🚀 go-pugleaf

ktappe@omni.voicenet.com (Kurt Tappe) writes:

>fdp@netcom.com (Ciccio) writes:

>>I agree with John.  Getting out and interacting is the way to 
>>acquire the requisite ability to meet somebody for a meaningful 
>>romantic relationship. 
>>...
>> They feel that they don't have the time to go out and 
>> interact.  That tells you right there, they probably aren't going 
>> to take the time in a relationship.

>I don't buy this at all.  The skills needed to date and the skills needed
>to maintain a relationship are VERY different; as different as the skills
>needed to run a political campaign vs. those needed to actually serve in
>office.  As has been shown in recent years, those good at one end are
>often bad at the other.  I think I'd be excellent in a long-term
>relationship / marriage.  I just suck at meeting women / dating.  The
>former involves dedication, understanding, and sharing.  The latter
>involves dancing, drinking, and trying to impress someone in two minutes.
> How the heck can you claim that they're in any way related?!?!?

I never said that the two skills were related.  
 
 I think you took the liberty of combining my two statements.  The first
related to acquiring the social skills to date. The second related to the
probability of certain GE customers being good candidates for a long term
relationship.

In your first sentence you say you disagree, but then you go on to support my 
second statement.  My point exactly, long term relationships / marriage does 
involve dedication, understanding and sharing.  That requires that the person 
commit the time to achieve those states.  The previous poster stated that 
certain GE customers are busy professionals who don't have the time to go 
find somebody.  Are they going to become not busy overnight?  If so, fine.
If not, then they don't sound like good candidates for a long term 
relationship.

As to my first statement, I still stand by it.  The best way to acquire the
skills for meeting and dating is by doing it.  

Ciao!
Ciccio