In article ,
 Grizzlie Antagonist  wrote:

> On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 21:19:37 -0800, Hardpan  wrote:
>
> >On 18 Mar 2005 15:17:39 -0800, hesacopontheedge{at}yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> >>Sorry, but who wants geezers? -F.R.
> >>
> >>BACHELORS BEGIN TO LOSE UPPER HAND
> >>The Wall Street Journal
> >>Biological clock starts ticking for bachelors looking for mates
> >> By Nancy Anne Jeffrey
> >>
> >>Adam Rosen has a law degree from Villanova and trained in
> >>psychology at Harvard. Hešs also handsome and has a passion for social
> >>causes. But therešs one thing the 37-year-old bachelor doesnšt have
> >>in hislife: candidates to be Mrs. Rosen.
>
>
> If he's a liberal ("passion for social causes"), it's just as well
> that he doesn't get a chance to propagate.
>
> But I don't believe for one moment that an older man with money isn't
> able to get married if that's what he wants.
>
> Notice that this article was written by a WOMAN.

I concur.  This reads like feminist propoganda trying to
offset all the 30 something women PANICKING from
Bridget Jones and Hewlett.  I especially find it amusing
how she openly lies about the interpretation of a statistic
she cites:

"The overall birthrate dropped 40% from 1955 to 1973"

This is total crap first of all.  The "baby boom" referred
to a period from 1945 through 1965 where the population
INCREASED.  But let's take her at her word for a moment:
There was a baby BUST from the mid-60's to the 70's with the
second baby boom onward from the 80's (my understanding).

Even so, if the population began to increase again,
as SHE claims, from 1973, then this means that there
are more women for every year after that starting with
women aged 33 and YOUNGER!

In other words, pity the poor men!  There are more and more
YOUNGER women for them to date every year!  Yeah, that
means men who can't find one of those aging Gen Xers will
just have to settle for a more sexually active, attractive
younger women.  Cantya just pity 'em? :-)

She claims in the article that such services are scrambling
to find women because of population increase but it's
more likely that they want more members because men
just tend to sign onto such services faster than shy,
often less computer saavy women.

I don't know what crack she's been smoking, but match.com started
out with male to female ratios of 10 to 1 and now it's
evening out.

She must be Dan Rather's cousin to write up this "memo".

regards,
Mark Sobolewski


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/20/05 4:59:04 AM ---