Context of discussion, without attribution:
On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 10:50:30 +0000, jmfbahciv
Take a step back for a moment. Point 3 was not raised as a statement of fact. It was raised as a possible interpretation of something you said.
You said, "He is taking a clbutt (get this, a whole college clbutt slot wasted) to study why women don't do computers. I am so peeed off that I can't type st(-n)ra(-n)ight."
Thanks, Barb. Yep, I'm fast, ` ) efficient and productive. (^ ) ) That's why I'm in such great ~-( ) demand. Hehe! '((,,,))) ,-' ` "Getting something useful ( , done" is all well and...
On this actual case, you are quite right, and i am quite wrong: BAH cannot loose any credibility, as she never earned any, at least, here. But, would she had earned...
All of the original points were raised as hypotheses as to why you think this course is a waste of time. I'll reiterate them, in different language:
1) The course is a waste of time because the problem it claims to study does not actually exist: women do, in fact, do computers.
2) The course is a waste of time because the subject is unworthy of study, since it's merely frivolous; it may be covering an actual phenomenon, but it's a trivial one at best.
3) The course is a waste of time because the current state of affairs is not objectionable, and does not need to be fixed.
4) The course is a waste of time because the study of the subject will not, and indeed cannot, result in a workable method to change the way things are.
Any of these, in any combination, COULD have been your rationale for saying "a whole college clbutt slot wasted" in describing the course. They were listed as hypotheses to try to understand the origins of your stated position. The person who originally posted these was not making any characterizations about you, nor of the situation; they were trying to get through the barriers of communication that often occur when you, Barb, are trying to explain something that you can't quite put in words.