Tuesday, December 17, 2013

Love Interest Follow Up

In Part One of an office saga:

Most commentators feel that he was being given the cold shoulder.

Yesterday's weekend update seems to bear this out.  He reported dropped pronouns in her text messages, even though many included the pronouns.  What was the difference?

His overtures for dinner were met with:

"I have to work Friday night."

"Wish I could get together"

"GTG."

"I just got a raise last month.  I never call out sick."


He wrote, humorously, that he was beginning to get the feeling that she was avoiding him.  Her response?

"LOL.  Too funny!"


As with any accusation, if she is unable to deny it, we shall not deny it for her.

Is she disinterested or...

is she interested in being pursued?

He wrote: "hey, if you're not interested, just say so" to which she replied, "I never said that!"

Last texts:

"Well, I hope we see each other at the office party" to which she replied:

"I am sure we'll see each other" with both, the pronoun "we", and the additional word "sure" to add to your analysis.

What sayest thou now?

Is she disinterested?  Is she playing hard to get?  Or...

is she allowing him to continue pursuit, strictly to enjoy the attention, but coming at his emotional expense?

Does the word "we" merely come as reflective language?

63 comments:

Suzanne said...

Dude needs to move on. He's sounding desperate and that's a turnoff. It's never a good idea to date a co-worker and if she's toying with him now, I can't see how it would be any better when they are breaking up. Please tell him to move on.

Anonymous said...

I think she's not interested, but maybe she's trying to be polite and doesn't know how to come right out and say it. Could be she just hopes he'll figure it out without her having to tell him outright. I say this, because it's probably how I would deal with it. I agree with what Suzanne said.

Anonymous said...

She's keeping him on the line. She enjoys the attention. She is probably in another relationship also. If he just wants to text back and forth, it sounds like she will be interested in that. It will prob take months for her to meet up with (if ever).

marietje said...

Dating a co-worker is a no-no in most places and for good reason. If it doesn't turn out, life can be hell. However, I would like to offer another idea. When I lived in The Netherlands, people are much more upfront about what the intention is. And it's always face to face. Texting would seem way too strange. It would seem like you are hiding something already. Like you don't have any courage. Why can't he just say to her, "By the way, do you have a boyfriend or a husband? Because if you don't I would really like to meet you for coffee." That way it's a nice beginning if she says yes and if she says no, well, Dutch men don't have their entire ego banked on whether someone says yes or no. Simple as that for everyone.

Anonymous said...

He needs to back off. He is making ME uncomfortable and I haven't received one text from him.

Anonymous said...

No. Her answer is no. He needs to accept it and leave her alone. Anything more is borderline stalking.

Tease said...

She likes the attention and is encouraging the pursuit. It's not clear that she's at all interested in him. He needs to pull away and see if she pursues him.

Hopeful for Abby said...

Peter- is there a reason you're not analyzing the Abigail Hernandez letter (from Dad)? Is it to avoid interfering with the investigation?

Anonymous said...


You need to wake up and sip the coffee, Hopeful @ 1:09. It isn't possible to interfere with a reputable investigation! Wherever did you get such a silly notion?

These people who sit back and say crap like "LE must be holding it close to the vest" don't have the vaguest idea what they're talking about.

LE doesn't hold anything close to the vest when they have nothing to hold unless they're hiding something due to their own ineptness or corruptness. Even if they publically spilled their guts in a worthy investigation they still wouldn't be interfering with their investigation nor would anyone else. Wise up. Wake up. Real life is not a tv mystery story.

If you really want to know what is going on with LE agencies and others in powerful, as well as lower level, mid-level, state, city & county positions, click on and read this eye-opening link:

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Tribute-to-sur...

Anonymous said...

She is def not interested. She most likely does not want to hurt his feelings, or greatly fears even the slightest confrontation. This could have been me 20 years ago. I don't think she is doing it because she "wants the attention"...at least I wasn't like that...

Jen Ow said...

I think she is not interested, but trying to keep it polite due to the workplace.

Is he in a position that would make her feel it is in her best interest to keep the option open, or let him be the one to lose interest? Even if he is not a supervisor, or higher up in the company..if he has been employed longer, or is close with her supervisor, then she may feel worried about the impact of her rejection (or pursuit of a relationship) on her future job advancement.

I advise him to remain friendly, but back off the romantic pursuit. He has made it clear he is interested. ..if she wants to see him, she will let him know.

Hobnob said...

off topic

OAKLAND, Calif. – Harold Camping, the California preacher who used his evangelical radio ministry and thousands of billboards to broadcast the end of the world and then gave up public prophecy when his date-specific doomsdays did not come to pass, has died at age 92.

Family Radio Network marketing manager Nina Romero said Harold Camping, a retired civil engineer who built a worldwide following for the nonprofit, Oakland-based ministry he founded in 1958, died at his home on Sunday. She said he had been hospitalized after falling.

Camping's most widely spread prediction was that the Rapture would happen on May 21, 2011. His independent Christian media empire spent millions of dollars -- some of it from donations made by followers who quit their jobs and sold all their possessions-- to spread the word on more than 5,000 billboards and 20 RVs plastered with the Judgment Day message.

When the Judgment Day he foresaw did not materialize, the preacher revised his prophecy, saying he had been off by five months. The preacher, who suffered a stroke three weeks after the May prediction failed, said the light dawned on him that instead of the biblical Rapture in which the faithful would be swept up to the heavens, the date had instead been a "spiritual" Judgment Day, which placed the entire world under Christ's judgment.

But after the cataclysmic event did not occur in October either, Camping acknowledged his apocalyptic prophecy had been wrong and posted a letter on his ministry's site telling his followers he had no evidence the world would end anytime soon, and wasn't interested in considering future dates.

"We realize that many people are hoping they will know the date of Christ's return," Camping wrote in March 2012. "We humbly acknowledge we were wrong about the timing."

Camping graduated from the University of California, Berkeley in 1942 and started a construction business shortly after the end of World War II, according to his nonprofit's website.

For decades, Camping and his family attended the Christian Reformed Church, where he served as an elder and Bible teacher, but he left the church in 1988 when he felt it no longer faithfully represented biblical teachings, associates said.

He formed his Family Stations ministry in 1958 and eventually sold his business to become the group's president and general manager as a full-time volunteer. In 1961, Camping began hosting the Open Forum program, which was broadcast in 30 languages online and on a network of more than 140 domestic and international radio stations owned by Family Stations.

Each weeknight, Camping would transmit his own biblical interpretations in a quivery monotone, clutching a worn Bible as he took listeners' calls. He first predicted the world would end on Sept. 6, 1994 and when it did not, Camping said it was off because of a mathematical error. Followers later said he was referring to the end of "the church age," a time when human beings in Christian churches could be saved.

After his billboards warning of pending doom popped up across the country in 2010 and 2011, Christian leaders from across the spectrum widely dismissed his prophecies while atheists and revelers poked fun at his prediction. Some also criticized Camping's use of millions of dollars in followers' donations to advertise Judgment Day.

"We're not in the business of financial advice," he said shortly after the failed May 2011 prediction. "We're in the business of telling people there's someone who you can maybe talk to, maybe pray to, and that's God."

Camping also offered a measured apology, adding that he felt so terrible when his prophecy did not come true that he left home and took refuge in a motel with his wife.

Hobnob said...

"If people want me to apologize, I can apologize," he said in response to questions about some listeners' decision to give away their possessions in anticipation of the Rapture. "I pray all the time for wisdom."

Camping wrote about 30 books and booklets over the years, many from his modest brick home in Alameda, a leafy Oakland suburb. Family Radio Network said in its statement that he is survived by a wife of 71 years.

"We know that each of us remain in God's hand, and God is the One who knows our appointed time to leave our earthly body behind," the statement said.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/12/17/doomsday-preacher-harold-camping-dies-at-2/?intcmp=latestnews


he finally got his rapture. the rest of us as well as we no longer have to listen to him.

Good luck to his god and no returns please :)

Nic said...

"I am sure we'll see each other" with both, the pronoun "we", and the additional word "sure" to add to your analysis.

Your colleague specifies when and where. She uses future tense but does not say where. So it could be said that she is sure they'll see each other (in the future), but not necessarily at the office party as she isn't saying she'll be there.

If it were up to me, I'd suggest to your colleague to leave the ball in her court and spread himself out a bit. More prospects mean a better chance of finding someone who will reciprocate his feelings.

jmo

Anonymous said...

Hopeful,

I can't speak for Peter, but I am guessing the reason why he is not analyzing the letter is because it is too complicated. Not the analysis of the letter, I am sure he would do an outstanding job of analyzing it, but it is a letter that is difficult to infer things from. I'm pretty good at SA. The letter is tough. At some point, you have to use your gut instinct to make some inferences, and I don't think Peter is willing to do that.
The case itself seems to contain unprecedented things such as the (supposed) letter from Abby, making it even more difficult to make confident statements about potential parental involvement.
Peter would have to risk being wrong with this one, and quite frankly, I don't think he is willing to do that.

jenny StMaire said...

Why on earth bother with someone who just isn't bothered about you. Even if he could get her on a date, going by the interaction so far, it looks like it would be hard work and he would always be at a disadvantage

Skeptical said...

This sounds like a let him down easy situation. Women find it hard to be blunt and say bug off. I am sure she will see him at the office party, but she will be with a date.

C5H11ONO said...

I think she's interested. She's acting disinterested.
His first text was "Miss u. U miss me? He is not all that into her. She's just a conquest for him. I would think your friend fancies himself to be a looker, a ladies man so to speak. I think his interest was piqued when she did not succumb to the woo as quickly as he assumed she would. He's flirting and so is she. I think she may know that he has a reputation with the ladies and is being cautious. She may not want to get involved with a cad, but it's nice to be coveted by one. If she plays it too hard he'll move on. Just my suspicions anyhoot.

Anonymous said...

the guy is so annoying in the first place she is probably messing with him to put him in his place.

Anonymous said...

My opinion is this: If she was not at all interested (meaning zero percent interested) , she would not text him back. It is the easiest thing to do--just don't back!

She is somewhat enjoying the attention. The guy does sound to me like he views her as a conquest and may even be involved himself in another relationship. He has nothing to lose by continuing this texting flirtation, however little it is accomplishing, because he probably already has a girlfriend. It sounds like a case of wanting to have his cake and eat it too so to speak.
The woman he is texting may know this, and so is kinda like "OK, you're going to text me, I'll text you back, but I won't feel like I have to meet you for dinner, since you are already involved with someone." Just my opinion.

Dane said...

I also think she is not interested, but trying not to hurt his feelings. I feel awful if I hurt someone's feelings, and would probably answer something like her....

Dane said...

I also think she is not interested, but trying not to hurt his feelings. I feel awful if I hurt someone's feelings, and would probably answer something like her....

GetThem said...

There is someone out there for your friend Peter. Maybe not this woman and not for lack of trying. Best not to lose a friendship and especially an ongoing one at work. Bow out with no contempt and stay professional.

Hobnob said...

Off topic

Amanda Knox has insisted she is innocent of the murder of Meredith Kercher in an email sent to an Italian court, saying she was afraid to appear in person at her retrial for fear of being found guilty.

But the lawyer for the Kercher family dismissed the written denial, saying it should be taken "with a pinch of salt".

The British student was stabbed to death in 2007 at the home she shared with the American in Perugia.

Ms Kercher's half-naked body was found in a pool of blood in her room, with her throat slit.

In the email, read out to court by her defence lawyer, Knox wrote: "I am innocent. I did not kill, I did not rape, I did not steal, I did not plot or instigate.

"I did not kill Meredith, I did not take part in her murder."

Explaining the unusual step of defending herself in an email rather than in person, Knox, who is in the US, said she was worried of being wrongly convicted.

"I am not present in court because I am scared," she said in the lengthy email written in Italian.

"I fear that the prosecution's line will influence the decision and will blind everyone."

Knox, 26, and her former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito, 29, were convicted of murdering Ms Kercher in 2009.

Knox was sentenced to 26 years, including one year for slander for blaming Ms Kercher's murder on a Congolese-born bar owner. Sollecito was sentenced to 25 years.

Both defendants were acquitted on appeal in 2011 and released from prison, but then Italy's highest criminal court ordered a retrial.

The prosecution insists forensic evidence proves without doubt that Knox and Sollecito are guilty of the murder.

But appearing before the court last month, Sollecito pleaded his innocence and described the charges as "absurd".

Ivory Coast-born Rudy Guede is still serving a 16-year sentence for the 2007 murder, but the prosecution says the 21-year-old Leeds University student's wounds indicate there was more than one attacker.

Knox's email concluded: "I am innocent. Raffaele is innocent. Meredith and her family deserve the truth.

"I ask you to put an end to this enormous injustice. In faith, Amanda Marie Knox."

Presiding Judge Alessandro Nencini noted that the email, presented by Knox's lawyers, was not a normal procedure in Italy.

He said it highlighted Knox's absence, and indicated it did not have the same legal standing as a declaration made in person.

"Who wants to speak at a trial, comes to the trial," he said.

http://news.sky.com/story/1183743/amanda-knox-email-i-did-not-kill-meredith

Hobnob said...

No reliable denial as expected

In the email, read out to court by her defence lawyer, Knox wrote: "I am innocent. I did not kill, I did not rape, I did not steal, I did not plot or instigate.

She is innocent until found guilty in a curt of law so technically she spoke the truth at that point.
This is where i would expect to see a strong reliable denial "I DID NOT KILL MEREDITH" she doesn't say it so i can't say it for her.

You may say but she said "I did not kill, I did not rape, I did not steal, I did not plot or instigate. and this is a reliable denial.

It isn't
She does not say who she didn't kill which breaks the rule of three, event specific
She doesn't say who she did not rape again breaking the rule of three.
she does not say what she did not steal, nor does she say what she did not plot or instigate.
If she can't say it i can't say it for her.

"I did not kill Meredith, I did not take part in her murder."
This sounds like a strong reliable denial, she says she did not kill Meredith, and on it's own it would be, she weakens it with the qualifier i did not take part in her murder.
She says kill and murder in her denial.
What is the difference in her personal dictionary since she seperates them?
Additional words weaken the denial.

She did not kill Meredith, this could be true if she believes she did not strike the killing blow.
If she did not take part in her murder, what did she take part in then?

"I am not present in court because I am scared," she said in the lengthy email written in Italian.

"I fear that the prosecution's line will influence the decision and will blind everyone."

The prosecution's role is to show her and sollecito raped and murdered Meredith Kercher.
Of course their line will influence the decision.
If she wasn't involved in the rape and murder then her words would reveal the truth and the defence would prove beyond all reasonable doubt her innocence.
She won't return to Italy because she knows her guilt will be revealed if she takes the stand in her defence. By staying in the States she will force Italy to extradite her. She will make it as hard and expensive as she can to avoid facing justice.
If needs be she will ask to serve her time in the States.

Knox's email concluded: "I am innocent. Raffaele is innocent. Meredith and her family deserve the truth.

"I ask you to put an end to this enormous injustice. In faith, Amanda Marie Knox."


Again a chance to make a strong reliable denial and she doesn't.
Yje truth is knox and sollecito committed rape and murder along with guede.
She cannot bring herself to say i did not murder Meredith, I did not rape Meredith and if she can't say it i can't say it for her.

it interests me she includes her ex sollecito in her letter, I suspect she feels she needs to keep him onside otherwise he could be tempted to throw her under the bus, They only knew each other for a few days before the murder of Meredith, He owes her nothing and since he is in Italy it is in his interest to minimise his own involvement and paint her as the ringleader to dave his own skin

Anonymous said...

What evidence is there Amanda Knox participated in this crime?

What the Italians are doing right now is called "double jeopardy". The USA will most likely never send her back. Why would she go back as of now willingly? For another trial?

Wouldnt one of them have thrown the other under the bus by now?

Kellie Sue said...

coy
1.
(esp. with reference to a woman) making a pretense of shyness or modesty that is intended to be alluring.

:D

Sus said...

She is not interested in dating him. She is being nice, keeping the peace with a co-worker, or he is in a supervisory role where she feels she can't say "scram."

I can see why she's not interested in dating him. First, he didn't commit to missing her, but wanted her to open up and say she missed him. Then he begins a text with "hey" and insinuates she is wrong in the manner she is responding to him. He is trying to control her responses in a manipulative manner.

Before I said she was better off without him. Now I say RUN!

Anonymous said...

At this point the woman has no physical attraction to this man but is enjoying the somewhat mild flirtation. She is also keeping her options open.

Does anyone see where she told him to pound salt? No you didn't. My guess is that he still has a chance with her but I think she will play the game for a while before giving in to his lame advances.

Trigger said...

This girl sounds like she has other things to do that don't include a one on one date with this guy or she is afraid of men.

Hobnob said...

Anonymous

it is not double jeopaedy it is the wayItalian justice works for all cases. There are 3 courts and in each court the prosecution can appeal the verdict and either have it overruled or sustained. This was made clear when they tried ex president silvio belusconi for his various trials.

Sje is not being retroed as in a whole new trial it is a continuation of the same trial and would happen whoever won whicher verdict at each court.

We have abolished double jeopardy in the UJ and you can be retried after a not guilty verdict if there is new and compelling evidence such as a confession, witness or forensics.

There is plenty of evidence she took part in the murder since she told us in her freely written in her own hand using the process of free editing statement. It was written in english so there can be no claim of mistranslated. She told us she was present and that it was a sexual homicude. If you search this blog you should be able to find Peter's analysis of her words.

Anonymous said...

Trigger, I agree, but I would say, maybe she is afraid of this one man, or maybe she has been stalked before and is afraid of making him angry.

Anonymous said...

To men everywhere:
Texting to ask someone out on a date spells BOOTYCALL.
If you want a DATE, pick up the phone.
Man the fuck up.
That is all.

Periwinkle Paisley said...

She is not into him. And I'd go so far as to say that she doesn't know how to say so even though he gave her an out.

Anonymous said...

"I have to work Friday night."

"Wish I could get together" wish? together with who?

"GTG." caps!!!!

"I just got a raise last month. I never call out sick."
just excuse or is she saying she can't afford to pay her half? i had a girl keep making excuses until i overheard her adding up her paycheck to see if she had extra for a date. smh, i said i would pay for everything. she couldnt believe a guy would do that. smh. never? call out? around here we call "in", because we arent at work.

"LOL. Too funny!" no commitment, but not an agreement.

He wrote: "hey, if you're not interested, just say so" to which she replied, "I never said that!"
never?she didnt say did not, meaning the posibility is there taht that is what she "said". that? what did she say? she didnt exactly say she was but she couldnt say she wasn't.

"Well, I hope we see each other at the office party" to which she replied:
"I am sure we'll see each other"
mimiced "we see each other", see is not any commitment to more than both just happening to be there.
------------

she is a workaholic. need to do something big to distract her from her work and put attention on him. im thinking one of them stripper santa suits and singing a song. if she still shoots him down, at least he will get fired and not have to face everyone the next day. lol. but has he texted her other than during work hours? shows her he is thinking of her even when they are not "together". women are easy and he can have any woman he wants.

MzOpinion8d said...

She's not interested in dating him, but doesn't want to be hurt his feelings.

Why I know this: I have done the same thing myself for the same reason. Replying to texts to be nice but keeping the interaction short and vague!

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 8:13--If a guy ever asked me to pay half on a date, that would be the last date.
ONE time, and only once, a guy did this to me. I presented my half of the money (knowing at that instant, I will never see this person again). I had to laugh when he insisted I shell out an additional $2.00, because I had ordered coffee. I gave it to him. As he drove me home, I said "Do you know what a bird says?" He says "What?" I said "Cheep, cheep, cheep, cheep, cheep." "That's what you are. Don't ever call me again."
He looked shocked! Why? Is he used to having women pay for dates?
A word of warning: Men who are cheap like that are indescribably horrible in bed.
Bad news--You will pay for the date and the sex will be beyond horrible should you stick around to find out.
A man should pay for every date. Simple as that. No exceptions.

Anonymous said...

To repeat myself; she is mildly enjoying the flirtation. She will coyly play out the game but eventually she will go out with him. I'd guarantee it.

Hoping and praying said...

Yes. Such a strange case. The dad is laying low and doesn't refute abuse allegations by boyfriend's dad, and neither parent Is pleading with the abductor. Then, the letter from Abby...who allows captives to write home these days? Fritzl- a dad. Anyone else?

Anonymous said...

Hobnob, I respect your opinion. I am not sure what I believe about Amanda Knox. I just think what the Italians do is pretty darn close to double jeopardy. She served 6 years in prison, so what will they do resentence her? I'm not sure it's ethical to have a justice system that operates that way. A person should be found "innocent" or "guilty" in my opinion.

Skeptical said...

I don't think corruption is unusual in Italian investigations, I think it is a way of life. One of the most realistic depictions of the corruption in Italian policing was written by the British author Michael Didbin, who wrote the Aurelio Zen detective novels. Ironically he spent 4 years teaching at the university in Perugia.

Anonymous said...

thats because if i pay for it, im gonna get my money's worth

shelley said...

She is not interested.

if she was, she would make an effort.

she does however work with him so just flat out saying "im not interested" is more difficult.

She is trying to be nice but is just flat out not interested.

When he asked her out, even if she really had to work friday night (unlikely but still) if she was interested she would have led into another option (since like I said before, if someoje is interested they will make the time) such as....

I have to work late but should be done by 9pm

or I have to work late friday, but Im am free saturday.

for those that read my last post in part one of this discussion....

I mentioned a friend that like me, knew the firat date that he met the one... I want to share the first weekend.

He met her Friday night (initially met on match.com).he plays sports and his team had a tournament that night. He did it this day just in case it was weird. He had 30 mins. They did hit it off....

she was in a wedding the next day. Since she was in it, the day started early, hair..makeup etc.... the wedding was at 6pm. So pretty much meant her day was consumed.

so they made plans to have lunch sunday.

sunday am at about 1pm she texted him said the wedding was over and asking if he was sill up.....

he was and rather than wait till the next she went straight to him.

poimt is... when u are really interested, uyou will make time to see the person. Mo matter what.month

your not too busy. You will make it happen.

shelley said...

I meant Sunday at 1am.....not pm

The second the wedding was over she wanted to to see him.

Peter Hyatt said...

there's been an update...

stay tuned.

A twist of fate has taken place

Anonymous said...

Why are they texting? Pick up the damn phone and have a grown up conversation.

Anonymous said...

´´Hey if you´re not interested just say so´´ is so incredibly aggressive and rude. This guy is horrible. Note to guys, everything this guy does is a turn off. They aren´t even dating and he´s trying to tell her how to interact with him. He comes across as disrespectful and full of himself. Why is he so insecure that he keeps needing to know what SHE wants? He should be telling her what he wants and THEN he will see whether she´s interested or not. He needs way too much encouragement from her ' he´s really NOT that into her ' and she knows it!

She respects herself and her job. However she shouldn´t even have to justify not meeting up with him, let alone explain her finances or habits.

The whole interaction is SO weird from a European POV anyway. Texting is NOT for asking someone out! He should phone her. How old is he??

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 1:09,

I agree but here in America everyone texts. It's almost like people are afraid of talking on the phone. Very lame.

Also, I have a question for anyone who would like to answer: What do you guys make of declarations of love from husband to wife or wife to husband on facebook? I'm not only talking about the "to my wonderful, gorgeous, unbelievably amazing husband who can leap tall buildings in a single bound, I love you" type posts. What about less flowery posts that publicly tell the other that they love them (even though they live in the same house). Just curious.

Anonymous said...

Ha...! I think most of you women don't have the slightest idea how an experienced woman plays the cat & mouse 'catch me if you can love-game.' I've played it many times and I can guarantee you that if she wasn't interested she would have already made it clear. WHICH, she has not done.

He was very clear with her when he commented "if you're not interested just say so" and she didn't. Based on her lack of discouraging him she is encouraging him. I'll be interested to know what is the next step in his rather laid-back pursuit of her.

He's not the dummy some of you seem to think he is. She is playing her options like a fine-tuned game, has other men who are interested in her, and will go out with him if he hangs in there and plays his cards right. I'd lay money on it.

Anonymous said...

To answer your question Anon @ 2:25, I think these openly public face book expressions of love between a husband and wife are very tacky. I would be tempted to interject my own, "get a room."

It's one thing to wish ones' spouse a happy anniversary or a happy birthday on face book, but quite another to publically work up a sweat of public display like two love-sick slobbering puppies. No class.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 6:24--I agree they are very tacky.
Some I've seen are wife thanking hubby for a gift, telling him how wonderful he is and saying I love you.
What I wonder about is if they are genuine professions of love.
I often think it is more to let others know: this guy loves me and I love him!
Maybe I'm wrong. Just wonder what others think.
I just think it's weird to communicate this publically to one's spouse who lives in the same house--not sure why.

Nic said...

Anon @ December 17, 2013 at 7:47 PM

LOL agreed. Be proper.

Anon @ December 17, 2013 at 9:21 PM

No sure about the "horrible in bed" observation. But I'm of the opinion that whomever asks, pays. i.e., If I were to ask someone out for coffee, it would be on me. If a man were to ask me out and it played out as you described, I would not go out with him again. Selfish and stingy does not a good combination make. i.e., no compromise -- which, is *the* crux of any good relationship. And to think that that is the best it would ever be. Run ladies!

Nic said...

Hobs, I agree with your analysis. She did not make a reliable denial. She didn't specify WHOM. In other words, she could be referencing anybody but the "subject".

Anonymous said...

PETER!
WHAT WAS THE TWIST OF FATE?

Anonymous said...

Nic--I hear you, but I will not pay for any date. We ladies put up with so much BS from guys, there is no way I am paying a dime to be in their company.
Although, there was one guy I slways insisted on paying my half of the bill, not sure why, that was the one exception.

Anonymous said...

He's not willing to make an effort and she's not willing to commit to anything. Sounds like they deserve each other.

Anonymous said...

Anons 6:56, 6:24 and 2:25,

"What I wonder about is if they are genuine professions of love.
I often think it is more to let others know: this guy loves me and I love him!"

You are quite right to be suspicious about these public and open declarations of love and admiration. It's been my experience that these people need others to see their marriage or relationships as over the top wonderful in hopes that it might eventually become true.

Two of my facebook friends are/were always posting like this about 'my wonderful husband' and how great their marriage is (and how pretty much every boring-ass thing they do is so awesome.) One couple is getting divorced, the other found out her husband was cheating on her. Another friend is always posting about how proud she is of her son and what a wonderful man he's grown to be and how thankful she is to have given birth to him. They've been estranged for years and he barely speaks to her-- they're not even friends on FB. Another friend/aquaintence posts continuously about the love of Christ and the Grace of God. She is one of the most unpleasant and self centered women I know.

It's like people we discuss here, when they're giving information nobody asked for we need to question why they want us to know.
Anon J

Jen Ow said...

About FB declarations...

A few months ago my husband needed to hire a few new employees, but he was having a hard time finding qualified applicants who could also pass the background check. (It was seriously shocking how many he interviewed who flat out lied about their qualifications, education and criminal background.)

Around the same time, I saw on FB that a highschool classmate had been laid off from his job. He posted it publicly, as a request for prayers. I sent him a PRIVATE message, telling him my husband had some openings to fill, and gave his daytime contact info. The guy sent me a message within minutes saying thanks, but that the lay off was rumored to be temporary, and he asked if he could pass the info along to coworkers who were also laid off.

About an hour later, I got a friend request from his wife. I accepted it, and her message popped up telling me to mind my own business, and declaring twice that they were 'HAPPILY MARRIED' (in all caps). I replied that I didn't mean to overstep, and was only trying to help...and she shot back, 'we have 3 wonderful children, and a HAPPY home without any help from you'. (Again capitalized, emphasis on the HAPPY.)

The next day the guy sent me a message saying he appreciated the lead, and was sorry his wife had contacted me. He said they were 'on the rocks', and that she's jealous of everyone. Funny thing is, she posts 5-10 overly gushing, 'my husband is my life and reason for breathing' posts a week, with lots of TMI about their 'date nights'. She ends almost every one with, 'God, I love THAT man'...which always makes me giggle.

Anonymous said...

Thank you guys for the feedback on facebook posts.
Jen, that is odd that you mentioned that guy asked for prayers bc he'd lost his job, and then it turned out he still had a job. My cousin did the exact same thing today on FB. She asked for prayers bc she had lost her job through no fault of her own. Since she has a daughter who she supports partially 2 people suggested foodstamps and said there is no shame in this. She responded immediately saying she has a job but the hours are uncertain.
In the case you sited it is so obvious the wife is overcompensating. I would have been freaked out to get that email from her too!!
I feel that public declarations of love of one's spouse who lives in the same house are strongly indicative of something VERY wrong in the marriage.
Anon J--I am glad you brought up religious postings. People who regularly post them are in the same category as people who chronically post about how blessed they are and gratitude. These people are intensely miserable and also very self-centered as you pointed out.
What you wrote about offering extra info is true. One guy I know who gushes about wife and wife gushes back--I am pretty sure he is a closeted homosexual.
There is a woman who brags everyday about how much she sacrifices for her kids, but actually one of them will not speak to her.
It is crazy bc it seems to be a "Fakebook".

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 6:03--I was unaware of that incident regarding John having a post deleted.
John's grammar idiosyncracies are identical to the trolls.
Also, John always struck me as being a wolf in sheep's clothing. His self-effacing personality did not strike me as genuine.
John (troll) is high intelligence, emotionally stunted and pretends to have between 3-5 personalities.

Jen Ow said...

It was weird! Not only that he asked for prayers when he apparently knew the layoff was temporary...but that he posted ANYTHING about it publicly on FB knowing his wife was a jealousy freak.

Plus, I purposely sent the info about the open positions by private message...partly to respect his privacy, but mostly so that my husband wouldn't be bombarded with more applicants who would be a waste of time. That means he had to show her the mesaage, and I can't imagine why he would knowing she would flip out.

Who knows what's wrong with some people, I guess they just live for drama and games?!

Anon "I" said...

I say she's not interested. Maybe she is being polite because they have to work together. If she cared, she would keep him texting with more questions to keep him engaged in communicating with her. Her answers are short and not inviting of further responses.

Facebook topic: Reason # 540,998 not to be on Facebook. People don't need to be trotting out their personal insecurities. I would think the three children would be proof enough of a solid marriage if they were happy together. The Facebooker is trying to convince herself of what a magnificent husband she has and is probably craving validation from others. All IMHO.

Anon "I" said...

PS: You don't go around marking your husband as your own territory unless you are terribly insecure or have reason to be.