In article
<OC_Gb.243242$Ec1.8484155@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, ifignow
<ifignow@yawoo.com> wrote:

> > Someone who eschews the idea of meeting people in bars, in
> > churches, in classes and almost any other way imaginable seems to
> > have some limitations on their social agility.  Just an obvious
> > deduction.
> 
> Who, me or the people who use such methods?  The people I meet in
> bars, churches, and those places seem so stupid, so stunted.

I think you'll find that the world is generally composed of the same
people one would meet in bars, churches and "those places".  As I said
earlier, this just seems to underscore some basic social deficiencies
on your part. Everybody everywhere is stupid except you.  Where would
someone thinking that find the not-a-lay you're purportedly looking
for.

Another freebie of experience that will bounce off that metal tank you
call a head: it's all about volume. Going to a church group or bar once
or twice and finding a stupid person--then giving up, that's not a
method that's an excuse. You have to go repeatedly.  It's about volume.
Think of the odds.  Do you think all people are stupid, or just the
three you said "hi' to in a bar once 4 years ago?

The reason you can't and don't go is that it's frightening to you.  You
can't think of anything to say.  You judge the people harshly so you
can say "they are worthless, I can't go home now".  Semit-vapid people
still provide plenty of social challenges and opportunities, if you
want them. You don't.  You just want Ms "not-a-lay" to show up and
provide you that nameless something.  And why is it you can even say
you wouldn't mind getting laid out of the deal. Sheesh!

If you prefer, stand at the bottom of an escalator at a mall and ask
every visually viable candidate out as she comes down.  VERY low yield,
and tough on the psyche.  But productive. Do it for 8 or 10 hours and
you'll be surprised how many hits you can actually get, if you have the
determination. You don't.  You can't.
  
> > Men generally seem to want to meet women through the want-ads, the
> > telphone, the internet, the ether, a fantasy life. Dream on. Women
> > want to meet guys in the flesh.
> 
> That's the kind of armchair psychology that used to be touted in the
> media in the mid-1990s, but times are different now.

Nothing whatever has changed about humans.  We have new gizmos.  Big
deal.

> Several major net dating sites have more women than men.

That's because they can't find the millions of men that won't leave
their house. Now, both TV's and computers keep the fearful occupied.
Nothing's changed.  You citing "media" and websites shows what you know
about people; you believe what somebody told you about them.

> > Logically they can learn more about a guy in the way he walks in
> > the room than 10 pages of blabber.
> 
> No, actually.  The way someone writes says all about them -- what is
> his education?  What is his personality?  A guy who puts on an act
> when he walks into a room reveals little.

Not so. A man who walks with confidence has got confidence.  That's
tough to fake, and one of the most eagerly sought qualities. That kind
of confidence is born of myriad small and large social experiencs that
make one feel they can navigate most waters.  "They're stupid" is away
of avoiding learning to navigate those waters. When you walk in the
place they know you're incompetent socially.  You say it with every
step and you will until you rise to the challenges.

Same with wit and humor; highly prized, impossible to fake. A guy can
write all about his field of study and not be worth shit as either a
dinner companion or a lover.  You can quite easily tell who's fun to
have dinner with and who has a physical sympatico by chatting with them
for 10 minutes. You'll be wrong sometimes, of course.  But resumes and
the *especially* the crude morse-code format of chatrooms are woth
almost nothing at all. If you you've done that you know, of course,
despite all your lying about how successful it's proved; it's give you
ZERO, and you know it.
 
> > The way someone moves, smiles, makes small talk, or orders an
> > appetizer; this is useful.
> 
> Again, shallow pretenses.

You demonstrate only that you know nothing of life.

> > No one puts "has a clear a direct prose style" on their list of
> > qualifications for a social contact, lover or spouse.
> 
> Plenty of people do, actually.  Perhaps you lack the education or
> worldliness to know of such people.

I have both in more abundance that you're likely ever to have: because
at one time I knew that I didn't have either and went out and secured
them.  You seem to think that feigning both will tide you over. You
don't even have the depth of experience that reading too much pulp
fiction provides. 

In any case "prose style" is not currently nor will it ever be on the
list of "must-haves" with women or men at any station of life.  Dream
on!  If that were really true you'd have to get some prose style
too--you'd be doubly screwed!
 
> > Women seem less fearful of this in-person process than the many men
> > overly-sensitive about their hairline, height or inexperience.
> 
> Actually, women like the safety of non-physical encounters.

What the hell are you talking about.  People can't start a relationship
before finding out exactly how bald and short you are. They can have a
fantasy. They can dream.  But dreaming is not a relationship. 

You know nothing, and I'm through giving you valuable information, as
it just pours over the top of your overly bloated vessel.

I have to killfile you now, because I pity you so much I want to help
you.  And you will not be helped.  You're to "smart" for that.

-- 
First they gerrymander us into one-party fiefs. Then they tell us they only
care about the swing districts. Then they complain about voter apathy.
 -- Gail Collins