Summary

“Read the article. Read the comment section. The fact that YOU have no case is manifestly clear.” —– You are flagrantly incorrect in this assessment as you are still relying on conveniently forgetting the context to why embellishment is an effective, and appropriate strategy for men.
My reasoning is provided in detail and in absolute transparency. In striking contrast, you provide dubious conclusion without any support, and, when refuted, have consistently avoided any attempt at a remedy. In lieu of remediation, you have resorted to ad hominem attacks (usually in very juvenile forms). At the very best, you have attempted to deflect the dialogue. I don’t even have to provide a judgement, as I am confident that the audience at large have made a determination that parallels mine.

Hollow be thy Argument

JuliaJayne1 Wrote:

“Read the article. Read the comment section. The fact that YOU have no case is manifestly clear. Sorry. ::shrugging::”

Answer:

This is too precious.

People tend to conveniently forget CONTEXT in order to promote faulty conclusions.

You are still ignoring the reason that this article exists in the first place. It is well known that the online dating experience tends to inflate the ego of most women (let alone the ones that resort to it because they have been out-competed in the real world). In general, POF princesses tend to believe they are far more attractive than they really are. Many are also out to resolve a feeling of inferiority and seek a trophy to show off to their peers.

It’s not that hard to figure out. Men who have no trouble getting the attention of women of a given attractiveness find that it is practically impossible online. What? Like ALL these men suddenly became less attractive, or, have become ugly, fat losers with bad attitudes overnight? All from going online? Please.

The strategy of inflating one’s attributes to compensate for the inflated demands is a logical and, as the apparent experience has been, an effective one. That is all.

I have no case?

Let’s see. My reasoning is provided in detail and in absolute transparency. In striking contrast, you provide dubious conclusion without any support, and, when refuted, have consistently avoided any attempt at a remedy. In lieu of remediation, you have resorted to ad hominem attacks (usually in very juvenile forms). At the very best, you have attempted to deflect the dialogue.

I don’t even have to provide a judgement, as I am confident that the audience at large have made a determination that parallels mine.

2 Comments Add yours

jd says:

June 28, 2013 at 10:47 am

I note that you constantly refer to CONTEXT in capital letters, which means that you’re actually shouting the word, in the context of the written word. You also seem to have take exceptional umbridge at Jayne’s comments on this and have created a personal argument with her.

You said it was immature to call people names and yet you are guilty of this self same thing, as you have consistently called women ‘princesses’ throughout your arguments, which is name calling and denigrating to the women on plenty of fish.

You twist and turn the words to try and make it sound as if the original context of the post was to achieve something else other than it clearly stated, to lie about height, weight, job, prospects etc in order to achieve one thing: To bed women, lots of women. That is the context of the article, nothing more, nothing less.

I noticed on this post you have added little headers some of which are sarcastic and an attempt to put Jayne down.

You have become so engrossed in your argument with Jayne (shown by the fact you have set up this little page) that you have now fallen foul of the very arguments you use against her, and you have ended up coming across as pompous and arrogant.

Quite frankly both of you have come out of this appearing childish and immature with anger issues.