Love in Bloom

[bmacwilliam]

>>>Fine! I edited the earlier post and explained all that stuff is great. I suggest you enjoy it because I'll bet dollars to doughnuts it ain't happenin' again.

What ain't happening again? People falling in love on-line? Or that Angie and I will meet again? What? Either case, how could you possibly know this? Bob, if you have any idea of the entire context of what has happened between Angie and I (not to mention how MSK and Kat—your hosts here—met; that's right, Bobby, on-line) you wouldn’t have posted here what you did [not edited].

Meeting online is not a problem. Meeting online is fine and dandy. Your delusions are the problem.

Bob

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

- Meeting online

- Taking an interest

- Progressing to phone conversations

- Agreeing to meet and meeting up

- Having hot, sweaty jungle-sex for 72 hours straight

ALL GOOD! Knock yourself out!!

Bob,

This actually is what is happening. (That is also what happened with Kat and me, except I ain't specifying the hours because that ain't nobody's business.) Some of Victor's and Angie's plans are merely overlapping.

All the rest I see here is just abrasive rhetoric between you and Victor.

Michael

[CNA]

Bob wrote:

One thing I regret in advance is that he's unlikely to post the inevitable outcome of her dumping him in the very near future and the resulting anguish and eventual rationalizations. That would at least be entertaining to read.

Bob

The above is a bit disturbing to me for very obvious reasons. Bob, you are sitting here criticising Victor for his actions, his decisions, and for falling in love. But the above is unfortunately very telling of you and what you want and would like to see happen. Bob, in my eyes, you are very hostile, disrespectful, argumentative amongst other issues. The above excerpt of yours is unfortunate in that it tells me that you would find enterainment value which would bring you joy in watching the anguish and pain of another human being and regret that Victor would not post if it did happen about such anguish and pain, depriving you of the joy and entertainment of reading about his dissapointment and pain. And you're the one telling Victor he needs to see a therapist and he is delusional. Very interesting.

Since I am sure you have very little experience with this (falling in love at a distance, the internet), it is very difficult for you to criticize or offer advice. But obviously you have a right to your opinion. But reading your posts to this thread, there is only one purpose and that is to be very disrespectful, hostile, argumentative, to cause problems, etc., and this behavior is disturbing because it is obvious that this is your only purpose in posting to this thread as well as your admitting to taking joy and entertainment in the potential anguish and pain of another human being and even regret that you would be deprived of such entertainment as you see it.

Since it is obvious what your intentions are, this will be my only post to you. You can post all the BS you want but the above speaks volumes and is obvious as to what your purpose is in posting to this thread.

Angie

[BAMF]

There is no Dissent section to this forum, but perhaps there should be a Malice subforum.

If we had a reputation system on this forum, I'd give you 1,000,000 rep points.

Perhaps we should rename this thread 'Rotten Envy'? :rofl:

[Greybird]

Not "rotten envy," so much as Schadenfreude. Every time I start to lose the emotional referent for this concept, and the Teutonic gestalt for its untranslatable word, someone like this comes along to remind me of it.

Yet that renaming would be giving too much to the enemy. These couples didn't give in to the battery acid of a Wayne Simmons, so why should they give in now?

I'll pull out one particular realism card now: Victor, with my having briefly met Angie, and with having about 15 more years around the racetrack than the two of you, I am confident in saying that I'm deep-green envious, you lucky so-and-so, for what you'll have in your arms in three weeks. If the signs of her good judgment are as strong as I saw them to be, she'll experience something equally as special.

So there. B)

[Victor Pross]

Not "rotten envy," so much as Schadenfreude. Every time I start to lose the emotional referent for this concept, and the Teutonic gestalt for its untranslatable word, someone like this comes along to remind me of it.

Yet that renaming would be giving too much to the enemy. These couples didn't give in to the battery acid of a Wayne Simmons, so why should they give in now?

I'll pull out one particular realism card now: Victor, with my having briefly met Angie, and with having about 15 more years around the racetrack than the two of you, I am confident in saying that I'm deep-green envious, you lucky so-and-so, for what you'll have in your arms in three weeks. If the signs of her good judgment are as strong as I saw them to be, she'll experience something equally as special.

So there. B)

Steve,

If I understand this correctly, 'Schadenfreude' is the German concept for: deriving sheer pleasure from the suffering of others for which there is no equivalent word in the English Language?

Hell, Schadenfreude is alive and well…and finding new expression on internet forums. :turned:

-Victor

Edited May 2, 2007 by Victor Pross

[bmacwilliam]

- Meeting online

- Taking an interest

- Progressing to phone conversations

- Agreeing to meet and meeting up

- Having hot, sweaty jungle-sex for 72 hours straight

ALL GOOD! Knock yourself out!!

Bob,

This actually is what is happening. (That is also what happened with Kat and me, except I ain't specifying the hours because that ain't nobody's business.) Some of Victor's and Angie's plans are merely overlapping.

All the rest I see here is just abrasive rhetoric between you and Victor.

Michael

There's more than that happening. Victor has professed profusely his profound love for somebody he's never met. He's said he's decided to MOVE there. Still hasn't met her. This goes beyond taking an interest on someone online and wanting to meet.

The issue is not about being abusive, abrasive, or taking pleasure in other's strife. There is a however, certain pleasure in pointing out the bald-faced hypocrisy and irrationality in just about everything "Victor". His behaviour is totally irrational wrt falling in love with someone he's never met. His behaviour regarding the plagiarism issue is dishonest in several ways, but that's off-topic.

His ramblings on THIS thread have a distincitive histrionic tone, and it's irritating on that level too.

Tell me, and this is the second time I've asked this question and of course got no response because we all know what the answer is.... Forget about me, what about someone that has Victor's best interest at heart like a parent say, would they encourage the behaviour he's shown?

Bob

[Victor Pross]

Bob,

I know you are accustomed to the old world paradigm where people meet at Singles bars or else by being introduced to a potential mate threw friends or whatever, and that is still a valid way to securing a mate. But try, as I did, all the alternative ways that living in the 21 century can afford us. There is nothing unusual about falling in love on-line. It is not a “Victor thing"--it’s done all the time. Again: It's done all the time.

Yes, I am in love. And I am loved in returned by the most dynamic and vivacious woman in the world. (Yes, in my view, she is). She makes me smile, makes me happy. I feel totally at home with her. (Other things considered, I don’t like the winter too much. My love lives in sunny California). ;]

How is it irrational that I want to be with her? Try as I might, maybe I just don't understand what you are trying to say.

-Victor

Edited May 2, 2007 by Victor Pross

[bmacwilliam]

Again: It's done all the time.

I don't believe it. Love at first sight? That's a big stretch. Love without meeting? C'mon now, no way.

Yes, I am in love. And I am loved in return

No, you are not. You are in love with an idealized fantasy version of this person and vice-versa. What's motivating me to respond to this silliness is the ironic disconnect between reality and fantasy by someone who claims to place a high value on reality.

How is it irrational that I want to be with her?

Victor, that's not irrational. What's irrational (and pathetic) is offering your entire life up on a plate to someone you HAVEN'T MET. That is not rational, not reality based at all. You're setting yourself up for a big fall doing this. Not just in the emotional sense, what I also mean is that I believe that this behaviour itself drastically increases the chances of failure.

I get the image here of a man at the end of his first date lying on the ground clinging to the woman's pant leg professing his love and begging her to marry him. Be that guy and you're gonna burn. Well, I actually think it's too late.

Bob

Edited May 2, 2007 by Bob_Mac

[Victor Pross]

Bob, a little context: Angie and I are past the “first date.” We are in an established relationship that is eight months old--albeit long distance. Do you know our history, what we have experienced? The answer to that would be 'No'. Plus: Angie wants me out there as much as I want to be out there. I suppose we’re both rather pathetic then? And, by implication, as all the others are who met via the internet.

-Victor

[bmacwilliam]

Bob, a little context: Angie and I are past the “first date.” We are in an established relationship that is eight months old--albeit long distance. Do you know our history, what we have experienced? The answer to that would be 'No'. Plus: Angie wants me out there as much as I want to be out there. I suppose we’re both rather pathetic then? And, by implication, as all the others are who met via the internet.

-Victor

Of course I don't know what you've experienced, but I know what you haven't experienced - meeting.

"I suppose we’re both rather pathetic then? And, by implication, as all the others are who met via the internet. "

Meeting via the internet, (or let's say initial contact) and the internet itself is not pertinent. The little problem here is that you have not actually MET yet at all. To have all these big plans is not a problem in and of itself, but to do so before meeting is foolish. It has nothing to do with how you found each other. The medium is irrelevent, but to answer your question - Yes, you both are pathetic.

Bob

[Victor Pross]

Bob,

Regarding internet spawned romances, perhaps you will find an article I wrote (really, really---I wrote it!) denitrifying. :turned:

By interacting with you as I am, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that your motivation is not one of sheer malice, but of genuine bafflement over the question discussed. (However angry you come across). You doubt that people can fall in love over the internet. THAT is what you are calling into question. You are dead wrong here, Bob, dead wrong. And it follows that people who are in love want to be together--to spend their lives together even.

Love and Friendships in the Modern World: Finding a Relationship in Cyberspace:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/in...c=1616&st=0

-Victor

Edited May 2, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Greybird]

Yes, Victor, you've described the untranslatable Schadenfreude quite well, and that's precisely what he's showing. It's even more repulsive when cloaked in his seeming concern for what your, and Angie's, parents would supposedly say about it.

You also know, of course, that this is the risk you take for exposing your essence on the Internet in this manner. In the words of the late, great writer Louis Grizzard, someone, probably more than one, will "rip out your heart and stomp that sucker flat." Or try to, anyway. Just because It's There, as they say.

You've been on the phone with each other, attests Angie, at least two hours a night. I doubt that much of importance has been left unexplored between you by now. Few married couples I've known, including my parents, succeeded in knowing each other a tenth as well before making a formal bond.

[Brant Gaede]

>>>Fine! I edited the earlier post and explained all that stuff is great. I suggest you enjoy it because I'll bet dollars to doughnuts it ain't happenin' again.

What ain't happening again? People falling in love on-line? Or that Angie and I will meet again? What? Either case, how could you possibly know this? Bob, if you have any idea of the entire context of what has happened between Angie and I (not to mention how MSK and Kat—your hosts here—met; that's right, Bobby, on-line) you wouldn’t have posted here what you did [not edited].

Meeting online is not a problem. Meeting online is fine and dandy. Your delusions are the problem.

Bob

Not your problem.

--Brant

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Victor,

Yes! Many people meet online and effectively too. I think part of it is a numbers game. In real life, it's often hard to sort through all of the people to find someone you want to carry out a longterm relationship with. On the internet, there's all sorts of ways of finding and meeting people. Having been married through about half of the internet age, I don't know what the plusses and minuses are but it certainly seems liek a good way to meet a prospective partner.

Jim

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

As you judge Victor and Angie by their words, so others will judge you by your own words.

I have just read a series of posts on this thread that are in blatant violation of the rules here. I am leaving the ones that were made in place as an example of what not to do. I want no more of them.

To be clear, if you wish to disagree with how another person experiences love, how far one can go with Internet communication, what the components of love are and which ones are misleading, etc., that is fine. If you wish to call Victor and Angie and their love pathetic and other personal insults, that is not fine. (I have also braked Victor's behavior on this point, but on other issues, as he used to engage in it often when he first came here.)

And for the record, I strenuously disagree with your evaluation, as do others. I am starting to receive off line requests from several quarters to delete your posts because of the nastiness.

If you feel the need for Victor and Angie to know your negative evaluation of their worth and love in insulting terms, you are free to send them private messages. I don't want it anymore in public on OL. You are free to discuss ideas on OL. You are not free to use OL as a soapbox for picking a fight. Other times will be deleted without explanation.

Michael

[Philip Coates]

Falling in Love

When I first moved to New York after college, I met many women through a questionnaire-based dating service called "Operation Match" and since then I've corresponded a lot online with several women. My own experience has been that this can be a valuable preliminary step in several ways: People are sometimes more comfortable and "real" discussing things at a distance, getting to know each other in slow stages by exchanging letters and information and then telephone calls, etc. (One of the great love stories is that between Robert Browning and Elizabeth Barrett and how he fell in love with her poetry before he overcame her reluctance and fear at meeting him.)

But we are not merely intellectual creatures, not merely the sum of our attitudes, our abstract ideas, our formal philosophy. We are also physical and emotional creatures. It's for this reason that I believe Rand refers somewhere to our falling in love with someone's sense of life, the whole package . . . and how he or she "walks and talks and interacts".

I could have a great series of preliminary discussions with someone, but simply not enjoy them in person. For example, I've met women [i'm thinking of one quite some years ago] who are nice and thoughtful and kind "on paper" or over the phone, but when you go out with them or they meet your friends, they are sort of abrupt and "snippy". And I don't find them exhibiting what I take to be benevolence or gentleness. I wouldn't have know that till I met her and watched her in action Or, to take someone meeting me as an example, I've been told by one woman [it might even have been the woman above] that she was attracted to my intelligence and thoughtfulness, but in person I am a boisterous person who laughs loudly, makes bad jokes...and she always had a fantasy of a James Bond-like person who "exhibits more class". She wouldn't have know that till she met me and watched me in action.

Now, in both cases, my preference for a woman and a woman's preference for me are optional values. But they are very real, as are so many ways in which you can feel comfortable with a personality or a type of spirit. Another man might have found the woman mentioned above to be Dagny-like, very sure of herself, a businesswoman who knows exactly what she wants and is no-nonsense. Another woman might have find me to be alive and full of fun and energy. But it's not irrational in -any- of these cases to have definite and deep-seated preferences regarding the tiny, tiny, tiny number you could fall in love with. And you won't know for sure till you spend time in their physical, living, breathing, acting and reacting presence. Love at first sight or at first dozen emails or phone conversations or reading someone's poetry -does- exist. You can have good intuition and people sense or knowledge of your own needs. Or bad or immature. But we are enormously complex combinations. We are both mind and body and how they feel and move and act ((it's also quite legitimate not to like someone or be *turned off by them physically*)) and you don't know -sure- who someone is and how they 'fit' with you till you have spent time with people.

(( Another example pops into my head: I knew a woman teacher who constantly punched me in the shoulder when I tell a joke or when she told one. I like this. I like physical. Just like I have a strong preference for emotional, open people. But to another man, she would seem not ladylike, not sophisticated, too flaky, invading his personal space without permission...))

Note that these are -small- examples. It would usually be immature for these to be "showstoppers", to judge on one out of context trait or quirk, to form a strong attraction or repulsion just on these examples. It's the sum of dozens of things.

[CNA]

Yes, Victor, you've described the untranslatable Schadenfreude quite well, and that's precisely what he's showing. It's even more repulsive when cloaked in his seeming concern for what your, and Angie's, parents would supposedly say about it.

You also know, of course, that this is the risk you take for exposing your essence on the Internet in this manner. In the words of the late, great writer Louis Grizzard, someone, probably more than one, will "rip out your heart and stomp that sucker flat." Or try to, anyway. Just because It's There, as they say.

You've been on the phone with each other, attests Angie, at least two hours a night. I doubt that much of importance has been left unexplored between you by now. Few married couples I've known, including my parents, succeeded in knowing each other a tenth as well before making a formal bond.

In the last few posts that I've read, I'm amazed to see this amount of hatred and rage coming from one individual and it is disturbing to witness and is so obvious what the purpose is. Absolutely amazing.

Since I've met Victor, we have spent an enormous amount of time talking over the internet, on the phone, as well as videos. If we are not talking on the phone, which sometimes can be a few times a day depending, we are talking through email or instant messaging. I would say on average everyday we are talking with each other a minimum of 5 to 6 hours a day, either by phone, email, or instant messaging. 80 percent of my work through my job is done on the computer so it has enabled me to stay in touch with him for considerable amounts of time and I absolutely love it. There have been many times when talking on the phone that 3 or 4 hours can slip by so fast. The only aspect there is now is finally being able to touch each other, smell each other, and taste each other. We've gotten to know each other so well over the months through the internet, phone, and videos I'm dying to finally be able to touch him. God, only 3 more weeks and we'll finally be in each other's arms. *sighing*

Not only has Bob spat on me and Victor as well as our love by making the nasty comments he has by saying it cannot be done over the internet and it is pathetic, he has also spat on and insulted Mike and Kat, Jody and his wife, Jenna and her guy, Mark and his wife, and the numerous other individuals that I know who have met this way, fell in love this way before meeting, have even married, and some have had kids. So it's not only me and Victor he has insulted by calling us pathetic because we fell in love this way, he has insulted many others on this forum.

I was sent something lastnight from another forum regarding Bob that I found rather interesting and agree with the troll remark and the purpose with what was said by this individual in regards to Bob. I'll include the post as well as the link. This is from RoR's Editor Ethan Dawe. I also saw Bob's blatantly disrespectful comment made not too long ago in regards to Rand and Barbara Branden vehemently objected to as well as other comments Bob has made on this forum in an attempt to incite hostility from members. It seems Bob has a history of this type of behavior. I choose not to engage such people as it is a waste of my time and energy. I personally would much rather spend my time and energy doing something much more productive. I'm glad there is an "ignore" feature as it will definitely be used. Here is the quote and link I referenced above that I was sent lastnight.

Bob, [Mac]

Unlike some people here, I realize that you are a troll. Your post is a classic example of a muddled non-argument. I can only assume its another of what I perceive as your campaign to poke at Objectivists for your own perverse pleasure. From what I've seen, you never fail to ignore others counters to your arguments. Given that, there is no point in attempting to argue with you. You appear to me to be immune to reason. That is why I took to lampooning you on another thread. Have a nice day.

Ethan

http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/NewsDiscu...ns/1443.shtml#7

Edited May 3, 2007 by CNA

[Victor Pross]

Phillip,

That’s a very thoughtful and interesting post. Previously to my coming across Angie, I would have spurned the prospect--the very idea--of meeting someone over the internet, believing it to be “pathetic” and “disparate.” (Yes, at one time I was Bob Mac;) Of course, that can no longer be my outlook. And for the actual “disparate lonely-hearts” out there it is not the methods they chose to meet someone that is pathetic, but rather the willingness to give one’s heart away to the first person who agreed to a second date.

There are those who are cynical or skeptical to the idea that people can fall in love via the cyber world, but when I monitor my insides, my thoughts, feelings—my reactions to Angie—I know for certain that the cynics are wrong. So I would now be the first to state that technology has unarguably improved human lives a great deal. One benefit is the expansion of our circle of potential relationships—especially a love relationship. I found just such a relationship. I wasn't seeking it; it just happened. So long as it happens, it’s good. Who cares if you meet the love of your life over the internet or over coffee when chatting up that attractive stranger next to you--or via an introduction service. It's all good. The internet has merely increased the social net. And this is good. It is with such possibilities—finding friendship or love---that the modern technological world is to be commended.

-Victor

Edited May 3, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Angie,

Bob is not a troll. He has a fine mind and it has shown through at times.

Sometimes he loses control of a malicious urge that periodically surges in all of us and opts to insult someone for the sake of insulting. He has not yet learned how to control that urge and still express his disagreement clearly. The damnedest part of this urge is that it always seeks an audience. Once you take it off stage, it tends to evaporate.

Enough of the personal stuff. He called you and Victor pathetic, etc. You called him a troll. I let his stand so I am letting yours. In my book, though, you're even.

Any more personal insults from either side on this thread, or from anyone else who jumps in, will be deleted.

Now fair warning has been given to all, not just one side. Kat and I are not hosting this forum to watch it turn into a platform for bickering and personality feuds.

Here is a hint on a much stronger style in terms of effectiveness. If you ever really want pull the teeth from an insult, simply—and very briefly—state that it is inaccurate (showing is better) without insulting back, then change the subject and start talking to other people. Then ignore the person after that. In a normal setting, this works far better than returning the insult.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Angie and Victor: I hope when you meet you'll still have all your wonderful feelings for each other--and keep them! But maybe that won't happen. You both know that. That's why I applaud not your love, but your courage!

--Brant

[CNA]

Angie,

Bob is not a troll. He has a fine mind and it has shown through at times.

Sometimes he loses control of a malicious urge that periodically surges in all of us and opts to insult someone for the sake of insulting. He has not yet learned how to control that urge and still express his disagreement clearly. The damnedest part of this urge is that it always seeks an audience. Once you take it off stage, it tends to evaporate.

Enough of the personal stuff. He called you and Victor pathetic, etc. You called him a troll. I let his stand so I am letting yours. In my book, though, you're even.

Any more personal insults from either side on this thread, or from anyone else who jumps in, will be deleted.

Now fair warning has been given to all, not just one side. Kat and I are not hosting this forum to watch it turn into a platform for bickering and personality feuds.

Here is a hint on a much stronger style in terms of effectiveness. If you ever really want pull the teeth from an insult, simply—and very briefly—state that it is inaccurate (showing is better) without insulting back, then change the subject and start talking to other people. Then ignore the person after that. In a normal setting, this works far better than returning the insult.

Michael

Mike,

From the first post of Bob's to this thread, the insults and anger directed at both me and Victor was completely unjustified and uncalled for. The reason for the link and excerpt from another poster on another forum was to show that it seems he has a history with this sort of behavior not only on that forum but also on this thread and other threads on OL as well and I just happened to agree with that poster not on only one issue but several. Unfortunately it seems *showing* that what was said was inaccurate would still not work in this particular case, despite all the postings and evidence on this thread from other members who have had similar experiences to me and Victor's situation and falling in love before even meeting in the flesh and some have married, have had children, or have uprooted themselves and moved a considerable distance to be with their loved one and are now living together. My impression of his attitude and behavior was not to debate a point but merely to throw insults for the purpose of inciting hostility. I'm not so easy in giving him the benefit of the doubt. Yes, the ignore feature is rather useful and has been used in this situation.

Your points and your post is well understood by me.

Angie

[Brant Gaede]

Michael, they are not "even". Anybody who shits on love or the possibility of love and happiness is ...!

--Brant

Edited May 3, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[Victor Pross]

Brant,

Thank you for the compliment.

Actually, I don’t “know” that Angie and I would not continue to feel as we do now when we meet in the flesh. In fact, there is only every reason to suppose that our bond will only grow stronger once the relationship is consummated. Germane to the issue of falling in love (and the issue of sex and love) here is an excellent video lecture given by Helen Fisher called “The science of love": http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/16

Next to Nathanial Branden’s works, this lecture about love is very insigtful.

-Victor

Edited May 3, 2007 by Victor Pross

[CNA]

Angie and Victor: I hope when you meet you'll still have all your wonderful feelings for each other--and keep them! But maybe that won't happen. You both know that. That's why I applaud not your love, but your courage!

--Brant

Brant,

Thank you very much for the well wishing. It's very sweet of you. Yes, both me and Victor are fully aware of the possibilities. Yes, we both know it. But given the situation, how much we've gotten to know each other through the internet, phone, as well as video, how much we have in common, how much we mirror each other, and all the other goodies I've discovered about him and he has discovered about me, I am extremely confident. I very very much look forward to finally being able to touch him, hug him, etc. It will finally happen on May 23rd !!!!

Steve, Kori, Mike, Phillip, James, and Rodney,

I also wanted to say thank you for your recent posts over the last day or so.

Angie