> I can't resist: some of us aspect geeks ARE 'chicks'...I don't think
> I'd want to date one, though (in PRINciple, I don't, because I'm
> MARried, to a LAWyer, no less...).
Of course! The term aspect-geek _is_ gender neutral, with context
being determinative of the implied gender (if any). In this case, I
claim that my intention was to refer to _male_ aspect-geeks. One
should read an implied 'male' in "aspect-geeks get all the chics."
This should not even be taken to mean that _all_ male aspect-geeks
get chics, but rather only those who are interested in chics, as I'm
sure that some aspect-geeks are not interested in chics. I do want
to reaffirm, though, that, all things being equal, the aspect-geek
will get the girl every time. No doubt, this has been documented in
In fact, aspect geeks make better companions. In inter-personal
relations, aspect-geeks (open-ended gender referent here) have it
all over the inferior non-aspect-geek. When one of the partners
says, "Oh, we _talked_ about that;" it is clear to the aspect-geek
that this is not a mere historical reference, but rather signifies a
completed action -- it's best not to bring this topic up again! It's
time to focus on the results!! And when one hears, "You _always_ XYZ;"
it is instantly recognized that this is an iterative aoristic of XYZ.
The less well-equipped would immediately fall into a ditch by saying
something inflammatory like, "No I don't _always_ XYZ!" These cases
can be multiplied without difficulty.
So, clearly, aspect-geeks make better lovers.