*grins* Gosh, I feel so proud, stepping into a war of this magnitude. I love the question of "Why do they think they can get away with it?"

Let's answer it by looking at this discussion, shall we?

My impression so far is:

Spidercmb debunked the article, citing the lack of identifiable source material - ignoring that the AP tends to be a lot less biased and significantly more accurate in their material than... say... Fox News.

Invisible and Fanta46 believe the article completely - they do not even acknowlege that both news reports are rather fuzzy about their source material.

Invisible refuses to debate the point, choosing instead to lob personal attacks instead of rightly aimed positional attacks.

Spidercmb seems to be willing to join Invisible on that level, but only halfway, citing correctly that she's attacking him and not his arguement. Whether intending to or not, however, Spider is being drawn off topic.

Fanta46 is the only one still on topic.

So, Fanta46, to answer Invisible's question, they "think they'll get away with it" because people like Invisible and Spider will take umbredge and then forget the issue entirely under a wave of personally-directed hate-mail. And, ironically, it was just proved in the real-life proportions. 2/3 of US Voters are not vocal enough to lodge complaints, and so are ignored.

Take a lesson about debate from a person who has done it for a living. No matter how much you hate your opposition, stay on the subject. You look less fanatical, if nothing else.

I'm sure there are a boatload of truly wonderful women in Rochester. I haven't met any of them - apart from a few who I developed as friends because we didn't have enough in common to base anything serious off of. Most of the women I've met in the Roc aren't worth the time. Like I said, the good ones are out there - I just can't find them. I'd rather take a chance on someone I do get along with well, regardless of her location, than take one of the all too common b!tchy, anorexic princesses I see on a daily basis.

Well right, sin39, but that's not the particular vice we mean. It's the ones who hammer back that there are never any exceptions that bother me. I mean, it's one thing to slip and say "Older guys just want a young plaything" - and in the majority it might even be true - but the people who confuse me are the ones who will tell the people who are the exceptions that they really aren't without knowing Thing 1 about the other person. How does one know the person isn't an exception unless one tests the theory?

Perfect example. I dated a significanly younger woman last year. Knowing all the people that say "this can not work". Now, obviously we broke up. Because of a difference in maturity levels. Not shocking, but am I going to believe no one of her age could be mature? No. Further, I'm not going to tell a demonstrably mature member of her age category that she simply isn't mature because no one that age can be - something many people do.

And also the nature of my confusion.

Interesting insight, that. Do you suppose that means that as we get older both elements come into play? That would suddenly make generalization make a vast ammount of sense.

What if not only the questions change due to the emotional involvement, but we also look for more evolved patterns because we've learned to expect them? A really unfortunate form of synergy that would cause one person's "perfectly valid concerns" to look like "some kind of friggin game" to the other party.

I'm tempted to forward this conversation to a phychology specialist friend of mine. I'm wondering if we're reinventing the wheel

But what's coming out is absolutely fascinating. little things in behaviorial trends I've seen are starting to click into place.

Yeah, s1owhand, what gives with making me remember that math letters are varriables?

I know the statistic you mean, though. They used to say 1 in 100 people would be caught by any sales pitch - online, offline, doesn't matter. You can enlarge or reduce that by factors of 2 with particularly good or bad pitches.

Even a fantastic pitch should have a 1 in 25 chance of return. I answer all my mail because I figure someone has to be that 1, but I might not if I was getting 200 letters a day.

Hmmm... that's a really neat point, too. I've been reading a series by Lois Bujold that had a rather interesting quote in it along the same lines. One of the main character's teachers claimed to never change his test questions to prevent cheating. He maintained that while the questions never changed, the answers did.

Maybe that happens because it's easier to rationalize a quick answer when we're younger. As we get older, we see the inherrant complexity of the questions.

This is something I may have to consider.

I guess that makes sense. I think the part about it that bothers me the most is that it means that the person has to lie to themselves about their past to reach that point.

*laughs* Now, I'll admit, I've done my share of lying in my life. But rarely to myself. I've always made the assumption that I'm the one person I can't fool with a lie, because I know the truth.

And I guess that's what I don't understand. How could someone lie to themselves about their involvement in any type of communications breakdown? *laughs* Well, lie to themselves Convincingly, I should say ;-). I guess I just don't have experience incorporating a lie into my own memory.

And thanks, bee - I was affraid I'd managed to be obnoxious after only a week on the site ;-)

*laughs* Oh, that's even better! I can just imagine them sitting there, boiling over while staring at the account. Maybe it's a little evil of me, but I'd take it as an excuse to laugh. If they want to spend time and energy hyperventillating in private, I say let them. Course, I am a pirate...

Maybe it's not that they expect to find something fake - maybe they're expecting to find a way to convince you to take them. *laughs* Or, possibly, they're just the fantasy type, and they check the profile whenever they're dreaming about you.

*grins* I've had a few of those in my time - though not so many as I'd like. Like willy said, it is an obscure and (in my words) somewhat revolting form of compliment. But it's no worse than someone you're not interested in eyeing you across a bar. Only better, because it's harder for them to figure out that they're getting under your skin.

With any luck, though, maybe this post will deter them.

That's an interesting conclusion. Sounds like the kind of thing I used to argue in my old perception vs reality debates

I did want to toss off a quick apology, though. From your reply, glitterybee, it struck me as if you might think I was remarking on one of your posts directly. I just wanted to say most of the posts I've seen from you don't have the kinds of statements in them I was worried about. I do apologise if I didn't make that plain - sometimes my phrasing gets a little indistinct when I'm tired.

I look forward to running across his posts, then. Anyone who speaks their heart is ok in my book.

*grins* That's been my observation as well, willy_cents - though I wasn't sure if I could justify it as just protection. I always felt like there had to be something more driving statements like that.

glitterybee, I guess the question I'd ask you is along a different line. Is there anything you've seen that provokes that reaction from people? *laughs* ok, so that question could be for everyone, but I thought of it reading your post ;-)

As I grow older, I find many answers to old questions changing, but I have trouble imagining a time when I could make a negative sweeping judgement of an entire racial or sexual group. Do you think people grow into those views during their adulthood, or do you think we learn them from our elders and friends when we're younger?

Well, I'm not saying it's a bad thing. People can believe what they want about others. But if a person is not willing to conceed that exceptions exist, then they can't find them. So for that person, it's true. I'm just saying I can't believe that. I want the exceptions - not the rule. I take it biker would have been more... vocifferous?

Well, I've made similar mistakes - though you're right, it's upsetting when we let something trip us. But I've always understood that it's my experience with specific apples and not the whole tree that trip me. Surely most people must realize that, at some level.

*sets down a pot of coffee and some candies* Figured you already had flowers ;-)

Ok - preface here is that I consider myself to be a simple guy who likes to understand... everything, I suppose.

Been reading the forums and such, and the oddest question came to mind. Why do people assume that Know (capital standing for Ultimate Truth) what the other sex is thinking?

For example, a recent post I was exchanging in included a number of comments along the lines of "Men don't want stable women no matter how much they claim to because men need to be in control" or "women just care about fashion mags and their nails"

I'm paraphrasing, of course. But I'm curious what level of arrogance - or bitterness - it takes to categorically declare that All men or women behave a certain way because of a sex-specific motive, when one is not a member of that sex.

As a further question, isn't it a bit angsty to assume that there are no exceptions to a rule? Or is there something here I'm not seeing?

Any thoughts appreciated.

Or that could work. If you like more serious answers

Hmmm... rather than heap any remarks on autogirl's statement, let me just say that anyone who makes a statement like that - all inclusive with no exception recognised or allowed - is making a mistake. You can't find what you're not looking for, and you can't look for something you won't acknowledge the existance of.

Well, I'm not saying "just grin and take it", either. I'm just saying that there's a difference between a person getting spooked and a person playing games. But I do know people tend to lump the two together. One thing I have learned is that if you're going to find a relationship that lasts the long haul, you have to be willing to see the person for who they are - not just group them with a type. Sure, if they're playing games all the time, take the appropriate action. But don't let a single mistake cause you to group them with the game players.

You can't be ready to give until you're ready to recieve. And you can't be ready to recieve until you face the simple fact that you can fail, and failure isn't such a bad thing. Unless your failure relates to a hand grenade, it won't kill you. You can always try again. And again and again, if necessary.

It's called risk. Unless you're willing to embrace the chance of failure, you can't gain a chance for victory. That's the bottom line. So until you're ready to accept that you might fail, don't bother looking. You'll just hurt yourself.