody who > refused to "know" was naive) that what *you* believed to be truth > *was* truth and no amount of evidence to the contrary was ever going > to change your mind. You have a severely faulty memory on this matter, Diane, and I have in my archives all my articles on the subject to prove this. I never claimed to *know* anything. I *did* say that *in* *my* *opinion* John Lennon was lying when he said "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" wasn't intended to be a reference to LSD. I *did* say that I *think* that those who think otherwise are being naive on the issue. (I never said anything about thinking they are naive in general, though.) I also said that this is only my opinion and that you can take it with as many grains of salt as you like. I *never* *never* *ever* *ever* said that no amount of evidence to the contrary could ever change my mind. Obviously, you don't know me even the slightest bit; I find the whole idea of even uttering the statement "no amount of evidence could make me change my mind" totally and completely repulsive! It's the complete antithesis of how I approach life. You seem to fail to understand, Diane, that I could have considered the evidence you provided, and decided that it was not strong enough to change my opinion. You claimed repeatedly that John Lennon's statement that LitSwD is not about LSD is *proof* that it wasn't intended to be. You seem to fail to understand that this is *not* proof. It is merely evidence. And non-conclusive evidence. You say without any grounds that I would ignore *any* evidence that doesn't agree with my preconceived notions. That I could never change my mind on the issue. This is ridiculous! I have changed my mind on lots of issues on which I have had strong beliefs, and I imagine that it will happen again many times in the future. You want to prove to me that LitSwD was not about LSD? Show me John Lennon's private diary for when he was writing the song. Show me polygraph tests. This I *would* consider weighty evidence. I do not condsider the word of man who was known for fibbing to the press to necessarily be strong evidence. > I'm sorry you never quite "got" my little bit of dialogue involving > someone who *believed* something and refused to take into > consideration a considerable amount of opposing information...but it > takes an open mind to understand analogy. I understood your flatearther analogy quite well Ms. Holt, but when the shoe doesn't fit, I don't wear it. Personally, I think it more your size. >> P.S. One of the most true statements I ever read was [...] "Opinionated >> is not the same as close-minded." I am quite opinionated on some issues. >> I am also usually quite open-minded. > Got to admit, you're good for a laugh..."I am *not* close-minded -- > I'll just never believe that my 'opinion' isn't the real truth." Got to admit, you're also good for a laugh, Diane. You imagine ridiculous statements for me that I would never utter. Perhaps you should go into the mosty amusing profession of all: politics. If one is "opinionated", it means that he has strong opinions on issues and is willing to defend his opinions with argument. If one is "close-minded", it means that nothing could make him change his mind. These are totally orthogonal issues. If you do not see that one can be both opinionated and open-minded, then there is something wrong with your rational facilities. And if you were to say, Diane, that you can't be both opinionated and open-minded, then you would be condemning yourself, since you are certainly also opinionated. (If you want to quibble over the definition of the word "opinionated", then the point is taken. But now you know how I'm using the word.) > BTW, do you just assume *everybody's* a liar if what they say about > their own motivations for doing something doesn't match what > *you've* decided their motivation had to be? That *could* have an > effect on your "love life", you know... No, I don't Diane. I don't assume everybody is a liar. Neither do I assume that everyone always tells the truth. *Nobody* tells the truth *all* of the time. However, most people tell the truth most of the time. > Now, let's take this off the net, shall we? Yes, lets! As soon as you stop misrepresenting me. If you want to insult me and distort what I have said some more, please send it to me in private. Thank you. -Doug Alan "And it doesn't really matter if I'm wrong I'm right Where I belong I'm right Where I belong." -- Nessus@Eddie.MIT.EDU {allegra,seismo,decvax!genrad}!mit-eddie!nessus MIT, E40-358a, Cambridge, MA 02139 (617) 253-0147