From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V15 #133 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Friday, June 9 2006 Volume 15 : Number 133 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [My Name Is "Eb" And] Re: [My Name Is Eb] Re: My name is "Eb", and I've shit the bed again [2fs ] Re: fegmaniax-digest V15 #131 [2fs ] Re: [My Name Is "Eb" And] Re: [My Name Is Eb] Re: My name is "Eb", and I've shit the bed again [FSThomas ] Re: [My Name Is "Eb" And] Re: [My Name Is Eb] Re: My name is "Eb", and I've shit the bed again [Jeff D] Re: [My Name Is "Eb" And] Re: [My Name Is Eb] Re: My name is "Eb", and I've shit the bed again [2fs Subject: Re: [My Name Is "Eb" And] Re: [My Name Is Eb] Re: My name is "Eb", and I've shit the bed again On 6/9/06, Jason Brown wrote: > > On 6/9/06, Capuchin wrote: > > Private property (and by this I mean real property, not personal > property) > > is contrary to liberty. Those who have not must find some way to please > > those who have in order to survive. It's servitude and slavery. If I > > want to stay sheltered this summer, I have to find some way to pay the > > rich man who owns the house in which I live. If I want to eat, I have > to > > find some way to pay the rich man who owns the fertile farmland and the > > rich man who owns the distribution trucks, etc. And I have to pay all > of > > those people with money which only comes from finding people who already > > have it and convincing them that I can serve them in a pleasing way. So > I > > find a rich cock and suck it for a few coins. I have no choice in the > > matter. I am a slave. I have no liberty because I have no > property. My > > only means of attaining property is by servitude. I work for my freedom > > from the masters. Life under capitalism is indentured servitude for the > > vast majority. > > Thank you, Comrade Lenin! > > Unfortunately, people are selfish cocks and if you replace these > "capitalist masters" all you get in return is corrupt communist > masters. Amusingly, I was going to comment before reading this message something to the effect that there's a prevailing pessimism and cynicism in the viewpoints of the right generally - I didn't expect such a clear illustration of same! It's true that people can be "selfish cocks"...but are they that way, only; and are they that way by nature or by training? Because (as I'm sure you've observed) our culture valorizes and rewards selfish cockhood, by rather mystically arguing that the sum total of everyone's selfish cockhood will balance out to universal beneficence, as sorted via the almighty invisible hand of the market. But if you believe not only that we *are* selfish cocks but that we, essentially, should be...well of course you'll be confirmed in your view that people are, basically, selfish cocks. I think it's important to set goals with an optimistic regard: not because you actually believe that all things are for the best in this the best of all possible worlds, but because letting pessimism in before you even set goals ensures that your goals will be lower, less-ambitious, and quite probably not attained. That isn't magic, or "self-esteem"; it's simply that if you (say) plan with the thought that everyone is at heart a selfish cock, everyone's surroundings will say to them, "you are a selfish cock" - and you will conclude, logically, that you need to be a *selfisher* cock in order to succeed. It's easy to find examples of selfishness, true - but it's also easy to find any number of cases where people are not greedy, advantage-taking, manipulative, etc. and instead act in opposite ways. That's what people are, also. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 13:10:30 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: World Cup On 6/9/06, Spotted Eagle Ray wrote: > > > 1) Should I tell then that they can probably stream much more watchable > versions of this on their Computer Devices with less risk of electrical > shock and humiliation? > > 2) Why is it that utterly insane behavior is completely acceptable in the > name of sports fandom, whereas as in any other area it would get a fellow > branded as anything from a "geek" to a "danger to himself and others"? Reminded of the amusing little story wherein Rose (my wife) observed a tableful of guys - who'd been animatedly discussing, in great depth and statistical detail, in the middle of like May, football - making snide little remarks over a couple of stereotypical nerds...along the lines of "D&D-playing slide-rule operators" or some such. When it was entirely likely that at least one of the jocks was an enthusiastic participant in a fantasy football league - which is basically D&D with linebackers instead of orcs, as far as I can tell. (Not that I have a problem with either - but it's sorta silly to laugh at someone for imagining a fantasy when that pretty clearly happens all the time with sports fans: I mean, c'mon - it makes absolutely not a shred of difference to your life if "your" team wins or loses. Other than insofar as you let it, that is.) - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 13:12:28 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V15 #131 On 6/9/06, hssmrg@bath.ac.uk wrote: > > Er, hi guys and guyesses! > > I thought that this was a list discussing an English songwriter and his > life and works. Hmmm... Sorta rings a bell. What did you say his name was again? (FWIW, my interest in the World Cup is every bit as low as yours in politics...so, I guess, we all have our chunks of wood nailed at right angles to carry around for no good reason.) - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 14:13:18 -0400 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: [My Name Is "Eb" And] Re: [My Name Is Eb] Re: My name is "Eb", and I've shit the bed again Capuchin wrote: > If you do not have the things you believe you need to live a productive, > fulfilling life, then you are not free. You are a slave to those > masters who hold the keys to your future. The Big L Libertarian view is that in this country you are given the tools, and what you choose to do with them determines your lot in life. You are given an education (the value of which on the public level is dubious, at best, but that's another argument) and should you choose to maximize that opportunity, the sky's the limit. If you choose not to either by fucking off or dropping out, then you've made your decision and have a life of reflecting upon it to look forward to. Personal Responsibility. What a concept. > Private property (and by this I mean real property, not personal > property) is contrary to liberty. Those who have not must find some way > to please those who have in order to survive. It's servitude and > slavery. If I want to stay sheltered this summer, I have to find some > way to pay the rich man who owns the house in which I live. If I want > to eat, I have to find some way to pay the rich man who owns the fertile > farmland and the rich man who owns the distribution trucks, etc. And I > have to pay all of those people with money which only comes from finding > people who already have it and convincing them that I can serve them in > a pleasing way. So I find a rich cock and suck it for a few coins. I > have no choice in the matter. I am a slave. I have no liberty because > I have no property. My only means of attaining property is by > servitude. I work for my freedom from the masters. Life under > capitalism is indentured servitude for the vast majority. You *could* get off your ass, hon your skills, make use of the education you've obviously got and maybe get to be one of those rich guys who owns property. Or you could just bitch about it and keep sucking that. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 11:16:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: [My Name Is "Eb" And] Re: [My Name Is Eb] Re: My name is "Eb", and I've shit the bed again FSThomas wrote: > *Choosing* to enter a country illegally is not one > of those tough moral dilemmas; especially not when > there's a defined process for applying for > entry. True. If the choice is recognize national borders or provide for your family, the borders can go fuck themselves. The only way illegal immigration will ever be really stopped is (A) make the economies of (under)developing nations viable and (B) make the penalties for employeeing illegal immigrants truly effective. If you really want to stop illegal immigrants, you go after the Americans employeeing them; otherwise, you are just scapegoating brown people. > Wiley cracks me up, though. > > http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2006/06/07/ > > -- > FS Thomas | Interactive Developer | > fsthomas-at-ochremedia.com > 404.758.8616 (home/office) | 404.274.1632 (mobile) | > ferraatu (AIM) > "A severed foot is the ultimate stocking stuffer." -- Mitch Hedberg "For millions of years, mankind lived just like the animals. Then something happened which unleashed the power of our imagination. We learned to talk. And we learned to listen. Speech has allowed the communication of ideas, enabling human beings to work together. To build the impossible. Mankind's greatest achievements have come about by talking. And it's greatest failures by NOT talking. It doesn't have to be like this! Our greatest hopes could become reality in the future. With the technology at our disposal, the possibilities are unbounded. All we need to do is make sure we keep talking. -- Stephen W. Hawking . Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 13:37:17 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: [My Name Is "Eb" And] Re: [My Name Is Eb] Re: My name is "Eb", and I've shit the bed again On 6/9/06, FSThomas wrote: > > Capuchin wrote: > > > If you do not have the things you believe you need to live a productive, > > fulfilling life, then you are not free. You are a slave to those > > masters who hold the keys to your future. > > The Big L Libertarian view is that in this country you are given the > tools, and what you choose to do with them determines your lot in life. > > > > You *could* get off your ass, hon your skills, make use of the education > you've obviously got and maybe get to be one of those rich guys who owns > property. And if your ethical beliefs entail that being "one of those rich guys" is inherently exploitative? Then what? At any rate: it would seem incumbent upon libertarians, given the emphasis they put on personal responsibility, to avoid inequality of *opportunity* - since it's unearned, and therefore not something someone is personally responsible for (whether positively - being born wealthy - or negatively). Yet for some reason they never do...and continue to encourage (to borrow a phrase from I think Jim Hightower) people born on third base to imagine they've just hit a triple. If "personal responsibility" is the mantra, there should be no inherited wealth (or inherited poverty). If I take the personal responsibility to work hard but, because I was born only moderately well-off, end up far poorer than the son of Warren Buffett, why should he get more than I do? Conversely, someone born in the depths of poverty who takes responsibility and works exactly as hard as I have will end up with far less than I have. The real problem is this: the crappy nature of the floor so many begin from is a direct result of the bloated nature of the floor a wealthy minority begins with. While there are exceptions, of course, by and large the very wealthy are born that way. Further: class mobility in general has declined quite dramatically over the past half-century or so (no surprise, with real wages dropping for all but the wealthiest during the same period). (I'm not at home so I can't source that right now - but as for the most wealthy, I suppose a comparison of a current Fortune 500 with those from ten, twenty, thirty years ago would work - along with an awareness of who's married to whom. As for the second: I believe a recent edition of _Left Business Observer_ had stats on mobility and real wages. I might be able to dig up an article that appeared in a major US business monthly, in fact, that pointed out the decline in class mobility in the US.) - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 11:42:19 -0700 From: "Spotted Eagle Ray" Subject: Re: [My Name Is "Eb" And] Eb: [My Name Is Eb] Eb: My name is "Eb", and I've My Name Is Eb the En again On 6/9/06, FSThomas wrote: > > > You *could* get off your ass, hon your skills, make use of the education > you've obviously got and maybe get to be one of those rich guys who owns > property. Yeah, but all those rich guys are Republican assholes... who wants to hang out with them?* Also, I hate golf... I wanna play lacrosse. - -SER *Hopefully obviously tongue in cheek as one could be rich and hang out with poor and/or interesting people... perhaps even use one's wealth to help them... but rich people do bug. Something about all the Selfish Cockhood. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 15:17:22 -0400 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: [My Name Is "Eb" And] Eb: [My Name Is Eb] Eb: My name is "Eb", and I've My Name Is Eb the En again Spotted Eagle Ray wrote: > Something about all the Selfish Cockhood. Not to be confused with the "Selfish Cock Hood," which is all the rage in Milan this year. - -f ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 12:22:37 -0700 From: "Jason Brown" Subject: Re: [My Name Is "Eb" And] Re: [My Name Is Eb] Re: My name is "Eb", and I've shit the bed again On 6/9/06, 2fs wrote: > On 6/9/06, Jason Brown wrote: > > Thank you, Comrade Lenin! > > > > Unfortunately, people are selfish cocks and if you replace these > > "capitalist masters" all you get in return is corrupt communist > > masters. > > Amusingly, I was going to comment before reading this message something to > the effect that there's a prevailing pessimism and cynicism in the > viewpoints of the right generally - I didn't expect such a clear > illustration of same! I don't see how that is a particularly right wing view. Just a realistic one. After all I am very active in my local Democratic party. Of course i'm one of the more centrist members of our organization, but then again I do live in one of the two most liberal legistlative districts in the state of Washington. I don't think our culture has made us selfish cocks, but rather our culture is the way it is because people on the whole are selfish cocks. The history of human civlization is littered with good ideas being ruined by selfish actions and behaviors. I blame our biology. The best we can do is use an economic systems that efficently channels our inherrent selfish cockery (capitalism) and use prudent government regulation to make up for excesses. - -Jason, Lead Guitar in The Selfish Cocks ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 14:28:02 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: [My Name Is "Eb" And] Eb: [My Name Is Eb] Eb: My name is "Eb", and I've My Name Is Eb the En again On 6/9/06, FSThomas wrote: > > Spotted Eagle Ray wrote: > > Something about all the Selfish Cockhood. > > Not to be confused with the "Selfish Cock Hood," which is all the rage > in Milan this year. Or the "Shellfish Cock Hood" which, despite being blatantly non-kosher, is also quite popular. Even among the unhooded cock crowd. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 15:39:55 -0400 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: [My Name Is "Eb" And] Re: [My Name Is Eb] Re: My name is "Eb", and I've shit the bed again 2fs wrote: > If "personal responsibility" is the mantra, there should be no inherited > wealth (or inherited poverty). If I take the personal responsibility to work > hard but, because I was born only moderately well-off, end up far poorer > than the son of Warren Buffett, why should he get more than I do? > Conversely, someone born in the depths of poverty who takes responsibility > and works exactly as hard as I have will end up with far less than I have. And if I go to school (or not), manage to stay focused and work my ass off, do make it - even to "semi-well-off" - who the Hell is the Government to tell me what I can - and cannot - do with the fruit of that labor?* - -f. * This comes from a guy who's from a decidedly not well-off family, too. My father grew up a farmer (the son of evil landowners selling the fruit of the land for (meager) profit! The shame!) who transitioned into being a carpenter as the "small farm" industry (in Connecticut, of all places) went in the shitter. My mother worked a slew of different jobs as a bookkeeper, so there's no big bank inheritance waiting for me.) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 14:52:11 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: [My Name Is "Eb" And] Re: [My Name Is Eb] Re: My name is "Eb", and I've shit the bed again On 6/9/06, FSThomas wrote: > > And if I go to school (or not), manage to stay focused and work my ass > off, do make it - even to "semi-well-off" - who the Hell is the > Government to tell me what I can - and cannot - do with the fruit of > that labor?* So libertarian principles are rather like the sex organs of virgins: they're there, but it's not as if they're actually being used? - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 16:00:47 -0400 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: [My Name Is "Eb" And] Re: [My Name Is Eb] Re: My name is "Eb", and I've shit the bed again 2fs wrote: > On 6/9/06, FSThomas wrote: >> And if I go to school (or not), manage to stay focused and work my ass >> off, do make it - even to "semi-well-off" - who the Hell is the >> Government to tell me what I can - and cannot - do with the fruit of >> that labor?* > > > So libertarian principles are rather like the sex organs of virgins: they're > there, but it's not as if they're actually being used? In what way, shape, or form is that unprincipled? Using the police power of government to seize private property (real, monetary, doesn't matter) seems a bit more unprincipled. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 13:01:49 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: [My Name Is "Eb" And] Re: [My Name Is Eb] Re: My name is "Eb", and I've shit the bed again On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, 2fs wrote: > On 6/9/06, Jason Brown wrote: > > > > On 6/9/06, Capuchin wrote: > > > Private property (and by this I mean real property, not personal > > property) > > > is contrary to liberty. Those who have not must find some way to please > > > those who have in order to survive. It's servitude and slavery. If I > > > want to stay sheltered this summer, I have to find some way to pay the > > > rich man who owns the house in which I live. If I want to eat, I have > > to > > > find some way to pay the rich man who owns the fertile farmland and the > > > rich man who owns the distribution trucks, etc. And I have to pay all > > of > > > those people with money which only comes from finding people who already > > > have it and convincing them that I can serve them in a pleasing way. So > > I > > > find a rich cock and suck it for a few coins. I have no choice in the > > > matter. I am a slave. I have no liberty because I have no > > property. My > > > only means of attaining property is by servitude. I work for my freedom > > > from the masters. Life under capitalism is indentured servitude for the > > > vast majority. > > > > Thank you, Comrade Lenin! > > > > Unfortunately, people are selfish cocks and if you replace these > > "capitalist masters" all you get in return is corrupt communist > > masters. > > Amusingly, I was going to comment before reading this message something to > the effect that there's a prevailing pessimism and cynicism in the > viewpoints of the right generally - I didn't expect such a clear > illustration of same! I've known Jason personally for over ten years and he is *not* of the "right." (Nor am I.) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 13:03:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: [My Name Is "Eb" And] Eb: [My Name Is Eb] Eb: My name is "Eb", and I've My Name Is Eb the En again On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Spotted Eagle Ray wrote: > On 6/9/06, FSThomas wrote: > > > > > > You *could* get off your ass, hon your skills, make use of the education > > you've obviously got and maybe get to be one of those rich guys who owns > > property. > > > Yeah, but all those rich guys are Republican assholes... who wants to hang > out with them?* A lot of them are Democratic assholes.... Or at least vote Democratic, reluctantly.... Like me, if your definition of a rich asshole is a property owner. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 15:15:02 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: [My Name Is "Eb" And] Re: [My Name Is Eb] Re: My name is "Eb", and I've shit the bed again On 6/9/06, FSThomas wrote: > > 2fs wrote: > > On 6/9/06, FSThomas wrote: > >> And if I go to school (or not), manage to stay focused and work my ass > >> off, do make it - even to "semi-well-off" - who the Hell is the > >> Government to tell me what I can - and cannot - do with the fruit of > >> that labor?* > > > > > > So libertarian principles are rather like the sex organs of virgins: > they're > > there, but it's not as if they're actually being used? > > In what way, shape, or form is that unprincipled? Using the police > power of government to seize private property (real, monetary, doesn't > matter) seems a bit more unprincipled. The point is this: you wrote earlier that a main libertarian principle is personal responsibility. I said that unequal opportunity (in the form of the wealth and position one is born with) means that the society does not actually reward personal responsibility equitably. This means that a necessary libertarian principle - necessary to allow personal responsibility to be rewarded as libertarians would wish - would be to ensure equality of opportunity, so that personal responsibility, and only personal responsibility, would be rewarded. Preaching "personal responsibility" without ensuring that it actually means anything (since one can be fantastically wealthy with no responsibility or effort, or remain quite poor with plenty of responsibility and effort) is a way of holding principles, or espousing them, without actually doing anything to put them into practice, or even make them usable in practice. Thus my analogy. Re the private property question: you assume private property, in its current ownership, is legitimate; and that "government" is a separate entity rather than (ideally - and admittedly, an iffy ideal in practice - which is why my version of socialism would probably be a lot less purely socialistic than Jeme's, say) the visible manifestation of everyone's collective sociality - and, therefore, already the "owner" of private property. (If we can't determine who legitimately owns something, or if we argue that no one can legitimately own it, it makes sense to regard it as held in common). At any rate, the answer to your question"who the hell is government to tell me what I can and cannot do with the fruit of my labor?" is, ultimately, the same authority that tells you not to kill, or abuse children, or set fires near highly flammable substances. More complex answer: you assume labor is "yours," is private, is separable. That is rarely the case: your knowledge, your skills, etc., have not come to you alone or been created by you alone as if you're Robinson Crusoe; they exist and are available to you only as a member of a society. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 15:17:39 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: [My Name Is "Eb" And] Re: [My Name Is Eb] Re: My name is "Eb", and I've shit the bed again On 6/9/06, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > > On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, 2fs wrote: > > > On 6/9/06, Jason Brown wrote: > > I've known Jason personally for over ten years and he is *not* of the > "right." (Nor am I.) The comment wasn't directed at Jason personally; his words were only an example. Also, where "right" and "left" divide differs, depending where you stand. Within the US, I'll trust that you're correct in your self-assessment; on a scale measured among First World, industrialized nations, less likely the case. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 17:04:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: [My Name Is "Eb" And] Re: [My Name Is Eb] Re: My name is "Eb", and I've shit the bed again On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, FSThomas wrote: > What has happened, though, is that a group has been marginalized, > possibly with rights being impugned (if getting "married" is a right, > and I'm not sold that it is). Getting married isn't a right. Have the same access to marriage's legal benefits as everyone else... is. You occasionally see the argument that gay folks already have the same access to marriage benefits as straight people do, because hey, the set of people a man is allowed to marry is the same no matter what his orientation is. By the same logic, it would be perfectly equitable for the city to maintain the roads in my neighborhood and leave them to crumble everywhere else-- those whiners from across town have as much right to drive on my street as I do! They can't expect the mayor to make a SPECIAL EXCEPTION to the budget and pave their roads too... a ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 18:26:57 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: [My Name Is "Eb" And] Re: [My Name Is Eb] Re: My name is "Eb", and I've shit the bed again On 6/9/06, Aaron Mandel wrote: > > On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, FSThomas wrote: > > > What has happened, though, is that a group has been marginalized, > > possibly with rights being impugned (if getting "married" is a right, > > and I'm not sold that it is). > > Getting married isn't a right. Have the same access to marriage's legal > benefits as everyone else... is. I think Ferris was getting at the question of whether the state should be in the business of recognizing any couple's living arrangements (gay or straight), or of conferring benefits on people based on the status of such living arrangement. But your second sentence is, of course, incontrovertible. (And now I'm worried that's spelled wrong. Hmm.) You occasionally see the argument that gay folks already have the same > access to marriage benefits as straight people do, because hey, the set of > people a man is allowed to marry is the same no matter what his > orientation is. That's an "argument" I haven't come across! It is utterly ridiculous, as you point out - By the same logic, it would be perfectly equitable for the > city to maintain the roads in my neighborhood and leave them to crumble > everywhere else-- those whiners from across town have as much right to > drive on my street as I do! They can't expect the mayor to make a SPECIAL > EXCEPTION to the budget and pave their roads too... - - although it bears a family resemblance to the peculiar notion, spread in popular media 10-15 years ago, of single women's "chances" of getting married (usually compared to some unpleasant and unlikely event - such as getting hit by a train - which was presented as more likely). People don't usually marry by chance, do they? That is, it's not as if one's likelihood of getting married will increase at the same rate as they meet new, eligible people ("eligible" here defined as single and, for the time being, of the legally appropriate gender - which also restricts, for now, the set of people under consideration to heterosexuals). I seriously doubt that if I were single, and I knew twenty single women, if I met another twenty, one could say my odds of getting married had become twice as likely. I'd say, instead, that unless I was interested in one of those women, the odds hadn't changed at all. Assuming no interest on my part in any of the first batch of women nor in any of the second batch, the odds changed from zero to zero. Turns out the 41st woman I meet is the one I fall in love with and ultimately get married with. Having met her, my odds went from zero to (ultimately) one. Was there an in-between that's mathematically expressible? If I had met her first, or sixteenth, or thirtieth, would the situation have been different? I don't think so. I mean, I suppose there's some relation between the "chances" of someone getting married, and the available pool of suitors - but only in rare situations (an isolated town whose male population has been devastated by war, say), or only in a society in which every person is introduced to every other person to size them up for marriage, and marriage is compulsory. The obvious flaw in the "logic" of the reasoning Aaron quotes, then, is that it's as reasonable to count heterosexual women in the potential pool of marital partners for gay men as it is to count, oh I don't know, 1977 Chevy Novas. True, current law prohibits marriage between a man and a 1977 Chevy Nova, but since one cannot get what one generally wants from marriage from a '77 Nova, that legal fact is pretty much irrelevant before it can even come up for consideration. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V15 #133 ********************************