hate to say it but you prettymuch summed it up right there. You have no time for anyone, really, because you can't even begin to find the right person when you do have a chance to be out in the open.

her head. Really a good head of hair is the first thing I see.

eh still sounds like reading in too closely to whats actually said vs whats actually meant.
And FYI, many "nice guys" are pushed to the point where its too much effort to continue that path.

There are no good people or bad people. Everyone lives in between.

When I say "nice" I generally meant comforting, inviting, attentive, well mannered.

From now on, people have to earn their way in tho.

Whatever you say. Then again, your not arguing with him on an internet forum. Jersey imho is just a pain. I've met girls that were messed up in the head, who hid it pretty well. I've met girls that were looking for the "nice guys" (their words) who settled on skinny drug addicts that basically did everything I wouldn't (**** and run), and everyone else seems way too guarded or has grandiose delusions of who they'd like to date that they never find.

I'm looking forward to leaving.

I'm used to dealing with dense Jersey girls, give me a break here. If you look anything short of some skinny fist-pumping idiot you're judged like some creep.

If your going to try and read into an internet thread alone off how "nice" you think somebody is rather than actually talking to the person, you may as well not even put the effort into judging to begin with.

Wow, its a Good thing I'm not wrong :D. I don't think its cool to prompt a whole argument that expands a thread by three pages because someone can't be bothered to read legit details on part of a DISCUSSION.


Possibly. But I do know that I've filled my quota of kissing @$$ all the time for many years; its time I see return on my investment. To date, there's been none.


Sounds like your going to take matterz of teh internetz more importantly than having actual conversations with people. In that regard, you and I wouldn't work to begin with.

I've played the nice guy many times. And time after time, its failed. Clear enough?

Yes that is statistically correct


Naw, couldn't be. After all, I'm a man, I'm wrong on all fronts to begin with.


Let me guess... you're a nice guy, too?


I used to be; as of late I'm not sure.


This is not a matter of onus. Actually, that concept should not even be in the thought process. What I'm trying to communicate is, how the hell is someone supposed to find "the one" when they censor every other person from the simple common respect of communication. There's no rule that you have to be all over some guy simply because you engaged or allowed him to engage you in conversation. But it seems like everyone accepts it as kosher to just give the **** off signals to move onto "the next one".



You clearly ignore it any time its brought up, therefore one would see it as intentional.

Its fascinating really that you pull the punches and then talk about what the thread subject is. I didn't post this to start off with:

My response to the OP was that many women draw "the line" really quickly with guys they meet. It should be well known that men communicate better through physical attention than words, and that women communicate better through words than they do with physical attention. So my point, as harshly as I put it, was its silly to cut men off so quickly. This developed into conversation about how messaging actually becomes irrelevant with women, as most men are not chosen for the words they choose, rather their physical appearance.

That your in absolute denial of the fact that about 50% of threads we see hitting the dating and relationships forum here are posters sharing problems they're having dating, or sorting out their partners. That should be an indicator alone that not all is right with the dating scene.

But yet you press on, "no, just because you share opinions doesn't make it fact."

There ARE posters that have difficulties similar to mine that have not gotten involved.

You sound like an Obama supporter: "hey, we made it from an active economy to a stagnant economy; thats 'change' indeed!!"

I shared happierabroad.com with you. Yet STILL that went over your head.

So really, if your going to be ignorant, then it really doesn't help to post information for you to learn anything. Because it really seems like out of all of us that you must have the most perfect relationships ever.

bhernandez=reading fail.

The fact you ignore any outside site I've posted shows you know I'm right.

The relevance speaks for itself. Guys can sit and write 20 different messages to 20 different girls, only to find that most don't even bother reading, or delete, and if the guy's lucky, he'll find one response out of it. A girl shows cleavage in a picture, bang, done deal.

Any comment a girl makes about "not being able to find a guy" purposefully leaves out that she's receiving email, yet she censors the men that she'll allow to converse with her at all.

Naw, couldn't be. After all, I'm a man, I'm wrong on all fronts to begin with.

Whatever you say. All I'm after is stopping the spread of ignorance that people seem to prefer to find refuge in. If there was any knowledge applied in bhernandez's posts, she'd recognize that simply because of her gender she's bound to receive five times more messaging minimum on any online dating site compared to men.

YOU are the one stating I generalize an entire sex. I never made a universal judgment.

Just answer the question: why would happier abroad exist if there were nothing wrong?

This isn't about score, its about shaking the shell from fragile minds that can't bear the idea of waking up so they can toughen up from self-education.

You may want to put your thinking cap on REAL TIGHT to consider why a site like THIS would exist:
http://www.happierabroad.com/

I'm perfectly calm. You're honestly going to try to make the assertion that because there's no information published on the state of the dating scene that a guy whose experience in the scene has been 3/4 rejection that he's wrong?