100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Community > Posts By > IgorFrankensteen
|
Topic:
Honesty in Love
|
|
Hmm. I've been lucky in some ways, and horrifyingly unlucky in others.
A few people I've lived with genuinely THOUGHT that they loved me, for a time. They were wrong, I think, but I don't attribute that to dishonesty as such. In one case, I'm fairly certain it was due to mental illness, and in another, to a VERY common misunderstanding about what love and marriage actually means, and is about. From my point of view, when someone genuinely believes that what true love means, is that I will serve them up with everything from adventures to tolerance without complaint, of all manner of misbehavior on their part,... ...and that turns out to be incorrect, because I don't do any of those things... ...so they declare me to be a failure and go elsewhere... I don't see that as dishonesty. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trump supporters are getting some things wrong. So, here are corrections. - To describe the flaws of Trumpicans isn't to express hate for Donald Trump. - To describe Trump's flaws isn't to express hate for Trump. - Trump didn't win the 2016 U.S. presidential election because he was a great presidential candidate. He was anything but that. Instead, he won because enough voters in enough states thought that Hillary Clinton was a worse choice. (Note to disgruntled Democrats: The POTUS is President of the States, which is why that person is elected by the States, not by a majority of the general American public.) - Trump is attractive to people who feign being Republicans and conservatives. One can tell what they really are by what they defend. I disagree. From my observations, first of all, there has been a lot of differences between Trump himself and the Republican Party leadership (which provides the primary guidance for most of their political propaganda) from the beginning of his first campaign. There have also been differences from the beginning between what Trump himself believes, and the beliefs of his most ardent followers. All of those people have collectively and individually committed to saying things they know to be false, as a strategy to win enough power in the US, to be able to accomplish their individual wishes. Somewhat ironically, of all of them, Trump himself, despite his avid love of spontaneously lying about all sorts of things in order to please himself in the moment, has actually been the most honest overall. It served the purposes of Trump, his supporters, and the Republican Party leadership, to pretend to believe a collection of obvious lies: including that Obama wasn't born in the US; that Hillary Clinton committed a variety of criminal acts; that the Democrats were actively trying to purposely damage the economy, and the future of US business. The reason they pretended to believe those lies and others, was because they wanted to appeal to enough of the collection of angry people that the Republican Party gathered together into a crude alliance over the last forty years, that they could accomplish what they finally did: control of the Presidency, and both houses of Congress at the same time. Trump really did want to build his wall, reform immigration policies and fund their proper enforcement, replace the ACA with something better and cheaper, and he really did want to radically lower taxes on businesses, and make it even easier for him to conduct his businesses in the rapacious and irresponsible manner he was accustomed to. Unfortunately for him, the Republican Party never wanted the wall, had serious internal conflicts over how to reform immigration, had zero desire to spend what was necessary to enforce the laws anyway, and had no intention of ever addressing Health care as Trump wanted. So they did as they have been doing since the election, and allowed Trump to say what he wishes, pretending that it makes sense when it doesn't; that it isn't insanely inflammatory and irresponsible when it is; all while doing the only thing that they ever agreed on: lowering taxes on the rich even more than they did under Bush, the last time they had control of all three branches. And so here we are. In order to maintain their present level of control over the country, the GOP is continuing to ignore most of what Trump does, and what he wants, and continuing their very successful strategy of outrageous lies, because that has accomplished their primary goal: persuading just enough people that Democrats are to blame for whatever makes those people angry, that they will continue to vote for Republicans who will continue to do the only things the GOP wants: lower taxes on the rich even more, and blindly eliminate as many regulations and limits on irresponsible business practices and activities as they can. Luckily for them, enough of Trump's opposition continues to believe that being upset about lies and duplicity and financial corruption, is enough of a platform to gain votes for THEIR side. I think they are wrong, myself. I think that the present situation will continue until the combined tax cuts and increasing government spending do the same thing it did to us in the 1980's, and causes another economic implosion. Who knows? After that, we may start the same cycle of nonsense all over again.  Igor, what does anything that you say above have to do with what I say in the first post? Okay, perhaps I misunderstood. I thought you wanted to talk about what Trump supporters believe which is wrong. I disagreed with your list, so I wrote another. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Surprise
|
|
The end of more than an era.
Without chocolate, how are we going to fool women into thinking they've fallen in love with us? My already dwindling hopes are dealt yet another shattering blow. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh my no.
I've never hated anyone who didn't directly and purposely wrong me. Frankly, I am opposed to hating. Hating is a decision to blind oneself, physically and intellectually to someone else. My sense of Trump is similar to what I've felt when dealing with very young and ignorant teen boys, that had access to dangerous weapons, and thought they were okay to use as toys. Lots of stress, knowing that no wisdom can be expected; lots of anxiety, as I watch him do some things right, and some things horribly wrong, and never either for thoughtful and well-reasoned purposes. Way to much simple personal revenge involved in what he does. No sign of any genuine appreciation of what people who are different from him, might feel or think or need to do. So lots of frustration and anxiety. But no, never hate. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trump supporters are getting some things wrong. So, here are corrections. - To describe the flaws of Trumpicans isn't to express hate for Donald Trump. - To describe Trump's flaws isn't to express hate for Trump. - Trump didn't win the 2016 U.S. presidential election because he was a great presidential candidate. He was anything but that. Instead, he won because enough voters in enough states thought that Hillary Clinton was a worse choice. (Note to disgruntled Democrats: The POTUS is President of the States, which is why that person is elected by the States, not by a majority of the general American public.) - Trump is attractive to people who feign being Republicans and conservatives. One can tell what they really are by what they defend. I disagree. From my observations, first of all, there has been a lot of differences between Trump himself and the Republican Party leadership (which provides the primary guidance for most of their political propaganda) from the beginning of his first campaign. There have also been differences from the beginning between what Trump himself believes, and the beliefs of his most ardent followers. All of those people have collectively and individually committed to saying things they know to be false, as a strategy to win enough power in the US, to be able to accomplish their individual wishes. Somewhat ironically, of all of them, Trump himself, despite his avid love of spontaneously lying about all sorts of things in order to please himself in the moment, has actually been the most honest overall. It served the purposes of Trump, his supporters, and the Republican Party leadership, to pretend to believe a collection of obvious lies: including that Obama wasn't born in the US; that Hillary Clinton committed a variety of criminal acts; that the Democrats were actively trying to purposely damage the economy, and the future of US business. The reason they pretended to believe those lies and others, was because they wanted to appeal to enough of the collection of angry people that the Republican Party gathered together into a crude alliance over the last forty years, that they could accomplish what they finally did: control of the Presidency, and both houses of Congress at the same time. Trump really did want to build his wall, reform immigration policies and fund their proper enforcement, replace the ACA with something better and cheaper, and he really did want to radically lower taxes on businesses, and make it even easier for him to conduct his businesses in the rapacious and irresponsible manner he was accustomed to. Unfortunately for him, the Republican Party never wanted the wall, had serious internal conflicts over how to reform immigration, had zero desire to spend what was necessary to enforce the laws anyway, and had no intention of ever addressing Health care as Trump wanted. So they did as they have been doing since the election, and allowed Trump to say what he wishes, pretending that it makes sense when it doesn't; that it isn't insanely inflammatory and irresponsible when it is; all while doing the only thing that they ever agreed on: lowering taxes on the rich even more than they did under Bush, the last time they had control of all three branches. And so here we are. In order to maintain their present level of control over the country, the GOP is continuing to ignore most of what Trump does, and what he wants, and continuing their very successful strategy of outrageous lies, because that has accomplished their primary goal: persuading just enough people that Democrats are to blame for whatever makes those people angry, that they will continue to vote for Republicans who will continue to do the only things the GOP wants: lower taxes on the rich even more, and blindly eliminate as many regulations and limits on irresponsible business practices and activities as they can. Luckily for them, enough of Trump's opposition continues to believe that being upset about lies and duplicity and financial corruption, is enough of a platform to gain votes for THEIR side. I think they are wrong, myself. I think that the present situation will continue until the combined tax cuts and increasing government spending do the same thing it did to us in the 1980's, and causes another economic implosion. Who knows? After that, we may start the same cycle of nonsense all over again. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The problem is, that the primary reason or cause of the still growing divide, is that a major political party consciously decided to build a political majority coalition, almost entirely based on appealing to people who actively hated other Americans.
What makes it worse, is that the leadership of that party does not itself actually believe what they are telling the people they are leading. The way one can tell, is that when they are in power, they don't follow through with any of the things they campaigned about, except lowering taxes on the rich. Hence Donald Trump's upending of their primary process, and his follow on victory in the election itself: he promised to ACTUALLY do what the GOP had promised for decades, as they built their coalition of the angry, and enough people believed him, that he is President now. However, that means that right now, the political coalition that rules the United States is almost entirely based on purposeful disunity. And not just disunity of methods, but on actual personal hatred of actual American people. No one of stature in the majority party, stands up and speaks out against disunity, or in favor of seeking unified solutions to ANY of the large and worsening problems Americans face. I personally don't hold much hope for the leadership away from this will come from the people themselves, because the particular alliance that has taken over, is made up exclusively of the people who believe that a ship of state will continue to sail on grandly, while they allow half of it to sink into the depths. And the opposing party seems to be stuck at pointing fingers and complaining about rudeness, rather than compiling and proposing unifying solutions that would take EVERYONE'S concerns in hand. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Have You Been Diagnosed
|
|
"Crazy" turned out to be a lot different in reality, than I grew up thinking it was.
More than anything else, what gets to me now, is that there is a LOT of "crazy" that can appear for all the world, to be normal behavior. That is, until you have one of those "turned over a shiny rock, and found maggots and fire ants on the other side" experiences. Basically, it's not the obviously raving lunatics that worry or bother me, it's the sneaky, just-nuts-enough-to-hurt-you-but-still-sane-enough-to-fly-under-the-legal-radar crazies that cause me trouble. And I've come to realize that there are a LOT more genuinely crazy (just not dangerously so) people at loose in the world, than I ever believed could be, when I was young. I'm talking about the ones who do normal enough things, but when you ask them why they did something, their reasoning reveals that they are bonkers. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
supporting friends
|
|
A couple of other possibilities that I've seen myself.
Some of these "make money at home, in your spare time" schemes are conducted and run more like religious proselytization than they are as businesses. I had a friend way back who got involved with American Way, and that's how he ended up being no longer a friend. The whole enterprise depended on participants becoming both salespeople, AND business promoters. And in order to promote the business concept itself, they had to become (or at least pretend to become) TRUE BELIEVERS in the whole duplicitous idea of it all. The duplicity, of course, was in the fact that the PRODUCTS being sold, were not how a person in the business makes money. One only makes money on those schemes, by tricking other people into joining up, at their expense. Anyway. In addition to eating up all of a person's time, pursuing more people to trick into the scheme, and doing all the tracking and calculating required to get paid, the schemes demanded that participants try first to bring all their friends into the fold. Which of course, requires that they more or less sell their souls to the company first. And that can serve to embarrass any decent person, to the point where after you turn them down, they might be ashamed to contact you again. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
We all need HUGS!!!
|
|
Maybe I've had too many duplicitous hugs in my life.
Maybe there's something in my genetics that it doesn't work for me. But I'm all in favor of the concept. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you IgorFrankensteen. It is supposed to be: E=W A with a line indicating divided....but I can't post it here! (Suggestions?) You: “Did you mean to say that E equals W divided by A?” Me: Yes. Existence is Word divided by Agreement. (Or one could use 'multiplied' by Agreement) You: “You essentially deny all deduction, which requires that you further deny logic and all science”. Me: All deduction is assumption, (by word, without which no deduction/comment/communication, is possible). If there is no evident perceiver, (i.e., ‘Man’), there is no evidence of anything to perceive. p.s. I tried again, but can't manage it. (It's OK in other parts of the Net.) Anyway, I'm sure you know what I meant. Okay, I'm beginning to see what you are trying to figure out how to talk about. "E" is "Existence," "W" stands for "Word," and "A" stands for "Agreement." Next, if I am to help you express whatever it is, I suggest that you explain what "Word" means in this context. I've come across lots of very religious people who only capitalize "Word" when they are referring to their particular version of the Christian Bible. I also come across very earnest people who use "word" to refer to "giving one's word," or to refer to what people CLAIM to be or to believe. It's not clear here, which meaning you are going for. "Agreement" also can refer either to "making sure that your words agree with your actions," in the context of "Existence," or it can refer to a more activity-oriented scenario where it is about the act of coming to agreement between people, about how they perceive the world they share. So perhaps you are are trying to say something along the lines of "Your existence is the result of "What you think you know about yourself," (i.e. your "words"), as modified by how well your perceptions "Agree" with reality itself. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From the beginning, I wanted to BE married. I wanted what marriage was supposed to be: the formation of a committed pair, who would face whatever came, together.
I have been intrigued to find that almost no one else on the planet actually wants to be married. What I mean is, that the majority of people want some sort of deal, where they get a list of things in exchange for a somewhat cautious and grudging agreement to TEMPORARILY tolerate the other persons' defects. Add to that, the problem of state interference in all married peoples lives, and I have come to be averse to being LEGALLY married. I very do still want the real and total commitment (though I have no expectation of finding it), but I will never allow the state to gain that much control of my personal life again. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
She may be related to Eric Holguin  Your error: just because google image look up thinks this picture looks vaguely like Holguin, doesn't mean anything. All that it manages to find, are similar pictures of black haired males wearing a coat and tie. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Soul mate
|
|
" Soul Mate" is one of a number of wishful-thinking based concepts that people try to use to explain various life experiences to themselves.
The concept implies a lot of additional things, since they are required for a "soul mate" to exist. Someone or some force in existence has to control all of existence, and arbitrarily cause such a mate to exist. There is no evidence of this force or being. I think the reason that the idea came about, was most likely as a cover story for an entirely different problem: cheating and other results of lust. People who found that they were strongly attracted to someone other than the mate they'd been working to be with for some time, wanted someone other than themselves to blame for their mistakes (first of staying with the person that are about to cheat on or dump, and second for the cheating or dumping itself). So they invented the idea (with lots of historic support from previous self-excusers) of "soul mate" to explain why they suddenly needed to go with this new person, or at least why they are about to leave a perfectly okay person who wants them to stay. Once you are INSIDE of the belief that "soul mates" exist, you open a lot of other logical problems for yourself including what you have listed. In order to hang on to the idea that you have a promised "soul mate" out there, you have to add more features and rules and cover stories to the basic idea. Eventually, you can build an entire formal religion out of it, if you get carried away. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
E=W A In response to 'summarising' suggestions/advice, here and there, I’ve attempted a short summary of the above. I’m anything but an academic – (in case you didn’t guess!) - so any hints as to improving/clarifying THE SUMMARY, would be very happily received. ("NOTBEOLD"?) p.s. I’m not interested in DEBATING the points, by the way. It’s all been done before !! keith UNDERSTANDING THE UNHAPPENING. (Summary of E=W by A) THE PERCEIVER Nothing can be proved to exist without its being, (in some recognizable way), perceived by a ‘provable’ perceiver. Anything otherwise stated as ‘existing’, is creative speculation. ‘IMMORTALITY’ Today consists of the sum total of my perceived existence: tomorrow is no more than a presumption. ‘Not waking up’, [i.e., Death], cannot be experienced by me. I live forever; i.e., indefinitely. HOMOMAL I, Homomal, [animal-plus-word], perpetually edit and ‘rewrite’ - to my ultimate satisfaction - what I observe. My own assertion that this is ‘the Here-And-Now’, is the only proof there can ever be of it. NEVER ‘HAPPILY EVER AFTER’ Being freed of the ‘fairy-tale-like’ expectations of Homo Sapiens bred into me, I now expect far less, (or even nothing), of anyone or anything. Therefore I enjoy all experience to a far more intensive degree. LIBERTY PLUS If discontented with my planet ‘as is’, I can decide, (as any “off-gridder” for instance), to abandon my present mode de vie and reconstitute another, consisting of almost all the ingredients of my choosing. __________________________ A couple of suggestions for you: first and foremost, you've made no mention of what E, W, or A refers to. You appear to have typed a formula here, and then appended it with some definitions of your own crafting, which don't appear to have anything to do with the formula. It's also not even clear what the exact equation is. Did you mean to say that E equals W divided by A? I also think your definition of "The Perceiver" is logically flawed. You essentially deny all deduction, which requires that you further deny logic and all science. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Even though they meet *none* of you prefences, and won't tell you what they feel the two of you have in common...or downright say "none of that matters.."?? Had a discussion on another site recently.. The guy had zero profile (common on here and every other dating site)... He messaged me first...I wrote back and politely said "your profile says nothing...can ya help me out and tell me what you feel we share in common? Thanks!" He refused...said we just needed to talk and learn about each other. I politiely replied..."well..I'd like to have SOME idea of what, if anything we have in common...something to start the conversation about, eh?" He replies "WTF..you don't understand this is a dating site...we're supposed to talk and get to know each other...I read your profile and rules are meant to change you can amend your rules if you truly find a man who captures you heart.." blink blink I know nothing about you, bro, don't know that first thing about you..so quit with the "captures your heart" crap (I didn't say that..but thought it) I told him I have no interest in changing my preferences, and..so far..he wasn't doing much to "capture my heart"....and "rules are meant to change", are they? Meaning lets just ignore what she wants... I made a simple request...read my profile...and let me know what you feel we share in common.. He replies with "whatever...just in case you didn't know you missed the right man for you all because of your ego.."  Honey..the *right* man for me would read my profile...give me some idea of what we have in common, and engage in conversation..not argue with me and be pushy about how he is the right man..WHICH, by the way..? You want to talk about "ego"?? Stating you are the "right guy" for me and I missed out is ALL ego talking... Seriously...if I message a guy, and he politely says "thanks, but I don't think we'd be compatible/ a match" or something similar (or even njust staright up says "not interested")...I am NOT going to argue the point...or tell him how he "missed out" on the right woman" for him. If he'd found me so fascinating he was *sure* we be a match ("the right man")...you would think he'd have said *what* it was that he thought was so special about me, or something? There are a bunch of other women on those sites...just try someone else...geez... P.S. You'd think, being as you are trying to charm/ impress/ convince someone that you are a a cool, interesting person that they would want to get to know that you would be on your best behaviour.....certainly not argumentative.  I recognize this entire scenario. Witnessed it MANY times. It hasn't changed in the fifty years I've been trying to find a mate. I can tell you exactly what it's all about, if you like. The first thing to recognize, is that everything the guy said, is a direct logical response to what he PERCEIVES to be the primary challenges he has to overcome in order to find a mate (even a temporary one). The reason people who say those things don't come across as scammers, is because they are not scammers. They really do believe they are taking the right road to succeed. The problem they have, is that they have assembled their approach to dating from a rushed, simple-minded, haphazard, slapped-together mish mash, as well as a resentment-based understanding of how dating actually does work. The "I'm the Right Guy For You" phrase is taken directly from the mouths and writings of all the younger women and girls the guy has come across or heard about or seen in films and on TV for his whole life. That can get combined with the standard "Don't take no for an answer!" idea that most American males get shoved at them from birth, and/or with "the reason why girls say things that don't make sense to you, is that they actually DON'T know what they want" myth. It also often gets exacerbated by the "girls and women prefer a guy who takes command,and shows that he knows what he wants" idea. Add all those standard notions together without thinking anything through, and you get the exact kind of behavior you describe. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Finding your new partner
|
|
There is of course a lot of truth in the idea and the processes of this.
There's nothing magic about any of it, though. Positive thinking, and "act as though you already have what you want," and this idea (something along the lines of "pretend you already are in love, to attract love") works when it does, for purely mechanical reasons. People who are happy are more attractive than people who are sad. People who are angry and suspicious tend to make people who are okay assume they want to be left alone, or are dangerous; and only people who are attracted to unhappiness or anger, tend to go after them. The simplest thing I recommend generally, that's related closely to this, is to practice and discipline yourself to have a pleasant "resting face." Again, for purely mechanical reasons, if you wear a sort of "Mona Lisa" level smile when you are at rest, more people will take you to be approachable and sane, than if you allow your face to be creased in seeming annoyance or almost as bad, nutty with mania. One more note, do support the idea of this, but be careful you don't adopt it as though it's a guaranteed formula for promised rewards. A person can do absolutely everything right, and be the most deserving of love and adoration that is possible, and still not CHANCE to come into contact with the person who would thus care for them. And many a time, I've witnessed people who followed the OPs kind of advice, and when it didn't pay off fast enough, they resentfully went the other way and insured they would go on failing. So yes, think positively, live for the best chance of what you want, just don't expect it to work like a contract with the gods. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
who loves cheating
|
|
I've come across a few people who actually enjoyed cheating. From fellow children, to adults of all ages. They all had the same thing in common: they thought that cheating and getting away with cheating, proved that they were better and smarter than everyone who obeyed the rules of whatever they cheated at.
None of them were right, though many a time, everyone else around them and me, did think they were right. I always left such people and groups of people and went elsewhere with my life. Not because I'm a slave to convention, and not because I'm trying to please some magic ubiquitous grownup who made the rules; I leave all such people aside, because I found that success through cheating feels empty. It feels empty because it is meaningless, and worse, cheating is a direct attack and act of disdain against the people who a cheater pretends that they care about, even love. Oh, and by the way, anyone who ACTUALLY read The Prince, would know that it does NOT advocate cheating. It talks matter of factly about the logical and natural consequences of various strategies rulers (princes) might apply. What made it unique for its time, was that it contained no moral judgments about the subject matter. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't understand the first post. Neither do I, haha I think I do. I suspect the OP's first language is not English, so the word order and phrasing confuses you. It appears to be just a description from a then child's point of view, of a particular fun event, visiting a local carnival ride of some sort with perhaps an Aunt as the sponsor. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I probably would have, had she/they not driven me away.
For two reasons: I loved them, and I also am the commit-for-life type. I don't think a majority of people really understand what the value of real commitment actually is, in a personal sense-of-life way. It's also a point of slightly confusing irony to me, how many people claim to strongly disapprove of people who have sex in exchange for money, but think it's perfectly fine to exchange sex for a sense of reinforcement of their own ego-based sense of how the world works. The difference is only very subtle. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
What kind of relationship
|
|
It's actually fairly simple for me:
I want to be with someone who is with me, because they want to be with me. The trick about that is, that lots of people want someone to fill a collection of roles, or to perform a collections of tasks for them. Then they marry or otherwise link up with someone, and find out they really don't like the complete person enough. That's why I try to be open about my defects, rather than "on my best behavior" with potential mates. If something about me is going to put someone off, I'd like that to be easy for them to see before we invest so much that a great emotional mess occurs that has to be cleaned up. Oh, and that means that I have no interest in anyone, no matter how attractive, who sees relationships as temporary experiences, like carnival rides. That current day fad notion that a good relationship lasts a year or two and then both people cheerfully move on, is about as empty and unappealing as it gets. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
