I can understand your wanting to be sure. Wouldn't we all like that? It would save so much time and trouble. Problem is, even in RL, it just doesn't work that way. You have to place your bet before the horses leave the post.
Maybe I'm not getting this straight, but it seems you were particularly concerned that he couldn't say why he didn't like the other gal he met. Natural enough for you to ask, yes, but to be fair...is it really your business? Also, it's possible that rather she did not like him, hmmm?
If this apparent contradiction is really so common, I'd guess the reason may partly be the sign-up process. New members filling out their profiles first go through a checklist, part of which includes the "type of relationship" question. Only after they've completed the whole checklist are they confronted with the requirement to spend at least 400 characters describing their ideal match. Many new users may not even realize the two apparently contradictory statements will then appear side-by-side.
Or, as Homer Simpson put it, "I'll tell you why. Because they're stupid, that's why. That's why everybody does everything."
It's a good idea and a fine recommendation. Needn't be a "date" with a potential "mate" either. There are many fine folk of both genders here spread around the world, and most anywhere you might go, there's likely someone who could at least give you the insider's view of their own hometown.
No clearly you did not understand it and still do not. I took exception when the OP mischaracterized my beliefs. How would you like it if someone posted that those of your belief system worshipped the Great Pumpkin, or ritually murdered infants?
The OP and I long since settled this simple matter of misstatements. I cannot see what your interest in the matter is, other than to save face after your first remarks went so badly awry.
Pardon me, Mr. Hasty. I am no Christian, rather an avowed atheist. I found the original post insulting because the OP claimed it would be "of no interest to the non-religious" (untrue, as it interested me) and that even atheists "believed in Nostradamus" (untrue, as I do not). Since both remarks referred quite specifically to my belief system, I voiced my objections.
Ooh now, just to clarify, it was not I who suggested such in the first place, but rather faceless, impersonal, corporate management, all of whom spend their work-free days barefoot in the park, and thus have no shoes to walk a mile in.
I've been on both ends. It's hard to judge from either side how much is friendly attention and how much is pesteriferous hovering.
I was once employed by a large & well-known bookstore chain. We employees were told quite bluntly that frequent shopper attention, such as saying "Hi, how are you? Can I help you find anything?" was not only good service, but also a shrinkage issue: shoplifters, presumably, would think twice after having drawn an employee's attention.
That might well be true, but it also sent the message that all customers were potential shoplifters, thieves, scum. Probably not the attitude the home office meant to convey.
I of course have been a customer in many stores. When and if I have a question, I expect to find some staff available to answer it. On the other hand, if I'm busy browsing, I don't like being interrupted by someone who suspects I'm a shoplifter, a thief, scum.
So it seems to me, it's easy to complain about "poor service" in a store without naming names. That way you can just blame "them" without recognizing that each staffer is some individual person, maybe trying their best, maybe poorly or wrongly trained, maybe just like you. Try walking a mile in their shoes first and see how they fit.
Your scholarship seems sound, and I applaud your erudition. Whether I or anyone else agrees with your interpretation is not relevant, at least not to me. However, your introductory remarks contain two wholly erroneous statements, as I have highlighted. Both reflect wrongly on me and on others who share my belief system. Please refrain from such speculations in the future.
And I, my friend. I'm sure you realized the irony in your original post yourself, right?
But here the conversation takes a darker and more disturbing turn. Are we, chatting in cyberspace, really as sad as Serene's post suggests? In other words, is this conversation that both you, Tunnelwary, and I seek, is it really some blank imposture, a fake, a mirage?
I've been rejected on all three grounds, numerous times. But what really hurt was when I applied for a mortgage and the banker said, "Well, you're old enough, and you're a handsome fella, but your personality sucks."
Dagosto Forum Posts (3,076)
RE: Paris allows women wearing trousers?