Why there aren't any female regulars in c.l.c?

[strangerdream]

I'm a lurker here, and I do not find any female regulars here in
c.l.c.
Is it something thats got to do with their genes?

[Walter Roberson]

In article <11************ **********@p10g 2000cwp.googleg roups.com>,
<st***********@ gmail.comwrote:

>I'm a lurker here, and I do not find any female regulars here in
c.l.c.
Is it something thats got to do with their genes?

It isn't just c.l.c -- there are few [known] female regulars in any
of the technical newsgroups I frequent (on a variety of topics.)
--
"law -- it's a commodity"
-- Andrew Ryan (The Globe and Mail, 2005/11/26)

[Richard Heathfield]

st***********@g mail.com said:

I'm a lurker here, and I do not find any female regulars here in
c.l.c.

Several people post here under pseudonyms, and in any case there is no
obligation on Usenet users to use their real names, so it's entirely
possible that some regular contributors are female without us
necessarily being aware of it. I only recall one regular contributor to
comp.lang.c who was "widely" known to be female - naisbodo - and she
hasn't posted here in quite a while.

In some IRC channels about C, the picture is a little different.

But in any case, on the Internet, you should always assume that men are
men, women are men, and children are policemen.

Is it something thats got to do with their genes?

Yes. Many women lack the stupidity gene, and therefore they stay well
away from Usenet.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.

[Clever Monkey]

st***********@g mail.com wrote:

I'm a lurker here, and I do not find any female regulars here in
c.l.c.
Is it something thats got to do with their genes?

How would we know?

[Clever Monkey]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

st***********@g mail.com said:

>I'm a lurker here, and I do not find any female regulars here in
c.l.c.

Several people post here under pseudonyms, and in any case there is no
obligation on Usenet users to use their real names, so it's entirely
possible that some regular contributors are female without us
necessarily being aware of it. I only recall one regular contributor to
comp.lang.c who was "widely" known to be female - naisbodo - and she
hasn't posted here in quite a while.

In some IRC channels about C, the picture is a little different.

But in any case, on the Internet, you should always assume that men are
men, women are men, and children are policemen.

>Is it something thats got to do with their genes?

Yes. Many women lack the stupidity gene, and therefore they stay well
away from Usenet.

Well, my SO has to remember to stay out of pointless flame-wars on
Metafilter, which is sort of like a USENET.

[Ivar Rosquist]

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:22:45 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:

>Is it something thats got to do with their genes?

Yes. Many women lack the stupidity gene, and therefore they stay well
away from Usenet.

Which is probably true of many men as well. More to the point, women
can be just as stupid as men. When they are stupid though they tend to be
stupid in their own ways.

[Default User]

st***********@g mail.com wrote:

I'm a lurker here, and I do not find any female regulars here in
c.l.c.

Why do you care?

Brian

[Richard Heathfield]

Default User said:

st***********@g mail.com wrote:

>I'm a lurker here, and I do not find any female regulars here in
c.l.c.

Why do you care?

Why do you care why he (or she) cares?

(Okay, your turn)

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <Pv************ *********@bt.co m>,
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.in validwrote:

>Default User said:

>st***********@g mail.com wrote:

>>I'm a lurker here, and I do not find any female regulars here in
c.l.c.

Why do you care?

Why do you care why he (or she) cares?

Ok, I'll play.

Why do you care why Default Loser cares why the OP cares?

Actually, I was thinking about posting something to the effect that it
would be helpful to know not why DL cares, but rather, what the tone of
his question was. I.e., if he actually did want to know why the OP
cares, there are some sensible answers that might be given.

But, of course, we know he was just being sarcastic and rhetorical.
Don't we?

[user923005]

On Feb 20, 11:23 am, Ivar Rosquist <IRosqu...@irq. orgwrote:

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:22:45 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:

Is it something thats got to do with their genes?

Yes. Many women lack the stupidity gene, and therefore they stay well
away from Usenet.

Which is probably true of many men as well. More to the point, women
can be just as stupid as men. When they are stupid though they tend to be
stupid in their own ways.

Nope. Women can't be just as stupid as men (at least in the extreme
cases, which is what we really need to worry about). ACL something of
a net-pest when she first arrived at comp.lang.c but she learned over
time. Now, Nudds (c.l.c) Harris (sci.math) and a few other net-pests
that I know of {presumably males according to their admission} took
her very best attempt at stupid, squared it, took that result to the
nth power, took the factorial of that result, and added one to the
sum. Then, they were proud of it. Eventually, ACL realized that void
main(void) *wasn't* such a grand idea but such advanced concepts never
seem to inkle into the brains of some supposedly advanced primate
males that I have known.

Now, I will admit that I am running on empirical evidence and
inductive logic. Probably, a woman would not make the same mistake.