Blog-shy

I received an OKC message tonight from a man whom, I had noticed over the last several weeks, was viewing my profile frequently. As in daily.

Yet he made no move to contact me.

(Per its tongue-in-cheek mantra, OKC calls profile-viewing "stalking." This certainly didn't qualify. I read his profile. He seems perfectly mid-key temperament, good looking, friendly. Perhaps shy.)

So I decided to be the Girl of Initiative, and wrote him last night.

"So hey....you've been a frequent stalker....which I appreciate. A girl loves attention.

What's on your mind?"

Tonight he answered back. That he had been quite hesitant to write me because he did not want to end up on my blog. And/or spreadsheet.

(Spreadsheet?)

(?)

You may remember, we were on this route once before with my online dating quest: a man's fear of being blogged.

Which, as I said then and say now, I respect. I can respect a man who doesn't swim in the same seas of narcissism as myself. The gentleman from this summer did not want me even to mention that I had spoken to someone (him) who didn't want to be mentioned in the blog.

Yet, this sentiment still strikes me as odd coming from folks who are willing to post copious personal data and photos on a dating website......which, while they can control the content, is frankly no less exposed.

And, unless I start getting picked up by boston.com on a daily basis, the dating website gets a hell of a lot more traffic.

Just saying.

It smacks a tad of hypocrisy. And men's lack of faith in my inherent goodness towards the collective Man.

Or else someone is just being shy.

Anonymity

The downshot of being so perky and so up-late on one night (or two, in a row, damn it all) is that sleeplessness stifles creativity.

And so the workday ends, I'm heading out the door to the CFO date, and I got nothing too much to say, folks. I'm tired, and working finance in a big-ole down market has kiboshed today's sense of humor.

I've been ruminating about the Anonymity War that sparked up over the weekend, in the comment section responding to my rant at cranky match.com correspondent. I regret I had to delete the instigating post from my "Spy" clone regarding privacy issues, since it contained my last name, which I'm trying to not publish on purpose. (If you didn't get to read it prior to deletion...sorry...ask me, if you're lost....)

On one level: I loved that multiple Anonymouses ("Anonymii"?) were duking it out. Could have been as many as four people?....or just one person, entertaining himself?

On another level: thanks to Anonymous 2, or Spy Clone, for believing I'm going to someday have an eight-year old daughter. Thanks for believing in the cause of "single in the city"! Truthfully, right now I'm just trying to have more than one date with a man I find interesting. Perhaps by the time a daughter shows up, the internet will be obsolete and this will be a non-issue....

And on yet another, I appreciate that I truly don't know who the Anonymii were. (And I do have to know Spy Clone in his human form, because he knew my full name.) Bravo to all for keeping defining characteristics to a minimum....you get an A+ for editing! I have guesses, obviously, and will admit to spending a hour studying the comments for voice, tone, word usage and whoever knows what else. Still perplexed.

So everyone who logged-on Anonymously remains Anonymous to me still. You're safe. And it's all OK, because it provoked some debate (always good) and did "give me pause," as Spy Clone theorized it quite well should.

Although I do dislike the Anonymity function. It's difficult for me to trust the motives of someone who quite clearly knows me--which probably means he has my e-mail address--and quite clearly has something to say but doesn't want to own it. It's the equivalent of talking behind my back, and I'm not sure why that would be necessary in this space.

Here's to some better humor in the a.m......for all of us!