 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/09/2010 10:19 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Shay wrote:
>> So, assuming
>
> Yes. That's my point.
>
So, the problem isn't necessarily with my opinion but with my having one
at all?
Lame. If you disagree with me, just disagree with me. Argue your point
or don't, but please spare this pitiable wretch your melodrama and
finger-wagging.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/09/2010 09:05 PM, Tim Cook wrote:
>
> It's the jerks and
> frat-boy types that are blatant about 'gaming' women that actually get
> the women, while the 'nice guy' geeks get 'friendzoned'.
Sure, I'll buy that, though the frat-boy "games" I've seen involve much
less resentment. More like, "Will you sleep with me? Please? It'll be
fun. Pretty please?".
And I'll bet most of those frat-boy types grow up to be loving husbands
and fathers. I've seen it happen many times.
And there are plenty of genuine nice guys in the world. Most of the ones
I've known have had healthy and plentiful relationships with women.
The creep OTOH has always remained a creep IME.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay <n@n.n> wrote:
> On 08/08/2010 04:59 AM, Warp wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> The original author feels *exactly* that way
Ah, you know him personally and have first-hand knowledge of the situation
he described. Well, then I stand corrected.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay <n@n.n> wrote:
> Because I think the "Recovering Nice Guy" is really full of crap?
> Because I'm unfortunate enough to have met a few of that type in my life?
You know, I'm starting to agree with the "Recovering Nice Guy". What
happened to all the nice guys? You happened.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/10/2010 12:15 AM, Warp wrote:
>
> Ah, you know him personally and have first-hand knowledge of the situation
> he described.
You thought you were the only one?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 04/08/2010 1:58 PM, Warp wrote:
> For some reason I found this quite touching:
>
> http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/lax/483318927.html
>
To me he sounds like a self pitying wimp.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mca### [at] aoldot com> wrote:
> On 04/08/2010 1:58 PM, Warp wrote:
> > For some reason I found this quite touching:
> >
> > http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/lax/483318927.html
> >
> To me he sounds like a self pitying wimp.
That comment sounds quite arrogant to me. You don't know his situation,
you don't know his personality, you don't know exactly what happened. For
some reason you are assuming dishonesty (if not in any other form, at least
in the form of the author deluding himself, thus being dishonest to himself).
Why does everything have to be taken on bad faith? Why cannot honesty
and objectivity be assumed by default? Are we so cynical that everybody
must be assumed to be dishonest liars until proven otherwise?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/08/2010 12:01 PM, Warp wrote:
> Stephen<mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
>> On 04/08/2010 1:58 PM, Warp wrote:
>>> For some reason I found this quite touching:
>>>
>>> http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/lax/483318927.html
>>>
>
>> To me he sounds like a self pitying wimp.
>
> That comment sounds quite arrogant to me. You don't know his situation,
> you don't know his personality, you don't know exactly what happened. For
> some reason you are assuming dishonesty (if not in any other form, at least
> in the form of the author deluding himself, thus being dishonest to himself).
>
> Why does everything have to be taken on bad faith? Why cannot honesty
> and objectivity be assumed by default? Are we so cynical that everybody
> must be assumed to be dishonest liars until proven otherwise?
>
I suppose that without any qualifying statements it could be seen as
arrogant. But it is a statement of fact that, it is how his rant seems
to me. A disappointed person who has gone out of his way to have a
platonic relationship with a member of the opposite sex and is
frustrated when things did not work out the way he wanted them. Then
whinges about women in general when he really is talking about one woman
specifically. This reeks of misogynism to me. But then, I like the
company of women, prefering them to men actually.
nice a guy as he obviously thinks he is. Which agrees with your point
that I think that he is deluding himself.
If you read what he wrote on more than a surface level you can see that
he believes he is a paragon of virtue. Paragraph starting, See, if you
to the world lots the of truly evil things she has done to him such as
laughing at him and saying that she denied having any romantic feelings
hate people that talk about themselves in the third person?
He then goes on (in the third person, again) to imply how successful he
is even suggesting that he has had SEX. OMG!
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
> So, the problem isn't necessarily with my opinion but with my having one
> at all?
It just sounded like something a bit more assertive than an opinion. Perhaps
I was reading into the statement more than it warranted, based on your
earlier assumptions and your hostile tone.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/9/2010 4:24 PM, Shay wrote:
>
> The original author feels *exactly* that way (minus the part about
> sharing feelings and emotions [this type only does so when he feels it's
> expedient]). There are a lot of people out there who, due to some
> psychosis or Aspergers or their just being pricks, see others (not just
> women) as sentient objects which can be controlled with the correct input.
>
Neither psychotic nor Asperger's would be the case for that line of
thinking. More like sociopathic or psychopathic. Psychotic generally
involves delusions and hallucinations. Asperger's just simply don't have
the faculty to deal properly with social situations, and so are socially
awkward, but do not view others as some sort of game piece.
Sociopaths on the other hand do: If they can use someone for personal
gain, they will. They have no empathy for others.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
