Looks or Game? - Page 41

So if you manage to play some HU poker with a chick u essentially raping her? Are you a pervert for that?

;p agreed that the convo should have been on MSN but when people attack me or Floofy like that on a public forum, I will respond on that public forum. If they continue to talk nonsense or bring up semantics as a way of not understanding my point, or me not understanding them, I will explain to them even what simple words like 'especially' mean... sry but it had to be done.

As per Floofy, i've given him loads of good advice I think in earlier pages, and I'll continue to do so in this legendary thread but I wont stand for people insulting/attacking people like that just because they misconstrued what Floofy was pretty obviously saying.

Got a couple more potential chinese brides....

This ones been to university and apparently works in Finance/Accounting.

hello sam, thank you for looking over my profile. i am very glad to receive your message. it is a lucky day for me. because i cognition you here. even though i do not know you at all, but i think as long as we communicate with each other, then we would be very good friends in the future, do you think so? if you feel comfortable, please give me a early reply. i am waiting for your good news, ok? best regards, wenjuan

and this chick is hot and is clearly mad into me lol

My dear Sam, Thanks for your cupid! How deep is your love? How deep is your love? I really meant to learn Coz; I crave to be a part of you. It would be my great pleasure to show you my information both here and in my profile, I believe that something will attract you and mental chemistry will be stimulated between us I bet. I've been described as attractive, honest, faithful £¬straight-forward£¬considerable, mature £¬spontaneous and reliable with a good sense of humor. I was brought up in a traditional Chinese family where the moral and family values, integrity and value were non-negotiable. I have too may hobbies, such as jogging around the park under the sunset, going for walks holding hands, or cuddling in front of a movie ,having nice dinners with my friend. You know I am the only child of my parents so I consider my friends as my brothers and sitters. I also enjoy working out listening to music, and spending time with my family. I love life more than I can say. I also enjoy things like socializing with friends, camping, hiking, walking and traveling. It is seems like that I have led a colorful life, but there is a big void in my heart that would be filled by someone special who would be my loyal companion, soul mate and lover. Emotional strength is very important to me. I see you will raise me up. I am honest and sincere, serious in a long loving relationship, no cheating, lies, I don¡¯t like playing mind games, nor game player. I think love is about trust, communication, understanding, and mutual respect for each other. Those are the qualities I'm offering for you. Put my hands in your hands; let us try to be the luckiest couple on earth. Have a nice day!!!! Yours sweet, Vivian

So now ive got like 3 brides. Ill donate one to you Floofy if you want - just dont tell your mum.

None of them mention anything about DDR so i dunno what youd talk about on your date - but just pop a chubby and stand proud and you wont need any words.

Need a stake so i can email these chicks then roll over to china for some pimping.

I didn't misconstrue anything. I still think he's doing it.

You simply can't see it as a difference of opinion and are continuing to target me despite it being long over. Get over it. You're not right just because you say so. Nor am I. Drop it.

On March 10 2008 01:55 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: I didn't misconstrue anything. I still think he's doing it. You simply can't see it as a difference of opinion and are continuing to target me despite it being long over. Get over it. You're not right just because you say so. Nor am I. Drop it.

lol, plz reread my post prior to this one. I said you attacked floofy, me, and KimSeogn in totally inappropriate ways. I said that you misconstrued what Floofy was saying and Floofy came out and said he did not say what you were accusing him of. You still did not find the post where he allegedly said this and as I said it would make no sense for me to quote it bc I don't know what post you are talking about. I'm not targeting you, merely responding to your posts. If you look at my posts, every single one is a response to your post. I'm not the one refusing to drop it ;p but at the same time I refuse to be harassed like this. For instance, in this post of yours which I'm quoting... in the first sentence you attack/insult me and say that I am continuing to target me (notice the irony). In it, you also seem to come from a moral high ground despite still acting childish in my opinion. And then you say we're not right because we say so, despite the fact that I have referenced many points and shown you that some of your references (w/ ur linguistics plays... lol) are not sufficient. Finally, after speaking to me in such a rude way, you order me to drop it.

just lol

you either misconstrued Floofy or one of you is lying. Since you are the one calling him a lair I think it is your responsibility (esp bc we don't know which post you are talking about) to find where he says what you claim he said and not what he later reexplained. (that he has no intention of having a relationship with a girl who he judges as not ready for one)

plz find the post and don't just retort with one liners. I don't think anyone wants another two pages of junk

Wow, it's been 24 hours and I return to this thread and there has been the most epic fight between steal city and FreakSir. Crazy crazy stuff. Good to see this thread is back on track, BUT!

To throw fuel to the fire of arguments with steal city (and possibly drag this thread back to the depths of hell), I simply cannot let this following retarded quote slip:

On March 09 2008 06:04 Steal City wrote: Oh, and to pokerdoc - Let's get this straight, if floofy has certain standards on her looks THAT MAKES HIM LESS SUPERFICIAL. The least superficial person would have an array of standards that the girl would have to meet. Some, like looks, may be make or break, while others may need to be compensated for in other areas of interest. Floofy is actually LESS superficial if he has standards in looks. Have you ever heard the saying "pussy is pussy"? Friend: "Dude I can't believe you slept with the whale" Guy who slept with obese woman "hey man, pussy is pussy" Now there's a superficial guy.

Steal city, let's get this straight: you don't even know what superficial means. Being superficial is to judge some one based purely on their outward appearances. The example you gave of a man sleeping with an obese woman contradicts the point you tried to make entirely. Any one who sleeps with an obese woman is either: A: Finds obesity to be attractive and only sleeps with obese people, or B: Does not care about ones looks (and hence is not superficial). Judging some one based on their moral views, maturity in life, etc. is NOT being superficial, even though you some how think it is =/.

And then...

On March 09 2008 06:04 Steal City wrote: I think floofy has the right AND OUGHT TO BE more superficial as he doesn't have much history with women and so does not know what he wants from a relationship. In fact, it is common knowledge on dating sites, magazines like cosmo and even amongst academia that if a woman is looking for a man to marry, she should date guys who have been in many long term relationships.

What you're TRYING to say (I think) is floofy should be selective with his girls based on who-knows-what criteria (maturity, religious background, educational background...take your pick). What you ACTUALLY said is, Floofy should target the most outwardly attractive (ie. fucking drop-dead sexy gorgeous-looking) women around.

I can now see why Freak got so steamed up in this argument: you often misrepresent what you're TRYING to say with inadequate prose, and hence you sometimes come across as sounding like a complete idiot.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/superficial

superficial definitely has that connotation, especially in popular culture, BUT it mostly means just paying attention to one detail. In that example, I admit, I was doing sort of a wordplay to get across my message. I think anyone who studied say, engineering, would understand the concept. BUT, I still think that Floofy having looks standards is better than having no standards. And I said the opposite of that. Plz reread what you quoted. I said that looks should be a make or break criteria, as they are for most ppl. He should consider is targets as those he's physically attracted to and then move on to other variables.

I said he should be more superficial then ppl with experience because his limited experience doesn't give him a clear understanding of what it would be like to be in a relationship with X girl over Y girl. For instance, one chick is like a total rebellious goth chick or something and the other is a total bookworm.... the relationship he has with the two girls might be very different than he expected it to be, in fact, it might be polar opposite of what ppl expect. Soooo, he should try to date a girl he is physically attracted to and not turned off by her personality but he should not have such high standards in terms of personality or 'class' yet. (Class as in a stereotype of girls)

On March 10 2008 03:06 PokerDoc88 wrote: Wow, it's been 24 hours and I return to this thread and there has been the most epic fight between steal city and FreakSir. Crazy crazy stuff. Good to see this thread is back on track, BUT! To throw fuel to the fire of arguments with steal city (and possibly drag this thread back to the depths of hell), I simply cannot let this following retarded quote slip: Show nested quote + On March 09 2008 06:04 Steal City wrote: Oh, and to pokerdoc - Let's get this straight, if floofy has certain standards on her looks THAT MAKES HIM LESS SUPERFICIAL. The least superficial person would have an array of standards that the girl would have to meet. Some, like looks, may be make or break, while others may need to be compensated for in other areas of interest. Floofy is actually LESS superficial if he has standards in looks. Have you ever heard the saying "pussy is pussy"? Friend: "Dude I can't believe you slept with the whale" Guy who slept with obese woman "hey man, pussy is pussy" Now there's a superficial guy. Steal city, let's get this straight: you don't even know what superficial means. Being superficial is to judge some one based purely on their outward appearances. The example you gave of a man sleeping with an obese woman contradicts the point you tried to make entirely. Any one who sleeps with an obese woman is either: A: Finds obesity to be attractive and only sleeps with obese people, or B: Does not care about ones looks (and hence is not superficial). Judging some one based on their moral views, maturity in life, etc. is NOT being superficial, even though you some how think it is =/. And then...   On March 09 2008 06:04 Steal City wrote: I think floofy has the right AND OUGHT TO BE more superficial as he doesn't have much history with women and so does not know what he wants from a relationship. In fact, it is common knowledge on dating sites, magazines like cosmo and even amongst academia that if a woman is looking for a man to marry, she should date guys who have been in many long term relationships. What you're TRYING to say (I think) is floofy should be selective with his girls based on who-knows-what criteria (maturity, religious background, educational background...take your pick). What you ACTUALLY said is, Floofy should target the most outwardly attractive (ie. fucking drop-dead sexy gorgeous-looking) women around. I can now see why Freak got so steamed up in this argument: you often misrepresent what you're TRYING to say with inadequate prose, and hence you sometimes come across as sounding like a complete idiot.

oh my god give the man a medal




...and floofy one of those chinese brides, oh man they nearly made me cry haha.

Please admit you misunderstand the word and leave it at that.

Superficial does NOT mean paying attention to one detail. That might be what YOU think it means, but you're wrong.

I am not going to re-read what I quoted and try to make sense of what you're trying to say, because when you said it, you didn't fully understand the meaning of the words you were using. So what hope do I have of properly interpreting what you tried to say?

And on a side-note, if what you were TRYING to say is that Floofy should consider looks a very important criteria in looking for a girl, then that directly contradicts this:

On March 09 2008 06:04 Steal City wrote:

Oh, and to pokerdoc - Let's get this straight, if floofy has certain standards on her looks THAT MAKES HIM LESS SUPERFICIAL

YOU GUYS ARE RUINING THE FUCKING THREAD

THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE A PLACE WHERE WE CAN LAUGH AT (OR WITH...maybe) FLOOFY AND HIS BUMBLING ATTEMPTS TO FIND A SOULMATE AND YOURE FILLING IT WITH SPEW WHICH HAS WAY TOO MANY WORDS AND NOT NEARLY ENOUGH JAILBAIT PICTURES

so if you dont mind id like to get this thread back on track before Floofy has his first date and tells us all about how he was so shy he couldnt make that move for a kiss on the cheek and the broken mumbled conversations he tried to start that ended in an awkward silence.

The post of yours I was responding to was one where it seemed you tried to make floofy feel bad about not being as attracted to her bc she might be fat. Him only seeking girls as sexual partners who he is attracted to CERTAINLY doesn't make him superficial if he judges based on other things. + he has already talked about her personality and other factors making him NOT superficial. Finally, I agree that if he only goes for the drop dead gorgeous and rates all girls simply by their looks that he's pretty superficial BUT, you put words in my mouth that are obviously FALSE. I SPECIFICALLY said that looks should be a make or break criteria after which other variables should be examined for a healthy relationship.

I admit that I didn't communicate myself well on the word superficial. But I did get my message across well.

Message was: Floofy caring about looks is not a bad thing and you shouldn't make him feel guilty for it

You said that I said: he should go after the hottest chick

BUT I never said that, I specifically said, he should only go after chicks he's attracted to (bc otherwise the relationships will be counter productive for both ppl imo), having standards is not a bad thing, in fact it's a healthy and natural thing. After a few experiences with girls he's attracted to, I think he will develop personality preferences but I don't think we should make him feel guilty if he doesn't have a strong sense of that yet.

On March 10 2008 03:21 PokerDoc88 wrote: Please admit you misunderstand the word and leave it at that. Superficial does NOT mean paying attention to one detail. That might be what YOU think it means, but you're wrong. I am not going to re-read what I quoted and try to make sense of what you're trying to say, because when you said it, you didn't fully understand the meaning of the words you were using. So what hope do I have of properly interpreting what you tried to say? And on a side-note, if what you were TRYING to say is that Floofy should consider looks a very important criteria in looking for a girl, then that directly contradicts this: On March 09 2008 06:04 Steal City wrote: Oh, and to pokerdoc - Let's get this straight, if floofy has certain standards on her looks THAT MAKES HIM LESS SUPERFICIAL

Seriously, don't bother, I tried and failed. Just let the thread be and stop derailing it.

That goes to you to Steal City. I didn't even say anything to you in my last post except to drop it. I don't know why you're trying to carry on.

And I know I've been more guilty than anybody else with derailing the thread. But I'm going to try to put an end to it.

Yeah, I tried to post directly after my last post saying:

"Why do I even bother...I refuse to become the next Freak of this thread...

instead of ruining it, I'm just gonna Floofy go tap one of those mail-order brides and don't forget the prenups"

But then my internet cut out for 5 minutes =(

what i was trying but admittedly failed to communicate is this. The entomological meaning of the word and the metaphorical nature of the word in older texts like Emerson/Thoreau is "not deep or thorough"... ie the fewer variables used to screen or be selective with... the more supercifical


superficial
c.1420, "of or relating to a surface," from L. superficialis "of or pertaining to the surface," from superficies "surface," from super "above, over" (see super-) + facies "form, face" (see face (n.)). Meaning "not deep or thorough" (of perceptions, thoughts, etc.) first recorded c.1530.

lol stealcity no one knows what you're trying to say

but its okay ,Sam has 3 gorgeous mail-order brides lined up for floofy ready and waiting for some good cognitions, and I'm sure that more are on the way

stop it -_- dont derail the freaking thread enough with ur silly fights