I've always liked the idea that the bathroom is a refuge from technology. I don't want to be obligated to answer emails when I'm in there. Bad enough my boss can get me after hours on my phone. Never mind that it sounds profoundly unsanitary, we've traded away so much of our ability to just think and be still and not rush thanks to work and technology that there are some things that should be sacrosanct. Like using the toilet, or having a bath or a shower. If you're constantly shoving information in, you never get to process how it really impacts you.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to take my laptop outside and do some gardening.
This. I work in UX and I get so frustrated when I see perfectly good websites get ruined by the addition of all kinds of ads. Sure, you might make a few cents per click on a banner or a big box, but for god's sake, just design a good site and a good product and your reputation alone will more than make up for piddly ad revenues. Don't you have enough faith in the value of your product to let it ride on its own?...I guess not *sigh*
Heh, even if the geography was better, being twice your age would be a no-go for me:)
Sure, message me your handle and I'll add you. I really only use mine for work, so I'd rather not post it here.
I won't disagree completely, but I would stipulate that it really depends on a lot of things--how the woman interprets those jokes on that given day, the tone in which they're made, just how overt they are, and yeah, to some degree, how interested she already is. If I could express it as a mathematical formula, there'd be something about the level of existing attraction as compared to the level of offensiveness posed by the jokes. A (her attraction) +/- X (her mood) over O (his offensiveness) +/- Y (his tone)=p (where p is the possibility of getting a second date:P)
Ok, when you frame it in that context, I can see it working--a joke here and there, just to see the reaction; that would be less likely to alienate someone than the full-on "I'm a prick and you love me for it" dance.
"Honey, you're crushing their hydrangeas. Couldn't you at least roll off to the side a bit?
Sometimes, as another commenter pointed out somewhere else on this post, it's just a matter of timing.
Good luck with it--I hope it works out for you:) It really is like interviewing for a job. You can't take it personally or let it get to you when it flops. Expect nothing and you'll be pleasantly surprised. And that guy--he's definitely not representative. Some guys are shits, some women are shits, but there are lots of great people out there./little f'n ray of sunshine
I disagree about its usefulness as a filter. For me the cockiness doesn't filter out whether I've felt lukewarm about a guy or not--I used to be all-systems-go for the emotionally ambivalent guys; loved the chase of it, I suppose. What the cockiness does is let me know that this is a guy who will push me away over and over because he isn't really capable of letting me in, and if I don't walk away, I will waste a lot of time trying to convince him to let me in, and I will get hurt because it will end the way it always does: crashing and burning.
YMMV, of course...
That's unfortunate. I wonder what their intent was in sending a wink, then. Were they only intending to pay a casual compliment and leave it at that? Were they looking for a hookup and real questions turned them off? Did they just get cold feet?
I was on Match for a few months and my experiences there ranged from disappointing to horrible. I went out on a date with a lawyer seven years my senior who farted audibly at the table and then forced a kiss on me at the end of the date. Like, grabbed me rather roughly by the back of the head and tried to shove his tongue in my mouth. That's just not cool, not for a first kiss and not on a first date. I barely knew him and that made me feel really unsafe.
So yeah. I would definitely recommend OKC over Match. Match was a waste of my time and money, and I shudder to think what could have happened had I actually let that guy drive me home. OKC, I've had some amusingly bad dates, but nothing I couldn't laugh about afterward, and right now I'm actually seeing someone pretty awesome that I met through the site. Funny thing is, for all of my talk of initiating, he messaged me first, so sometimes persistence does pay off. He just happened to see me before I saw him, I guess:)
Starting off with sexy talk is typically a turn off to a person looking for a relationship
This, so much. I know that some people do use the site for casual sex, but I sometimes wish the site was divided into two halves so those of us who don't just want casual sex don't have to be bothered by it. Some of the messages I was getting were so obnoxious that I had to make the first line of my profile something along the lines of: "I'm not here for a hook-up, I'm looking for a long-term relationship. You don't want that? Then please don't message me. Thanks." And even then, some guys didn't bother to read what I'd written.
Cockiness sets off alarm bells for me because it reeks of overcompensation, and guys who are overcompensating for insecurities are not going to be honest with themselves or anyone else about who they are or what they need. It's impossible to have a real partnership with someone like that--they don't like themselves enough to let anyone in enough to love them, or even know them really well. No thanks.
Yes we do. Not all women do, you're right, but some do. I've been on OKC since October, and up til about a month ago, I was sending out between two and six messages in a given week to start conversations with guys. I don't wink or poke or "sup" because I think that's lazy (implies that I'm not interested in a specific guy, just any guy who'll respond), and I don't respond to those messages for the same reason. But women who initiate _do_ exist, and we _are_ on the dating sites. And actually, I initiate conversation IRL too. The problem is that some guys get unnerved by it or make judgments about what kind of girl we might be, so we get reluctant about making the first move. Me, I treat it like a filter--any guy who'd get freaked out by my making the first move is probably not someone I'd get along with in the long run anyway.
Absolutely right. Without the passage of a psychotropic substance between the blood-brain barrier, it's an obsessive-compulsive disorder. There's no need to call it an addiction, because with the current definition, it isn't one, and moreover, we already have a treatment category under which this problem falls.
I guess it wouldn't be useful in the long run since, after a while, it'd be easy to tell which were the bogus searches, but it'd be pretty funny if TrackMeNot put blocks of search terms through the gibberish generator (http://thinkzone.wlonk.com/Gibber/GibGen.htm).
There seem to be a lot of people saying that they had poor experiences with CFLs, so maybe I'm just lucky, but I've had a pretty positive experience thus far using them. My SO and I decided to switch out all the incandescents in the house we were renting and while we had one CFL bulb that was slightly buzzy, it was an older model, and all the newer bulbs we bought didn't have that buzz. While I hate fluorescent tubes, I didn't find the light from the bulbs to be as annoying as tubes, and I really have noticed a difference in my energy bill. And FTR, since we replaced those bulbs three years ago, not a single one has burned out.
I don't know what I'll do with the bulbs once they burn out; I wasn't aware they had mercury in them, but I'll remember not to chuck them in the garbage.
Slashdot Mirror
I've always liked the idea that the bathroom is a refuge from technology. I don't want to be obligated to answer emails when I'm in there. Bad enough my boss can get me after hours on my phone. Never mind that it sounds profoundly unsanitary, we've traded away so much of our ability to just think and be still and not rush thanks to work and technology that there are some things that should be sacrosanct. Like using the toilet, or having a bath or a shower. If you're constantly shoving information in, you never get to process how it really impacts you. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to take my laptop outside and do some gardening.
This. I work in UX and I get so frustrated when I see perfectly good websites get ruined by the addition of all kinds of ads. Sure, you might make a few cents per click on a banner or a big box, but for god's sake, just design a good site and a good product and your reputation alone will more than make up for piddly ad revenues. Don't you have enough faith in the value of your product to let it ride on its own? ...I guess not *sigh*
An hour a day? You must know some pretty high-maintenance women ;)
Agreed on all counts, especially the Jack Layton part. I hope whoever takes over for him stands up for anonymity online.
You would be correct, sir. Someone give that a man a kewpie doll. (It's just embarrassing when it happens)
Heh, even if the geography was better, being twice your age would be a no-go for me :)
Sure, message me your handle and I'll add you. I really only use mine for work, so I'd rather not post it here.
*lol* There's an abbreviation I haven't seen in years. 34/f/Canada.
I won't disagree completely, but I would stipulate that it really depends on a lot of things--how the woman interprets those jokes on that given day, the tone in which they're made, just how overt they are, and yeah, to some degree, how interested she already is. If I could express it as a mathematical formula, there'd be something about the level of existing attraction as compared to the level of offensiveness posed by the jokes. A (her attraction) +/- X (her mood) over O (his offensiveness) +/- Y (his tone)=p (where p is the possibility of getting a second date :P)
Knowing Rule 34, you're likely right, but I won't go searching for it. Ending up as a pile of splinters isn't really my thing ;)
Ok, when you frame it in that context, I can see it working--a joke here and there, just to see the reaction; that would be less likely to alienate someone than the full-on "I'm a prick and you love me for it" dance.
"Honey, you're crushing their hydrangeas. Couldn't you at least roll off to the side a bit?
Sometimes, as another commenter pointed out somewhere else on this post, it's just a matter of timing. Good luck with it--I hope it works out for you :) It really is like interviewing for a job. You can't take it personally or let it get to you when it flops. Expect nothing and you'll be pleasantly surprised. And that guy--he's definitely not representative. Some guys are shits, some women are shits, but there are lots of great people out there. /little f'n ray of sunshine
I disagree about its usefulness as a filter. For me the cockiness doesn't filter out whether I've felt lukewarm about a guy or not--I used to be all-systems-go for the emotionally ambivalent guys; loved the chase of it, I suppose. What the cockiness does is let me know that this is a guy who will push me away over and over because he isn't really capable of letting me in, and if I don't walk away, I will waste a lot of time trying to convince him to let me in, and I will get hurt because it will end the way it always does: crashing and burning. YMMV, of course...
That's unfortunate. I wonder what their intent was in sending a wink, then. Were they only intending to pay a casual compliment and leave it at that? Were they looking for a hookup and real questions turned them off? Did they just get cold feet?
:)
I was on Match for a few months and my experiences there ranged from disappointing to horrible. I went out on a date with a lawyer seven years my senior who farted audibly at the table and then forced a kiss on me at the end of the date. Like, grabbed me rather roughly by the back of the head and tried to shove his tongue in my mouth. That's just not cool, not for a first kiss and not on a first date. I barely knew him and that made me feel really unsafe.
So yeah. I would definitely recommend OKC over Match. Match was a waste of my time and money, and I shudder to think what could have happened had I actually let that guy drive me home. OKC, I've had some amusingly bad dates, but nothing I couldn't laugh about afterward, and right now I'm actually seeing someone pretty awesome that I met through the site. Funny thing is, for all of my talk of initiating, he messaged me first, so sometimes persistence does pay off. He just happened to see me before I saw him, I guess
Starting off with sexy talk is typically a turn off to a person looking for a relationship This, so much. I know that some people do use the site for casual sex, but I sometimes wish the site was divided into two halves so those of us who don't just want casual sex don't have to be bothered by it. Some of the messages I was getting were so obnoxious that I had to make the first line of my profile something along the lines of: "I'm not here for a hook-up, I'm looking for a long-term relationship. You don't want that? Then please don't message me. Thanks." And even then, some guys didn't bother to read what I'd written.
Cockiness sets off alarm bells for me because it reeks of overcompensation, and guys who are overcompensating for insecurities are not going to be honest with themselves or anyone else about who they are or what they need. It's impossible to have a real partnership with someone like that--they don't like themselves enough to let anyone in enough to love them, or even know them really well. No thanks.
Yes we do. Not all women do, you're right, but some do. I've been on OKC since October, and up til about a month ago, I was sending out between two and six messages in a given week to start conversations with guys. I don't wink or poke or "sup" because I think that's lazy (implies that I'm not interested in a specific guy, just any guy who'll respond), and I don't respond to those messages for the same reason. But women who initiate _do_ exist, and we _are_ on the dating sites. And actually, I initiate conversation IRL too. The problem is that some guys get unnerved by it or make judgments about what kind of girl we might be, so we get reluctant about making the first move. Me, I treat it like a filter--any guy who'd get freaked out by my making the first move is probably not someone I'd get along with in the long run anyway.
Absolutely right. Without the passage of a psychotropic substance between the blood-brain barrier, it's an obsessive-compulsive disorder. There's no need to call it an addiction, because with the current definition, it isn't one, and moreover, we already have a treatment category under which this problem falls.
I guess it wouldn't be useful in the long run since, after a while, it'd be easy to tell which were the bogus searches, but it'd be pretty funny if TrackMeNot put blocks of search terms through the gibberish generator (http://thinkzone.wlonk.com/Gibber/GibGen.htm).
There seem to be a lot of people saying that they had poor experiences with CFLs, so maybe I'm just lucky, but I've had a pretty positive experience thus far using them. My SO and I decided to switch out all the incandescents in the house we were renting and while we had one CFL bulb that was slightly buzzy, it was an older model, and all the newer bulbs we bought didn't have that buzz. While I hate fluorescent tubes, I didn't find the light from the bulbs to be as annoying as tubes, and I really have noticed a difference in my energy bill. And FTR, since we replaced those bulbs three years ago, not a single one has burned out. I don't know what I'll do with the bulbs once they burn out; I wasn't aware they had mercury in them, but I'll remember not to chuck them in the garbage.