lament
bukvich
eventually become what it is that you pretend to be. Social construct.
If you don't pretend to be something, people accuse you of duplicity.
You got to give them some bullshit to latch onto. This is all very
tiring.
She claims to want to know what I really think. She does not want to
know that. Because I really think that she is horrified with the idea
I am the best she can do. She hates her life. She really does. She
thinks she deserves so much more than what she has, that she can pitch
it all without any remorse. For now.
Maybe years from now she'll wake up, go "oh shit; what could I have
been thinking?" When it is way too late.
When you treat people carelessly, they care less about you. And if you
do it long enough, they stop caring at all. I suppose you could
describe this as the pinkorangered problem. It is a shame she relies
on this strategy. Although this does explain why she is available.
Forget about her. She's a heartbreaker. She did the same thing to me.
It is really hot out there today.
Bukvich
[ ' yabadabado ' ]
bob
ms. parker
"bukvich" <buk...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:60c15f9c.03071...@posting.google.com...
> Without your facades and masks, you have no self, or you will
> eventually become what it is that you pretend to be. Social construct.
> If you don't pretend to be something, people accuse you of duplicity.
> You got to give them some bullshit to latch onto. This is all very
> tiring.
>
bullshit. one can speak freely amongst one's equals. one too has drives and
a natural "style." one can speak "the truth."
> She claims to want to know what I really think. She does not want to
> know that. Because I really think that she is horrified with the idea
> I am the best she can do. She hates her life. She really does. She
> thinks she deserves so much more than what she has, that she can pitch
> it all without any remorse. For now.
>
> Maybe years from now she'll wake up, go "oh shit; what could I have
> been thinking?" When it is way too late.
>
> When you treat people carelessly, they care less about you. And if you
> do it long enough, they stop caring at all. I suppose you could
> describe this as the pinkorangered problem. It is a shame she relies
> on this strategy. Although this does explain why she is available.
>
> Forget about her. She's a heartbreaker. She did the same thing to me.
>
where do you meet these ladies!
jonah thomas
> Without your facades and masks, you have no self, or you will
> eventually become what it is that you pretend to be. Social construct.
Yes.
> If you don't pretend to be something, people accuse you of duplicity.
Yes. Some people would call that a paradox, but it isn't. What people
want is for you to tell them about a reliable interface. Give them a
workable user's manual.
> You got to give them some bullshit to latch onto. This is all very
> tiring.
It's just practical. But it isn't always that way. Sometimes a woman
will want you to tell her something special. Something you wouldn't
tell anybody else, about how you really are. Something positive and
hopeful and joyous preferably. And she'll tell you something she
wouldn't tell other people -- it's like codewords, where interpreting
the code doesn't matter as much as the experience that you're people who
share codes with each other. And there's that sense of "Do you really
understand?" "Oh, yes. Yes."
> She claims to want to know what I really think. She does not want to
> know that. Because I really think that she is horrified with the idea
> I am the best she can do.
It might be interesting to tell her that. Since it's hopeless anyway.
bukvich
> Have you been in touch with 'FANG'?
No. She is not the woman in the lament. There is more than one of them!
Bukvich
pinkorangered
buk...@my-deja.com says...
>
>> Have you been in touch with 'FANG'?
>
>No. She is not the woman in the lament. There is more than one of them!
You've been rescuing 'FANG'as well? She must be a.a's Most Rescued of the
Millenium, yet nobody can even find her. What does that tell you?
pinkorangered
>When you treat people carelessly, they care less about you. And if you
>do it long enough, they stop caring at all. I suppose you could
>describe this as the pinkorangered problem.
If I've made any consistent observations it's that people with low self
esteem will never find happiness because they necessarily devalue anybody
who values them. This will generally lead to rejection upon which the
roles reverse and so on. It's un underdamped system which doesn't
collapse until it runs out of energy, or somebody takes out a court
order.
bukvich
> If I've made any consistent observations it's that people with low self
> esteem will never find happiness because they necessarily devalue anybody
> who values them. This will generally lead to rejection upon which the
> roles reverse and so on. It's un underdamped system which doesn't
> collapse until it runs out of energy, or somebody takes out a court
> order.
I suppose that is true enough, but I don't see how it applies. If
there is a self-esteem quantity in this case it would be high, not
low.
A person who thinks that the world has failed to reward them according
to their true value has too much self-esteem, not too little. Hating
your life is not the same thing as hating yourself; all you need is
sufficient grandiose delusions to convince yourself that all the other
people have you pegged wrong.
And repression can be good for you!
Bukvich
[ ' not the crucified one ' ]
David O'Lantern
> Sometimes a woman will want you to tell her something special.
> Something you wouldn't tell anybody else, about how you really
> are. Something positive and hopeful and joyous preferably.
I'm confused now: why would someone want you to tell her something
"positive and hopeful and joyous" about yourself? Except for some-
thing like "I'm really not Clark Kent" or "when my mommy dies I'll
inherit a castle and a yacht" -- things that you'd better back up
with solid proof right away or she'll accuse you of being a conman
poseur just like all her other exes -- what's the percentage in it
for her? *Good* stuff takes too much *work* to hold over your head,
to threaten to tell people unless you do what she wants, unlike say
a major felony you've so far gotten away with (which isn't making
you too much money; *remunerative* secrets she'll help you *keep*,
even if she has to swallow your jism once a week to do so).
> And she'll tell you something she wouldn't tell other people
Unless there's something in it for her, or unless she feels like it,
whether it could be true in any possible universe or not.
I'd be tempted to ask if you were talking about real life from your
own personal experience if I didn't already know that's impossible.
The
P.S. "What's the opposite of misogyny?" "Stupidity."
--
"Reaching after something, touching nothing, is all I ever do."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
(C) `TheDavid^TM' 2003 | David, P.O. Box 21403, Louisville, KY 40221
David O'Lantern
[...]
> A person who thinks that the world has failed to reward them according
> to their true value has too much self-esteem, not too little.
Too much compqared to what, Bukky? On what scale, published where?
> Hating your life is not the same thing as hating yourself;
That's true. But they're not mutually exclusive.
> all you need is sufficient grandiose delusions to convince yourself
> that all the other people have you pegged wrong.
True enough again. (`I really AM Clark Kent!')
> And repression can be good for you!
Can be, depending.
SO? Where's your depth, your dazzle, your genius in this thread?
Yawningly,
The
pinkorangered
buk...@my-deja.com opined thusly:
>I suppose that is true enough, but I don't see how it applies. If
>there is a self-esteem quantity in this case it would be high, not
>low.
Ayup, I was typing in parallel. If you're going to credit me with my own
syndrome I think this one is more boxable. I have a corollary in which a
person with low self esteem but a big ego - which isn't a paradox - has no easy
way out of a relationship whether (s)he be jilter or jiltee. These people are
addicted to relationships for the approval they get, need to maintain a
turnover, but find it impossible to let go. The technical term for this is
'pathetic', apparently.
bob
wrote:
She's into experience. a.a folks were fine for a while but we're all a
bit too tame for her.
bukvich
> Ayup, I was typing in parallel. If you're going to credit me with my own
> syndrome I think this one is more boxable. I have a corollary in which a
> person with low self esteem but a big ego - which isn't a paradox - has no easy
> way out of a relationship whether (s)he be jilter or jiltee. These people are
> addicted to relationships for the approval they get, need to maintain a
> turnover, but find it impossible to let go. The technical term for this is
> 'pathetic', apparently.
I doubt that we can give you your own syndrome merely on these
tidbits. Still it strikes me as uncanny that you appear to have
treated Fiona in almost exactly the same manner that Sarah not Jane
has treated me.
Perhaps you devalue her, as you say. I don't think so. And I don't
believe you are pathetic. My theory is it is merely arrested
development, and not that big a deal. (In SnJ's case it is rather
inconvenient as her fertility is waning at warp-30's speed.)
Self esteem, like love, is a term so projection laden as to be nigh
useless at this point, if you ask me.
Bukvich
[ ' but HEY, do not ask me !' ]
pinkorangered
>I doubt that we can give you your own syndrome merely on these
>tidbits. Still it strikes me as uncanny that you appear to have
>treated Fiona in almost exactly the same manner that Sarah not Jane
>has treated me.
I don't have enough info to comment except to say that what you know about me
and Fiona is highly filtered. Also I have posted a lot about somebody else
this past few months, to whom your theory probably does apply.
I'd be interested to compare experiences.
>Perhaps you devalue her, as you say. I don't think so. And I don't
>believe you are pathetic. My theory is it is merely arrested
>development, and not that big a deal. (In SnJ's case it is rather
>inconvenient as her fertility is waning at warp-30's speed.)
My development has reversed, without doubt. Nothing makes me look like a
teenybopper. Last week I made a pink heart with the initial 'K' and slid it
under the cafe door. It was 3AM, I'd like to say the xanax made me do it. I
find it difficult living 300m from her workplace and having to always walk east
while she walks west, while at night I can wander down and stare through the
window at her writing on the menu and, stuff. I have only done it twice
though. I haven't seen her face since March.
SnJ is what, late 30's? F is 32 and thinks her oven is already out of
warranty. It must be difficult living with such an imperative I suppose.
>Self esteem, like love, is a term so projection laden as to be nigh
>useless at this point, if you ask me.
What do you mean?
bukvich
> I don't have enough info to comment except to say that what you know about me
> and Fiona is highly filtered. Also I have posted a lot about somebody else
> this past few months, to whom your theory probably does apply.
You mean you don't do the same relationship over and over again with
different partners? That does not sound like arrested development.
> I'd be interested to compare experiences.
Here is my experience of losing all of my so-called friends when I
broke up with Darling Dearest. Word got around. Everybody was real
sympathetic. Turns out the reason everybody was real sympathetic was
they were licking their chops at the prospect of me dishing dirt on
her, which I refused to do. She was willing to partake in this
ceremony and took possession of all the so-called friends.
To which I can only say good riddance, I suppose.
So anyway SnJ, the one soon likely to cease to occupy my life, is a
fine woman. Her notion that she is too good for me might even be
accurate. I think it is a distortion, but I have been wrong before.
And I don't believe it is hopeless. Jonah said it is hopeless (based
upon what I wrote which is heavily filtered to start and the way he
read it which is almost double bogus) but I haven't given up hope yet.
But A. is looking mighty fine to me at this point. Mighty fine.
> My development has reversed, without doubt. Nothing makes me look like a
> teenybopper. Last week I made a pink heart with the initial 'K' and slid it
> under the cafe door.
Ferfuxsake dude get a grip on yourself.
You are an excellent writer. Write her a letter in neat penmanship on
good stationery. Don't drip tears on it or write mushy shit. She may
never have received a genuine love letter in her life, and even if she
thinks you are too pathetic to qualify as her boyfriend, she will
think more of you, not less.
But that pink heart is just DesperateLoser style.
> It was 3AM, I'd like to say the xanax made me do it.
Have you seen those "this is your brain; this is your brain on drugs"
ads?
> I
> find it difficult living 300m from her workplace and having to always walk
> east while she walks west, while at night I can wander down and stare through
> the window at her writing on the menu and, stuff.
I have know women like that who really get their kicks watching guys
fight over them. Watch your back and all that.
> I have only done it twice though. I haven't seen her face since March.
> SnJ is what, late 30's?
32
> F is 32 and thinks her oven is already out of
> warranty. It must be difficult living with such an imperative I suppose.
I know a 36 year old going for invitro. This is largely at her
husband's beckoning; they already have one child. The doctors say her
system is "weak", WTF that means. She is not nearly as happy a woman
as everybody thinks she is. It is a societal construct that a woman
with a prosperous husband and healthy children has no right to
complain. The married ladies conspire in this by acting like
everything is just wonderful, no matter what. And all these single
girls will kill to evade spinsterhood. That is, they will kill you.
Your peace of mind is nothing in front of that raging irrestistible
drive.
> >Self esteem, like love, is a term so projection laden as to be nigh
> >useless at this point, if you ask me.
> What do you mean?
I suppose I do love her. Seldom do I say that. What exactly it means
to her I have no fucking clue, so it is sort of like writing a blank
check. The word is not useful for accurate meaningful communication.
Period.
Self esteem has a big buzz in pop psychology. A kid goes on a rampage
with a gun in a schoolyard and the newspapers have wordy post mortums
about how he lacked self esteem. Well no, I am sorry. It is far more
accurate (and this is pretty off) to say the kid went bugnuts.
My psychiatrist thinks my "self" is undeveloped, because he can't
pigeonhole me into his model of what a "devloped self" displays. At
this point in my life (I am 41) I should not be looking for a wife,
going to school, bitching about how my co-workers do not value my
contributions, etc. So he thinks there is a failure of development
there that needs to be fixed, so I can have a more esteemly self.
But frankly I like my personality disorders. Who is to say I haven't
actually optimized my development given the constraints I have had?
Why I am a seeing a psychiatrist you say?
Good question. Let's talk about something else.
Bukvich
Nutmegger
"bukvich" wrote:::
> But that pink heart is just DesperateLoser style.
I disagree.
It says more than words convey.
> The married ladies conspire in this by acting like
> everything is just wonderful, no matter what.
They never talked to me, that's for sure.
>And all these single
> girls will kill to evade spinsterhood.
LOL...they will too.
>That is, they will kill you.
More like chew you up and spit you out.
> Your peace of mind is nothing in front of that raging irrestistible
> drive.
Our peace of mind is nothing in front of ???????
> I suppose I do love her.
I knew it.
> Let's talk about something else.
The sourthern part of your state is getting swallowed up I hear.
Nutmegger
"pinkorangered" wrote:::
> Last week I made a pink heart with the initial 'K' and slid it > under the
cafe door.
That is so-o-o-o sweet!
You should've outlined it in orange for your usenets name sake.
Nutmegger
"bukvich" wrote:::
> Still it strikes me as uncanny that you appear to have
> treated Fiona in almost exactly the same manner that Sarah not Jane
> has treated me.
SO...that explains your "The one who cares the least controls the
relationship" theory.
BTW - Jonah got it right, and he didn't even have to swim in the belly of a
whale.
Nutmegger
"pinkorangered" wrote:::
> The technical term for this is
> 'pathetic', apparently.
I always thought it was co-dependence.
P.S. - I think you are too hard on yourself.
pinkorangered
nutmegg...@yahoo.com says...
>SO...that explains your "The one who cares the least controls the
>relationship" theory.
Is this Bukvich's theory? It is one of the most accurate and concise
observations on relationships I have ever heard. It is also the only one I
can remember and I quote it quite often. Unfortunately it's not a very
useful piece of knowledge because if you don't care about the relationship
you're unlikely to want to control it. More to the point, if you want to
control the relationship, you care too much to be able to.
David O'Lantern
> At this point in my life (I am 41)
I'm younger than Bukvich! Who'da thunk it?
[his shrink thinks]
> I should not be looking for a wife,
You're looking for a WIFE? I though you were just trying get laid
with a pleasant companion on a more-or-less regular basis. A WIFE?
Why in the fuck would *you* want to get *married*? And who in your
social class would want to marry you, given that you read highbrow
stuff, refuse to own a car, and have publicly professed disdain for
having kids?
One quick hint: American bourgeois women over 25 who go to group
therapy do so because of a desperate hope to remedy her deficient
womanhood, i.e. her failure to find and/or keep a Good Husband,
defined as one who thinks Killian's Red is high-class quaff, owns
a sports car and an SUV, and intends to present her with a boodle
of kids to shlep around in the mini-van he buys her. *You* would
better luck finding a mate at something mildly "non-traditional"
like a Unitarian church than a T-group, but don't bet the farm.
If what *you* are looking for is a wife you should *import* one.
There are oodles of women as fine as any you'll find on alt.angst,
e.g., who are so agonizingly desperate to get out of places like
Irkutsk and Cebu that they'd even marry, spread for and try to get
along with *you*. In fact if I won big on Powerball I might even
consider it myself (provided Possum approved and would work with
me on it; another Russian-reading clarinetist might be nice).
Another good point for an import is that once the INS (or whatever
they call it now) is satisfied you can agree to divorce her so she
can move in with her new emo punk rock boyfriend from Birmingham --
and go order yourself a physicist or something. Just think, every
five years or so you could get a NEW angstress from overseas!
[...]
> Why I am a seeing a psychiatrist you say?
Because you are a fuck-wit, Bukvich!
bukvich
> SO...that explains your "The one who cares the least controls the
> relationship" theory.
No. Now this would be a fascinating experiment. Does P or F care the
least? Does B or SnJ care the least? And which is in control?
In my case control is not really an issue. You may find this too much
information, but I do not have anything, anything resembling what you
would consider a "jealousy issue". I have complete faith in modern
genetic laboratory science and no fear whatsoever about paying for
some other guy's sprog.
You do know that is where it comes from, right?
> BTW - Jonah got it right, and he didn't even have to swim in the belly of a
> whale.
You are talking about the hope thing? No, Jonah is wrong. All I have
to do is wait out three more fuckheads, max (for the time being this
is her preferred type) and she is all mine. If I am still interested,
that is. Which I presume I will not be.
So tell me about your body hair.
Bukvich
bukvich
> In article <bet9c2$8kgl0$1...@ID-138055.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> nutmegg...@yahoo.com says...
>
> >SO...that explains your "The one who cares the least controls the
> >relationship" theory.
>
> Is this Bukvich's theory?
I stole it from one of the olde thyme angsters. Cannot recall who. In
my RL neighborhood that is now known as my theory. One of my friend's
nieces has terrorized the boys in her high school the last couple
years since embracing it.
> It is one of the most accurate and concise
> observations on relationships I have ever heard. It is also the only one I
> can remember and I quote it quite often. Unfortunately it's not a very
> useful piece of knowledge because if you don't care about the relationship
> you're unlikely to want to control it. More to the point, if you want to
> control the relationship, you care too much to be able to.
It is exemplary of the Samuel Johnson nugget about two people cannot
be in the same room for a minute before one has exerted his advantage
over the other. It is symptomatic of a primeval approach to life.
But you have to know it, because you have to know the enemy.
There are two types of paranoia: universal and insufficient.
Bukvich
[ ' who we gonna bomb now ? ' ]
Nutmegger
"bukvich" wrote :::
> > SO...that explains your "The one who cares the least controls the
> > relationship" theory.
>
> No.
Ok, I'm really trying here B.
> Now this would be a fascinating experiment. Does P or F care the
> least? Does B or SnJ care the least? And which is in control?
I don't exactly know why, but it brought a smile to my face.
If I knew P or F or B of SnJ I could provide you with my dazzling insight
into the feminine mind.
But, since I only hear one side.........
> In my case control is not really an issue.
I realized that, besides you told me before remember?
>You may find this too much
> information, but I do not have anything, anything resembling what you
> would consider a "jealousy issue".
I've never been the jealous type myself.
How about envy though, they are related but different.
>I have complete faith in modern
> genetic laboratory science
I have good faith in them too, but then I start to wonder about the
psychiatric aspect of laboratory science.
They just list everything as side effects to cover their asses.
>and no fear whatsoever about paying for
> some other guy's sprog.
You have choices here.
You can find a woman who does not want children, a woman who already has
children and the father of those children financially supports them, or a
woman who had children young and they are grown, and last but not least a
woman who can not have children.
> You do know that is where it comes from, right?
Where what comes from?????
> > BTW - Jonah got it right, and he didn't even have to swim in the belly
of a
> > whale.
> You are talking about the hope thing?
Not necessarily, but kind of. I mean you love this woman, and if she walked
back into your life right now, you would drop everything to be with her. I
know this to be true.
>No, Jonah is wrong.
I did not think he was wrong B.
An honest look, will probably show there is a tinge of hope there,
somewhere.
>All I have
> to do is wait out three more fuckheads, max (for the time being this
> is her preferred type) and she is all mine.
Sounds like a plan.
Do you get to hear her complain about them too?
>If I am still interested,
> that is.
Which, you very well may be.
How long has it been?
>Which I presume I will not be.
You need to show her that you can live well without her.
Women can help you with that you know.
> So tell me about your body hair.
I got rid of it, it is summertime, you know...bathing suits and all.
I will say this though, I did not touch the fine line of hair from my
belly-button down.......he is just gonna have to live with that.
(Whoever he may be)
<Enough info for you?>
jonah thomas
> She claims to want to know what I really think. She does not want to
> know that. Because I really think that she is horrified with the idea
> I am the best she can do. She hates her life. She really does. She
> thinks she deserves so much more than what she has, that she can pitch
> it all without any remorse. For now.
> Maybe years from now she'll wake up, go "oh shit; what could I have
> been thinking?" When it is way too late.
> When you treat people carelessly, they care less about you. And if you
> do it long enough, they stop caring at all. I suppose you could
> describe this as the pinkorangered problem. It is a shame she relies
> on this strategy. Although this does explain why she is available.
> Forget about her. She's a heartbreaker. She did the same thing to me.
----
> So anyway SnJ, the one soon likely to cease to occupy my life, is a
> fine woman. Her notion that she is too good for me might even be
> accurate. I think it is a distortion, but I have been wrong before.
> And I don't believe it is hopeless. Jonah said it is hopeless (based
> upon what I wrote which is heavily filtered to start and the way he
> read it which is almost double bogus) but I haven't given up hope yet.
----
> You are talking about the hope thing? No, Jonah is wrong. All I have
> to do is wait out three more fuckheads, max (for the time being this
> is her preferred type) and she is all mine. If I am still interested,
> that is. Which I presume I will not be.
Buk, I'm going to speak rationally. You've told us about this woman who
treats people carelessly. A heartbreaker. Hates her life. Deserves so
much more than she has. You're talking about waiting out three more
fuckheads until she changes.
WTF?
I don't know how plain I can say this.
WTF is somebody like *you* doing interested in somebody like *her*?
Well, you explained the mechanism. She treated you "carelessly". She
let you know she thinks she's too good for you. She's interested in
fuckheads and she still associates with you anyway.
You know the drill. You know entirely how this works. She knows how to
get guys obsessed with her, and she tried out the skills on you, and now
she's doing it to somebody else. Why the hell do you care about her at
all? Just because you let her do it to you? You can do a whole lot
better than that.
Sheesh. You need this woman like you need to be infected with
tuberculosis. She has nothing to offer you. If she ever broke down and
admired you you'd lose interest in about thirty heartbeats. All she has
on you now is this one game she knows how to play.
You know how to break this conditioning. Why do you tell us you're
still going through the motions with it? When she presents herself to
you again like you're her best chance, *then* you can notice whether you
think she's changed.
> But A. is looking mighty fine to me at this point. Mighty fine.
At least if she's in the same cycle it's still the beginning of the
cycle. At least she isn't SnJ. So you could do worse.
David O'Lantern
[...]
> WTF is somebody like *you* doing interested in somebody like *her*?
He's looking for a WIFE! And Radha's still not old enough, and Mica
has a middle-aged semi-weirdo already, and Sarah Jane doesn't want
him "that way" (probably because she wants a wee bit of tact), and
he set Christine up and broke her heart in public just 6 months ago.
And he's from Palo Alto in the '70s, fercrissake, he doesn't have a
"second" language that'd do him any good in the Catalog Wife thing.
(Quick now, what *is* the lingua franca of the Philippines? And how
long has it been written according to a standardized grammar? Can
you answer both questions without looking it up?)
> Well, you explained the mechanism.
ITYM "M-A-S-O-C-H-I-S-M".
> She treated you "carelessly".
But he's so old and desperate. And Possum's already got one of them.
> She let you know she thinks she's too good for you. She's interested
> in fuckheads and she still associates with you anyway.
So she IS too good for him, for she sees his True Self for the fuckhead
he really is deep inside. So there really IS hope, isn't there? Really?
But see, what he really has to do is shock-and-awe and butt-rape her:
that'd satisfy what she thinks of as "impressive" and "fulfilling her
secret intimacy needs" and thus enslave her to him. But he's not made
*that* way, see, so he's enslaved by her. So she sharpens her skills
with him -- to get even more enticing to *real* men who'll *take* her.
This whole thing is, like, so sophomoric. As in circa 19 years old. Or
it is for a normal guy with a normal amount of experience with women.
Poor guy, he never got much and now he's old enough to read about it.
Tertiarily,
The <- Who got *too* much and now has swiss cheese for brains.
Christian Ebert
> Buk, I'm going to speak rationally. You've told us about this woman who
> treats people carelessly. A heartbreaker. Hates her life. Deserves so
> much more than she has. You're talking about waiting out three more
> fuckheads until she changes.
What has love to do with behaving rationally?
> WTF?
>
> I don't know how plain I can say this.
>
> WTF is somebody like *you* doing interested in somebody like *her*?
Pursuing a mission (impossible)? Trying to prove he's a better
therapist than all those apparently more or less ridiculous ones
he has encountered? Trying to prove that, yes, she can get out of
the cage of her behaviour pattern? Free her to her better self?
Or simply loving against all rational odds?
> Well, you explained the mechanism. She treated you "carelessly". She
> let you know she thinks she's too good for you. She's interested in
> fuckheads and she still associates with you anyway.
>
> You know the drill. You know entirely how this works.
No, he doesn't. Or, yes, he does, but only rationally. So he has
to find out. The irrational way.
Or, like Bukvich once wrote himself: "Capitalism and
schizophrenia go together like salsa and tortilla chips."
I'd say: Go for it. Be as pathetic and stupid and ridiculous as
can be. Against every well meant rational counsel. 'til you
really have enough, 'til you are really fed up with running after
her (which may take quite a long time), 'til you have run out of
your own rationalizations, which will be the moment when it
doesn't matter to you any more whether you had loved or projected
because you ran out of strength for any such hair splitting. Then
you'll either know (because it's past and you did what you could)
-- or the impossible miracle has happened.
It's all about the irrational limit, about spending, exhaustion,
and being wasteful. What have you got to lose (that you have not
lost already)? By experiments in making a fool of yourself (that
you and everybody is already, and not just in matters of love)?
Just theoretical psycho-politically correct self-esteem. If you
/do/ something you'll find some practical stuff whatever you will
call it after you've experienced it.
What the heck, I'm all for being a fool for love.
c
[ 'til boredom doth us part ]
--
Wir können jemanden nur trösten, wenn wir in die Richtung seiner Trübsal gehen,
und zwar bis zu dem Punkt, wo der Betrübte selbst genug davon hat.
(E. M. Cioran, Der zersplitterte Fluch)
bukvich
> Buk, I'm going to speak rationally. You've told us about this woman who
> treats people carelessly. A heartbreaker. Hates her life. Deserves so
> much more than she has. You're talking about waiting out three more
> fuckheads until she changes.
You can read much better than before you got married.
> WTF is somebody like *you* doing interested in somebody like *her*?
She has some real positive features I have not detailed. She is my
muse. She has upgraded my music lifestyle. She is cute. She has put up
with vast reams of my shit without complaint. If you consult random
observers, you would probably find the ratio at about 3:1 for "WTF is
somebody like *her* doing interested in somebody like *me*?"
> Well, you explained the mechanism. She treated you "carelessly". She
> let you know she thinks she's too good for you. She's interested in
> fuckheads and she still associates with you anyway.
That is what I don't like about her; not what I like about her.
> You know the drill. You know entirely how this works. She knows how to
> get guys obsessed with her, and she tried out the skills on you, and now
> she's doing it to somebody else.
No. No. And no.
But a valiant attempt grasshopper!
> Why the hell do you care about her at all?
Somebody has to do it.
> Just because you let her do it to you?
The only thing I have let her do that might make you squirm is I don't
give a rat's ass when she goes running off with some other guy. One,
it gives me a lot of running room to go indulge my inner jerk with
some other woman. Two, I sort of figure that the best way she could
decide I am worth keeping ahold of is to go sample the competition.
> You can do a whole lot better than that.
I could have married a superficial consumer cunt like Darling Dearest.
Most people would think that a whole lot better. Gack.
> Sheesh. You need this woman like you need to be infected with
> tuberculosis.
I don't need her.
> She has nothing to offer you.
She has a great deal to offer me and the world. She will have to grow
up first, and some people never ever do that. But if you expect the
worst from people you will invariably get the worst.
> If she ever broke down and
> admired you you'd lose interest in about thirty heartbeats.
She flat out adores me. Just not all the time.
> All she has on you now is this one game she knows how to play.
She has nothing on me.
> You know how to break this conditioning. Why do you tell us you're
> still going through the motions with it?
Now that is an excellent question. Maybe I will snarfle after A. for a
couple months and write about that. I already thought up a cool pet
name for her.
> When she presents herself to
> you again like you're her best chance, *then* you can notice whether you
> think she's changed.
Ok good plan.
> At least if she's in the same cycle it's still the beginning of the
> cycle. At least she isn't SnJ. So you could do worse.
SnJ is not a bad girl. She is just real real confused. And that is not
a problem that I have taken any possession of. If anything, I
aggravate the shit out of it. But it is her problem, not mine.
I am a fairly happy camper here actually. I ain't the one calling me
at midnight sobbing because I hate my life.
Bukvich
[ ' ok we can now do Iraq again ! ' ]
David O'Lantern
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003, bukvich wrote:
[...]
> But if you expect the worst from people you will invariably get the
> worst.
But then too if you expect the best from people you invariably get the
worst. I'm all for expecting as little as possible and resigning
yourself to endless mutual complaints. Any other way only increases
the effort involved, without decreasing much of the resentment and
disappointment you'd experience whether you went to all that trouble
or not. Or at least so I've found.
But then I got lucky, and I've learned to count my blessings. My
"roommate" for the past three years and three months would have a lot
in common with me whether she were with me or not: similar (but not
identical) socioeconomic background, similar intellectual interests
(though widely dissimilar educational histories; how I wish she'd
cease correcting my mispronunciations of foreign loan-words), similar
political views (mine, of course, are far more radical however), and
with a similar and proportional (although not always identically
expressed) emphases on virtues such as loyalty. And she's not too bad
to look at and etc. etc. And despite her flaws (and lo there are
zillions, most irremediable and some quite humongous) she has the
overriding virtue of willingness to associate with me (and to endure
me and my own wee complement of endearing imperfections).
If the empirical correlation of such qualities in such quantity is
that we seem to spent a goodly amount of time annoyed as all hell with
one another, well, that's just too damn bad for me. I'd rather be
annoyed with her say 1/3 of the time than entirely alone, and my wide
and varied experience in these and related fields has shown me just
how rarely I am to be 1/2 as pleased with anyone for even 1/4 as long;
I am, in my own way, as exceptionally demanding as I am "exceptional".
For example, at 40 as at 14, you must be crazy to be with me -- it's a
prerequisite. Normal women are so dull that I'm glad they don't want
anything to do with me anyway.
And as for her part? As I've so far tacitly indicated, any such person
who'd spend such time on me clearly deserves to. It's not MY fault!
SHEESH.
Romantically,
`TheDavid^TM' <- angstful king of generation-x
WaNkEr
news:2003071509...@shell.rawbw.com...
>
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2003, bukvich wrote:
> [...]
>
> > But if you expect the worst from people you will invariably get the
> > worst.
I ALWAYS expect the best, and yes, I am ALWAYS disappointed :)
--
http://romance_online.tripod.com
http://thewebauthor.tripod.com/index.htm
Why your web presence should make a difference
personal, business, corporate, topical web pages.
.
Nutmegger
"David O'Lantern" wrote:::
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2003, bukvich wrote:
> [...]
>
> > But if you expect the worst from people you will invariably get the
> > worst.
>
> But then too if you expect the best from people you invariably get the
> worst.
Tell you what (Both of you) expect nothing and then you won't be
disappointed.
>I'm all for expecting as little as possible and resigning
> yourself to endless mutual complaints.
Hey, did I ever tell you I get a knot in the pit of my stomach when I read
your posts?
Especially lately.
>Any other way only increases
> the effort involved, without decreasing much of the resentment and
> disappointment you'd experience whether you went to all that trouble
> or not.
So...in other words, you believe in not going to any trouble what-so-ever
because it will just lead to resentment.
Or disappointment
Or emotional pain and woe.
>Or at least so I've found.
I'm not surprised. It does take too.
>
> But then I got lucky, and I've learned to count my blessings. My
> "roommate" for the past three years and three months would have a lot
> in common with me whether she were with me or not:
She must be a saint to put up with your whining all the time.
> similar (but not
> identical) socioeconomic background, similar intellectual interests
> (though widely dissimilar educational histories; how I wish she'd
> cease correcting my mispronunciations of foreign loan-words), similar
> political views (mine, of course, are far more radical however), and
> with a similar and proportional (although not always identically
> expressed) emphases on virtues such as loyalty.
And why the hell should it all matter anyway if the effort put forth isn't
worth it?
Huh?
>And she's not too bad
> to look at and etc. etc. And despite her flaws (and lo there are
> zillions, most irremediable and some quite humongous) she has the
> overriding virtue of willingness to associate with me (and to endure
> me and my own wee complement of endearing imperfections).
Obtuse way of saying: "People aren't perfect."
>
> If the empirical correlation of such qualities in such quantity is
> that we seem to spent a goodly amount of time annoyed as all hell with
> one another, well, that's just too damn bad for me. I'd rather be
> annoyed with her say 1/3 of the time than entirely alone,
There you have it!
Oh...to be alone, it's such a mark against mankind!
<Typical>
and my wide
> and varied experience in these and related fields has shown me just
> how rarely I am to be 1/2 as pleased with anyone for even 1/4 as long;
> I am, in my own way, as exceptionally demanding
I ~never~ would've guessed.
>as I am "exceptional".
Then.....prove it.
> For example, at 40 as at 14, you must be crazy to be with me -- it's a
> prerequisite. Normal women are so dull that I'm glad they don't want
> anything to do with me anyway.
You don't really like woman all that much anyway.
>
> And as for her part? As I've so far tacitly indicated, any such person
> who'd spend such time on me clearly deserves to. It's not MY fault!
>
> SHEESH.
>
>
> Romantically,
I bet she gets real hot after reading that post.
<Sorry possum, couldn't resist>
> `TheDavid^TM' <- angstful king of generation-x
Sorry, if you are 40 you aren't included in Gen-X.
>
>
> --
> "Reaching after something, touching nothing, is all I ever do."
"Reaching for everything, touching something, is all I ever so."
bob
>You cross-poster - you................
>
>"David O'Lantern" wrote:::
>
>> `TheDavid^TM' <- angstful king of generation-x
>
>Sorry, if you are 40 you aren't included in Gen-X.
There are those here who will disagree with you. Recently (apparently
during your absence) the years that bound various named generational
periods were discussed here.
David O'Lantern
> "David O'Lantern" wrote:::
[...]
> >I'm all for expecting as little as possible and resigning
> > yourself to endless mutual complaints.
> Hey, did I ever tell you I get a knot in the pit of my stomach
> when I read your posts?
Uh, no. Not a peep. What's the knot mean? I have trouble interpreting
my own physical symptoms.
> Especially lately.
Meaning? Why more so lately?
[I'd said]
> >Any other way only increases the effort involved, without decreasing
> >much of the resentment and disappointment you'd experience whether
> >you went to all that trouble or not.
> So...in other words, you believe in not going to any trouble what-
> so-ever because it will just lead to resentment.
> Or disappointment
> Or emotional pain and woe.
No, I didn't say that. And Possum's plenty of trouble to deal with (and
yes I'm *sure* she'd say I am too). What I meant was that I just don't
*do* all that expectation crap -- like, I don't ever expect her to stop
correcting my pronunciation of words like "laissez-fair" or "insouciant",
let alone bend over backwards to accommodate my fantasies of what a Hot
Young Babe might get like for me. Etc., etc. Meaning, that I pretty much
have to take her as she is, as she does me; meaning, further down, that
I might as well accept that she's a fully formed adult individual. Which
happens to be, dammit, just what fits.
What would not be worth doing is trying to get her to do anything except
what she'd think of doing (her way) anyway (and probably bring up to me
herself if it was well within her range).
That more than very rarely she irks me so much I could scream is just my
own damn problem, isn't it.
[...]
> She must be a saint to put up with your whining all the time.
And my posting sometimes too.
The
--
"Now you be my witness how red were the skies."
pinkorangered
>different partners? That does not sound like arrested development.
Yes I do. I am doing it now. The entire time I was with K was spent pining for
F. I have been with R for four months now and my mind spends most of its idle
time concocting scenarios to recover K. In a few months I will be saying the
same thing where K = R and R = X. Or zero.
F feels that this pattern devalues our past relationship. She is wrong for
many reasons. She probably also thinks I'm writing that just because I know
she'll read it.
>Here is my experience of losing all of my so-called friends when I
>broke up with Darling Dearest. Word got around. Everybody was real
>sympathetic. Turns out the reason everybody was real sympathetic was
>they were licking their chops at the prospect of me dishing dirt on
>her, which I refused to do. She was willing to partake in this
>ceremony and took possession of all the so-called friends.
>
>To which I can only say good riddance, I suppose.
Was the dirt true though? People usually don't give breakup slander much
credence.
Do you care what anybody thinks of you? It's a weakness, apparently. I care,
intensely, so the malicious goss which K is spreading about me is very painful,
particularly since it's all true. Unless she embellished it that is, but she
hardly needed to.
I don't understand people who say they don't care what anyone thinks of them.
Surely it has a huge impact on your life, since it determines how much
companionship, money and sex you will get. This would be a logical
evolutionary trait.
>So anyway SnJ, the one soon likely to cease to occupy my life, is a
>fine woman. Her notion that she is too good for me might even be
>accurate. I think it is a distortion, but I have been wrong before.
I thought you were single. I don't follow usenet sagas very well. So you're
shopping with a full basket, eh?
>Write her a letter in neat penmanship on
>good stationery. Don't drip tears on it or write mushy shit. She may
>never have received a genuine love letter in her life, and even if she
>thinks you are too pathetic to qualify as her boyfriend, she will
>think more of you, not less.
Yeah I did that, well not in my handwriting, it's worse than a drunk doctor's
prescription, but she's past being sentimental anyway. There was about a 3
week window for that opportunity and I hardly gave her a thought during that
time.
I don't think she ever had received a real love letter but she used to send me
heaps, in the post, with real stamps and everything. Some had little stories
or cool decoupage. I'd just roll my eyes and toss them in a pile. Fiona
flushed them during one of her rampages but I ressurected them knowing that one
day they'd have meaning. Keepsakes are funny things, we deny their real
purpose, which is to nurture sorrow.
It's time I left her alone. She sounds very happy. Besdes, I know she really
isn't that good, she's like a prickly thing which just flowered in my memory.
>But that pink heart is just DesperateLoser style.
Yeah I know.
>Have you seen those "this is your brain; this is your brain on drugs"
>ads?
I didn't sign it, there are at least 2 K's working in that cafe, and she has a
few others sniffing around. So maybe I got away with it. Maybe I shouldn't
care.
>But frankly I like my personality disorders. Who is to say I haven't
>actually optimized my development given the constraints I have had?
Jonah would say that's a strategy. Certainly through all the therapy I've had,
and I've had a bit, I've learned a lot less about controlling my disorders than
I have about accepting them. It's like going to a peace rally and ending up
stoned on the grass.
Nova Siecle
> "David O'Lantern" wrote:::
> >I'm all for expecting as little as possible and resigning
> > yourself to endless mutual complaints.
>
> Hey, did I ever tell you I get a knot in the pit of my stomach when I read
> your posts?
> Especially lately.
Do you enjoy that feeling? Or is it just a streak of masochism?
> She must be a saint to put up with your whining all the time.
I am a saint to put up with R's endless ranting. He is a saint to put
up with my own darling foibles. Human beings are really fucking
annoying a lot of the time, and if you have found/do find a partner
who doesn't make you insane part of the time, then you are not paying
attention.
> I bet she gets real hot after reading that post.
I remember once, years ago now, someone criticized David for the
amount of (negative) attention he was paying to another female
angster, claiming that his then-girlfriend was probably hurt by his
behavior. Me, I like to credit women with having backbones. I also
like to acknowledge that what I find charming and amusing in a partner
is not universal. Possum has always struck me as a capable girl who
can and would smash David over the head with a frying pan (or just
dump his sorry ass) for anything she perceived as a true offence.
Projection is not your friend.
Mica
David O'Lantern
[...]
> The entire time I was with K was spent pining for F. I have
> been with R for four months now and my mind spends most of
> its idle time concocting scenarios to recover K.
Boy that's really dumb. As a teenager I did something like that,
except that when I was with B I'd be pining for A, then when I
was with C I'd pine for A and B, etc. That all added up to a big
mess. Then I switched to a less cumulative pattern: I'd be with
G to cease pining for F, then with H to get over G, etc.
Then a couple years ago I resumed pining for a girl I last saw in
1980; or not pining really, but rather twitching from rue, because
immediate after her (or even during) my life and sanity went south
to a nadir from which I did not begin to recover till they put me
on antipsychotics and Zoloft in 1992 (and didn't start to think
like I felt any better till around '96 or so, which I attribute
to several years of Zoloft plus approaching senility).
It's not like I'd want Leslie Jane back -- she'd be *THIRTY-EIGHT*
now and I've come to like 'em young, i.e. noticeably younger than
me, say by ten years or so. (Usually, I think.) Besides which, she's
had a PhD in Slavic Languages for a few years now (yes I looked her
up via Google), and a husband of a sort who'd marry a highly degreed
Intelligent of Academe, and for all I know she has a long history of
such (somehow I can't see the cute Jewess I knew as a heroin addict,
biker bitch, or devotee of the Salvation Army). And no doubt she was
cured of any curiosity about me before her freshman year in college.
(I have grown sufficient self-respect not to expose my aged neuroses
to another half-deserved soul-squashing rebuff by that one, I swear.)
But alas, even pining after Lost Youth and Lost Opportunities (after
Squandering My Life in a Quagmire of Debauchery and Madness of course)
gets old after a while too; lately I've been noticing my mental idle
cycles drifting toward wishing I had the energy to unpack and arrange
these boxes of books that make bringing coffee to my desk a delicate
steeplechase. It appears that by the time I reach my furry 50s I might
have progressed to forgetting I was ever any younger than 34, without
the smidgen of spark required to regret any damn thing. (Alas, what a
life I must have led to look forward to doddering senility! Imagine!)
Momentarily,
The
--
"Reaching after something, touching nothing, is all I ever do."
David O'Lantern
[...]
> Possum has always struck me as a capable girl who can and would
> smash David over the head with a frying pan (or just dump his
> sorry ass) for anything she perceived as a true offence.
That's funny, she strikes ME that way too! (Over and over again!)
Skilletedly,
The
--
"Reaching after something, touching nothing, is all I ever do."
Boniblueyz
>I am a saint to put up with R's endless ranting. He is a saint to put
>up with my own darling foibles. Human beings are really fucking
>annoying a lot of the time, and if you have found/do find a partner
>who doesn't make you insane part of the time, then you are not paying
>attention.
>
Watch out for those couples who claim never to argue. I have a good friend
who's a lesbian. She came out about four years ago, but decided to stay with
her husband. She and her husband have a cordial brother/sister relationship.
They never argue. They never argue because there's no passion between them.
>I remember once, years ago now, someone criticized David for the
>amount of (negative) attention he was paying to another female
>angster, claiming that his then-girlfriend was probably hurt by his
>behavior.
That would be me who wrote that to David. I guess I was projecting, being as
how I'm an extremely jealous person. I remember when my husband and I had just
been dating for a few weeks, and he used my phone to call his ex to find out
when she was coming down from Vermont with his kids. He had been trying her
for days, leaving messages all over the place. It was apparent that she was
playing games with him, and when he got her machine for the third time that day
he let off with a screaming rant that lasted for about a minute. I remember
feeling jealous that she was able to get that kind of a rise out of him.
I don't know Possum, but if she's good to David that's good enough for me.
However, David's negative attention to Layo was past verging on obsession. I
can't see how it wouldn't bother any woman to see her man at that level of
obsession over another woman .. projecting aside.
>Projection is not your friend.
>
Maybe, but we have more in common as human beings than we have differences.
Bonnie
bukvich
> Yes I do. I am doing it now. The entire time I was with K was spent pining for
> F. I have been with R for four months now and my mind spends most of its idle
> time concocting scenarios to recover K. In a few months I will be saying the
> same thing where K = R and R = X. Or zero.
Shazaam! See what is going on here and you don't even know it is F. is
waiting for you to go through three more lyin' ho's, max, and then
you're hers baby. Rescue city.
Actually I am joking a little there, but the pattern you describe has
a lot in common with the rescue pattern you deride. Have you read Eric
Berne?
> F feels that this pattern devalues our past relationship. She is wrong for
> many reasons. She probably also thinks I'm writing that just because I know
> she'll read it.
When you were with F were you pining for (F-1)?
I have no idea just tossing this out here but I BET YOU WEREN'T.
> Was the dirt true though? People usually don't give breakup slander much
> credence.
What I heard was just ridiculous. This is the woman my neighbors
called the police on because she was beating on my front door and
screaming at three in the morning.
The so-called friends did not cast me aside over any newfound pariah
data. They cast me aside because I would not entertain them by telling
them shit like the police threatened to arrest her if she didn't shut
up and go home. I tell alt.angst that but I wouldn't if it was
somebody you all knew. I told one of my co-workers the story, but she
doesn't know the person and she was in the middle of some domestic
crap of her own at the time I told her the story.
I don't believe it is a good idea to say anything about the eX. The
eX-1, OK; the eX-2, sure; the eX-3, why not if you can still remember?
But about the eX, just gag order yourself. The girlfriend goes "you
are still hung up on her". I go "well you are going to think that
anyway, the difference is if I don't discuss it I don't have to listen
to you accusing me of that shit".
> Do you care what anybody thinks of you? It's a weakness, apparently. I care,
> intensely, so the malicious goss which K is spreading about me is very painful,
> particularly since it's all true.
There is a word for that, if your description is accurate. The word is
attention-whoring. It reflects a lack of confidence and insecurity and
self-esteem, even. (This morning my shrink used that term and I asked
him to rephrase his statement without that term because it sounds like
gibberish to me at this point; but I digress.)
> Unless she embellished it that is, but she hardly needed to.
Were you mean to her? You big meanie.
> I don't understand people who say they don't care what anyone thinks of them.
Denial.
> Surely it has a huge impact on your life, since it determines how much
> companionship, money and sex you will get. This would be a logical
> evolutionary trait.
Mutilating yourself instead of competing is all the rage in some
quarters.
> I thought you were single. I don't follow usenet sagas very well. So you're
> shopping with a full basket, eh?
None of the above. We break up and make up and I don't shop. I am the
sex scavenger gliding above like an aloof vulture, remember? We
covered this exact topic before I am sure.
SnJ would not be pleased if she could afford a private investigator
report. I am taking A. to her favorite restaurant for dinner tonight.
I haven't taken SnJ out to a *really* spiffy restaurant in six months.
I am such a dog.
I will let you know if the scrag fight deal goes down.
> Yeah I did that, well not in my handwriting, it's worse than a drunk doctor's
> prescription, but she's past being sentimental anyway. There was about a 3
> week window for that opportunity and I hardly gave her a thought during that
> time.
See there you go. That is not love. Love takes ahold of you like a
tractor beam and "concocting scenarios" ain't even in the picture.
Concocting scenarios is for jiving your way into some bint's knickers.
I cannot believe I am telling you this.
> I don't think she ever had received a real love letter but she used to send me
> heaps, in the post, with real stamps and everything. Some had little stories
> or cool decoupage. I'd just roll my eyes and toss them in a pile. Fiona
> flushed them during one of her rampages but I ressurected them knowing that one
> day they'd have meaning. Keepsakes are funny things, we deny their real
> purpose, which is to nurture sorrow.
Save that last sentence. That is perfect. It is siggable. It is, dare
we go there, FionaWinHerBack material!
> Jonah would say that's a strategy. Certainly through all the therapy I've had,
> and I've had a bit, I've learned a lot less about controlling my disorders than
> I have about accepting them. It's like going to a peace rally and ending up
> stoned on the grass.
I am beginning to tire of that word disorder also.
B.
[ ' david is a weenie ' ]
Nutmegger
"David O'Lantern" wrote:::
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2003, Nutmegger wrote:
> > "David O'Lantern" wrote:::
> [...]
>
> > >I'm all for expecting as little as possible and resigning
> > > yourself to endless mutual complaints.
>
> > Hey, did I ever tell you I get a knot in the pit of my stomach
> > when I read your posts?
>
> Uh, no. Not a peep.
I keep to myself a great deal.
>What's the knot mean?
I think it's a sign.
>I have trouble interpreting
> my own physical symptoms.
I've got mine down pretty good.
I'm in tune.
> > Especially lately.
>
> Meaning? Why more so lately?
I don't know why, you don't sound like you so much, you sound like someone I
prefer not to think about.
> [I'd said]
>
> > >Any other way only increases the effort involved, without decreasing
> > >much of the resentment and disappointment you'd experience whether
> > >you went to all that trouble or not.
>
> > So...in other words, you believe in not going to any trouble what-
> > so-ever because it will just lead to resentment.
> > Or disappointment
> > Or emotional pain and woe.
>
> No, I didn't say that.
Well, It was clear about the effort part anyway.
>And Possum's plenty of trouble to deal with (and
> yes I'm *sure* she'd say I am too). What I meant was that I just don't
> *do* all that expectation crap --
Hehe, you do without realizing you are doing it.
> like, I don't ever expect her to stop
> correcting my pronunciation of words like "laissez-fair" or "insouciant",
You "Expect" her to correct you!
> let alone bend over backwards to accommodate my fantasies of what a Hot
> Young Babe might get like for me. Etc., etc.
You both have expectations of each other, and the way I see it is you both
must have met them (or most of them) to be with each other in the first
place.
>Meaning, that I pretty much
> have to take her as she is, as she does me; meaning, further down, that
> I might as well accept that she's a fully formed adult individual. Which
> happens to be, dammit, just what fits.
Well, I hope so.
>
> What would not be worth doing is trying to get her to do anything except
> what she'd think of doing (her way) anyway (and probably bring up to me
> herself if it was well within her range).
Sounds like you dotted all your "I's" and crossed all your "T's."
>
> That more than very rarely she irks me so much I could scream is just my
> own damn problem, isn't it.
I think that's a good thing, as long as it's rare.
>
> [...]
>
> > She must be a saint to put up with your whining all the time.
>
> And my posting sometimes too.
I noticed.
Please don't get a complex about what I said either. I've been reading you
over a year now, and you have a different tone lately - like something is
going on.
<I don't want to know.....>
>
>
> The
>
> --
> "Now you be my witness how red were the skies."
"Under a blood-red sky
A crowd has gathered ... black and white
Arms entwined, the chosen few
The newspapers say it's, say
They say it's true, it's true. "
Nutmegger
"bob" wrote :::
> >You cross-poster - you................
> >
> >"David O'Lantern" wrote:::
> >
> >> `TheDavid^TM' <- angstful king of generation-x
> >
> >Sorry, if you are 40 you aren't included in Gen-X.
>
> There are those here who will disagree with you.
What are they using as a reference?
I go by what the Census says: 1946-1964
Here is an interesting link:
http://www.census.gov/population/censusdata/cph-l-160s.txt
"Think about it this way: depending on what source you check, the youngest
members of Generation X are either 23 or 24 years old, and the oldest are
36; Generation Y spans the ages of approximately 15 to 22. A 36-year-old was
a teenager during the throes of the Cold War and the arms race, and nine or
10 when the Vietnam War ended; a 24-year-old wasn't alive during Vietnam and
barely remembers Ronald Reagan's first term. That leaves a large cleavage
between the two ends of the Gen X spectrum."
http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/genx092401.cfm
>Recently (apparently
> during your absence) the years that bound various named generational
> periods were discussed here.
I missed it, what was the general consensus?
Danelly
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, pinkorangered wrote:
> [...]
>
> > The entire time I was with K was spent pining for F. I have
> > been with R for four months now and my mind spends most of
> > its idle time concocting scenarios to recover K.
>
> Boy that's really dumb. As a teenager I did something like that,
> except that when I was with B I'd be pining for A, then when I
> was with C I'd pine for A and B, etc. That all added up to a big
> mess. Then I switched to a less cumulative pattern: I'd be with
> G to cease pining for F, then with H to get over G, etc.
HA! My ex-boyfriend does that and he's 34 and counting. He has a
tendency to pine for someone who he thinks is somehow *unavailable*
therefore, he won't ever be rejected in his fantasies of his ideal of
true love. As you can, we spend quite a bit of time online together.
> Then a couple years ago I resumed pining for a girl I last saw in
> 1980; or not pining really, but rather twitching from rue, because
> immediate after her (or even during) my life and sanity went south
> to a nadir from which I did not begin to recover till they put me
> on antipsychotics and Zoloft in 1992 (and didn't start to think
> like I felt any better till around '96 or so, which I attribute
> to several years of Zoloft plus approaching senility).
>
> It's not like I'd want Leslie Jane back -- she'd be *THIRTY-EIGHT*
> now and I've come to like 'em young, i.e. noticeably younger than
> me, say by ten years or so. (Usually, I think.) Besides which, she's
> had a PhD in Slavic Languages for a few years now (yes I looked her
> up via Google), and a husband of a sort who'd marry a highly degreed
> Intelligent of Academe, and for all I know she has a long history of
> such (somehow I can't see the cute Jewess I knew as a heroin addict,
> biker bitch, or devotee of the Salvation Army). And no doubt she was
> cured of any curiosity about me before her freshman year in college.
> (I have grown sufficient self-respect not to expose my aged neuroses
> to another half-deserved soul-squashing rebuff by that one, I swear.)
I can relate to this one. I met my ex when I was 20 and he had been a
cocky 28 year old on top of the world and we had planned to take over
the world together. Now after much financial disappointments, we're
not any closer to being millionaires and in his "advanced" age of 34,
instead of the up all night having sex kind of activities we used to
engage in, it's "my back hurts" and "I think I have a neurological
disease" etc type conversations that dominate. I try my best to
assuage his feelings of being an aging has-been especially when all
the women he's interested in are pining after sexy twenty-something
men. But to me, he's still My Mister, still my #1. I stil fantasize
about him while having sex with other men and I definitely want to be
there for him by his side everyday.
> But alas, even pining after Lost Youth and Lost Opportunities (after
> Squandering My Life in a Quagmire of Debauchery and Madness of course)
> gets old after a while too; lately I've been noticing my mental idle
> cycles drifting toward wishing I had the energy to unpack and arrange
> these boxes of books that make bringing coffee to my desk a delicate
> steeplechase. It appears that by the time I reach my furry 50s I might
> have progressed to forgetting I was ever any younger than 34, without
> the smidgen of spark required to regret any damn thing. (Alas, what a
> life I must have led to look forward to doddering senility! Imagine!)
Well, definitely don't start comparing yourself to 25 year old rock
stars, lol! Maybe it's time to look at your accomplishments and take
pleasure in that!
>
>
> Momentarily,
> The
BIG HUG BABY!
Danelly
bob
<nutmegg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"bob" wrote :::
>
>> >You cross-poster - you................
>> >
>> >"David O'Lantern" wrote:::
>> >
>> >> `TheDavid^TM' <- angstful king of generation-x
>> >
>> >Sorry, if you are 40 you aren't included in Gen-X.
>>
>> There are those here who will disagree with you.
>
>What are they using as a reference?
I'm not certain but I think they were using ... OK, I'll just look it
up on google. After Ilya said something to Ash about his words showing
the degeneracy of gen-x tastes I posted
"Ilya, aren't you a member of that generation also? "
and got this (there was more to the post than what I've included):
--------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ashurbanipal (hur...@mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: ATTN: Ilya - was Re: MARY SUNSHINE, DAN KETTLER,
STAPLETON, HARBINGERS OF HOSTESS
Newsgroups: alt.astrology, alt.flame, alt.angst, alt.romance,
alt.rec.poetry
Date: 2003-05-19 22:23:26 PST
[..............]
Gen-X == 1960-1979.
Gen-Y == 1980-1999.
Gen-Ilya == November 21st, 1975, plus any women who will give him
blowjobs.
[..............]
-------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't see a reference but I've heard others using those dates
before.
>I go by what the Census says: 1946-1964
That's the dates I've always used. In a follow-up post in the same
thread he said that you could count it that way also.
>Here is an interesting link:
>
>http://www.census.gov/population/censusdata/cph-l-160s.txt
I'm one of the 998,435 that do not speak English "very well".
Neat cohort, eh?
>"Think about it this way: depending on what source you check, the youngest
>members of Generation X are either 23 or 24 years old, and the oldest are
>36;
Why is the span generation X shorter than the baby boomer generation?
>Generation Y spans the ages of approximately 15 to 22.
This is shorter still. I wonder if the apocalyptic christians game up
with the recent names. Gen X, Gen Y, ... Gen Z.
>A 36-year-old was
>a teenager during the throes of the Cold War and the arms race, and nine or
>10 when the Vietnam War ended; a 24-year-old wasn't alive during Vietnam and
>barely remembers Ronald Reagan's first term. That leaves a large cleavage
>between the two ends of the Gen X spectrum."
You wrote cleavage.
>http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/genx092401.cfm
>
>>Recently (apparently
>> during your absence) the years that bound various named generational
>> periods were discussed here.
>
>I missed it, what was the general consensus?
See above.
Boniblueyz
>Gen-X == 1960-1979.
> Gen-Y == 1980-1999.
> Gen-Ilya == November 21st, 1975, plus any women who will give him
>blowjobs.
THAT is fucking hysterical!
>>I go by what the Census says: 1946-1964
>That's the dates I've always used.
That actually makes sense. Boomers are children born to parents who came out of
WWII. My brother was born in 1952, I was born in 1956, and my sister was born
in 1964.
Although, in my mind, it really doesn't seem to make sense to include anyone
born after 1960 in the boomer generation. I like to think of people who were
born in the 60's as the missed-the-bus generation -- too young to have enjoyed
the sex, drugs, and rock and roll of the 60's and early 70's, but right on
time for the horrors of disco and AIDS.
Bonnie
Steve Murgaski
> Human beings are really fucking
> annoying a lot of the time, and if you have found/do find a partner
> who doesn't make you insane part of the time, then you are not paying
> attention.
Thanks. I'm sharing a house with three couples for the rest of the
summer, and this looks like a helpful tid-bit to keep in mind.
Nutmegger
"Boniblueyz" wrote :::
> >From: bob than...@coldmail.nu
>
> >Gen-X == 1960-1979.
> > Gen-Y == 1980-1999.
> > Gen-Ilya == November 21st, 1975, plus any women who will give him
> >blowjobs.
>
> THAT is fucking hysterical!
Lol....
I just don't get the blowjob aspect of it, why Bob always talks about it?
>
> >>I go by what the Census says: 1946-1964
>
> >That's the dates I've always used.
>
> That actually makes sense.
Yes, it always did to me.
> Boomers are children born to parents who came out of
> WWII. My brother was born in 1952, I was born in 1956, and my sister was
born
> in 1964.
Your sister just made it then.
>
> Although, in my mind, it really doesn't seem to make sense to include
anyone
> born after 1960 in the boomer generation.
In my mind it does because it was the beginning of the end. If you just
look at statistics and analyize them, this pops out at you.
> I like to think of people who were
> born in the 60's as the missed-the-bus generation -- too young to have
enjoyed
> the sex, drugs, and rock and roll of the 60's and early 70's, but right
on
> time for the horrors of disco and AIDS.
Actually, it was the 60's people who merged the two cultures closer
together. There were clear divisions in the 50's - those who did verses
those who did not. The 60's people shook it all up so nobody was really
sure who did or who did not anymore. The line became more blurry.
In other words - there were people who would not be caught dead at
Woodstock, but if it happened when we were old enough to go on our own then
there would be a greater variety of the types of people.
> Bonnie
bob
>
>"Boniblueyz" wrote :::
>
>> >From: bob than...@coldmail.nu
>>
>> >Gen-X == 1960-1979.
>> > Gen-Y == 1980-1999.
>> > Gen-Ilya == November 21st, 1975, plus any women who will give him
>> >blowjobs.
>>
>> THAT is fucking hysterical!
>
>Lol....
>I just don't get the blowjob aspect of it, why Bob always talks about it?
I never discuss that sort of thing. I didn't write the words below my
name. They were taken from someone else's post (see the post I
actually wrote). Bonny cut that part out of her response.
Don't attribute things to me that aren't valid. Don't pretend to know
more about me than you actually do.
Oh, I forgot. You are a member of Gen-Ilya.
Nova Siecle
> >From: novas...@hotmail.com (Nova Siecle)
> >I remember once, years ago now, someone criticized David for the
> >amount of (negative) attention he was paying to another female
> >angster, claiming that his then-girlfriend was probably hurt by his
> >behavior.
>
> That would be me who wrote that to David. I guess I was projecting, being as
> how I'm an extremely jealous person. [...] I remember feeling jealous that
> she was able to get that kind of a rise out of him.
Are you always that way, or was it a function of the relationship
being so new? I have to admit that I consider jealously to be a huge
weakness. It's mostly not one of mine, but lots of others are so I'm
in no position to throw stones.
R and I are oddly close with his first serious love, who he lived with
for years, and he recently started exchanging email with the woman he
left for me (she notified him of a mutal friend's death, was freaked
by the loss, and expressed regret at having lost touch with R). I
only wish that I could have that sort of lingering connection with my
own past relationships.
> However, David's negative attention to Layo was past verging on obsession. I
> can't see how it wouldn't bother any woman to see her man at that level of
> obsession over another woman .. projecting aside.
Some people take the interactions here more seriously than others, you
know?
Mica
Nutmegger
"bob" wrote:::
Bite me....I'm a cookie.
bob
No, you are an Ilya-ite which means it's very possible that you are a
fruitcake.
Boniblueyz
>Actually, it was the 60's people who merged the two cultures closer
>together. There were clear divisions in the 50's - those who did verses
>those who did not. The 60's people shook it all up so nobody was really
>sure who did or who did not anymore. The line became more blurry.
>
>In other words - there were people who would not be caught dead at
>Woodstock, but if it happened when we were old enough to go on our own then
>there would be a greater variety of the types of people.
>
Right, but nobody who was born in the sixties was old enough to go on their own
to Woodstock. I was born at the end of 56, and I was barely aware of it.
Bonnie
Boniblueyz
> Bonny cut that part out of her response.
Sorry, and it's BONNIE.
I hate whe people spell my name with a Y.
Bonnie
Boniblueyz
>> That would be me who wrote that to David. I guess I was projecting, being
>as
>> how I'm an extremely jealous person. [...] I remember feeling jealous that
>> she was able to get that kind of a rise out of him.
>
>Are you always that way, or was it a function of the relationship
>being so new?
I've always been like that. I have father abandonment issues.
I have to admit that I consider jealously to be a huge
>weakness.
I agree. It's very distracting, too. My husband just got a job as a doorman
(don't laugh, it's a good job in NY), and what do you think I asked him during
his first week? I asked him if any of the single women in the building flirted
with him. He just laughs shit like that off.
It's mostly not one of mine, but lots of others are so I'm
>in no position to throw stones.
>
>R and I are oddly close with his first serious love, who he lived with
>for years, and he recently started exchanging email with the woman he
>left for me (she notified him of a mutal friend's death, was freaked
>by the loss, and expressed regret at having lost touch with R). I
>only wish that I could have that sort of lingering connection with my
>own past relationships.
>
I'm close with my ex, but he's also my son's father. I worked at getting my
husband and his ex on speaking terms, because I knew how hard it was on their
son, seeing them fighting all the time. That was very out of character for me.
Now they'll spend time talking on the phone about their kid, and of course, I'm
jealous.
>> However, David's negative attention to Layo was past verging on obsession.
>I
>> can't see how it wouldn't bother any woman to see her man at that level of
>> obsession over another woman .. projecting aside.
>
>Some people take the interactions here more seriously than others, you
>know?
>
I know I do. I also take things too personally. Insecurity is my thing.
Bonnie
Nutmegger
"Boniblueyz" <bonib...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030717205634...@mb-m27.aol.com...
Well, who wrote that because I went back and checked and I don't see a post
for who wrote the Gen-Ilya. It was funny.
Sorry Bob - I owe you an apology.
>and it's BONNIE.
>
> I hate whe people spell my name with a Y.
I hate it when people forget the "I" in my name.
bob
>>From: bob than...@coldmail.nu
>
>> Bonny cut that part out of her response.
>
>Sorry, and it's BONNIE.
Sorry BONNIE
>
>I hate whe people spell my name with a Y.
I hate it when ... well, people don't screw up my name.
bob
<nutmegg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Boniblueyz" <bonib...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20030717205634...@mb-m27.aol.com...
>> >From: bob than...@coldmail.nu
>>
>> > Bonny cut that part out of her response.
>>
>> Sorry,
>
>Well, who wrote that because I went back and checked and I don't see a post
>for who wrote the Gen-Ilya. It was funny.
>Sorry Bob - I owe you an apology.
That still doesn't explain your statement. Your apology is not
accepted.
Boniblueyz
>I hate it when ... well, people don't screw up my name.
Does anyone ever call you Bobby? I bet you'd hate that.
Bonnie
For those few who might still take him seriously ...
"Oh, and it's not possible to lug a laptop around is it? Duh!" -- "LIBERALS
HATE AMERICA," overheard in alt.radio.talk, explains how he flies commercially
AND posts simultaneously ALL DAY LONG!
bob
>>From: bob than...@coldmail.nu
>
>>I hate it when ... well, people don't screw up my name.
>
>Does anyone ever call you Bobby? I bet you'd hate that.
You can call me Bobby if you'd like.
>Bonnie
>For those few who might still take him seriously ...
Who me?
>"Oh, and it's not possible to lug a laptop around is it? Duh!" -- "LIBERALS
>HATE AMERICA," overheard in alt.radio.talk, explains how he flies commercially
>AND posts simultaneously ALL DAY LONG!
hmm
David O'Lantern
[...]
> I hate it when people forget the "I" in my name.
Nuitmegger? Nutmeggier? Nutmeggeri?
Flummoxedly,
Davdi
--
"Reaching after something, touching nothing, is all I ever do."
David O'Lantern
[...]
> I have father abandonment issues.
I'd abandon your father too if I were his issue.
The
P.S. Why anybody'd take *pride* in posting while drunk is beyond me.
I get tired of working for half an hour typing one sentence.
Boniblueyz
>>Does anyone ever call you Bobby? I bet you'd hate that.
>
>You can call me Bobby if you'd like.
The first person I ever saw in concert was Bobby Sherman at the Westbury Music
Fair. I was fourteen. Do you remember him? I loved him, and David Cassidy, of
course. I hear Bobby is a cop in California. Can you imagine being pulled over
by Bobby Sherman?
Anyhoo .. I asked the Bobby question because I thought that maybe that's what
you were called as a kid. It's hard to shake that sort of thing. My brother is
Abraham (that's a tough one to live up to, eh?), and he was Abby as a kid.
When he was a teenager he wanted everyone to start calling him Abe. I refused,
naturally. So did everyone else. It wasn't that we didn't try. It's just that
it was a habit. At this point, I think I must be the only person left in the
world who still calls him Abby, as everyone else is gone. Oh, and my son calls
him Uncle Abby.
Little kids aren't usually called Bob. You were either Bobby, or Robby, or if
your family was very formal about things, Robert.
Or for all I know, Bob is just your pseudonym, in which case, ignore all of the
above.
Bonnie
Nova Siecle
> >From: novas...@hotmail.com
[re: jealousy]
> >Are you always that way, or was it a function of the relationship
> >being so new?
> I've always been like that. I have father abandonment issues.
Me too! Which I guess makes it weird that I don't do the jealousy
thing.
> >I have to admit that I consider jealously to be a huge
> >weakness.
> I agree. It's very distracting, too. My husband just got a job as a doorman
> (don't laugh, it's a good job in NY),
Dude, my husband is a *waiter*, and I'm an aspiring *bartender*.
Having a normal/grown-up job is serioulsy overrated, and the proof is
that R makes more money working four nights a week (24-32 hours, max)
than I do working five days (50 hours). Yesterday I was stuck in an
"ideation workshop" (aka, wannabe think-tank for corporate idiots) for
FIVE FREAKIN' HOURS, and I wanted to hack my head off the entire time.
I am in no position to mock anyone on the career front.
> I know I do. I also take things too personally. Insecurity is my thing.
I used to have a good idea of what my thing is (my big flaw), but it's
not so clear anymore. Laziness maybe.
Mica
ms. parker
"Nutmegger" <nutmegg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bf7arn$bv26u$1...@ID-138055.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Boniblueyz" wrote :::
>
> > >From: bob than...@coldmail.nu
> >
> > >Gen-X == 1960-1979.
> > > Gen-Y == 1980-1999.
> > > Gen-Ilya == November 21st, 1975, plus any women who will give him
> > >blowjobs.
> >
> > THAT is fucking hysterical!
>
> Lol....
> I just don't get the blowjob aspect of it, why Bob always talks about it?
> >
> > >>I go by what the Census says: 1946-1964
> >
> > >That's the dates I've always used.
> >
> > That actually makes sense.
>
> Yes, it always did to me.
>
but its meaning has changed. take a look at these webpages:
http://users.metro2000.net/~stabbott/genxintro.htm
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99aug/9908genx.htm
bob
Gen-Ilya is more fun to make fun of, isn't it?
Hi Numeggar.
bukvich
> Me too! Which I guess makes it weird that I don't do the jealousy
> thing.
DingDingDingDingDingDing! ! !
For extra credit connect this to pinkorangered's theory of seduction as *rescue*.
Really, we could all save a fortune on psychotherapy here.
Bukvich
[ ' nononononononono ' ]
ms. parker
> On Thu, 18 Jul 2003, Boniblueyz wrote:
> [...]
>
> > I have father abandonment issues.
>
> I'd abandon your father too if I were his issue.
>
>
> The
>
> P.S. Why anybody'd take *pride* in posting while drunk is beyond me.
> I get tired of working for half an hour typing one sentence.
that's pathetic davey, i mean, really, i 've written pages on my D while
under the influence. Hell, i'm typing right now under the influence.
You just punch some keys and they spit out words. Its not rocket
science........... And who really cares about errors. Only assholes care
about being right, right?
j
bob
What's the difference between an asshole and a perfectionist?
pinkorangered
buk...@my-deja.com opined thusly:
>For extra credit connect this to pinkorangered's theory of seduction as
*rescue*.
It's the other way around, dude.
Nutmegger
"bob" wrote:::
> Gen-Ilya is more fun to make fun of, isn't it?
>
> Hi Numeggar.
Hi bob.
Read about your thunderstorms, I was scared of them too when I was in
Florida during a severe storm. It is quite intense.
Time for some doggy tranquilizers.
Nutmegger
"ms. parker" <m.@chaos..com> wrote in message
news:lJXRa.108134$Io.92...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
??
The article says and I quote:
"Demographers noticed as early as 1966 that the "boom" was over, and began
planning and budgeting downward for this massive change from the "boom" in
births between 1946-1964. (These "Boomer" dates, by the way, have never been
in doubt nor have they been doubted or tampered with by the media.) "
So, it seems The Baby Boomer Generation is actually down solid, but
Generation X is all over the map and is tampered with by the media, which
really is no surprise because the media tampers with everything now.
It seems to me that it became the catch phrase when Copeland's book became
popular. Before that, I had read about it being called "The Me Generation."
The slant of the article seemed to be of the opinion
Generation X = 1965-1975
Which makes logical sense.
I liked how he labels 1976-1981 the boomlet crowd. It seems about right to
me.
> http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99aug/9908genx.htm
Interesting article, I agree with what he says about the Democrats being
just as bad as the Republicans.
Thanks for posting the links, good stuff.
Boniblueyz
>What's the difference between an asshole and a perfectionist?
>
About five inches.
Bonnie
David O'Lantern
[...]
> Time for some doggy tranquilizers.
G-R-R-R-UUFF! ARF ARF ARF! WUFF! GRARF!
The
David O'Lantern
> buk...@my-deja.com opined thusly:
> >For extra credit connect this to pinkorangered's
> > theory of seduction as *rescue*.
> It's the other way around, dude.
Right. The co-eds rescue Pinko. For what it's worth.
Michaela
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Nutmegger wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Time for some doggy tranquilizers.
>
> G-R-R-R-UUFF! ARF ARF ARF! WUFF! GRARF!
>
>
> The
>
[I don't CARE what alt.angst is for. I'm going in.]
Michaela
raving on your head?
"Michaela" wrote
pinkorangered
>
>Shazaam! See what is going on here and you don't even know it is F. is
>waiting for you to go through three more lyin' ho's, max, and then
>you're hers baby. Rescue city.
>
>Actually I am joking a little there, but the pattern you describe has
>a lot in common with the rescue pattern you deride. Have you read Eric
>Berne?
No, does he post here or on nerve.com? That's about the perimeter of my
reading these days.
Apropos of rescuing, that's your superimposition. I derided the process of
treating potential partners like military manoevers: pick a soft target,
identify where defences are low and trojan on in. Nobody who falls for that
will keep you amused, son.
>> F feels that this pattern devalues our past relationship. She is wrong for
>> many reasons. She probably also thinks I'm writing that just because I know
>> she'll read it.
>
>When you were with F were you pining for (F-1)?
>I have no idea just tossing this out here but I BET YOU WEREN'T.
Exactly! No.
>But about the eX, just gag order yourself. The girlfriend goes "you
>are still hung up on her". I go "well you are going to think that
>anyway, the difference is if I don't discuss it I don't have to listen
>to you accusing me of that shit".
You are right.
R ran into K in a shop today. I was very nearly there myself. If only I'd
known, I could have arranged to have F there too! That would have been fun. K
hates F. F hates K. F approves of R who is suspicious of F. And K knows R
but doesn't know she is with me, as far as I know.
I have been thinking about moving over to the Other Side.
>> Do you care what anybody thinks of you? It's a weakness, apparently. I
care,
>> intensely, so the malicious goss which K is spreading about me is very
painful,
>> particularly since it's all true.
>
>There is a word for that, if your description is accurate. The word is
>attention-whoring. It reflects a lack of confidence and insecurity and
>self-esteem, even.
On her part you mean? No, it's just palpable bitterness and anger.
>Were you mean to her? You big meanie.
This is the whole point of the story. I was shagging my ex, that being F, for a
large part of my relationship with K. There were mitigating circumstances, but
it was still a very dumb thing to do, considering K had made it clear that was
the Big No No.
>> shopping with a full basket, eh?
>
>None of the above. We break up and make up and I don't shop. I am the
>sex scavenger gliding above like an aloof vulture, remember? We
>covered this exact topic before I am sure.
Yes, Operation Depressed Chick. It's not so much shopping as compulsorily
acquiring.
>See there you go. That is not love. Love takes ahold of you like a
>tractor beam and "concocting scenarios" ain't even in the picture.
>Concocting scenarios is for jiving your way into some bint's knickers.
You are right again. My ego has seized control. Had. I think my dick has
wrested most of it back now.
>Save that last sentence. That is perfect. It is siggable. It is, dare
>we go there, FionaWinHerBack material!
You're confused. It was K I was pining for. The only thing which could win F
back is a sprog, and I think she's kind of gone off my gene stock anyway. In
fact she despises me, though we are still the best of friends.
Did you notice how I turned this whole post around to be about me? I am
purging.
bob
You take doggy tranquilizers?
bob
http://www.ip-developers.com/angstfaq.html
That's what someone thought in 1997.
I've never actually read the faq in its entirety.
bukvich
> No, does he post here or on nerve.com? That's about the perimeter of my
> reading these days.
He is the transactional analysis guy. "Born to Win" is actually a
better TA book. He describes these relationship patterns as games:
"poor me", "now I got you, you sonofabitch", "see what you made me
do", etc.
Running the same pattern over and over again does *not* make you
worldly. Perhaps those chicks that thought you were worldly finally
saw through the bullshit?
> Apropos of rescuing, that's your superimposition. I derided the process of
> treating potential partners like military manoevers: pick a soft target,
> identify where defences are low and trojan on in. Nobody who falls for that
> will keep you amused, son.
I didn't mean that your description of pining over the ex- was similar
to preying on the wounded; in detail they are totally different. The
reason I mentioned it is that they are both repeated relationship
scripts.
I wrote A. a poem. I told her this on the phone Friday night, told her
that I couldn't wait to give it to her. (I can't wait to give it to
her.) She says: that makes me a little nervous.
But I digress.
> Exactly! No.
That is a data point to mull over a little there, Mr. Pinkorangered.
> You are right.
Actually I just made that up.
> R ran into K in a shop today. I was very nearly there myself. If only I'd
> known, I could have arranged to have F there too! That would have been fun. K
> hates F. F hates K. F approves of R who is suspicious of F. And K knows R
> but doesn't know she is with me, as far as I know.
This sounds like the scene in the woods in Midsummer Night's Dream.
See the way I do these things is that A. and SnJ. will not ever
possess one single milisecond's conscious awareness of the existence
of the other. Not one.
SnJ: are you seeing somebody?
Me: define "seeing".
> I have been thinking about moving over to the Other Side.
Here is what you might want to think about. Fiona, sprogs, and peace
of mind. It won't kill you I swear.
> This is the whole point of the story. I was shagging my ex, that being F, for a
> large part of my relationship with K. There were mitigating circumstances, but
> it was still a very dumb thing to do, considering K had made it clear that was
> the Big No No.
Oh what a tangled web we weave.
> Yes, Operation Depressed Chick. It's not so much shopping as compulsorily
> acquiring.
It is not a compulsion. We all have to play the hand we are dealt. My
hand ain't so great. But it isn't that bad either.
> You're confused. It was K I was pining for. The only thing which could win F
> back is a sprog, and I think she's kind of gone off my gene stock anyway. In
> fact she despises me, though we are still the best of friends.
> Did you notice how I turned this whole post around to be about me? I am
> purging.
So, I took A. to the four-star restaurant of her choice for our first
real date. She did not puke it up. She had the fish. I had the beef.
Ninety-three bucks, including tip. She was a little bit disappointed
that I covered the whole thing. We mumbled a lot. I don't know if I
started that and she mirrored it, or perhaps visa versa. Maybe it was
a mysterious unseen force running the show. Neither of us minded the
mumbling at all. We are both highly articulate individuals except in
that particular moment.
She did not puke the dinner up!
Bukvich
[ ' which is why I went into all that ' ]
Michaela
Aren't most perfectionists actually procrastinators?
Would that make them perfect assholes?
- Michaela
[we are the people our parents warned us about]
bob
(Michaela) wrote:
I don't know. I've been both at one time or another.
>
>Would that make them perfect assholes?
Sounds good to me.
jonah thomas
> * jonah thomas to Bukvich on Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 1234AM GMT:
>>Buk, I'm going to speak rationally. You've told us about this woman who
>>treats people carelessly. A heartbreaker. Hates her life. Deserves so
>>much more than she has. You're talking about waiting out three more
>>fuckheads until she changes.
> What has love to do with behaving rationally?
What has obsession to do with love?
>>WTF?
>>I don't know how plain I can say this.
>>WTF is somebody like *you* doing interested in somebody like *her*?
> Pursuing a mission (impossible)? Trying to prove he's a better
> therapist than all those apparently more or less ridiculous ones
> he has encountered? Trying to prove that, yes, she can get out of
> the cage of her behaviour pattern? Free her to her better self?
> Or simply loving against all rational odds?
What he *told* us up to that point was entirely consistent with
intermittent reinforcement from her. It's insidious.
People do things and then they come up with rationalizations. The
things you list all sound like rationalizations.
>>Well, you explained the mechanism. She treated you "carelessly". She
>>let you know she thinks she's too good for you. She's interested in
>>fuckheads and she still associates with you anyway.
>>You know the drill. You know entirely how this works.
> No, he doesn't. Or, yes, he does, but only rationally. So he has
> to find out. The irrational way.
Maybe.
> Or, like Bukvich once wrote himself: "Capitalism and
> schizophrenia go together like salsa and tortilla chips."
> I'd say: Go for it. Be as pathetic and stupid and ridiculous as
> can be. Against every well meant rational counsel. 'til you
> really have enough, 'til you are really fed up with running after
> her (which may take quite a long time), 'til you have run out of
> your own rationalizations, which will be the moment when it
> doesn't matter to you any more whether you had loved or projected
> because you ran out of strength for any such hair splitting. Then
> you'll either know (because it's past and you did what you could)
> -- or the impossible miracle has happened.
> It's all about the irrational limit, about spending, exhaustion,
> and being wasteful. What have you got to lose (that you have not
> lost already)? By experiments in making a fool of yourself (that
> you and everybody is already, and not just in matters of love)?
> Just theoretical psycho-politically correct self-esteem. If you
> /do/ something you'll find some practical stuff whatever you will
> call it after you've experienced it.
> What the heck, I'm all for being a fool for love.
Whatever. "Experience is a strict mistress...."
Christian Ebert
> Christian Ebert wrote:
>> * jonah thomas to Bukvich on Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 1234AM GMT:
>>>Buk, I'm going to speak rationally. You've told us about this woman who
>>>treats people carelessly. A heartbreaker. Hates her life. Deserves so
>>>much more than she has. You're talking about waiting out three more
>>>fuckheads until she changes.
>
>> What has love to do with behaving rationally?
>
> What has obsession to do with love?
Good point.
Passion. Obsessed, I am ruled by passion, enslaved, in love I am
set free by passion, free to jump in and out.
It seemed to me about a Yes or No situation. Should I Stay Or
Should I Go. Exhaust the obsession, and if anything is left it is
love. Oversimplified, that's the only (hard) way I can
rationalize to untangle love and obsession. The only way to get
my thoughts out of running wild in the Yes or No circle.
Should I phone her or not? Find out what I _want_ by trying.
Otherwise I will always be hunted by the question: And if I had
phoned her. If it's a mistake, then I'll know how it feels, the
mistake is manifest and not a foggy or even daemonic image.
Should I go on stage or not? The stagefright kills me! -- Useless
yes or no. As long as I can still be articulate about it it
doesn't kill me. Go out and find out. Find out possibly how
pathetic you are -- but not stuck anymore. How does it feel
instead of should I feel.
>>>WTF?
>
>>>I don't know how plain I can say this.
>
>>>WTF is somebody like *you* doing interested in somebody like *her*?
>
>> Pursuing a mission (impossible)? Trying to prove he's a better
>> therapist than all those apparently more or less ridiculous ones
>> he has encountered? Trying to prove that, yes, she can get out of
>> the cage of her behaviour pattern? Free her to her better self?
>> Or simply loving against all rational odds?
>
> What he *told* us up to that point was entirely consistent with
> intermittent reinforcement from her. It's insidious.
Had to look up "insidious". -- Well, yes, but supposing he is
obsessed that realization doesn't get me out of it, the seduction
of obsession is that it uses everything to turn its wheel faster.
> People do things and then they come up with rationalizations. The
> things you list all sound like rationalizations.
Completely d'accord. I rationalize, am articulate /after/ doing.
But what about when obsession kidnaps your thoughts and words to
keep you from action?
>>>Well, you explained the mechanism. She treated you "carelessly". She
>>>let you know she thinks she's too good for you. She's interested in
>>>fuckheads and she still associates with you anyway.
>
>>>You know the drill. You know entirely how this works.
>
>> No, he doesn't. Or, yes, he does, but only rationally. So he has
>> to find out.
Of course he doesn't _have_ to. I sound like a schoolteacher.
Shudder.
>> The irrational way.
>
> Maybe.
Yes.
<snip>
>> What the heck, I'm all for being a fool for love.
>
> Whatever. "Experience is a strict mistress...."
Sounds more erotic than "double-bind" ... Btw, all you said made
me smile. Now, that's enlightening.
Way out: Drive yourself to the point where you can take a good
laugh at yourself.
c
--
Wer auf sein Elend tritt, steht höher.
_HÖLDERLIN: H Y P E R I O N_ <http://www.blacktrash.org/>
jonah thomas
> * jonah thomas on Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 05:28PM GMT:
>>Christian Ebert wrote:
>>>What has love to do with behaving rationally?
>>What has obsession to do with love?
> Good point.
> Passion. Obsessed, I am ruled by passion, enslaved, in love I am
> set free by passion, free to jump in and out.
People usually get most passionate when the uncertainty is maximised.
Like, is the sun going to rise where you are within the next 24 hours?
If it doesn't then practically everything you're planning for the rest
of your life is suddenly irrelevant -- you have a brand new set of
problems. It's one of the most important things in the world to human
beings. But we mostly don't give it a thought. Low uncertainty.
And yet people don't always do it that way. Sometimes we get all
obsessed about things that would appear to have no chance at all.
Sometimes men stalk women who've never ever shown any interest in them.
People sometimes get all passionate about things where the outcome is
almost certain, but unacceptable. They keep doing the same things over
and over because they aren't willing to accept the predictable outcome.
> It seemed to me about a Yes or No situation. Should I Stay Or
> Should I Go. Exhaust the obsession, and if anything is left it is
> love. Oversimplified, that's the only (hard) way I can
> rationalize to untangle love and obsession. The only way to get
> my thoughts out of running wild in the Yes or No circle.
Consider the love you might share with a dog. No question who's
dominant, everybody knows that. No question whether to stay, the dog
considers herself part of your pack and if worse comes to worst she'll
stay with you until she starves. No double binds, no traps, no psychic
attacks, no poetry, no sex, no arguing, no bargains. What dogs do might
not be quite what we mean by love but it's a lot closer than most of the
human examples. Anybody who's been loved by a dog knows what love is.
This other stuff is something different. "Will she like me?" "Will she
still like me if she gets to know me?" "Will she keep her agreements?"
"What will she do when she finds out I'm not a Republican?" "Will she
pick some jerk instead of me?" It isn't about love.
One brain can have both going on at once. When the love wins the rest
settles down. When the other stuff wins the love goes away. Maybe they
can coexist indefinitely.
There's a skill to getting people to obsess over you. It doesn't work
every time with no preparation -- you can't go to a big party and pick
the one woman you want to get obsessed with you and just do it
instantly. But it's a learnable skill, and it often doesn't take all
that much expertise, and since it doesn't usually require people to pay
attention to their core values but just learn techniques, it's much
easier to teach than teaching people not to get obsessed. But the
rewards of learning it are meager.
> Should I phone her or not? Find out what I _want_ by trying.
> Otherwise I will always be hunted by the question: And if I had
> phoned her. If it's a mistake, then I'll know how it feels, the
> mistake is manifest and not a foggy or even daemonic image.
> Should I go on stage or not? The stagefright kills me! -- Useless
> yes or no. As long as I can still be articulate about it it
> doesn't kill me. Go out and find out. Find out possibly how
> pathetic you are -- but not stuck anymore. How does it feel
> instead of should I feel.
OK. But it's absurd to get obsessed over intermittent reinforcement.
Sure, do it a few times to understand the pattern. "Do something stupid
once and it's an accident. The second time it's a recognition. The
third time it's a learning experience. The fourth time it's a mistake.
The fifth time it's a beginning habit."
>>>>WTF is somebody like *you* doing interested in somebody like *her*?
>>>Pursuing a mission (impossible)? Trying to prove he's a better
>>>therapist than all those apparently more or less ridiculous ones
>>>he has encountered? Trying to prove that, yes, she can get out of
>>>the cage of her behaviour pattern? Free her to her better self?
>>>Or simply loving against all rational odds?
>>What he *told* us up to that point was entirely consistent with
>>intermittent reinforcement from her. It's insidious.
> Had to look up "insidious". -- Well, yes, but supposing he is
> obsessed that realization doesn't get me out of it, the seduction
> of obsession is that it uses everything to turn its wheel faster.
True. But Bukvich is an intellectual. He would find it demeaning to be
caught by simple intermittent reinforcement. That's a powerful
incentive to do something different, if he sees it that way. But he
also has great skills at rationalization. He can surely come up with
all sorts of excuses why it isn't that but something different. And he
probably used the language he did specifically to troll me, he said it
all in line with that interpretation first, and then he switched it
around later.
>>People do things and then they come up with rationalizations. The
>>things you list all sound like rationalizations.
> Completely d'accord. I rationalize, am articulate /after/ doing.
> But what about when obsession kidnaps your thoughts and words to
> keep you from action?
Or to induce stupid action? Once you accept that a lot of your thinking
is rationalization, it doesn't make sense to put too much credence in
decisions based on that thinking.
When you're young one possibility is to reject the choices that tie you
down. The more irrevocable the choice, the more severe the
consequences. Why make giant mistakes when you can learn from smaller
ones? But at some point you have to choose, or your default choice is
to never do anything that much matters to you.
>>>>Well, you explained the mechanism. She treated you "carelessly". She
>>>>let you know she thinks she's too good for you. She's interested in
>>>>fuckheads and she still associates with you anyway.
>>>>You know the drill. You know entirely how this works.
>>>No, he doesn't. Or, yes, he does, but only rationally. So he has
>>>to find out.
> Of course he doesn't _have_ to. I sound like a schoolteacher.
> Shudder.
It's hard to work things out fresh. If you want to make sure you never
sound bad, be careful to say only the things that have always gotten a
good reception before.
>>>The irrational way.
>>>What the heck, I'm all for being a fool for love.
>>Whatever. "Experience is a strict mistress...."
> Sounds more erotic than "double-bind" ... Btw, all you said made
> me smile. Now, that's enlightening.
> Way out: Drive yourself to the point where you can take a good
> laugh at yourself.
"Laugh or cry, there ain't no inbetween." That isn't how it's supposed
to go. I can't remember the quote and when I tried this is all I came
up with. I swear the original made some kind of sense that left me
wanting to remember it now ... but I remember enough to get that but
still don't remember the thing itself.
David O'Lantern
> Completely d'accord. I rationalize, am articulate /after/ doing.
You too? No shit?
> But what about when obsession kidnaps your thoughts and words to
> keep you from action?
Get a prescription for an SSRI, as I did. And practice: one "symptom"
I'm "allowed" to post involves riding the public transit bus -- each
bus ride I repeated to myself "I will not flee in panic, I will ride
till I get where I'm going" (or something like that) until *SHAZAM!*
one day I got to the shopping street, got off, and went about buying
groceries & etc. -- it wasn't till I was in line at the store that I
remembered I hadn't noticed anything about panicking or feeling like
I was about to pass out or anything. (Then I started to worry that I
might be doing things I was forgetting later -- how could forty-five
whole minutes in public pass without having to hide somewhere once?!?)
What this all has to do with obsession for another person, even as an
allegory, I'm not at the moment at liberty to say.
David O'Lantern
Dear Jonah (et al.),
How would I go about getting a strange grad student to become obsessed
with me? (I mean in person, not just by posting to Usenet about my
diarrhea.) Keep in mind I'm not willing to change my basic appearance
beyond (at the moment) bathing and dressing, nor can I change my "odd"
demeanor. I've had people obsessed with me before, but I didn't do it
deliberately -- and so I don't know a lot about matters of technique.
Advisably,
David O'Lantern
What IS "an intellectual" anyway, and am I one of those?
D.
Robert J. Kolker
David O'Lantern wrote:
>
> What IS "an intellectual" anyway, and am I one of those?
If you have to ask, you are not one.
Bob Kolker
mazzolata
>
> What IS "an intellectual" anyway, and am I one of those?
>
>
>
> D.
>
Saw a good definition today - an intellectual is someone who think that
the James Brothers were called William and Henry.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ma chambre a la forme d'une cage
le soleil passe son bras par la fenetre
Robert J. Kolker
mazzolata wrote:
> Saw a good definition today - an intellectual is someone who think that
> the James Brothers were called William and Henry.
Primo! Bravo!
Bob Kolker
>
Francis A. Miniter
Tell Overture and not think of the Lone Ranger.
Francis A. Miniter
David O'Lantern
["intellectual"]
> The definition I grew up with was one who could listen to the William
> Tell Overture and not think of the Lone Ranger.
"Okay Davey, now don't think of the Lone Ranger while you listen to this,
not even once!" Wouldn't work, even if I'd known who the Lone Ranger was.
As a kid I knew more about Lenny Bruce's jokes than the actual Masked Man;
wasn't my generation. But the Rockford Files, well, he looked like my dad.
And the crazy lady up the street said "You're a Maverick too. I can tell!"
When I hear the first part of _The Barber of Seville_ I think of Bugs too.
The
Steppenpup
> What IS "an intellectual" anyway, and am I one of those?
>
>
>
> D.
Smartass with a Ph.D.
Paul A Sand
>
> What IS "an intellectual" anyway, and am I one of those?
>
Hayek called intellectuals "professional secondhand dealers in ideas."
--
-- Paul A. Sand | I can't decide if I'm bragging or
-- University of New Hampshire | complaining.
-- p...@unh.edu | (Mary Loveless, rec.arts.books)
-- http://pubpages.unh.edu/~pas |
Hartmut Schmider
DoL> But the Rockford Files, well, he looked like my dad.
You know, I'm thinking the exact same thing everytime the guy's on
cable. Is there some kind of Universal Daddyness (tm) built into him? Got
to ask Mel Gibson next time I see him.
Regards, Hartmut "he ain't heavy" Schmider
--
Hartmut Schmider, Queen's University h...@post.queensu.ca
Man lebt nicht einmal einmal. Karl Kraus
Jonah Thomas
> Dear Jonah (et al.),
> How would I go about getting a strange grad student to become obsessed
> with me? (I mean in person, not just by posting to Usenet about my
> diarrhea.) Keep in mind I'm not willing to change my basic appearance
> beyond (at the moment) bathing and dressing, nor can I change my "odd"
> demeanor. I've had people obsessed with me before, but I didn't do it
> deliberately -- and so I don't know a lot about matters of technique.
The first step is you have to get them to notice you. As long as you're
part of the background they don't particularly notice, it's hopeless.
If you can't think of anything better, do something really jerky. In
terms of getting them to like you that puts you behind, but until they
notice you, you aren't even in the game.
As you keep meeting them for no reason or trivial reasons (this only
works with people you keep running into plausibly for other reasons, if
you look like a stalker they're likely to get scared) alternately treat
them like human beings that you recognise, and like part of the
woodwork. This method can get them to notice you without anything
dramatic but it takes longer and isn't dependable for that. But after
you happen to meet someone repeatedly after awhile it's considered OK
and unthreatening to say hello. And at some point they'll expect it of
you and notice when you don't notice them.
From this point it can go a lot of ways. Note that they're having lots
of opportunities for alternative obsessions. If you were the only man
in the world, or even the only man within 50 miles, you'd get a lot of
attention. Obviously your odds are best with women who haven't noticed
any other choices. But you don't know which those will be. There's a
weird thing where men tell their buddies about particular hot women and
then all compete for her. There are women who look rather like fashion
models who get no attention at all because they don't know how to make
themselves look available -- if they had one boyfriend they'd have lots
of guys after them but without the first one nobody else wants to try.
Of course, once guys start seeing her with you some of them will try.
Here's a story that will remind you of Ilya. Once in grad school I met
a woman who seemed to like me, who had some great sorrow. When I was
back in my dorm room alone I was visited by an angry spirit who told me
to stay away from her. Most people refuse to accept such communication,
they insist that it can't happen so when it does they think of it as
idle fantasies or troubling daydreams and dismiss it. But I was stuck
on a math problem and had nothing better to do, so I asked the spirit
his name (Bob) and his concern (she was his) and how long he was going
to be away (he got even more upset). I told him I didn't want anything
bad for her, and asked him the same (and he agreed). The spirit went
away very sad. I quit my idle fantasy and went back to my math problem.
The second time after that that I saw her, she told me about her
boyfriend. They'd had an argument and he drove away mad and died in a
traffic accident, ten months before. I was a little concerned that ten
months wasn't long enough; the custom is to wait a year. But he didn't
contact me again and she said he'd stopped troubling her about a week
before. I told this story to one good friend. His comment was "She
sounds like a fascinating woman." And he saw us together once, so he
introduced himself and started meeting her. He told his other friends
about her, and soon there were five math grad students interested in
her. (Five that I knew about.) She commented on it to me and asked me
why, and at the time all I could do was shrug. She'd had nothing to do
with any mathematicians before she met me, and she clearly held me
responsible. Doug was one of them. He got a lot of women obsessed with
him. Once I saw a psychology grad student I knew with one eye
completely red. I asked her what happened. "Oh, I got in a fight with
another woman over Doug. It was an interesting experience but I
wouldn't do it again." After awhile she told all the mathematicians to
go away and she took up with a commercial artist.
So anyway, the central point is you have to get her to somehow care what
you think, at least a little bit. And then you give her some of what
she wants (and typically what she wants is your approval) and then you
quit, and then you do it again and quit, so she never knows whether
she'll get what she wants or not ahead of time. Typically you start out
being very nice to her consistently and then gradually do it less often
until it's down to the most effective amount. But if you're too
consistently nice to her at first she'll likely ignore you for somebody
who isn't. And if you taper it off too fast or go too far she'll give
up and go with somebody who did it better.
For people who don't get obsessed, this is a fundamental and honest form
of negotiation. You give them what they want while they give you what
you want, and vice versa. You aren't a pushover who'll give them
whatever they want regardless, and neither are they. It's only people
who're prone to osbession who get obsessed this way.
Nutmegger
"jonah thomas" wrote:::
>
> People usually get most passionate when the uncertainty is maximised.
I am not this way. So, I think others may not be that way either.
> People sometimes get all passionate about things where the outcome is
> almost certain, but unacceptable.
Well sure they do.
I live a passionate life and I approach things/situations/people with
passion. It is always there, just in different degrees that I control.
Maybe B. is like that?
He can probably hide it well under his high degree of intellectualization.
>They keep doing the same things over
> and over because they aren't willing to accept the predictable outcome.
Yes, whether passion is there or not - some people are like this.
> What dogs do might
> not be quite what we mean by love but it's a lot closer than most of the
> human examples.
Heh....that is a type of love. To me, it is like comparing apples to
oranges. Seriously, you don't communicate with a dog either. These are the
types of love as I know them.
Romantic Love
Family Love
Love for other - (Humanity)
Self Love
Love of Idea or Ideal - something to be realized or achieved
Pet Love
Love of Life
Love for something that transcends the world of phenomena - some call it
Love of God
Not everyone experiences all these kinds of love either.
>Anybody who's been loved by a dog knows what love is.
Rather, they know a certain kind of love. To compare it to romantic love is
silly, unless you want to romantically fall in love with a dog. :-)
> It isn't about love.
Love may be the driving force behind those questions. He even said as much.
> One brain can have both going on at once. When the love wins the rest
> settles down. When the other stuff wins the love goes away. Maybe they
> can coexist indefinitely.
Real, true deep love doesn't go away so easily Jonah. At least not for me.
>
> There's a skill to getting people to obsess over you.
So, you view it as her doing this to him?
She can't control his thoughts, that is, unless he allows her to. And, real
love has an obsessive quality to it at first. You know...when you can't
stop thinking about the person - it is very common.
> But it's a learnable skill, and it often doesn't take all
> that much expertise,
I don't know about this. What is running through my mind is false pretenses
and real love can't be built upon that so the obsession is actually a "sick"
one. And, who would want a "sick" one. It isn't real.
> OK. But it's absurd to get obsessed over intermittent reinforcement.
> Sure, do it a few times to understand the pattern. "Do something stupid
> once and it's an accident. The second time it's a recognition. The
> third time it's a learning experience. The fourth time it's a mistake.
> The fifth time it's a beginning habit."
While all that is true and I agree completely, some people are more
tenancious than others. They chalk it up to circumstances, environment or
situations. In a world such as ours, when you find what you are looking for
(after years of searching) and the connection is deep - this is a common
situation.
For the kind of person he is, he isn't going to listen to anyone. He has to
come to his own realization in his own time.
> But Bukvich is an intellectual.
As am I, but you know something Jonah......
Romantic Love doesn't have a thing to do with intelligence. It overides it
is how I see it.
>He would find it demeaning to be
> caught by simple intermittent reinforcement.
Not necessarily, although intelluctually that is a correct assumption - his
passion takes precedence. There are reasons for this and it goes back to
what Christian was saying.
>That's a powerful
> incentive to do something different, if he sees it that way.
To give up on hope has to come from within. He could very well realize the
intellectual aspect but throw it all out the window because how can love be
intellectualized? The closest I have come to it is by defining the types of
love and looking at the driving force behind them which shows in people's
behavior.
> But he
> also has great skills at rationalization.
I have noticed.
> He can surely come up with
> all sorts of excuses why it isn't that but something different.
It sounds like you want to shake him and say:"Will you wake up!"
It is easy from the outside looking in, no?
> > Way out: Drive yourself to the point where you can take a good
> > laugh at yourself.
>
> "Laugh or cry, there ain't no inbetween."
"If I didn't laugh, I'd cry." That saying has been prevelant in my life
lately.
jonah thomas
> What IS "an intellectual" anyway, and am I one of those?
Intellectuals are people who believe their thinking is somehow different
and superior to the common run of mediocre humans.
You are an intellectual.
There are a lot of people who believe that their thinking is somehow
different and superior to the common run of intellectuals.
They are intellectuals too.
David J. Loftus
> David O'Lantern <thed...@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in message news:<2003072416...@shell.rawbw.com>...
> > What IS "an intellectual" anyway, and am I one of those?
>
Those sometimes qualify, but I don't believe an
intellectual need be a smartass or possess a
doctorate. My wife is more highly educated than
I, but I think we would both agree that I'm much
more of an intellectual than she is.
I think an intellectual is a person who tends
to approach questions of social policy, literature,
and even personal problems through logic and analysis.
It helps to be broadly read, but I'm not sure even
that is essential.
I regard the term as neutral -- neither positive
nor pejorative, necessarily. It merely describes
one approach to life, and not necessarily an
inherently good or productive one.
David Loftus
Nutmegger
"jonah thomas" wrote:::
> David O'Lantern wrote:
>
> > What IS "an intellectual" anyway, and am I one of those?
>
> Intellectuals are people who believe their thinking is somehow different
> and superior to the common run of mediocre humans.
Lol...I never considered myself one until a high school teacher told me I
was.
>
> You are an intellectual.
>
> There are a lot of people who believe that their thinking is somehow
> different and superior to the common run of intellectuals.
I don't think my thinking is superior, nor all that different.
But, I've often been told I think too much.
<What a terrible thing to say>
> They are intellectuals too.
Snotty ones.