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.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

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.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> bs, I'm a geek and married.  My wife's a geek too.

I think that's how it works out best, yes.

-- 
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

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