iouswuoibev
-
Posts
392 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by iouswuoibev
-
-
Actually, I was just about to say something similar. The people who think the "fourth best smile" line is an insult are missing the point,
How does this follow? Where on earth did I say that I didn't understand? I stated that I would find it an insult (though I didn't specify how I would react, if at all) and you draw the conclusion that I didn't understand what your post was saying, and was doubting its accuracy. Why?
I have no doubt these things have worked for you, Don. But the behaviour you suggest us men should adopt exhibit certain character traits that will only appeal to particular kinds of women (perhaps the majority). If I said that to a woman, and she was intelligent and reflective, she'd think I'm an arrogant bastard with an attitude one acquires from having an abundance (or excess) of women in their life (each one just as unimportant as the next). If she's turned on by it, then she's daft, horny and probably sleeps around just as much as I would be doing.
And that too I understood.They are interpreting it literally. They are thinking about what the words communicate rather than what they *subcommunicate*. Stop looking at what's happening on the surface and look at the underlying meaning of the interaction.Then you need to relax, dude.That depends on the context. If my loving wife (were I married) told me I had the fourth best smile, I'd be pretty damned mad about it. Wouldn't you?
There are some situations where such a thing wouldn't matter to me, say for instance if I flirted with 40 women in a single night, on a regular basis, and one woman says it.
When you're in contact with that many different people, what one person says or does ceases to matter. And should you sleep with one of them, the act of sex also ceases to matter. This applies both to men and women. If a woman isn't offended when I say she has the fourth best smile, it isn't because she is self-confident, it is because she sleeps around and she draws her self-worth from the collective amount of men in her life. Why would I want to attract such a woman? Do you agree that sex is an effect and not a cause?
You do not attract a girl by laying out a logical case. You can't say, "You value this, this, and that, and I am this, this, and that. Therefore, feel attracted to me." Just as in fiction, you must show, not tell, so in attraction you have to demonstrate your attractive characteristics, not tell her what they are. And you demonstrate them through subcommunication.I'd be interested to know what you think prevents a man from subcommunicating his attractive characteristics. I believe that, if a man is a certain way, his character will show in whatever way it can. If a man seems meek and supplicating, then he is, and if a man seems smart and confident, then he is. It is nigh impossible to fake your character, and to do so is dishonest.
If a man fails to subcommunicate his positive characteristics, maybe it is because they can't be subcommunicated. Only superifical surface traits can be subcommunicated, and if a woman deems me fit to sleep with in less than an hour based on some "subcommunication" then she is indiscriminate and doesn't care about what the person might be like underneath. Do you think the women you flirt with truly understand and appreciate you? I care about ALL character traits in a prospective partner, and I care that the woman I'm with cares. Do the women you meet care about these things? (That is an honest question, not a rhetorical one, by the way).
And it is not off-topic to discuss and question that choice.You also need to keep your emotions and opinions to yourself: they are off topic here. I'm telling guys things I KNOW will help them get girls. Whether they take my advice is their choice.But in neither case does anyone care about how you imagine you would react to any of these lines.I never mentioned what my reaction would be. And please, speak only for yourself. Nobody else has said whether they care or not.
No one here is trying to pick YOU up!I wasn't advertising myself, if that is what you thought. I can't imagine why else you'd say this.
EDIT: I meant 40 a week, not 40 a day.
-
That's great. Thanks for sharing your opinion. Now go out in the field and test it. Evidence, friends.
Test what? That wasn't an opinion I was expressing; I WOULD be offended (or at least regard it as an insult).
-
Yes, I can certainly see how insulting a woman is really going to turn her on. There's probably enough auxiliary doubt going through anyone's mind at different times in their life that they probably aren't looking for additional reasons to question their self-esteem. I understand this is supposed to be an attempt at humor, and not necessarily to be taken literally, but must you really direct it to this new person? This would probably be safer once you know the girl more, but to a relative stranger? Perhaps humor is best when it's something you both can identify with, and not just a disguised ribbing.
Once again, stop telling us what you THINK works. I’m telling you what DOES work. Objectivism tells us that we should base our views on evidence, not guesswork. Well, I have the evidence to back up my claims that the things I advocate work. Where’s yours? P.S. That line is not an insult. It's playful.
In retrospect, though, I too would find it insulting if a woman told me that I had the fourth best smile...
-
Could you specify some of these reoccuring patterns?
You did, where you have written about the things that women will respond to.
Emotions can be pre-conceptual (i.e. they can involve no explicltly identified concepts) but they do embody an evaluation.This seems compatible with what I've learned, though, I think I have some more reading and thinking to do. It touches on something else I'd like to discuss, but not in this thread.
EDIT: Edited to quote the correct person.
-
The point is this. Tabula rasa means that we are born without knowledge (since knowledge begins with sense experience). No one disputes that. However, natural, biological differences between men and women can and do still have huge effects on their respective psychologies. There is no contradiction there.
Tabula rasa also means we are born without automatized emotions, since emotions are derived from conceptual knowledge, according to Ayn Rand.
This is one reason I've yet to fully agree with Objectivism; through my own introspection I've come to believe that some emotions (and they are emotions, not reflexes) involving sexual arousal, and the resulting behaviour prompted by it, are pre-conceptual.
If the different ways men and women are aroused is purely physiological, why are there reoccuring patterns in male and female behaviour that are too intricate to described as mere physical reflexes? And if there is emotion involved, again, why the reoccuring behaviour, if we derive all our emotional responses on our own as individuals?
EDIT: Edited for spelling.
-
I'd be interested to know how people reconcile the notion that "men are like this, and women are like this" with the fact that we are born tabula risa.
-
Okay, I could go on, but this should be enough to wet your whistle.
I hope that is just a figure of speech.
Thanks for the post Don. I have a few further questions, but I'll PM them to you because I think we've drifted off topic...
-
First, I don't recommend waiting until you get her number to show interest, and even after you get the number your interest should be ambiguous. As to what you SHOULD be doing from the time you meet her until the time you get her number, let me know if it's of interest and I'll post on it.Of course, maybe I shouldn't tell them and keep all the Objectivist girls for myself...then again, most O'ist girls aren't even close to my type, so what the heck, if anyone's interested, I'll share my thoughts.
Post away.
Or perhaps even better: make a new blog entry for it?
I see what you mean, though I wouldn't expect to find Miss Perfect while trawling bars. Is it really that enjoyable? Particularly when talking to someone who turns out not to be worthy of further interest.But there's not an ulterior motive. Your motive, when you approach a girl, should be to have an enjoyable interaction. That's it. Be completely detached from the outcome, whether it be getting her number or getting a drink thrown in your face (which actually never happens). I call it practice because you'll not only have fun, you'll learn something in the process and start to become really good at approaching and attracting women.And just to clarify, it's not that I say, "Oh, wow, a girl I don't like, let me go approach her so that I'll be ready for the girl I do like." Rather, it's that I approach girls to find out if they are worthy of my further interest. I mean, how else are you supposed to find Miss Perfect?
And yes, I'm serious, do forty approaches a week: go out four nights a week, four hours a night, one approach every twenty minutes or so. Try it for a month and report back your results.I'll give it some thought.
-
Reflecting back on what JMegan said earlier - that a man inviting pursuit or not pursuing her is a turn-off - I am wondering whether the opposite is true: that a woman pursuing a man (in the same way a man is supposed to pursue a woman) would be a turn off for him.
I'm not sure. One thing that might come to my mind if a woman was pursuing me in that manner would be "Is she like this with every man she finds attractive?", and while this thought wouldn't be cast in a positive light, I can't explain why. Thoughts, anyone?
So how specifically do you create attraction? I have a lot to say on that, but the problem is this: if all you do is read about it, what I have to say won't help you. You have to PRACTICE. In my case, I approach over forty girls a week on average.Broken any hearts yet, Don?
I think if you can manage to approach 40 women in your entire LIFETIME then you have the whole "approach a woman and get her interested" schtick cracked.
As a habit, I don't pursue women at all. However, if I were to encounter a woman that I perceived as being worth pursuing, I would find it impossible NOT to pursue her. How good I'll be at it, though, is another matter. I am guessing that is where the practice comes in. But, should it be necessary to practice? The thought of approaching woman for mere practice doesn't seem honest (because there is an ulterior motive).
I think we need a definition of pursuit here. Generally I agree with Betsy's remarks as they gel with my own observations, but I'm having a difficult time finding the right words to describe my observations.You're right; I was equivocating on the meaning of pursuit. And while I think I grasp the differences between the meaning of "pursuit" in the two contexts (that of a man pursuing a woman, and that of the pursuit of any other value) I can't articulate them either. Hopefully someone else will be up to the task. To begin with, the things Betsy mentioned (which Kevin pointed out) are helpful in distinguishing these two ideas.
Edit: Edited first sentence to convey my meaning better.
-
I don't think of it so much in terms of pursuit as in terms of a flat-out demand for attention.
But attention is a value that you are pursuing, right?
-
And to add to my previous post, I am reminded of the story of Ayn Rand tripping her husband-to-be, to get his attention. This looks to me like a woman pursuing a man, just like any other value.
-
As MAN -- i.e., as a human being -- both men and women are value pursuers. Men are value pursuers ALL the time. Women are value pursuers in everything EXCEPT their romantic lives. In love, they are the value PURSUED.
You seem to be saying that a man is a value to a woman, so long as she isn't pursuing that value. As soon as it becomes necessary for her to pursue him (because he isn't pursuing her), he no longer is a value to her. I'm not arguing with this, but what necessitates such a principle in a woman? That is, if it is a principle...?
Edited for punctuation and spelling.
-
I heard on the news that it was a costume party. I mean, it isn't as if he randomly went walking down the street in a Nazi uniform. It was in poor taste in my opinion, but no worse than someone dressing up as the devil, grim reaper, or
a priest.Except the grim reaper and the devil don't refer to anything in reality, whereas a Nazi symbol does. I think that makes it worse.
-
David Veksler,
I sympathize with you and I extend my proverbial hand to assist you in any way I can.
This post apparently signifies that at least one person is intentionally, and with malice, trying to destroy the integrity of your property. You have been violated and this angers me. Though I know you only by pictures and words the value of your work to me has been truly immense, thank you.
I just want to clarify something. By the way you quoted Quasar's sentence it looks as if you have made the same reading error I did upon first skimming it. The original quote was:
Yes, as a matter of fact, I am. Also, Bobby Dobbs, AKA Thesweetscience, AKA Imakefights, AKA Allaction80, AKA DVDBoxing, et al. has emailed me again since making that post and has assured me that Quasar will be short lived.Notice that there are two seperate sentences there, and that he is not claiming to be <list of pseudonyms>. The way you only quoted a part of the sentence makes it look as if he is doing that.
Anyway, I have nothing to do with this, just wanted to clear that up.
-
No, there's just a thread on this page already for computer games. Sorry.
Okay. You stated before that:
And, please, I really did mean for this thread to be about paper-and-dice or tabletop gaming, not computer RPG's. Those are computer games first and RPG's as a secondary.Could you explain to me, objectively, why a Computer RPG is a "computer game first" whereas a tabletop RPG is not a "tabletop game first"? What significance does the medium it is presented in have that diminishes its status as an RPG? I'd appreciate it if you could explain your reasoning.
-
Both. It's an (invalid) excuse to behave irrationally that causes legitimate problems.
That makes sense.
This is encouraging to hear. My addiction has been of a very similar nature to gambling. I never thought to give a name for it (Gamblor, sounds pretty funnyI would say that you were behaving immorally the whole time. I know I was. I recently put to rest a serious gambling problem that caused immense problems in my life. I absolutely had the power to stop; I just never made the decision to do so. If you are in the midst of a destructive behavior, its a lot easier to point the finger at somebody or something else (I always blamed my problems on a monster inside me called Gamblor
) rather than taking responsibility for your actions. ) and perhaps that is just as well.The tricky thing about addictions, at least in my case, is that they are used as an escape from your problems. When I went to the casino, it was like taking a break from reality and nothing mattered except the game until the casino closed. Spending so much time up there (regardless of whether I won or lost) took away from every other aspect of my life and soon my life was in utter shambles. But what did I decide to do rather than deal with these problems? I went and played cards! Even though this was the root of all my problems!Can't but nod my head in agreement.
Breaking an addiction such as this one is still very difficult even after making the decision to stop. It takes a lot of discipline and self-esteem, something that you lose if you are willingly engaged in an activity that has been destroying you for an extended period of time.But the bottom line is that human beings are volitional, you can choose to do or not do whatever you want. There are no magical powers (or monsters) that force you to do anything. All you have to do is make the right choices.
And again. This is what I have been thinking for a while, but hearing it from someone else is reassuring.
I would not say this is a rejection of free will. Some feelings are indeed too strong to ignore. But instead of immediately acting on these feelings like an animal does, recognize the source of these feelings, why you are having them, and then make a rational choice on what the best way to react to them is. To say that you have no control over your actions is a form of evasion (sometimes a very persuasive one).I may have misstated what he actually said. The intended meaning was: "Some feelings are too strong not to obey" not "to ignore". Which is a different thing entirely and you might agree with me that that is untrue? If a feeling can be so strong that you can't do anything but obey it, that negates free will doesn't it? Or maybe just in that one context, though I don't know if such a manifestation of feeling is possible unless you have something wrong with your brain...
-
Addiction. Is it just an execuse to behave irrationally, or can it be a legitimate problem? I'm speaking purely of psychological addiction, here, as opposed to chemical addiction. I've come to believe from my own experiences that no matter how addicted I thought I was to some activity, I've had the power to choose not to, but I chose to carry on, and that by calling it an addiction I was merely abdicating responsibility for my actions to some unreachable, uncontrollable force (the addiction). If this is the case, I was behaving immorally the whole time. Anyone care to comment?
EDIT: Another thing I intended to mention but forgot. A psychologist I speak to thinks that sometimes a feeling can be just too strong to ignore, and therefore addictions are real. If you accept this is that a rejection of free will? I figured if I started thinking that way, I would make it real...
-
Ahh, you refer to computer RPG's, considered a lesser form of the High Art by us snooty paper-and-dice gamers. You give up character sovereignity for cool graphics.
I may be going completely mad here, but do you have a prejudice against computer RPG's?
I've never played with pen&paper before. I lack the time, the experience, and the right people (or indeed any people). Computer RPG's provide a convenient alternative. Not that I wouldn't mind trying it the old fashioned way sometime, but I don't think it will happen. This might be a good thing because...
Overall, I'd say role playing is an excercise with some positive features, but the risk is that it absorbs too much time better spent advancing one's values in reality. Some people also use role playing as a form of escape from reality, where fake accomplishments in a non-existent world replace real accomplishments in the real world. Looking back, I wished I'd devoted more of that time of my life to Calculus or computer programming or other useful study.I couldn't agree more with this. I have a sneaking suspicion this is the only reason I've ever played RPG's. I'm not entirely sure. Time eating hobby of DOOM is definitely a fitting description.
Btw (hope this doesn't deviate too much from the topic, it is more a passing curiosity) has anyone here played a MUD before?
-
Instead of being antagonized, actively seek out and go where the good people are. Hang out on Objectivist forums and e-mail lists. Attend Objectivist conferences and ARI events. Start a community or campus club.
Well I'm already doing the former. I'd love to do the latter but I live in the wrong place for it.
That definitely helps. So is it only the rational potential that matters? And what if they never fulfill what I perceived to be their rational potential? Did I misjudge them? Should I severe contact with them?A person's political views -- and even his stated ethical and religious views -- are very non-essential in judging his rational potential. (Think of yourself and where YOU were pre-Ayn Rand.)Instead, look for how well-attached to reality and how clear-thinking a person is in his career and day to day life and, most importantly, whether he has important personal values.This is something worth addressing. I've seen you say elsewhere (along with your husband) on this forum that being a valuing person is very important. This worries me on a personal level because I don't have many personal values! Those things I am at all passionate about seem to have very limited potential for conversation.
What if someone is politically/philosophically OPPOSITE or close to being opposite, of Objectivist? Is it possible/correct/moral to try and establish relation with such an individual? Should I ignore these negative traits, and if not, how do I take them into account?If he does, he is what I call Good Objectivist Material regardless of where he happens to be philosophically and politically right now.Even if you live on a desert island, you have an internet connection and nowadays that's all you need. Make the most of it. Lurk and listen. If you encounter someone you like, tell them so. That's how you make friends worth having.Most people i've spoken to, and even myself to some extent, thought that my problem is that I don't meet people in real life. But when you said "make the most of it" it occured to me that I really haven't been doing that. I've been shy about telling someone I like them or really showing any interest in talking to them. I had this backwards logic going on that if they really wanted to talk to me, they already would have... I think I might make more of an effort in future since the worst that can happen is they don't want to.
-
Here's something a psychologist once recommend that I try. Though this was to try and motivate myself rather than help with my concentration, but I suspect the two are inter-related.
What you do is estimate how long you think you could keep your attention on a particular task. It shouldn't be too long but should be long enough that you can figure out what you're doing and actually achieve something, even if the achivement is very modest. I went with 10 minute when I first tried this.
When you do this it is important you stick to the time allocated, and then when that time is up you have to STOP and not do anymore.
Then simply repeat this (EDIT: The following day). Keep doing it until you feel you can take on a bit more, and again stick to the allocated time. The idea is that you are picking up momentum, to "get the ball rolling", and you'll find that the task you are performing is more interesting than you first realised. At least, that's how it worked for me.
-
I'd like to suggest a two-part solution --
1. Learn how to be a good judge of people.
2. Learn just how weak evil really is.
Judging people accurately is a personal goal I set for myself at age seven and I have spent a lifetime acquiring, expanding, and refining my knowledge. It has helped me make good choices in friends, a romantic partner, clients, employees, investments, and all my interactions with other people. I learned a lot of it the hard way, but now I have good simple working principles I can apply fairly easily and also show to others so they don't have to go through all that I did.
I have also learned that bad people can't really hurt me if I don't let them. They need me and I don't need them, so I have the upper hand. I can ignore them and walk away from them and I usually do. My life is way too full of good people I wish I could spend more time with, so I don't waste time with anything less than the best.
I'm glad you replied with this. On an abstract level (I think?) this tells me exactly what I need to do. The difficult part is the first step, being a good judge of people.
Something else I'll point out is that since I've discovered Objectivism, I'm even more dismissive of people and more easily antagonised. This is not a stab at O'ism, just how I apply it. It has made it easier for me to find (more) faults in people but hasn't made it any easier for me to find the good in people (mainly because the things O'ism holds as the good, I find almost impossible to find in anyone, or is completely outshadowed by the negative. But this may be an incorrect perception).
Example: if someone supports nationalized healthcare, before, I wouldn't have batted an eyelid, whereas now I'd get very angry about it. I'd also lack the confidence to say anything about it, or if I did say something, I'd get very emotional and lose my composture and not be able to argue from a rational standpoint. This is entirely my fault, not of O'ism. I've acted like this before with other things I feel strongly about, O'ism has only given me more to feel strongly about.
I also find it very hard to judge when a fault is critical to my relating with someone, and when it is something I can just set aside and not worry over too much.
I also don't meet/talk with people very often, and haven't much oppertunity to do it. This makes my learning all that much harder.
So I think I'm stuck.
(p.s. Is it acceptable to abbreviate Objectivism as O'ism? I've seen others do it and I find it convenient, but people get riled when the word "Objectivism" isn't capitalized so I wondered if this was unacceptable as well.)
-
I've heard of Goodkind, and want to give him a try. Which book would you fans recommend I start with? (Let me know which book is the first book in a series -- I hate to buy a book, get all psyched to read it, and then discover that I've got to go back and find the previous book).
I'll come right out and boast my vast knowledge of the series by giving you a full list of past and future titles:
1) Wizard's First Rule
2) Stone of Tears
3) Blood of the Fold
4) Temple of the Winds
5) Soul of the Fire
6) Faith of the Fallen
7) Pillars of Creation
8) Naked Empire
9) Chainfire
10) ?
11) ?
That is to say, that there are only two more books to go.
The best (both by my own and by popular opinion) title is Faith of the Fallen, as well as being the most philosophically and emotionally compelling. This is the first novel where the Objectivist influence is not merely hinted at, but comes on full force.
I've heard at least one person on this board complain that they weren't very fond of the first few titles. If you think you'll only read these books for the Objectivism in them, try Faith of the Fallen. You can always pick up the first book later. If you enjoy fantasy novels anyway, start with the first book and read the series start to finish.
-
What intrigued me was Betsy's description of Repressed Objectivists. Since I really respect Betsy's advice and knowledge of Objectivism, her comments in the thread really got me thinking.
I myself rarely smile or laugh in public. I am very quiet, unless something truthful needs to be heard or known at a specific moment. When I deal with most people on a social level (people I work with or people I've never met before) I suppose I don't appear to be the nicest person out there. I'm not downright mean or disrespectful, but I've been told I project a strange "negative" aura.
Now, I'm a person who values things very dearly. I'm also very passionate about what I value. I'm not afraid of people taking away what I value, because I'm well aware that any attempt to do so would be futile. The thing that gets me is that I'm I seem to be inherently emotionless for the most part. Things rarely get to me, as I'm a very patient person. The only feeling that I have is a deep happiness that, according to most, I don't seem to project.
I do, however, have very few, yet very close friends. When I'm in their company, I seem to "blossom," in the essence that I laugh and smile the most. It just seems that I express my happiness only in front of the people that I trust the most. It's not something that I consciously switch on and off; it just happens.
I may be way out here, but allow me to speculate. I think I'd best start this off by making a list of things you've said about yourself (not exactly quoted)...
When in public, you:
1. rarely smile or laugh
2. are very quiet
3. don't appear to be the nicest of people
4. Have been told you project a negative aura
5. Seem to be inherantly emotionless
6. Don't project your happiness
Might it be that 3, 4 and 5 are because of 1 and 2? And the reason for 1 and 2 is because of 6. So the question is why 6, is the case.
When among those you trust, you:
7 "blossom"
8 Laugh and smile
9 Express your happiness
Where 7 and 8 are presumably the result of 9.
So from that, it can be said that when among strangers, or people you don't know very well, or don't trust, you don't express your happiness, but when among those you know well, and trust (who are "very few") you express your happiness. Can you think why that might be? Why point 6 is the case under one condition, but point 9 is the case in the other?
I don't know why, but I know why I am exactly like this (to the letter). Your reasons might be different, but here are mine.
It starts with that I don't take people in "good faith". I am cautious when dealing with unfamiliar people, or those I don't trust (those who are unfamiliar I don't trust by default). I fear how they might react to my expressing myself, and assume (falsly) that I deal with them in a consistently formal manner then will make them consistent in turn, and I will have less unpredictable behaviour to worry about that will give me cause to become even less trustworthy. Thanks to points 3 and 4, it never turns out like that. Instead people have a reason to dislike me and turn unpleasant, thanks to my cold exterior, which reinforces my lack of trust in people. So while I don't trust those I don't know, I can often come to trust some people even less still. I become very watchful of how people behave, and immediately throw them out of consideration as being a potential friend or acquaintance as soon as they do anything conceivable as threatening towards me, or show anything I perceive to be a fault.
Like you, I have few close friends, and fewer "acquaintances". I can't seem to deal with people who meet me half way. They either have to prove to be very trustworthy very fast, or they're out of my sphere.
In short, I have a problem of confidence, a fear of being hurt by being too trusting. I feel that it is safer and logical to be untrustworthy, as it filters out the bad people so that the few bonds I do forge with others will be lasting and worthwhile ones.
The disadvantage in this behaviour is that forging such bonds becomes pot luck, since it also filters out a lot of good or decent people who might be worth knowing, as well as causing me to get a lot of stick from people because they don't know how to deal with a person who seems so unemotional (inhuman?). And that just makes my outer shell even harder. I've often thought if I met myself, I probably wouldn't be very fond of me, unless I managed to get to truly know that other me, which would never happen with my untrustworthiness and tendancy to seek out faults in other people.
In other words, the key problem for me is one of trusting people, and of the way I deal with those who prove to be untrustworthy. If I have an unpleasant experience with someone, I apply that in a "logical" manner to my considerations of how to deal with people in future. In other words, I become more withdrawn, which makes unpleasant experiences even more likely to occur, creating a viscious circle.
So, it is supression insofar as I am aware of it, but like you said happens with you, it isn't a conscious thing. Amongst the few I do trust, I become expressive, visibly happy, even "normal" very easily and without thinking about it.
Anyway, I haven't the slightest idea of how to deal with my problem. And I don't know how much, if any of this is relevent to you, but the symptoms at least, seem to be exactly the same (because you say you are inwardly very happy, whereas I am often unhappy, thanks to the aforementioned problems). I hope I haven't made a fool of myself.
Edit: Second to last sentence should say:
And I don't know how much, if any of this is relevent to you (because you say you are inwardly very happy, whereas I am often unhappy, thanks to the aforementioned problems), but the symptoms at least, seem to be exactly the same.
-
Being in the UK I have to wait another month for this.
Trying not to look up any spoilers online in the meantime...
Men & Women, Love & Sex
in Relationships, Love, Sex, Romance
Posted
I can admit when I'm wrong, if I'm wrong. All you need to do is point it out and explain. This viscous attack was uncalled for. I suggest you apologise.
Also, you should know that sarcasm is against the forum rules, because your entire reply is full of it.