Paunches are now perfectly acceptable on us older women, too, these days???


Who knew?!?


Another pint of Ben and Jerry's Chocolate Fudge Brownie ice cream for me, it IS, then!!!

Nahhhh...typically, while online, men prefer women with little or no confidence;


you'd only have a 'problem with confidence' if, as a woman, you WERE sure of yourself and who and what you are, while online.



TRUST me on that one!!!

Is "Getafterese" what most people in Kansas speak, as opposed to English...hence the difference in colloquialisms in the two different languages?

In English, the colloquialism "get after":

"to bother someone about doing something; to scold someone about something. 'I will get after Fred about his behavior.' 'Please don't get after me all the time.'

'get after somebody': to criticize what someone does; 'I get after my mother about what she eats because I really love her.' "


From McGraw-Hill Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs. � 2002 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.




Sorry...English is the one-and-only language I speak, so when I saw "get after", I immediately thought of the English colloquialism for the phrase.

I didn't realize "get after" means something else in your native tongue.






What IS your native language, anyway?

OP, if you'll cruise around the forums, you'll soon discover there's a LOT of people who "don't really know how to talk to people",


but they don't let that stop them.



Just dive right in!!!

<--- Not "looking for"; "open to".


There's a world of difference between the two.

Oh, I'm *always* "smart" and "right" when I write things that one agrees with.


I'm only "stupid" and "wrong" when I write something that one DISagrees with.


As I stated earlier, as with most things in life, it's all about one's point-of-view, yanno?

Was this a Freudian...or a typo?

Did you mean "I go after what I want..." or did you truly mean to *say* "I get after what I want..."


"Go after" suggests a confidence and desire and the ability TO get it done...


"Get after" suggests a yapping little ankle biter who won't take "No" for an answer.

I actually READ the article and I'm not seeing the "defensiveness" nor understanding your defensiveness ABOUT perceived "defensiveness" in others. To his points in the article, numbered as he did:

1. The author, himself, indicated it was 'cool' to be a part of the majority, for once...suggesting he understands better how whites in the U.S. feel and *operate*...and that it's NOT necessarily borne out of an innate maliciousness.

2. Common sense dictates that how 'slavery' museums and tourist spots are viewed in Africa (in a majority black population) would be vastly different than how such *attractions* would be viewed here, in the U.S. Depending on who created it, who ran it, and who funded it, it would be automatically suspect.

3. Though 4th-generation U.S. born, I'm of German-Irish (and a whole bunch of other stocks thrown in) descent; someday, I'd like to visit Ireland (the ONLY foreign country I'd like to go to), simply because it IS part of my heritage. Even though it's in MY blood, where my ancestors were born / how they lived / what trials and tribulations THEY faced does NOT affect my life, today. It's simply a part of my waaaay distant heritage. Guess what? Just about every single person living in the U.S. today, regardless of their skin color, can say the same thing; this is NOT a uniquely-black phenomenon.

4. Oppression of blacks (as well as oppression of ANY peoples) IS an international concern...and, again, it is NOT unique to the U.S. nor unique to white people; as the author, himself, points out, blacks in Africa are oppressing OTHER blacks in Africa because of Ebola (and because of status, and due to money, and due to one's station-in-life, etc.). When enough people are gathered together, fighting over the same resources, they will *naturally* begin to segregate and create "better-thans" and "less-thans" to *better* control capital AND those resources.

5. ALL people residing in the U.S. (unless they are of Native American descent) *suffer* from diaspora; again, it is NOT a uniquely-black *burden*.

In this day and age of technology and globalization (which the author, himself, gives a nod to), this constant need to separate one's people FROM the whole, as somehow different and/or uniquely blessed OR uniquely burdened, IS becoming hackneyed, outdated, and outmoded,

"whether we like it or not."

Best of luck to you...

Scraping bottom TO find something to *argue* with ME about?


Whether it's a democracy or not and/or however "a majority" is defined, it's still the same governmental system in place and the same "majority" as who spoke in 2008 and 2012,

ergo, it carries the same level of "validity"...NOW and THEN - no more, no less.




Enjoy your one-way *debate*.

Well, "perhaps" not. But, since I am the only one who has to repeatedly remind you confused souls that "I am NOT The Person in Charge of Everything" when one of you mistakes me FOR That Person (as YOU did with your directed-my-way "Gotta mirror?")


factually-speaking (and in black-and-white, even!), obviously "the confusion" IS NOT self-created nor self-driven.

Probably out of their stated preferred age-range...or, something about you is out of their preferences (location too far away? smoker? etc.?)...or, they've indicated "no intimate encounters", etc.

Something stated in YOUR profile isn't meshing with what they've said THEY are looking for...

I can play THE riff for "Smoke on the Water".


Taught myself, and EVERYthing.

Well, thank you everybody for all your help. ~hrrrrumph~

Through week #9 in the NFL, my fantasy team is 3-6-0, though I do (currently) hold the record for the most # of points scored in a single week. Knocked my son out of THAT title, the very next week after he'd taken it. The very NEXT week, he took the title for the fewest points scored.

I've yet to win a weekly Pick 'Em pool...one week's win will pay for my whole season's buy-in, dammit. Apparently, to even be in it, you can incorrectly pick AT MOST 2 games per week...the closest I've come is 3 incorrect.


BUTTTTTTTT...in the Last Man Standing, which is worth 775 big ones to The Winner, I am one of 4 remaining, with only 1 strike (2 strikes, you're out). Out of the four of us remaining, 3 of us are in the same boat...only 1 person has 0 strikes so far.

I took Denver this week (playing in Oakland); it looks like most people in these types of pools are taking Baltimore...so MAYBE a couple of more can get knocked out?!?


Mama needs new shoes...

I Microsoft's Eric Michelman.




He invented the first scrolling mouse.

I've had similar experiences: my first husband had male friends and family members who were 'jealous' of his relationship with me; my next LTR had male friends who missed his *playa* ways when going out and hitting on women once he settled down with me; my last LTR's brothers were ALL jealous of our relationship, especially when their marriages began disintegrating.

MY empirical data has NOT allowed me to draw the irrefutable conclusion, "Ergo, [all] men are."

Again, it's all based on one's point of view; it's best to keep it IN its perspective.

Which, since by your own admission, gay relationships are made up of two of the same sex...

...it PROVES that 'jealousy' is NOT a gender-based trait, which completely destroys the argument you're trying to make.



Oh. I see.


~Carry on~

Regardless of what you're talking about, it doesn't change the response I'd written;


people will believe that whoever it is THEY deal with the most, most intimately, are the ones *most* guilty of whatever the *bad* behavior/trait is.

'Tis human nature.






P.S. You DID ask us what WE think, riiiiight? Or, is my browser acting up, again?

Oh, my!!! I missed a thread in which I was mentioned in a positive light?!?


Awwww, thank you, green!!! Rightbackatcha!!!