From: QueeneMUSE@aol.com
Date: Mon Jul 10 2000 - 13:57:01 MDT
In a message dated 7/10/2000 10:52:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
TriStateF@aol.com writes:
>
> LOL, good idea!!!!
What's a good idea?
Tristate, I know sometimes I also am guilty of doing this, many of us have
heavy hands when hitting "send". But please try to be a little more cohesive
and practice restraint in your responses. This list has a high noise rate and
many are complaining about it already. I feel a little hypocritical even
bothering the list with it, in lieu of my own sometimes "quippish" nature.
There are many of us guilty of bandwidth abuse, me not less than others. But
it has been called to my attention when I do it, so here goes.
Tri: Today you've posted about ten posts on this same topic (apparently all
with a few minutes of each other), with no reference points for me to follow
- most them only a sentence or two long, are you referring to another post,-
mine, someone else's? ... If so ... which one? I am totally lost.
Following context is hard in ANY e-mail and even harder on a list, where
traffic is so heavy already and the threads so many.
One thing, if you pasted part of the post you are referring to, I would know
what you mean by these comments. This way they seem disjointed. To what are
you replying?
Two: sometimes I will write too many quick responses to one thread, but I'll
put it them a "mail waiting to be sent" file, so I can see if ANY of it holds
up later, after I read the thread a bit more. Then I rewrite it, condense it,
or even delete it, if it's not of general interest to at least SOME of the
folks here, and having something to do with the topic of futurism,
technology, art or imagination in some way...
Today with your posts, I open one after another baffled because and have no
reference points ... wondering if you knew this effect...
Meaning you no harm, and hoping you do not take offense,
Nadia
In a message dated 7/10/2000 9:49:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
TriStateF@aol.com writes:
> If I had the "problem", I'd start by just telling myself that good looks
> are
> a dime a dozen and my significant other (or future significant other will)
> looks far better to me than anyone else could. I think it can just be a
> matter of attitude. The people who are not turned on by porn and in fact
> find it disgusting are at a great advantage from the get-go, however.
>
In a message dated 7/10/2000 9:53:19 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
TriStateF@aol.com writes:
> These answers seem pretty simple to me on this topic. LOL To find out if
> people are into someone just for money they have to be able to be very
> honest
> with themselves and ask themselves if they would still feel the same about
> the person if the person had a different life and didn't have the money.
I
> know it's very simple, even obvious, but it's a start. :)
>
In a message dated 7/10/2000 10:10:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
TriStateF@aol.com writes:
> I think the assymetry perception is supposed to be largely subconscious.
In a message dated 7/10/2000 9:53:19 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
TriStateF@aol.com writes:
> These answers seem pretty simple to me on this topic. LOL To find out if
> people are into someone just for money they have to be able to be very
> honest
> with themselves and ask themselves if they would still feel the same about
> the person if the person had a different life and didn't have the money.
I
> know it's very simple, even obvious, but it's a start. :)
In a message dated 7/10/2000 10:18:19 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
TriStateF@aol.com writes:
> Here I go again! LOL I don't know that cybersex is a step away from sex
> brought on by attractiveness, because no doubt many cyber partners are
> imagining the person's looks as indicated by what you said about asking
for
> age, description, etc.
>
In a message dated 7/10/2000 10:38:52 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
TriStateF@aol.com writes:
>
> I've been in chatrooms that were not mundane but I had to find some that
> were
> not inhabited by many younger people and not titled something generic.
The
> best ones had serious, interesting room names. On AOL I would try
> categories
> News, Sports and Finance, Special Interests and Arts. The chatrooms on
the
> rest of the internet seem to be mainly too broad based and those tend to
> have
> boring topics going. Newsgroups and message boards tend to be more
> interesting and meaty than chatrooms. Hope this helps someone. I'm
pretty
> much all over AOL and the internet. :)
>
In a message dated 7/10/2000 10:56:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
TriStateF@aol.com writes:
> I need such a meter and a significant other who is willing to be measured.
> BUT... the meter has to never give a false positive, because I don't want
to
>
> have to give up someone who is innocent. LOL
In a message dated 7/10/2000 9:43:31 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
TriStateF@aol.com writes:
> I confirm that there was something in the news about a female from France
> who
> died recently at age 121 or 122.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:29:50 MST