SirBitterSweet
Posts: 81
Joined: 11/30/2007 Status: offline
|
Winsom Once ywe place something in writing, we cannot undo what was said. It seems to me you are now backpaddling and since you are intelligent, I will take the painstaking effort of holding you in place long enough to see your own contradictions.I am going to do this by cutting and pasting segments of your own statements. You said: Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions. I like to get a few blanks filled in before I decide if a source is reliable or not or if any prescribed method is of value to me. I think it is a good recipe for weeding out the 'undesirables' if that is what you are wanting to do. I wonder, though. How successful it really was. By your own admission, you only met a small handful of people and achieved no real long-term benefit from the approach. Actually, you are using pretzel logic here; the only reliable source will be documented scientifically or at worse, tried in real life to see what may come. The fact that I said I met three people in person from all the years of internet experience is not a discredit -- it's actually a huge success, considering how long internet has been a means for meeting people. (Actually, it's five in total, but since these were never romantic interests, I did not count them - and both Reese and Romana are VERY close friends now.) The fact that I busted about 30 crazies and eliminated maybe 100 more people NOT suited for me -- well, that too suggests tremendous success. Because if I had been suckered by time bandits, I might NEVER have met the five I did. Again, bad logic on your part. You seem more anxious to prove me wrong than analyzing carefully. So far, this is still following the topic and an intelligent debate, but your logic is strange. Then you go on to put your foot in your mouth by making a statement in one paragraph and then eating your words in the paragraph that follows. But there's another pretzel logic statement that sort of gets in the way. My own personal approach is vastly different. I take people at their word, accept them at face value - unless they prove otherwise to me. Only then do I dismiss them. ... (edited out some irrelevant statements here)... My point is this. I wonder at the opportunities you have missed out on, using your prescribed method. If you are dismissing so many, and NOT finding a successful, fulfilling relationship in the ones you do opt to move forward witih, then perhaps your approach would serve you better by re-examining it. Sorry, that ONLY makes sense if I had LIMITED opportunities. One can't worry about all the opportunities missed when other opportunities are constantly presenting themselves. Okay, so I am lucky. Whatever. And I can only meet those who appeal to my senses and interest me, so I have to narrow it down. And again, you missed the whole point of the POST. I've corresponded with these people a while now, they are telling me I am special, important, yadda yadda, they want my time in snail mail or want me to move very slowly and watch the internet. Fine, Then I need some verification that I am not wasting my time. A simple phone call with the caller ID blocked is safe enough... doesn't matter if they call me, does it? Who is now at risk for being stalked? Me! And then I must ask, do I want to be with someone who is terrified to chat on the phone when they claim I am what I seek? And then what of my non-internet social life? Yes, that life takes up 95% of my time. I tend to trust my instincts, and base my judgemnts off of what I observe. Online and off. For example. From your posts and responses, I would say that you are intelligent and highly adaptive. So, where is this going? Is this flattery or a lead in to what then... While you respond seemingly too defensively, too quickly in a harsh and negative manner, you seem to recognize when you have possibly erred and fall back upon charm and good looks to re-insert yourself into other's good graces. Oh really now. So you are saying is that I should tolerate abusive posts that are thinly disguised by the topic and that I should a) care what strangers really think of me online b) charm people when I make mistakes c) try to re insert myself into other's good graces Wow. I am glad you can tell all that from a few posts on a message board. Actually, I am known as a tongue in cheek humorist. I can joust and then alternately joke from one moment to the next because I DO NOT have a vested interest in strangers on a message board. I have no idea who these people are or what they are like. (Though odds are if they are pests online, they are not happy in life.) However, when they come at me violating common sense and think they can be saucey or judgemental ... (because so few others are capable of handling them).... then isn't it obvious they want a joust? It's about them and their insecurities and their need to lash out. Ah.. How I get a thrill out of putting people who are out of line back in their place! Isn't that what Dom's do? Reward good behavior and admonish the bad? I imagine this works pretty good for you, until you react negatively too often and your charisma becomes tarnished. Again, you think I seem to be worried about a reputation on here. I am standing in this community, but I feel no ownership. I think MOST of the people on the internet need serious help. They are not my equals and many would creep me out in person. Statistics and research proves ALL this to be a fact. Internet is the great equalizer. So, I go with the odds; look both ways before I cross a busy highway and don't bunjee jump without testing the elastic. Finally, as that you seem to be an expert on what I am thinking, it completely contradicts the non-judgemental, logical, unbiased person you tried to come across as in your earlier posts. As that I don't even remotely share your ethical opinions on trusting strangers and have none of the desires to be LIKED by this community, you, my friend, "appear" to be projecting insecurities into me that never existed. For that, your credibility is shot to hell. [Mod Note: email removed]
< Message edited by ModeratorEleven -- 7/13/2008 3:00:44 PM >
|