Printable View
You've said before that your interests are what scares women away - but that's not true. Heck, most people I know read literature and watch world movies - these are very mainstream persuits. You're not that special LOL
It's the disdain which you show the rest of the world which scares women away. Nobody wants to date or have sex with a stuck-up snob.
If you're talking extremely commercial, contemporary foreign films like "Amelie" or "Slumdog Millionaire", that hardly counts. Most Americans think if they've seen those two films, suddenly they're multi-cultural when Slumdog was a sack of shit and Amelie isn't representative of French cinema.
Besides, girls dig arrogant guys, hence why they breed; modesty is for virgin losers.
No, I'm not talking extremely commercial foreign films.
>>Besides, girls dig arrogant guys, hence why they breed<< You're extremely arrogant. So why aren't girls doing with with you?
>>modesty is for virgin losers<< You're a virgin loser and your lack of modesty is what keeps you there.
After comparing the words "arrogant" and "pretentious", I've decided that pretentious was an incorrect description of you. If I go to Urban Dictionary, their descriptions of arrogant suits you to a tee.
I could be fairly accused of possessing some slight arrogant tendencies..not too much, though. And at least you admitted I'm not pretentious.
Slight arrogant tendencies? Enough with the delusions. You're totally arrogant. Unpleasantly arrogant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Love'sReject [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
But whether it be arrogance or pretentiousness - both are just fancy words for Dickhead.
And girls like them a dickhead. Which obviously I'm not since I don't have any drawing power..
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by vashti [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
I absolutely LOVED the movie and immediately bought all 3 books. Granted, they were an extremely fast read and it took me half of the first book to get over the way they're written (from Katniss' point of view, so it's written how she would talk...which was very irritating because she talks like a 16 year old.) However, the story was phenomenal, the character development was exceptional, and I laughed and cried. I'll risk all your judgement and confess it to be one of my all time faves.
The stories were written for teenagers; I won't pretend to compare them to stories written for an adult audience, but for books aimed at teenagers, I thought it was good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Persis [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
I don't compare Dr. Seuss to Dostoyevsky, either. :D
Wow.
Oh well; One Direction and Bieber are the Rolling Stones and Beatles of today, and Hunger Games is the Shakespeare of the times. What a grand time to live in.
OK, we're back to being clueless and pretentious.
Only an idiot would compare OD to The Stones. It's apples to oranges. One Direction and Bieber are the Osmonds and the David Cassidy of today. Fluffy teen pop has its place then,now and in the future.
Hunger Games is actually much better than the teen reads we had back in the day. I went straight from Nancy Drew to adult novels with sex scenes. I much prefer that kids have access to something more age appropriate but still engaging. If my DD can enjoy Lord of the Rings, Hitchhikers Guide and Hunger Games equally, I see no harm.
Nope; instead of visionaries like Bob Dylan, we have Katy Perry and various "Lil"s. Speaks the quality of our society.
Instead of kids reading Steinbeck, or Hemingway, Vonnegut or Austen, we've got The Hunger Games. Great. That's about as intellectually stimulating as huffing paint.
You think the 60's, 70's and 80's didn't have mass manufactured pop music? Think again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Love'sReject [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
I can't think of any generation which was raised without some accessable children/teen fiction. You think the 1950's boys weren't reading cowboy adventure books? That they were all reading Steinbeck? I've read teen books from the 1920's which were all desperately depressing things with children being burnt in fires. Even back then, children weren't raised on literature.
You're trying to re-write history as if history was all literature and culture. Hate to tell you, but it wasn't.
Today's best is as aesthetic as a turd in a punch bowl, that was my point. The rest of what you said I have been aware of for years now.
Well, you seem fond of the 1980's. But I don't recall anything truly groundbreaking coming out of those years either. And that was 30 years ago.