Or he can not pay attention to such things and get tangled up with something he shouldn't, mineownself. What that woman did was at the very least disrespectful of AGG's life priorities. Is that sinister? No, but it's sure selfish. There is no "data" here, only a exhibited behavior. What does caution when doing online dating have to do with "worldview", postitive or otherwise? That's become a most misused word. If you're doing online dating, you'd better err to the side of caution. If someone equates caution with negativity, let them proceed with their "positive" approach; then meet with them at some later date and compare the scars on your hearts.

Sinister? we don't know. As I've said, we don't know what her true motivation was. To m,e it wouldn't make any difference. She would have blown it with me.

I think we all agree with that. Like I said, for all I know, she is telling all her GF's: "He must not be all that into me" <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />. It wouldn't surprise me at all if she was thinking that she was the one getting rid of the player, as opposed to the other way around. On the other hand, I agree with Check, in that I doubt she was losing much sleep over cutting off our match - so many men, so little time <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />.

Regardless of her reasons, she would clearly be a bad match for me, for all the reasons we discussed here earlier. So, no big loss.

Still, it's funny to see some of the stuff you stumble across in online dating.

AGG

Everyone should go over to www.onlinedatingmagazine.com and read the "Experiences" section. This is where people post their personal experiences with online dating. The negatives outnumber the positives by almost 6-to-one, and this is in a magazine about online dating!

This "my way or the highway" mentality is the norm in online dating. Because it is so completely depersonalized, people naturally tned to think of relationships much differently online than they do in more traditional ways.

Ah, that's great, AGG -- this post illustrates exactly what I was trying to get across; shrugging it off as a funny experience without trying to assign motives to this woman is the positive way to go. All that really matters is that she did not meet your personal standard for courteous behavior, so you know in advance you're not interested in dealing with her should you run across her again.

There's tremendous liberation in choosing not to take most behavior of most people personally and choosing not to feel the need to assign motives to most behavior of most people. It makes for a much happier life than the alternative. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Wow, argumentative much? Way to give everyone a nice example of verbal abuse tactics:


Straw man argument -- you created this out of thin air. No one on this thread has suggested he should have anything further to do with this woman, which is why your arguing against it makes it a straw man argument. You addressed the argument to me, making it sound like *I* had suggested such a thing, when it's obvious I haven't.


Here you're just reiterating what we all agree on. Cool enough in and of itself, but not precisely honest when tied to the straw man argument above.


<tries not to chuckle and fails> Ok, so you don't like how some people use a particular word. That has nothing to do with my choice to use it or not, but you seem a bit confused on that point.


More restating what we all agree on, cool in and of itself.


But now we're back to the straw man argument again. The equation of caution with negativity is something you created out of thin air -- no one else here has suggested that. Arguing against something that wasn't in the discussion to start with is a straw man argument.


Back to restating what we all agree on. Again, in and of itself, this is great, but it's not precisely honest to tie it to the straw man argument. The implication is that people either need to accept both or discard both, when they have nothing to do with each other: One we all agree on, the other is of no interest to anyone but you.

mineownself, what is the problem? There is no way a reasonable peson can take issue with my post, which you feel the need to criticize sentence-by-sentence. You need to go off and privately get a handle on whatever it is making you so angry.

Let me do to you what you've done to me so perhaps you can see how absurd you are being.

"Straw man argument -- you created this out of thin air."

You obviously don't know what a strawman argment is. I stated a truism, not a false argument.

"Ok, so you don't like how some people use a particular word."

I would prefer that people use a word based on it's correct definition, rather than just trying to sound informed, or in this case misinformed. I particularly giggle when people throw out one of the new and cool-sounding buzzwords like "worldview." This is a word that is very new and has almost as different "definitions" as people who use it.

"The equation of caution with negativity"

No, actually, you did this and I pointed out how your argument has no basis in fact.

I stated my optinion on this and some people, but not all do agree with it. read the tread again and you will see how absurd your statements in regard to my reiterating core points is. And I guess that it's ok for you or others to state how they would handle a similar situation, but not me.

The truth is you don't like to be disagreed with. You understand that your arguments are indefensible, so you resort to an ad hominem attack. It's a cheap trick that has become quite popular of late. It is, nonetheless, the hallmark of a bad debater. But then, we aren't really debating here, but mearly expressing personal viewpoints and discussing them. You don't seem to understand that your post is itself a strawman argument, since it's only purpose is to distract from the central dissucssion by going off on a tangent that does not add anything of value to the discussion. So you make yourself look foolish with your last post.

That'd be my question for you. I really didn't catch what the value was in the way you argued in your last post on this thread.


Sorry, but you're not the global definer of "reasonable". I think it's perfectly reasonable for anyone to point out straw man arguments.


And here we have a perfect example of an ad hominem attack.


Sure, if you see me using straw man arguments, point them out.


Evidently you're confused on the definition of a straw man argument. Here's a definition for you: http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/straw.htm

What I pointed out as a straw man argument in your post is exactly that.

You also seem to be confused about what a truism is.


Again, your dislike of how some people use a word has nothing to do with me or my choice in using it. Pontificating doesn't change that.


Wrong, as is abundantly clear if anyone reads this thread. You created that one as a straw man argument (see above definition link).



Nope, because where you reiterated core points, I said I agreed with you. I just wasn't taken in by the straw man arguments.


Oh, sure, make another unsubstantiated claim. No one has said anything about not wanting your opinion on how to handle the situation, since the point of the thread seemed to be to get a number of opinions.


LOL


ROFL -- you're the only one who used an ad hominem attack -- see above where I indentified it for you.


Agreed. So why did you use one again?


Yup, so why did you have a problem with my viewpoint again, to the point of creating strawman arguments over it?


Nah, while this is a threadjack, I don't think it's foolish to stand up to someone who uses the kind of verbal attacks you did. As far as I'm concerned, the one who starts making things up is the threadjacker, not the one who stands up to them, though I'll grant you I am certainly participating in the threadjack