Why can't I find a "good guy?"

[BajanYankee]

Originally Posted by CorporateCowboy

Why is the OP thinking twice about, yet alone attempting to analyze, what he ‘overhears women saying’? It’s a bit nonsensical; hence the reason I assumed it was a woman who was asking, particularly relative to the title. As a man, I can confidently state most of us don’t eavesdrop on women’s conversations (or care whether they find a good man or not) - unless it was relative to a direct conversation with a friend (outside of a professional environment).

Why does it even matter? It's a discussion forum. You could very well ask why people spend time on here comparing the weighted density of Chicago and Los Angeles.

What you've basically written is a low key ad hominem attack against the OP. In essence, you're saying he's a weirdo, and whether that's true is not germane to the discussion.

Also, "overhearing" a conversation and "eavesdropping" on a conversation are two very different things. You've managed to conflate the two, however. It's not "eavesdropping" if two or more people are having an open conversation with knowledge of your presence. You're making it seem as if the OP has got his ear pressed against the door of the ladies' room waiting to hear all the latest and juiciest gossip.

[CorporateCowboy]

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

In essence, you're saying he's a weirdo, and whether that's true is not germane to the discussion.

I didn’t say he is a ‘weirdo’; you did. I simply asked (the OP) a question as part of my explanation as to why I (and several others) assumed OP is a woman. My point relative to the thread i.e. one’s own psychological health/self-improvement/attitude in finding a ‘good guy’ still stands regardless of what he is summarizing/doing. That said, perhaps the OP can speak for himself; otherwise, it only adds to the discontinuity of the thread.

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

Also, "overhearing" a conversation and "eavesdropping" on a conversation are two very different things. You've managed to conflate the two, however. It's not "eavesdropping" if two or more people are having an open conversation with knowledge of your presence.

If he heard detail (while allegedly working) from several women (and had interest enough as to start a thread about it), no question he would have crossed the line from ‘overhearing’ into ‘eavesdropping’. That he cares enough or appears emotionally invested in their opinion relative to finding a ‘good guy’ speaks volumes. Else, he’d have no reason to run with it, as Mikala perceptively stated (below).

Originally Posted by Mikala43

He is going off of overhearing conversations about "not being able to find a good guy" and running with it. He has no idea why they were saying that.

Originally Posted by Mikala43

But the OP is off and running with his reasons why....... Basically after overhearing bits of a woman's conversation at work.

[BajanYankee]

Originally Posted by CorporateCowboy

I didn’t say he is a ‘weirdo’; you did. I simply asked (the OP) a question as part of my explanation as to why I (and several others) assumed OP is a woman.

No, you implied he was a weirdo, which was why you said "most of us men don't eavesdrop on women's conversations." The implication there is clear, that the OP is out of the ordinary (aka a "weirdo") since you believe he was eavesdropping. Unless, of course, you believe that eavesdropping on women's conversation isn't weirdo behavior.

Also, I'm not sure why you're quoting that poster like s/he is an authority on the topic. Unless you were there to observe the OP in the office, you can't say whether he's "eavesdropping" or not. In fact, we used the word "overhearing," not the OP. For all you know, these could be conversations that are going on at a lunch table. If you are not certain what the context of these conversations are, then I would encourage you to refrain from any further assumptions about what the OP was or was not doing.

Read more. Assume less.

[CorporateCowboy]

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

No, you implied he was a weirdo, which was why you said "most of us men don't eavesdrop on women's conversations." The implication there is clear, that the OP is out of the ordinary (aka a "weirdo") since you believe he was eavesdropping. Unless, of course, you believe that eavesdropping on women's conversation isn't weirdo behavior.

Again, it’s not an implication he is a weirdo or some sort of spy, lol; it’s an explanation as to why I thought he was a woman relative to the thread title and some of (what I now know to be) his posts. That said, I do question the point of the thread since learning he is not a woman; and so I (logically) asked. It certainly pertains to the thread in and of itself.

Bottom line, it doesn’t matter if he was eavesdropping or not, he still started a thread relative to such - and titled it as though speaking for himself.

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

Also, I'm not sure why you're quoting that poster like s/he is an authority on the topic. Unless you were there to observe the OP in the office, you can't say whether he's "eavesdropping" or not.

Eavesdropping/overhearing is not the issue; hence the reason it’s bizarre you want to argue/defend the OP’s thread/position (whatever it is) by turning it into an unnecessary distinction between ‘overhearing’ vs. ‘eavesdropping’. Point still being, where is he going with any of this? What type of feedback is he seeking relative to the women in his office, and the ‘chit-chat that surrounds him’?

Bottom line, my posts have been highly relevant to the thread/title (even if the point of such remains ambiguous). I never called him a weirdo.

[PJSaturn]

This seems to be a good point at which to close the thread. Done.