Re: the grocery store difference. Who cooks in the house? My husband does all the cooking and therefore has always done almost all of the grocery shopping, because he wants to see what
looks good or is on sale so he can make it. He also knows what we need. However I am not the opposite, I know what we need too—except for things like spices, broths etc that I rarely touch.
Now that Wayne LaPierre has retired as CEO of the NRA, I have the perfect retirement job for him. He should work at a law enforcement training center, specifically, he should work on the range where people are trained to distinguish friend from armed foe. LaPierre should become one of the pop-ups on the range. Because he is a "good guy", he should be carrying a gun when he pops out. Law enforcement trainees will be required to use live ammo as they negotiate the course. The objective will be for the law enforcement trainees to successfully differentiate a good guy with a gun [Wayne LaPierre] from a bad guy with a gun.
Speaking of that virus, during his administration, Trump heard so much about the ill effects of the disease that he offered to send troops to the West Nile.
Speaking of finding one's way and gender differences, we probably should address that article of faith among a large number of women that men are seemingly unwilling or incapable of asking directions. Turns out they're probably not wrong. We appear to know from a good many well-executed studies that men seem to be, in general, innately better at navigating or finding their way around --- taking an intuitive "big picture" or "grid" approach. Women, on the other hand, tend to view getting from Point A to Point C as "problem solving," making more use of landmark clues or knowledge. Are those pitchforks and torches I see in the distance ? Belief in this Magellan-like masculine trait has been become so encultured and widely accepted --- certainly by males themselves --- that (perish the thought) finding themselves "lost" or "off the "grid" is not only unnerving, but can be a direct threat to self-esteem. So, asking for directions is admitting defeat ---an expression of weakness. The non-ego involved or threatened female, on the other hand, sees asking for assistance as simply a practical matter --- I dunno, like getting to where they want to go in the shortest amount of time.
OK. This is a bit of a coincidence. I am "Gary Everett Masters" and when I was living in a dorm at college, a new guy moved into the room across the hall from me. His name was "Gary Everett." Not the only thing in common; we both shared the same birthdate. Just two years apart. He was a new foot ball player and although I am tall, I have never played sports and at the time weighed about 165 pounds. He was massive. I thought I had jumped time lines.
I was pleased to see Pat's note explicitly state that the potluck is both for Losers and just-readers. I've never attended a Loser event and one reason is that it seemed to be more of an inside club for the Loser names we see every week. Perhaps a silly thought but I'm wondering if others like me, who've rarely ever entered, felt this way.
Losing is a state of mind. Everyone who enters an Invitational or, in fact, is a TGP paid subscriber, is a Loser (and more so as an unpaid one) --- each in their own way. Remember --- Losing is never having to say you're sorry. People know you're sorry, instinctively. So yes --- as Pat notes, you are welcome to rub shoulders with the More-Equal-Than-Other Losers. And don't be put off by the strange looks. Shoulders are fine, just don't attempt to rub anything else. You may even pick up a few things....that don't ordinarily require quarantine or a series of painful shots. Ordinarily.
Observatory. I have this fear --- considering that some cars (beyond rental Kias) have security systems which can be remotely overridden by miscreants -- that one day, the pleasant female voice telling me to turn left in a half-mile will be interrupted and countermanded by a HAL-like ("2001: A Space Odyssey") voice saying something like: "I'm sorry Dale. I'm afraid you can't do that." Then there are the Tesla drivers who apparently receive a "Cloak of Virtue" (like the Harry Potter "Cloak of Invisibility") along with their titles, allowing them to circumvent the rules of the road. This seems to be especially the case at a four-way (all-way) stop intersection when I find I invariably have to give way to an oblivious, entitled Tesla, even if I arrive at the intersection first or happen to be next up on the right. This..uh..no doubt would be chalked up to another autopilot bug. Finally (at least for now) --- there seems to be a dramatic increase in the use, or at least the sales of (gasp!), paper maps. Apparently, this is somewhat of an art thing and what I'm told, is the search for the "bigger picture" by younger travelers, that is, wanting to understand the world they find themselves in, not just drive through it. Uh...okay. Works for me.
Biden has the most effective president of my lifetime. He has resurrected American world leadership, given us the best economic recovery of all wealthy countries, and is a public-spirited, dedicated public servant. He's even tried to govern in a bipartisan way and with any other decade's Republican party in power would have done so brilliantly. He has created industrial jobs all over the country in exactly the way Trump promised to but never bothered to.
Trump cares nothing about the people of the United States or indeed anything but enriching himself and his family and taking revenge on his enemies. He tells us every day that he intends to destroy the US as a functioning democracy and turn it into Hungary or Russia.
Trump and I differ on every issue. This is about policy, not personal. But I can not think of a single policy issue we have agreed on. There are a few things I would like Biden to change on. He seems way slow to get things done. But that may be the government he works with. I guess people do not like Biden for his age. Not my issue. I am older.
Clarification - I was trying to make the point that a statement closer to the top of this thread (Trump is dickhead - Discuss) does not invite discussion, especially in this forum. I was looking for a statement would be more likely to prompt discussion and "preferable" was an unfortunate choice of words (but there was some discussion). I have doubts about Biden, but I detest Trump.
From a comment in TGP J/2, there seems to have been a, shall we say, "pointed" tête-à-tête between Dear Leader and a Pool member over their taking GW to task for raising the matter of sex or gender differences in a poll. The OP apparently believes there are no good reasons to do that and, in fact, doing so somehow encourages ignoring individual differences and/or gives license to spout glittering generalities about the sexes. Apart from pointing out this goes with the territory known as the human condition --- I beg to differ. The commenter's personal preference or "red flag" aside ---I suggest there is a very good reason --- and perhaps ultimately, the most important reason --- for talking about these differences. Not talking about them encourages the continuity of the very sex and gender stereotypes about which they appear to be concerned. Do studies with functional MRI brain scans (scans while engaged in actual activities) showing women may be better at multitasking than male subjects mean there are not men in the general population who are also good at it ? Of course not. What it means is that someone looking to hire, should set aside any preconceptions they may have about women in this regard and consider one for the job. Certainly not the be-all and end-all to the hiring process but a critical first step.
Does evidence strongly suggesting that women have a biological propensity for empathy mean that there are no empathetic men, again, certainly not. But by examining differences --- really, specific traits without reference to sex or gender --- starting from the beginning with the question of whether there are differences and their extent--- we are able to begin to differentiate biological from culturally imposed dissimilarities or variations and get, as we are, valuable insights. These can, if not demolish once and for all, at least put a large dent in, many popular and enduring gender stereotypes. And perhaps more importantly, hopefully over time, modify behavior and seemingly fixed or traditional perceptions/expectations for the better ---if, for no other reason, than we (the US) as a country, cannot afford to marginalize anyone who can make a contribution, and especially based on questionable conventional "wisdom."
I appreciate the ideal that really extensive, exact knowledge about the full complexity of everything should result, in the end, in better perspective for everyone and more enlightened behavior. But I'm not sure it will work that way. I think that people tend, instead, to seize on whatever fits their preconceptions or serves their agenda (not necessarily the same thing - not everyone has an agenda). The worst possible outcome is a poorly designed study that incorrectly reinforces a negative stereotype about women. That would stick forever.
But one thing I (the OP) should have thought of before: there's an important difference between stressing average differences between the way men and women *are*, versus differences between the way they are *treated*. The latter is essential work. And what I missed is that you can't talk about the differences in the ways men and women are treated without talking about the *effects* of that treatment -- which I expect makes up most of the differences that we see (for example, I read a study about how girls get higher grades in math than boys up to a certain point, at which point presumably certain kinds of negative socialization kick in). Can't do something about that until you acknowledge that it's happening.
I'd comment on those entries that made me laugh, so many do, and for multiple reasons. I haven't yet answered the poll, it just feels impossible! But I think folks here - I'm not sure of this - would be less likely to criticize an entry. Since I submit things that are truly clever and hysterical [completely joking], and they don't get published, I suppose I could subject myself to scrutiny by putting them in the comments. I think someone did that for a time on our FB group, did everyone enjoy that? :)
Another option is to join the email group Losernet; the people there also sometimes share their entries after the submission deadline (which we don't do in the FB group). Gene and I aren't in the email group, so it's also a better place to vent about the idiots who run this contest. You can apply here (I think you have to be an actual entrant in the Invitational rather than just a reader). https://groups.io/g/losernet/
Eh, I know some of mine are real clunkers but I can’t always tell which are which. I like being able to send them all off to somebody who will filter the terrible from the merely bad before my name is permanently attached to ‘em. And if there’s a disagreement, well that’s just a part of the deal I have to accept.
I am the author of the Stupidity Tax comment about not opening mail, and I appreciate your response about GPS because even though you were reminded of it by my rats in experiment analogy not my comment itself, it is relevant, as demonstrated by one of my other Stupidity Tax tendencies: I will not use GPS. I have wasted many hours this way, but I just won't, for the reasons you enumerate. Except you enumerate them and yet take advantage of this useful (if fundamentally nefarious) technology. Not me! Because I'm Stupider Than Thou.
Ah, but there is a third way. You look at a map to get the big picture. When you get to within striking distance of the target, you use GPS to get you through the twists and turns of an unfamiliar neighborhood.
What is the currency of this particular Stupidity Tax? Number of minutes wasted? Units of extra energy expended? Level of aggravation as measured by blood pressure? Something else?
Mostly it's having to endure lectures on how much better life is with GPS and how smart smartphones are. I find that much more taxing than the getting lost.
In addition to not getting lost, I really like having a partner (my GPS) that knows how the traffic is along various routes. Even though it can’t predict future traffic that feature has saved me a lot of aggravation. I won’t pay the GPS-related stupid tax.
We seem to be spending a good deal of time on the question of whether men and women have significant differences, apart from the obvious. I don't want to stir up a hornet's nest (I'm lying, of course I do), but that would seem to me to be evident. My wife is forever telling me that I could not possibly understand something or other because I am male. Childbirth, for example. But at some point it seems to have become fashionable to deny the differences, or at least to deny that they are built in; where they exist, the argument is that they are societally imposed, or otherwise acquired.
I always liked Larry Miller’s line about how women like to say they have sexual thoughts too. They have no idea. It’s the difference between shooting a bullet and throwing it. If they knew what we were really thinking, they’d never stop slapping us.
Hahahaha, I ask my SO from time to time "What're you thinking about?" without recalling that what you say is so true. He always answers "Nothing." I'm just gonna slap him more.
I don't actually think there was a disagreement about whether there are differences. I was the blowhard here and even I didn't say there weren't differences -- what I was trying to say was that I thought it was generally counterproductive to dwell on them, since they never tell you anything about an individual.
Re: the grocery store difference. Who cooks in the house? My husband does all the cooking and therefore has always done almost all of the grocery shopping, because he wants to see what
looks good or is on sale so he can make it. He also knows what we need. However I am not the opposite, I know what we need too—except for things like spices, broths etc that I rarely touch.
Aptonym: Adam Driver stars in ‘Ferrari.’
Al Lubran
Rockville, MD
Now that Wayne LaPierre has retired as CEO of the NRA, I have the perfect retirement job for him. He should work at a law enforcement training center, specifically, he should work on the range where people are trained to distinguish friend from armed foe. LaPierre should become one of the pop-ups on the range. Because he is a "good guy", he should be carrying a gun when he pops out. Law enforcement trainees will be required to use live ammo as they negotiate the course. The objective will be for the law enforcement trainees to successfully differentiate a good guy with a gun [Wayne LaPierre] from a bad guy with a gun.
Please explain where the "links in bios" are. Thank you.
Links in bios?
Speaking of that virus, during his administration, Trump heard so much about the ill effects of the disease that he offered to send troops to the West Nile.
Al Lubran
Rockville, MD
Tomorrow is Groundhog Day. If Punxatawney Phil sees his shadow, it means . . .
. . . 6 more weeks of Taylor !!
As always, this contest elicits some wonderful entries. Look forward to it every January.
Speaking of finding one's way and gender differences, we probably should address that article of faith among a large number of women that men are seemingly unwilling or incapable of asking directions. Turns out they're probably not wrong. We appear to know from a good many well-executed studies that men seem to be, in general, innately better at navigating or finding their way around --- taking an intuitive "big picture" or "grid" approach. Women, on the other hand, tend to view getting from Point A to Point C as "problem solving," making more use of landmark clues or knowledge. Are those pitchforks and torches I see in the distance ? Belief in this Magellan-like masculine trait has been become so encultured and widely accepted --- certainly by males themselves --- that (perish the thought) finding themselves "lost" or "off the "grid" is not only unnerving, but can be a direct threat to self-esteem. So, asking for directions is admitting defeat ---an expression of weakness. The non-ego involved or threatened female, on the other hand, sees asking for assistance as simply a practical matter --- I dunno, like getting to where they want to go in the shortest amount of time.
OK. This is a bit of a coincidence. I am "Gary Everett Masters" and when I was living in a dorm at college, a new guy moved into the room across the hall from me. His name was "Gary Everett." Not the only thing in common; we both shared the same birthdate. Just two years apart. He was a new foot ball player and although I am tall, I have never played sports and at the time weighed about 165 pounds. He was massive. I thought I had jumped time lines.
I was pleased to see Pat's note explicitly state that the potluck is both for Losers and just-readers. I've never attended a Loser event and one reason is that it seemed to be more of an inside club for the Loser names we see every week. Perhaps a silly thought but I'm wondering if others like me, who've rarely ever entered, felt this way.
Losing is a state of mind. Everyone who enters an Invitational or, in fact, is a TGP paid subscriber, is a Loser (and more so as an unpaid one) --- each in their own way. Remember --- Losing is never having to say you're sorry. People know you're sorry, instinctively. So yes --- as Pat notes, you are welcome to rub shoulders with the More-Equal-Than-Other Losers. And don't be put off by the strange looks. Shoulders are fine, just don't attempt to rub anything else. You may even pick up a few things....that don't ordinarily require quarantine or a series of painful shots. Ordinarily.
Observatory. I have this fear --- considering that some cars (beyond rental Kias) have security systems which can be remotely overridden by miscreants -- that one day, the pleasant female voice telling me to turn left in a half-mile will be interrupted and countermanded by a HAL-like ("2001: A Space Odyssey") voice saying something like: "I'm sorry Dale. I'm afraid you can't do that." Then there are the Tesla drivers who apparently receive a "Cloak of Virtue" (like the Harry Potter "Cloak of Invisibility") along with their titles, allowing them to circumvent the rules of the road. This seems to be especially the case at a four-way (all-way) stop intersection when I find I invariably have to give way to an oblivious, entitled Tesla, even if I arrive at the intersection first or happen to be next up on the right. This..uh..no doubt would be chalked up to another autopilot bug. Finally (at least for now) --- there seems to be a dramatic increase in the use, or at least the sales of (gasp!), paper maps. Apparently, this is somewhat of an art thing and what I'm told, is the search for the "bigger picture" by younger travelers, that is, wanting to understand the world they find themselves in, not just drive through it. Uh...okay. Works for me.
Trump is a dickhead, but he may be preferable to the likely alternative. Discuss.
Uh. No. An absurd premise, and a false equivalency.
Biden has the most effective president of my lifetime. He has resurrected American world leadership, given us the best economic recovery of all wealthy countries, and is a public-spirited, dedicated public servant. He's even tried to govern in a bipartisan way and with any other decade's Republican party in power would have done so brilliantly. He has created industrial jobs all over the country in exactly the way Trump promised to but never bothered to.
Trump cares nothing about the people of the United States or indeed anything but enriching himself and his family and taking revenge on his enemies. He tells us every day that he intends to destroy the US as a functioning democracy and turn it into Hungary or Russia.
Pretty simple choice to me.
By the way, I LOVE your username.
Trump and I differ on every issue. This is about policy, not personal. But I can not think of a single policy issue we have agreed on. There are a few things I would like Biden to change on. He seems way slow to get things done. But that may be the government he works with. I guess people do not like Biden for his age. Not my issue. I am older.
Trump is not a dickhead.
Trump is a douchebag.
Nixon was a dickhead.
I presume you mean Dickhead DeSantis or Nikki, the Pivoting Princess --- as delusional as that may be ?
Clarification - I was trying to make the point that a statement closer to the top of this thread (Trump is dickhead - Discuss) does not invite discussion, especially in this forum. I was looking for a statement would be more likely to prompt discussion and "preferable" was an unfortunate choice of words (but there was some discussion). I have doubts about Biden, but I detest Trump.
From a comment in TGP J/2, there seems to have been a, shall we say, "pointed" tête-à-tête between Dear Leader and a Pool member over their taking GW to task for raising the matter of sex or gender differences in a poll. The OP apparently believes there are no good reasons to do that and, in fact, doing so somehow encourages ignoring individual differences and/or gives license to spout glittering generalities about the sexes. Apart from pointing out this goes with the territory known as the human condition --- I beg to differ. The commenter's personal preference or "red flag" aside ---I suggest there is a very good reason --- and perhaps ultimately, the most important reason --- for talking about these differences. Not talking about them encourages the continuity of the very sex and gender stereotypes about which they appear to be concerned. Do studies with functional MRI brain scans (scans while engaged in actual activities) showing women may be better at multitasking than male subjects mean there are not men in the general population who are also good at it ? Of course not. What it means is that someone looking to hire, should set aside any preconceptions they may have about women in this regard and consider one for the job. Certainly not the be-all and end-all to the hiring process but a critical first step.
Does evidence strongly suggesting that women have a biological propensity for empathy mean that there are no empathetic men, again, certainly not. But by examining differences --- really, specific traits without reference to sex or gender --- starting from the beginning with the question of whether there are differences and their extent--- we are able to begin to differentiate biological from culturally imposed dissimilarities or variations and get, as we are, valuable insights. These can, if not demolish once and for all, at least put a large dent in, many popular and enduring gender stereotypes. And perhaps more importantly, hopefully over time, modify behavior and seemingly fixed or traditional perceptions/expectations for the better ---if, for no other reason, than we (the US) as a country, cannot afford to marginalize anyone who can make a contribution, and especially based on questionable conventional "wisdom."
I appreciate the ideal that really extensive, exact knowledge about the full complexity of everything should result, in the end, in better perspective for everyone and more enlightened behavior. But I'm not sure it will work that way. I think that people tend, instead, to seize on whatever fits their preconceptions or serves their agenda (not necessarily the same thing - not everyone has an agenda). The worst possible outcome is a poorly designed study that incorrectly reinforces a negative stereotype about women. That would stick forever.
But one thing I (the OP) should have thought of before: there's an important difference between stressing average differences between the way men and women *are*, versus differences between the way they are *treated*. The latter is essential work. And what I missed is that you can't talk about the differences in the ways men and women are treated without talking about the *effects* of that treatment -- which I expect makes up most of the differences that we see (for example, I read a study about how girls get higher grades in math than boys up to a certain point, at which point presumably certain kinds of negative socialization kick in). Can't do something about that until you acknowledge that it's happening.
I'd comment on those entries that made me laugh, so many do, and for multiple reasons. I haven't yet answered the poll, it just feels impossible! But I think folks here - I'm not sure of this - would be less likely to criticize an entry. Since I submit things that are truly clever and hysterical [completely joking], and they don't get published, I suppose I could subject myself to scrutiny by putting them in the comments. I think someone did that for a time on our FB group, did everyone enjoy that? :)
No, please don't do that here. We choose the winners to share here. You can share your "noinks" in the Style Invitational Devotees group on Facebook.
Of course, some of us don’t do Facebook on the futile premise that any one individual’s abstainment makes any bit of difference.
Another option is to join the email group Losernet; the people there also sometimes share their entries after the submission deadline (which we don't do in the FB group). Gene and I aren't in the email group, so it's also a better place to vent about the idiots who run this contest. You can apply here (I think you have to be an actual entrant in the Invitational rather than just a reader). https://groups.io/g/losernet/
It feels like something’s lost if you’re not going to be subjected to my own puerile kvetching.
Why not both?
Eh, I know some of mine are real clunkers but I can’t always tell which are which. I like being able to send them all off to somebody who will filter the terrible from the merely bad before my name is permanently attached to ‘em. And if there’s a disagreement, well that’s just a part of the deal I have to accept.
Thanks, I didn't think it was a good idea, I wasn't sure what you all wanted as far as discussing the entries.
It's always nice to say which were your favorites. It's fine to insist that some honorable mention was robbed and should have been the winner.
Most people would know this, but I am kinda special. Thank you. :)
I am the author of the Stupidity Tax comment about not opening mail, and I appreciate your response about GPS because even though you were reminded of it by my rats in experiment analogy not my comment itself, it is relevant, as demonstrated by one of my other Stupidity Tax tendencies: I will not use GPS. I have wasted many hours this way, but I just won't, for the reasons you enumerate. Except you enumerate them and yet take advantage of this useful (if fundamentally nefarious) technology. Not me! Because I'm Stupider Than Thou.
Ah, but there is a third way. You look at a map to get the big picture. When you get to within striking distance of the target, you use GPS to get you through the twists and turns of an unfamiliar neighborhood.
Yeah, well, I just look at a map, and then get lost. Sosume.
Remember, the subject is Stupidity Taxes.
I was trying to ignore the subject because I, too, pay that Stupidity Tax.
What is the currency of this particular Stupidity Tax? Number of minutes wasted? Units of extra energy expended? Level of aggravation as measured by blood pressure? Something else?
Mostly it's having to endure lectures on how much better life is with GPS and how smart smartphones are. I find that much more taxing than the getting lost.
In addition to not getting lost, I really like having a partner (my GPS) that knows how the traffic is along various routes. Even though it can’t predict future traffic that feature has saved me a lot of aggravation. I won’t pay the GPS-related stupid tax.
We seem to be spending a good deal of time on the question of whether men and women have significant differences, apart from the obvious. I don't want to stir up a hornet's nest (I'm lying, of course I do), but that would seem to me to be evident. My wife is forever telling me that I could not possibly understand something or other because I am male. Childbirth, for example. But at some point it seems to have become fashionable to deny the differences, or at least to deny that they are built in; where they exist, the argument is that they are societally imposed, or otherwise acquired.
I always liked Larry Miller’s line about how women like to say they have sexual thoughts too. They have no idea. It’s the difference between shooting a bullet and throwing it. If they knew what we were really thinking, they’d never stop slapping us.
Hahahaha, I ask my SO from time to time "What're you thinking about?" without recalling that what you say is so true. He always answers "Nothing." I'm just gonna slap him more.
and exactly how do you know what women;s sexual thoughts are?
I didn’t say it. Larry Miller said it.
I don't actually think there was a disagreement about whether there are differences. I was the blowhard here and even I didn't say there weren't differences -- what I was trying to say was that I thought it was generally counterproductive to dwell on them, since they never tell you anything about an individual.
Musculature? Ability and physicality in strength efforts - they can't be the only genes that are different, right?