From: b.scott@csuohio.edu   
      
   On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 16:07:05 -0700, David Harmon   
    wrote in   
    in   
   rec.arts.sf.misc:   
      
   > On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 13:34:29 -0400 in rec.arts.sf.misc, "Brian M. Scott"   
   >  wrote,   
      
   >> 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.   
      
   > My explanation does make sense.  [...]   
      
   At best that depends on how the research was conducted, and   
   you're whistling in the dark, hoping that it hasn't been   
   ruled out.  But in fact it looks to me like mere   
   rationalization.   
      
   >>> 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?   
      
   > As stated, all.  But subordinate to that, I argue   
   > elsewhere that different subject matters are different.   
      
   >> 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?   
      
   > Such other cases have very different dynamics, and the   
   > particular argument about male/female courtship probably   
   > doesn't apply to them.   
      
   Nor, apparently, to anything except male/female courtship,   
   despite your broader claim above.   
      
   > If you mean homosexual relationships, I really don't know   
   > how that works out.  But I still would guess that direct   
   > communication works better than mixed messages and hints.   
      
   >>And how did 'sending mixed messages' and 'supposed' get   
   >>smuggled in?   
      
   > "Mixed messages" from the original context, Helen's post.   
      
   No.  The words are, but the sense is not.  There is a   
   difference between 'women are sending mixed messages' and   
   'men are receiving mixed messages', and in this context it's   
   a significant one.   
      
   > "Supposed" just as a reminder that nobody, particularly   
   > men vs women, can agree on what is or is not   
   > significantly a hint.  It's all subjective.   
      
   It seems quite clear to me that you wrote 'supposed' for   
   rhetorical effect, to imply that the hints didn't really   
   exist.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)