"When did we suddenly become reliant on text messages, instant messenger and e-mail to "get to know" someone? Thats ridiculous. I can e-mail you all day, but we've met and we really got to know each other in person."
The conversation continued another round last night:
From: karin
To: MRothko35
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 9:55 PM
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: hi
That's an interesting deal-breaker.
From: MRothko35
To: Karin
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: hi
Date: Monday, May 26, 2008, 9:59 PM
I know. I’m quirky. Other people have their deal breakers. Mine is IM. :) If you accept mine, I’ll accept one of your's later. ;)
The funny thing is that it’s free. :)
And this from a man who co-opted one of last century's great abstract painters as his moniker.
I'd do well to thank one of the FwaBs, Michael, for locating yet again a prescient link (published yesterday!) on date-site men who insist on Instant Messenger. Is this the sign of a married man fronting single? The flirt looking for sex-only conversation....gratification with no additional goal? A writer who relies on emoticons to say what he can't with words?
Could just be a guy who likes IM. Who am I to judge? I like Dunkin' Donuts Turbo Ice dark with cream and 2 Equals every morning.
For awhile in bed, I brainstormed about what quirk I could use as blackmail of my own.....ability to down a box of GoLean cereal in a single sitting? Chronic tardiness? Perfect musical pitch? By the time I was in the shower this morning, I knew none would do. To acquiesce to a lame request was just that....lame.
But if I find out later MRothko35 actually could channel his namesake artistically.... :-) :-) :-)
Nonetheless. It was early in our relationship for him not to sacrifice for my sake. As R.W. Emerson once said, "Why should one regret if the receiver is not equally generous?"
The article Michael sent was titled "How to navigate online dating's depths." It's a crapshoot sometimes on whether those depths imply a huge pool of choices....or more simply suggest that the pool might be filled with bottom-feeders.
2 comments:
Maybe it was the ghost of Mark Rothko. And he can't summon corporeality long enough to wait for a return e-mail.
Or else he likes the picture-y emoticons better than colon-close paren. :)
i am stubborn and obstinate (two of my charming personality traits) so if someone told me that not liking to IM was a dealbreaker, that--the dealbreaker threat--would be MY dealbreaker. (others include political party affiliation, being against gay marriage, not liking cats and/or dogs, never giving homeless people change...) but you are right, maybe he was trying to be cheeky and cute and flirt with you into talking online. hell, maybe he's shy. i just personally get bored t-y-p-i-n-g out a conversation when it seems so much easier to talk on the phone. (i've also been known to judge by voice.) sometimes i wonder if this has to do with my age and that i spent my teenage years on a corded phone (yay three-way conversations!) and not in front of the computer with eight different IM conversations going on in front of me like my sister.
what will you do? i wait with baited breath for further installments. (seriously. i do.)
Post a Comment