From: b.scott@csuohio.edu
On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 07:46:49 -0700, David Harmon
wrote in
in
rec.arts.sf.misc:
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 23:38:20 -0400 in rec.arts.sf.misc, "Brian M.
> Scott" wrote,
>>On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:18:36 -0700, David Harmon
>> wrote in
>> in
>>rec.arts.sf.misc:
>>> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:26:21 +0100 in rec.arts.sf.misc,
>>> Helen Hall
>>> wrote,
>>>> The point of the research showed that these "mixed
>>>> messages" were perfectly clearly understood in other
>>>> circumstances. Men had no difficulty "taking the hint"
>>>> *except* where sex was concerned.
>>> The point of my reply was that the research (cite please?)
>>> is flawed, and that there is an obvious reasonable
>>> explanation for that claim.
Unless you know what the research protocol was, you have no
way to determine whether the research was flawed, or whether
your alternative explanation makes sense.
>>Then you have failed to make yourself clear. I don't get
>>that from your post even after reading this one.
> Well then, I wish you could tell me what part is unclear,
> so I could try to improve it.
> My primary point is, if a woman wants to communicate
> effectively with a man, she should state what it is that
> she wants to communicate clearly and directly, rather
> than sending mixed messages and supposed hints.
> Is there anything unclear about that part?
Yes, actually: are you talking about all interactions, or
just about those relating to sex? And does it specifically
address female to male interaction only because that was the
original context, or are you actually distinguishing this
cae from male to female, male to male, and female to female
interaction?
And how did 'sending mixed messages' and 'supposed' get
smuggled in?
> Everything else I have written is by way of support and
> explanation for that point.
It looked more to me like an exposition of a less
uncivilized version of JAD's view of the matter.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
