First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Marriage
6151 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / 30.4894° N, 86.54...
Offline
Posted 10/12/14 , edited 10/12/14

Hayagriva wrote:
For the last time... If you're including MORE people, socially speaking, you are MORE likely to find someone you really hit it off with. I don't know WHY this is so hard for you. My only explanation is you're either trolling me, or trying to justify your own choices to someone else, which I don't give a damn about.


An argument could be made for either of your stances:

Meeting more people does make the likelihood of meeting the "right one" increase (in a complete vacuum or using math outside of reality); otherwise you're potentially investing a ton of time into the wrong people thus making an argument for meeting less people (but more age/whatever appropriate for you) valid.

Same with the online vs. offline debate: First off, what do you guys consider to be "random"? Is it people who fall way outside your marriage parameters? If I go to a local place that I like and meet people there within my age group, it's hardly random and I have good chances of making a connection; similarly, if I use certain search criteria to narrow down my online search for "the one," the people I meet become very much less "random." Online would seem more random because there are more people, but all of them are looking for someone (which can't be said for everyone you'd meet walking around town). So in effect, online dating sites are pretty much always going to be less random as a percentage of total people (rather than a number) when compared to running into people in person who may not even be interested in a partner.

It comes down to who wants to be more correct (or less incorrect). Like with all never-ending arguments, the person who "wins" the battle is the one who refuses to lose; though they win in their mind, the person who concedes defeat has won the war.

Edit: Also, one shouldn't bother to look up another before or during a debate to cloud their perception of the other; an argument should be judged solely on the merit of the immediate content, not the quality of the individual outside the box. And on that note, age is only a very rough indicator of the potential wisdom/logic one possesses. You don't always have to experience everything first hand to learn.
51225 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 10/12/14

DivinePrince wrote:


Eh. Over %80 of marriages dont last. REAL love is being with the person without the binding contracts.



But is that because of the fact that those people signed some papers, or is it because they signed some papers without even knowing if they want to spend their lives with the other person? The paperwork isn't a binding contract that forces you to be with someone you don't like. The paperwork is just a piece of paper that says you love being with the person and you go through with it after you've already decided that you love the person. I think your basing your assumptions of marriage based on what a lot of stupid teenagers and young adults do these days. Most people these days are only interested in looks and money. That doesn't just apply to marriage. That's relationships in general. You date someone who you really don't know at all and then you get carried away and marry them, then end up leaving them. That can happen with or without signing legal papers. You can love someone enough to start a family with them and grow old together with them without having to sign anything and call it marriage. It just won't be legally recognized by the government. That's really all the paperwork does.


Hayagriva wrote:

You're the one who keeps talking about standards. The original poster didn't, and I didn't either. It was nowhere in the conversation.

YOUR misinterpretation was where I said that I wouldn't mind finding the right girl, but also that I do not look for her, and I accept the consequences of that. I mentioned it because the original poster has clearly not made such a decision. He changed his mind later, so the whole conversation was moot. I also wouldn't mind winning the lottery, but I don't buy tickets every week. I do not therefore grumble about not winning the lottery. What part of that needs clarification? You would have to PURPOSEFULLY misunderstand that. Which you did.

YOU, however are the one who brought standards into the picture with your first post responding to mine. I wasn't talking about standards, and neither was he. If anything was confused after that, it was because you derailed the entire conversation by making it about something else. Probably about you.

Yes, you. Things started to become a little clearer after I looked at your profile. Thousands of posts. Sizable CR points. No buddies. I'm betting you're one of those who prides themselves on their "intelligence," and justifies their lack of intimate social interaction with "standards." All the pieces fit. Vehement defense of standards (which nobody was even talking about) and about meeting people online instead of in real life. I'm betting you go around trying to stuff yourself into conversations so you can display your preconceived notions. Or, possibly, you're just trolling me.


I think I'm getting mixed messages from you. On one hand you say people who want a relationship should go out and meet more people instead of limiting themselves to less people. But then when I say that people who want a relationship should search for the person they think is right for them, you spend the rest of your argument trying to say I'm wrong and that they shouldn't make an effort to meet someone they think would be an ideal partner for them. What exactly are you trying to say?


For the last time... If you're including MORE people, socially speaking, you are MORE likely to find someone you really hit it off with. I don't know WHY this is so hard for you. My only explanation is you're either trolling me, or trying to justify your own choices to someone else, which I don't give a damn about.


Again, I interpreted what you were saying one way and asked you to clarify. If I interpreted wrong, it was from your lack of clear wording. I didn't purposely misunderstand what your wrote, as if that's even possible. I didn't derail anything. You said something on topic, I asked you to explain what you were saying, and that's all there is to it. You're the one who had to turn this into such a heated debate.

The fact that you had to analyze my profile because you ran out of stuff to add to your argument is a little sad. About the "no buddies" thing, I've had a lot of requests but I never accepted anybody. It's not because I want to be rude and turn them down. It's just that I don't see much of a reason for having "buddies" on CR. Also, most of the people who sent me requests were people who I've never seen before and tried to randomly befriend me, so that played a role in it too. I can get all the social interaction on CR that I want from the forums and on comment sections. No reason for me to chat in private groups or whatever it is that being "buddies" with someone does. Anything more than that would just take up time that I put into my studies and my private time, which I can't go into detail about.

How am I the one trolling? Every time I said something, you kept saying something similar and then disagreeing with what I said. Every time I asked you to clarify yourself, you kept your same routine. You were either being extremely vague on purpose or you honestly don't understand your mistakes.
572 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / Canada
Offline
Posted 10/12/14

PhantomGundam wrote:


DivinePrince wrote:


Eh. Over %80 of marriages dont last. REAL love is being with the person without the binding contracts.



But is that because of the fact that those people signed some papers, or is it because they signed some papers without even knowing if they want to spend their lives with the other person? The paperwork isn't a binding contract that forces you to be with someone you don't like. The paperwork is just a piece of paper that says you love being with the person and you go through with it after you've already decided that you love the person. I think your basing your assumptions of marriage based on what a lot of stupid teenagers and young adults do these days. Most people these days are only interested in looks and money. That doesn't just apply to marriage. That's relationships in general. You date someone who you really don't know at all and then you get carried away and marry them, then end up leaving them. That can happen with or without signing legal papers. You can love someone enough to start a family with them and grow old together with them without having to sign anything and call it marriage. It just won't be legally recognized by the government. That's really all the paperwork does.


Hayagriva wrote:

You're the one who keeps talking about standards. The original poster didn't, and I didn't either. It was nowhere in the conversation.

YOUR misinterpretation was where I said that I wouldn't mind finding the right girl, but also that I do not look for her, and I accept the consequences of that. I mentioned it because the original poster has clearly not made such a decision. He changed his mind later, so the whole conversation was moot. I also wouldn't mind winning the lottery, but I don't buy tickets every week. I do not therefore grumble about not winning the lottery. What part of that needs clarification? You would have to PURPOSEFULLY misunderstand that. Which you did.

YOU, however are the one who brought standards into the picture with your first post responding to mine. I wasn't talking about standards, and neither was he. If anything was confused after that, it was because you derailed the entire conversation by making it about something else. Probably about you.

Yes, you. Things started to become a little clearer after I looked at your profile. Thousands of posts. Sizable CR points. No buddies. I'm betting you're one of those who prides themselves on their "intelligence," and justifies their lack of intimate social interaction with "standards." All the pieces fit. Vehement defense of standards (which nobody was even talking about) and about meeting people online instead of in real life. I'm betting you go around trying to stuff yourself into conversations so you can display your preconceived notions. Or, possibly, you're just trolling me.


I think I'm getting mixed messages from you. On one hand you say people who want a relationship should go out and meet more people instead of limiting themselves to less people. But then when I say that people who want a relationship should search for the person they think is right for them, you spend the rest of your argument trying to say I'm wrong and that they shouldn't make an effort to meet someone they think would be an ideal partner for them. What exactly are you trying to say?


For the last time... If you're including MORE people, socially speaking, you are MORE likely to find someone you really hit it off with. I don't know WHY this is so hard for you. My only explanation is you're either trolling me, or trying to justify your own choices to someone else, which I don't give a damn about.


Again, I interpreted what you were saying one way and asked you to clarify. If I interpreted wrong, it was from your lack of clear wording. I didn't purposely misunderstand what your wrote, as if that's even possible. I didn't derail anything. You said something on topic, I asked you to explain what you were saying, and that's all there is to it. You're the one who had to turn this into such a heated debate.

The fact that you had to analyze my profile because you ran out of stuff to add to your argument is a little sad. About the "no buddies" thing, I've had a lot of requests but I never accepted anybody. It's not because I want to be rude and turn them down. It's just that I don't see much of a reason for having "buddies" on CR. Also, most of the people who sent me requests were people who I've never seen before and tried to randomly befriend me, so that played a role in it too. I can get all the social interaction on CR that I want from the forums and on comment sections. No reason for me to chat in private groups or whatever it is that being "buddies" with someone does. Anything more than that would just take up time that I put into my studies and my private time, which I can't go into detail about.

How am I the one trolling? Every time I said something, you kept saying something similar and then disagreeing with what I said. Every time I asked you to clarify yourself, you kept your same routine. You were either being extremely vague on purpose or you honestly don't understand your mistakes.


All I see is you re-enforcing my opinions. Good job.
731 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Denver
Offline
Posted 10/12/14

UnComikal wrote:


Hayagriva wrote:
For the last time... If you're including MORE people, socially speaking, you are MORE likely to find someone you really hit it off with. I don't know WHY this is so hard for you. My only explanation is you're either trolling me, or trying to justify your own choices to someone else, which I don't give a damn about.


An argument could be made for either of your stances:

Meeting more people does make the likelihood of meeting the "right one" increase (in a complete vacuum or using math outside of reality); otherwise you're potentially investing a ton of time into the wrong people thus making an argument for meeting less people (but more age/whatever appropriate for you) valid.

Same with the online vs. offline debate: First off, what do you guys consider to be "random"? Is it people who fall way outside your marriage parameters? If I go to a local place that I like and meet people there within my age group, it's hardly random and I have good chances of making a connection; similarly, if I use certain search criteria to narrow down my online search for "the one," the people I meet become very much less "random." Online would seem more random because there are more people, but all of them are looking for someone (which can't be said for everyone you'd meet walking around town). So in effect, online dating sites are pretty much always going to be less random as a percentage of total people (rather than a number) when compared to running into people in person who may not even be interested in a partner.

It comes down to who wants to be more correct (or less incorrect). Like with all never-ending arguments, the person who "wins" the battle is the one who refuses to lose; though they win in their mind, the person who concedes defeat has won the war.


This argument actually only exists because he de-railed the original conversation to make it (probably) about his own personal choices. It's only still going because obstinate people annoy me.

One of my best friends online or off I met in a chatroom. Another one I met strictly offline and it's been that way ever since. Another one I've had since high school.

To illustrate another point, I like smart girls. If I were on the hunt, so to speak, I'd probably go to intellectual events, or bookstores. Anyone I even SEE at such an event would tell me three things : one, whether or not I'm attracted to them, two, whether or not they're taken, and three, their probable intelligence. Should I actually speak to someone, I would acquire far, far more information more quickly than I would online, and certain things could not be lied about like they can on the internet. I fail to see how that's less efficient than checking out random profiles that people can lie about, even with a hefty survey attached to it.

In any case, not limiting your choices is actually only as far as my original argument went. A lot of people go to work, and come home, and that's kind of it for them. That's FINE, until they start griping about why they aren't meeting people. You never know who you're going to meet, or where. The fewer instances you have of that, the worse your odds are. I never proposed to push the argument farther than that, which is why people arguing about it annoys me. I never said it was impossible to have good friends or a partner from online only, or vice versa. It was only ever about the odds, and taking personal responsibility for choices. That always rubs people the wrong way, and to that I say "too ****ing bad."
6151 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / 30.4894° N, 86.54...
Offline
Posted 10/12/14

Hayagriva wrote:


UnComikal wrote:


Hayagriva wrote:
For the last time... If you're including MORE people, socially speaking, you are MORE likely to find someone you really hit it off with. I don't know WHY this is so hard for you. My only explanation is you're either trolling me, or trying to justify your own choices to someone else, which I don't give a damn about.


An argument could be made for either of your stances:

Meeting more people does make the likelihood of meeting the "right one" increase (in a complete vacuum or using math outside of reality); otherwise you're potentially investing a ton of time into the wrong people thus making an argument for meeting less people (but more age/whatever appropriate for you) valid.

Same with the online vs. offline debate: First off, what do you guys consider to be "random"? Is it people who fall way outside your marriage parameters? If I go to a local place that I like and meet people there within my age group, it's hardly random and I have good chances of making a connection; similarly, if I use certain search criteria to narrow down my online search for "the one," the people I meet become very much less "random." Online would seem more random because there are more people, but all of them are looking for someone (which can't be said for everyone you'd meet walking around town). So in effect, online dating sites are pretty much always going to be less random as a percentage of total people (rather than a number) when compared to running into people in person who may not even be interested in a partner.

It comes down to who wants to be more correct (or less incorrect). Like with all never-ending arguments, the person who "wins" the battle is the one who refuses to lose; though they win in their mind, the person who concedes defeat has won the war.


This argument actually only exists because he de-railed the original conversation to make it (probably) about his own personal choices. It's only still going because obstinate people annoy me.

One of my best friends online or off I met in a chatroom. Another one I met strictly offline and it's been that way ever since. Another one I've had since high school.

To illustrate another point, I like smart girls. If I were on the hunt, so to speak, I'd probably go to intellectual events, or bookstores. Anyone I even SEE at such an event would tell me three things : one, whether or not I'm attracted to them, two, whether or not they're taken, and three, their probable intelligence. Should I actually speak to someone, I would acquire far, far more information more quickly than I would online, and certain things could not be lied about like they can on the internet. I fail to see how that's less efficient than checking out random profiles that people can lie about, even with a hefty survey attached to it.

In any case, not limiting your choices is actually only as far as my original argument went. A lot of people go to work, and come home, and that's kind of it for them. That's FINE, until they start griping about why they aren't meeting people. You never know who you're going to meet, or where. The fewer instances you have of that, the worse your odds are. I never proposed to push the argument farther than that, which is why people arguing about it annoys me. I never said it was impossible to have good friends or a partner from online only, or vice versa. It was only ever about the odds, and taking personal responsibility for choices. That always rubs people the wrong way, and to that I say "too ****ing bad."


Oh. Then there is no further reason to continue this conversation. Have a glorious battle of words without me!
51225 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 10/12/14

DivinePrince wrote:


All I see is you re-enforcing my opinions. Good job.


This is going to be harder than I thought. What I'm saying is that marriage isn't a piece of paper that tells you to be with someone. Marriage is deciding to commit to the person you love. After you've already spent some time thinking about how much you want to be with them, that's when you can go to sign a paper that says "hey, we want to let you know we're married!" If you don't want to go through all that legal stuff, you can still live with someone and call him your husband. It's just that ceremonies and legal papers are more formal. And wow, you reply fast.
731 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Denver
Offline
Posted 10/12/14

PhantomGundam wrote:


DivinePrince wrote:


Eh. Over %80 of marriages dont last. REAL love is being with the person without the binding contracts.



But is that because of the fact that those people signed some papers, or is it because they signed some papers without even knowing if they want to spend their lives with the other person? The paperwork isn't a binding contract that forces you to be with someone you don't like. The paperwork is just a piece of paper that says you love being with the person and you go through with it after you've already decided that you love the person. I think your basing your assumptions of marriage based on what a lot of stupid teenagers and young adults do these days. Most people these days are only interested in looks and money. That doesn't just apply to marriage. That's relationships in general. You date someone who you really don't know at all and then you get carried away and marry them, then end up leaving them. That can happen with or without signing legal papers. You can love someone enough to start a family with them and grow old together with them without having to sign anything and call it marriage. It just won't be legally recognized by the government. That's really all the paperwork does.


Hayagriva wrote:

You're the one who keeps talking about standards. The original poster didn't, and I didn't either. It was nowhere in the conversation.

YOUR misinterpretation was where I said that I wouldn't mind finding the right girl, but also that I do not look for her, and I accept the consequences of that. I mentioned it because the original poster has clearly not made such a decision. He changed his mind later, so the whole conversation was moot. I also wouldn't mind winning the lottery, but I don't buy tickets every week. I do not therefore grumble about not winning the lottery. What part of that needs clarification? You would have to PURPOSEFULLY misunderstand that. Which you did.

YOU, however are the one who brought standards into the picture with your first post responding to mine. I wasn't talking about standards, and neither was he. If anything was confused after that, it was because you derailed the entire conversation by making it about something else. Probably about you.

Yes, you. Things started to become a little clearer after I looked at your profile. Thousands of posts. Sizable CR points. No buddies. I'm betting you're one of those who prides themselves on their "intelligence," and justifies their lack of intimate social interaction with "standards." All the pieces fit. Vehement defense of standards (which nobody was even talking about) and about meeting people online instead of in real life. I'm betting you go around trying to stuff yourself into conversations so you can display your preconceived notions. Or, possibly, you're just trolling me.


I think I'm getting mixed messages from you. On one hand you say people who want a relationship should go out and meet more people instead of limiting themselves to less people. But then when I say that people who want a relationship should search for the person they think is right for them, you spend the rest of your argument trying to say I'm wrong and that they shouldn't make an effort to meet someone they think would be an ideal partner for them. What exactly are you trying to say?


For the last time... If you're including MORE people, socially speaking, you are MORE likely to find someone you really hit it off with. I don't know WHY this is so hard for you. My only explanation is you're either trolling me, or trying to justify your own choices to someone else, which I don't give a damn about.


Again, I interpreted what you were saying one way and asked you to clarify. If I interpreted wrong, it was from your lack of clear wording. I didn't purposely misunderstand what your wrote, as if that's even possible. I didn't derail anything. You said something on topic, I asked you to explain what you were saying, and that's all there is to it. You're the one who had to turn this into such a heated debate.

The fact that you had to analyze my profile because you ran out of stuff to add to your argument is a little sad. About the "no buddies" thing, I've had a lot of requests but I never accepted anybody. It's not because I want to be rude and turn them down. It's just that I don't see much of a reason for having "buddies" on CR. Also, most of the people who sent me requests were people who I've never seen before and tried to randomly befriend me, so that played a role in it too. I can get all the social interaction on CR that I want from the forums and on comment sections. No reason for me to chat in private groups or whatever it is that being "buddies" with someone does. Anything more than that would just take up time that I put into my studies and my private time, which I can't go into detail about.

How am I the one trolling? Every time I said something, you kept saying something similar and then disagreeing with what I said. Every time I asked you to clarify yourself, you kept your same routine. You were either being extremely vague on purpose or you honestly don't understand your mistakes.


There was nothing to add to my argument since you've been willfully misunderstanding it from the beginning. It can't be stated simpler, and you haven't acknowledged it yet. That's why I asked if English was your first language, because it's the only time I've ever run into such a phenomenon. That, and trolls.

So in other words, you've closed the door on potential CR buddies. This is the exclusivity I was pointing out, and the fallacy of such for people wanting to socialize. Nothing stopped you from having a conversation with any of those people to justify them trying to add you. But I know the "aloof, superior" type all too well. Nobody in that inner circle because of your "standards". More likely fear. But that isn't necessarily judging you. Only if you were "wondering" or even complaining about a dead social life. I might ask you how you know you won't meet someone of some value to you on here? I personally think you like having that blank list through some perverted sense of exclusivity. Not to be offensive, but that's where your age shows.

In effect, in a mild way, this was what the original poster was doing. Closing doors, but he was also complaining. I pointed that out. Nothing more, and nothing less. Again, I said nothing about standards in my original post. You drew that from the conversation through some misinterpretation, willful or benign, of your own accord. You made that mistake. My mistake was thinking your first post was discussing something I had ACTUALLY said to him, rather than what you had interpreted yourself. I thought you were disagreeing with my open-door policy on meeting people. Which technically you were, and are, and is why we had a heated debate, because that's not what the original topic was.
731 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Denver
Offline
Posted 10/12/14

UnComikal wrote:


Hayagriva wrote:


UnComikal wrote:


Hayagriva wrote:
For the last time... If you're including MORE people, socially speaking, you are MORE likely to find someone you really hit it off with. I don't know WHY this is so hard for you. My only explanation is you're either trolling me, or trying to justify your own choices to someone else, which I don't give a damn about.


An argument could be made for either of your stances:

Meeting more people does make the likelihood of meeting the "right one" increase (in a complete vacuum or using math outside of reality); otherwise you're potentially investing a ton of time into the wrong people thus making an argument for meeting less people (but more age/whatever appropriate for you) valid.

Same with the online vs. offline debate: First off, what do you guys consider to be "random"? Is it people who fall way outside your marriage parameters? If I go to a local place that I like and meet people there within my age group, it's hardly random and I have good chances of making a connection; similarly, if I use certain search criteria to narrow down my online search for "the one," the people I meet become very much less "random." Online would seem more random because there are more people, but all of them are looking for someone (which can't be said for everyone you'd meet walking around town). So in effect, online dating sites are pretty much always going to be less random as a percentage of total people (rather than a number) when compared to running into people in person who may not even be interested in a partner.

It comes down to who wants to be more correct (or less incorrect). Like with all never-ending arguments, the person who "wins" the battle is the one who refuses to lose; though they win in their mind, the person who concedes defeat has won the war.


This argument actually only exists because he de-railed the original conversation to make it (probably) about his own personal choices. It's only still going because obstinate people annoy me.

One of my best friends online or off I met in a chatroom. Another one I met strictly offline and it's been that way ever since. Another one I've had since high school.

To illustrate another point, I like smart girls. If I were on the hunt, so to speak, I'd probably go to intellectual events, or bookstores. Anyone I even SEE at such an event would tell me three things : one, whether or not I'm attracted to them, two, whether or not they're taken, and three, their probable intelligence. Should I actually speak to someone, I would acquire far, far more information more quickly than I would online, and certain things could not be lied about like they can on the internet. I fail to see how that's less efficient than checking out random profiles that people can lie about, even with a hefty survey attached to it.

In any case, not limiting your choices is actually only as far as my original argument went. A lot of people go to work, and come home, and that's kind of it for them. That's FINE, until they start griping about why they aren't meeting people. You never know who you're going to meet, or where. The fewer instances you have of that, the worse your odds are. I never proposed to push the argument farther than that, which is why people arguing about it annoys me. I never said it was impossible to have good friends or a partner from online only, or vice versa. It was only ever about the odds, and taking personal responsibility for choices. That always rubs people the wrong way, and to that I say "too ****ing bad."


Oh. Then there is no further reason to continue this conversation. Have a glorious battle of words without me!


I was actually enjoying your third-party arbitration. I said something. He heard something else. Clarification has thus far made zero difference. That's all this time-wasting nonsense has been.
6151 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / 30.4894° N, 86.54...
Offline
Posted 10/12/14 , edited 10/12/14

Hayagriva wrote:
I was actually enjoying your third-party arbitration. I said something. He heard something else. Clarification has thus far made zero difference. That's all this time-wasting nonsense has been.


Sometimes that happens. Regardless of how much sense one is making there is usually (at least) one party that has a stake/bias rooted in one aspect of the debate such that both parties might ultimately agree but be arguing different topics... somehow. I've experienced such things.
51225 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 10/12/14

Hayagriva wrote:

There was nothing to add to my argument since you've been willfully misunderstanding it from the beginning. It can't be stated simpler, and you haven't acknowledged it yet. That's why I asked if English was your first language, because it's the only time I've ever run into such a phenomenon. That, and trolls.

So in other words, you've closed the door on potential CR buddies. This is the exclusivity I was pointing out, and the fallacy of such for people wanting to socialize. Nothing stopped you from having a conversation with any of those people to justify them trying to add you. But I know the "aloof, superior" type all too well. Nobody in that inner circle because of your "standards". More likely fear. But that isn't necessarily judging you. Only if you were "wondering" or even complaining about a dead social life. I might ask you how you know you won't meet someone of some value to you on here? I personally think you like having that blank list through some perverted sense of exclusivity. Not to be offensive, but that's where your age shows.

In effect, in a mild way, this was what the original poster was doing. Closing doors, but he was also complaining. I pointed that out. Nothing more, and nothing less. Again, I said nothing about standards in my original post. You drew that from the conversation through some misinterpretation, willful or benign, of your own accord. You made that mistake. My mistake was thinking your first post was discussing something I had ACTUALLY said to him, rather than what you had interpreted yourself. I thought you were disagreeing with my open-door policy on meeting people. Which technically you were, and are, and is why we had a heated debate, because that's not what the original topic was.


If you weren't trying to add anything to your argument, what was the point of digging through my profile? I read your initial post a certain way and asked you to explain. You continuously replied by agreeing with me and disagreeing with me at the same time using ambiguous wording. How many times do I have to say this before you finally understand? It's like I'm talking to a brick wall. You question my English skills and yet you're the one who can't write a simple post. You've made very little effort to explain your posts. Don't act like you've already simplified everything. You mostly kept restating the same confusing message over and over again. That's not an explanation. I'm surprised someone in his 30's is having this much difficulty understanding English.

I'm not making an active effort to keep potential CR buddies out of my social circle. I just don't care enough to add people. You keep making all of these assumptions about me in order to make it sound like you actually have a point. The fact that you keep coming up with all these things to add to your argument shows how desperate you're getting. Just watch. I can predict exactly how your next reply to me is going to go down.

Posted 10/12/14
To each their own. It can be beautiful, while it lasts...
731 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Denver
Offline
Posted 10/12/14 , edited 10/12/14

PhantomGundam wrote:


Hayagriva wrote:

There was nothing to add to my argument since you've been willfully misunderstanding it from the beginning. It can't be stated simpler, and you haven't acknowledged it yet. That's why I asked if English was your first language, because it's the only time I've ever run into such a phenomenon. That, and trolls.

So in other words, you've closed the door on potential CR buddies. This is the exclusivity I was pointing out, and the fallacy of such for people wanting to socialize. Nothing stopped you from having a conversation with any of those people to justify them trying to add you. But I know the "aloof, superior" type all too well. Nobody in that inner circle because of your "standards". More likely fear. But that isn't necessarily judging you. Only if you were "wondering" or even complaining about a dead social life. I might ask you how you know you won't meet someone of some value to you on here? I personally think you like having that blank list through some perverted sense of exclusivity. Not to be offensive, but that's where your age shows.

In effect, in a mild way, this was what the original poster was doing. Closing doors, but he was also complaining. I pointed that out. Nothing more, and nothing less. Again, I said nothing about standards in my original post. You drew that from the conversation through some misinterpretation, willful or benign, of your own accord. You made that mistake. My mistake was thinking your first post was discussing something I had ACTUALLY said to him, rather than what you had interpreted yourself. I thought you were disagreeing with my open-door policy on meeting people. Which technically you were, and are, and is why we had a heated debate, because that's not what the original topic was.


If you weren't trying to add anything to your argument, what was the point of digging through my profile? I read your initial post a certain way and asked you to explain. You continuously replied by agreeing with me and disagreeing with me at the same time using ambiguous wording. How many times do I have to say this before you finally understand? It's like I'm talking to a brick wall. You question my English skills and yet you're the one who can't write a simple post. You've made very little effort to explain your posts. Don't act like you've already simplified everything. You mostly kept restating the same confusing message over and over again. That's not an explanation. I'm surprised someone in his 30's is having this much difficulty understanding English.

I'm not making an active effort to keep potential CR buddies out of my social circle. I just don't care enough to add people. You keep making all of these assumptions about me in order to make it sound like you actually have a point. The fact that you keep coming up with all these things to add to your argument shows how desperate you're getting. Just watch. I can predict exactly how your next reply to me is going to go down.



I dug through your profile because of this:

I made point A.

You heard point B.

I tried telling you I didn't make point B.

You made point B again. Repeatedly. Even though I was never originally talking to you, nor was it originally your thread to begin with. There was no linguistic editing to be done. Unfortunately for you, I always double-check my statements if an argument surfaces to see if it was my own lack of clarification. This time you're just shit out of luck, kid.

Therefore there had to be some reason why you were hammering away at something NOBODY WAS TALKING ABOUT. I opted for "personal investment." I discovered you do not closely socialize with anyone, at least online, and probably offline. Do I know that for sure? No. Do I bet that I'm at least partially right? Oh yes, absolutely.

It was not even a bunny hop to assume you were doing nothing more than reinforcing your own social decisions at somebody else's expense. Or trolling. To my surprise (not really) all of the pieces fit. It wasn't the fact that you "misunderstood" and went off base. You went off base, and no amount of explanation was good enough for you. That's what gave it away.

So much for your amazing predictions, Kreskin. The last one doesn't count, it's a childish attempt to box me in.

Meeting more people doesn't mean you have lower standards. There's nothing ambiguous about it. It doesn't mean you have good taste. You'd have to be a complete moron to interpret it that way. If you're still having trouble with that, congratulations.
18904 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 10/12/14

Valentina_Romanov wrote:

To each their own. It can be beautiful, while it lasts...


you don't think it could last?
14 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F
Offline
Posted 10/12/14
Married to my best friend on 11/1/2011, just over three years now, I don't know what I would do without him. I think anyone should be able to marry anyone else, regardless of gender.
Posted 10/12/14

imbrreezzy 
8311 cr points
Send Message:
22 / M / NY
Offline
Permalink Reply Quote Posted 30 seconds ago

Valentina_Romanov wrote:

To each their own. It can be beautiful, while it lasts...

you don't think it could last?

It can and for some it does. This nation has one of the highest divorce rates on record though. We can only hope for the best
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.