Is it wrong that every time I see those pictures I automatically think the fish is bigger?

well Lex it's not that I am not an attractive woman. I think I am. I have been told I am - but it means more coming from some of my male friends who know me

whereas hey ur hot - oh please - it's pretty obvious pandering for casual sex , or as u said an appeal to vanity because nothing else is there

I really think it is a mistake to dole out false flattery to a woman if a man's interest is genuine - a sincere compliment is always welcome, agreed!

but, Hey ur hot - maybe I'll turn down the thermostat and let the furnace off awhile

In most cases, the fish could have written a better profile, too.

Well, that's how I see it, too. I mean, who CARES what some stranger 87,934 miles away thinks, someone who knows nothing about you, hasn't made any effort to know anything about you, and who is probably sending out scads of scattershot messages hoping someone will fall for the tactic?

"Attractive" -- for me -- is ultimately multi-level. I can see a great profile pic, but if the text reads like an explosion in the Scrabble factory, I'm not so attracted anymore.



It's so totally transparent. And it's hard for me to believe that anyone ever actually falls for that, but....well, they're still tossing this drivel out there, so it must be working for somebody.



The key word being "sincere," and I'd just as soon avoid the whole boilerplate cliche-fest that seems to dominate the e-mails I've been getting recently.



It's only been about the last 3 or 4 years that anyone ever told me I was hot. Where were they when I was younger?

No it just means he's lazy lol.

He only likes to talk at night it seems too. Just want to add that in there.

ya - they are mostly likely scambots mass mailing

the messages are a sorting process - that's nothing new really...but as far as the OP goes - I'd say how much someone writes probably has more to do with that person than their gender - to an extent anyway

In my experience guys will write a little more as time goes on if we decide to keep in touch

Bingo. But I think that can both ways. It takes two to tango so to speak. It could mean though that he is better with oral communication than the written word. For example, my dad had the gift of gab when he was talking about inconsequential matters. But when he had to get technical his writing and oral skills regressed because he had to think more about what he had to say than just saying it through talking or the written word. And then some people just don't have that much to say. I know if something peaks my interest or curiosity it can have an effect on my written or oral conversations. For example, I have just recently got tired of playing with my operating system and am having fun using it. Bleeding edge operating systems and stable operating system seem to have this dichotomy to them of newer not always being better I have found.

I like to break things and am always impressed with things that I can't break. I think that is why dad gave me the anvil and told me not to break it.

Time to read some Nom Chomski or take time out to figure it out on your own:

1. Language is not itself.
2. You and I and everyone else constantly makes judgments and general opinions. The idea is to update them as one goes along. You can't have a "null" concept of someone else after even a few moments together or reading a few of her lines. You must have some sort of concept of her. If she forces you to change your mental model of her, you do that.
3. Cultural hypes sometimes oppress good, functioning and very helpful psychological/lingual/conceptual tools and weapons a person uses in making sense of his or her immediate (or distant) environment. We now frown at "generalizing" but this is stupid to cast all generalizations away. I wish we would understand each other's generalizations as though they had been introduced by the phrase, "generally speaking", which allows for exceptions. Since all general descriptions fit under a bell curve it is not at all sinful to generalize, as long as all involved realize that the generalizing concpet is applicable in only a large number of cases, but not all.

1. In fact, there used to be a movement in philosophy, by a group whose members called themselves "natural language philosophers". These people realized that while language can be made exact, and precise, it is not possible in all cases, and in some cases a speaker or a listener has to compensate for imprecisions in the text. On the other hand, imprecisions are likely to be misunderstood by those whose associative processes were different from those of the speaker.

The upshot is a stylistic system in a language where precision and poetry of the language, exactitude and immense reliance on metaphoric expressions, are in a mix that is most easily comprehensible for a reader or listener to understand the meaning to be conveyed by the speach or text. It also means that it is futile to aim at perfect understanding of the intended meaning of the text, as there will always be a thread of target-hit discrepancies between any given text (target) and any listener or speaker's understanding of it (hit or miss).

::

My dad gave me a will.

Which is sort of the same thing as getting An Vil from him.

Hmmm thats kind of strange.

^^This.

If he's not interested, he'll stop emailing completely.

Yeah. Its always around the same time too. Sometimes an hour later or so. lol I think its weird that I find that the most predictable.

True. I have heard if there is a will there is a way. Which does go along with the topic quite nicely.

Hmmm, you really took offence at that? Did you miss the words “in general”?

I’m not sure how you interpreted anything I said as directly pertaining to you. I was speaking in terms of typical. I guess I didn’t realize the need to explain that typical does not mean all inclusive.

I didn’t forget to say “the women I’ve met” because this has nothing to do with my personal experience. It is based on research and yes, stereotypes. Nowhere in here did I say you personally did this or that, or that, because you are a woman you ramble on incessantly; I was merely offering an explanation aimed at his responses to you and measuring them against the widely accepted differences between the sexes when it comes to communication.

My third paragraph was hypothetical; since I don’t know either of you and I am not privy to your emails, all I have to go on is the limited information you gave. So again, I was calling upon the research groups and their findings. (women talk to build relationships: men talk to report information)

I was not in any way, shape or form finding fault or passing blame here, I’m sorry you took it that way and felt the need to defend yourself.

Not really taken offense just the way you worded it was funny. And since I can't hear you and this is the internet you have to explain what you mean.

Well typical could also mean "in your words/opinion" as well. What you're "used" to. Typical also ties in with certain stereotypes.

I was just saying since the word of choice you've used more than others is "I" meaning you're deriving what you say from personal experience to offer advice from. It just sounds like it to me. What kind of research is this? Maybe a source would be nice. A link? A book? This could clear up the confusion in the beginning and make sure you were really being general as opposed to just offering your take on the subject. Which is great too. But you were bringing stats into this so it requires a lot more than you presented.

Again, I'd like to see this somewhere. I want to believe this but for right now I'll view it as its just your opinion without facts. I just want to understand you better.

Not feeling you passed direct blame. Just some of what you said may need to be slightly explained since I'm learning this thing as I go.

I'll parrot what some here have already brought up. I think, in general, women are the chattier, more wordy bunch, but there are exceptions to the rule I do acknowledge (so don't pounce on me). In your specific situation, without us knowing exactly what has gone on between you two in these emails, it's really hard to say. It could be he's had a long day at work and isn't in the mood to ponder the meaning of life, or maybe he's chatting up five other women at the time and trying to juggle that, who knows? Probably be better to ask him. Some people tend to over-analyze things



I think if you're to the point that you're almost done talking with him, your original question is moot. May as well give him the cold shoulder now. It might be fun to see if he tries to kiss up to you again to try and win your favor. The poor sap

I think its already in the process of being stopped. Funny I pretty much thought things were going back to normal.