From fork-admin@xent.com Mon Sep 9 19:27:41 2002
Return-Path: <fork-admin@xent.com>
Delivered-To: yyyy@localhost.spamassassin.taint.org
Received: from localhost (jalapeno [127.0.0.1])
by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 786EB16EFC
for <jm@localhost>; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 19:27:40 +0100 (IST)
Received: from jalapeno [127.0.0.1]
by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
for jm@localhost (single-drop); Mon, 09 Sep 2002 19:27:40 +0100 (IST)
Received: from xent.com ([64.161.22.236]) by dogma.slashnull.org
(8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g89EaTC19304 for <jm@jmason.org>;
Mon, 9 Sep 2002 15:36:30 +0100
Received: from lair.xent.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xent.com (Postfix)
with ESMTP id 42C87294185; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 07:30:04 -0700 (PDT)
Delivered-To: fork@spamassassin.taint.org
Received: from rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (rwcrmhc51.attbi.com [204.127.198.38])
by xent.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10FFC2940FC for <fork@xent.com>;
Mon, 9 Sep 2002 07:29:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from h00e098788e1f.ne.client2.attbi.com ([24.61.143.15]) by
rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626)
with ESMTP id
<20020909143224.NTSV19682.rwcrmhc51.attbi.com@h00e098788e1f.ne.client2.attbi.com>;
Mon, 9 Sep 2002 14:32:24 +0000
From: bitbitch@magnesium.net
X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.52f) Educational
Reply-To: bitbitch@magnesium.net
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Message-Id: <15773384464.20020909103246@magnesium.net>
To: Eugen Leitl <eugen@leitl.org>
Cc: fork@spamassassin.taint.org
Subject: Re[3]: Selling Wedded Bliss (was Re: Ouch...)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0209091553450.32400-100000@hydrogen.leitl.org>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0209091553450.32400-100000@hydrogen.leitl.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: fork-admin@xent.com
Errors-To: fork-admin@xent.com
X-Beenthere: fork@spamassassin.taint.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:fork-request@xent.com?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:fork@spamassassin.taint.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork>, <mailto:fork-request@xent.com?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: Friends of Rohit Khare <fork.xent.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork>,
<mailto:fork-request@xent.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://xent.com/pipermail/fork/>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 10:32:46 -0400
EL> On Mon, 9 Sep 2002 bitbitch@magnesium.net wrote:
>> So Eugen, how many of your homo friends have -had- 3k lovers?
EL> Just one. Not everybody does that. Most of them are now dead, anyway.
Point is, you're not likely to extrapolate much. I could probably
find one hetero who had just as much sex. Does that mean we're all
rampant hos? No.
>> Eegads, if you're hypothesizing numbers like -that- Eugen, you at
>> least owe it to FoRK to back that shit up.
EL> Ain't done no hypothesizing. Anecdotal evidence'R'Us. Couldn't you just
EL> Google, or something?
Listen. If you pull numbers like that without a fact, the automagic
assumption is yes, they were extracted out of your neither orifice.
Point wasn't to conclude otherwise unless you had any relevant bits.
Its not my job to do _your_ bit searching for you, but I figured I'd
humor fork with this bit of finding:
http://www.thebody.com/bp/apr01/research_notebook.html (Pointing ot
averages of about 13 for every 3 months (for gay men), which totals to
about 52 a year. 52 a year doesn't equal 3000. Or even 300.
>> Just a quick assumption here. I'm not a math geek or anything, but
>> assuming 1 lover every day, that would be like at least one lover
>> everyday for 8 years and some change. I don't know about you, but
>> very very few of us are -that- lucky (or even close to that lucky)
EL> Which was my point. Gurls don't do hyperpromiscuity as a life style. It's
EL> interesting that you're launching into a diatribe, and threaten using
EL> instant argument (just add hominem) instead of assuming I might be not
EL> just pulling this whole thing out my nether orifice.
WTF do my shitty math skillz have to do with girls and
hyperpromiscuity? I was speaking -generally- meaning that guys and
girls probably have better things to do than boink everything they
see. As above, I am assuming you're pulling things out of your ass, I
just felt like calling you on it.
BTW, there's nothing wrong with calling someone on a silly idea. Its
allowed, and its generally not considered ad hominem, but the
homophobia statement might be.
>> and after awhile, even the sexaholics get bored and have to mingle
>> something new into their weekends. You really are assumiing that the
>> homosexual population is a) that large in a given area (The meccas
EL> You ever been to San Francisco?
Many times. Which is why I said 'assuming that large ... (The meccas
dont count). SF is a mecca in this example. I obviously wasn't
clear, tho one could assume I wasn't talking about Medina.
>> a few nifty gaybars, but thats a different story) b) that bored/sex
>> obsessed/recreationally free to pursue sex that often, with that many
>> partners or that they'd even WANT that many partners.
EL> This doesn't happen because it couldn't happen. No one would want to.
EL> Because you feel that way. Correct?
doesn't happen? true. Couldn't happen? who knows. It has nothing
to do with how I 'feel' and everything to do with the fact that people
do concern themselves with more than just sex (otherwise I think we'd
see a helluva lot more of sex, and a helluva lot less of everything
else).
>> Qualify yourself, or at least lower your outrageous numbers.
EL> I didn't expect so much reflexive knee-jerking on this list.
Well my suggestion is, if you can't take the responses, don't post
flamebait.
--
Best regards,
bitbitch mailto:bitbitch@magnesium.net