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
> 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.

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

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> writes:

> 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.

Well, OK. Let me put it this way: I feel he /wrongly/ stereotyped. I'm
sure not all (or even most) women who complain about not being able to
find a "nice" person have treated a nice person in the past the way he
claimed.

Post a reply to this message

"somebody" <x### [at] ycom> writes:

>> 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)?

Never said it did. Even if it is the wrong approach, being bitter about
it isn't.

>> 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

Yes, yes and yes.

> 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.

Not exactly what I had in mind, but not far off either.

If he's nice to someone, and that someone later complains about there
not being nice people, his point is valid. It's just his assumption that
all women who complain treated a nice person like him the way he was
treated that seems very self serving. 

Basically, he just takes his experience, and ridiculously
generalizes. He wants comfort in the notion that the world is screwed
up. He wants to believe that since his being nice didn't work for him,
that it won't work for anyone else, and it's because all women behave
the same way to nice people. He wants the world to be simplistically
screwed up to make him feel better about his experience, rather than
exploring the possibility that he just experienced a screwed up part of
it.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 17:47:31 -0400, nemesis 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.
> 
> see the problem right there?  You were lucky enough to find a very rare
> female geek.

I don't see that as a problem, and neither does she. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 15:31:29 -0500, Shay wrote:

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

Yeah, yeah, ... usually tied back, thoguh.  ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> Basically, he just takes his experience, and ridiculously
> generalizes. 

Because, you know, craigslist is such a high-value peer-reviewed journal 
that rival Nature in how complete and scientifically sound its published 
articles are.

-- 
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

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4c5e7ffc@news.povray.org...
> 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.

I'm nice to women. But I'm also nice to men. I am not nice to men because I
want sex with them, and I don't get mad when men I am nice to don't have sex
with me. Nor am I nice to women because I want sex with them.

You could say my being nice is not conditional on getting laid. Obviously,
the ebay poster means somethine else by being "nice".

If he (or men in general) is being extra nice to women (above and beyond
being nice to fellow men), why?

Of course sex is a motive for being "extra nice". Shay probably calls that
sleazy. I don't know, I myself have not figured out yet when men say they
are being nice to women, as if that should earn them a medal (i.e. sex).

>   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.

Someone seeking friendship would not lament and curse the lack of sex in
return for being nice.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> I'm nice to women. But I'm also nice to men. I am not nice to men because I
> want sex with them, and I don't get mad when men I am nice to don't have sex
> with me. Nor am I nice to women because I want sex with them.

And you would be upset if the guys you were nice to treated you like crap, 
never told you about a good job opening they heard of, didn't invite you out 
to go drinking but did continue to bum money off of you, made fun of you for 
how bad you were at sports when the game required one more player, etc, yes?

|| You ignored the nice guy.
|| You used him for emotional intimacy without reciprocating, in kind, with 
physical intimacy.
|| You laughed at his consideration and
|| resented his devotion.
|| You valued the aloof boyfriend more than the attentive "just-a-" friend.


So out of the five things he lists, one has to do with sex.

Now he's talking about the women not being able to find a romantic 
relationship with a "nice" guy.

> You could say my being nice is not conditional on getting laid. Obviously,
> the ebay poster means somethine else by being "nice".

See above.

> Someone seeking friendship would not lament and curse the lack of sex in
> return for being nice.

Yes, but someone seeking romance shouldn't complain when the guy seeking 
friendship isn't around for them when they spent five years going out with 
the other type and putting down the friendly ones.

-- 
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

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> writes:

> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> Basically, he just takes his experience, and ridiculously
>> generalizes. 
>
> Because, you know, craigslist is such a high-value peer-reviewed journal
> that rival Nature in how complete and scientifically sound its published
> articles are.

Umm...I'm not sure I see your point.

Yes, it's just a random Internet post. 

And yes, it's a meritless post. Since some people started commenting
about it and attempted to begin a serious discussion based on a pathetic
post, I felt I'd point out why it's pathetic.

Not disagreeing with you, but I'm wondering if you were implying
something more. I don't "lower" my standards that much if it happens
not to be a peer reviewed journal. If a friend of mine made sweeping
remarks like these, I'd say the same to him, if I were confident that he
would still remain a friend.<G>

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan <fee### [at] festercom> wrote:
> Well, OK. Let me put it this way: I feel he /wrongly/ stereotyped. I'm
> sure not all (or even most) women who complain about not being able to
> find a "nice" person have treated a nice person in the past the way he
> claimed.

  That may be true. Perhaps he made a hasty generalization. However,
it seems that he was speaking from personal experience, so at least
*some* women are probably like that.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> Not disagreeing with you, but I'm wondering if you were implying
> something more. 

I'm saying that it's not so much "generalization" as "addressing a specific 
audience."  It's not saying "every nice guy was blown off by every woman, 
and every woman is now looking for a nice guy."  He's saying "if you're 
looking for a nice guy, and he used to be around, and you blew him off, it's 
your fault he's not around any more."

> If a friend of mine made sweeping
> remarks like these, I'd say the same to him, if I were confident that he
> would still remain a friend.<G> 

Yes, and that works where there's back-and-forth. But when there isn't, the 
appropriate way to look at it is to consider the case presented and discuss 
the merits, not consider all the cases not presented and point out that the 
one presented isn't universal.

It's a story, not a scientific analysis.

-- 
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 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 (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.

A person like this may honestly believe that he's just being nice, but 
the premise under which he operates isn't very nice at all. Advise him 
to be honest with her and he'll instead give her a speech about the 
importance of honesty. Advise him to be forthright, and he'll instead 
try to convince her of his forthrightness. He'll never abandon his 
premise because he's an @55hole.

And of course other girls will tease a friend for spending time around a 
guy like this; Guys like this come across as creepy to most people. They 
are creepy. They don't have true friends, because it's impossible to 
obligate someone into true friendship.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:
> The original author feels *exactly* that way 

Oh? What's his name?

> They don't have true friends, because it's impossible to 
> obligate someone into true friendship.

I feel really bad for you.

-- 
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 08/09/2010 05:16 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Shay wrote:
>> The original author feels *exactly* that way
>
> Oh? What's his name?

¿¿¿¿ "A Recovering Nice Guy" ????

Why?

>
>> They don't have true friends, because it's impossible to obligate
>> someone into true friendship.
>
> I feel really bad for you.

Huh?

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?

Fill me in, please!

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:
> On 08/09/2010 05:16 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> Shay wrote:
>>> The original author feels *exactly* that way
>>
>> Oh? What's his name?
> 
> ¿¿¿¿ "A Recovering Nice Guy" ????
> 
> Why?

I just wondered how you discovered exactly how the author feels without e
ven 
knowing what his name is, let alone talked to him about it, particularly 

when most of the others here seem to think his message means something 
different.

-- 
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 08/09/2010 07:37 PM, Darren New wrote:
>
> I just wondered how you discovered exactly how the author feels without
> even knowing what his name is, let alone talked to him about it,

So, assuming some guy ranting on craigslist is full of shit is more of 
an assumption that assuming he's not?

> particularly when most of the others here seem to think his message
> means something different.
>

Small sample.

But even if "most others" do disagree with me, perhaps techy folks are 
more inclined to believe that women can be gamed. Sure, they /can/ be, 
everyone /can/ be gamed by the right person, but it's far from the 
easiest way to find love.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

On 2010-08-09 21:11, Shay wrote:
> But even if "most others" do disagree with me, perhaps techy folks are
> more inclined to believe that women can be gamed. Sure, they /can/ be,
> everyone /can/ be gamed by the right person, but it's far from the
> easiest way to find love.

 From what I understand, it's the exact opposite.  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'.

...at least, that's the traditional portrayal by pop culture.

It has to do with the nice guy geeks being the ones that will provide 
stability for the offspring while the female goes off and has affairs 
with the good-looking ones, effectively shopping for ideal genes for the 
offspring the sucker at home will help raise, or something.  Birds do 
it, too, if the documentaries I've seen hold any water.

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> writes:

> I'm saying that it's not so much "generalization" as "addressing a
> specific audience."  It's not saying "every nice guy was blown off by
> every woman, and every woman is now looking for a nice guy."  He's
> saying "if you're looking for a nice guy, and he used to be around, and
> you blew him off, it's your fault he's not around any more."

If he'd said that, I'd agree with him. Instead, he said "If you complain
you can't find a nice person, then it's your fault".

> It's a story, not a scientific analysis.

You could easily modify his story to one that would satisfy my
complaints without losing anything.

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> writes:

> Neeum Zawan <fee### [at] festercom> wrote:
>> Well, OK. Let me put it this way: I feel he /wrongly/ stereotyped. I'm
>> sure not all (or even most) women who complain about not being able to
>> find a "nice" person have treated a nice person in the past the way he
>> claimed.
>
>   That may be true. Perhaps he made a hasty generalization. However,
> it seems that he was speaking from personal experience, so at least
> *some* women are probably like that.

Never disputed it.

Post a reply to this message

Shay <n@n.n> writes:

> On 08/09/2010 07:37 PM, Darren New wrote:
>>
>> I just wondered how you discovered exactly how the author feels without
>> even knowing what his name is, let alone talked to him about it,
>
> So, assuming some guy ranting on craigslist is full of shit is more of
> an assumption that assuming he's not?

Given your phrasing, you do realize that assuming my next door neighbor
is not a serial killer is no more or less an assumption than assuming
he's not?

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:
> So, assuming 

Yes. That's my point.

-- 
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 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] 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?

-- 
                                                          - 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.
If the subject of his rant actually said “What happened to all the nice 
guys?” and did not think that she “let him go”. Then maybe he is not as 
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 
think back…  But then this shining example of manhood goes on to declare 
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 
for him. That is one of the reasons I call him a wimp. BTW don’t you 
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!
As you will be able to see from this short tirade I don’t think much of 
the author’s sensibilities. The only thing in its favour is his anonymity.
BTW (2) I don’t see why you think that everything is taken on bad faith 
or honesty and objectivity isn’t assumed by default.


-- 

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

On 8/9/2010 5:45 PM, Shay wrote:
> On 08/09/2010 05:16 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> Shay wrote:
>>> The original author feels *exactly* that way
>>
>> Oh? What's his name?
>
> ¿¿¿¿ "A Recovering Nice Guy" ????
>
> Why?
>
>>
>>> They don't have true friends, because it's impossible to obligate
>>> someone into true friendship.
>>
>> I feel really bad for you.
>
> Huh?

Yeah ... I don't get that either.

> 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?

I don't really see RNG as being full of crap, but rather angry and 
bitter at his life experience. I can't say I blame him, since these are 
his perceptions of the world. I've definitely felt that way at times, 
myself. Especially when my ex wife left me for someone else who was a 
total ass, but then it worked out for the better for me.

But... what type exactly do you mean? Jaded? Yeah, some people can be 
jaded by the actions of others. You certainly do have a different 
perspective on things though.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 8/9/2010 11:23 PM, Shay wrote:

> 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.

Mmhmm. I've not quite seen that. The ones I've observed have pretty much 
continued on their ways. Usually ending in divorce or worse. But then, 
my sampling may not be typical.

> 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.

There are. For certain. I'm sure most keep their frustrations with 
dating to themselves and don't go on paragraphs-long rants on 
Craigslist, as well.

> The creep OTOH has always remained a creep IME.

The same could be said about the frat-boy always remains the frat-boy. 
Of course, my definition of creep may different. The creep IMO is the 
guy who keeps making unwanted advances after being told to back off. 
That *is* creepy behavior. And yeah, that's true ... I don't think they 
change. But, I've never hung around long enough with the truly creepy to 
make a good judgment of that.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 16/08/2010 1:18 PM, Mike Raiford wrote:
> I've definitely felt that way at times, myself. Especially when my ex
> wife left me for someone else who was a total ass, but then it worked
> out for the better for me.

Well as my old grandmother used to say. "What's for you won't go past you."

'Glad it has worked out. :-)

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 8/8/2010 11:42 AM, Darren New wrote:

> 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.

That is exactly it. He resents being treated like a doormat. Something I 
have a lot of familiarity with, unfortunately.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 8/7/2010 1:22 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:

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

^^ What he said, minus the wife part. She's not a geek, but she 
tolerates my geekery :D

I've also been in former nice guy's position as well. Jaded, Bitter 
about the world and about people in general. Feels like he was a 
doormat. Been there, done that, probably written a few ill-advised rants 
myself at some point.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 07:11:35 -0500, Mike Raiford wrote:

> 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.

It's worth pointing out, though that just because someone doesn't have 
the ability to deal properly with social situations that they have any 
degree of Asperger's.  There are other important markers for Asperger's 
that are often overlooked by those who aren't trained to recognise them.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 07:37:49 -0500, Mike Raiford wrote:

> I've also been in former nice guy's position as well. Jaded, Bitter
> about the world and about people in general. Feels like he was a
> doormat. Been there, done that, probably written a few ill-advised rants
> myself at some point.

Same here, though probably haven't written the rants about it (but I've 
had them).

It was always frustrating for me to have female friends who would come to 
me to talk about their "boyfriend problems".

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 8/16/2010 4:21 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:

> It's worth pointing out, though that just because someone doesn't have
> the ability to deal properly with social situations that they have any
> degree of Asperger's.  There are other important markers for Asperger's
> that are often overlooked by those who aren't trained to recognise them.

Yep. A whole constellation of symptoms. My point was that what Shay was 
describing was not necessarily Aspergers, and more than likely not.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 8/16/2010 4:23 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:

> It was always frustrating for me to have female friends who would come to
> me to talk about their "boyfriend problems".

Yup. Even more frustrating is the appearance of not learning from 
previous mistakes. Seems some women have a preference for dirtbags. ;)

Whatever. I'm happy where I am.. :D

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 08:44:27 -0500, Mike Raiford wrote:

> On 8/16/2010 4:23 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> It was always frustrating for me to have female friends who would come
>> to me to talk about their "boyfriend problems".
> 
> Yup. Even more frustrating is the appearance of not learning from
> previous mistakes. Seems some women have a preference for dirtbags. ;)
> 
> Whatever. I'm happy where I am.. :D

As am I. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message