Well, given that this thread was started by the big shorts dude, I think it's automatically 'skeevy'.
Hahahahahah. Actually, I've had females...um, women....give impromptu appraisal on first seeing those beige shorts. They think they're pretty nice, and are surprised when I tell them the shorts, essentially, are swim trunks.
God, I wish I could be ahead of my time.
Well, incidentally, here's an example that cropped up yesterday. This is an exchange I had on a dating/friends site:
I of course started the conversation due to her mentioning of scif-fi (skiffy) in her profile
(subject line) SF vs science fiction vs sci-fi
(me)
Hello. This may seem rather pedantic, but, simply:
- sci-fi is, like, fantasy in space; often kitschy and not literary; no real science in it; the majority of pop culture examples are like this.
- science fiction: the original, actually pejorative term, that was adopted by those in the field sort of. Even Greg still uses it, but I never do.
- SF: the real stuff - and you do read some of it: Bear, for example. Baxter is considerd HARD SF. Incidentally, you might also like Gregory Benford.
- then there's the in-between stuff, often called space opera, for example Peter F. Hamilton's stuff (especially The Night's Dawn trilogy).
- and, lastly, there's the stuff that transcends genre - like Dan Simmon's Hyperion Cantos, and Ilium and Olympos. Think heavy classical elements, literally and figuratively.
(her)
Yesterday - 1:58pm Yeah, it is pedantic, but the only way to avoid that would be to start a conversation first and then introduce the subject somewhere in there. It's always harsh getting a lesson from an expert just cut and dry like this. Nevertheless, I will use the information and probably the recommendation as well. Thank you.
(me)
Yesterday - 2:14pm You're welcome. If you don't mind, and perhaps perpetuating my criminal activity: It's only harsh because of the social models you use, hon. I'm quite confident, somewhat capable, and yet very tangential. I encourage this. Anyone can interact in whatever way at whatever time. There is....balance in this.
(her)
Yesterday - 8:50pm It's definitely interesting. Your perspective on this is intriguing and confusing somewhat. Since I obviously don't have a handle on where you're coming from I have to ask: Aren't you adhering to or at least playing by the rules of "my social models", rigid or stifled as they apparently are, by prefacing your comments with a warning/apology? You did it both times. So -- you're not a jerk, you are purely pedantic, I get that. It's interesting that you comment on my apparent commitment to a social norm that's not as free as yours, in your opinion. I thought I was simply responding to your cues that seemed to want to buffer the harshness, and in as much admitting the harshness of it in that way. No? I'm just asking. There is a lot I can learn about taking a step out of these social models that have molded my behavior. It's something that I don't mind admitting. My background was quite extreme in that regard and not just in one facet of my life but two of the main influential ones. It's been over fifteen years since I've tried to analyze, and change that programming but it's not easy. I envy people like you that have achieved that freedom. Deep philosophical conversations are also hard to come by and are of great interest to me, not to mention the fact that I love learning and most especially about subjects that are so deeply personal. It seems to be a subject of particular interest to you as well, or I suspect you would not have brought it out so specifically. Maybe I'm wrong. In any case. Your response is eagerly anticipated. = ]
____________
Man, Chopra ain't got nuttin on mae.
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
Send this topic
Print
Topic: Not polygamy, poly-amory.... (Read 4784 times)
