100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
Topic:
Oh, the asterisks.
|
|
@ totage:
If it's as you suggest and it's because major advertisers are picky about where they'll place their ads, perhaps those major advertisers should think twice about placing their ads on adults-only websites, regardless of what type of adults-only services/entertainment they're providing. Otherwise, it looks a tad bit hypocritical. In any event and as I said before, everyone agreed to PG-13 content when signing up, so it's a moot point.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
LIFE
|
|
There is no life after death....if you are dead, you are dead! Unless you came back to life, then it is not death..... or are you a zombie????  I actually did die about six times and came back to life. Im not a zombie though. You have a nice head though. I bet you have a good brain. mmm.... Seriously though, I did overdose about six times and was legally dead. I'm not sure if what I experienced was real, just my own perception, or something merely influenced by drugs, but Ive been places mentally and spiritually I never want to be again. The most comprehensive site I've ever found on NDEs ("Near Death Experiences"), complete with hotlinks to just about anything anyone could ever want to know/learn. Somewhere on this site, years ago while doing a research paper, I found something that indicated that about 25% of NDEs are violent, horrific encounters...not at all the peaceful, welcoming experiences most others report. http://www.nderf.org/site_index.htm Interesting stuff...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 , but my money's on you're going to keep trying, anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
KISS ME QUICK
|
|
All of those, and more...
...depending on who, what, where, when, and why I'm kissing them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Awwww...don't go away mad, invictus...you can still play and have fun in this thread, too.
No one made "demands of proof" of any "idiotic" statement YOU'D made. The request for a citation to a legitimate source was made of another poster, on a completely different tangent of something he'd stated as factual but has yet to find the proof to substantiate it. There's a good reason he hasn't been able to... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Oh, the asterisks.
|
|
It's their site, and we agreed to The Rules and their enforcement of The Rules when we signed up.
However, given that this IS an adults-only site (one has to be 18 TO be here), it's interesting that there is a 'PG/PG-13' system in place. According to MPAA guidelines: "...PG Rating A PG-rated film may not be suitable for children. The MPAA says a PG-rated should be checked out by parents before allowing younger children to see the movie. There could be some profanity, some violence, or brief nudity, however there will not be any drug use in a PG film. "PG-13 Rating PG-13 indicates there's material in the film that may not be suitable for children under the age of 13. A PG-13 movie could go 'beyond the PG rating in theme, violence, nudity, sensuality, language, adult activities or other elements, but does not reach the restricted R category.' The MPAA will give this rating to films with drug use or more than brief nudity, although the nudity in a PG-13 is not sexual in nature. In addition, the MPAA states 'there may be depictions of violence in a PG-13 movie, but generally not both realistic and extreme or persistent violence. A motion picture's single use of one of the harsher sexually-derived words, though only as an expletive, initially requires at least a PG-13 rating. More than one such expletive requires an R rating, as must even one of those words used in a sexual context.'" http://movies.about.com/od/miscellanous/f/film-ratings.htm If no one can be under 18 can be here, why the 'not-suitable-for-under-18-YO-eyes'? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
mrld_ii
on
Thu 12/11/14 09:46 AM
|
|
[Oh, hell...since it's NOT gonna be an intelligent discussion, why not just join 'em, and have some *fun*, too?!?]
OMG!!! Here are well-known non-black Conservative icons shown lending their full support to the "Hands-Up-Don't-Shoot" movement, too! DamnedLibtardCommieBastards!!! George W. Bush:  Moses, himself:  Bill O'Reilly:  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
hai
|
|
Heigh!!!
 Welcome to M2 and best of luck!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
hii
|
|
Hai!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OP, a couple of weeks ago, you instructed us to keep our replies short and to not go over 3 sentences.
Today, you're bitching that we don't write enough. Make up your mind, Goldiflocks. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
... The fake news about the poor child who was "murdered" while his hands were in the air or shot in the back took off and was used by opportunists from the liberal wing of the government and Democratic party... Citation to a legitimate source for this presented-as-fact statement? Read the Grand Jury transcripts...over 60 witnesses from forensics to ballistics all confirm he tried getting the the cops gun. Not to mention the 9 black witnesses who ALL testified that he charged the officer like a football player with his head down. Not one witness Black or white testified he was on his knees with his hands up. Thank you. I am well aware of what the transcripts say...I've been one of the few who's actually been citing and quoting it in most of these discussions. I wanted a citation to a legitimate source that says this version of the story was created and perpetrated by "opportunists from the liberal wing of the government and Democratic party", given that - factually speaking - the people who are giving this bastardized version of the story are the "eyewitnesses" (who couldn't keep their stories straight and/or admitted, under oath, they hadn't seen a thing), NFL-football players, and thug-wannabe opportunists looking for a *good* excuse to loot a few free TVs just in time for Christmas gift-giving. None of those are affiliated with the "government" - either from its "liberal wing" or from the conservative Bible-thumping branch and many are too young TO be registered with ANY political party. So, I'll still wait for the citation legitimate source that verifies the "Don't-Shoot-Arm-Uppers" are affiliated with the government and/or work for the Democratic party. You apparently have a reading comprehension problem. Read what was written without you rewriting it to fit your agenda... Given that the part which I'd asked for a citation to a legitimate source was a direct quote from you, without any editing, the "comprehension problem" can NOT be with my reading. Factually-speaking, of course. I'm still waiting for that citation to a legitimate source for YOUR presented-as-fact statement (and I directly quote you and YOUR words again): ... The fake news about the poor child who was "murdered" while his hands were in the air or shot in the back took off and was used by opportunists from the liberal wing of the government and Democratic party... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the OP: I am not being presumptuous, although wondering why women will search a man's profile, but rearly if ever send the first introductory letter to a man? Not every profile is interesting to a woman understood. Please notice that the author of the OP didn't say "many women" or "most women" or "all women". He simply said "women". Granted, I consider the inquiry to be a bit clumsy if not weird. In English-language writing, if there is no quantifying qualifier in front of a noun, the "all" is presumed and understood. I was cutting the OP slack by allowing the missing quantifier TO be "many" or "most" instead of the understood "all". In any event, not a single single woman has indicated "fear" is the reason. Using a qualifier would limit the individuals the topic is addressing. I was not trying to exclude any individual from expressing their experiences. You made presumptions, not me*. I noticed you also missed punctuation yourself. Any complaints about your imperfect gramatical* skills[.*] *I *grammatical (though, it should be grammar) [*] ? I'm sorry...you were in the middle of making a point, and I interrupted you. Oh, and you went off-topic. And, you went off topic simply to attack another poster. Though, I suppose, if you're the OP you're *allowed* to do that. Or, perhaps if you're male, you're *allowed* to. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nahhhh...they've always *squealed with delight* whenever I've picked one.
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Christmas Movies
|
|
Yup, yup...with you on 'Love, Actually' and 'Christmas Vacation'.
Also, 'Home for the Holidays' is another must-see, every year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Next time, try including "Free Lobster Dinner" in the title, OP, and see how it goes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BARE BOOBIES!!!
Huh? Oh, I'm not going to discuss/show them...I just wanted to get men's attention. Yanno, to determine the behaviour that is expected by a man from a woman in online dating, and to understand the differences between men and women as a whole. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah...and I goofed, too.
Reading the title AND the original post, and responding to it, accordingly. How dare I treat this discussion board and the words and thoughts it contains as such, and actually discuss the words and thoughts contained within it as such?!? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This was not intented to be a gender related issue.... You're kidding, right?!? ...The thread title I wanted to catch women's attention in order to receive their response. I was looking for rationality in whether women are open to sending the first introductory letter, or review men's profiles; one just out of minimum interest; two to show interest; and etc. for reasons why women do or do not send the first introductory letter... In any event, you've received your answer(s). The majority of the women have indicated that when they are interested enough in what they see/read, they can/will/do send a first message, no matter how "afraid", "uncomfortable", and/or "unfamiliar" they may - or may NOT - be to doing so. Best of luck to you; I hope [all/most/many] women get over being "afraid" and start sending you messages, if only to prove one us wrong in our foregone conclusion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
mrld_ii
on
Wed 12/10/14 06:19 PM
|
|
The word fear does not appear in the OP. Again, the OP says the following: I am not being presumptuous, although wondering why women will search a man's profile, but rearly if ever send the first introductory letter to a man? Not every profile is interesting to a woman understood. It was a woman who first mentioned fear, not the author of the OP. Anyway, let he or she who has never erred while writing a post throw the first stone. The title of the thread IS part of OP's (Original Poster's) OP (Original Post) as it is HE who chose it and put it there. Again, OP's OP's title says: "Why Are Women Afraid to Send the First Letter" (emphasis MINE, as for some *odd* reason, it keeps getting overlooked). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
mrld_ii
on
Wed 12/10/14 06:18 PM
|
|
The word Why indicates a question, the word woman is the subject matter, the word afraid the verb in the thread title. I never used the words uncomfortable or unfamiliar. The words uncomfortable and unfamiliar may not have the exact meaning as afraid, but contains similar human emotions and behaviour that fear imposes on a person. I am aware of all of that. Why do you keep repeating back to me that which I've already pointed out? YOU asked why women are "afraid". Two other women posting in your thread alluded to "uncomfortable" and "unfamiliar". You have determined that "fear" and now, "uncomfortable" and "unfamiliar" are the reasons [all/most/many] women don't write first letters. Most of the women responding indicate they do/have/will when there is enough interest on their part TO do so. But, that's OK. You [all/most/many] men keep telling yourselves the reason you don't get barraged with messages to your scintillating profiles from [all/most/many] women is because we're "afraid". After all, it's just got to be that there's something *wrong* with US...I mean, what's the alternative? |
|
|
|
|
Previous
