In article ,
Shelly wrote:
"Ted Mittelstaedt" wrote in news:2oeu16-
:
As for a crappy writer, well your welcome to believe what
you want. Anyone else can read and make up their own mind.
I think that speaks for itself.

Yeah. If he can't spell UR, well, HES DOIN IT RONG.

I'ts n'ot s'o much that he cant pla'ce an apos'tro'phe to
save his life, really, or that he spels lyke a graed skook
stoodunt, but I thin'k its the rambling and the incoherence
and the inability to focus. Er, f'ocu's.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community

"Ted Mittelstaedt" wrote in message
...

"FurPaw" wrote in message
...

I wasn't speaking of the present-day law (see above), and I'm not
in the least embarrassed by my spelling, at least, not in this
post. :-) (I hope!)


Heh.

I think this whole argument illustrates why men are *generally* better than
women in business and high end technical work. And let me point out that
generalities do not apply to specific cases, so it is possible that, for
instance, the very best engineer or entrepreneur in the world *could* be a
woman, while the averages indicate otherwise.

But my point is that the women who have been stirring up this argument are
acting in a "typically" petty and emotional manner, rather than using
logic, hard facts, and dispassionate reasoning to advance their side of the
discussion. The snippet above is only a tiny example of how a woman may
resort to picking on a trivial item such as spelling and grammar to derail
a logical exchange of ideas, which is a crucial element in engineering,
science, and business. Again, I am not speaking of all women, but the ones
involved in this exchange illustrate my point.

Ted, I think you are correct in your observation that men may be more often
successful at reaching the higher levels of corporate positions because
they are aggressive and more willing to take risks. These are, perhaps
unfortunately, what it takes to succeed in a highly competitive and even
cut-throat world.

Women, as exemplified here, tend to cooperate and encourage each other,
banding together and then hen-pecking the evil male outsider who dares to
challenge their tenuous positions of ruling the roost. When such behavior
enters the workplace, serious discussions of technology and business
decisions may be dangerously sidetracked by self-protective attitudes. From
a male perspective, each "contestant" will fight for his own idea, but will
finally accept a superior one, and then work to improve on it, while I
think a similar exchange among females would involve trying to find a
watered-down consensus that everyone can accept, which may not be the best.

You are destined to lose your argument in this forum when it is
predominantly controlled by women, especially some who are admittedly
misanthropic and who suffer from ADD to the point that they cannot read for
content, or skim over posts looking only for insignificant items they can
blow out of proportion to sidetrack the original argument. And many of the
guys are so PWed that they dare not speak out, and many more reasonable
women do not enter into these arguments for fear of being ostracized from a
female-dominated discussion group.

Paul and Muttley

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:


I'd love it if it worked that way. Unfortunately they make so much money
from the ones who don't know what they are paying and just pay it anyway,
that it overshadows the amount they lose from chargebacks.

Ted


And shrugging shoulders and saying if only it worked that way isn't
being part of the solution. Instead you can encourage people to do it
the way that could enact a change in their policies, instead of the way
that involves a huge pain in the ass.

Nick