The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Women: Catch-22 of prestige? [pensive]
Poast new message in this thread
Date: October 16th, 2005 2:26 AM Author: Sable talking yarmulke Women, alas, create a Catch-22 paradigm in which it is impossible for a man to be prestigious. We cannot allow them to keep doing so.
It's obvious, on one hand, that being a failure with women is not prestigious, because failing at anything is unprestigious. This much should be self-evident. Yet, because many women are such TTTs in terms of their dating choices, their tastes in men being outright low-class and trashy, being successful with women is also not prestigious, because success in this department means that a man adheres to a low-class, loser-fucker metric of human worth that is incompatible with elite values. Either way, the man is entirely unprestigious.
There are, of course, women whose tastes in men are not TTT. Prestigious women do exist, but are rare. (For the purposes of this discussion, we'll consider a woman prestigious if her tastes in men are respectable.) My presumption is that would be most prestigious to find such women, then date and marry only them. The problem is that prestigious women are scattered sporadically about society, and difficult to find. There just aren't enough of them for them to make any measurable difference. I find it very hard myself to find prestigious women when I am looking for them; then again, maybe I'm just not prestigious enough.
However, noting that prestigious women are rare, it's inconceivable that their sparse existence modifies, in any way, the answer to the question at hand: is it better to be attractive to women, or repulsive to them? Of course, the answer is still that neither is acceptable. Both possibilities, as proven above, are TTT.
The only solution to this unprestigious and otherwise intractible Catch-22 is as follows: the women with TTT tastes in men must be subjected to mandatory, government-run re-education programs. Nothing less than 1950s-style brainwashing (without the torture) must be used. Only this will bring us a world where it is possible and safe for a man to be prestigious.
Reporting for civic duty,
-pensive |
 |
Date: October 16th, 2005 2:28 AM Author: Pearl public bath Subject: Should've ran this under your Media Kid account. I don't believe that's a valid criticism of woman at all. Confidence and the willingness to take risks are not "low-class" traits. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4058193) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 2:31 AM Author: Sable talking yarmulke 1. I'm not Media Kid.
2. Confidence and risk-seeking-- which I agree are not low-class traits-- are not enough to pwn women. |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 2:53 AM Author: Concupiscible Turquoise Faggot Firefighter you do sound like media kid!!
no wonder I like your stuff |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 2:54 AM Author: Sable talking yarmulke Haha. We have met, and I've edited one of his essays (for an upcoming magazine column that he's stressing out about way too much). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4058403) |
|
Date: November 7th, 2007 9:13 AM Author: Rose Fragrant Kitty Cat Pocket Flask hahaha (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#8864165) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 2:44 PM Author: Fuchsia offensive dilemma philosopher-king Speak for other women. I only go out with men who buy me things. Now where is Mastodon? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4060246) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 2:59 PM Author: fiercely-loyal misunderstood tank Virgin. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4060374) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 3:04 PM Author: up-to-no-good hyperactive nowag milk Definitely a virgin. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4060418) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 3:07 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke Indeed, but by choice. Very few men with my standards would not be virgins at 22. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4060432) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 3:17 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone completely wrong. most men who are virgins at 22 are either complete losers (whether or not they realize it) or virgins for 100% religious reasons (and probably getting married soon).
which one does the liberal, rational math major who's into gaming and never had a relationship before sound like to you? |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 3:22 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke Well, the reason I've only had one relationship is not my fault, and you know that, having gone to Carleton. Moreover, I do have high standards. You can't expect me to find a girlfriend within 1.5 months in a new city. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4060583) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 3:27 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone zero (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4060629) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 3:30 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke Nah, that counts. It sucked, but it was a real relationship that both of us intended to be long-term. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4060656) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 6:20 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone zero
here's a hint: if she doesn't even dump her actual boyfriend, she probably doesn't intend it to be long-term. (the fact that the experience in question is 6 days long is another strike against this counting as a "relationship." you admitted as much on another thread.) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 7:06 PM Author: indigo greedy love of her life ceo Right, they both "intended" it to be long term but it lasted SIX DAYS?
How does he know what she "intended" it to be. Ridiculous. |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 7:14 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone yup. six days during which the girl was, technically, actually dating someone else (and still was at the end, too). he never mentions that "six days" part when he tries to pass off a pontificating post about "my 'last' [i.e. only] relationship." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4062553) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 8:36 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke She had pretty much broken up with him, but he was in denial about it. Since she got back together with him (briefly) after I dated her, she probably just wanted to pretend I didn't happen. Which is fine as far as I'm concerned. I haven't talked to her since November and I never will. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4063383) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 8:35 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke Answer: she was kind of an idiot about relationships. She was smart about everything else, but after dating a sociopath and a pushover, she didn't know how to make it work longer than 6 days. It was pretty fucking pathetic. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4063372) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 8:53 PM Author: diverse zombie-like house athletic conference Wait, wait, wait. SHE didn't know how to make it work? I thougth she dumped YOU. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4063535) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 8:59 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke It's tough to say who broke with whom; it just didn't work on either side. I wanted to break up with her at Day 4, she changed my mind on Day 5, then decided on Day 6 to break it off. Then, to make her even more schizoid, she guilt-tripped me into being "friends" with her post-breakup. She even promised that we'd get back together in January. Of course, after using me as an emotional tampon for another 2 weeks or so, harping on about the decline of her other relationship, she later decided she didn't even need me for that anymore. Then she called me, one night, needing someone to talk to (again, after she blew me off) and it became clear that she was just using me, so I told her to fuck off. The end. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4063618) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 6:31 PM Author: Stirring demanding heaven jap Dude youre a fucking loser. Get some fucking pussy. Life is passing you by. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4062109) |
Date: October 16th, 2005 2:36 AM Author: judgmental beady-eyed volcanic crater Look, I'm not going to marry you, you tool. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4058240) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 2:37 AM Author: Sable talking yarmulke Did I ask, ever? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4058254) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 2:38 AM Author: judgmental beady-eyed volcanic crater You were thinking it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4058258) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 2:39 AM Author: Sable talking yarmulke I have no idea who you are. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4058269) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 2:40 AM Author: judgmental beady-eyed volcanic crater I have no idea who YOU are! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4058274) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 2:41 AM Author: Sable talking yarmulke ...and yet you claim to know what I was thinking. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4058287) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 2:45 AM Author: judgmental beady-eyed volcanic crater Wanna fuck? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4058319) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 2:47 AM Author: Sable talking yarmulke Didn't you ask that in another thread? I'm pretty sure we're pretty far away.
Even in that off chance that you're in the area, I'd have to get to know you first. I can't see myself sleeping with a random stranger. |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 2:48 AM Author: judgmental beady-eyed volcanic crater Gay. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4058350) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 2:48 AM Author: Sable talking yarmulke How does not wanting to sleep with random strangers => Gay? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4058355) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 2:49 AM Author: judgmental beady-eyed volcanic crater Have you met a gay person lately? They're all about family values now. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4058358) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 2:50 AM Author: Sable talking yarmulke Ok. Well, I wasn't saying this to be rude. If you live in Madison, I'd be happy to go out for drinks with you. I just don't do casual encounters. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4058370) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 2:51 AM Author: judgmental beady-eyed volcanic crater I don't drink. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4058377) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 2:51 AM Author: Sable talking yarmulke Coffee works. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4058380) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 2:53 AM Author: judgmental beady-eyed volcanic crater I'm a witch. I cast spells. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4058393) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 2:55 AM Author: Concupiscible Turquoise Faggot Firefighter the scary part is that this is prob how you talk to guys who flirt with you IRL (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4058406) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 2:55 AM Author: judgmental beady-eyed volcanic crater Guys don't flirt with me IRL. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4058413) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 2:58 AM Author: Sable talking yarmulke I was flirting with a waitress today. (I know that's TTT but this is Madison so the waitresses are all students at a good university, so it's OK.) I said something similar to that. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4058426) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 11:21 AM Author: diverse zombie-like house athletic conference You tried something similar to "I'm a witch. I cast spells"?? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4058948) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 2:28 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke Something silly, not quite THAT silly. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4060115) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 12:36 PM Author: Disgusting razzle-dazzle address hi! madison resident here, too. where do you like to go out to eat? welcome to the city. btw, i'm not a stalker or a freak. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4068446) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 2:55 AM Author: Sable talking yarmulke Well, uhh... we can do that, then. Just only cast nice ones. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4058408) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 2:56 AM Author: judgmental beady-eyed volcanic crater I'm gonna turn you into a TOAD! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4058414) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 2:56 AM Author: heady center do you realize that MCD weighs like 300 lbs IRL? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4058418) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 2:59 AM Author: judgmental beady-eyed volcanic crater At least.
I had to order special elastic underpants off the Internet. |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 2:59 AM Author: Sable talking yarmulke As I said, I wouldn't have a sexual encounter with a random stranger, because there are possibilities like that. I'll go out for coffee with pretty much anyone. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4058428) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 2:49 AM Author: Concupiscible Turquoise Faggot Firefighter you're really starting to grow on me as a poster (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4058361) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 2:49 AM Author: Sable talking yarmulke Thanks. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4058365) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 11:24 AM Author: gold slap-happy property Consider the source before you show gratitude. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4058953) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 11:43 AM Author: cerebral wagecucks A thought: your troubles with women might be less their poor taste and more your third-rate sense of humor and arrogance, here expressed in stilted, fustian prose, but presumably manifest in real life in the infusion of your every move with a richly felt purpose of self wildly disproporionate to your marketability as a sex partner that can't help but send women running away (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4058992) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 11:46 AM Author: gold slap-happy property heehee (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4058999) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 11:48 AM Author: insanely creepy carmine cruise ship famous landscape painting TITCR
I say this every damn pensive thread, but here I go again: Pensive you have a really weird idea of what prestigious means. It is rooted in other people wanting to be like you. You can't just declare yourself prestigious, and doing weird shit is almost categorically unprestigious. |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 3:20 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone Tit-Credit!
http://www.goddesspost.com/largeimage/largeimage.asp?imageurl=large/current/20051015(19_20_15).jpg
he hears it over and over again, but just doesn't get it. |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 3:24 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke What does that image have to do with his post, which by the way is hardly worth responding to at all? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4060600) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 3:27 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone i gave him a Tit-Credit. it's the hot new thing to do. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4060626) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 3:28 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke Oh. But being a loser-fucker, what business do you have involving yourself with a "hot new thing"? You are the type of person who causes a fad to lose its cool.
More generally, how's being a loser-fucker going for you? |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 3:29 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone better than you could possibly know (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4060643) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 3:32 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke Really? It must be great having no aspirations.
Hey, I think your lunch break's over. You should get back to your register, the customers are getting anxious. |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 6:34 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone why do you think i'm a loser? i'm in a successful long-term relationship with a really great, educated girl, i have a nice job with very good income that will allow me to support a family easily--and time enough to see them, too!--and i'm well-respected, and further, well-liked, both in my field and by my friends.
and perhaps most importantly, i don't whine on the internet about how women don't like me and it's "all their fault." |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 8:47 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke Let's start with what I verifiably know about you, without conjecture: (1) you write like a 5-year-old, (2) the highlight of your day is to annoy me on a message board.
These two facts are enough to exclude the possibility of you having a "nice job"; while it's possible that you make a good income, as some kind of six-figure hazmat-cleaner, I guarantee that you're not in a position of responsibility or influence because you're simply not smart enough to handle one. Your claims about your relationship competence are likewise dubious, though perhaps not refuted by your evident stupidity. Finally, given the energy you've out into harassing me, who you've never met, on an Internet message board, I can safely conclude that you're entirely delusional about your "well-liked" status; if your social life were as great as you claim it to be, you'd have no need for this activity. |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 8:54 PM Author: diverse zombie-like house athletic conference Those are fairly good points! But most of them, unfortunately, seem to apply to you just as much or more, IMHO. Just sayin'. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4063549) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 9:00 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke I definitely do not write like a 5-year-old. I do spend too much time on the Internet. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4063631) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 9:02 PM Author: diverse zombie-like house athletic conference Many people don't take the time to write well online, though. Including me, actually. It doesn't mean that I can't write well when I want to. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4063653) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 11:24 AM Author: Sable talking yarmulke Many people don't take the time to showcase their 25-foot schlongs online, though. Including me, actually. (Ignore the fragment, as I'm pwning someone here.) It doesn't mean I can't stop traffic with it when I want to (do so*).
* I'm not a fan of ending sentences with prepositions; it just isn't my thing. |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 2:30 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke I'm amazed that you are accusing me of "fustian prose". However, the problem is womens' poor tastes in men, which are terrible to the point of dysgenesis. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4060146) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 3:06 PM Author: cerebral wagecucks As long as you can't snag a girlfriend, I'll hold fast to the knowledge that at least *some* women are exhibiting good taste. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4060427) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 3:07 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke That doesn't even make any sense. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4060437) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 3:12 PM Author: cerebral wagecucks Not dating you = good taste (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4060480) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 3:15 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke Right... because rapist hulks make better boyfriends, husbands, and fathers than refined gentlemen.
Go back to your TTT life, please. Your time to shine is done. |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 3:22 PM Author: cerebral wagecucks I know brilliant gentlemen who get good, beautiful women. The key? social skills and a sense of humor. But you are afflicted with such a swollen head that you never even attempt to assess why *you* can't get a girl and instead blame it on all girls having poor taste. Unless you change your heart, you will remain a malcontent loser the rest of your life.
Let me help you change your heart. |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 3:25 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke No, I admit that there are a few decent women out there with decent tastes. This explains the men you describe. There simply aren't enough such women to go around. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4060607) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 3:29 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone no. the women don't explain what he's describing...
the men do. read his post again and think "how am i different than those men?" |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 3:31 PM Author: cerebral wagecucks titcr (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4060666) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 3:33 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke No, there are rare women with decent tastes in men, and they should be honored and admired. Alas, there are too few of them. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4060683) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 3:34 PM Author: cerebral wagecucks And you will never get one. So go gay you fag (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4060687) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 3:35 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke Why do you presume I'll never get one? Rarity does not equate to nonexistence. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4060694) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 6:23 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone because you don't have the characteristics of the men who get these good women. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4062012) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 11:25 AM Author: Sable talking yarmulke What are those characteristics, genius?
Also, use fragments only when it suits an aesthetic and stylistic purpose. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 12:27 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone he listed the characteristics in his original post:
"The key? social skills and a sense of humor."
then he even gives you some hints as to why you don't have them:
"But you are afflicted with such a swollen head that you never even attempt to assess why *you* can't get a girl and instead blame it on all girls having poor taste."
and even further, lays out a first step towards reforming yourself and offers his help:
"Unless you change your heart, you will remain a malcontent loser the rest of your life.
Let me help you change your heart."
it doesn't get much clearer than that, douche. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 12:44 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke I'm glad to see that you're quoting your alternate moniker. This is impressive. Let me know when you make a point, because, guess what, you've never met me and if all goes well, you never will. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4068489) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 12:48 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone i'm not evan-2001, dumbass.
the point (and it's been made over and over and over--by many people, from me to evan to GTO, to toothbrush to Joe, to Rowan, and many others--but you ignore it): good women like good men. you're not a good man. you're intelligent to be sure, but that's the ONLY thing you've got going for you. you're narrow-minded, pompous, arrogant, you like to make excuses for yourself, and you treat women poorly. you need to adjust all of those things--things which are inherent in YOU and have nothing to do with anyone else--before you'll even begin to have a chance with women. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 12:50 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke You are such a loser-fucker that I don't even know why I'm wasting my time with you. You've never met me, and you never will, and you spend too much of your time and mine lobbing these idiotic accusations from an anonymous coward account. Do you want to give some credibility to your flame? Out yourself. Otherwise, shut the fuck up you worthless trash coward. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4068527) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 12:52 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone this isn't flame. it's serious advice.
YOU need to change YOU and take responsibility for YOUR actions before YOU will begin to have a shot at one of those "nice girls." |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 12:56 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke Eh, whatever. I realize there are things I could stand to change, and I'm working on them, but I'm not going to take pointers from an anonymous troll on the Internet who exists for the purpose of annoying me. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4068552) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 12:59 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone the first thing you need to change is blaming others IN ANY WAY for YOUR shortcomings.
this goes way beyond "pointers" or little minor things. you need a serious adjustment in perspective.
Rowan made the most valiant attempt to help you--in a very nice way!--but you completely disregarded and belittled her advice, and continued to live in excuse-world. not good. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 1:00 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke You don't know me. You've never met me. You have no idea what has happened, what has not, in my life, and you are not qualified to speak on these matters. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4068570) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 1:02 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone you don't know whether i've met you or not, first of all--and you CERTAINLY don't know if many of my friends haven't met you and formed very strong opinions.
you can take the advice where it comes, or not. like i said, Rowan made by far the most comprehensive and kind attempt, but you dismissed and dissed her. fine. but she told you things that few people are going to tell you in person. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 1:02 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke I care what your friends think. Really, I do. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4068580) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 1:03 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone they include several girls you were pretty attracted to, mike. you certainly seemed to care what they thought of you at the time! ;-) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4068586) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 1:04 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke Here we have another unsupportable assertion. Also, plenty of people thought I was attracted to them when I wasn't. This is the power of wishful thinking. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4068594) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 1:05 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone trust me, they sure as hell were wishfully thinking you'd leave them the heck alone. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4068604) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 1:07 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke Haha funny. 147. Powerscore'll take you into the 150s. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4068621) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 1:55 PM Author: cyan mildly autistic whorehouse round eye i want to cut in on this little flame war, and award you with a medal for bravery in attempting to improve his lack of game.
however, you should be quick enough to realize that a person with the qualities you mentioned is NOT the type that would accept constructive criticism. so in the future retire at about this point, and return to enjoying having sex and a social life
|
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 2:08 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke He hasn't been trying to "improve" my game. He's been annoying me for over 3 months by interjecting himself inappropriately on matters of which he knows nothing. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4068901) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 3:26 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone dumbfuck, think of all the happy families you know (and there are lots of them). are the fathers "rapist hulks"?
essentially, you're just jealous. that's what it boils down to. and by the way, you're the exact opposite of a "refined gentleman."
one of the hottest women i know is married to a math professor. his personality, however, is 180 degrees away from yours. she doesn't give a shit about prestige or whatever--he's just a really nice guy who wouldn't dream of "pwning" anyone or randomly bragging, never talks about prestige, and most certainly doesn't look at women the same way you do |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 3:34 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke Ok, but families are different, because womens' tastes change as they age. After 30 or so, they can't get the rapist hulks anymore and settle for guys with decent personalities.
How am I the opposite of a "refined gentleman"? I am closer to that than you'll ever be. |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 6:28 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone "after 30 or so"?
most women marry by age 25, and in my experience, not "rapist hulks" either. it's wishful thinking on your part, mike, to think that very many women actually have that in mind at any age.
what they want, mostly, are men who are nicer and less self-centered than you are.
and you didn't explain the math prof at all. here's the main thing you should take away from that story: THE MATH PROF IS NOTHING LIKE YOU. that's the key. oh, also, they were both young when they married (25ish). |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 11:30 AM Author: Sable talking yarmulke "most women marry by age 25, and in my experience, not 'rapist hulks' either."
Then you can substitute 25, or 23, or some other number for 30, which I freely admit is probably an exaggeration. I'm not very familiar with what women want post-college.
"it's wishful thinking on your part, mike, to think that very many women actually have that in mind at any age."
Wrong. I wish it weren't the case.
Also, if you think that most women are attracted to "nice guys", then you're even more deluded than I originally thought. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 12:31 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone "Wrong. I wish it weren't the case."
no. you desperately, desperately want it to be true--because then it gives you a way to explain your failings as something other than, well, YOUR FAILINGS.
the fact that women really don't want "rapist hulks" OR "arrogant assholes" (like you) is what really grates on you day and night, driving you to apply the salve of delusion.
women, especially college-educated women, really are attracted to "nice guys." you're not a "nice guy." simple as that. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 12:45 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke I'm definitely not a rapist hulk; I don't consider myself an arrogant asshole but I won't waste time convincing you of it.
Women are definitely not attracted to "nice guys". You are right to say that I'm not a nice guy; I was at one time, and quit. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 12:50 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone it'd be fruitless anyway--i remember that your attempts to convince Rowan (a VERY intelligent girl and the living definition of a "nice woman") that you weren't an asshole failed, so i'll defer to her far superior judgment. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4068526) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 12:52 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke I wasn't really trying. Do you think I spend an inordinate amount of time trying to convince people on the Internet, who've never met me, of my personal characteristics? No, this is schtick, and whatever happens or is said, at the end of the day I laugh it off because I don't care. You're fucking annoying and it would profit the world for you to die, but I don't really think about you at all offline. I have nothing to prove to you, so shut the fuck up. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4068531) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 11:48 AM Author: nofapping chapel oh i get your schtick - you're 'the guy who can't get a woman and writes essays bemoaning the fact' (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4059002) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 12:42 PM Author: Titillating hominid library the sad thing is, it's not schtick. that's him, he just tries to cover for his patheticness by declaring it schtick. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4059235) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 12:45 PM Author: garnet aphrodisiac space In some ways, in many ways women really aren't worth the trouble. But men (including myself) are so horny, we can't see the boring forest for the boring trees. And that's how girls suck us in. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4059245) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 2:28 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke 178 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4060128) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 2:29 PM Author: garnet aphrodisiac space Pensive agrees with me, now I'm fucked.
I mean, not fucked. |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 2:29 PM Author: bearded piazza death wish In the game of life, women are the fucking rake. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4060135) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 2:30 PM Author: garnet aphrodisiac space Are we the leaves? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4060144) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 2:30 PM Author: bearded piazza death wish never saw Rounders? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4060150) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 2:34 PM Author: garnet aphrodisiac space Nope. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4060173) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 2:30 PM Author: flesh quadroon parlor Women are very smart. They "date" TTT men while fucking alphas on the side and having the TTTs raise their super babies. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4060143) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 2:36 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke "Super babies"? Given that the men our society judges to be "alpha" have an average IQ of 92 (this has been proven by studies in criminology) this actually leads to dysgenesis rather than eugenesis. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4060185) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 2:38 PM Author: garnet aphrodisiac space Knowing and using the word dysgenesis may disqualify you from ever having sex.
Women ADMIRE intelligence. They fuck stupidity. |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 2:39 PM Author: Jade harsh cuckold nibblets i fuck intelligence. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4060212) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 2:41 PM Author: garnet aphrodisiac space I think you're unusual. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4060228) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 2:41 PM Author: Concupiscible Turquoise Faggot Firefighter I think she's bullshit (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4060232) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 2:40 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke I think this is pretty much accurate. I think they view us beyond about a 140 IQ as above them, almost on the level of angels, as if having sex with us would defile us. Well, angels we are not. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4060222) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 2:21 PM Author: vibrant arrogant hunting ground doctorate Whoa. You're crazy, man. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4068987) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 2:39 PM Author: flesh quadroon parlor You don't need intelligence if you can manipulate people. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4060211) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 2:41 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke That's a good point.
Congrats on your 10/15age, by the way. |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 2:41 PM Author: flesh quadroon parlor wha? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4060227) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 2:41 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke In the other thread, you announced a pwn. Nice going. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4060230) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 6:39 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone pensive thinks it's cool to use dates to describe even minor events in his life. for example, "9/11" might mean "terrorist attack" to most of America; to pensive it likely means something like "day a girl actually looked at me and didn't turn away in disgust" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4062179) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 11:32 AM Author: Sable talking yarmulke Haha. No, I was copying Media Kid's date-as-verb gig. He invented it, and it can be damn funny. ("Some fatties just got 7/23'd.") (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4068195) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 12:34 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone wrong. you did this stupid thing (which is NOT damn funny, but damn retarded) on your userfile, repeatedly, and you did it in person at carleton too. people made fun of you for it then, years ago. you really ARE delusional if you've forgotten that.
you're not copying anyone--certainly not some poster on a board you didn't know existed when YOU started doing this years ago. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 12:55 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke I don't remember it. Anyway, the phrase derived from "pwn'd" which, as far as I know, didn't even surface until 2004 or so. I could be wrong about that, but I don't recall seeing "pwn'd" or any other variant of "pwn" before that. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4068545) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 12:57 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone i can't believe you didn't check your very favorite source about this. must've been too busy trying to get "douche-[insert inane phrase here]" accepted:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pwn |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 12:59 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke I even said that I wasn't sure when "pwn" originated. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4068566) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 1:04 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone regardless, you've been doing the date thing forever on your userfile. there's some special day in october, isn't there? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4068592) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 1:05 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke That wasn't the date-as-verb thing Media Kid invented. 10/17'd! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4068600) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 1:27 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone you've referred to yourself as [month]-ed and [number]-ed before, for sure. this isn't much of a leap. (and it's just as stupid). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4068710) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 2:09 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke Ah yes, I believe that was from a book or a movie. I don't remember and I don't care. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4068906) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 6:37 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone "Given that the men our society judges to be "alpha" have an average IQ of 92 (this has been proven by studies in criminology)"
provide a cite for that. as most men regarded as "alphas" by society are most definitely NOT criminals, i'm surprised that a study in criminology would even touch upon that. |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 6:42 PM Author: flesh quadroon parlor it wouldn't suprise me. low class women are extremely attracted to them. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4062206) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 7:00 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone this is pretty immaterial. the odds that pensive met even a single honest-to-goodness "low class woman" at either his expensive private LAC or math grad school is damn tiny. yet this is his explanation for why all the girls don't like him in those places. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4062397) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 11:38 AM Author: Sable talking yarmulke There are low-class women from the upper-middle and upper income strata. There were very few women at Carleton who were truly low-class, but the few who were managed to destroy my chances with the higher-class women.
As for math graduate school, there are few women here, and most whom I would consider dating are already my friends, which means that a dating relationship is extremely unlikely. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 11:34 AM Author: Sable talking yarmulke "as most men regarded as "alphas" by society are most definitely NOT criminals, i'm surprised that a study in criminology would even touch upon that."
Your claim is false. I came upon this study years ago, for a HS project, but I'll look for it. It was a study of crime that claimed the average IQ of violent criminals to be 92. Since violent criminals represent the epitome of what most women, at least the women who care about such things, consider "alpha", well... there ya go. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 12:36 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone i'm not disputing that violent criminals have an IQ of 92. (you always miss the point, don't you?)
i'm disputing that any significant number of college-educated women consider violent criminals "alpha males" they'd like to date. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 12:48 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke Women who are attracted to the "alpha male" type are also intensely attracted to violent criminals. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4068519) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 12:56 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone wrong, in general.
women who are attracted to the "alpha male" type are intensely attracted to powerful men with high incomes. a TTT sitting in jail does not meet this criteria. do crazies write Scott Peterson love letters? sure. but you're deluding yourself if you think that represents most women, or really any fraction of educated, successful women. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 12:57 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke Most high-income men are not, and never were, "alpha males". Most CxOs were nerds in high school and college who did most of their social development in their 20s. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4068555) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 1:01 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone we aren't in high school anymore.
the many lawyers on this board seem to do just fine, especially compared to you. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 1:03 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke Yawn. You know nothing about my post-college life, and you need to stop making presumptions. Please let me run my schtick here and stay the fuck out of my way. You're fucking everything up because you annoy the piss out of everyone. Whenever you post in a thread, it pretty much dies because no one else on XO cares what some anonymous loser thinks of me. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4068588) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 1:05 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone your post-college life is like 6 months old, and from your posts, at least, nothing seems to have changed.
resorting to the whole "everything's schtick" defense, I see... |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 1:06 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke 6 months ago was April, you idiot. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4068615) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 1:08 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone i'm counting your infamous first visit to madison as part of your post-college life.
if that's being too generous, that's fine. so you have an even shorter period from which to claim that "everything's different now." |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 2:10 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke You're making a big deal out of nothing. I said something stupid to someone and someone else (not even in the conversation) took offense. I talked to her afterward and she said it wasn't a big deal. Get the fuck over it, because no one remembers or cares but you. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4068913) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 2:33 PM Author: razzle coffee pot menage Accordingly, it would be best to be born a woman.
But wait-- this can't be. |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 2:38 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke What modern society hasn't figured out is how to enact two-sided gender equality. In the 1950s, men had too much power, because there was a glass ceiling in the workplace. Women adapted by learning how to flirt, how to influence men and control them psychologically. They developed superior social skills.
In the 1970s and '80s, a lot of those barriers to womens' advancement were removed, and this is definitely progress. The problem is that women didn't give up the bullshit social power they gained in the '50s, and now they're too powerful. It's probably a pendulum; instead of reaching the goal of gender equality, we'll oscillate between a state where men are too powerful and one where women are too powerful, alas. |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 2:43 PM Author: Concupiscible Turquoise Faggot Firefighter this is very interesting
a new thread should be made out of this: is the power balance in today's society shifting too much to the side of women |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 2:57 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke At our age, the answer is unambiguously yes. It sucks to be a 17-22 year-old male. On a college campus, even an attractive and elite male has nothing on a female that would meet his standards. Girls simply have more power, and while the fact is disgusting, there's nothing one can do about it. This power imbalance is caused by the excess demand: men want women more than women want men. The best solution is to back off and stay out of the struggle, and let some other desperate loser take the punches.
Later in life, though, the power balance shifts, because now it's the older, established men who have lots of options, whereas aging women rapidly lose the ridiculous social power they had in high school college. Moreover, since women abused their power in college, powerful men in their 20s and 30s resent them and will still exclude them from many social circles, among which I include business.
If women gave up the bullshit social power they enjoy in college, they'd probably have a lot more power later in life, and the glass ceiling would disappear. It doesn't exist because men want actively to exclude women, but because after living at a social disadvantage to them during college, we simply don't trust most of them at all, and it affects how far they can advance. |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 3:09 PM Author: Fuchsia offensive dilemma philosopher-king That is what happens when you oppress people. Just look at blacks who were slaves. Now they dominate professional sports, and being a professional athelete is something most any white guy would kill for. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4060446) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 4:09 PM Author: Stimulating indirect expression trailer park Blacks still have no power. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4060935) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 4:06 PM Author: razzle coffee pot menage As a corollary, some might assert that the evolutionary function of homosexuality is to serve as a power buffer zone to ensure a fair struggle between the two major genders. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4060917) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 6:40 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone "In the 1950s, men had too much power, because there was a glass ceiling in the workplace. Women adapted by learning how to flirt, how to influence men and control them psychologically.... The problem is that women didn't give up the bullshit social power they gained in the '50s, and now they're too powerful."
that one statement describes pretty succinctly why most women--ESPECIALLY self-respecting, thinking women--are not even close to interested in you from the second you open your mouth. you ooze arrogance and misogyny. |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 9:14 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke You have never met me, and moreover my thesis is not misogynistic. I believe in gender equality. In the '50s, when men held power over women by hamstringing their career aspirations, that was bad. Currently, with women having a certain bullshit social power that transmutes to an advantage in dating and relationships, that's also bad. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4063815) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 7:18 AM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone see it how you want. but women (especially smarter, nicer women) definitely don't want to date men who hold your views.
go for an attitude adjustment, or remain alone forever--your choice. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 11:33 AM Author: Sable talking yarmulke Obviously, I'll refine my views with increasing experience. My views aren't based on some deep-seated, passionate commitment to one ideology or another. They're based on experience. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4068201) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 12:37 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone so in other words, you're a bitter woman-hater, not an idealistic woman-hater. just as bad, from the girl's perspective, and possibly worse. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4068451) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 12:54 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke I'm not even going to respond to this garbage. You're not making any sense. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4068539) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 1:06 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone i'll put it in simpler terms:
it doesn't matter if you have an airtight case for being so disrespectful to women in general. women (even "nice girls") still won't appreciate it and will ding you for it every time. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 2:15 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke Okay, this may not be clear to you, but XO venting is *not* Happy Fun Time.
I don't dislike women, and I'm not disrespectful to them in general. There are some female misbehaviors that I often see, and I dislike those behaviors. There are also plenty of women I like, who behave well. In fact, I probably like most women I run across. However, XO venting is not a time when I'm going to be talking about how great women are. I'm not going to be balanced, or politically correct, or any of those things that I would otherwise be. Deal with it. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 3:08 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone in your heart of hearts, you pretty much equate women with very random, capricious children. whether or not you're as open about it in real life as you are here, i'm sure you can't hide your true feelings completely in personal interactions (most math/science-oriented people aren't very good at that and i have no doubt that you're not an exception). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4069259) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 3:29 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke "in your heart of hearts, you pretty much equate women with very random, capricious children."
If you're talking about their attractions, that's a pretty accurate model, and surprisingly well-put. 174 has agreed with me on this. With regard to everything else, they're adults. Women will even admit that they're not in control of what they're attracted to, so I don't think this observation qualifies as misogyny so much as pointed criticism. I am very critical, and will admit as much. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 4:49 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone ok, we're getting somewhere, finally.
first of all, just because 174 agrees with you doesn't mean women will still hate it that you think that.
second of all, for a woman to criticize her own flaws and for you to do the same thing are ENTIRELY different situations. the latter is an extreme no-no.
finally, the "i am very critical thing"--whether you admit it or not--is something else that will turn women off. try being kind, cheerful, forgiving, and loving instead. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 5:14 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke I'm being extremely blunt here about my observations. I wouldn't advertise these opinions in a public place, because I realize that they aren't popular among women.
I can be, as you put it, "kind, cheerful, forgiving and loving", but when it comes to women who have pathological, childish, and self-destructive attractions, I just can't. I don't consider it right or even possible to look upon that part of them with anything but contempt. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 6:01 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone it's very simple.
women all mix together, with each other. even if there are women such as you describe, so pure and virginal and acceptable-to-you in their "attractions," they still likely hang out with, befriend, and are frequently around these other women. (and likely THEY don't make the distinction you do--why should they care? they aren't men.)
so, the women you want SEE the way you treat the (vast majority, apparently) of women you have no respect for. you don't have to "advertise your opinions." women are perceptive, and they'll see it in your behavior, your attitude, even the expression on your face when you talk to others. this does not impress them at all. in fact, it turns them off. way off. a gentleman is a gentleman always and to everyone, ESPECIALLY all women. this doesn't mean being "polite" and secretly hating their guts inside (THIS WILL SHOW). it means genuinely seeing the best in the other person and trying to realize that they aren't worthless just because they aren't attracted to men that are carbon copies of you.
your "contempt" for the majority of women will be interpreted even by the subset of women you consider acceptable to be contempt for the entire gender and straight up misogyny (and, frankly, i'm not sure that it isn't. a woman can be prestigious on her own, and STILL have every right to like whatever kind of man she chooses, even if they're not skinny math geeks. the world doesn't OWE you a girl, mike.) Rowan tried to tell you this, repeatedly. she didn't get through--maybe i am now. i hope so, for your sake. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 7:24 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke I find it hard to believe there's this cabal of women communicating their perceptions of my facial expressions and attitudes. I would think they would not pay me so much attention. It can happen at a small LAC but not in the world at large.
I think you're right on the point that I generalize the immorality that I've seen on the college party scene, which truly represents only a few percent, to too wide a sector of the female population. If I could reprogram my mind differently, I definitely would, but I've had too many negative experiences just to ignore them.
"it means genuinely seeing the best in the other person and trying to realize that they aren't worthless"
I have no argument against this statement standing alone, but people whom you have defended have inverted it and more, not only seeing the worst in me but making up *even worse* to suit their slanderous purposes. The fact that you have defended such people destroys your credibility. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 7:27 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone it's not a cabal. it's just that there are so damn many women you consider worthless that it's very unlikely you'll ever be in a situation with ONLY women who you consider up to your standards. if you happen to be rude to even one woman whose dating habits you dislike (or whatever), EVERY WOMAN who is anywhere near her (including the ones you want and the ones you might not know you want yet) is now completely turned off to you, probably for good. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4071328) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 7:34 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke Why do you assume that I dislike such a large proportion of them? I always try to give people the benefit of the doubt. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4071361) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 7:47 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone go back and read your OP. seems like a pretty fair assumption. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4071462) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 8:09 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke I guess it is. I was pretty pissy when I wrote the OP. As I said, xo ranting is not Happy Fun Time. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4071598) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 4:05 PM Author: Frisky Therapy Location I agree with this, in fact .. I posted a thread saying nearly the exact same thing within the past week.
Women still insist on etiquete that was meant for when they were not wage earners. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 4:16 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke I have no problem with showing women etiquette. By and large, I believe in treating people well of either gender. I take issue with the fact that we live in a society that, for whatever reason, gives women an unjustified social power. For example, if a man and a woman have an altercation (not phyiscal) it's usually taken to be the man's fault. If the woman claims that the man is causing her emotional distress, even without backing, it reflects poorly on his social skills. If the man claims such of a woman, people tell him to (I fucking hate this acronym, but it describes the attitude) GOI.
Our society has allowed women to be wage earners and have careers in fields that were traditionally open to men, and that's a great thing. The problem is that society still has other vestigial gender standards that were balanced before, but are now quite unfair to men. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 4:51 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone "By and large, I believe in treating people well of either gender."
don't split your infinitives to sound more pretentious, mr. grammar police. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 4:55 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke There wasn't a split infinitive there. However, I guess a better formulation of the same sentence would be, "By and large, I believe in treating people of either gender well." In this case, both are correct but I believe the latter is slightly better aesthetically, as the former sounds more conversational. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4070168) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 4:57 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone the former is just wrong. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4070180) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 5:05 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke I should consult my Strunk & White, but I believe the former to be correct, though aesthetically it's a bit jarring. I agree that the latter formulation is, in all senses, preferable. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4070233) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 2:52 PM Author: thriller forum roast beef The guy I'm dating is way more prestigious than you. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4060303) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 2:54 PM Author: navy exciting sweet tailpipe university Uh oh. Is that a challenge???? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4060321) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 2:55 PM Author: thriller forum roast beef He can't step to this. Shouldn't even try. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4060333) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 2:57 PM Author: navy exciting sweet tailpipe university Please, pwn pensive by telling us of a more prestigious man who can actually get a woman. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4060360) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 2:58 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke Stephen Hawking's married. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4060366) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 2:58 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke Shrug. I don't know him, and there certainly are men more prestigious than myself in the world. I acknowledge that it is not entirely impossible that primefactor is correct. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4060364) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 7:02 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone you sure? we're talking about a guy who has repeatedly bashed our board's resident Rhodes Scholar on prestige grounds. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4062415) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 8:16 PM Author: thriller forum roast beef My guy pwns him at his own game. And I don't mean Ambition. Nothing against pensive, of course, but I am dating the personification of prestige.
Actually, this may even PROVE pensive's point, if we assume I'm a quality woman. I'm a total eugenist. |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 8:37 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke Well, I don't know who he is, so I can't verify this, and guess what... I don't care. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4063394) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 8:42 PM Author: thriller forum roast beef I'm pretty sure I just supported your point that there are a few girls out there that go for well-mannered genius types. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4063440) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 8:47 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke A few exist, but there are not enough of them. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4063483) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 8:56 PM Author: diverse zombie-like house athletic conference But not those that are pretentious assholes, right? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4063569) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 9:46 AM Author: navy exciting sweet tailpipe university Top 10 math program??? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4067941) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 12:38 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone yeah, it doesn't really take much to beat pensive at his own game, when he goes to the #14 math school... there are 13 schools FULL of kids who beat him! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4068458) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 12:48 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke #13, actually, and I got into Michigan, which is #8. Moreover, you can't equate USNews or NRC to selectivity, which fluctuates wildly from year to year due to unpredictable yield and funding considerations. For example, in the 2004 season, Michigan got more applicants than it expected, then lost VIGRE, thus was rather difficult to get into in the 2005 season. It goes back and forth, and anyway the NRC/USN rankings are of the reputations of the faculty, not students or selectivity. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4068513) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 1:09 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone you aren't at michigan.
the point is, though, that anyway you slice it, there maybe 10 or a dozen schools just full of students who beat you at your own game. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 2:11 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke Is math my only "game"? Anyway, some people want to go into academia, and they may care about the rankings more than I do, because I'm probably not going into academia. Does this make me "beaten" by those who do? Perhaps. I'll certainly concede that it's much harder to get an academic job than a great nonacademic one, but nonetheless, I don't care so much. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4068923) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 6:05 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone math is your only real claim to prestige (certainly the only one that's anywhere close to being accepted as even slightly prestigious by this board). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4070719) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 7:07 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke Um, I'm talented and published in writing and game design, as well.
Admittedly, my lack of any relationship experience is damn unprestigious. Unfortunately, there's nothing I can do about this. I've come to conclude that trying is the worst thing one can do. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 7:24 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone uh, yeah, about that card game thing...
to put it in terms you'll understand, people here consider that WAY less prestigious than publishing an SAT study book.
and actually sharing that with other people? complete buzz-kill. almost as bad as the "d20" remarks. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 7:35 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke "people here consider that WAY less prestigious than publishing an SAT study book."
Perhaps that is true of arriviste trash. I don't care.
By the way, you outed yourself. Hi Joe Caltech! I really did believe you went to Carleton. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 7:45 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone i'm not Joe anymore than i'm Evan, fool. nice try.
the whole board knows that you hate the fact that he has an SAT book. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 7:50 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke No, actually I don't. Lots of people have SAT books. I just think he has no right to play it off as prestigious. I view SAT book writing as similar to plumbing: there's nothing wrong with being a plumber, and a plumber can be prestigious, but it's not innately prestigious to be a plumber.
Joe Caltech actually wasn't a bad poster most of the time-- in fact, I think he could have been a good one-- but he was just a little bit too snooty and belligerent. This is why he got pwned (not that I can take credit, since this was mostly 174 and Media Kid) and run offf the board. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 7:56 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone i doubt you actually see any plumbers as prestigious.
Joe was certainly much less snooty and belligerent than you are. (for example, i can't actually remember any threads where he "played off the book as prestigious")
he was also, most likely, not a virgin. i'm not either, you know, and it's certainly changed my perspective. i recommend you look into that. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 8:02 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke "i doubt you actually see any plumbers as prestigious."
Why? I know plenty of intelligent, articulate people in blue-collar and service professions. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 8:04 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone fine, i retract that, then. just seems very unlikely given your past statements.
still waiting for the "joe brags about an SAT book" posts. |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 4:01 PM Author: insanely creepy carmine cruise ship famous landscape painting Goddammit, will somebody just marry pensive so he will leave us alone? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4060874) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 4:08 PM Author: Stimulating indirect expression trailer park Have you thought about SHUTTING THE FUCK UP? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4060924) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 4:28 PM Author: insanely creepy carmine cruise ship famous landscape painting I take it you are in the same boat as pensive. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4061066) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 4:05 PM Author: Stimulating indirect expression trailer park Would the elimination of females entirely solve this problem? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4060899) |
|
Date: October 16th, 2005 4:12 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke No, it wouldn't. First of all, eliminating the women with decent tastes, in addition to being unjust, would be inefficient. Secondly, I'm convinced that the women with poor tastes can be rehabilitated. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4060950) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 7:43 AM Author: Purple prole background story This is the most hilarious thing I've ever read.
You remind me of bumbling Mr. Bean, only he knows when to shut the fuck up. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 9:20 AM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone titcr (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4067859) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 11:28 AM Author: Sable talking yarmulke Uh-oh, I'm surrounded by TWO sides by low-bred trash! What will I ever do? 174, get me the hose. I need to clean up around here. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4068178) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 12:40 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone define low-bred
my paternal grandfather, the person who i'm most like in my family, by the way, was nobility in "the old country." we're all very well-educated and many members of the family have doctorates. but we're not arrogant assholes like you, and we don't treat women with the utter contempt you do. you seem to roughly equate "good breeding" with "a head so big it's surprising you fit through doors" |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 12:43 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke How'd he get booted from the upper classes and have to come here?
Your diction is that of trailer trash. If what you claim about your family is true, clearly you're an embarrassment to them. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 12:47 PM Author: insanely creepy carmine cruise ship famous landscape painting "Your diction is that of trailer trash."
Do you have any fucking idea what trailer trash sounds like. Trailer trash do not talk about the old country.
HTH |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 12:53 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke He got that out of a book, or from reading one of the schtick posters here. I'm not fooled by this parvenu. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4068536) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 1:11 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone believe it or not, even noblemen (at least the smarter ones!) could appreciate the greater opportunities that America offered over a rapidly-descending iron curtain.
he read the tea leaves, got the fuck out, and we're definitely better off for it. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 2:13 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke I think that you're just trying to make excuses for your poor command of the English language and diction. Frankly, after two generations, you should have taken care of that. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4068938) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 2:19 PM Author: insanely creepy carmine cruise ship famous landscape painting You're not so hot yourself. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4068969) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 2:22 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke That's a step up from "I know you are, but what am I?" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4068989) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 2:28 PM Author: insanely creepy carmine cruise ship famous landscape painting "Frankly, after two generations, you should have taken care of that by now."
Should be: After two generations, you should have taken care of that.
HTFH
|
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 2:31 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke Good call, I'll admit. That wasn't so much an issue of grammar as of redundancy, and against one of the board's most uninteresting and, more importantly, redundant posters it's hard to fault me. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4069046) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 2:29 PM Author: insanely creepy carmine cruise ship famous landscape painting One more thing: PWN3D! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4069032) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 2:30 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke Not really. See above. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4069040) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 2:32 PM Author: insanely creepy carmine cruise ship famous landscape painting Oh, where you got PWN3D?
HTFH |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 2:33 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke That's a fragment. We're even. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4069057) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 2:35 PM Author: insanely creepy carmine cruise ship famous landscape painting No, we are not even. You need to apologize to the poster above. You wrongly insulted his language skills. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4069077) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 2:38 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke His trashy tone would not be justified even by impeccable grammar, which I have not seen from him. His sentence structure and tone indicate loser-fuckerite belligerence. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4069096) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 2:39 PM Author: insanely creepy carmine cruise ship famous landscape painting examples, with criticism? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4069102) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 2:47 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke There are plenty. He often makes snooty remarks and then, to be even less subtle, puts an inappropriate exclamation point after it. He must have borrowed this from Joe Caltech, because I've seen him do it too and it's annoying as fuck. No well-bred person would do this to make a point. There are, of course, times when exclamation points are appropriate (very sparingly!) but usually they're unnecessary and the opposite of subtle. This is just one of the stylistic cues regarding the station and vindictive slant of "can't edit me away!" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4069136) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 3:10 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone mm-hmm! still didn't see an example! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4069275) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 3:30 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke Haha 173. I admit, that was the perfect retort. With minor reservations, I award you your first Pensive 17x. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4069474) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 1:47 PM Author: cyan mildly autistic whorehouse round eye In need of a messageboard where you can find an abundance of virgins who are amazingly old enough to vote?? And not only are they vocal about their embarassing virginity, they are so proud of it that they will write essays on how it results from factors beyond their control!
i love xoxo |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 2:12 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke Actually, it results predominantly from my high standards, which I can control. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4068930) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 2:21 PM Author: cyan mildly autistic whorehouse round eye ok, so let's go with this supposed fact that you could easily pick up women, but just "choose not to because they aren't good enough for you"
it would then logically follow, given your current "dating statistics", that you simply haven't met so much as one single, attractive & intelligent (or whatever makes up your qualifications) girl in your life
i find this extremely hard to believe, unless you are a total social recluse (possible)
|
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 2:24 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke It's not so much a question of "good enough". I talk to a lot of women, but very rarely do I feel any kind of spark. This isn't necessarily because they aren't "good enough" for me; I just don't feel any attraction. It takes more than for a woman to be attractive, single, and intelligent.
I wish I were attracted to more women, because I probably would have a better life, but I can't just "make" myself be attracted to more people. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 2:39 PM Author: cyan mildly autistic whorehouse round eye youre right in that you would have a better life; not every relationship has to have some kind of mind blowing 'spark' in order to be a good thing for both people involved.
having some average, run of the mill relationships give numerous benefits: for one thing bedroom skills are not innate, practice is necessary with at least a few different women to reach a high level. also, what you think you are looking for in another person can change after experiencing commited relationships with different people.
sometimes the only way you can get to know a girl is through a longer relationship (think >3-4 months of dating) where you get past all the bullshit and get to know what they are really like. their objective qualities might not be what you think are sufficient, or enough to cause what you are qualifying as "attraction", but then you get to know them their subjective ones often can shine through.
once you take this advice seriously, you might start to realize you need to work on other things, like technique and tact in dealing with girls. which I think the other poster was leaning towards, albeit in a very flame baiting way. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 2:45 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke I think you're right about this. My hang-up is that I think it's wrong to continue dating women when I don't think the spark is likely to form. Despite the arrogant posturing, I know that my social skills (especially in relationships) aren't the best, and I don't know how I would handle the situation of having to break off a relationship when I realized it wasn't going anywhere, that the "spark" or romantic love would never emerge. However, fear of difficult situations is not something I should let block me.
Another problem I face is that I analyze too damn much. This is why I don't/can't use online personals; at least to me, they're a venue where I analyze the crap out of people before I even know anything real about them. That, or I get turned off by grammatical errors and "4 u 2" cute-speak. (I'm sorry, but it's important to me that a woman confidently indicate that, intellectually speaking, she can hold her own.) If I stopped analyzing so much and just accepted that I can't really control this aspect of my life with deliberation and planning, I'd probably be more relaxed and feel the spark much more often. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 2:14 PM Author: Bat-shit-crazy hairy legs surprising that this got any, much less nearly 200 responses (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4068941) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 2:16 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke Yeah, and about 150 of them are me and this other douche.
I don't know why this guy gets so much pleasure about annoying me at every chance he gets. I was making a simple statement and it didn't need a 200-post flamewar. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 2:26 PM Author: Bat-shit-crazy hairy legs i wasn't intending to denigrate the post. you certainly didn't oversell it. the response just seems disproportionate to the content. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4069019) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 2:28 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke I agree with that. I've noticed that this happens with 174 and Media Kid posts, and to a lesser degree, with mine. People are obsessed with us. (Though, truthfully, in my case it's more accurate to say that one person is obsessed with me.) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4069026) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 2:33 PM Author: insanely creepy carmine cruise ship famous landscape painting HAHAHAHAHA! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4069061) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 2:42 PM Author: vibrant arrogant hunting ground doctorate Pensive, you're insane.
|
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 2:48 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke I'm here. Draw your own conclusions. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4069139) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 2:55 PM Author: vibrant arrogant hunting ground doctorate Seriously, though, you're shooting yourself in the foot with these theories. Do a serious self-evaluation and get realistic. The truth is, women DON'T want "hulking rapists," they want someone who is caring and funny and fun to be around. You can be intelligent and be these things. I'm young, so I'm not speaking from personal experience with being married, but I can tell you from observing my parents and their friends (all of whom, pretty much, are in academia) that a happy, healthy, normal relationship with a reasonably attractive woman is completely possible for nerdy men to have. The reason you don't have one isn't your brains, it's your personality. That is all.
You can change your personality. Go to it. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 3:13 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone ti,oc,tcr
i've been harping on the "hulking rapists"/women-want-smart-guys-who-are-also-actually-good-people thing for awhile now, and he can never quite get past that. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 3:39 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke "The truth is, women DON'T want 'hulking rapists,' they want someone who is caring and funny and fun to be around."
My experience may be a bit slanted. I won't go into the details of my college experience (which have already been hashed about this site) but, essentially, some very bad people spent more than a year ruining my reputation, out of a grudge that emerged for very stupid reasons. This made it impossible for me to have a dating life until senior year, at which point I was fixated more on leaving than building new roots. It was impossible for me to be natural, much less confident, in a social environment where I had no room to breathe. The worthless loser-fuckers even told the one girlfriend I did manage to get that she shouldn't be dating me. Since I couldn't date through normal channels, I was forced to look for women in the "party scene", which is sketchy from the start. Women in the party/club scene are after rapist hulks, though this may not describe all women. I guess the overarching theme is that my judgments are based on a possibly nonrepresentative subset of women. Still, after seeing some much evil, it's hard to shake it away and forget.
The biggest problem with my personality, in terms of women, is that I'm aloof and unapproachable. While most of my XO schtick is arrogant posturing, this is a "blue-blooded" personality trait that I have. Alas, in real life, it's not prestigious; it's a trait that I'd do better to get rid of. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 4:56 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone OK, with the party scene qualification, i'll let you keep the "hulk" part (where "hulk" could be taken to mean, also, the non-muscled, easygoing person who dresses well and carries himself confidently--but not arrogantly!--in addition to athletic types), but you have to lose the "rapist" descriptor, still. no woman wants to be with a rapist.
note that very, very, very few of the women you're encountering now or other than actually AT parties are into the "party scene" though. so this is still not an excuse. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 5:11 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke The party scene was the only place I could meet women at Carleton. I dated (by which I mean "went on dates with") at least ten, and the loser-fuckers would interject themselves behind my back. This made it imposssible to be natural, much less confident, about the whole thing. So the only place I could meet women was within the anonymity of the party scene.
You're completely wrong about the party scene. Neanderthals, also described as "rapist hulks", are the only men who do well in that scene. "Rapist hulk" doesn't necessarily mean that a man is actually a rapist, just that he is the type that would be willing to be gravely inconsiderate in order to get what he wants. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 5:20 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone keep thinking this, and keep getting dinged. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4070380) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 5:33 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke Well, given how much immorality goes on in it, I don't plan on pursuing the party scene. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4070474) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 6:02 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone it's your whole attitude. doesn't matter whether you're in the party scene or not. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4070695) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 7:05 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke Well, okay then. I'll admit that my attitude, largely based on the immorality that I see on the party scene, may be skewed. I also realize that many relationships exist that don't have anything to do with the party scene, and I don't have a clue how those work, but I understand that it's a long and arduous process getting into one. Since that process is opaque, usually does not happen in public, I know very little about it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4071197) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 7:31 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone actually, it's usually very short and not at all arduous. (the relationship itself might eventually be arduous, but getting into it is usually very light-hearted and simple). most people meet pretty randomly, even those in long-term relationships. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4071348) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 7:40 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke "it's usually very short and not at all arduous. (the relationship itself might eventually be arduous, but getting into it is usually very light-hearted and simple)."
This sounds like magical thinking to me, as if one can wave one's hands and suddenly have a girlfriend through a "light-hearted and simple" process. Most guys I know who have or had desirable girlfriends took months to set it up. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 7:47 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone you just have the wrong view of this whole thing. "took months to set it up"? come on. these are human relationships.
you think of it far too much like stalking prey and setting a trap. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 8:04 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke This is how a lot of people think. I'm trying to put relationships entirely out of my mind, only because I hate that way of thinking about other people.
The problem is that men who are too successful with women objectify them; men who aren't successful enough hate them. There is a happy medium (which, I would say, would be one great relationship without the trappings of the "player"/Don Juan lifestyle) but it's rare and tough to find. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 8:22 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone there are plenty of men who have had several long-term relationships and don't look at women as prey or consider them unworthy if they've dated people the man doesn't like in the past. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4071701) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 8:27 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke I'm sure there are some, just as there are some prestigious women. In general, though, one doesn't become attractive to many women without becoming somewhat of a bad person. Sure, good people attract some women, but it's definitely not the norm. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4071735) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 2:58 PM Author: Stirring demanding heaven jap It is plainly obvious that you are afraid of pussy. The only way to get over this is to just dive right in. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4069191) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 3:32 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke How, though? I'm not going to just choose a random woman on the street and try to make her my girlfriend. I think that would probably be unsuccessful, not to mention desperate and ridiculous. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4069492) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 3:53 PM Author: Frisky Therapy Location Subject: disolving the illusion of a catch-22 There is no such thing as a prestigious women.
Edit: Changed my mind about the explaination. Women just by-and-large have bad taste in men. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 4:10 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke That's true for most of them, but doesn't the possibility of a prestigious woman give enough hope to try? It's just discouraging that there aren't enough of them.
There are some women who make good choices of partners. While one explanation would be that they are simply incompetent at having bad taste, a more likely alternative is that there are a few women with good tastes, just (as said repeatedly) not enough. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 4:12 PM Author: Frisky Therapy Location Your view is predicated on a conception that women have static tastes. I think all women's tastes are dynamic, and so none of them are prestigious in that they will only pursue prestigious men. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4069817) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 4:18 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke That's a good point. So, do you believe that every woman is on some level attracted to losers?
If a woman's attracted to loser-fuckers, rapist hulks, or bad boys, then that's disgusting and intolerable. However, it's possible that a woman's tastes are acceptable, but she misreads an unprestigious man as quite the opposite. It's okay to make mistakes-- I've made some unprestigious decisions myself-- but it's another matter to have pathological, perverse, or evil attractions. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 4:39 PM Author: Frisky Therapy Location Yes. Every woman on some level is attracted to losers.
Women's nurturing instinct makes them want to save loser-fuckers, their desire to be with powerful men is co-opted into the desire for rapist hulks and both play into the want for bad boys.
I don't think they are evaluating incorrectly.
I have some additional comments, but am sensitive about giving out personal information. I'll leave it at this: I have known well (in all senses) women who at the outset gave every indication of being prestigious. As I knew them better the veneer wore off, and they are primitive beasts (not ladies).
|
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 5:02 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke I believe that this is possible, and certainly describes some cases. For example, the attraction of women who should know better to loser-fuckers is clearly explained well by noting the maternal instinct. In fact, I find it very astute that you've noted that "bad boys" combine the aura of power with the opportunity and temptation to "fix" them. Of course, contradictions abound; the bad boys are unsalvagable, and if fixed, they would no longer be desirable. (They would be lifted into the world of civilization, in which they are not powerful, and would lose their alpha-dominant characteristics.)
I still hope that you're wrong that "every" woman is like this. You're certainly correct to note that there are women who "at the outset [give] every indication of being prestigious", later to prove to be less than that, but is it not possible that this is a failure of our judgment? Women whom I now find repulsive seemed attractive when I was younger; could it not be the same with these faux-prestigious women? This leaves open the possibility that prestigious women do exist, and my experience has led me to believe that they do, though rare. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 5:17 PM Author: Frisky Therapy Location I'm curious because you say "my experience has led me to believe that they do." Please elaborate.
Your analysis of the contradiction of the bad boy attraction, is very well done (I commend you).
I too hope that I am wrong that every woman is like this, but Bayes' theorem does offer me some help in this regard. I can't deny it is possible that women exist who are prestigious, but I am ready to say it is so unlikely that I can safely disregard the possibility.
Consider the following: I have interacted with maybe 5,000 women. Suppose I have an ability to detect prestige with 75% accuracy. Suppose further I make 100 times as many errors finding prestigious women, unprestigious as the opposite. Given these very liberal assumptions, I should have encountered at least one prestigious woman by now (I haven't done the math but it seems right), that I haven't suggests that the sample of prestigious woman in the population (assume here meaning college educated women) is very very small.
Thoughts? |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 5:23 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone i can't believe you kept him going with this this long. :-)
(p.s. pensive--you've been had. and the fact that you didn't realize it only reinforces the point of every rational poster above.) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 5:37 PM Author: Frisky Therapy Location Nah, I think its an interesting discussion. I have done some very good bait and pwns before, but I respect pensive and am interested in what he has to say about this. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4070510) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 6:06 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone no real people think of personal relationships this mathematically. (except, of course, for pensive.)
you're doing him a real disservice by reinforcing his skewed view on this. :-/ |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 5:35 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke I don't think you've interacted with 5,000 women, and certainly not an unbiased sample, at any level of depth that would allow you to gauge prestige. To judge prestige or anti-prestige, you'd have to know a bit about her dating behaviors, how her attractions work, and it's unlikely that you'd see 5,000 women under this microscope. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4070494) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 5:46 PM Author: Frisky Therapy Location A lot of the bias should in prestige enhanching ways (relative to population as a whole), given the places I am. The other likely bias has to do with age (I can't speak to how this affects prestige), but I have not met any women of any age I find prestigious.
Maybe 5000 is too large a number, regardless I can safely conclude that prestigious women are a small segment of the population. As I interact more, I revise my assumption about how small a segment they are, and I think that they are nil.
I agree I haven't looked at a very large sample of women under the micrscope. You can model this by having two prestige detection phases, a superficial prescreen one with a higher accuracy (but provides less information) and an in depth deep screen with lower accuracy (per unit time) but providing more information. I didn't want to get too complicated, so I just tried to come up with a general test. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 6:09 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone "To judge prestige or anti-prestige, you'd have to know a bit about her dating behaviors, how her attractions work..."
this is ridiculous. if Marie Curie or Margaret Thatcher happened to like big, strong men, would you call them unprestigious?
do you define men as prestigious by how their "attractions work"?
you have a completely messed-up view of women. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 7:33 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke "if Marie Curie or Margaret Thatcher happened to like big, strong men, would you call them unprestigious?"
First of all, I don't know what you mean by "big, strong men". Body type has nothing to do with this. Loser-fuckers come in all shapes and sizes.
Moreover, consider this example: You work in a small, tight-knit firm. The senior partner is a man whose judgment and ethics you respect highly. In all ways, you consider him prestigious. You find out, at some point, that he hires strippers and pays them to undergo some unmentionable, but brutal, degrading, and gruesome sexual acts. This will affect your opinion of him. He becomes less prestigious.
Unprestigious sexual behaviors demote a person's prestige, irrespective of gender. Yes, a man loses prestige because of unprestigious attractions. Case in point: myself, freshman year. While not explicitly seeking them, I ended up getting attracted to some horrible, nasty women. I paid for it for three years (and psychologically even still) and still have a love life (or lack thereof) that is by far the most unprestigious aspect of my life. Taste matters, and bad taste is extremely unprestigious. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 7:37 PM Author: Concupiscible Turquoise Faggot Firefighter you're awesome
could you elaborate on what you mean by these unmentionalbe sexual acts? |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 7:41 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke I didn't have any in mind. You can consider Marv Albert for an example, but I was making the general point that unprestigious sexual behaviors are enough to make a person unprestigious, and using the male example to indicate that this doesn't just hold for women. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4071411) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 7:51 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone body type has nothing to do with this, in your mind? this mythical "hulking" rapist you go on and on about (coupled with the laments that women don't appreciate your "aristocratic" features) would seem to disprove that.
you grossly misinterpret your freshman year experience. your troubles had nothing to do with being attracted to "nasty women." |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 7:54 PM Author: Multi-colored idiot So hulking rapists are the guys that girls allegedly go for? LOL. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4071498) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 7:57 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone this is in pensive-world.
note that he evaluate's a female's worth based ENTIRELY on her tastes in men:
"(For the purposes of this discussion, we'll consider a woman prestigious if her tastes in men are respectable.)"
"To judge prestige or anti-prestige, you'd have to know a bit about her dating behaviors, how her attractions work..."
essentially, the way the scale works is that the closer a woman's "type" is to pensive, the more prestigious she must be! |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 8:10 PM Author: Frisky Therapy Location I can't resist just pointing out how dumb you are. You put "entirely" in all caps, and then quote two things which say dating behavior is relevant (or a proxy for the purposes of this thread).
"the closer a woman's 'type' is to pensive, the more prestigious she must be." -- Again you are dumb. Pensive, like the other good posters here, is smart and accomplished, so in that sense this is true, but this is not the central criterion either.
To be honest I feel bad for you. It must be difficult going through life not being able to understand subtelety or nuance and having to say things in all absolutes.
HTH. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 8:20 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone hi pensive! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4071681) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 8:22 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke Grover's Law: In any message board thread, the probability of some poster being accused of being someone else approaches one. This ends the argument.
Corollary: The person who makes the accusation has lost the argument.
We're done now. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 8:23 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone you did it first. twice.
pwned. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 8:25 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke If it'll end this counterproductive argument, I'll be pwned.
Why do you post in my threads anyway? |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 8:33 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone for two reasons:
you frequently mislead the board and i feel the need to correct it.
i want to help you get to the point where you have a healthy enough attitude towards woman and life in general to have a relationship, and i (like Rowan and many other posters mentioned in this thread, most of whom you eventually lash out at for saying things you don't like) believe that that won't happen until you take responsibility for your life and your history, find some humility, and above all stop looking at interpersonal relationships and women's feelings as things that can be quantified, categorized, or even really judged. is it a lost cause? probably. but you need to be brought around, or you're going to die alone and a virgin, and that's sad.
it's high time i had some dinner now, anyway. but really, "calling me out" on something you've done twice in this thread alone? TTT, man! |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 8:43 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke Yeah, I pretty much lost at the end, when I Grover's Law'd you after having broken it twice myself. That was unprestigious. Chalk it up to the long day and the homework multi-tasking. (Okay, I know this is a poor excuse, and you could probably say the same, but we'll go with it for now.)
Why do you think I mislead the board? I have a skewed perspective and some miserable past experiences, but it's not like I intentionally try to deceive people. I've just seen enough fucked-up shit for five lifetimes. If I become a novelist, I'll be thankful for all I've seen because I have endless material for angst and conflict. It's not a good foundation for healthy relationships, though, and it's unfortunate that I couldn't get this during college. I really wanted to spend my college experience having fun, developing socially, rather than being immersed in some sick gothic fantasy that a few loser-fuckers found it curious to inflict upon me (and many others).
I've taken responsibility for a lot in my life and past, but then there's the stuff that's just shit. You can't do anything with it, except hope it doesn't repeat. I would never try to destroy a period of someone's life just because I didn't like how he acted in one tricky, confusing instance. The concept that this can or should happen is beyond me. No one gained anything.
Anyway, that's enough rehash for one night. Enjoy dinner, and don't flame xo too hard. :) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 8:41 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone oh, and additionally (perhaps it'll make you listen to me more. probably not.):
am i a long-time poster with another moniker (several others, in fact)? yes. i was posting here long before you showed up.
am i any of those that you've guessed? no. i'm pretty anonymous and not "out."
did i go to carleton? yes.
have i ever talked to you in person? no.
have i seen you in person? yes.
was i in your class? no.
do i have many friends in your class? yes.
do i like you? well, not really.
do i honestly want to help you have a better life? yes, actually, i do. and i see my function as shocking you out of your old ways.
and that's all i'm going to say about that. night. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 8:47 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke I think your friends in my class are pretty damn biased on everything they've told you. I've met a lot of great people at Carleton, but there were also some L-Fs, who seem to have found their way into every niche-- rich/poor, educated/not-- of society.
I think the lesson that I've learned from Carleton is that, when you're in a place full of great people, it's best to ignore the L-Fs. One can't beat them all, and will eventually get pwned, Gulliver's Travels-style, in trying so. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 8:11 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke Well, for the purposes of this thread, yes I did choose to evaluate prestige in such a way. This thread doesn't encompass all of life. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4071618) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 7:57 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke You know nothing about my freshman year. I will readily acknowledge that I made a number of mistakes, one among which was that I had horrid tastes in women, both in terms of whom to approach and how to approach them.
"Rapist hulk" has a lot more to do with an attitude and demeanor than with body type. It may be an attitude that is rare in 4'10, asthmatic men, because they probably couldn't pull it off, but that's an irrelevant detail. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 7:58 PM Author: Adulterous mind-boggling sneaky criminal telephone perhaps you did have horrible tastes in women, but that was far from your main mistake. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4071530) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 8:06 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke No, it was the main one. I admit that I didn't have the best social skills at the time, but that wouldn't have been a big deal if I hadn't mixed up with some horrid people. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4071578) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 8:00 PM Author: Multi-colored idiot SHUT THE FUCK UP and finish your math homework!! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4071541) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2005 8:07 PM Author: Sable talking yarmulke I'm multi-tasking. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#4071585) |
|
Date: November 7th, 2007 10:44 AM Author: grizzly hot liquid oxygen windowlicker Is this the fuckwit who also went by the moniker "no" who was harassing Medea a few months ago? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=279655&forum_id=2#8864336) |