Shay <n@n.n> wrote:
> On 08/07/2010 11:34 AM, Warp wrote:
> > Shay<n@n.n>  wrote:
> >> My opinion is that "nice men" aren't really that nice at all. Your
> >> typical "nice guy" is a selfish, manipulative (at least, he tries to be)
> >> person. I can't stand to be around him. I can't stand when he interrupts
> >> the conversation of normal, mentally-healthy people with his bullshit.
> >> His being socially awkward or "unlucky" with women doesn't make him any
> >> less a troll.
> >
> >    It sounds to me like your definition of "nice guy" is a bit different
> > than what most other people think (including the guy who wrote that text
> > I linked to in my original post).
> >
>
> No, I'm talking about the exact same guy. What he doesn't understand is
> that he gets no "physical intimacy" because he is *incapable* of
> "emotional intimacy." He has his head so far up his ass that he doesn't
> see why he can't get close to a woman by going through the right moves
> (opening doors, cooking dinner, buying gifts) instead of having honest

>
> The woman somehow eluded him despite his master-planned strategy, so now
> she deserves misery. Yeah, nice guy.

haha, good point...

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 13:55:25 -0400, Warp wrote:

> > nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> >> where are we geeks in that classification? :p
> > 
> >   Geeks are permanently and chronically single, so they don't count.

> bs, I'm a geek and married.  My wife's a geek too.

  Then you are a geek in-name-only. ;)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 15:01:17 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 13:55:25 -0400, Warp wrote:
> 
>> > nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> >> where are we geeks in that classification? :p
>> > 
>> >   Geeks are permanently and chronically single, so they don't count.
> 
>> bs, I'm a geek and married.  My wife's a geek too.
> 
>   Then you are a geek in-name-only. ;)

Oh, I don't think so - I'm a Linux geek. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 08/07/2010 02:42 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 15:01:17 -0400, Warp wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson<nos### [at] nospamcom>  wrote:
>>> On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 13:55:25 -0400, Warp wrote:
>>
>>>> nemesis<nam### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
>>>>> where are we geeks in that classification? :p
>>>>
>>>>    Geeks are permanently and chronically single, so they don't count.
>>
>>> bs, I'm a geek and married.  My wife's a geek too.
>>
>>    Then you are a geek in-name-only. ;)
>
> Oh, I don't think so - I'm a Linux geek. ;-)
>

.. with a mullet!

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 13:55:25 -0400, Warp wrote:
>
> > nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> >> where are we geeks in that classification? :p
> >
> >   Geeks are permanently and chronically single, so they don't count.
>
> bs, I'm a geek and married.  My wife's a geek too.

see the problem right there?  You were lucky enough to find a very rare female
geek.

Post a reply to this message

Shay <n@n.n> writes:

> On 08/07/2010 12:05 PM, Warp wrote:
>> Shay<n@n.n>  wrote:
>>> No, I'm talking about the exact same guy. What he doesn't understand is
>>> that he gets no "physical intimacy" because he is *incapable* of
>>> "emotional intimacy." He has his head so far up his ass that he doesn't
>>> see why he can't get close to a woman by going through the right moves
>>> (opening doors, cooking dinner, buying gifts) instead of having honest
>>> communication with her ??? must be that she's a stuck-up bitch.
>>
>>> The woman somehow eluded him despite his master-planned strategy, so now
>>> she deserves misery. Yeah, nice guy.
>>
>>    I'm sorry to say this, but you are being outright delusional. I can't
>> understand how you are seeing this in what that guy wrote.
>>
>
> You can't see how that might have been interpreted as ...
>
> I did everything I was supposed to do to make you want to sleep with me,
> but you didn't because you were shallow and foolish. Now, I have a new
> strategy for making girls want to sleep with me.

Or, you know, he was just plain nice, and is bitter about being so. 

Simpler explanations sometimes are the more correct one.

Didn't sympathize with his posting at all, though. Not because I think
he was being manipulative or any of the other things you said, but
because he ridiculously stereotypes certain women in a fashion not
dissimilar to what you're doing.

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan <fee### [at] festercom> wrote:
> Didn't sympathize with his posting at all, though. Not because I think
> he was being manipulative or any of the other things you said, but
> because he ridiculously stereotypes certain women in a fashion not
> dissimilar to what you're doing.

  Stereotypes are not *always* wrong. There *are* people who fit perfectly
into even the most outlandish stereotypes.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Neeum Zawan" <fee### [at] festercom> wrote in message
news:87t### [at] festercom...

> Or, you know, he was just plain nice, and is bitter about being so.

Why does he think being nice (to women), whatever it means, entitles him to
anything (getting laid, in this case)?

> Simpler explanations sometimes are the more correct one.
>
> Didn't sympathize with his posting at all, though. Not because I think
> he was being manipulative or any of the other things you said, but
> because he ridiculously stereotypes certain women in a fashion not
> dissimilar to what you're doing.

Stereotypes are not necessarily wrong, but he reads immature in his emotions
and simplistic in his reasoning. Realizing that opening doors for women
won't get you sex is a good start, but if it's to amount to anything, it's
got to be followed by understanding why not. He starts with the wrong
premise that opening doors for women would get him laid, and when it doesn't
work out, he assumes it's the women's fault instead of questioning why he
thought (or was led to think) it should work in the first place.

Post a reply to this message

somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> "Neeum Zawan" <fee### [at] festercom> wrote in message
> news:87t### [at] festercom...

> > Or, you know, he was just plain nice, and is bitter about being so.

> Why does he think being nice (to women), whatever it means, entitles him to
> anything (getting laid, in this case)?

  I'm starting to think that both you and Shay have some kind of unhealthy
obsession with sex.

  When a man tries to be nice to a woman, the motive must be sex. When a
man listens to a woman, shares feelings and emotions, that is, he wants
to be a good friend to the woman, the motive must be sex. When a man is
courteus to a woman, shows respect and has good manners, the motive must
be sex. You talk as if all men who do any of this consider women to be
just sentient sex toys which must be conquered by whatever social and
psychological means are necessary.

  This kind of "the only thing men want is sex" complete bullshit, in the
same category as "every man is a potential rapist" and other such feminist
nonsense. Unfortunately feminists have succeeded in indoctrinating these
lies so well that even many men believe it (even though most of these men
have personal evidence of the contrary, both in themselves and close
friends who they know extremely well).

  It *is* possible for a man to be friends with a woman, potentially even
with the prospect of a lifetime companionship, *without* the primary goal
being just "getting laid". If the friendship goes that far, it would a
natural side-effect, but it's not the primary reason why the man wants to
be friends with a woman. A man, like any human being, *needs* the company
of other people (quite literally, as proved by psychology), and a lifetime
partner is one of the best company which a person can have, so it's natural
for people to seek that.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> Why does he think being nice (to women), whatever it means, entitles him to
> anything (getting laid, in this case)?

He's not bemoaning not getting laid, per se. He's bemoaning getting treated 
like crap when he's nice, discarded for people who are not nice, and being 
used for the thing's he's nice at without being around when she's having 
fun. There's only so long even the nicest guy will be an emotional tampon 
before he moves on.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    C# - a language whose greatest drawback
    is that its best implementation comes
    from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.

Post a reply to this message