scott@hou2g.UUCP (N. Ersha) (07/30/85)
>> PMS doesn't justify discrimination against individuals; but if PMS affects >> a sizeable percentage of women, and thereby impairs job performance, it >> might explain some of the *average* discrepancy in wages between men and >> women in comparable jobs. >> >> I realize a lot of people out there would rather believe that the discrepancy >> is entirely the result of discrimination; the pursuit of truth can be most >> unpleasant to those who are so damn certain they have it all wrapped up in >> a neat little bundle. >You know, for somebody who started out sounding quite reasonable, >you really wound up sounding like a jerk. YOU sound like just the type of person he was talking about in his last paragraph. > If you are >going to even imply something like "PMS affects a sizeable percentage >of women" then I think you should have a little more information >to back it up. You yourself admitted that your wife only had >severe PMS immediately after having a child. Doubtless that would >have an effect on your hormones, but I really can't see how that >could apply to women IN GENERAL. If you'd bothered to READ his posting more carefully, you just MIGHT have noticed he implied no such thing. He said (see above) "*if* (that's IF) PMS affects a sizable percentage of women, and thereby [if it] impairs job performance, it *MIGHT*...". Nowhere did he imply anything--the situation was *hypothetical* (Can YOU say "hypothetical"?). I think your hip and ankle jerked along with your knee. Scott Berry More men than women are alcholics; alcoholism can cause trouble with work; so men should be discriminated against, right? marie desjardins park
nap@druxo.UUCP (ParsonsNA) (08/04/85)
> Ross: > Seriously, each of us has seen some women who was not as effective at her > job around the time of her period due to these PMS. If you were in a > hiring position, would you want to hire someone who (for a few days each > month) *might* not be as effective as a man? Would you want to hire someone who (at any time during the month) *might* not be as effective as a woman? Seriously, I cannot recall noticing any woman's effectiveness decreasing at the time of her period enough to be noticeable, other than one occasionally saying she didn't feel good. If she felt bad enough, she went home and made up her time later. Is this what you mean by "not as effective as a man"? On the other hand, I have seen any number of men who were frequently ineffective in their jobs due to their uncontrolled interest in the opposite sex. By the way, is there a reason that you use the plural form "women" to refer to the singular "woman"? > I highly doubt that Time Inc. they would make me their spokesperson. One reason I respect Time Inc. :-) Nancy Parsons AT&T ISL
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (08/08/85)
>> Ross: >> Seriously, each of us has seen some women who was not as effective at her >> job around the time of her period due to these PMS. If you were in a >> hiring position, would you want to hire someone who (for a few days each >> month) *might* not be as effective as a man? Seriously, how do you know at what time of her cycle a given woman is? I have been around LOTS of women for MANY years and I have never been able to determine whether one of them was having her period, just had it, was ovulating or what without asking her. Maybe you have some special technique to determine this. Do you hide in women's washrooms, look for tampons in their purses, count their trips to the washroom, or simply smell their underwear? -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
wolf@galbp.UUCP (Wolf Herda) (08/09/85)
In article <> nap@druxo.UUCP (ParsonsNA) writes: > >> Ross: >> Seriously, each of us has seen some women who was not as effective at her >> job around the time of her period due to these PMS. If you were in a >> hiring position, would you want to hire someone who (for a few days each >> month) *might* not be as effective as a man? > >Would you want to hire someone who (at any time during the month) *might* >not be as effective as a woman? > >Seriously, I cannot recall noticing any woman's effectiveness decreasing >at the time of her period enough to be noticeable, other than one >occasionally saying she didn't feel good. If she felt bad enough, she went >home and made up her time later. Is this what you mean by "not as >effective as a man"? > >On the other hand, I have seen any number of men who were frequently >ineffective in their jobs due to their uncontrolled interest in the >opposite sex. > >By the way, is there a reason that you use the plural form "women" to >refer to the singular "woman"? > >> I highly doubt that Time Inc. they would make me their spokesperson. > >One reason I respect Time Inc. :-) > >Nancy Parsons >AT&T ISL I never thought any woman was ever as effective as a man, even when she's not in her period. We need to go back to the days when the women are in the kitchen and not on the net! -- Wolf Herda Lanier Business Products, Inc. {gatech,akgua,akgub}!galbp!wolf (404) 329-8254
desjardins@h-sc1.UUCP (marie desjardins) (08/12/85)
> > I never thought any woman was ever as effective as a man, even when she's > not in her period. > We need to go back to the days when the women are in the kitchen and not on the > net! > -- > Wolf Herda > Lanier Business Products, Inc. > {gatech,akgua,akgub}!galbp!wolf > (404) 329-8254 Oh, please, tell me you are not serious. If you are: everybody out there, do you think we could get together a firing squad? Or is that too lenient? marie desjardins park
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (08/13/85)
> > I never thought any woman was ever as effective as a man, even when she's > not in her period. > We need to go back to the days when the women are in the kitchen and not on the > net! > > Wolf Herda What type of imbecile are you: the type who thinks that the above is a good joke, or the type who really believes it's true? -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) aka Swazoo Koolak {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (08/13/85)
In article <1765@mnetor.UUCP> sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) writes: > >Seriously, how do you know at what time of her cycle a given woman is? >I have been around LOTS of women for MANY years and I have never been >able to determine whether one of them was having her period, just had >it, was ovulating or what without asking her. > >Maybe you have some special technique to determine this. Do you hide in >women's washrooms, look for tampons in their purses, count their trips >to the washroom, or simply smell their underwear? Uncalled for rudeness, but what else could I expect from you? I have a special technique that I use for determining when a woman is going through a particularly nasty bout with PMS. I'll use small words for you: 1) Compare woman's personality to her usual personality 2) Is it about normal? If yes, then jump out of loop 3) Is she acting weird for no apparant reason? 4) If there does seem to be a reason, then jump out of loop 5) Is she irritable? Does she post nasty things to the net on discussions that are already played out? Does she use coarseness when she doesn't have to? Is she looking for any opportunity to jump down someone's throat? 6) If no, then leave loop 7) Is she Sophie Quigley? 8) If yes, then leave loop 9) It now becomes reasonable to assume that the woman *may* be suffering from a nasty bout of PMS. Now, try to be nice, huh? -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York --------->{vax135 | ihnp4}!timeinc!greenber<--------- I highly doubt that Time Inc. would make me their spokesperson. ---- "I had a cat. She died. Had a goldfish. Died. Guppies. Died. Gerbils. Died. Tippy. Died." - little girl "Alright! So I don't like small animals!" - Mr. Death
alan@sun.uucp (Alan Marr, Sun Graphics) (08/15/85)
In article <191@galbp.UUCP> wolf@galbp.UUCP (Wolf Herda) writes: > > I never thought any woman was ever as effective as a man, even when she's >not in her period. >We need to go back to the days when the women are in the kitchen and not on the >net! > > >-- > >Wolf Herda >Lanier Business Products, Inc. >{gatech,akgua,akgub}!galbp!wolf >(404) 329-8254 My word, such effective eloquence! Are your fractured grammar and text layout typical, or were your hormones having a good day?
betsy@dartvax.UUCP (Betsy Hanes Perry) (08/15/85)
> (I've included the original text at the end.) Mr. Greenberg's algorithm is interesting. It reminds me of the grad student who jumped up from his test skin shouting "Eureka! A hippopotamus!" "How do you know it's a hippopotamus?" asked the prof. "Well, it was swimming when I caught it, it's a mammal, and I've ruled out the possibility of its being a whale because it doesn't have baleen!" Mr. Greenberg in 'ruling out possible causes of bad temper' has forgotten a surprising number of cases, notably: 8a-8000a Is she coming down with measles? Mumps? Flu? Encephalitis? ... etc. 8001a-80,000a Before she came to work, did she have difficulties with her spouse? her child? her cat? her car? 80,000a-800,000a At work, has something gone wrong to which Mr. Greenberg wasn't witness? Not to mention the plain old Excuse #1: She's just in a bad mood. There are thousands of reasons why any given woman (or man) may be in a bad mood, picky, anxious to be difficult. Only one of those reasons is PMS. After all, do you assume that every chubby woman is pregnant? Ross Greenberg says: > I have a special technique that I use for determining when a woman > is going through a particularly nasty bout with PMS. I'll use small > words for you: > > 1) Compare woman's personality to her usual personality > 2) Is it about normal? If yes, then jump out of loop > 3) Is she acting weird for no apparant reason? > 4) If there does seem to be a reason, then jump out of loop > 5) Is she irritable? Does she post nasty things to the net > on discussions that are already played out? Does she > use coarseness when she doesn't have to? Is she looking > for any opportunity to jump down someone's throat? > 6) If no, then leave loop > 7) Is she Sophie Quigley? > 8) If yes, then leave loop > 9) It now becomes reasonable to assume that the woman *may* be > suffering from a nasty bout of PMS. > > Now, try to be nice, huh? I will if you will. -- Elizabeth Hanes Perry UUCP: {decvax |ihnp4 | linus| cornell}!dartvax!betsy CSNET: betsy@dartmouth ARPA: betsy%dartmouth@csnet-relay "Ooh, ick!" -- Penfold
gail@calmasd.UUCP (Gail B. Hanrahan) (08/15/85)
I see. Any time a woman does something that *YOU* don't think is normal for her, she *must* be suffering from PMS. Right. Let's not *ask* her what's wrong and find out she didn't sleep well, had a fight with her SO, had a proposal turned down, was rejected by her first choice of grad school, etc., and is suffering from exactly the same kind of situation that might make a *man* irritable. Of course, we all know that men never get grouchy without a good reason. :-) In article <399@timeinc.UUCP> greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes: >I have a special technique that I use for determining when a woman >is going through a particularly nasty bout with PMS. I'll use small >words for you: > >1) Compare woman's personality to her usual personality >2) Is it about normal? If yes, then jump out of loop >3) Is she acting weird for no apparant reason? >4) If there does seem to be a reason, then jump out of loop >5) Is she irritable? Does she post nasty things to the net > on discussions that are already played out? Does she > use coarseness when she doesn't have to? Is she looking > for any opportunity to jump down someone's throat? >6) If no, then leave loop >7) Is she Sophie Quigley? >8) If yes, then leave loop >9) It now becomes reasonable to assume that the woman *may* be > suffering from a nasty bout of PMS. > >Now, try to be nice, huh? -- Gail Bayley Hanrahan Calma Company, San Diego {ihnp4,decvax,ucbvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!gail
chabot@miles.DEC (All God's chillun got guns) (08/16/85)
Here's Ross's first six rules, with the gender removed: 1) Compare personality to usual personality 2) Is it about normal? If yes, then jump out of loop 3) Acting weird for no apparant reason? 4) If there does seem to be a reason, then jump out of loop 5) Acting irritable? Posting nasty things to the net on discussions that are already played out? Use coarseness when doesn't have to? Looking for any opportunity to jump down someone's throat? 6) If no, then leave loop ... A lot of people, male and female, I know at times would be in this loop (incidentally, Ross, you forgot to state the beginning of the loop) at various times. What's to prevent, say, just having gotten out of a stressful and unpleasant meeting to temporarily change someone's personality? Or what about before that first essential cup of coffee in the morning (or is that just habit)? Or if they didn't get that raise? Or if there are extremely disruptful and distressing things going on at home--yes, I know, we should keep our professional and social lives separate--but how many people operate as normal when they're going through an unpleasant divorce? if their kid just ran off to join the Moonies? the klingons just repossessed the van? they didn't get enough sleep last night? they've only been getting sleep lately? they have a sunburn? they have unpleasant creditors? a hangover? or that pre-hungover condition? Ross, you must meet a lot of males who experience PMS, no? I must, if I follow those rules. No, it's not reasonable to assume that because of a temporary change in personality that a woman may be suffering from PMS. It's actually pretty rude behavior to make such arbitrary assumptions. L S Chabot ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot chabot%amber.dec@decwrl.arpa
mmar@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Mitchell Marks) (08/16/85)
[]
{Sophie Quigley asked how people posting comments about PMS *know* where
in her cycle the woman they claim to observe might be}
{Ross Greenberg supplies an algorithm}
Ross, your algorithm as posted just won't do the job. All that it gets
to is the conclusion that someone is `inexplicably irritable' or
something like that. The problem is, how do you know what cause to
attribute that to?
So the point remains unanswered: do those who think they have solidly
observfed the ill effects of PMS (in others) have any basis? Not
that there couldn't be -- just that it hasn't generally been explained
along with these claims.
In other words, when you post something along the lines of "7 out of
10 women in this office get cranky when it's PMS time", tell us why
you think that's the cause. Do they say so themselves? Do you keep
a big chart, names against dates of irritability, and look for cycles
of about 28 days? Or is it a over-quick one-step inference: she's
irritable, hence it must be hormonal.
(Note: ``you'' in the above does not necessarily mean RMG)
--
-- Mitch Marks @ UChicago
...ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!mmarjeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (08/16/85)
> > > > I never thought any woman was ever as effective as a man, even when she's > > not in her period. > > We need to go back to the days when the women are in the kitchen and not > > on the net! > > -- > > Wolf Herda > > Lanier Business Products, Inc. > > {gatech,akgua,akgub}!galbp!wolf > > (404) 329-8254 > > Oh, please, tell me you are not serious. > If you are: everybody out there, do you > think we could get together a firing squad? > Or is that too lenient? > > marie desjardins park Shouldn't be too much trouble - there seem to be a lot of gun enthusiasts out there. *Was* there ever a day when women were not on the net???? smile when you say that... Jeff Winslow
greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (08/17/85)
In article <3688@decwrl.UUCP> chabot@miles.DEC writes: > > >Ross, you must meet a lot of males who experience PMS, no? I must, if I >follow those rules. > >No, it's not reasonable to assume that because of a temporary change >in personality that a woman may be suffering from PMS. It's actually pretty >rude behavior to make such arbitrary assumptions. > Lisa, later on I can tell you in a private posting about the differences between the sexes. It might fascinate you, will probably scare you, and if you pay someone enough, they'll help you with the big words. I've never met a man who experiences PMS, just like I've never met a women who gets an erection. Oh, there might be similiar aspects of each that someone who doesn't enjoy finding bad in themself will certainly deny. I won't deny that men and women share the same hassles in life. But *some* women may also suffer from PMS. But, to you at least, there ain't no such thing as PMS. Perhaps you have a problem recognizing it in others because you always seem to be in a state of irritability. But just denying that PMS exists doesn't make any sense to me. But that holds with most of your postings. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York --------->{vax135 | ihnp4}!timeinc!greenber<--------- I highly doubt that Time Inc. would make me their spokesperson. ---
greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (08/17/85)
In article <994@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> (Mitchell Marks) writes: > >Ross, your algorithm as posted just won't do the job. All that it gets >to is the conclusion that someone is `inexplicably irritable' or >something like that. The problem is, how do you know what cause to >attribute that to? > (Amazing how a question can be asked without anger. Thanks, Mitch!) This is subjective, and those of you who feel I'm off base can attribute it to me being anything you like. I really don't know the right words for this, so forgive me the loose content below: Some on the women that I've gone out with, some XSO's and some co-workers have, from time-to-time, experienced pretty radical personality shifts. The delta of the shift seems to be consistent. And when it's with an SO, XSO, ex-wife, or close friend, they'll often state "I'm getting my period. Sorry I <whatevered> at you". The <whatever> is different in each of them, and oftentimes there is no change. But when there is, it is recognizable. Remember the poster a while ago who stated that he was able to recognize when each of the three women that he roomed with was getting their period? Same thing holds for me. So maybe it is reasonable to recognize the same shift in others and to attribute it to the same thing that causes the shift in those I know. You may think it is an invalid attribution. I don't fault you at that --- but how you fault me at my attribution. It is my opinion, based on my observations, which is based on my experience. Obviously I wrote the algorithm in question in anger, because I'm trying to end this futile discussion. I'm tired of the hate mail, I'm tired of being called a woman-hater, and I'm tired of doing battle in a public forum of close-mindedness. I'm tired of the "*I* don't suffer from PMS, so you're full of shit" routine. I'm tired of the "Men suffer from cycles, too!" hypothosis. And I'm just tired of trying to hold a discussion with people that refuse to even consider another viewpoint. There have been a few in this discussion that have made some very good points (Ms. Regard, for example), but mostly we've been hashing over the same ground, again and again and again. I'm dropping out of it. Responding to most of it just isn't worth the keystrokes. >So the point remains unanswered: do those who think they have solidly >observfed the ill effects of PMS (in others) have any basis? Not >that there couldn't be -- just that it hasn't generally been explained >along with these claims. Now here is someone who calmly states: what is your basis of proof, what have you observed? And he seems willing to take *my* observations as being valid (at least for me). How nice! Nothing more ridiculous than some of the other posters telling me that my *opinion* is wrong. > >... Or is it a over-quick one-step inference: she's >irritable, hence it must be hormonal. > I would hope that the above answers your question. As a final note, rather than pollute the net with further inane, pointless discussion, please feel free to mail it to me. No flames, though --- they'll just get dumped. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York --------->{vax135 | ihnp4}!timeinc!greenber<--------- I highly doubt that Time Inc. would make me their spokesperson. ---
alan@sun.uucp (Alan Marr, Sun Graphics) (08/18/85)
In article <595@rtech.UUCP> jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) writes: >> >> I never thought any woman was ever as effective as a man, even when she's >> not in her period. >> We need to go back to the days when the women are in the kitchen and not on the >> net! >> >> Wolf Herda > >What type of imbecile are you: the type who thinks that the above is a good >joke, or the type who really believes it's true? Unfortunately, wolf probably believes his/her statment. People who write out stuff as a joke don't usually dash it off in such a cavalier manner, which would seem to indicate that wolf was feeling a little emotional at the time. --- "Extraordinary how potent cheap music is." Noel Coward
greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (08/18/85)
In article <541@calmasd.UUCP> gail@calmasd.UUCP (Gail B. Hanrahan) writes: >I see. Any time a woman does something that *YOU* don't think is >normal for her, she *must* be suffering from PMS. Right. Let's >not *ask* her what's wrong and find out she didn't sleep well, >had a fight with her SO, had a proposal turned down, was rejected >by her first choice of grad school, etc., and is suffering from >exactly the same kind of situation that might make a *man* >irritable. > >Of course, we all know that men never get grouchy without a good >reason. :-) > Henceforth, please read all followups before mouthing off. This is ONE man who is grouchy today WITH a good reason. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York --------->{vax135 | ihnp4}!timeinc!greenber<--------- I highly doubt that Time Inc. would make me their spokesperson. --- "You must never run from something immortal. It attracts their attention." -- The Last Unicorn
pamp@bcsaic.UUCP (pam pincha) (08/19/85)
>In article <3688@decwrl.UUCP> chabot@miles.DEC writes: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>Ross, you must meet a lot of males who experience PMS, no? I must, if I >>follow those rules. >> >>No, it's not reasonable to assume that because of a temporary change >>in personality that a woman may be suffering from PMS. It's actually pretty >>rude behavior to make such arbitrary assumptions. In article <417@timeinc.UUCP>greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg replies: --------------------------------------------------------------------- >... I won't deny that men and women >share the same hassles in life. But *some* women may also suffer >from PMS. > >But, to you at least, there ain't no such thing as PMS. Perhaps you >have a problem recognizing it in others because you always seem to >be in a state of irritability. But just denying that PMS exists >doesn't make any sense to me. -------------------------------------------------------------------- At this point, this whole posting doesn't make sense. The article that was quoted did not imply that there was no such thing as PMS. The drift that I got was that the majority of "crankiness" in women is not a result of problems with PMS or one's period! In short, not ALL women have PMS. In fact a majority don't. (A point you seemed to have gotten..) Therefore it is not fair to immediately assume that because some female is irritable, IT'S BECAUSE SHE HAS PMS or she having her period! Generally it isn't. (Note: I'm not dening the existence of PMS. I can't. I'm one of the victims. I'd not wish it on anyone. But I do know it's not affected my work nor my career as a geologist and now a computer research scientist. Basically, I just wish people would remember to give each other the benifit of the doubt, and not jump to conclusions.) Anyway....This topic seem to have degenerated into name calling and irritable remarks from both sexes. Let's go on to other topics, or at least get back to less emotionalized replies which convey more useful info or thought..... ------------------------------------------------------------ Pamela M.Pincha-Wagener (bcsaic!pamp) Boeing has VERY DEFINITELY NOT made me their spokesperson. These are my views, I worked hard for them--Boeing can't have them. -------------------------------------------------------------
linda@amdcad.UUCP (Linda Seltzer) (08/20/85)
> > Some on the women that I've gone out with, some XSO's > and some co-workers have, from time-to-time, experienced pretty radical > personality shifts. The delta of the shift seems to be consistent. > And when it's with an SO, XSO, ex-wife, or close friend, they'll > often state "I'm getting my period. Sorry I <whatevered> at you". > The <whatever> is different in each of them, and oftentimes there > is no change. But when there is, it is recognizable. Remember the > poster a while ago who stated that he was able to recognize when each of > the three women that he roomed with was getting their period? Same thing > holds for me. So maybe it is reasonable to recognize the > same shift in others and to attribute it to the same thing that Why do people act as if PMS is untreatable and uncontrollable? It's caused by water retention and excess fluid surrounding the brain. The symptoms are due to pressure of the excess water on the brain. Reducing salt in the diet, drinking cranberry juice or taking a diruetic (natural one can bought at any vitamin store) can control the problem. I am not an M.D. and this should not be construed as a physicians's advice, but people are acting as if PMS is some kind of terminal, incurable disease, when it's only a minor problem.
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (08/20/85)
In article <417@timeinc.UUCP> greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes: > >Lisa, later on I can tell you in a private posting about the differences >between the sexes. It might fascinate you, will probably scare you, and >if you pay someone enough, they'll help you with the big words. > >I've never met a man who experiences PMS, just like I've >never met a women who gets an erection. Hmm, that's interesting... maybe you should take a closer look next time, you might find something out.... -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (08/21/85)
> >Ross, you must meet a lot of males who experience PMS, no? I must, if I > >follow those rules. > > > >No, it's not reasonable to assume that because of a temporary change > >in personality that a woman may be suffering from PMS. It's actually pretty > >rude behavior to make such arbitrary assumptions. > > > > Lisa, later on I can tell you in a private posting about the differences > between the sexes. It might fascinate you, will probably scare you, and > if you pay someone enough, they'll help you with the big words. > > I've never met a man who experiences PMS ... > > But, to you at least, there ain't no such thing as PMS. Perhaps you > have a problem recognizing it in others because you always seem to > be in a state of irritability. But just denying that PMS exists > doesn't make any sense to me. > > But that holds with most of your postings. > > Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York Ross, once again you have managed to miss the point, and responded abusively. She did *not* say that some men experience PMS. She said that your criteria for deciding whether a woman has PMS would, if applied to a lot of men, show that they had PMS too. It was a reductio ad absurdum argument, and you completely missed it. Also, she never said that there's no such thing as PMS. You have a habit of consistently misinterpreting other's arguments, and then abusing them for positions which *you* attribute to them. This is getting really annoying. Why don't you give it up, Ross? You're proving yourself to be a real twit. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) aka Swazoo Koolak {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
gail@calmasd.UUCP (Gail B. Hanrahan) (08/22/85)
In article <429@timeinc.UUCP> greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes: >Henceforth, please read all followups before mouthing off. Due to the nature of the net, that's not possible. Ross, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, and believe that you really aren't the jerk you come off as on the net. -- Gail Bayley Hanrahan Calma Company, San Diego {ihnp4,decvax,ucbvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!gail
pamp@bcsaic.UUCP (pam pincha) (08/22/85)
In article <2831@amdcad.UUCP> linda@amdcad.UUCP (Linda Seltzer) writes: >Why do people act as if PMS is untreatable and uncontrollable? It's >caused by water retention and excess fluid surrounding the brain. No, no, no... Those are the the SYMPTOMS NOT THE CAUSE!!!!!! The cause is an imbalance in the production of progesterone (sp?). This imbalance causes several symptoms a few of which include water retention. >The symptoms are due to pressure of the excess water on the brain. >Reducing salt in the diet, drinking cranberry juice or taking a >diruetic (natural one can bought at any vitamin store) can control >the problem. Diruetics SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN unless specified by a doctor!!! Salt reduction, B-6 vitamins (NOT an excess amount! 50gm IS excessive!), increase of calcium and magnesium (to help those with chocolate cravings), and a higher protein,lower sugar diet around the time of ones period (a regime similar to that of people with hypoglycemia) are some of the non-medicine recomendations to help releive some of the problem. There are some medicines such as Ponstel which can also be taken to help. In any case, if you feel that you are having problems---SEE A DOCTOR!!!!! (I say this from experience. These are all items that my doctor recomended -- and they have helped. BUT EVERONE IS DIFFERENT!! Which is why one should consult your doctor to determine what is needed.) >I am not an M.D. and this should not be construed as >a physicians's advice, but people are acting as if PMS is some >kind of terminal, incurable disease, when it's only a minor >problem. There is a difference between controlabe and cured! None of the recommendations are cures!!! Nor is it a minor problem to those whom are most affected. It is only a MAJOR problem to a MINOR number of females!!!! Fortunately it is just now been recognized, and a good degree of control now exits to make the problem minor for those that are bothered with it!! (If you are not bothered be glad.) ------------------------------------------------------------------- Pamela M.Pincha-Wagener (bcsaic!pamp) (These are my opinions for which I worked long and hard -- Boeing can't have them -- nor do I think they'd want them.) -------------------------------------------------------------------- "Time was invented by Almighty God in order to give ideas a chance." -- Nichols Murray Butler
chabot@miles.DEC (All God's chillun got guns) (08/24/85)
Ross M. Greenberg > Henceforth, please read all followups before mouthing off. > > This is ONE man who is grouchy today WITH a good reason. Ross, when will you remember that TIME on the USENET, with regards to the ordering of postings and followups (and the order of followups), is different at just about every different node on the network. If you meant for us to read your second item as soon as we read your first, you should have put them in the same posting! This is one poster who's grinning today with some reason or other. L S Chabot ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot chabot%amber.dec@decwrl.arpa
greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (08/24/85)
In article <604@rtech.UUCP> jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) writes: > >Ross, once again you have managed to miss the point, and responded abusively. >She did *not* say that some men experience PMS. She said that your criteria >for deciding whether a woman has PMS would, if applied to a lot of men, show >that they had PMS too. It was a reductio ad absurdum argument, and you >completely missed it. Also, she never said that there's no such thing as >PMS. > Jeff, I'm not as dumb as I make myself appear. Even I, a man suffering from the dreaded TP, can see and understand such arguments. I obviously wrote the piece that you refer to in anger, something I'm trying not to do anymore. It wasn't supposed to be taken seriously. What Ms. Chabot was saying, at least to me, was that the silly little algorithm that I posted was invalid because men could also fit into the list, and that therefore the algorithm was invalid. It was, due to other silliness. But, even with all the stuff that could set a man/women off, there *is* the idea of PMS. Men don't suffer from it. Women do. So, it is still reasonable to assume that there is one *additional* facet that I feel still has not been adequately discussed. But I've already agreed not to discuss it on the net. Email is a different story, however. >You have a habit of consistently misinterpreting other's arguments, and then >abusing them for positions which *you* attribute to them. This is getting >really annoying. Hmmmm. So when I write an article, and someone mis-interprets it, it must be my sloppy writing. But, of course, sarcasm, even with the cute little smiles, is often not suitable for the net. Henceforth I'll try not to use it. I mean.....there were actually people that took that silly little algorithm seriously, and not as a flame. > Why don't you give it up, Ross? You're proving yourself >to be a real twit. "For those that believe, no proof is necessary. For those that do not, no proof will suffice." I guess your mind is already made up. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York --------->{vax135 | ihnp4}!timeinc!greenber<--------- I highly doubt that Time Inc. would make me their spokesperson. --- "You must never run from something immortal. It attracts their attention." -- The Last Unicorn
greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (08/24/85)
In article habot@miles.DEC (All God's chillun got guns) writes: > >Ross, when will you remember that TIME on the USENET, with regards to the >ordering of postings and followups (and the order of followups), is different >at just about every different node on the network. > You know, I've got that posted right above my terminal..... >If you meant for us to read your second item as soon as we read your first, >you should have put them in the same posting! > And you know, it might be reasonable to assume that followups that go out of my machine in the same batch should hit yours within the same batch. Then again....maybe not! -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York --------->{vax135 | ihnp4}!timeinc!greenber<--------- I highly doubt that Time Inc. would make me their spokesperson. --- "You must never run from something immortal. It attracts their attention." -- The Last Unicorn
greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (08/27/85)
In article <1838@mnetor.UUCP> sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) writes: (quoting me): >> >>I've never met a man who experiences PMS, just like I've >>never met a women who gets an erection. > >Hmm, that's interesting... maybe you should take a closer look next time, >you might find something out.... > Oh, you mean that little thing? It doesn't count as an erection unless it's at least eight inches. :-) -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York --------->{vax135 | ihnp4}!timeinc!greenber<--------- I highly doubt that Time Inc. would make me their spokesperson. --- "You must never run from something immortal. It attracts their attention." -- The Last Unicorn
jamcmullan@wateng.UUCP (Judy McMullan) (09/11/85)
> In article <1838@mnetor.UUCP> sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) writes: > (quoting me): > >> > >>I've never met a man who experiences PMS, just like I've > >>never met a women who gets an erection. > > > >Hmm, that's interesting... maybe you should take a closer look next time, > >you might find something out.... > > > > Oh, you mean that little thing? It doesn't count as an erection unless > it's at least eight inches. :-) > > Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York Funny. ha ha. I've (tried to) make love with a man who thought these attitudes ("that little thing") and ("eight inches") were true. I laughed, too. Later. --from the sssstickkky keyboard of JAM ...!{ihnp4|clyde|decvax}!watmath!jamcmullan