Another foray into the land of internet personals
Question:
In news:jgl5t05ra5s46t7ld9m72cp0ibgci2sef5@4ax.com, Solitary Soul <solitarysoulNOS…@ev1.net> typed: > On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 14:13:36 GMT, "Pumpkinhead" > <pumpkin_head060…@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> Nah, I’m not going to write to a chick who’s been through an entire >>> marriage, whereas I have yet to hold hands with a girl. >> I wouldn’t either. > Same here. > The divorce could have been because of the girl’s problems.
By that sort of reasoning, he should _never_ see anyone and walk around the house with a .357 strapped on to his side*…. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. August Pamplona * Because it would be really easily to see that there _might_ be something wrong with anyone he runs across. Heck, a woman might be posting personal ads because she’s a serial killer preying on the lonely. Better stay away from them! — The waterfall in Java is not wet. – omegazero2003 on m.f.w. a.a. # 1811 apatriot #20 Eater of smut Proud member of the reality-based community. The address in this message’s ‘From’ field, in accordance with individual.net’s TOS, is real. However, almost all messages reaching this address are deleted without human intervention. In other words, if you e-mail me there, I will not receive your message. To make sure that e-mail messages actually reach me, make sure that my e-mail address is not hot.
Response:
August Pamplona wrote: > August Pamplona > * Because it would be really easily to see that there _might_ be > something wrong with anyone he runs across. Heck, a woman might be > posting personal ads because she’s a serial killer preying on the > lonely. Better stay away from them!
friggin’ hell thanks for posting that. Ive just recently received a response to my own personal ad which has made me think the very same thing, such is my mind for creative darkness. A very attractive, blonde lady.. high income (works in finance)… only 2 years older than me… has just written to me for the first time in response to my ad… and included is her mobile phone number and an invitation to meet up with "us" (whoever "us" is) for a post Christmas "party". (I should just say that she originates from Continental Europe, so maybe her English isnt 100% spot on, hence the "us") To say that its unusual for a woman to include her mobile phone number in her opening message to me is well not completely unheard of… but its very very rare. Im reminded of that expression "when something is too good to be true" it probably is. Shall I take out life insurance now?
Response:
Troll wrote: > "Gray Loser" <gray_lo…@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1104308887.579705.56530 – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com: > > …and I find this chick who *just might be* crazy enough to go for me. > > She’s 25; even says she’s into geeks. Probably not ugly geeks, but > > whatever. > > Then I check her marital status. Divorced. Eh. > > Nah, I’m not going to write to a chick who’s been through an entire > > marriage, whereas I have yet to hold hands with a girl. > You don’t have to marry her or love her, just screw her. Trust me, it will > be good for you. Don’t go for the woman of your life, such a woman doesn’t > exist anyway. All of them are whores, so take your chance into using her > for your pleasure.
ok.. confrontational question here (as Ive actually enjoyed your posts thus far, despite your name 
but.. have you ever actually had sex? I just wonder, as my subconscious – which may well have picked up this info elsewhere on here – tells me you havent, so Im wondering how you can offer this advice. Im guessing you’ll probably want to dodge the question, and Im probably asking a pointless question given your screen name.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Troll wrote: > "Curious_Orange" <curious_ora…@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in > news:1104350274.064730.78120@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com: > > Troll wrote: > >> "Gray Loser" <gray_lo…@hotmail.com> wrote in > > news:1104308887.579705.56530 > >> @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com: > >> > …and I find this chick who *just might be* crazy enough to go for > > me. > >> > She’s 25; even says she’s into geeks. Probably not ugly geeks, but > >> > whatever. > >> > Then I check her marital status. Divorced. Eh. > >> > Nah, I’m not going to write to a chick who’s been through an entire > >> > marriage, whereas I have yet to hold hands with a girl. > >> You don’t have to marry her or love her, just screw her. Trust me, it > > will > >> be good for you. Don’t go for the woman of your life, such a woman > > doesn’t > >> exist anyway. All of them are whores, so take your chance into using > > her > >> for your pleasure. > > ok.. > > confrontational question here (as Ive actually enjoyed your posts thus > > far, despite your name > > but.. > > have you ever actually had sex? > > I just wonder, as my subconscious – which may well have picked up this > > info elsewhere on here – tells me you havent, so Im wondering how you > > can offer this advice. > > Im guessing you’ll probably want to dodge the question, and Im probably > > asking a pointless question given your screen name. > What exactly is your point? Keeping sex for that special woman is an > exercise in futility. Being good and nice and having emotions only gets > you hurt. I have posted about my plans for the near future in other > threads.
I only live here occasionally… so I miss out on posts sometimes. I dont recall your plans, so you’ll have to point me in the direction of the relevant post.
Response:
—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 17:02:14 GMT, "Otto Ramone" <tryingh…@NOSPAMprodigy.net> wrote in post: >…WTF is "settle"? They’ve decided everything must be >perfect? They’re incapable of the give and take and >compromises sucessful marriages require? Not "settling" is a >great cliche’, but it says almost nothing.
When I said "settle", I did not mean income level, looks, etc. Once you’ve been married — or lived with someone in a serious, long term relationship — you learn what’s important and what’s not, i.e. "give and take". But, you ALSO learn what things you will not tolerate in a partner. Fwiw, a couple’s lifestyles, personalities, habits, etc. are not always compatible with the other. And the only way to find out is to actually LIVE with the person. Just TALKING about it isn’t the same thing. You truly need to experience it to understand. Take a control freak like Solitary Soul… He could meet someone who he thinks is the "girl of his dreams"… But after he lives with her and finds out that she likes the toilet paper OVER and he likes it UNDER, they’ll be hell! Though most people could deal with it — though it would still bother them — Solitary Soul wouldn’t be able to handle it, and would DEMAND that she always replace the empty roll UNDER! (Yes, DEMAND.) More than likely an introverted and timid woman would just suck it up, but inside it would be eating her up. Though my TP example may seem ridiculous on the surface, control freaks are like that. For if something as unimportant as how the TP is installed can create a problem, what would happen wrt the Big Stuff — e.g. keeping loaded guns in every room in the house? —–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—– Version: PGP 8.1 iQA/AwUBQdNo+xHSUETdEJzmEQLI8QCeOHN5pMkpRNBlrkLxGdAEFYRbaAMAoM/a pa8VsBL2FOm5GbwIkZHuOaPB =yvvV —–END PGP SIGNATURE—– — Sadi PGP key ID: 0xDD109CE6 (sxysadi) YAAPG (Yet Another ASS Photo Gallery) http://sxysadi.spymac.net/yaapg/
Response:
—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– Hash: SHA1 On 29 Dec 2004 10:48:34 -0800, "Curious_Orange" <curious_ora…@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in post: >A very attractive, blonde lady.. high income (works in >finance)… only 2 years older than me… has just written to >me for the first time in response to my ad… >and included is her mobile phone number and an invitation to >meet up with "us" (whoever "us" is) for a post Christmas >"party". (I should just say that she originates from >Continental Europe, so maybe her English isnt 100% spot on, >hence the "us")
Nobody would reply to an ad with that. Unless… It’s a dating service. Or paid singles mixer. Or (egad!) *escort* service. Spamming everyone who has a personals ad. (And I bet it works, too, lol!) I don’t know if you have caller ID and caller ID *block* in the UK, but if you do, block your number and call — just for fun. Make sure to have your phone’s MUTE button pressed. I will betcha that they answer with either a company name or a woman answers in a sexy voice and says something like, "Hi, this is Angie". Anything remotely similar to this is a RED FLAG. Oh, and after they answer, don’t say anything — just hang up. It could very well be that the women who work for this service are paid "salespeople" working from their homes for extra cash, to snooker people in. The number in her "reply" is probably a line that’s being FORWARDED to her home number. That’s how telemarketers do it in the U.S. She’d know it’s a response to the solicitation because the person calling would say after she answered, "Hi, Angie. You replied to my personals ad." Then, she’d start talking all hot and sexy and Go For The Kill, i.e. tell you about the "service" the company is offering. ("We’ve got hot, gorgeous woman all waiting to meet YOU!") Anyway, my bet is that it’s a dating service. Or paid singles mixer. But call the number, anyway. Just for fun. And report back. —–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—– Version: PGP 8.1 iQA/AwUBQdNtpxHSUETdEJzmEQKAegCfUL2eQRlSq6bMmPuEQVP9agfa9pMAoIi1 /p1iDxQGZlRy0oF5/+HU4p6u =zQSw —–END PGP SIGNATURE—– — Sadi PGP key ID: 0xDD109CE6 (sxysadi) YAAPG (Yet Another ASS Photo Gallery) http://sxysadi.spymac.net/yaapg/
Response:
Gray Loser wrote: > …and I find this chick who *just might be* crazy enough to go for me. > She’s 25; even says she’s into geeks. Probably not ugly geeks, but > whatever. > Then I check her marital status. Divorced. Eh. > Nah, I’m not going to write to a chick who’s been through an entire > marriage, whereas I have yet to hold hands with a girl.
Please don’t rule out someone just because you feel self-conscious about your lack of romantic experience! It really, really won’t matter, if you guys "click". Honestly. It REALLY won’t. -=Lola
Response:
Otto Ramone wrote: > That’s a whole different can of worms…WTF is "settle"? They’ve decided > everything must be perfect? They’re incapable of the give and take and > compromises sucessful marriages require? Not "settling" is a great cliche’, > but it says almost nothing.
I’m with Otto on this one. -=Lola
Response:
Solitary Soul wrote: > On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 14:13:36 GMT, "Pumpkinhead" <pumpkin_head060…@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>Nah, I’m not going to write to a chick who’s been through an entire >>>marriage, whereas I have yet to hold hands with a girl. >>I wouldn’t either. > Same here. > The divorce could have been because of the girl’s problems.
You could just as easily say that any given virgin’s future divorce could take place because of her problems. But if you won’t meet her, how will you ever know?
Response:
kitznegari thinks it has wings wrote: > >Then I check her marital status. Divorced. Eh. > >Nah, I’m not going to write to a chick who’s been through an entire > >marriage, whereas I have yet to hold hands with a girl. > how stupid. she could be the love of your life but because she’s been involved > with someone legally or not, you’re rejecting her.
I think marriage is way more than a legal involvement. It’s a commitment that entangles nearly every aspect of your life with the other person’s life. > you may as well insist on a virgin too.
No, there are degrees of experience. Just like there are degrees of temperature, IQ, penis length, and crappiness of TV game shows.
Response:
Rainier wrote: > Otto wrote: > >So you’re going to pass on a chick who possibly learned what she does and > >doesn’t want, what traits really are important to her, and *might* not have > >her head in her ass. Good idea. > He should go for it. Divorced chicks are the shy men of the dating
world. Heh. Well, my problem is, I’d be too intimidated by someone who has actually been through an entire *marriage*. Whereas I’ve. . . what? I can’t even think of my nearest equivalent social experience. I guess I talk to co-workers sometimes. That’s been about the extent of my social achievement in the past few years. Really, I’m not interested in going to the bedroom (my male mind immediately zeroing in on what’s important), and having to start fumbling around with what goes where. I’m not really interested in pity and/or being humored. I’d like to start a relationship from a position of at least semi-strength, and even if that’s not possible (since 98% of women my age will have vastly more experience), at least I can sustain the illusion of self-respect. But if she’s married, that makes my total lack of experience, compared to her, "official." It’s just too intimidating. I guess respect is important to me. If I have the choice of being "adorably inexperienced," or alone, I might very well opt for the latter.
Response:
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 14:13:36 GMT, "Pumpkinhead" <pumpkin_head060…@hotmail.com> wrote: >> Nah, I’m not going to write to a chick who’s been through an entire >> marriage, whereas I have yet to hold hands with a girl. >I wouldn’t either.
Same here. The divorce could have been because of the girl’s problems. Solitary Soul -> http://users3.ev1.net/~solitarysoul/ —————————————————– I care deeply about the problems of others even though I hate them. – ASStagon
Response:
"Sadi" <sxys…@gmail.com.INVALID> wrote in message
news:1104329468.28f1b37e0ee8b1d38ae98c5d139ee6b1@meganetnews2… > —–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– > Hash: SHA1 > On 29 Dec 2004 12:08:49 GMT, glacierpk…@aol.com (Rainier) > wrote in post: >>…Divorced chicks are the shy men of the dating world. > <snip> >>They’re will to settle for less than their unmarried >>companions. > Wrong. They’ve learned much about men from being married and > will NOT settle.
That’s a whole different can of worms…WTF is "settle"? They’ve decided everything must be perfect? They’re incapable of the give and take and compromises sucessful marriages require? Not "settling" is a great cliche’, but it says almost nothing. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> —–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—– > Version: PGP 8.1 > iQA/AwUBQdK6+RHSUETdEJzmEQJ/PgCfVM4oj/0g/NR55VbenPFlYCgtVuUAoMuv > 43BUOZzdqMDXgWpcjK7cu8vz > =5Nn3 > —–END PGP SIGNATURE—– > — > Sadi > PGP key ID: 0xDD109CE6 (sxysadi) > YAAPG (Yet Another ASS Photo Gallery) > http://sxysadi.spymac.net/yaapg/
Response:
"Solitary Soul" <solitarysoulNOS…@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:jgl5t05ra5s46t7ld9m72cp0ibgci2sef5@4ax.com… > On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 14:13:36 GMT, "Pumpkinhead" > <pumpkin_head060…@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> Nah, I’m not going to write to a chick who’s been through an entire >>> marriage, whereas I have yet to hold hands with a girl. >>I wouldn’t either. > Same here. > The divorce could have been because of the girl’s problems.
Very true, but you can say the same about any relationship that failed – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Solitary Soul -> http://users3.ev1.net/~solitarysoul/ > —————————————————– > I care deeply about the problems of others even though I hate them. > - ASStagon
Response:
…and I find this chick who *just might be* crazy enough to go for me. She’s 25; even says she’s into geeks. Probably not ugly geeks, but whatever. Then I check her marital status. Divorced. Eh. Nah, I’m not going to write to a chick who’s been through an entire marriage, whereas I have yet to hold hands with a girl.
Response:
"Gray Loser" <gray_lo…@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1104308887.579705.56530@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com… > …and I find this chick who *just might be* crazy enough to go for me. > She’s 25; even says she’s into geeks. Probably not ugly geeks, but > whatever. > Then I check her marital status. Divorced. Eh. > Nah, I’m not going to write to a chick who’s been through an entire > marriage, whereas I have yet to hold hands with a girl.
So you’re going to pass on a chick who possibly learned what she does and doesn’t want, what traits really are important to her, and *might* not have her head in her ass. Good idea.
Response:
"Gray Loser" <gray_lo…@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1104308887.579705.56530@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com… > …and I find this chick who *just might be* crazy enough to go for me. > She’s 25; even says she’s into geeks. Probably not ugly geeks, but > whatever. > Then I check her marital status. Divorced. Eh. > Nah, I’m not going to write to a chick who’s been through an entire > marriage, whereas I have yet to hold hands with a girl.
Do it, man. You’ll not make progress unless you try to develop at every available opportunity.
Response:
Otto wrote: >So you’re going to pass on a chick who possibly learned what she does and >doesn’t want, what traits really are important to her, and *might* not have >her head in her ass. Good idea.
He should go for it. Divorced chicks are the shy men of the dating world. They too have been beaten down by life and love. They’re will to settle for less than their unmarried companions. I speak from experience. My first two girlfriends were divorcees. -rainier
Response:
"Rainier" <glacierpk…@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041229070849.23348.00002575@mb-m03.aol.com… > My first two girlfriends were divorcees.
You mean that >400lbs thing was a divorcee?
Response:
CTS wrote: >You mean that >400lbs thing was a divorcee?
She was my 3rd gf. No man in his right mind would marry her! -rainier
Response:
>Then I check her marital status. Divorced. Eh. >Nah, I’m not going to write to a chick who’s been through an entire >marriage, whereas I have yet to hold hands with a girl.
how stupid. she could be the love of your life but because she’s been involved with someone legally or not, you’re rejecting her. you may as well insist on a virgin too. – k i t z – a tiger who lays down to rest is no less a tiger, if you pull it’s tail you will always lose your hide.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Otto Ramone wrote: > "Gray Loser" <gray_lo…@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1104308887.579705.56530@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com… > > …and I find this chick who *just might be* crazy enough to go for > > me. She’s 25; even says she’s into geeks. Probably not ugly > > geeks, but whatever. > > Then I check her marital status. Divorced. Eh. > > Nah, I’m not going to write to a chick who’s been through an entire > > marriage, whereas I have yet to hold hands with a girl. > So you’re going to pass on a chick who possibly learned what she does > and doesn’t want, what traits really are important to her, and might > not have her head in her ass. Good idea.
good points — ———————————————————————— Ms Pnoopie Pnats Usnet Legend http://mspoopiepants.blogspot.com/ ———————————————————————— —————- my socks are off Vic, come and get my feet NOW!! ———————————————————————— —————
Response:
> Nah, I’m not going to write to a chick who’s been through an entire > marriage, whereas I have yet to hold hands with a girl.
I wouldn’t either.
Response:
—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– Hash: SHA1 On 29 Dec 2004 12:08:49 GMT, glacierpk…@aol.com (Rainier) wrote in post: >…Divorced chicks are the shy men of the dating world. <snip> >They’re will to settle for less than their unmarried >companions.
Wrong. They’ve learned much about men from being married and will NOT settle. —–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—– Version: PGP 8.1 iQA/AwUBQdK6+RHSUETdEJzmEQJ/PgCfVM4oj/0g/NR55VbenPFlYCgtVuUAoMuv 43BUOZzdqMDXgWpcjK7cu8vz =5Nn3 —–END PGP SIGNATURE—– — Sadi PGP key ID: 0xDD109CE6 (sxysadi) YAAPG (Yet Another ASS Photo Gallery) http://sxysadi.spymac.net/yaapg/
Response:
kitznegari thinks it has wings <kitzneg…@aol.com> wrote: : >Then I check her marital status. Divorced. Eh. : > : >Nah, I’m not going to write to a chick who’s been through an entire : >marriage, whereas I have yet to hold hands with a girl. : how stupid. she could be the love of your life but because she’s been involved : with someone legally or not, you’re rejecting her. : you may as well insist on a virgin too. My impression is that he’s intimidated by her experience compared to his complete inexperience. Not that he’s rejecting her because she’s not pure enough for his standards. But I could be mistaken. In any case like many of us including myself tend to do, he’s just making excuses not to try. If that continues, so will the loneliness, probably.
Response:
Filed under: Loneliness
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.