I don't get why this is so hard for people to understand.

I'm not talking about one person limiting anothers actions.
I'm talking about one person making thier own free choice to refrain from certain actions out of respect for another.

If my partner were to ask me to stop doing something I retain my own free will. I decide whether her request is reasonable and whether I will comply. There is no forcing, there is no dictating.

I don't see why so many feel threatened by the concept of respect. Yet will go on and on about trust. When the bottom line is trust requires respect. If someone has no respect for you then they cannot be trusted. They are two sides to the same coin.

It wouldn't matter to me.
Things like ceasing activity on a dating site are things I would do of my own volition out of respect.
Besides that, it has been my experience that when someone goes as far as to bring a topic up and concludes with "I don't mind", they actually do mind on some level.

Perhaps you should read my earlier post where I state that I would not leave friends for someone.

No, just talking to someone through the course of normal business or being polite in passing is not socializing, you damn well know what I mean. We don't need to start arguing about 'technically this' and 'technically that' (add random dictionary definitions here) and (correct spelling there), it gets old fast.

I never said I don't get out much. The point of that was to say I'm not a social whore. I get out plenty, but I do my own thing. I don't need to be with a group of people to feel secure.

Finaly, I'm not talking about anyone dictating anything. I'm talking about respecting the thoughts and feelings of your partner. I'm sorry if that's to large a concept for you to grasp.

"shrug"
Cashiers, stylists, co-workers?
These are business transactions, not social events. I generally don't speak to these people beyond what is necessary to facilitate said transactions. Now if I found one of the above to be attractive and receptive, yes I would 'socialize' with them. However, as should be clear if I were already 'involved' I would not.

Some people are socialy dependant, I am not. I live alone, I have a few close friends. I long for a more intimate relashionship. I don't get off on being a socialite.

Frankly, I find the 'nobody is going to tell me what to do' response quite child-like.

But hey, whatever gets you off.

So is respect. I would expect to have enough respect for my partner to avoid giving any appearance of being unfaithful. If I have a genuine friendship with someone on a dating site 'other than' I would continue such friendship outside of any 'dating site' shadow.
Any woman I may be engaged with would never have to ask me to cease activity on a dating site, I would already have done so out of respect.

There are some things where a line can be drawn.
For example if she asked me to stop riding my bike I'd have to tell her to take a flying leap.
If she asked me to stop seeing my long time friends (RL, not internet), we'd have words.
However, if she asked me to stop socializing with the opposite sex I can respect that.

I say do to her what a woman would do to a man in this situation.

Call the cops, get a restraining order, and have her put on the sex offenders list.

Seriously though, women these days are raised to do whatever 'feels good'. They no longer have the capacity to think through thier actions before they do something except to determine whether it will 'feel good' emotionally for themselves.

Just wait for her to finish stroking her own ego, then calmly say 'I did not know you still had such strong feelings toward me' and close the door.

The bottom line though, IMO is not the context or purpose of the lie. More so, it's the fact that he just started talking to you and found it so simple to fabricate and think nothing of it.

This sounds like someone who lies on a daily basis and thinks nothing of it. That said, I would recommend confronting him about it and giving him an oportunity to explain before telling him to take a hike. Who knows, he may (though not likely) have a good reason. Be wary of his answer though, someone who lies easily with often come up with a convincing lie to cover the lie that was found out.

In the end, it's your decision.

Very funny Mr Scott, now beam down my clothes.

All I can guess is some sort of ghetto slang.

This isn't just a 'little white lie'.
Those are things we tell children to spare thier feelings when knowing the truth would serve no purpose.

This is someone who not only lies, but is obviously comfortable and well practiced with lying. Not only does he lie to you about just joining myspace, but he also embellishes his un-truth by talking about having his first 'friend request' etc.

And BTW, you look amazing. I'd think all you'd need to do is let it be known you are 'available' and you'd have a different guy to date for each day of the week.

Bettie Page and 'a little thick' do not belong in the same sentence.

She wasn't thick at all, she was very skinny.
She was curvy. She had hips.

Around here I dunno what you mean. The women in this neck of the woods may 'say' they are 'curvy' or 'a little thick' but in reality they have to take off the cow bell to powder thier nose.

Now when it comes to fashion models ... well that entire industry baffles me. I find 99% of the clothing to be so ugly I wouldn't let the neihbor's dog wear it. The models look like tall teenage boys, with no chest and no hips.

Women like Bettie are few and far between. But then, around here anything but Rosie O'Donnel types are few and far between, unless you only date women under 20.

There were 2 cops in contact with him, not 5.
He very well could have had a gun or knife in one of his hands when he was shot. Don't be so stupid. There could have been 500 cops there and yes, one guy can still be a threat.
The video fails to answer far to many questions to draw any conclusion from it. Hell this guy died? looked to me like the cop shot him in the ass. But then I can't even tell if the guy was still face down by the time he was shot. I am more shocked that the cop that fired did so in such proximity to his partner.

Best guess, either the officer fired unintentionally, or the suspect got ahold of a weapon. All he had to do was get one of his hands on the other cops gun while they were struggling with him and I would not fault the other officer for shooting him right then and there.

You are obviously seeing something I am not.

I cannot see both of his hands the entire time he is struggling with them.
For all any of us know he could have had a gun in his hand and was fighting to point it at one of the officers.
If that was the case then that cop has every damn right to empty his clip into the guy.

Your ignorance amazes me.
These men and women on the force put thier lives on the line every day for your benefit, and you spit on them and feel you have the right because "we pay thier saleries".

I doubt you would have the courage to do what they do.

How anyone can draw a definitive opinion from just that video is beyond me.

It looks to me like it could have been an accidental shooting.
It also could have been justified.
It also could have been a murder.

The video itself is not enough.

You can see the guy struggling with the police.
He was not co-operating as the reporters and witnesses say. He is clearly fighting against the cops who are restraining him.
Yes at the begining of the video he does put his hands up, but then he starts getting up and starts struggling. You can't see if he was pulling a gun on the cops, you can't see clearly enough what he was doing, only that he was obviously not co-operating. Contrary to what the reporters and the lawyer say.

There's not enough here to make a concrete descision one way or the other. An investigation needs to take place and it needs to go to trial.

Why do people seem to think that a blurry video of what may have been an accident, a murder, or a justified shooting, but in no way is definitive from the video itself is somehow justification for them to go out and commit crimes.

1) I wouldn't care to be president, certainly not in these times of liberal 'feel good' politics and mass media propaganda.

2) Being a 'genius' isn't a popularity contest. That said, I wouldn't much care to be either, I like my current mind.

3) I don't base my relationship decisions on sexual performance, or what others think of my partner. So I can't answer this question one way or the other, as neither scenario would make a difference to me.

4) If a mediocre rock band is very popular, are they truely 'medeocre'? If the worlds greatest poet had a meager audience, is he really the worlds greatest poet? That said, I have a greater appreciation for music than poetry so I would have to say the former.

5) Given the stakes, yes I would open one. Of course, I would remember to duck.

6) If I killed myself, what would it matter that my enemies were destroyed? If they were solely my enemies, then nothing would be gained by destroying them and killing myself.

7) Christians don't have a monopoly on 'passing judgment' everyone does it. I'm not afraid of firearms, but if we're talking a person with known mental issues and not just percieved mental issues, then I would prefer a judgmental person in the car.

8) No. I would not let the potential gain cloud my understanding of right and wrong.

9) No. Again, same answer as #8

10) No. Same answer as 8&9

Punishment?

Somewhat of a rediculous way to put it.

There is no punishment, if you think of it this way then you're probably part of the problem.

There is no 'punishment' for cheating, there is only forgiveness. If you can't forgive them, then there is no reason to maintain a relationship (children being an exception).

This doesn't mean they get a pass, so to speak, they have to earn your forgiveness. There needs to be serious consideration on both sides in order to work through something like this.

To talk about the proper 'punishment' is starting from a mindset that your significant other is someone your are in charge of disciplining.

1) Telling someone you are not interested in a relationship does not mean 'don't ever speak to me'. The guy asked if he could help you. Not if he could jump you.

2) This is new information. In your OP you stated only that there was new mail in your box, not that you had any knowledge of thier contents. The guy is persistant. So what.

This is not about 'sticking up for my fellow man', rather this is about you treating a man like he's some vile creature and not a fellow human being.

I know as well as you the double standard when it comes to a woman saying 'no thanks' if a man always takes a woman at her word he ends up in deep ****. We're not talking about rape here, we're talking about saying 'can I help you'.

Even mentioning 'the authorities' getting involved only proves how self centered you are. The cops have far more important things to concern themselves with, without dealing with a paranoid young lady who likes to play the victim routine.
This guy has done nothing to you. He was polite in person and simply asked if he could help you with anything. Sending you a few e-mails does not even constitute minor harassment. So your insistence on labeling this guy as some sort of less-than-human stalker is not only completely uncalled for, but reflects more on you than he.

If a woman thinks that saying she's not interested means a guy has to avoid ever being in the same store as her. Never speak to her again. Never e-mail her, and God forbid, never be nice. Then she's pretty self absorbed, presumptuous, and unreasonable.

Again, we don't know what the guys intent was, but at least you could act human toward him.

I wouldn't think so. A tattoo is ink injected into the skin. What I don't like is anything that leaves a residue on the skin, be it oily or powdery etc. For example I don't like BBQ ribs and such, not because I don't like the taste but because they are messy foods that get on your hands/face and a napkin/wetnap just isn't enough to get it all off. A tattoo on the other hand I don't believe I would feel because it's below the surface.

I have no idea what you posted a week ago, and I don't see a search function that would allow me to pull it up and read it.

1) You seem to assume that since you've seen him twice that he is trying to run into you. Wallyworld is a big store that lots of people shop at, especially at Christmass time.
2) It doesn't sound like you've read his e-mails after you told him you're not interested so how you can come to any conclusions about the contents or intent of his further e-mails is beyond me.

You're making assumptions and drawing conclusions from thin air. From what you've posted here the only logical conclusion I can come to is that you are freaked out because you want to be freaked out.