Thanks, it was great (though I probably should've gone heavier on the tranquilizers ).
As for dating not being possible online, this is the sum total of what you're claiming (please correct me if I'm wrong): Dating consists of physical interaction, therefore it cannot occur online (or via phone, videocamera, etc.). I'm just wondering what essential truth you believe is being conveyed by that claim with respect to relationships? It's like saying: "If you can't touch them, you can't kiss or otherwise make love to them?" True. And so...? What logically follows?
Dear lord, Laura, sounds like you've got your love-assembly line all greased up and ready to roll!
Clearly, not all romances proceed in that strict order - nor is there any compelling reason why they must. Perhaps this is what you require (or think you require), but some here obviously don't. [Insert obnoxious emoticon here.]
Hmmmm...I think if you apply this same (implicit) standard, there would be no such thing as an online relationship.
Perhaps, relying on technical semantics, it's not dating - not in the formal sense of seeing each other in person and doing things in person together...but I'm not sure that amounts to anything more than victory by definition. The key question is can you develop a relationship online, not satisfy some technicalities with respect to relating.
You can do some VERY important things vis-a-vis relating by phone or email - namely, TALK! Which reminds me, I have a lunch date with GG in a few minutes. I'd better go get my beer, sandwich, and tranquilizers.
Note, among countless examples, how insurance companies recently strong-armed Pelosi et al into changing mild penalties to draconian ones for failing to pay the healthcare tax. Corporations and individuals purchasing government power is standard-issue fascism, and is and has been present on all levels of the USG since, well, most of the past one and a half centuries.
The only change is the accelerating expansion of business-owned government in the past couple of decades.
I think your partner's interest in your past, your present - everything about you - indicates his interest in you. If he doesn't want to know about these things, he doesn't want to know you (or is afraid to know certain things about you...which ultimately reduces to the same thing).
How he or she responds to that information...well, that's another question altogether.
Jeffrey...surely you're not claiming that your relationship didn't proceed as a result of your own choices all along the way? Lacking an ironclad plan or a clear initial intention doesn't dispute that, does it? You chose to develop the relationship, knowing its expiration date.
So the question remains: What did you hope to gain from it?
(I'm not trying to bust your balls, A. But this is a question that begs to be answered, doesn't it?)
I think you're one of the most fair-and flexible-minded gals here, L. You think about yourself in a way that should be an example for others, in my opinion - you're extremely honest and open to new insights.
Hmmmm... Just had a thought: what about those millions of people who don't file taxes? I wonder what the IRS (which I believe is supposed to be the collection agency in Obama's healthcare scheme) will do about them. Should be interesting.
Considering your past, Jeffrey, that's more than understandable. In your case, at least, it's obvious that you WANT to trust. And with your intelligence and experience, I suspect it wouldn't take you years to know what you need to know about someone.
COngratulations, by the way, on your new relationship. I hope you take what you need from it.
I've often considering creating a thread on the question of how we regard our own kissing/lovemaking skills.
What I be correct in assuming that everyone here regards themselves as great kissers and lovers (that they require that of others logically seems to imply that)?
RE: Is it the right thing to trial Khalid Shaikh Mohammed,9/11 mastermind, in a civilian court?
Exactly what I was thinking. I'd rate the odds that this guy is any more than a government shill as approaching zero.