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