This guy wasn't an executive VP, and it wasn't at SAP Global. His official title was "Vice President, SAP Integration & Certification Center (ICC) at SAP Labs, LLC". So he was a VP of a division of an SAP subsidiary.
It always makes me sigh when I walk into Best Buy and hear the sales people parrot "and I'm not on commission!", as if that's some sort of guarantee that their advice will be unbiased. Sure, maybe they're not out to screw me, but I'm not convinced that the store isn't trying to squeeze maximum profit out of me-- as witnessed by the cashier who also "is not on commission", but is required to up-sell me on a protective sleeve or an extended warranty.
I can confirm that, while BB salespeople are not directly on commission per se, they definitely do get team bonuses for meeting certain metrics. You should definitely consider them to be "biased", and I'll note that many of them have insufficient training to give informed recommendations, anyway.
I think you might have missed the whole "title inflation" phenomenon that's been going on for the last 20 years or so. Don't be ashamed. Whomever wrote the "fine" article made the same mistake, giving the impression that the accused was the second in command at SAP Global, or something.
His official title is "Vice President, SAP Integration & Certification Center (ICC)". That means he's not an executive VP at all, and his title is specific to only one of SAP's businesses. That puts him in the highest rungs of "middle management". He probably reports to the guy who reports to the guy who reports to the COO, an actual executive.
Regarding his compensation, it would be solidly in the 6 figure range. So $30k would be more meaningful to him than a mere "rounding error", but it wouldn't make difference in his standard of living, in any real sense. Having been around the block a few times, he was probably bored as hell at his job, his wife probably ignores him, and he was probably sick of the fact that his kids were the only ones in the house who had any excitement in their lives at all. It had probably been so long since he felt he was even alive, he needed the adrenaline rush just to check and see.
It mostly manifested itself during passover, when they'd get rid of all the stuff they weren't allowed to have in their houses for the week. Much of it would end up with me (candy, random foods, and one year a case of beer), and specifically not with some of the other, less religious Jews who worked with us. When I asked about it, the answer I was given was something along the lines of "You're not Jewish."
Yes, this is just the other side of the same coin. A more-observant Jew would certainly not intentionally cause a less-observant Jew to violate commandments, and giving that person chametz right in advance of passover would certainly qualify!
This, plus other sermons the rabbi delivered, make me think that the ultra-orthodox live in fear that they are so weak-willed that they will give into desire/sin/whatever once the tiniest of opportunities present themselves. Thus, they make rules to prevent people from coming anywhere close to temptation.
This phenomenon is well-known, and is by design. I realize that your Jewish education would have covered this, so do not take offense, but for the benefit of other readers: the rabbis build a gezeirah (fence) around the Torah to try to prevent inadvertent violation of commandments. People are actually pretty stupid. We make mistakes all the time. So if you're to make a mistake, better to have that mistake be a violation of Jewish custom, as opposed to a violation of god's law.
By way of example, on Shabbat (Jewish day of rest), observant Jews will not only avoid work, they will avoid touching any object that would be used to perform work. The idea being, he wouldn't touch a hammer because a hammer would generally be used to perform prohibited work. If you don't touch it, you can't use it to pound in a nail by mistake.
I can understand his point of view. Jewish, Muslim, or Vegan, there's something serious wrong about not liking bacon.
Personally, I think bacon is nothing more than a crutch used by inferior cooks. Something not taste right? Wrap it in bacon! Still not taste right? Stuff it with bacon!
Bacon just tastes like salty chemicals to me. Why people go so nuts for it is beyond me.
Jewish fundamentalists tend not to be of the evangelical sort. They have their rules, and they abide by them, but they didn't give a damn whether or not I followed them.
For what it's worth, that's only because you're not Jewish. Oversimplifying a bit, there are groups within Orthodox Judaism that believe that every time any Jewish person observes any of god's commandments, even a relatively less-important commandment, that it is a very big deal, and that it ought to be encouraged.
Some of these folks I think do a good job expressing this belief: They don't pressure anybody, but if you indicate that you might want to observe a particular commandment, they make it as easy on you as possible and offer any assistance that they can. If you don't observe particular commandments, they don't say even one thing about it, but it's understood that they will be there to support you, should you change your mind at some future date.
Others really pressure the non-religious, and I think that's wrongheaded. Observing god's commandments should be done out of love, not out of guilt and shame.
The Torah is crystal clear on the point of whether or not its laws apply apply to non-Jews, and the answer is obviously "no". I didn't read the article (nor had I heard of this event), but I can guarantee you that they are not calling for broad censorship the Internet. They're probably just trying to figure out how to bring in the good that comes with the Internet and keep out what's (in their opinion) not good.
These journals are counter-productive today; They're causing work duplication on a mass scale because research (that thing where you look up what other people have done about the problem, also known as 'step 2') has become so cost prohibitive it's cheaper (and faster, thanks to a lack of standardization regarding searching) to just move forward with doing it over again.
Huh? I'm not an academic, but whenever I need to look up an article in a medical journal (my wife is really, really sick), the cost is like $25 or so for the paper. Surely it costs more than $25 to reinvent the wheel, no?
So what you're basically saying is the CDMA is locked down because most of the rest of the world uses GSM?
This problem can be solved with a $20 crappy prepaid GSM phone from Radio Shack. Please tell me there's something else wrong with CDMA so that I might feel foolish.
The moral, judges are used to lawyers telling them the law, and therefore if you want a judge to respect your rights, you have to explain your rights to the judge, and why the judge has to respect them, otherwise its, "Next case. We have a lot get through today".
This is definitely true.
I am not a lawyer, but I am a landlord. Any time I show up in court, I always show up with a printout of the relevant laws concerning the dispute. I'm sure it's different in your friend's case, but in landlord/tenant court, you often don't even get a real judge. It may be a law student or some other magistrate. They have no idea what the law is, and their tendency is just to split the dispute down the middle, even if one party (i.e. me) is completely right and the other party is completely wrong.
I tend to get more accurate rulings when I inform the judge what the law actually is.
Depends on how you do it. I have a 5-line smartphone plan with Sprint with virtually unlimited airtime (mobile to any mobile is free, calls after 7pm are free), unlimited text and 4G data, and the per-line cost is roughly $40/mo after taxes and junk fees. All smartphones were subsidized.
1. In the rest of the world, the calling party pays for calling a mobile number. That's why incoming usage is "free". 2. Depending on your plan, mobile to mobile calling can be free. Sprint offers free calling to any mobile carrier, and AT&T might, too. Vz and Tmo I think have free calling between their own customers. 3. Calling after a certain time and on weekends is generally not billable to either party.
If you were to ask me, I like the US deal better. I hardly use any airtime because hardly anybody I know uses landlines anymore.
Verizon hardware can be activated on page plus. Sprint hardware can be activated on Boost (and Cricket, I think). Just because it's CDMA doesn't mean it's locked-down.
Eh. Virgin Mobile offers unlimited data and text +300 minutes of talk time (who actually talks on their phones these days?) for $35/mo. Boost offers unlimited everything for $50, but the price slowly drops $35/mo with on-time payments.
We don't have the same population density as you have in Europe, so it's not a total shock that ours would cost more per person.
No way. Let's assume, for the moment, that you could find a mythical stock that can be depended upon to throw of 3-5% annual dividends with essentially no risk to principal. By the way, I'm not conceding that you can find this mythical stock. Let's further assume that you can purchase fractional shares of this stock so that you can invest precisely $200.00. Lastly, let's assume that this stock pays the maximum in your range, 5%. How might this play out?
On day 1, you purchase $200.00 of XYZ for $200.00-$10 commission=$190.00 In Q'1, XYZ pays a dividend of 1.25% which you automatically reinvest in XYZ. Now you have: $192.375 In Q'2, XYZ pays a dividend of 1.25% which you automatically reinvest in XYZ. Now you have: $194.75 In Q'3, XYZ pays a dividend of 1.25% which you automatically reinvest in XYZ. Now you have: $197.125 In Q'4, XYZ pays a dividend of 1.25% which you automatically reinvest in XYZ. Now you have: $199.5 In Q'5, XYZ pays a dividend of 1.25% which you automatically reinvest in XYZ. Now you have: $201.875 In Q'6, XYZ pays a dividend of 1.25% which you automatically reinvest in XYZ. Now you have: $204.25 In Q'7, XYZ pays a dividend of 1.25% which you automatically reinvest in XYZ. Now you have: $206.625 In Q'8, XYZ pays a dividend of 1.25% which you automatically reinvest in XYZ. Now you have: $209.00
After year 2, you sell your shares of XYZ for $209.00-$10 commission and pocket your profit of -$1.00. You book your long term capital loss on your taxes which saves you $0.20 in taxes, so your loss is $0.80.
Tomorrow's lesson will be entitled Bid/Ask spreads, which we ignored for simplicity's sake during today's lesson.
Uhh. Because you want your search results to be the most relevant and accurate?
If I google "santorum", it should be pretty obvious that I meant Rick Santorum, not a shock site about "frothy mixtures". Santorum's site should be the first result when you search for him. If they want to put Savage's site at #2 (no pun intended), that's fine by me.
Anyway, I did google "rick santorum" and the results seemed pretty accurate.
Maybe those are just guys trying the best they can when being up front, confident and handling rejection are very difficult things for them?
Nobody likes rejection, but it's a fact of life. Another fact of life is that you'll never get anywhere if you never allow yourself to be vulnerable, and that goes for all areas of life, not just dating.
The good part about being up-front and confident is that if you get shot down right away, at least you didn't have anything invested in this woman. It doesn't sting as much, trust me. It just means you're not her type, and there's no shame in that. Not everybody is supposed to be everybody else's type.
Would you also like to criticize cripples who perform poorly when forced to run a marathon?
I realize that certain people have diagnosed social anxieties, and those individuals should seek treatment. The rest of us should just throw back a few shots of liquid courage and go for it. It gets easier with practice, trust me.
A bit of free advice: join an organization like Toastmasters. Great way to practice and gain confidence. You'll thank me later.
Interesting. Maybe so. I wonder if the long-term relationship dating sites (eg. eHarmony) have a male/female gender imbalance in the appropriate direction to support this. Numbers are a bit hard to find, but a Wikipedia page quotes a ratio of 42/58 males/females on eHarmony, though there are other significant factors that single statistic doesn't capture (eg. age distributions).
I tend to be a little skeptical of the membership statistics of the online dating sites (I didn't read the Wikipedia page to get the citation information) because they tend to report on all profiles, not active/paid profiles.
The dating sites all report tens of millions of users, but if they were all paying users, those companies would be minting money. The last estimate that I read was that of those tens of millions of profiles, less than 5% are paid subscribers. Also, I imagine the ratio must vary quite a bit by location, assuming you want to date local. So a user's M:F ratio at any given point in space and time probably varies pretty wildly.
True. And the ones that are on/. probably would not want to comment in a sea of socially-awkward men.
2. Dating is harder as a man seeking a woman than the other way around, so advice is more highly prized.
I don't really agree with this.
Online dating is a little tricky as a man, so that's why advice is highly prized. If you do it right, you can do it successfully. If you do it the way that is most obvious, you won't have much success.
Offline dating is much easier for a man, I think. Since on average, men are more interested in sex, and women more interested in relationships, women have the advantage in scoring random hookups, and men have the advantage in relationships. That (and beer goggles) is why men will bring home ugly women from a bar, but when you see men and women walking down the street holding hands, it's usually the woman who is more attractive.
I don't think it's simply "over age 45", but rather the "have 1 (or 2, or 3) kid [from failed marriage(s)] who is the most important thing in my life!" that is typical of that age group that makes for invisibility.
Well, I have kids too, and it's a little impossible not to have them be one of the most important things in your life. Raising kids is a large time commitment. If you don't want to have anything to do with kids, that's your right (and I'm with you, believe me. I hate other people's kids), but yeah, you're not going to be the center of her universe, and she probably isn't going to have a ton of time for just you. You'd probably be better off alone.
"Ugly" is highly relative and in the eye of the beholder. Singles who don't go through the effort to look their best probably won't do so well, and posting rubbish photos taken
I was talking about real life here, not online dating. Actual women who are actually over 45 or actually ugly. Sure, ugly is relative and all that, but at a certain point, ugly is ugly. And ugly women know who they are, because the entire world reminds them of it every day. It's as if they aren't standing right there.
I left my own ad up there though, basically forgetting about it, until I got one of those email notices that someone had "woo'd" me (kind of like a Facebook "poke"). I logged in to see what that was all about, and discovered we had a *lot* in common, but she lived in a different state. One thing led to another and here we are, still together after 3 years.
I think that there is a lot of wisdom in this statement. Focusing on making a strong profile is probably even more important than emailing women. When women are the ones to initiate contact, they are more emotionally invested in the outcome, so if you can get a woman to ask you out, you're golden.
Two examples: 1. My sister in law did online dating (met the man she married online), and yeah, seeing all of the spam that she got was enough to make me want to vomit. But she definitely went trawling through men's profiles. Not sure who reached out to whom between her and her husband, but anyway, there you go. 2. I just remembered that I once briefly did online dating. My then-girlfriend had moved away and we had decided not to stay together (we quickly changed our minds and got back together, but there was a gap). I put up a profile, and I knew that I wanted someone who spoke a particular language, so my profile title was a question in that language. I only got 3 responses, but they were extremely targeted and went extremely well. Funny thing was one response came from someone who didn't speak that language and mistranslated it into something really awful, but she responded anyway. Made a few jokes about what kind of deranged woman would respond to an ad with a title like that, and that also yielded great results. Maybe she was trying to prove to me that she wasn't crazy, but if we're being honest with ourselves, she was pretty crazy.
Slashdot Mirror
This guy wasn't an executive VP, and it wasn't at SAP Global. His official title was "Vice President, SAP Integration & Certification Center (ICC) at SAP Labs, LLC". So he was a VP of a division of an SAP subsidiary.
Welcome to the world of title inflation.
It always makes me sigh when I walk into Best Buy and hear the sales people parrot "and I'm not on commission!", as if that's some sort of guarantee that their advice will be unbiased. Sure, maybe they're not out to screw me, but I'm not convinced that the store isn't trying to squeeze maximum profit out of me-- as witnessed by the cashier who also "is not on commission", but is required to up-sell me on a protective sleeve or an extended warranty.
I can confirm that, while BB salespeople are not directly on commission per se, they definitely do get team bonuses for meeting certain metrics. You should definitely consider them to be "biased", and I'll note that many of them have insufficient training to give informed recommendations, anyway.
Cash register workers are smarter and more observant than you may think. Purchasing a $280 Lego set for $50 will raise all kinds of eyebrows.
The facts would seem to contradict your expert analysis of the situation.
The accused sold 2100 items on eBay in the past 12 months. That's a lotta legos, and not a lotta eyebrows.
I think you might have missed the whole "title inflation" phenomenon that's been going on for the last 20 years or so. Don't be ashamed. Whomever wrote the "fine" article made the same mistake, giving the impression that the accused was the second in command at SAP Global, or something.
His official title is "Vice President, SAP Integration & Certification Center (ICC)". That means he's not an executive VP at all, and his title is specific to only one of SAP's businesses. That puts him in the highest rungs of "middle management". He probably reports to the guy who reports to the guy who reports to the COO, an actual executive.
Regarding his compensation, it would be solidly in the 6 figure range. So $30k would be more meaningful to him than a mere "rounding error", but it wouldn't make difference in his standard of living, in any real sense. Having been around the block a few times, he was probably bored as hell at his job, his wife probably ignores him, and he was probably sick of the fact that his kids were the only ones in the house who had any excitement in their lives at all. It had probably been so long since he felt he was even alive, he needed the adrenaline rush just to check and see.
It mostly manifested itself during passover, when they'd get rid of all the stuff they weren't allowed to have in their houses for the week. Much of it would end up with me (candy, random foods, and one year a case of beer), and specifically not with some of the other, less religious Jews who worked with us. When I asked about it, the answer I was given was something along the lines of "You're not Jewish."
Yes, this is just the other side of the same coin. A more-observant Jew would certainly not intentionally cause a less-observant Jew to violate commandments, and giving that person chametz right in advance of passover would certainly qualify!
Hope you got some good scotch out of the deal! :)
This, plus other sermons the rabbi delivered, make me think that the ultra-orthodox live in fear that they are so weak-willed that they will give into desire/sin/whatever once the tiniest of opportunities present themselves. Thus, they make rules to prevent people from coming anywhere close to temptation.
This phenomenon is well-known, and is by design. I realize that your Jewish education would have covered this, so do not take offense, but for the benefit of other readers: the rabbis build a gezeirah (fence) around the Torah to try to prevent inadvertent violation of commandments. People are actually pretty stupid. We make mistakes all the time. So if you're to make a mistake, better to have that mistake be a violation of Jewish custom, as opposed to a violation of god's law.
By way of example, on Shabbat (Jewish day of rest), observant Jews will not only avoid work, they will avoid touching any object that would be used to perform work. The idea being, he wouldn't touch a hammer because a hammer would generally be used to perform prohibited work. If you don't touch it, you can't use it to pound in a nail by mistake.
I can understand his point of view. Jewish, Muslim, or Vegan, there's something serious wrong about not liking bacon.
Personally, I think bacon is nothing more than a crutch used by inferior cooks. Something not taste right? Wrap it in bacon! Still not taste right? Stuff it with bacon!
Bacon just tastes like salty chemicals to me. Why people go so nuts for it is beyond me.
Jewish fundamentalists tend not to be of the evangelical sort. They have their rules, and they abide by them, but they didn't give a damn whether or not I followed them.
For what it's worth, that's only because you're not Jewish. Oversimplifying a bit, there are groups within Orthodox Judaism that believe that every time any Jewish person observes any of god's commandments, even a relatively less-important commandment, that it is a very big deal, and that it ought to be encouraged.
Some of these folks I think do a good job expressing this belief: They don't pressure anybody, but if you indicate that you might want to observe a particular commandment, they make it as easy on you as possible and offer any assistance that they can. If you don't observe particular commandments, they don't say even one thing about it, but it's understood that they will be there to support you, should you change your mind at some future date.
Others really pressure the non-religious, and I think that's wrongheaded. Observing god's commandments should be done out of love, not out of guilt and shame.
The Torah is crystal clear on the point of whether or not its laws apply apply to non-Jews, and the answer is obviously "no". I didn't read the article (nor had I heard of this event), but I can guarantee you that they are not calling for broad censorship the Internet. They're probably just trying to figure out how to bring in the good that comes with the Internet and keep out what's (in their opinion) not good.
These journals are counter-productive today; They're causing work duplication on a mass scale because research (that thing where you look up what other people have done about the problem, also known as 'step 2') has become so cost prohibitive it's cheaper (and faster, thanks to a lack of standardization regarding searching) to just move forward with doing it over again.
Huh? I'm not an academic, but whenever I need to look up an article in a medical journal (my wife is really, really sick), the cost is like $25 or so for the paper. Surely it costs more than $25 to reinvent the wheel, no?
So what you're basically saying is the CDMA is locked down because most of the rest of the world uses GSM?
This problem can be solved with a $20 crappy prepaid GSM phone from Radio Shack. Please tell me there's something else wrong with CDMA so that I might feel foolish.
The moral, judges are used to lawyers telling them the law, and therefore if you want a judge to respect your rights, you have to explain your rights to the judge, and why the judge has to respect them, otherwise its, "Next case. We have a lot get through today".
This is definitely true.
I am not a lawyer, but I am a landlord. Any time I show up in court, I always show up with a printout of the relevant laws concerning the dispute. I'm sure it's different in your friend's case, but in landlord/tenant court, you often don't even get a real judge. It may be a law student or some other magistrate. They have no idea what the law is, and their tendency is just to split the dispute down the middle, even if one party (i.e. me) is completely right and the other party is completely wrong.
I tend to get more accurate rulings when I inform the judge what the law actually is.
Depends on how you do it. I have a 5-line smartphone plan with Sprint with virtually unlimited airtime (mobile to any mobile is free, calls after 7pm are free), unlimited text and 4G data, and the per-line cost is roughly $40/mo after taxes and junk fees. All smartphones were subsidized.
1. In the rest of the world, the calling party pays for calling a mobile number. That's why incoming usage is "free".
2. Depending on your plan, mobile to mobile calling can be free. Sprint offers free calling to any mobile carrier, and AT&T might, too. Vz and Tmo I think have free calling between their own customers.
3. Calling after a certain time and on weekends is generally not billable to either party.
If you were to ask me, I like the US deal better. I hardly use any airtime because hardly anybody I know uses landlines anymore.
Verizon hardware can be activated on page plus. Sprint hardware can be activated on Boost (and Cricket, I think). Just because it's CDMA doesn't mean it's locked-down.
Eh. Virgin Mobile offers unlimited data and text +300 minutes of talk time (who actually talks on their phones these days?) for $35/mo. Boost offers unlimited everything for $50, but the price slowly drops $35/mo with on-time payments.
We don't have the same population density as you have in Europe, so it's not a total shock that ours would cost more per person.
No way. Let's assume, for the moment, that you could find a mythical stock that can be depended upon to throw of 3-5% annual dividends with essentially no risk to principal. By the way, I'm not conceding that you can find this mythical stock. Let's further assume that you can purchase fractional shares of this stock so that you can invest precisely $200.00. Lastly, let's assume that this stock pays the maximum in your range, 5%. How might this play out?
On day 1, you purchase $200.00 of XYZ for $200.00-$10 commission=$190.00
In Q'1, XYZ pays a dividend of 1.25% which you automatically reinvest in XYZ. Now you have: $192.375
In Q'2, XYZ pays a dividend of 1.25% which you automatically reinvest in XYZ. Now you have: $194.75
In Q'3, XYZ pays a dividend of 1.25% which you automatically reinvest in XYZ. Now you have: $197.125
In Q'4, XYZ pays a dividend of 1.25% which you automatically reinvest in XYZ. Now you have: $199.5
In Q'5, XYZ pays a dividend of 1.25% which you automatically reinvest in XYZ. Now you have: $201.875
In Q'6, XYZ pays a dividend of 1.25% which you automatically reinvest in XYZ. Now you have: $204.25
In Q'7, XYZ pays a dividend of 1.25% which you automatically reinvest in XYZ. Now you have: $206.625
In Q'8, XYZ pays a dividend of 1.25% which you automatically reinvest in XYZ. Now you have: $209.00
After year 2, you sell your shares of XYZ for $209.00-$10 commission and pocket your profit of -$1.00. You book your long term capital loss on your taxes which saves you $0.20 in taxes, so your loss is $0.80.
Tomorrow's lesson will be entitled Bid/Ask spreads, which we ignored for simplicity's sake during today's lesson.
Have a nice day!
Some people like putting their penis in other people's anus, oh no! Get over it.
Any activity that yields a frothy mixture of blood, lube, feces, and semen does not sound like much fun to me.
Just saying.
Uhh. Because you want your search results to be the most relevant and accurate?
If I google "santorum", it should be pretty obvious that I meant Rick Santorum, not a shock site about "frothy mixtures". Santorum's site should be the first result when you search for him. If they want to put Savage's site at #2 (no pun intended), that's fine by me.
Anyway, I did google "rick santorum" and the results seemed pretty accurate.
Maybe those are just guys trying the best they can when being up front, confident and handling rejection are very difficult things for them?
Nobody likes rejection, but it's a fact of life. Another fact of life is that you'll never get anywhere if you never allow yourself to be vulnerable, and that goes for all areas of life, not just dating.
The good part about being up-front and confident is that if you get shot down right away, at least you didn't have anything invested in this woman. It doesn't sting as much, trust me. It just means you're not her type, and there's no shame in that. Not everybody is supposed to be everybody else's type.
Would you also like to criticize cripples who perform poorly when forced to run a marathon?
I realize that certain people have diagnosed social anxieties, and those individuals should seek treatment. The rest of us should just throw back a few shots of liquid courage and go for it. It gets easier with practice, trust me.
A bit of free advice: join an organization like Toastmasters. Great way to practice and gain confidence. You'll thank me later.
Interesting. Maybe so. I wonder if the long-term relationship dating sites (eg. eHarmony) have a male/female gender imbalance in the appropriate direction to support this. Numbers are a bit hard to find, but a Wikipedia page quotes a ratio of 42/58 males/females on eHarmony, though there are other significant factors that single statistic doesn't capture (eg. age distributions).
I tend to be a little skeptical of the membership statistics of the online dating sites (I didn't read the Wikipedia page to get the citation information) because they tend to report on all profiles, not active/paid profiles.
The dating sites all report tens of millions of users, but if they were all paying users, those companies would be minting money. The last estimate that I read was that of those tens of millions of profiles, less than 5% are paid subscribers. Also, I imagine the ratio must vary quite a bit by location, assuming you want to date local. So a user's M:F ratio at any given point in space and time probably varies pretty wildly.
1. There aren't many women on /.
True. And the ones that are on /. probably would not want to comment in a sea of socially-awkward men.
2. Dating is harder as a man seeking a woman than the other way around, so advice is more highly prized.
I don't really agree with this.
Online dating is a little tricky as a man, so that's why advice is highly prized. If you do it right, you can do it successfully. If you do it the way that is most obvious, you won't have much success.
Offline dating is much easier for a man, I think. Since on average, men are more interested in sex, and women more interested in relationships, women have the advantage in scoring random hookups, and men have the advantage in relationships. That (and beer goggles) is why men will bring home ugly women from a bar, but when you see men and women walking down the street holding hands, it's usually the woman who is more attractive.
I don't think it's simply "over age 45", but rather the "have 1 (or 2, or 3) kid [from failed marriage(s)] who is the most important thing in my life!" that is typical of that age group that makes for invisibility.
Well, I have kids too, and it's a little impossible not to have them be one of the most important things in your life. Raising kids is a large time commitment. If you don't want to have anything to do with kids, that's your right (and I'm with you, believe me. I hate other people's kids), but yeah, you're not going to be the center of her universe, and she probably isn't going to have a ton of time for just you. You'd probably be better off alone.
"Ugly" is highly relative and in the eye of the beholder. Singles who don't go through the effort to look their best probably won't do so well, and posting rubbish photos taken
I was talking about real life here, not online dating. Actual women who are actually over 45 or actually ugly. Sure, ugly is relative and all that, but at a certain point, ugly is ugly. And ugly women know who they are, because the entire world reminds them of it every day. It's as if they aren't standing right there.
He was objecting to your misuse of the word "differential", not to your point.
I left my own ad up there though, basically forgetting about it, until I got one of those email notices that someone had "woo'd" me (kind of like a Facebook "poke"). I logged in to see what that was all about, and discovered we had a *lot* in common, but she lived in a different state. One thing led to another and here we are, still together after 3 years.
I think that there is a lot of wisdom in this statement. Focusing on making a strong profile is probably even more important than emailing women. When women are the ones to initiate contact, they are more emotionally invested in the outcome, so if you can get a woman to ask you out, you're golden.
Two examples:
1. My sister in law did online dating (met the man she married online), and yeah, seeing all of the spam that she got was enough to make me want to vomit. But she definitely went trawling through men's profiles. Not sure who reached out to whom between her and her husband, but anyway, there you go.
2. I just remembered that I once briefly did online dating. My then-girlfriend had moved away and we had decided not to stay together (we quickly changed our minds and got back together, but there was a gap). I put up a profile, and I knew that I wanted someone who spoke a particular language, so my profile title was a question in that language. I only got 3 responses, but they were extremely targeted and went extremely well. Funny thing was one response came from someone who didn't speak that language and mistranslated it into something really awful, but she responded anyway. Made a few jokes about what kind of deranged woman would respond to an ad with a title like that, and that also yielded great results. Maybe she was trying to prove to me that she wasn't crazy, but if we're being honest with ourselves, she was pretty crazy.
I am pansexual to be correct, though I do swing more towards women than men because of how it is easier to get on the same mental level with women
I'm a bit surprised to hear that. Most bi women I talk with swing toward men because they get sick of the mind games.
Hell, if I were bi, I'd swing toward men in a heartbeat! But that is definitely not an option. Men are disgusting creatures. I should know. I am one!