I’m really off to a good start. The first guy I wrote to on this dating site just wrote back and told me he only dates hot girls and that it must have taken a lot of courage for me to message him. -Single Chick
This article appears in May 1-7, 2014.
Online Dating Sucks Already
Leave a comment
No need to despair, OP – you need to create a criteria for screening people on-line – assume 80% of people who are on dating sites are assholes looking out for Number 1. There are lots of folks who have found good partners online – don’t let the vacuous comments of some scum sucker with the brain of a retarded leech (hiding behind a keyboard and possibly using his/her best friend’s photo) bully you into feeling bad about yourself. No one can do that without your permission.
Well, OP, that may explain why he is single.
1) Consider that a bullet dodged and move on.
2) Get a pet. Better company than some dickhead on a dating site.
3) Get a vibrator. I can promise you it’ll make you cum more than that diseased cock you wrote to.
Did you message the hottest guy on the site? LOL no wonder you got rejected. Your probably a 5 at best! Take what you can get!
It doesn’t take much of a douche to be a dick behind a keyboard…
much harder to someone’s face.
Even this board (or any comment board for that matter) is proof of that.
Keep that in mind.
Dear OP: Look up the term negging. It’s fucking stupid, but a lot of guys do it. It worked, because it made you think about him so much to come here and write about it.
Don’t despair- Rejoice instead! That, my dear, is what you call ‘dodging a bullet.’
Your first problem is using the internet to find a date. Unless you want a “date”, you’ll find yourself dateless…
Not that I’m someone who’s necessarily an expert on anything but I always advise people to go and work on improving themselves instead chasing girls/guys. It’s a win win, even if it doesn’t get you a date (it will though).
In every mountain of coal you might find a diamond…or not.
Online daters are nasty bitter jaded people who fail at life. Take a look at plentyoffucktards.com – I had an account there about a decade ago… checked on there again recently just for the hell of it and the same BUMS are on there from 10 years ago. That pond is chock full of throwback fish swimming in a sesspool of syphilis.
After I became a widower, and many months moping, my daughter told me to get a life, I checked POF and after a few disasters I met a great lady, we’ve been together for 6 years.
She deserves a medal.
That’s awesome Baz!
That’s great, Basil! I have a good friend who also found a lovely lady on P of F after he and his wife split up – they’ve been together a year and very happy.
If I was widowed, I wouldn’t want another relationship. I’ve been a caregiver to my darling spouse for almost 9 years (preceded by being a part-time caregiver for my mother for 10 years) – if I outlive him, I would never, ever want to take care of another person for the rest of my life. I don’t think I could even own a goldfish. No disrespect to my sweetie because he’s a darling man but it has been, at times, emotionally and physically draining for us both.
TTF no taking care involved here, if I were to get ALS or Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s. I’d be buying a single ticket to Switzerland to the big sleep clinic.
^^^iI just hope they don’t get their big sleep meds from Oklahoma.
http://uloc.de/screenshots/h/habf09_23_ref…
“It’s people! Swiss fondue is made of PEOPLE!”
AN ONTOLOGICAL QUESTION
What is the reality of the cybernetic world, particularly on social sites such as this? Is it a parallel universe existing in some sort illusory manner beyond the actual world of everyday reality or, on the contrary, is that world of everyday reality the illusory world and the cybernetic world, particularly on social sites such as this, the really real world? It’s an ontological question.
Single Chick has shown that the people inhabiting the cybernetic world can be devious and even malevolent but whether or not they are revealing their true selves or are simply acting a part is open to question. In the same way others, such as Single Chick herself, appear to be straightforward and even benevolent but whether or not they are revealing their true selves or are simply acting a part is similarly open to question. So how is one to make the distinction?
How one is to know who is, or is not, revealing their true selves in the cybernetic world, particularly on social sites such as this, presupposes their conceptualization of the nature of that cybernetic world itself. If they view it simply as a playground to, well, play, then one can be sure that they are not revealing their true selves. Like Single Chick’s online correspondent, they are phonies.
However, for those who view the cybernetic world generally and social sites such as this in particular, as a legitimate platform to espouse their reasoned philosophical views, then one can safely assume that they are revealing their true selves. By natural extension, of course, the actual world of everyday reality may well assume the aspect, if not of illusion, then of diminished reality, of diminished importance.
Thank you for your patience and understanding.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
montrealman you are so full of shit your eyes are brown.
Yes, but being a newcomer to LTWWB you must explain to Montrealman exactly why this is so.
A 2000 word essay on the ontological properties of bilirubin as it relates to the human metabolic system might suffice.
But I doubt it.
RSVPS
: 42and two (05/05, 11:12AM)
You must remember that your rather derogatory comment was merely an introduction and not a conclusion. What is missing, of course, is evidential support for your claim. A start might be made by defining “shit” – clearly it is to be understood in its metaphorical as opposed to its literal sense but examples might be helpful – and then move on to an account of just how, while some of us are “full” of it, others are less so. This of course would require an account of just how the determination of such variations is to be made. As you might be able to understand (but probably don’t) this will require some thought, something in respect to which you have not shown yourself capable.
However, if it is any consolation, I have found that many on this site confound their introductions with their conclusions which renders their comment conceptually vacuous and often otiose and, frankly, hardly worth making at all (to say nothing of reading). This was, of course, the case with your comment.
: Fat Ivan Sonofabitch (12:40PM)
Yes, you appear to have grasped the essentials. If one is to make a charge, as in the case of “42and two,” then one must give some explanation of just what that charge consists. However, I found your example puzzling.
Does bilirubin in fact have ontological properties? One would have thought that, being inanimate, its ontology would “come written on its face,” so to speak. In other words, to speak of its ontology would be like speaking of the ontology of a stone. Beyond its “givenness” in the world, there is nothing further to say, ontologically or otherwise.
In the same way, since the relationship of bilirubin to the metabolic system is of a purely functionalist nature and such a relationship does not permit an ontological account, your example is incoherent. There might be a relationship but it is one governed purely by the operation of natural laws. There is no interpretive dimension. Perhaps you might explain this point to “42and two.” The best of British luck with that.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!