I’m a 33-year-old guy with a cool decent job, good looking, knows how to treat women, etc. Not finding the right girl in real life, I gave online dating a try. At first, I used the free ones and had no luck at all. Then I’m told by a few of my buddies and acquaintances, who have done the online thing, that if I really want to find a quality woman I should pay up on one of the more legit sites, and stay away from the free catch n release ones. I want a relationship, not just pussy, so I’m all for it.
I’m now into month 5, $60 plus later, and haven’t even been on a date. I might sound like I have a huge chip on my shoulder, but who the fuck do these women think they are? I’m not messaging every girl I see, but I’ve written dozens of them and maybe got 5-6 responses. I get notified when they read my message, and realized a lot of them were checking their inboxes and just dismissing me! These are girls I have over 80% compatibility with, according to the site. We’re compatible, I know I’m not an ugly dude, I don’t write creepy or sleazy things, so what else do they want? What am I paying for? Where are the women who aren’t so stuck up? These women are picky as fuck and I’m starting to think they’ll be single for a long time. Why is that so much to ask–to find a nice girl in this city and not still be a bachelor by 40 or 50? —Single dude looking for a cool chick
This article appears in Jun 27 – Jul 3, 2013.
maybe asking a question like “who do these chicks think they are?” will help you answer that same question.
Also make sure you put a picture up.
Look op, people join dating sites because they want to date. They want to meet someone so if you are consistently not having any luck at all, there is something about your profile that isn’t working for you. It doesn’t mean YOU’RE flawed but that your profile isn’t doing its job. You seem articulate enough so I don’t think you’re coming off as boring. So that’s really good.
But you might want to re-evaluate filters you put on matches. If your ideal match is 18, really stupid but looks like a supermodel, no offense, but hot 18 year olds aren’t going to be interested in someone who is in his 30s and settled.
Widen your scope a bit and see if that helps. If you’ve already done that, well i dunno op. But i suggest a site where there are FORUMS where you can daily interact with people and ALSO match up with them.
Those let you paint a better 3 dimensional picture of who you are.
if they’re on an online dating site there’s gonna be something wrong with them… and you.
Most people go by physical attraction first, sad….but true. Those woman reading your messages and not responding are most likely not attracted to you. So rather then start chatting with you and go out on date to see if your personality helps out with your looks they will move on. Which is probably for the better since if they don’t find you attractive from the get go your probably wasting your money taking them on a date.
PS overly cheezy profiles, and professional photo’s like a close-up head shoot totally drip of desperation, soooo if your profile contains any of that try removing it 😉
Perhaps go to the other side and see who your competition is then you should have your answer–if they are mostly or all better looking and/or more interesting than you, then you’re the problem.
How about just relax and let things happen as they may.. I have learned in my short little life that sometimes things happen when you least expect them too.. also I would skip the online dating (personally) and join some interesting groups where you might actually be able to met someone who has the same interests as you.. that is if you have time. Also look into speed dating..
“What am I paying for? Where are the women who aren’t so stuck up?” Your paying for a service that isn’t guaranteed and just because the women don’t respond to you doesn’t make them stuck up. That assumption makes you an ass.
You need to change your profile pic to a 12 incher, with a rail of blow going from root to tip.
Perhaps it’s because your profile is in the Men Seeking Men Section?
Huh, I’m surprised no one brought up how entitled OB is. He’s perhaps marginally attractive and perhaps has a steady job and therefore women do not have the right to turn him down! “Who do these women think they are?” Pro tip: If you think you deserve women, because you’re a “nice guy,” YOU’RE NOT A NICE GUY AT ALL. You are a straight up douchebag. That’s all I get from this post. Hopefully you will continue to strike out until you soften your ego enough to realize you’re a jerk.
I’ve never had a problem getting dates online. But it’s really a crappy way to meet people, in my opinion. You can meet a lot of people (well, you can’t seem to lol) in a short amount of time but it’s usually such a forced, inorganic situation. Still, if you aren’t getting any dates after 5 months, you’re doing it wrong.
-Understand that women get like a billion more messages than guys do, so it’s not personal if you don’t get a reply. They are being ‘picky’ but if they’re fairly attractive, the aren’t picking from a small pond so it’s NOT PERSONAL.
-Don’t send a first message like ‘hey’ or ‘sup’ or ‘you’re hot/beautiful’ etc, most won’t reply. If someone send you a message and just said ‘hey’…where do you go with that?
-Try mentioning something they’ve said in their profile to show that you’re interested in what they have to say or that you might have something in common.
-Chat back and forth for a few days before you suggest arranging a hang out. Don’t call your first meeting a ‘date’.
Hope this helps!
Small wonder…..
http://pigroll.com/163_i-fuck-on-the-first…
dic pics are put on the immediate no-fly list.
I’ll say this once. WOMEN FIND THAT A MAJOR TURN-OFF.
Listen harper. Women don’t respond to dick pics the way men respond to tit pics.
Totally different mindset. Universally.
OP, i can’t speak for all women but I’ll reveal a few if my own personal turnoffs: 1) A shirtless pic, it screams of ego and arrogance. 2) A 30-something+ aspiring rapper. You missed the boat. Turn in your mic. 3) Cheesy pick-up lines like “Nice tits, wanna do coffee sometime?”.
Keep in mind that most women love a man who can make her laugh. Try not to set the tone in too serious of a manner. It’s boring and we hate it. Give substance to the details in your profile, not just a little blurb about your occupation, age, and demographics. It’s boring and we hate that too.
Suggest a unique first date, maybe something she hasn’t done before. We love a hint of the unexpected and mystery. And last, don’t reveal too much of your self too soon. As I said before, we love a bit of mystery.
Hope this helps!
The whole online dating scene makes me shudder – expectations are planned disappointments in my humble opinion. As mentioned previously, physical attraction plays a HUGE part in a relationship – you may have everything in common with someone on-line which may fizzle when you meet in person.
Or it might end up as: ‘I just couldn’t stop looking at that fucking hairy mole!’
CYBERNETIC MAN, OR: WHAT IS COMPATIBILITY?
“These are girls I have over 80% compatibility with, according to the site.” Single dude
What is the issue here? Clearly, Single dude is a victim of the current, prevailing mindset. What is that mindset? It is the view that human relations are reducible to empirical measurement. What does that mean? It means that the phrase “80% compatibility” is incoherent. Why is it incoherent? It is incoherent because it, incoherently, reduces human relations to empirical measurement. But why does the online dating site reduce human relations to empirical measurement? It reduces human relations to empirical measurement because, being an online site, that it all it can do. The issue, as with everything else of course, is ultimately philosophical. In other words, the prevailing mindset appeals to the efficacy of empirical measurement because it rests upon a particular view of human beings. What is that particular view?
Single dude is in thrall to cybernetics. He is a believer in the efficacy of empirical measurement. In effect – and this is the important part – he is a believer in the reduction of his own being to empirical measurement, the sum total of his quantifiable parts. What the online dating site has done is simply to match up the quantifiable parts of Single dude with the quantifiable parts of the females listed on that site. If, in the cybernetic dream-world, 80% of those respective quantifiable parts match up – whatever that might mean – then 80% “compatibility” is then achieved.
But compatibility is not a quantifiable concept. It is a qualitative concept. It resists simple-minded quantification. In other words, Single dude has bought into the prevailing mindset that human beings are reducible to empirical measurement which is embodied in all cybernetic communication. Single dude, in other words has become “Cybernetic Man”. The result is unsurprising. He is confused, crest-fallen. He suffers from the consequences of his own cybernetic delusions. But worst of all, he doesn’t know why he is crest-fallen, why he is depressed. In other words, he doesn’t know who he is. He has lost his identity. Single dude, the Cybernetic Man, is a dead duck. He must be left to stew in his own juice.
As for the on-line dating site? Hey, come on, they’re in it for the dough. They can spot a sucker a mile away.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
tl;dr montreal blather.
channel your money from ‘dating site’ to ‘russian mail-order-bride’ and you may be more successful….
Really, crayons? Women don’t appreciate a good cock pic, imagine that. You just blew my fuckin mind, man.
I guess identifying sarcasm isn’t your strong suit.
RSVP
: Benny (07/03, 10:18PM)
Benny’s back up with another “tl:dr”. In addition to being unable to grasp the content of my post (he is, as they say, seriously cognitively deprived) as well as being an egomaniac (he thinks his thoughts, or more properly their absence, is worthy of publication) Benny no doubt shares Single dude’s mindset that human beings in general and Benny himself in particular, is reducible to empirical measurement.
But as is patently obvious, it is incoherent to speak of “mindset” in connection with Benny since, of course, he doesn’t have a mind, empirically measurable or otherwise.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
It happens to women on those sites too. Except, we get tons of messages from men who are mainly in two categories. Outer space or in mom’s basement. Outer spacer’s are guys who are 55 pretending to still be 35 with 20 year old pictures, pure false advertising. The mom’s basement guys speaks for itself. Still living at home, still having mom do laundry. There’s also another category of men of average looks, economic status and personality that think they can get a supermodel size 4 woman in Halifax.
The very fact that you took the time to write this bitch makes it clear why none of these women are stepping up to date you. LOL.
Spot on, VOT, especially with the last category. It’s truly unbelievable how many average joes think they deserve the hottest chicks in the city and reject the average down to earth women who are more a match for them. I know some articulate, sweet, hard working women who have tried online dating sites, and because they’re not supermodel material, even some of the uggos on there don’t answer their emails. So delusional, these guys are–no mystery as to why they’re single….
recognizing sarcasm is one thing. Making a statement like that in the face of thousands of men who DON’T get it (hence all the cockpics online) and still recognizing when a random one is being sarcastic is something else all together. No offense but most of your gender just doesn’t get it.
I’m sure most women on these sites get a lot of messages therefore you really have to stand out in some way or another. Or just wait until the right connection comes along. You may be too impatient. If you’re nice, good looking and have a decent job and you can’t meet the right women in the real or cyber world, tends to make me think you might come off as too serious or even desperate.
Or.. pull a George Costanza and do and say the complete opposite of what you think is right. You might get the opposite results.
Ahhh the ladies, I love em all, understanding what they want is a complete mystery to me lol.
http://magazine.foxnews.com/love/5-things-…
but it’s fox news so I trust it about as much as
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0207201/
Crayons,
Ummm…why do I get shit on for poking fun of the lowlife douchebags that are trolling a dating site for quick pussy? Because there are lots of these wankers out there, I can’t make fun of them? That doesn’t even come close to making sense, and besides, that kind of stupid is just gagging to be made fun of. Not to mention the fact that there is another side to this, if there was no market of nasty bitches that like cock pics, there would be no cock pics. Not unlike the male douchebag, the female douchebag makes their gender look pretty fucking stupid too. Not that there’s anything wrong with a woman having a healthy appetite for the cock, and it’s pics.
If you are looking for marriage (because, really, that’s the endgame for you if you’re not in it purely for the pussy), you need to be honest with your expectations, both for the candidate and for yourself. At 33, you have other people to think about: your family and her family, particularly aging parents, not to mention whatever children you’d like to have. Nova Scotia is not for standalone people looking for an island; it is for people who can interconnect and work with whatever familial baggage the other person brings with them.
This is not the realm of the vapid, yet beautiful 18-year-old supermodel, I’m sorry to say. Aim a little lower in the looks department and start asking some deep, deep questions: what’s her relationship with her parents like? How many siblings does she have and do they get along? What does she do for a living? What do her parents and siblings do? Where did she go to school or get her trade? What religion/philosophy/overarching worldview does she have? Does she want to raise her/your kids with same? What hobbies/interests does she have?
These are the kinds of things you want to know before you decide to introduce her to the ‘rents. Sure, you can do that through matchmaking websites (not necessarily dating websites); you’re likely better off meeting Ms. Right at work, or at night school, or at the rec centre, or at church, or at some local event where you both might have an interest and there’s some deeper thing going on. You’re not just dating here; you’re building a community through yourself and whoever you end up with.
RSVPs
Things are a little slow in the new bitch department so I thought it might be an idea to have a look at a random sampling of comments not directly addressed to me as is usually my practice with my RSVPs. So here goes:
:eats_crayons (07/02, 8:16PM)
“Listen harper. Women don’t respond to dick pics the way men respond to tit pics. Totally different mindset. Universally.”
An interesting observation, one relating to the gender difference between the male and female which I’ve attempted to articulate in previous posts. (For example, see my old post, “What Is It Like to Have a Cunt?”) The question, of course, is of what that “totally different mindset” consists. Any chance for an explanation or is that just being hopelessly male?
: NurseHezz (8:45PM)
“Keep in mind that most women love a man who can make them laugh. Try not to set the tone in too serious a manner. It’s boring and we hate it.”
The question here is the nature of female humour. What makes a female laugh? Is it different from the male’s? Would NurseHezz laugh, for example, at one of Harper’s dick pics? Why not?
: Voice of Treason (07/03, 7:01PM)
“It happens to women on these sites too. Except we get a lot of messages from men who are mainly in two categories. Outer space or in mom’s basement… There’s also another category of men of average looks, economic status and personality that thinks they can get a supermodel size 4 woman in Halifax.”
Do you think Single dude was in outer space? In mom’s basement? Do looks, economic status and personality exhaust the categories that define the male? (See HaliKell below.) A size 4?
: eats_crayons (07/04, 10:07PM)
“No offense but most of your gender just doesn’t get it.”
This is very close to your previous comment (07/02, 8:16PM) but, once again, as with “a totally different mindset,” the question as to what “it” means requires further exploration. These are strong claims and, without elaboration, seem headed towards some doctrinaire feminist position. Any thoughts on that?
: HalKell (07/05, 11:20PM)
“Aim a little lower in the looks department and start asking some deep, deep questions… What religion/philosophy/overarching world view does she have?”
Interesting points but what would Voice of Treason think about the overarching world view bit? Would those “deep, deep questions” make NurseHezz laugh? Would eats_crayons reply that you just don’t get it?
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
RSVPs
Things are a bit slow in updating the list of those former students of St. Peterfondle’s Composite High School for Insufferable Twats currently under indictment and since, I personally reproduce by cellular mitosis, curfew shall not ring for Pennis tonight. I thought I would address some of the underclass ramblings of those who have decided not to avail themselves of the privilege of a Socratic dialogue avec moi.
:eats_crayons (07/02, 8:16PM)
“Listen harper. Women don’t respond to dick pics the way men respond to tit pics. Totally different mindset. Universally.”
A splintered obfuscation, from one who is prating about the tender differences between shale and e-mail, which I’ve preempted so articulately in devious posts (For example, see my old post “So, You’re a Cunt. Now What?) The question, of course, is why that “totally fragrant hindend” persists. Any chance of a demonstration or is that just being scrotally pale?
: NurseHezz (8:45PM)
“Keep in mind that most women love a man who can make them laugh. Try not to set the tone in too serious a manner. It’s boring and we hate it.”
The question here is the future of the female tumor. What makes us flail at chaff? Is it diffident to the Holy Grail? Would Nurse Hezz laugh at one of Brueghel’s triptychs? Why, of course not.
: Voice of Treason (07/03, 7:01PM)
“It happens to women on these sites too. Except we get a lot of messages from men who are mainly in two categories. Outer space or in mom’s basement… There’s also another category of men of average looks, economic status and personality that thinks they can get a supermodel size 4 woman in Halifax.”
Do you eat Pringles nude at Cape Race? At an Imam’s casemate? Do books, sporadic flatus, and exhausting personality feature among the categories of a possible mate?
4 inches, tumescent. Interested?
: eats_crayons (07/04, 10:07PM)
“No offense but most of your gender just doesn’t get it.”
This is perilously close to specious torment, but, once again, as with “totally fragrant hindend” the rectum requires in-depth exploration. My blue veiner, with appropriate manipulation seems headed at warp speed toward the fundament of your doctrinaire feminist muse. Make it so.
HalKell (07/05, 11:20PM)
“Aim a little lower in the looks department and start asking some deep, deep questions… What religion/philosophy/overarching world view does she have?”
Administering a pointy stick to “Voice of Treason” makes me think of plovers marching over your curly ecu. Would these “creepy creepy arachnids” make Nurse Hezz laugh? Would eats-crayons imply that she doesn’t get “it” all that often?
My fissures are off-gray.
Oleomargarine.
screeeeeeeeeeee
Rawk!, Painey. How are you managing with the heat?
SOBova and I were in the lake at 10:00 this morning. J.F. Luvverly!
hot a the shoppe, luckily we have big jugs of water, that we are pouring on our heads
hot at the shoppe, but we have cold jugs of water which we are pouring on our heads. backyard breezes, beer and the mop and pail are waiting
sorry about the double post, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrCPIrs90eg
All our shack windows are open, fans are wheezing and the beer is chillin’ – our lovely girlie is paying us a visit today to hang out with Maw and Paw – looks like there’s gonna be a big lobster fry in Hillybilly Hollow this afternoon – no, not boil – they grill ’em on the pavement – mmmmm – yellow line……
There are more devious reasons than those listed that explain why some messed up people join those dating sites.Some get off on manipulating total strangers.
RSVP
: Penis Playdoh (06/07, 11:46AM)
All excellent points, Penis. Also very surreal. It makes one think but perhaps that’s not the right word since “thought” normally requires a coherent, identifiable object. Like Brueghel’s triptychs themselves, “evocative” might be better, possibly even “provocative”. I shall have to reflect.
I hope you haven’t scared away all my potential correspondents. I mean, “fragrant hind ends”? “Eating Pringles nude at Cape Race”? I’m not sure they’re up to this sort of thing, Penis.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
BREUGHEL, INPE & ALL THAT
It appears that Penis has frightened my putative correspondents away with his surrealist yobbering and so I thought I would take the opportunity to talk about Breughel, INPE, and all that.
Penis’ mention of Breughel revived my memories of Antwerp in Belgium where, of course, Breughel lived. What was I doing in Antwerp? I was on a day-long field trip with others participating in the Fourth Biennial Conference of the International Network of Philosophers of Education (INPE) held at the Katolische Universitet Leuven (The Catholic University of Leuven). The theme of the conference was “Identity, Culture and Education.” What was I doing at the conference? I was presenting at one of the “Topical Sessions.” What was I presenting? I was presenting a paper wittily entitled, “Selections from ‘The PCHS Pecker'”. What is the “PCHS Pecker”? Let me explain. In fact, let me do better than that, Let me give you the abstract for my presentation. Here goes:
“The PCHS Pecker” is the name of the staff newsletter at Pierrefonds Comprehensive High School, Quebec, Canada. PCHS is an unexceptional secondary comprehensive with a strong sports program. Initially intended as a simple newsletter, ‘The Pecker’, under my editorship (“We Don’t Bite, We Just Peck”) has taken a theoretical, even philosophical turn. In addition to extended quotations from selected philosophical journals (“What the Journals Say”) on topics of interest to secondary teachers, I have written a number of brief essays with a similar twist. The following selections might be of interest to some attending the INPE Conference.
1. “Why high school teachers don’t write”
What is the nature of secondary school teachers’ mentality? Is the difference between such teachers and university professors one of intelligence or just aptitude? This essay linked the view that to write on educational theory is, in itself, to be critical and, according to Richard Rorty, this is just what secondary teachers are not. Instead of ‘individuation’ which occurs, for Rorty, at the university level, it is ‘socialization’ which occurs at the pre-university level. Is this right?
2. “Reconceiving School Structure: The Faculty Council, Teacher Professionalization, and the Halo Effect”
Recently, the role of the ‘Faculty Council,’ the consultative body of teachers meeting with the Principal to determine school policy, has come under question. The reason for this is that many believe that the policies on which consultation is permissible are trivial and that membership on the Council amounts to little more than functioning as an acolyte for the Principal. Should teachers have a position in the school similar to that of professors in the university? Should they be ‘professionals’ in the full sense of the term?”
For those puzzled about who Richard Rorty might be, did I mention that I gave a paper on Rorty wittily entitled “Hanging Together With Richard Rorty” for the Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain at New College (founded in 1382!), Oxford University? It was one of several I gave at that venue.
Would you like a summary? No? Well blame “eats_crayons” and all the others for not responding to my invitation to argue the merits of on-line dating services. So there.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Maybe you could try attending a local church. There are a few single great ladies in my congregation that have been looking for two long. The women you will meet there will have actual standards, try it OP. You owe it to the lord and yourself. Worst case scenario you will have a blast and meet some great open minded people.
RSVP
:Cassandra Hill (07/07, 10:31AM)
“You owe it to the lord and yourself. Worst case scenario you will have a blast and meet some open minded people.”
How do you know who owes what to? How do you know what Single Dude owes to “the lord”? Do you have some sort of special access to the man in the sky so that you know what He feels is His due? In the same way, how do you know what Single Dude owes to “himself”? Do you know what everyone owes to themselves? It sounds like you do but don’t you find that rather arrogant? No, I suppose you don’t. Your sort never does.
Clearly, you are not to be numbered among those “open-minded people” you speak of are you, you buffoon. Also, you’re not a very good speller either. Try “too” for “two,” you simpleton.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Yes…church is the definitely the place I go to meet “open minded” people, cause following the teaching of a 2000 year old book is exactly what I would consider to be open minded and progressive. The very definition of stupid would be: Clinging to a belief in “creationism” when science has dispelled that myth.
Enjoy your communion (“body and blood of Christ”), ya fucking cannibal!!!
Steve There are prostitutes and unwed mothers in the Bible…There’s a lot people gettin’ it on in the Bible.
The body and blood of Christ is a symbolic jesture. You are also confused by Catholics and Christians, I blame your parents but they probably died of anti-christ aids. Wouldn’t be a surprise…. or pity, just god doing his work.
A very popular american church has been offering a million dollar cash prize to any scientist that can disprove creationism. Surprise, surprise, a decade later and no formal proof of evolution, thers only the “myth” of evilution. Darwins archaic theory that should really be laid to rest as it has no merit in todays technology.
Whatacrock/Boru- Go to hell! Thats where those whores you spoke of will rest for eternity!
Blip, I know you think you’re a clever troll but you’re actually just boring as fuck. Get a life.
I’ll give YOU the rest of my paycheques for the rest of my life if you can give me “proof” of creationism. I’ll give you a hint, the bible doesn’t count. I am wondering though, who would be the judge of this “proof” the “wackadoodle church of stupidity” is asking for? Would it be an impartial jury of peers, or the “minister” of said church.
If everything was created in seven days, and “life” starting with Adam and Eve in the “Garden of Eden” as the bible would suggest, I suppose the proof you are looking for would be the very existence of dinosaurs, or any other form of life predating humanity. Are you arguing the existence of dinosaurs?
Just for the record, my father being an Anglican priest, my grandfather, uncle, and aunt being United ministers, would argue the fact that your theory of “the body and blood of Christ” being solely Catholic, is just stupid and uneducated. If you are going to pretend to be a religious person to troll, at least get your facts straight!!! Ya fuckin Wanker!!!!!!
Hey SHITman, your too easy still. No matter how foolish the post I make, you respond promptly. No matter how obvious it is to other posters, its unclear to you.
I always win. Your responses make it that way. My goodness sweety, you are so stupid its hilarious.
I’ll drop you a few more crumbs tomorrrow and see how fast you nibble. Thanks for the life story too, see, I always win.
In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, Amen to your stupidity.
PS- God created in six days, not seven. The seventh day was for rest……. that day being Sunday. Hahaha- I’d be some good at fishing if my husband ever decides to take me along.
RSVP
: Cassandra Hill (07/07, 12:51)
Apologies once again (as in “Drivers: You’re supposed to stop at a Crosswalk”) for the mistaken identity. I should have twigged to the fact that you were female, “Cassandra” being, of course, the Greek goddess who was fated to prophesy truly but was never believed.
While I don’t share your religious beliefs, I do protest you’re being bullied and so it looks like we’re going to be back on the same team again.
Blow me another kiss, dear!
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
wow .tmI , boomboo m .
‘ I’d be some good at fisting if my husband ever decides to take me along. ‘
hey dennis you know thats brenda r ight ?
Hey punky, we both know your sonictroll now. And the mod can get your address very easily.
MM- You are forgiven, xoxoxoxox. I changed my profiule in hopes it make the bullies leave me alone. Foolish me, they will never stop. Interesting fact about the name Cassandra, I knew it would me like a glove. Thanks again honey, you’re the best;)
montrealman, why don’t you give us a study of the mindset of internet trolls who make new accounts everyday. What is going on there?
Nurse, wanna go see The Wailers and tell jokes?
s he is the worst troll eve r .
Thanks for responding so quickly, blip. I guess my ridiculous post got you a little mad, huh? Sorry I couldn’t get back to you sooner as I was out with my dogs and family, not holed up in front of my computer. It’s too easy to troll you with obvious mistakes to illicit a response. You’re spinning your wheels and quickly running out of gas, honey. Maybe you could use some of your choir practice commuting time for a little self reflection, as your bullying and posting people’s private information will now have to be a police matter.
Ya fukkin idiot!!!! LOL!!!!
I’m glad the whole internet dating thing is too strange to me.
and B INGO was his name_o ,sHitman !
RSVP
: Voice of Treason (07/07, 5:32PM)
“Montrealman, why don’t you give us an study of the mindset of internet trolls who make new accounts every day. What is going on?”
An interesting question, VT and one which, in my view, can be approached at two levels, the philosophical and the psychological. The first relates to those who make new accounts every day and concerns the philosophical grounds of personal identity. The second, the psychological, relates to the degree to which, or even whether, the question of the philosophical grounds of personal identity are made manifest in a particular individual. It is a complex question as I am sure you will agree, one which must be approached with intelligence, skill and subtlety. Fortunately, as you are no doubt aware, I am in ample possession of all these attributes. So, on to the question of the philosophical grounds of personal identity.
What makes us who we are? Are we simply the indistinguishable products of socialization or are we in some sense and in varying degrees the products of our own creation, of our own agency? Viewed from without, human beings tend to be seen as indistinguishable products of socialization, creatures totally moulded by social forces, whether political, economic, religious and so on. But, and in my view this is the determining feature, human beings – or at least some of them – can reflect on their own condition. Call it the introspective view from within. In other words, they can transcend those social forces, reflect upon them and, as a consequence, become the agents of their own actions. Such transcendence, of course, is most evident in the activity of philosophical reflection which, again in my view, is the determining feature of the grounds of personal identity.
The psychological question now becomes one of determining whether or not an individual instantiates those qualities of philosophical reflection. How is this to be done? What one does is to listen for those signs of humour, irony, of bemused philosophical detachment in the language used to express her thoughts. In other words, one listens to the mind of the individual at work in her words. Can one detect such humour, irony and bemused philosophical detachment in the present case? I think there is no question. Of course one can.
I hope, VT, that this has relieved your perplexity, has dissolved what the philosopher Gilbert Ryle once called one’s “intellectual cramps.”
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
http://www.tldrband.com/images/tldr.png
MM, I guess where you see ‘humor, irony and bemused philosophical detachment’, I see rather generic trolling attempts (though, they are successful at times for some reason, on these boards that does not make them any better). There is an art to trolling. A good troll is not blatantly obvious to everyone reading it but subtle. You are a much better troll, actually, because to this day I’m not sure if you come here with the intent to troll. This is why MM gets a bit of respek from me and blip doesn’t. In the league of trolls this is amateur hour. Really more of an annoyance than anything.
THE ART OF TROLLING
RSVP
: HoistThatRag (07/08, 3:25PM)
“You are a much better troll, actually, because to this day I’m not sure if you come here with the intent to troll.”
An interesting statement Raggy, one which requires further analysis. Where by “trolling” one usually assumes that the entire post is simply a means to elicit reactions from the readers but, it seems to me, that there is more than that to trolling if the activity is to be elevated to an “art”.
The initial difficulty revolves about the concept of “intent.” As you say, generic trolling is “blatantly obvious” where trolling as an art is more subtle. In other words, one’s intent to troll must not be obvious. How is this achieved? It is achieved by “layering,” by mixing one’s serious thoughts with the simple attempt to elicit reactions from the reader. Take my post of 10:16AM. The issue was, for those who make new accounts every day, the question of personal identity.
I broke the question down into two parts, that of the philosophical grounds of personal identity which I equated with the activity of philosophical reflection on one’s identity conceived in terms of a product of socialization. This was not trolling. I was serious about the issue. Then came the psychological question, the nature of personal identity philosophically conceived as it was instantiated in the individual.
I claimed that one could determine this only by listening to the mind of the individual in her words, the expressions she used, whether they displayed irony, humour and a certain philosophical detachment. That was also serious since I can think of no other way in which one might do so. However, when it came to the case of the individual under scrutiny I claimed that there could be no question. Of course she embodied all these virtues, or so I maintained. But here, of course, I was trolling not her but the bullies who would be outraged at such an assertion. I was, in effect, attempting to divert their bullying from her to myself where it would amount to a nullity, to nothing.
So, to recapitulate, trolling as an art is not a homogeneous concept, a unitary activity allowing of no subtle distinctions. Rather, trolling as an art involves layering one’s posts, some aspects of which are serious and others not. Of course, one might question whether this post itself is just another troll, a sort of “meta-troll” in which one trolls one’s previous trolls. This is to be attempted only by the adepts which, it goes without saying, I am one.
I hope that this has clarified your confusion.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
“Whatacrock/Boru- Go to hell! Thats where those whores you spoke of will rest for eternity!” – Careful Cassy, your ignorance is showing, but then you’re not really a Christian, are you?
FYI – Jesus Christ’s wife and mother of his children, Mary Magdalene, was a whore. And you say she’s in hell?
“Going to church no more makes you a Christian than sleeping in your garage makes you a car.” – Garrison Keiler