How hard is it to find a boyfriend during med school or residency??

[SpecterGT260]

Fish-legs or no-voice? wait wait wait.... that is an obvious choice....

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[FloatingheadMD]

Well, I suppose I'll weigh in on this. Due to their natural disposition and intelligence, it's obvious that women will always make much better doctors than men, and so you'll probably have no problem finding a date. Men are always willing to have sex. Match that need for sex with your already-better medical mind, and you're irresistible! Any woman in med school has her pick of a husband. The problem is finding one that's actually worth it.

 

[Knocked Up]

^^^Strong first post

 

[mvenus929]

And online dating isn't a terrible medium for finding dates either.

Eh... it might be the site I'm on, or the area that I'm in, but the vast majority of the profiles I've seen are note guys I'd be interested in. Probably because I have insanely high standards (age and education are the two biggest), but there it is.

That said, there are at least 2 other people in my class on this dating site, and a handful from the other classes as well. So, it's a relatively common practice. Our school also has a lot of inbreeding, so if you didn't snatch up someone during the first few months of med school, your chances of finding someone dropped precipitously.

rejection always sucks.

A wise woman once told me that if someone tells you no, you've lost nothing. After all, you didn't have it before, and you don't have it now, so you're still in the same position. And eventually, someone will say yes.

Girls have it easy. They just relax and wait for someone to ask them out.

Except when people don't ask them out

Unless you're a >9/10 and I know >90% I'm getting laid, I wouldn't even talk to a girl that has such a personality. I don't mind paying for dinner if I'm getting laid, I mean guys pay 3-4x as much for hookers so it's a pretty good deal... But ideally, if this is how you like to think and act, expect to be used up sexually every time (that is if you're even attractive) and then left.

I've offered to pay on a couple of dates before, and the guys looked at me like I was nuts. So clearly not all guys have the same mentality towards paying as you do.

Personally, I'd be more comfortable with a 'hidden' cost of a date... renting a movie and making dinner or something. I feel uncomfortable when people spend money on me.

 

[deleted393595]

I think good girls are even harder to find. I agree; be proactive.

Yo no comprendo.

 

[Tatiana3325]

Well, I suppose I'll weigh in on this. Due to their natural disposition and intelligence, it's obvious that women will always make much better doctors than men, and so you'll probably have no problem finding a date. Men are always willing to have sex. Match that need for sex with your already-better medical mind, and you're irresistible! Any woman in med school has her pick of a husband. The problem is finding one that's actually worth it.

Love this

 

[Knocked Up]

Eh... it might be the site I'm on, or the area that I'm in, but the vast majority of the profiles I've seen are note guys I'd be interested in. Probably because I have insanely high standards (age and education are the two biggest), but there it is.

Does this include having a higher MCAT/and or/Step score than you. If so, I'm afraid you will be lonely for quite some time.

Note: I don't know if you have taken the Boards yet, but I just glanced at your Mdapps and I am already intimidated by you

 

[dbeast]

Well, I suppose I'll weigh in on this. Due to their natural disposition and intelligence, it's obvious that women will always make much better doctors than men, and so you'll probably have no problem finding a date. Men are always willing to have sex. Match that need for sex with your already-better medical mind, and you're irresistible! Any woman in med school has her pick of a husband. The problem is finding one that's actually worth it.

Will you be my girlfriend? Your confidence is sexy and you have hypnotized my inferior mind...

 

[druggeek]

I've offered to pay on a couple of dates before, and the guys looked at me like I was nuts. So clearly not all guys have the same mentality towards paying as you do.



Personally, I'd be more comfortable with a 'hidden' cost of a date... renting a movie and making dinner or something. I feel uncomfortable when people spend money on me.

lol cause most dudes in society are beta whiteknights.

 

[druggeek]

Well, I suppose I'll weigh in on this. Due to their natural disposition and intelligence, it's obvious that women will always make much better doctors than men, and so you'll probably have no problem finding a date. Men are always willing to have sex. Match that need for sex with your already-better medical mind, and you're irresistible! Any woman in med school has her pick of a husband. The problem is finding one that's actually worth it.

the best part: women making better doctors

explosive laughters were had.

 

[FloatingheadMD]

Will you be my girlfriend? Your confidence is sexy and you have hypnotized my inferior mind...

Do I detect a bit of sarcasm? No thanks, anyway, I don't want to make you worried about having to equate a date with an offer to pay for sex, etc.

 

[EBTrailRunner]

I kid. No one kill me.

 

[FloatingheadMD]

the best part: women making better doctors

explosive laughters were had.

Laughters? You had more than one? Oh, well that's good. I enjoy the sound of a good, solid male laugh. It's one of the things you guys contribute to the medical atmosphere.

 

[TheMightySmiter]

We were having a lovely conversation about Disney characters, now things are just getting off-topic.

 

[druggeek]

Laughters? You had more than one? Oh, well that's good. I enjoy the sound of a good, solid male laugh. It's one of the things you guys contribute to the medical atmosphere.

Except most of medicine exists only due to men.

 

[flodhi1]

This thread is getting some hardcore attention.

 

[deleted103644]

Except most of medicine exists only due to men.

Haha, so much over-compensation.

I need to refrain from making assumptions about what you're compensating for...

Who cares about intelligence in medicine? I'm not sure if you've realized this yet, but it's not that difficult of a subject. Lots of memorization, sure, but none of it requires deep thought (for that, look at something like math or theoretical physics).

On some level, we're just plumbers/mechanics. Truly brilliant people are wasted in medicine, they should focus on things like genomics and quantum computing.

 

[TheMightySmiter]

On some level, we're just plumbers/mechanics. Truly brilliant people are wasted in medicine, they should focus on things like genomics and quantum computing.

Haha, I'm trying to imagine Sheldon Cooper, MD.

 

[deleted103644]

Haha, I'm trying to imagine Sheldon Cooper, MD.

Precisely.

 

[druggeek]

Haha, so much over-compensation.

I need to refrain from making assumptions about what you're compensating for...

Who cares about intelligence in medicine? I'm not sure if you've realized this yet, but it's not that difficult of a subject. Lots of memorization, sure, but none of it requires deep thought (for that, look at something like math or theoretical physics).

On some level, we're just plumbers/mechanics. Truly brilliant people are wasted in medicine, they should focus on things like genomics and quantum computing.

0 relevance to what I said but... you clearly dont know much about more complex cases to say intelligence doesnt matter. You should read that thread about the frauds who are in medicine... if intelligence didnt matter, that guy would have been an average doctor right? but he was nowhere remotely close.

while you're right about not needing a 150 IQ to be an excellent doctor, I can bet pretty much every top notch doctor is of gifted intelligence (>98th percentile)... and subject difficulty does not dictate performance levels.

 

[deleted103644]

0 relevance to what I said but... you clearly dont know much about more complex cases to say intelligence doesnt matter. You should read that thread about the frauds who are in medicine... if intelligence didnt matter, that guy would have been an average doctor right? but he was nowhere remotely close.

while you're right about not needing a 150 IQ to be an excellent doctor, I can bet pretty much every top notch doctor is of gifted intelligence (>98th percentile)... and subject difficulty does not dictate performance levels.

Anyone with an IQ > 100 can be a doctor. Anyone with > 120 can get a 250 on Step I with the right prep. Yes, that's a minority of people, but a big minority.

My definition of gifted is different from yours, but admittedly I've been around some truly gifted people.

People are usually sued for cutting corners or having poor bedside manner. It's rarely an issue of ignorance, it's usually a combination of procedural irregularity and poor bedside manner (patients usually don't sue doctors they like).

 

[druggeek]

Anyone with an IQ > 100 can be a doctor. Anyone with > 120 can get a 250 on Step I with the right prep. Yes, that's a minority of people, but a big minority.

My definition of gifted is different from yours, but admittedly I've been around some truly gifted people.

People are usually sued for cutting corners or having poor bedside manner. It's rarely an issue of ignorance, it's usually a combination of procedural irregularity and poor bedside manner (patients usually don't sue doctors they like).

Yes.... intelligence doesnt matter, it's all memorization

http://www.thestar.com/news/article...octor-vows-to-fight-bid-to-revoke-his-licence





You need an IQ >100 just to be in university brah. Since the average person doesnt even attend university... let alone pre med... let alone med school I think your standards are incredibly low.

 

[deleted103644]

Yes.... intelligence doesnt matter, it's all memorization

http://www.thestar.com/news/article...octor-vows-to-fight-bid-to-revoke-his-licence





You need an IQ >100 just to be in university brah. Since the average person doesnt even attend university... let alone pre med... let alone med school I think your standards are incredibly low.

Did you read your link? It's about someone accused of Medicare fraud for lying about graduating.

I'm doubting you're in medical school. If you were, you'd know it's almost all memorization with a handful of simple formulas thrown in for good measure.

You can't be an idiot, but there are better places for the truly gifted. (Admittedly, I would probably put at least half the population in the idiot category.)

 

[druggeek]

Did you read your link? It's about someone accused of Medicare fraud for lying about graduating.

I'm doubting you're in medical school. If you were, you'd know it's almost all memorization with a handful of simple formulas thrown in for good measure.

You can't be an idiot, but there are better places for the truly gifted. (Admittedly, I would probably put at least half the population in the idiot category.)

Yea I did, but clearly you didnt cause you missed the part about him constantly being fired from everywhere due to incompetence and poor performance. Not to mention 9 years to finish med school...

No one said it's not memorization... But being to apply the info. to complex/rare cases and differentiate between multiple different diseases, takes a high level of intelligence. If not, you end up as the average family doc treating colds (and even they have above average intelligence).

 

[MiracleforMD]

*bunch of stupid *****

You're slowly becoming my least favorite poster.

 

[tantacles]

You're slowly becoming my least favorite poster.

Slowly? Catch up.

This thread sucks.

 

[Bacchus]

I resisted for 377 posts... now I read posts 351-377. No more. Blah.

 

[sliceofbread136]

I resisted for 377 posts... now I read posts 351-377. No more. Blah.

Hurry up and close!!!!

 

[el poblano]

You need an IQ >100 just to be in university brah...

... But are limited to a maximum IQ of 80 to use the word 'brah' in a sentence.

Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk

 

[tantacles]

... But are limited to a maximum IQ of 80 to use the word 'brah' in a sentence.

Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk

Though notably, if you're from Hawaii, you can say "aloha, broha!" with impunity.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Well, I suppose I'll weigh in on this. Due to their natural disposition and intelligence, it's obvious that women will always make much better doctors than men, and so you'll probably have no problem finding a date. Men are always willing to have sex. Match that need for sex with your already-better medical mind, and you're irresistible! Any woman in med school has her pick of a husband. The problem is finding one that's actually worth it.

people who are spewing utter crap have a tendency to overuse words like "obviously" (1:30) because it adds a tone of confidence to otherwise completely uncertain and unsubstantiated statements.

It is not obvious. Simply saying it is does not make it so. Relying on subconscious rhetoric to make a point you otherwise cannot, in my opinion (see how that is done?), is fairly indicative of ones intelligence.


yes, I know this poster is a troll and probably not an actual resident

 

[SpecterGT260]

Laughters? You had more than one? Oh, well that's good. I enjoy the sound of a good, solid male laugh. It's one of the things you guys contribute to the medical atmosphere.

you get snarky about an offhanded use of a word and then post this?

You do realize that, technically speaking, your statement does not imply a limited male impact on medicine, correct? "one of the things"..... leaves the topic open for a great number of other things. Did you mean "one of the only things" so to keep consistent with your earlier trolling?

 

[SunsFun]

Well, I suppose I'll weigh in on this. Due to their natural disposition and intelligence, it's obvious that women will always make much better doctors than men.

False. Men who are midgets make best doctors. Shame on you for not knowing it.

 

[SunsFun]

But being to apply the info. to complex/rare cases and differentiate between multiple different diseases, takes a high level of intelligence. If not, you end up as the average family doc treating colds (and even they have above average intelligence).

Oh great. Thanks for letting me know for a second there I thought I had to be just as smart as any other guy with an MD or DO to become a family doctor. Now I know that my sub-par intelligence will not be a problem.

 

[FloatingheadMD]

people who are spewing utter crap have a tendency to overuse words like "obviously" (1:30) because it adds a tone of confidence to otherwise completely uncertain and unsubstantiated statements.

It is not obvious. Simply saying it is does not make it so. Relying on subconscious rhetoric to make a point you otherwise cannot, in my opinion (see how that is done?), is fairly indicative of ones intelligence.


yes, I know this poster is a troll and probably not an actual resident

If you're so knowledgeable about rhetoric, which I find very difficult to believe after having slogged through your reasoning, you might have noticed the intentional use of rhetorical hyperbole. I can explain it now, if you like; hyperbole is exaggeration which illustrates an idea. Men in medicine get away with opinions like the one I stated all the time.

My assertions about the dominance of women in the medical field are no more ridiculous or unsubstantiated than the similar assertions of men here.

Regarding your other post,

As I stated above, my first post was hyperbole. The responses to it, however, were rude and pedantic.I was "snarky" responding to "snark." Also, the fact that you felt the need to write in "one of the only things" for me, trying to correct what you assume is my "agenda" here, is rather interesting. No, I didn't mean to write that. Men contribute many things to medicine, and I'm glad that I have a chance to work beside many excellent males. Your own need to post twice regarding one "unsubstantiated" poster speaks volumes about your insecurity, however. Thanks for sharing

 

[Hipster]

The more attractive you are, the more likely a guy will ask you out..


Haha jk its all about your personalities, ladies

 

[JOHNNYCAGE]

Lots of bitter people up in here, but at least no ones missing the point of this thread.

 

[poshdoctor]

Well, I suppose I'll weigh in on this. Due to their natural disposition and intelligence, it's obvious that women will always make much better doctors than men, and so you'll probably have no problem finding a date. Men are always willing to have sex. Match that need for sex with your already-better medical mind, and you're irresistible! Any woman in med school has her pick of a husband. The problem is finding one that's actually worth it.

too strong of a first post...must not be very familiar with SDN. What residency are you in? You seem like troll......

 

[FloatingheadMD]

too strong of a first post...must not be very familiar with SDN. What residency are you in? You seem like troll......

You're right about not being too familiar, haha. Was just referred here by a friend I work with in reference to this post. I've been looking around and it seems like a pretty good resource for medical students, though. Wish I'd found it sooner! I'm a little hesitant to post my exact residency here, but I'm in the northwest.

 

[SpecterGT260]

If you're so knowledgeable about rhetoric, which I find very difficult to believe after having slogged through your reasoning, you might have noticed the intentional use of rhetorical hyperbole. I can explain it now, if you like; hyperbole is exaggeration which illustrates an idea. Men in medicine get away with opinions like the one I stated all the time.

My assertions about the dominance of women in the medical field are no more ridiculous or unsubstantiated than the similar assertions of men here.

Regarding your other post,

As I stated above, my first post was hyperbole. The responses to it, however, were rude and pedantic.I was "snarky" responding to "snark." Also, the fact that you felt the need to write in "one of the only things" for me, trying to correct what you assume is my "agenda" here, is rather interesting. No, I didn't mean to write that. Men contribute many things to medicine, and I'm glad that I have a chance to work beside many excellent males. Your own need to post twice regarding one "unsubstantiated" poster speaks volumes about your insecurity, however. Thanks for sharing

does it now? We simply arent acknowledging the possibility of someone responding through a thread chronologically as he reads, hmmmm? The logic was sound. If you admit to "slogging" through it then we are somewhat admitting a personal struggle now, aren't we? If it was rhetorical hyperbole - fine. It came across as trolling (and I, personally, still think it was). Regardless I stand by my post in spite of the assertions of some random "resident" out there on the other end of the interweb. People who want to promote an agenda that has no real substantiation will tend to use words like "obviously" and "clearly" in order to ward off criticism.
"Well gee, Frank... I bet this chick knows what she's talking about. Apparently these facts were obvious!"

I didn't write something in for you. I asked if it was what you meant since the statement made didn't flow with the first post. Taken at face value... the statement is pretty nonsensical. "Males add male laughter to the field of medicine"; is that somehow notable? They also add chin stubble.... although admittedly men do not always corner the market in this particular area .

Also... I didn't say you were an unsubstantiated poster. I don't even really know what that would mean..... are you hungry? there really isnt a good fit for that one. The claim was unsubstantiated - lacking concrete evidence. Reading

For the record, IMO statements like "____ is rather interesting" goes along the same lines of my first response to you. It isnt particularly interesting. You just say so in order to make a passive-aggressive jab. My little sister does that too. Cute. Maybe it is my rampant insecurity talking but it gives me the feeling you just don't have anything to say on the matter.

 

[SpecterGT260]

double post to make sure I don't make you a liar.

 

[FloatingheadMD]

does it now? We simply arent acknowledging the possibility of someone responding through a thread chronologically as he reads, hmmmm? The logic was sound. If you admit to "slogging" through it then we are somewhat admitting a personal struggle now, aren't we? If it was rhetorical hyperbole - fine. It came across as trolling (and I, personally, still think it was). Regardless I stand by my post in spite of the assertions of some random "resident" out there on the other end of the interweb. People who want to promote an agenda that has no real substantiation will tend to use words like "obviously" and "clearly" in order to ward off criticism.
"Well gee, Frank... I bet this chick knows what she's talking about. Apparently these facts were obvious!"

I didn't write something in for you. I asked if it was what you meant since the statement made didn't flow with the first post. Taken at face value... the statement is pretty nonsensical. "Males add male laughter to the field of medicine"; is that somehow notable? They also add chin stubble.... although admittedly men do not always corner the market in this particular area .

Also... I didn't say you were an unsubstantiated poster. I don't even really know what that would mean..... are you hungry? there really isnt a good fit for that one. The claim was unsubstantiated - lacking concrete evidence. Reading

For the record, IMO statements like "____ is rather interesting" goes along the same lines of my first response to you. It isnt particularly interesting. You just say so in order to make a passive-aggressive jab. My little sister does that too. Cute. Maybe it is my rampant insecurity talking but it gives me the feeling you just don't have anything to say on the matter.

My, my, my. Ever so defensive. Briefly:

1. "Obviously" was used in my first post, to effect hyperbole. We've been over this, remember? It wasn't a serious argument.
2. My second post didn't "flow" because it wasn't exaggeration like my first post, merely a shallow statement following several shallow jokes about women in medicine.
3. I believe you criticized me earlier for nitpicking about incorrect writing. Hypocritical, much? Don't make me highlight all of your grammatical and typographical errors. I really don't have the time.
4. I took an interest, and still do, in your need to keep affirming your superiority. Hence, "interesting." Reading

"My assertions about the dominance of women in the medical field are no more ridiculous or unsubstantiated than the similar assertions of men here." Did you happen to read that part, or were you too busy looking up trolling on Wikipedia? Have you made any worthwhile contributions with these posts? I was trying to make a point about what I've seen so far on this forum. You've basically been trying, somewhat poorly, to discredit me without actually engaging my main point. Who's the troll now, SpecterGT260?

 

[alerk323]

 

[SpecterGT260]

My, my, my. Ever so defensive. Briefly:

1. "Obviously" was used in my first post, to effect hyperbole. We've been over this, remember? It wasn't a serious argument.
2. My second post didn't "flow" because it wasn't exaggeration like my first post, merely a shallow statement following several shallow jokes about women in medicine.
3. I believe you criticized me earlier for nitpicking about incorrect writing. Hypocritical, much? Don't make me highlight all of your grammatical and typographical errors. I really don't have the time.
4. I took an interest, and still do, in your need to keep affirming your superiority. Hence, "interesting." Reading

"My assertions about the dominance of women in the medical field are no more ridiculous or unsubstantiated than the similar assertions of men here." Did you happen to read that part, or were you too busy looking up trolling on Wikipedia? Have you made any worthwhile contributions with these posts? I was trying to make a point about what I've seen so far on this forum. You've basically been trying, somewhat poorly, to discredit me without actually engaging my main point. Who's the troll now, SpecterGT260?

Ordered respectively:

1) I didnt say it was a serious argument made by you. "rhetorical hyperbole- fine". that happened in the post you quoted. When I originally posted I didn't think you'd be back at all. I was saying that such rhetoric is a common device used by people making unsubstantiated claims. I'm gunna say it again because we cannot seem to make points here without you making it all about you (psh.... women, amirite?)

2) if you look at what I wrote, I wasnt contesting that or claiming anything you are trying to attack me for here. I was just clarifying that I didn't add that statement in for you - I asked if it was what you meant . Once again: reading

3) this one is going to get a little silly... I wasn't attacking you for your use of grammar. I was calling you a hypocrite for calling someone else out on the premise that you were a troll and you said something careless while attacking someone else for saying something careless. So nope, not hypocritical at all I can tell you not to call someone out for typographical errors while also being guilty of a few myself without being a hypocrite. (please do not reiterate that what you wrote was not an error or I will be forced to imply that reading is important with something less subtle than a thumbs up.... we are discussing past events and motivations for past events. Citing them here in no way demonstrates a misunderstanding of your intent....)

4) I have to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you arent actually dumb enough to think I would link a definition I had to look up myself in this context. So I will chalk it up to another passive-aggressive jab. Calm down, I will get you your dolly . Nowhere since the first post was your intent misunderstood so please stop repeating yourself (see point three for rationale). And the only reason that was misunderstood is because you came in with 1 post with guns a-blazing. To be frank, I was left assuming that you are either a troll, or unaware of what trolling is due to being relatively new to online communities so I linked it for your benefit . It probably looks to you that my attempts to discredit you are poor.... but that is because I am not trying to do that I can see how you might think that since you keep repeating that you were using hyperbole. But now that (hopefully) you understand that I am not and have not been arguing that with you, try to go back and find my real meaning in there

your "first point" as you claim it now is just fine. I agree with you. If you fail to see how poorly executed it was then I feel a little bad for you. The rest of this is just a response to some chicky in hipster glasses who comes in here with a massive chip on her shoulder (whether that is you or not is irrelevant... it is what I picture on the other side of the screen).


EDIT: that part where I tell you to go back and read - go from the point of view that I was explaining the motivating factors and not arguing that the motivating factors had to be true. Hope that helps

 

[FloatingheadMD]

Ordered respectively:

1) I didnt say it was a serious argument made by you. "rhetorical hyperbole- fine". that happened in the post you quoted. When I originally posted I didn't think you'd be back at all. I was saying that such rhetoric is a common device used by people making unsubstantiated claims. I'm gunna say it again because we cannot seem to make points here without you making it all about you (psh.... women, amirite?)

2) if you look at what I wrote, I wasnt contesting that or claiming anything you are trying to attack me for here. I was just clarifying that I didn't add that statement in for you - I asked if it was what you meant . Once again: reading

3) this one is going to get a little silly... I wasn't attacking you for your use of grammar. I was calling you a hypocrite for calling someone else out on the premise that you were a troll and you said something careless while attacking someone else for saying something careless. So nope, not hypocritical at all I can tell you not to call someone out for typographical errors while also being guilty of a few myself without being a hypocrite. (please do not reiterate that what you wrote was not an error or I will be forced to imply that reading is important with something less subtle than a thumbs up.... we are discussing past events and motivations for past events. Citing them here in no way demonstrates a misunderstanding of your intent....)

4) I have to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you arent actually dumb enough to think I would link a definition I had to look up myself in this context. So I will chalk it up to another passive-aggressive jab. Calm down, I will get you your dolly . Nowhere since the first post was your intent misunderstood so please stop repeating yourself (see point three for rationale). And the only reason that was misunderstood is because you came in with 1 post with guns a-blazing. To be frank, I was left assuming that you are either a troll, or unaware of what trolling is due to being relatively new to online communities so I linked it for your benefit . It probably looks to you that my attempts to discredit you are poor.... but that is because I am not trying to do that I can see how you might think that since you keep repeating that you were using hyperbole. But now that (hopefully) you understand that I am not and have not been arguing that with you, try to go back and find my real meaning in there

your "first point" as you claim it now is just fine. I agree with you. If you fail to see how poorly executed it was then I feel a little bad for you. The rest of this is just a response to some chicky in hipster glasses who comes in here with a massive chip on her shoulder (whether that is you or not is irrelevant... it is what I picture on the other side of the screen).


EDIT: that part where I tell you to go back and read - go from the point of view that I was explaining the motivating factors and not arguing that the motivating factors had to be true. Hope that helps

(I think you may have missed that I bolded the parts to which I was responding, respectively, in my last post.)

1.What do you even mean here? It's like 8 red herrings in a row. It's a school of red herrings.
2.Why did you care at all about "clarifying" what you supposed to be my jab at males in medicine? Seems silly.
3.I was talking about your "fix" to my "unsubstantiated poster" comment. You misunderstood. Also, is there a line for hypocrite/non-hypocrite of which I'm unaware? Apparently there's a kind of gray area.
4.This is no way responds to my #4...did you misread something?

Your portrayal of yourself as somehow picking apart my argument (which you misunderstood to begin with) and explaining my "motivating factors" is laughable. If you weren't trying to discredit me, what have you been doing besides wasting everyone's time by ignoring what I actually said?

You first decided that it was your duty to explain my "subconscious rhetoric," then to condemn my post to another forum member. What you've done since then is mostly attempt passive aggressive jabs about my passive-aggressive jabs, insult women and my intelligence repeatedly, and talk about your little sister (who almost surely has more sense than you do).

At least you keep illustrating my point for me. Men on here really will take any chance to degrade women.

PS- Does it make you feel big and strong to assure me you'll bring me "my dolly?" Good luck working with any real people out there. I'm sure you've got a great bedside manner.

 

[SpecterGT260]

I was responding to your numbered list. Not what you emboldened 4 was in response to the last part under your 4 I guess. (again... this is giving you the benefit of the doubt... I feel like you are smart enough to follow that.... so I suspect this is a lame straw-grasping attempt to drive home your previous jabs?)

As a blanket response to everything you just said - if you wanna split hairs, I will split hairs. If we wanna take jabs I will take jabs. It is no skin off my back. The point is, the reason I originally posted to you was to call you out as a troll. If you are unable to take that default point of view and follow the responses I've made since, then that is a little embarrassing for you (even more if you cant figure out why that is embarrassing).

But this isn't about degrading women. You are being an overly confrontational shrew. If you want to jump at any opportunity for miscommunication to disregard what I am saying that's fine. I mean... it takes no intellectual ability to do so, but if that is the path you wish to take that is fine. This is mostly about meeting you on the same confrontational ground you entered in. So again, it is not about taking jabs at women... it is about pushing YOUR buttons

I think women are great. I just think the ones that are busy acting like every man is out to belittle them and play grab-ass are just as silly as the ones who bat their eyes and play dumb for attention - both of you accentuate gender lines. I have too many important things to deal with to take your over-inflated opinions on gender issues seriously. The back-and-forth is fun though. "you missplaced a comma! everything you said must be invalid!"

re.S. No. I draw my feelings of self-confidence and self-esteem from non-internet related activities. But I would be lying if I said I didn't smile a little bit when you illustrated how hard that comment stuck in your craw

 

[dbeast]

 

[tantacles]

dbeast, right on.

 

[FloatingheadMD]

I was responding to your numbered list. Not what you emboldened 4 was in response to the last part under your 4 I guess. (again... this is giving you the benefit of the doubt... I feel like you are smart enough to follow that.... so I suspect this is a lame straw-grasping attempt to drive home your previous jabs?)

As a blanket response to everything you just said - if you wanna split hairs, I will split hairs. If we wanna take jabs I will take jabs. It is no skin off my back. The point is, the reason I originally posted to you was to call you out as a troll. If you are unable to take that default point of view and follow the responses I've made since, then that is a little embarrassing for you (even more if you cant figure out why that is embarrassing).

But this isn't about degrading women. You are being an overly confrontational shrew. If you want to jump at any opportunity for miscommunication to disregard what I am saying that's fine. I mean... it takes no intellectual ability to do so, but if that is the path you wish to take that is fine. This is mostly about meeting you on the same confrontational ground you entered in. So again, it is not about taking jabs at women... it is about pushing YOUR buttons

I think women are great. I just think the ones that are busy acting like every man is out to belittle them and play grab-ass are just as silly as the ones who bat their eyes and play dumb for attention - both of you accentuate gender lines. I too many important things to deal with to take your over-inflated opinions on gender issues seriously. The back-and-forth is fun though. "you missplaced a comma! everything you said must be invalid!"

re.S. No. I draw my feelings of self-confidence and self-esteem from non-internet related activities. But I would be lying if I said I didn't smile a little bit when you illustrated how hard that comment stuck in your craw

Ah, I see. You're just pointing out why it was ridiculous for me to post what I did as a response to all of the neanderthal comments in this thread. I understand now. Is this where I write "lolz, women are emotional, so I'm sorry I got so worked up?"

As for pushing my buttons, it seems I've pushed yours. Who has posted more material in this little exchange? Although, to be fair, it takes you quite a few words to make your "points."

By the way, I still think it's hilarious that you "agreed" with my point about men making extremely sexist comments on this forum...right after making extremely sexist comments on this forum.

 

[SpecterGT260]

I cant stop giggling at this pic