Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!dptcdc!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!neat.ai.toronto.edu!gara
From: gara@theory.toronto.edu (Gara Pruesse)
Newsgroups: ont.singles
Subject: Re: ont.singles?
Message-ID: <89Feb16.155135est.38034@neat.ai.toronto.edu>
Date: 16 Feb 89 20:51:27 GMT
References: <1989Feb13.122051.29651@ziebmef.uucp> <89Feb14.101829est.38059@neat.ai.toronto.edu> <1121@utflis.UUCP>
Distribution: ont
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Lines: 32

In article <1121@utflis.UUCP> wayne@flis.toronto.edu.UUCP (Drain Junk) writes:
>In article <89Feb14.101829est.38059@neat.ai.toronto.edu> gara@theory.toronto.edu (Gara Pruesse) writes:
>>
>>Some of my female friends say that Toronto is a desert as far
>>as interesting single males go.
>
>That depends on what they call interesting, doesn't it?  

Some of you folks seem to think that "interesting" is a code word
for "just stepped out of GQ" or "has lots of money" or something.
I used "interesting" in the sense of "would be fun to date";
i.e., you might be "interested" in someone if you think they would
be fun to date.

It's a subjective qualification.  Different people have different
reasons for finding someone "interesting".  I guess the only 
invariant, amongst my friends, is that people who are only 
interested in making money, and are not interested in other
human beings, are not interesting.

(That's ten times the string "interest" appears in this posting alone.  
Sheesh.  I think we need another word.)


>What we really need is a flame war.  Or are Canadians just too nice?


In a word, yes.

>Wayne Young       {uunet,utzoo,decvax,allegra}!utcsri!utflis!wayne 

-gara