Re: Rumsfeld Says He May Drop New Office of Influence

From: Kenneth Van Oost (
Date: Sun Mar 10 2002 - 20:51:09 GMT

  • Next message: Scott Chase: "RE: Rumsfeld Says He May Drop New Office of Influence"

    Received: by id UAA00585 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Sun, 10 Mar 2002 20:49:04 GMT
    Message-ID: <001e01c1c875$67e56420$b5a9eb3e@default>
    From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <>
    To: <>
    References: <>
    Subject: Re: Rumsfeld Says He May Drop New Office of Influence
    Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 21:51:09 +0100
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    X-Priority: 3
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
    X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
    Precedence: bulk

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Scott Chase <>
    > > I think you're conflating territoriality as a social concept (e.g.
    > >nationalism), with territoriality as a reality of natural selection (i.e
    > >the
    > >competition for, and defending of resources). Think about it this way-
    > >you're sitting in a restaurant about to tuck into your favourite food
    > >someone walks in, comes right up to you and picks up your plate and walks
    > >off with it. That initial feeling- 'hey, that's my food!'- that's the
    > >territoriality I'm on about.

    > > Another example might be conceptions of personal space (instead of
    > >stealing your food, the stranger comes and sits right next to you,
    > >there being plenty of empty tables in the restaurant- what's your initial
    > >response?).

    > What if a stranger sat next to you, bumping you over in your booth,
    > your sandwich and started eating it and started making passes at your
    > significant other?

    Hi Scott,

    Yes, this puzzles me too somewhat. I did mention such an example in
    a thread not so long ago. The question for me still is, who is trespassing
    who's turf here !? If the stranger(s) sat willingly next to you, or near you
    on another table, what would be their drive, what would be the purpose
    of such a behavior, if they don 't want your food and making passes at
    your significant other in the first place !?

    I can come with explanations concerning social order behaviour or
    crowd- behavioal related aspects but I stay unconvinced. I don 't
    see to what point, as in the crowd- effect, such behavior can 't be ex-
    plained as a product of crowd- related behavior.
    What I trying to say, who is defending what kind of territory here and
    who and far more why is the other trespassing !?
    I can understand that the former has a possessivenessly response-
    ' hey, sit somewhere else ', but what would be the drive of the latter !?
    Competition for a " better " place !? I don 't think so !

    I have tried, as I eat often, alone in restaurants, to understand that
    kind of behavior by sitting at different tables, at windows, in corners,
    etc and it seems to me, atleast what the males are concerned, that
    is doesn 't matter where I used to sit, they choose a table next to me,
    or in the immediate surroundings.
    Females are different, they seem to choose tables out of the draft,
    not that close to the kitchen and lavatory, in my opinion obvious
    Is than such behavior gender related, and therefor ' male ' !?
    Is the conflating territoriality notion exceptable a male- related flung !?
    And what is than the role of the female !?

    Just yesterday, me and my wife went to an Italian restaurant, we were
    the first customers to arrive there. 15 minutes later another couple
    entered and after that the female disgard a few tables for the above
    mentioned obvious reasons, they picked a table right in front of us !
    Two more couples entered and in the end we were all sitting on a
     little square looking at eachothers throats !
    I must say, the last couples were each time two males....

    Another aspect of such is this, if you enter a restaurant any waiter will
    show you to your table. No harm done there, but it is never the table
    you had in mind by entering. If there are already people in there, they
    will escort you to a table near them. I understand, for working purposes
    very easy indeed ( all the costumers are close together), but it seems
    onlogical... It is like, indeed, that the crowd, collective, group aspect
    is hardwired and that waiters somewhat are playing with that social
    But it stays weird, and personaly, my food taste better when I am alone
    in my corner... Maybe its me !



    This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Mar 10 2002 - 20:59:28 GMT