NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/soc/singles/38140

Text File | 1993-01-28 | 5.6 KB | 139 lines

Newsgroups: soc.singles
Path: sparky!uunet!destroyer!cs.ubc.ca!news.UVic.CA!uglz!atovorni
From: [e-mail] (dreas)
Subject: Re: Credibility and Trueness
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: uglz.uvic.ca
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 05:24:42 GMT
Lines: 125

In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (dreas) writes:
>
>>You are either an excellent comedian or don't know the difference
>>between an acquaintance and a relationship.
>
>relationship: a state of affairs existing between those having
>              relations or dealings
>
>acquaintance: personal or firsthand knowledge
>
>It seems to me that one could have firsthand knowledge of a person
>but not have dealings with that person.  That would be an acquaintance
>without a relationship.  If you go to dinner with a person, however,
>then you are having dealings, hence a relationship, with that person.
>
>Now, what was your point again?

Undoubtedly, your comedy is improving.
What do you do for an encore?
You argue semantics in such a way that things become meaningless.

For the man in the street who doesn't know how to read the official
Ed.dictionary, I will elucidate:

Acquaintance(noun):  Someone that one has just met and
                     does not know very well.

Relationship(noun):  An interaction between two adults that consists of
                     trust and sharing beyond a friendship or acquaintance.
                     (and this includes emotional intimacy as well as
                      the exchange of body fluids...)

Maybe it's a cultural problem. The meanings get fuzzy when Canadian
thoughts are translated into Texan reasoning...

>>Well, I think it's about time you cut him a bit of slack. If the man
>>has a point, he has a point. He has often pointed things out that are
>>irrevocable and blatant to a four year old.
>
>Yes.  To a four-year-old.

Yes, to a four year old. I think it's time for you to sign up
for daycare. You could learn a great deal.

>>>Which is sometimes justified and sometimes not.  Unfortunately,
>>>some people, such as Charlie Martin, have accepted the idea that
>>>anything which makes them unhappy is somehow their fault.  Which
>>>is probably why Charlie, when not reinventing logic and mathematics,
>>>is busy having his head shrunk.
>
>>I find it a wise move to seek help for problems in one's life that
>>are just too big to handle...
>
>Seeking "help" from astrologers, psychiatrists, psychologists,
>psychics, psychic astrologers, trance channelers, crystal healers,
>and similar charlatans only helps you avoid facing the real problem.

Possibly, but many kinds of "charlatans" can provide people with
insights and ideas that just possibly might be able to help them
solve some of life's little problems, and some large ones as well.

>Besides, psychology is based on a denial of the existance of
>free will.  And without free will, you cannot decide to do
>anything, including "seeking help" from a psychologist,
>you can only be driven to it by mysterious "psychic forces"
>beyond your control.   So, when a psychologist tells you
>you should seek his help, he isn't even being internally
>consistent.

This is a new one! A fresh idea! I'm tickled pink and green!!!!
This is the first new idea here in soc.singles in a long time!!!!

The self-help approach to mental wellness (Recovery Inc.) has aided me
considerably in becoming a dynamic, creative, positive individual who enjoys
life to its fullest. I used to be a dissatisfied whiner who always complained
about being lonely. I also argued platitudes and contradicted every idea
that was not my own, because *my* ideas were always *better* than anyone
else's.  I used to be quite a lot like you are.

I am not attacking you, dammit!  Why can't you admit you have a FUCKING
problem, man? You'd hate to meet anyone like yourself, I'm sure.
>
>>>If all you want to achieve is mindless contentedness, drugs
>>>probably are the answer.
>
>>Agreed, but that is not my personal goal, nor do I believe that it is
>>yours. I could be stoned out on heroin or opium at this very minute, but
>>I have learned that illegal drugs are not for me a long time ago. I used
>>to be on tranquilizers, tricyclic antidepressants, lithium carbonate,
>>and all kinds of other prescription goo over the years.
>
>Could be Charlie's breakfast cereal. :-)

Aw, lay off and take it to email, or is that impossible on your account?
I'm sure you guys can resolve the problems that you have with each other.
The drugs saved me from committing suicide, OK?????

They are not all that bad. They started pulling me out of the extreme
hell of severe depression on more than one occasion, understand????

Then I pulled myself up to where I am today, and learned inner peace.

ED: For the love of CHRIST!!! You are a FRUSTRATING case!!!!

>>>Maybe for you.  For me, it takes someone whose apprecation goes
>>>beyond what he or she can "get out" of me.  It's one thing for
>>>someone to be pleased that I do something; it's another to be
>>>pleased that *I* do it.
>
>>Can't you just take pleasure in doing and giving of yourself? Folks
>>appreciate it
>
>You're not paying attention.  The point, again, since you seem
>to have missed it:  It's one thing for folks to appreciate *it*;
>it's another for them to appreciate *me*.  The former just isn't
>good enough, as far as I'm concerned.

This is because YOU cannot appreciate yourself.

dreas