Einstein's formula for happiness

[Bible_Belt]

The difference is you recognize whom the issues lies with and are correcting it—as opposed to pointing outward and faulting the whole market.

That's the core difference with successful people, in any endeavor, whether it's money or women. Everyone experiences failures. Successful people fault themselves and try to get better. Unsuccessful people blame everyone and everything in the world except themselves.

 

[Sneaky Pete]

Successful people keep trying and eventually find a way to make things happen. Persistence, patience, and flexibility can go a long way.

 

[Tenacity]

Of course, you’re not. Now go whine a little more about the state of the market, and how you can’t find a decent LTR—or perhaps, those decent LTR girls don’t want you.s

Says the guy who is divorced and who currently isn't in an LTR lol. Plus, can somebody please tell me when "being in an LTR" became the litmus test for a guy's "value" on the marketplace? I'm not even sure why you are making this argument Guru. A guy's inability to find a decent LTR does not mean there's something wrong with HIS sexual market value, it could very well mean the women he's been exposed do not fit his criteria.

So you think if a guy isn't in an LTR, it MUST mean the women have all rejected him? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever if you are talking about a guy that's attractive enough to consistently get dates, plates, sex, etc.

 

[guru1000]

Says the guy who is divorced and who currently isn't in an LTR lol. Plus, can somebody please tell me when "being in an LTR" became the litmus test for a guy's "value" on the marketplace? I'm not even sure why you are making this argument Guru. A guy's inability to find a decent LTR does not mean there's something wrong with HIS sexual market value, it could very well mean the women he's been exposed do not fit his criteria.

If ALL women, as in the 200 women you had dated in the past six years did not fit your LTR criteria a/k/a "I couldn't get the ones I did want and the rest were ones I did not want," then the problem falls upon YOU.

So you think if a guy isn't in an LTR, it MUST mean the women have all rejected him? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever if you are talking about a guy that's attractive enough to consistently get dates, plates, sex, etc.

Sorry to hurt your EGO, but, IF you desired an LTR, dated 200 women over six years--and still couldn't get an LTR--the problem, again, is YOU.

Whether that be (1) Looks, Status, Money; (2) Personality; or (3) Inner junk manifesting as a piss poor attitude--the issue is the same ...YOU.

 

[BeExcellent]

Guru showed the math here. One mistake of high ambitious types including formerly me is not allowing themselves to be happy until they reach some distant goal.

Agree strongly with this point. If we become too much future oriented we are robbed of our enjoyment of the present, and life ONLY happens in the present. The past is gone and the future is not arrived. I have been guilty at times of being too future oriented. It takes discipline and maturity to slow down and enjoy the now, even as one plans for tomorrow or next month or next year.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

If we become too much future oriented we are robbed of our enjoyment of the present,

says the chick worth 2 mil....that she didn't get from living in the moment....

 

[Urbanyst]

Of course, you’re not. Now go whine a little more about the state of the market, and how you can’t find a decent LTR—or perhaps, those decent LTR girls don’t want you.

Wonder why.

Back to the subject: yes, it was a stupid comment.

Hope <> HappiNess

LOL.

I never whine. I just tell and call it like I see it.

You are the one getting bent out of shape over it. You are also the one who hates FACTS for some reason lol.

You are also the one who "freaks out" when asked simple questions and goes into strange, complex, roundabout emotional arguments (like a woman) to prove a point (to yourself because no one buys your horse sh*t but you lol).

 

[Sal]

If ALL women, as in the 200 women you had dated in the past six years did not fit your LTR criteria a/k/a "I couldn't get the ones I did want and the rest were ones I did not want," then the problem falls upon YOU.

Sorry to hurt your EGO, but, IF you desired an LTR, dated 200 women over six years--and still couldn't get an LTR--the problem, again, is YOU.

Whether that be (1) Looks, Status, Money; (2) Personality; or (3) Inner junk manifesting as a piss poor attitude--the issue is the same ...YOU.

Shouldn't you take your own advice? I mean after all you claim to be closing in on 1000 women as a divorced dude who's suddenly pro-marriage. Guess those close to 1000 women weren't LTR material for you either which would mean the problem is YOU more than @Tenacity with only 200 who's never been divorced.

 

[Sal]

LOL.

I never whine. I just tell call it like I see it.

You are the one getting bent out of shape over it. You are also the one who hates FACTS for some reason lol.

You are also the one who "freaks out" when asked simple questions and goes into strange, complex, roundabout emotional arguments (like a woman) to prove a point (to yourself because no one buys your horse sh*t but you lol).

Yes Guru does cha-cha around in his arguments like a flaming, flamboyant flamenco dancer. Very effeminate fella that dude is.

 

[Atom Smasher]

Take it from me, guys, the line we're shooting for always moves. Goals are great, but I have found that the real satisfying pursuit isn't as much about money as it is about resourcefulness; learning that you can hit whatever life pitches to you.

 

[Urbanyst]

Shouldn't you take your own advice? I mean after all you claim to be closing in on 1000 women as a divorced dude who's suddenly pro-marriage. Guess those close to 1000 women weren't LTR material for you either which would mean the problem is YOU more than @Tenacity with only 200 who's never been divorced.

Don't bother.

@guru1000 doesn't care about facts lol.

 

[Reykhel]

Don't bother.

@guru1000 doesn't care about facts lol.

This boy certainly likes to use "lol" in his posts. Only ever seen women use lol so much. Well, teenage girls...

Simply as an observation related to the thread happiness.......it must mean he's happy, at least here on so suave.....

Reykhel is happy for the little ****y bow wearing fella.......bet he lol's in reply

 

[guru1000]

LOL.

I never whine. I just tell and call it like I see it.

You are the one getting bent out of shape over it. You are also the one who hates FACTS for some reason lol.

You are also the one who "freaks out" when asked simple questions and goes into strange, complex, roundabout emotional arguments (like a woman) to prove a point (to yourself because no one buys your horse sh*t but you lol).

Ya, this retort is full of emotional inapplicable nada, and fails to factually rebut anything. But, keep telling yourself you're a man who never whines among the 63 threads you created complaining about the market in the 10 months you've been here

 

[Urbanyst]

This boy certainly likes to use "lol" in his posts. Only ever seen women use lol so much. Well, teenage girls...

Simply as an observation related to the thread happiness.......it must mean he's happy, at least here on so suave.....

Reykhel is happy for the little ****y bow wearing fella.......bet he lol's in reply

LOL.

What you fail to realize about me is I'm not a fraud who CALIBRATES myself to project a certain "image" like yourself.

 

[Urbanyst]

Ya, this retort is full of emotional inapplicable nada, and fails to factually rebut anything. But, keep telling yourself you're a man who never whines among the 63 threads complaining about the market in the 10 months you've been here

Incorrect.

And this response is so WEAK you would of been better off not replying lol.

 

[guru1000]

Incorrect.

And this response is so WEAK you would of been better off not replying lol.

More emotional nada against facts. That's why you got buried in the Marriage thread. Like taking candy from a baby. I apologize..

 

[Tenacity]

If ALL women, as in the 200 women you had dated in the past six years did not fit your LTR criteria a/k/a "I couldn't get the ones I did want and the rest were ones I did not want," then the problem falls upon YOU.

What makes you think every one of the 200 women even qualified "generally" for an LTR? The women I've dated and fvcked were majority women that I had no intentions of doing anything long term with.

Sorry to hurt your EGO, but, IF you desired an LTR, dated 200 women over six years--and still couldn't get an LTR--the problem, again, is YOU.

What if the majority of women I dated were hookers? Strippers? Single mothers? Chicks with bad finances?

In other words, just because Tenacity states he would "like" an LTR, does not mean I took the actual time to do all of the "vetting" aspects that yourself and @BeExcellent talked about how a man should do upfront.

If I were just looking to be with women of LTR material, the 200 women would have dropped to about 10 since March 2010. The vast majority of women I have been with are NOT LTR MATERIAL. They have kids already, or bad finances, or other major issues that make them non-LTR material.

Whether that be (1) Looks, Status, Money; (2) Personality; or (3) Inner junk manifesting as a piss poor attitude--the issue is the same ...YOU.

@BeExcellent talked about my "attitude" before and neither of you know me personally. You read my words on a Sosuave Discussion Forum and because my tone/delivery on this forum comes off a particular way....I guess that's supposed to mean in REAL LIFE I'm this horrible person to get along with?

More insane assumptions and failed attempts to psycho-analyze Tenacity. You guys fail every time you get into this psycho-analysis. How in the hell can you psycho-analyze someone you don't know? Instead of discussing/debating the CONTENT of the topic, you get into these insane analyses, why?

BTW, how is the marriage to the Unicorn coming?

 

[guru1000]

What makes you think every one of the 200 women even qualified "generally" for an LTR? The women I've dated and fvcked were majority women that I had no intentions of doing anything long term with.



What if the majority of women I dated were hookers? Strippers? Single mothers? Chicks with bad finances?

In other words, just because Tenacity states he would "like" an LTR, does not mean I took the actual time to do all of the "vetting" aspects that yourself and @BeExcellent talked about how a man should do upfront.

If I were just looking to be with women of LTR material, the 200 women would have dropped to about 10 since March 2010. The vast majority of women I have been with are NOT LTR MATERIAL. They have kids already, or bad finances, or other major issues that make them non-LTR material.

.

Bolded for emphasis.

Majority <> All

When ALL women are the problem, the onus falls on YOU.

 

[Tenacity]

Bolded for emphasis.

Majority <> All

When ALL women are the problem, the onus falls on YOU.

The onus falls on me in what REGARD? Again, you are making the assumption that I put the upfront FILTERING procedure in place to only deal with women of LTR material (based on the criteria I set) and that the marketplace indeed has those women available based on my criteria.

For example, an Employer is looking to fill a position. He posts a job ad with the full list of competencies for the position. He gets 500 people that respond to the job ad. NONE of the 500 people that respond have the competencies to perform the position. Are you saying this is the EMPLOYER's fault? Or is this the fault of either one of the following:

A.) The place where the ad is posted isn't a place where qualified candidates for the position would look
B.) The required competencies of the position are too much/too extreme for the position
C.) Too many people on the job market lack the skills (skills gap) to perform certain positions
D.) A combination of ALL of the above

If it's A, that could be the fault of the Employer, as the Employer would need to better filter UPFRONT in terms of where he's "marketing" his availability.

If it's B or C, that's not really the Employer's fault, that's the fault of the marketplace just not having enough qualified candidates.

But now, going back to the answer being A, what if there's no other place for the Employer to go to better filter? What if there's no where to go to better market his availability?

If you really want to know what happened Guru, my situation was Answer C, I didn't find hardly ANY black women that fit all of my criteria. So similar to the argument made to Employers, I should then accept the skills gap and offer "training".....correct? Well, I COULD do that, or I could just hire lower level employees and automate aspects of the position. Which bringing it back to my situation, Tenacity eliminated the criteria for my LTR girl and instead replaced it with the girl just needing to LOOK good with a decent attitude, while at the same time automating (eliminating) my desire to "settle down".

Understand now?

 

[Sal]

The onus falls on me in what REGARD? Again, you are making the assumption that I put the upfront FILTERING procedure in place to only deal with women of LTR material (based on the criteria I set) and that the marketplace indeed has those women available based on my criteria.

For example, an Employer is looking to fill a position. He posts a job ad with the full list of competencies for the position. He gets 500 people that respond to the job ad. NONE of the 500 people that respond have the competencies to perform the position. Are you saying this is the EMPLOYER's fault? Or is this the fault of either one of the following:

A.) The place where the ad is posted isn't a place where qualified candidates for the position would look
B.) The required competencies of the position are too much/too extreme for the position
C.) Too many people on the job market lack the skills (skills gap) to perform certain positions
D.) A combination of ALL of the above

If it's A, that could be the fault of the Employer, as the Employer would need to better filter UPFRONT in terms of where he's "marketing" his availability.

If it's B or C, that's not really the Employer's fault, that's the fault of the marketplace just not having enough qualified candidates.

But now, going back to the answer being A, what if there's no other place for the Employer to go to better filter? What if there's no where to go to better market his availability?

If you really want to know what happened Guru, my situation was Answer C, I didn't find hardly ANY black women that fit all of my criteria. So similar to the argument made to Employers, I should then accept the skills gap and offer "training".....correct? Well, I COULD do that, or I could just hire lower level employees and automate aspects of the position. Which bringing it back to my situation, Tenacity eliminated the criteria for my LTR girl and instead replaced it with the girl just needing to LOOK good with a decent attitude, while at the same time automating (eliminating) my desire to "settle down".

Understand now?

Tenacity how can you expect an unemployable ex-con to understand an employment position example?

Ponzi may be Jewish but he's no Einstein.