Eight rules for dating
Lonely God
Dennie's 8 Simple Rules for Dating
Dennie Hughes, contributing editor
USA Weekend
February 13, 2005
Finding -- and keeping -- the right match doesn't have to be the
impossible dream. In time for Valentine's Day, our relationship expert
explains how to do both.
Thousands of readers have written to me about it. Some do it from the
privacy of their own home; others try their luck in popular hot spots.
Even celebrities are in on the action. Some (like Jay-Z and Beyoncé) try
to do it on the down low. Others (like Paris Hilton) enjoy keeping it in
the tabloids.
So, what is this activity that has so many of America's 86 million single
adults perpetually fascinated, frustrated and, yes, hopeful?
In a word: dating.
Like dieting, our other fraught-with-failure fixation, our nation is
obsessed with how to find and keep a healthy relationship. This year,
we'll spend half a billion dollars on online dating sites, more than
anything else in cyberspace, predicts Internet trend tracker Jupiter
Research. Google the world "dating" and you get a mind-reeling 80 million
possibilities. No wonder there are so many singles out there. Who can sort
through it all?
With that in mind, I decided that the best Valentine's Day gift I could
give to my unhitched readers and those who know them would be a
no-nonsense guide to getting the relationship you want (and deserve). So
here are my 8 Simple Rules for Dating, a breakdown of what you should be
doing -- and how to do it.
Rule 1
TAKE A REALITY CHECK
The common denominator in all those dates-gone-wrong is ... you. It's time
to take a look at your own behavior. Habits like rushing a relationship
(wanting to know "Where is this going?" after only two dates), basing
relationship potential on things like money or impressing others, or
thinking that fighting equals passion can doom relationships.
RelationTip: Ask trusted friends and relatives to be completely honest and
give you a rundown of the kinds of unsavory moves they see you making over
and over. Being aware of those bad habits will allow you to take
responsibility and make positive changes.
... more at
http://usaweekend.com/05_issues/050213/050213relationtips.html
"Dateworthy" by Dennie Hughes on Amazon
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1594860750/
(Tip: do a text search for Tim and yield sign.)
Bald Geezer
news:422069f1$0$38729$39ce...@news.twtelecom.net:
> Dennie Hughes left the dating world behind when she got married in June.
Cf. Jackie Chan, "The Tuxedo" - Don't take advice about women FROM women.
> Not sure if it's directed to women or men, maybe both. -lg.
Rule 7, Dare to Have Spares, is the only item that isn't useless, and
that's one more item than most women's articles. Cosmo recently had an
article claiming that (wait for it...) men find oral sex overrated. How
can people keep paying to read such obvious lies.
...and shouldn't that be "lonely goddess," Dennie?
KC Carter
> (wanting to know "Where is this going?" after only two dates),
It's the woman that defines the relationship, pure and simple.
> basing
> relationship potential on things like money or impressing others, or
> thinking that fighting equals passion can doom relationships.
Further reality check: ALL relationships are doomed. Doom is a good
thing, otherwise you'd marry the first person you were with.
Relationships that don't result in marriage are based on little else
other than impressing others or creating drama. Marriage is based on
money.
KC
Bald Geezer
news:1109439441.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> It's the woman that defines the relationship, pure and simple.
*Plonk*
aardvark9084
"Bald Geezer" <i...@ny.nz> wrote in message
news:Xns9609822A3A...@151.164.30.44...
yeah...if you let her.
*double fucking plonk*
aardvark
ags...@yahoo.com
KC Carter wrote:
>
> Further reality check: ALL relationships are doomed.
Only because our court systems and our society allow the following to
be true:
"It's the woman that defines the relationship, pure and simple."
Not so simple after all, eh?
Visit a country like Iran, and you'll have long lasting relationships
because everytime a woman decides to voice her ignorant thoughts, she
gets bitch slapped.
Regards...
KC Carter
ignored b/c of something as trivial as this? How disappointing...
KC
aardvark9084
"KC Carter" <newmed...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1109572109.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Doesn't *plonk* mean that I've been added to their ignore list? I get
> ignored b/c of something as trivial as this? How disappointing...
>
> KC
>
you stated that women control realtionships, i said "if you let them". i
stand by what i said because being factory equipped with a vagina doesn't
get you squat in the world by some arbitrary default system. you either grab
hold of the steering wheel in relationships or your partner does and there
are no gender specific guidelines on how that goes.
now you go off on a tangent about what *you think* plonk means. maybe it
means that someone is added to an ignore list. sometimes it means something
else. perhaps it means that you've been lightly dismissed as an
insignifigant twit.
i'm pleased your entry into the discussion, i really am. it's just that one
disruptive influence on this group is more than plenty and intervened before
it got stupid. i'd like to see this discussion remain as a discussion and
not another crapfest.
aardvark
l ll l
(in message <1109572109.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
> Doesn't *plonk* mean that I've been added to their ignore list?
Naw... they're just drama queens.
I get
> ignored b/c of something as trivial as this?
They're not ignoring you. They're praying you'll notice them, which you just
did. You just made someone queen for the day®!
How disappointing...
>
> KC
>
dwacon
"aardvark9084" <aardvar...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:ZqzUd.71472$tl3.279@attbi_s02...
>
> "KC Carter" <newmed...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1109572109.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Doesn't *plonk* mean that I've been added to their ignore list? I get
> > ignored b/c of something as trivial as this? How disappointing...
> >
> > KC
> >
>
> you stated that women control realtionships, i said "if you let them". i
> stand by what i said because being factory equipped with a vagina doesn't
> get you squat in the world by some arbitrary default system.
It's more than having a vagina... it's also socialization.
--
Paris Hilton uses one of these...
http://tinyurl.com/z6uc
Ray Gordon
>> ignored b/c of something as trivial as this? How disappointing...
>>
>> KC
>>
>
> you stated that women control realtionships, i said "if you let them".
She can say NO whether or not a man "lets" her.
>i
> stand by what i said because being factory equipped with a vagina doesn't
> get you squat in the world by some arbitrary default system.
In America, it gets a woman a lot, and a pretty woman quite a lot. The
market value of a female is not determined by the opinion of one man.
>you either grab
> hold of the steering wheel in relationships or your partner does and there
> are no gender specific guidelines on how that goes.
So all relationships are power struggles in his model.
> now you go off on a tangent about what *you think* plonk means. maybe it
> means that someone is added to an ignore list. sometimes it means
> something
> else. perhaps it means that you've been lightly dismissed as an
> insignifigant twit.
As if the person doing the dismissing were somehow relevant. There are few
in this world more lame than those who think anyone gives a fuck who they
personally dislike.
> i'm pleased your entry into the discussion, i really am. it's just that
> one
> disruptive influence on this group is more than plenty and intervened
> before
> it got stupid. i'd like to see this discussion remain as a discussion and
> not another crapfest.
Crap is in the ass of the beholder.
--
Ray Gordon, Author
http://www.cybersheet.com/easy.html
Seduction Made Easy. Get this book FREE when you buy participating
affiliated books!
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
The Seduction Library. Four free books to get you started on your quest to
get laid.
Don't buy anything from experts who won't debate on a free speech forum.
aardvark9084
"Ray Gordon" <r...@cybersheet.com> wrote in message
news:DlTUd.17889$qn2.3...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> >> Doesn't *plonk* mean that I've been added to their ignore list? I get
> >> ignored b/c of something as trivial as this? How disappointing...
> >>
> >> KC
> >>
> >
> > you stated that women control realtionships, i said "if you let them".
>
> She can say NO whether or not a man "lets" her.
another day goes by and you still don't know how to deal with women,
fathead. she can say "no" to sex. the learned man can get her to want to say
"yes" and keep saying it. it's truly your own stubborn ignorance and your
sociopathic mindles mind that keeps you from forming relationships with
women, scabby.
i guess that all you'll ever hear from women is the word "no" and the splash
of her drink in your vile face. that's all you'll ever get from them is
watching them walk away from you. you still got nothing, ray and you know
it. everyone here knows it as well. people are never going to be as stupid
as you in your make believe la-la world them would like to see them be.
nobody believes you have a system for getting what *they want* from women,
kro-mag head. what *you want* for them does not matter. how much more
obvious does it have to be for you before you give up and tell the world
that you have nothing at all to offer anyone that they could ever use?
your court jester antics here add up for you to be nothing more than an
exercise in very poorly disguised masochism on your part. that too is
extremely obvious to anyone who has even read only one of your rants, you
snivelling dope.
> >i
> > stand by what i said because being factory equipped with a vagina
doesn't
> > get you squat in the world by some arbitrary default system.
>
> In America, it gets a woman a lot, and a pretty woman quite a lot. The
> market value of a female is not determined by the opinion of one man.
you sure do like to hear yourself talk, dummy. you also like to think you
know what people mean or think. must suck for a peabrain like you to be
wrong all the time.
> >you either grab
> > hold of the steering wheel in relationships or your partner does and
there
> > are no gender specific guidelines on how that goes.
>
> So all relationships are power struggles in his model.
yet more evidence that you just don't understand male/female relationships,
idiot. you love to be the stalker, the butt sniffer in your dealings with
women. to chase them around and make *her* the prize to be won is part and
parcel of your sick creed and useless methods. more power to you if you
think that's going to get you somewhere (it isn't and you know it).
a real man is going to make himself the prize. nobody cares if you don't
think the guy worthy of being a prize, numbskull. that's not the point.
you'd like to make it the point but, it's not about what "ray wants", you
rotting sack of puss.
> > now you go off on a tangent about what *you think* plonk means. maybe it
> > means that someone is added to an ignore list. sometimes it means
> > something
> > else. perhaps it means that you've been lightly dismissed as an
> > insignifigant twit.
>
> As if the person doing the dismissing were somehow relevant. There are
few
> in this world more lame than those who think anyone gives a fuck who they
> personally dislike.
not a matter of like or dislike. you want the world to worship you because
of your many faults, not in spite of them, scumbag. of course what you get
for your tiring and wasted efforts is scorn and ridicule heaped upon you
wherever you go, bridbrain. is it worth it yet to you or are you more of a
masichist then you let on, goofball?
> > i'm pleased your entry into the discussion, i really am. it's just that
> > one
> > disruptive influence on this group is more than plenty and intervened
> > before
> > it got stupid. i'd like to see this discussion remain as a discussion
and
> > not another crapfest.
>
> Crap is in the ass of the beholder.
such poetry from an inept clown who murdered his own conscience. tell me,
you sad creep, since you think most women "deserve to be beaten, raped and
murdered" did you beat and rape your conscience before you murdered it?
are you still engaged in selling fraudulent "hypnosis" tapes out of your
home? how about threats of barratry using your mother's phone lines?
illegally representing yourself as a lawyer to harass and intimidate?
blackmail? does your mommy know that you are breaking the law right
underneath her roof and making her an unwitting party to your criminal
deeds?
if you can't reply to the subjects as i lined them out for you then please
have the decency to...
shut up, stupid.
aardvark
Lonely God
> Lonely God <Delldude@^Gatewaydaemon^.org> wrote in
> news:422069f1$0$38729$39ce...@news.twtelecom.net:
>>Not sure if it's directed to women or men, maybe both. -lg.
>
>
> Rule 7, Dare to Have Spares, is the only item that isn't useless, and
> that's one more item than most women's articles. Cosmo recently had an
> article claiming that (wait for it...) men find oral sex overrated. How
> can people keep paying to read such obvious lies.
Women lie to each other all the time about their sex lives.
/me rolling eyes
>
> ...and shouldn't that be "lonely goddess," Dennie?
I'm a man you old fart, and I take offense at that.
*takes away Geezer's cane and whacks him over the head with it*
--
Everybody in the world ought to be sorry for everybody
else. We all have our little private hell.
-- Bettina von Hutten, _The Halo_ (1907)
Meet other Shybies in person- http://shyness.meetup.com/
Bernd Jendrissek
Hash: SHA1
>i'm pleased your entry into the discussion, i really am. it's just that
>one disruptive influence on this group is more than plenty and
>intervened before it got stupid.
Who's the disruptive one here?
>i'd like to see this discussion remain as a discussion and not another
>crapfest.
You mean, you'd like to see the discussion NOT like this?
In article <q4XUd.17314$Ze3.17133@attbi_s51> aardvark9084
<aardvar...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>fathead.
>stubborn ignorance and your sociopathic mindles mind
>scabby.
>your vile face.
>kro-mag head.
>very poorly disguised masochism on your part.
So why do you yap at his every command to "hurt" him?
>you snivelling dope.
>dummy.
>a peabrain like you
>idiot.
>your sick creed
>numbskull.
>you rotting sack of puss.
>scumbag.
>bridbrain.
>goofball?
>you sad creep,
>since you think most women "deserve to be beaten, raped and murdered"
>did you beat and rape your conscience before you murdered it?
Do women deserve to be deceived?
>fraudulent
Careful... he'll sue you.
>shut up, stupid.
This thing you're doing... this business of usenet-stalking him and
compulsively following up to seemingly every post of his... is it
working? Are you a shill trying to make him look smart by comparison?
Because that's what it looks like to me. I'd expect more intelligent
responses (or lack thereof) from supposedly uber-smart seducers.
As for the KC Carter position (who hangs out in alt.support.shyness,
explaining the women-take-charge-automatically meme):
KC, are you able to WALK AWAY from a woman who does not satisfy you,
EVEN IF you have no other woman lined up? I suspect that you need to be
able to say NO to something that's not working for you if you want to be
"in charge".
- --
"IBM has more patent litigation lawyers than SCO has employees." - unknown
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQFCJEeO/FmLrNfLpjMRAjQFAJ4qRYr71+T0wSBM460nfE7CY473kACfQipV
UiZ81HiFv8F2fiAHLMia4TI=
=y4wZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Ray Gordon
Yes, what he's doing is stalking me, make no mistake, and he's also made
repeated extortionist threats against me to try to get me to stop posting to
this "turf."
>and
> compulsively following up to seemingly every post of his... is it
> working? Are you a shill trying to make him look smart by comparison?
He's not my shill, but he is paid to do what he does. I'll be outlining how
the "seduction mafia" works in great detail in a lawsuit that I'll be
filing. Fortunately, a key member of this little group decided to flip
sides and feed me some key information I cannot share here. Suffice it to
say that he didn't want to take the fall for people he barely knew.
His purpose is to assume liability while those who pay him pretend to take
the high road and stay immune. Typical MAFIA tactic. They figure if I sue
all of them, it drains my resources, which is why I'm only going to sue the
three or four ringleaders next time. He will be a witness, though.
Bald Geezer
$39ce...@news.twtelecom.net:
>> How can people keep paying to read such obvious lies.
>
> Women lie to each other all the time about their sex lives.
Cosmo's editorial policy is a little more significant than a couple of
drunk fatties whimpering into their wine coolers.
>> ...and shouldn't that be "lonely goddess," Dennie?
> I'm a man you old fart, and I take offense at that.
If you promote seduction articles by women, you'll be mistaken for one of
them.