Sounds like you should do it again. Twice.
Have fun.
I'll be redacting this and relevant posts soon, since, under interrogation, I had to account for my time, and now she's vowed to find my blog
Oh boy.
On further reflection:
oh god, they're so bad, Ogged. ... "we should do this again" (said twice) ... "Holy crap, this woman is gorgeous." ... and now she's vowed to find my blog.
I say you take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Highlight: "So, do you like the band [you play in]?" "[The lead guy writes all songs and] oh god, they're so bad, Ogged."
Listen to me when I tell you these things.
The blog would be really easy to find, wouldn't it?
Cala, what does "we should do this again" mean?
She doesn't have a net connection at home (how about that), so I'm not in imminent danger.
Famous last words, I know.
so I'm not in imminent danger.
The more you keep asking "what does 'we should do this again' mean?" the more endangered you sound. But in a good way. Are you experiencing some complex emotion contingent on both having and rejecting the desire to be convincingly informed that it means "She likes you but not in that way"?
It means stop being a fool, call her up and ask her for another date. But yay and weird, cause I met someone too last night. Well, two nights ago now
I'm worried that I might be ignorant of a bit of dating code that tells us that "we should do this again" is understood to mean "Thanks, but don't call me" in the same way that "I had a nice time" usually means that. It's not imperative that y'all tell me, since I'll see her at the pool tomorrow and will get a better sense, but I am curious.
oh god, they're so bad, Ogged. ... "we should do this again" (said twice) ... "Holy crap, this woman is gorgeous."
Gonerill scores high in reading comprehension. Turn off your auto-cockblock function and take down the relevant posts, for God's sake.
I'm worried that I might be ignorant of a bit of dating code that tells us that "we should do this again" is understood to mean "Thanks, but don't call me" in the same way that "I had a nice time" usually means that.
You know, I am really, really glad that I only have to face this kind of nightmarish hermeneutic exercise when reading letters of recommendation, or when teaching Goffman.
I'm worried that I might be ignorant of a bit of dating code that tells us that "we should do this again" is understood to mean "Thanks, but don't call me" in the same way that "I had a nice time" usually means that.
No, "we should do this again" means "yes" just as "I had a nice time" means "no." Even I know that.
It means "let's have another date," you dummy.
And it's your turn to do the asking.
Oh good grief, even clueless me can see she wants another date with you.
If she didn't, you would have had a hand shake and not a hug.
The promise to find the blog—she's interested in YOU.
So does the fact that she gave you the myspace page for the band without making any self-deprecating or warning comments, but described the music as "so bad" umprompted when you asked, mean that it was a test?
I think you need to decide which blog you want her to think you write, and how to drop hints that will lead her to it.
I think you need to decide which blog you want her to think you write
Awesome. "So, I'm not going to tell you, but it rhymes with Fucker Tax."
Wait, this means I should take down the totally awesome creepy stalking post too, doesn't it? Shit.
Sequestration is your friend.
OTOH, so is the funny.
16-18 are correct. But while the promise to find the blog signals a very promising interest in you, it should also be taken, like "we should do this again," at face value. She'll be here tomorrow.
Wait, this means I should take down the totally awesome creepy stalking post too, doesn't it?
You should probably just take down the whole blog.
Accounts and passwords for everyone!
Awesome. "So, I'm not going to tell you, but it rhymes with Fucker Tax."
"It's a swimming blog but, to conceal my identity, I prentend to be writing it from a different state."
Or at least all of your posts.
The cute posts about children are probably safe.
He could just randomly re-assign authors to all of the posts on the site.
He could just randomly re-assign authors to all of the posts on the site.
Nah, then she'd just think one of them was him.
Hmm, based on tonight's conversation, which search terms could I use to find his blog?
What does "we should do this again" (said twice) mean?
Given that you said this at the July meetup... there's never going to be another one, is there?
So you see why I wasn't sure what she meant.
Did she also say "don't be a stranger"?
which search terms could I use to find his blog?
I was a weasel. She asked me what we post about and my examples were illustrative but not genuine.
For god's sake, man, it means you should do it again.
And also, forget about trying to clean up this place. But on the bright side, Knecht survived Fleur's discovery of his indiscretions.
A match on the first page. Ogged is doomed.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=iranian++date+lifeguard
Please please please tell me one of your examples was the Warren Sapp post.
Slol's right, don't worry about it. Either she'll think it's funny and clever, or she'll eventually realize she hates you anyway.
I'm just going to take down the posts about her (including this one). Otherwise, it is what it is.
But on the bright side, Knecht survived Fleur's discovery of his indiscretions.
So your course of action is clear: get a second date, then propose marriage.
You're going to take down the post where you say you were halfway through the date before you realized she's incredibly hot.
You fucking idiot.
And the one where you worried about her band being bad *before* she told you herself that they're bad.
Ogged, ogged, ogged.
The point, confessional B, is that no one wants to date someone who might write about them and/or the date later.
So she'll see all the posts about other women you're flirting with/stalking, but not the ones about her?
45 gets it exactly right. 46 gets it exactly wrong.
You said the date went well and that she's totally hot. There is *nothing* there that's bad, only good.
And all you have to do is not write about further dates. And tell her that you won't, if she finds the blog and things continue. Duh.
Anyway, you should totally keep those posts, because they're flattering to her. Without them, there's lots of posts mentioning your ex (which suggest you might well write about her at some point anyway), the lists of what kinds of women you won't date (which makes you look like an ass), and a bunch of stuff about Jessica Biel's hotness (which ditto). Plus posts about macking on other women who aren't her.
Don't be a dummy.
all the posts about other women you're flirting with/stalking
Which other posts?
51: Ms. Sandals says hi. Also the older woman from Whole Foods.
51: Flirting with women in whole foods. The young lifeguard who you asked out. The Iranian lawyer. The cutie on the plane. Probably others I'm not remembering.
And yet, there was never a mention of her. Did you not even notice her until she asked you out?!? Do you not think she's pretty?!?
I'm telling you, man.
the older woman from Whole Foods
God, I don't even remember this one.
when teaching Goffman.
Expand? I've been thinking of reading about the presentation of self in everyday life, and I hear he's written on the topic, so if one has to read him through some bizarre code, it would be good to know that in advance.
I think you need to decide which blog you want her to think you write
Oh don't forget the posts about the other lifeguard.
55: Jesus, it was less than a month ago.
Ogged, for gosh's sake, listen to B. Either you take down most of the posts you've written, leaving only the ones about swimming, or you just leave the post about her up (except for the "her band is horrible post, of course). Most women would be flattered by this post.
Plus, you mention that you "tend to go to (your) serial killer place and become extremely calm and a little detached" when nervus on a first date. This is very useful knowledge for the party on the other side. She may be fretting right now, thinking that you may not be into her because you acted so detached. This post would then become comforting.
And I forgot to mention: YAY, Ogged! Ah, the fluttering of a newly opened heart, like a present on (Major End of December Holiday recognized in most of the Western World) day.
it was less than a month ago.
Oh, that. Doesn't count!
Anyway, look, I can't worry about the blog. Like I say, it is what it is. B might be right that I should leave up the posts about her though. But not this one! Especially now!
61: Chanukah is *eight* days, thankyouverymuch.
Not the one about the band, either. Don't know about Labs' follow-up post on that.
Chanukah can't properly be called a December holiday, though.
Clearly SC is thinking of the solstice.
63: I left it ambiguous so that you could choose any day(s) at the end of Dec. that you liked. After all, we are only talking about one heart here.
Definitely this one. And all you gotta do to the other one is edit it a bit to say that someone told you this woman you'd been noticing at the pool was cute or somesuch. You can delete untoward comments, dummy.
Delete Labs's band post, though. Labs is so mean.
I'm not going to go changing history, B. Who do you think I am, uncle Stalin? I'll sleep on it and decide tomorrow.
Labs will have to take down his own post, if he's so inclined. We have principles here, you know.
Clearly SC is thinking of the solstice.
Nah, Saturnalia.
I've deleted my embarrassing posts. Now, why haven't I leaped?
If Labs doesn't take down his post it makes no sense for you to take down yours.
Yes, I think you're Stalin. That awful moustache of yours doesn't help.
I'm just waiting to find out she's been reading the site for years now.
If Labs doesn't take down his post it makes no sense for you to take down yours.
Ogged, a good feminist, respects Labs' autonomy. He's not responsible for Labs' post.
Ben, being gay doesn't make Labs a woman.
I'm just waiting to find out she's been reading the site for years now.
And she's never figured it out. She'll even happen upon some different blog, similar enough to misidentify it as ogged's. Hilarity!
She'll even happen upon some different blog, similar enough to misidentify it as ogged's. Hilarity!
This would be hilarious even if she doesn't already read this one.
I still say the easiest way to solve this problem is to bring her to DC.
Oy Vey! Chanukah begins early this year.
2006: Dec. 15
2007: Dec. 4
2008: Dec. 21
71: I only celebrate Saturnalia on a four year rotation. I'm sitting this one out.
Remind me to post the rules for strip dreidl tomorrow.
Remember to post the rules for strip dreidl tomorrow.
You and Becks are such comedians.
For the Nth time in my life someone I'd like to be sleeping with introduced me as their best friend.
I went to a shindig on behalf of n+1's sixth issue where there were all sorts of interesting-seeming people whom I did not meet or interact with at all.
I went out with Bave. Saw Control. Bave and I stayed out till 330am and talked religion. It was great.
Control, btw, would be an incredible, drop-jaw film if you didn't already know everything that would happen. As it was, it was pretty good.
People I was with were more affiliated with Good mag then N+1.
89, what if you hate Joy Division and don't know much about them?
n+1
Isn't this published from New York?
Isn't this published from New York?
Yes, but they are in San Francisco. Weeeeeeeird.
91: If you hate the music, it might not be so fun, as there is a lot of it, but not knowing anything about them would be ideal. I already knew all the Ian Curtis hagiography and felt like the film was a little machine-like in its faithful representation of all the key events. I've heard people who don't know them are totally emotionally blasted by it. (Bave said, cleverly, "Wow, that was a more faithful adaptation than the first Harry Potter movie.") Some of the performances of the songs (esp "Transmission") are fucking great. It sparked excellent dinner conversation.
re: 89
A friend of mine saw it and was raving about it [cinematography, performances, etc].
In 'doing stuff' news, we went to see Guy Barker's Amadeus Project thing, which was, I think, one of the best two or three gigs I've ever seen. Still buzzing about it a couple of days later.
Video Hippos put on a good show. Trippy movies should be projected behind every punk band, and I don't know why this wasn't realized sooner.
94: Not that you're still up, but who did the covers? Who did Ian Curtis in the covers? Given That Ms. Bear is asleep, I ask this of everyone.
Tolja.
I'd opt for deleting more rather than less. The loss to mankind isn't insuperable (hell the NSA probably has a complete archive anyway, which can be made available to historians of the future). She'll learn of your various charming qualities in time anyway, but not all at once. (I'd save the bit about worrying about band suckage for the 4th date).
Best of luck.
re: 97
I think the actors in the film play all the instruments and sing all their parts.
I'd seriously say delete all stalking posts (all the lifeguards, the Iranian lawyer, the agèd surfer chick, and the others I can't remember). I think that there's a reasonable chance that a perfectly OK woman might be squicked by that kind of thing.
I just inadvertently watched two Seinfeld episodes in which George and Jerry each cock-blocked themself at least once. I feel confident that Ogged does not want to have a Seinfield experience.
And of course, this thread.
Listen to your Uncle John. I don't want to come back and find those posts still up. Or this one.
No, "we should do this again" means "yes"....
I have a counter-example.
I feel confident that Ogged does not want to have a [cockblocking] experience.
What is the source of this uncanny and, frankly, unlikely confidence, John?
Also, for you philosophers out there: what's the point of commenting on this post? Comments certain to be deleted, uncertain to be read; it feels so.... Something.
Dammit. 103 was me.
Also, when the hell did Ogged learn to say "yinz?"
Oh, and FWIW, I think B is reasonably right about not redacting at all. And even if she isn't, I wouldn't redact much - if bass/guard chick gets to know you at all before finding this place, there isn't much to freak her out - unless she really doesn't belong with you.
Last, if she doesn't even have internet at home, her Google-fu is likely very weak. We computer literates tend to forget how bad at this stuff most people are.
No offense, bass/guard chick. Welcome!
Ogged claims to hate "Seinfeld". I was trying to motivate him. The relationship-free life is only for the elite, the elect, and the superman.
1. Congratulations!
2. Don't leave up the posts about her
3. Do remove posts about a) in particular, the younger lifeguard, b) any interactions with other women that could be deemed creepy
4. Say you post under the name "Apostropher"
OK, not the last one.
At some point Ogged is going to introduce her to the site. And at some point she will find links to the posts in question. Including coarse comments about her very booty by imaginary lowlife friends of Ogged's such as myself.
Yay, Ogged! I join the chorus of "We should do this again" means "I'd like to go out with you again," no code. I'm not sure about redaction, but I'm leaning toward 'leave it all up'.
Also, for you philosophers out there: what's the point of commenting on this post?
"Through resignation I renounce everything, this movement is one I do by myself, and when I do not do it that is because I am cowardly and weak and lack the enthusiasm and have no sense of the importance of the high dignity afforded to every human being, to be his own censor, a dignity greater by far than to be Censor General for the whole Roman Republic. This movement is one that I make by myself, so what I win is myself in my eternal consciousness, in a blessed compliance with my love for the eternal being. Through faith I don't renounce anything, on the contrary in faith I receive everything, exactly in the way it is said what one whose faith is like a mustard seed can move mountains. It takes a purely human courage to renounce the whole of temporality in order to win eternity, but I do indeed win it and cannot in all eternity renounce that, for that would be a self-contradiction; but it takes a paradoxical and humble courage then to grasp the whole of temporality on the strength of the absurd and that courage is the courage of faith. Through faith Abraham did not renounce his claim on Isaac, through his faith he received Isaac. That rich young man, by virtue of his resignation, should have given everything away, but once he had done so the knight of faith would have to say to him: 'On the strength of the absurd you shall get every penny back, believe that!' And these words should by no means be a matter of indifference to the once rich young man; for if he gave his possessions away because he was bored with them, then his resignation was in a sorry state."
Frankly, if I knew it were all going to be left up I'd feel pressure to self-censor my comments about the booty of my imaginary friend's imaginary friend, and I'd resent that.
Philosophically, transience is not a problem. Blog commenters do not write for the ages. Quite the opposite.
Flip, I like this. Drat that you put it in this thread. My mood, of course, may be enhanced by the freezing rain out of doors, which tends to upend.
Commenting on a non-existent thread is not much different from any comment here.
Funny that permanence is prized so lightly here, where the liturgy is announced: RTFA.
Part of the reason I had that thought, though, was that I read the first 100 comments, then commented myself, with the thought, "Will this even post to anything?"
This post will be permanent because I will dedicate an old computer to it, connecting a UPS and leaving this page up forever.
It's actually a fascinating exercise. Little to no discernible difference from the exercise of living: it exists in your mind, baby, in your mind.
Also, for you philosophers out there: what's the point of commenting on this post?
language] 'in its attentive and
forgetful being, with its power of dissimulation that effaces every determinate meaning and even the existence of the speaker' Foucault, Essential Works, ed. Paul Rabinow (ok,ok, from the Oxford Very Very Short Idiot's Introduction to Foucault for Dummies, abridged edition)
IOW, like the guy on Soap waving his hands and saying:"I'm invisible!"
when teaching Goffman.
Expand? I've been thinking of reading about the presentation of self in everyday life, and I hear he's written on the topic, so if one has to read him through some bizarre code, it would be good to know that in advance.
I just meant that Goffman is the explicator of this sort of thing (not an exemplar of it). I wasn't thinking of a specific example. He is also immensely readable. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life is a good place to begin if you want to read about the presentation of self in everyday life.
Does she know you use terms like "grok"?
"Grok" is one of those terms that I used to think was more or less only found amongst computer nerds, but in fact seems to be much more widespread.
"Grok" is from Stranger in a Strange Land, no?
"Grok" is one of those terms that I used to think was more or less only found amongst computer nerds, but in fact seems to be much more widespread.
Including "of a certain age;" I'm neither computer nerd nor sf reader, but the word was ubiquitous 30-40 years ago.
I agree with LB. I could understand taking out Fontana Lab's post dissecting exactly how and why the band sucks, and maybe the phrase "I tend to go to my serial killer place" from this post itself. Other than that, though, I really don't see anything that's incriminating, and to the extent that it is, taking stuff out wouldn't make things better. Do you leave up your posts about other women? Even if you delete all dating threads, there are still plenty of references in comments and stuff.
Honestly. If you have a blog on which you and others say things you will later have reason to feel are deeply problematic -- are they embarrassing? are they cruel or crude? are they, face it, excessively honest? -- where are you left? Not necessarily a rhetorical question, but perhaps it should be.
Including "of a certain age;" I'm neither computer nerd nor sf reader, but the word was ubiquitous 30-40 years ago.
That's right, it was one of my deal-breakers.
"I grok."
"I had a nice time."
Personally, were I to date someone (per impossibile) I would not be pleased to find out that several hundred people knew about the upcoming date.
Woo-hoo Ogged!
On the redaction issue: I have a frustratingly elusive memory of Ogged's contention, somewhere in comments, that in considering whether a date might read the blog, he liked the fact that it was revealing of him. Not so much in a "stay away" fashion as in the recent thread, but in a "here's who I am" fashion. So I lean towards leaving things up, because I think the posts in question are genuinely revealing of him.
On the other hand, it's not hard to imagine feeling very uneasy, if I were the musician/pool woman, about imagining myself the topic of discussion by a bunch of strangers, especially in a romantic or sexual context. OTOH, if she's savvy about blogs, she might think discusison here is startlingly friendly, if sometimes blunt. If she's not particularly web-savvy, however, it may feel invasive.
Eh. I think I'd lean toward leaving it up, but that's easy for me to say. And I didn't read FL's band post.
126: An understatement, not be pleased
Public/private boundaries are tested on blogs, and it's not just to do with what you say now, but all those damned archives. In meatspace, as people crudely say, you don't come with all this readily available. Given that it is available when you blog, the question is the extent to which you self-censor for the sake of some possible future in which you don't wish to be an open book. Blogging is like placing yourself in a fishbowl; and it's exhibitionistic.
Eh, it's pretty obvious. I don't know why I'm intrigued by it, but it is one reason I don't blog.
Congrats, Ogged. Not that you need more advice, but: always, always err on the side of caution.
mrh is right -- there's nothing women love more than a total pussy.
128: I understand and don't disagree with most of this take on things. The funny thing is, given a choice between the public data which I have no control over having on the web (former employers, articles, etc.) and my online comments, if I could control which of them showed up first on Google, I'd be a lot less stressed about the latter.
Although the extent to which you self-censor may have something to do with it.
See, Ogged is oppressing me if he doesn't take this stuff down. This very moment I am tactfully suppressing a tasteless joke.
Heh. Live your life in such a way that you have as little to regret as possible, but only you can say what you regret.
Etc.
John, calling Kotsko a pussy will have no long-term effects on ogged's romantic prospects. Just let yourself go.
The funny thing is, given a choice between the public data which I have no control over having on the web (former employers, articles, etc.) and my online comments, if I could control which of them showed up first on Google, I'd be a lot less stressed about the latter.
Apparently Witt is some sort of raging incompetent whose foibles are constant tabloid fodder. Who knew? His comments here seem so normal....
Yippee!
I look forward to not hearing about this for a long time, and then having the base playing lifeguard show up here with an interesting pseudonym.
Leave it up, ogged. Redaction is going to be way too messy.
Ogged, get a cool, classy but lovable dog. It will make up for everything. Get an expensive dog, but tell her you got it at the pound. Start thinking of baby names.
Cute, distinctive names. Osama if it's a boy, Ebola if it's a girl.
119: "Grok" is one of those terms that I used to think was more or less only found amongst computer nerds, but in fact seems to be much more widespread.
I was surprised and dismayed to encounter it as one of the words at that freerice word site. (And I think it was level 47!)
My dating advice in this instance: Develop songwriting skills.
I think you need to decide which blog you want her to think you write, and how to drop hints that will lead her to it.
"You know, Esmerelda, there were some people in the North who identified with the Confederates. I've always identified with them, and made it kind of my persona."
I think you need to decide which blog you want her to think you write, and how to drop hints that will lead her to it.
"I thought I'd get more hits if I pretended to be a woman, so I got this weird law professor in Wisconsin to be the figurehead for the blog, but the opinions are all mine."
"Hint: 'goats' with an extra 'e' at the end."
"I try to write mostly about my little daughter, but I just can't contain my fury at the Islamoliberals sometimes."
On the other hand, it's not hard to imagine feeling very uneasy, if I were the musician/pool woman, about imagining myself the topic of discussion by a bunch of strangers, especially in a romantic or sexual context. OTOH, if she's savvy about blogs, she might think discusison here is startlingly friendly, if sometimes blunt. If she's not particularly web-savvy, however, it may feel invasive.
I think it's probably OK, because there's no description of how she looks. Therefore the creepiness is quite limited compared to the rest of the internet's opinions on how women can be ogled by strangers.
Hey, guys, I'm trying to get Ogged married off. The Council of the Unrelated has decided that we do not need him in our community.
Sure, once the cute little munchkins start showing up, Unfogged goes belly up. Look what's happened to the legendary "Apo". But unrelationship needs the right kinds of representatives. If we have to kill Unfoggedin order to keep our brand name fresh, so be it.
I'm going to take down the posts about her/her band as well as the one about stalking the surfer lady. Everything else will stay up.
the one about stalking the surfer lady
The more times that phrase occured in the comments to this post the more inevitable it was that you would decide to take this post down as well.
This post was always already going to come down.
We have principles here, you know.
I think these can be cured by a course of antibiotics.
152: But if she's a lifeguard and knows the other lifeguard with whom you had a misadventure, shouldn't you take those down as well?
I bet the surfer lady post would stay up if we hadn't started referring to her as "weathered".
Are you going to tell her that you purged references of her in the blog, a la the insult-of-omission that B brought up?
"Grok" is one of those terms that I used to think was more or less only found amongst computer nerds, but in fact seems to be much more widespread.
When I was a 17-year-old freshman, I took a philosophy seminar that was oddly full of students from outside the FAS. One from the Div School said, apropos of something I don't remember, probably an epistemological issue, "We grok God."
The Flippanter reaction: "Grok?" with a tone and an expression that, I was later told, suggested that I was planning to teach him some things that I had learned in my lousy public high school.
Ok, this post will be gone in a few minutes...
I regret pointing this out. But almost, assuming that this lady starts to read the blog regularly, it is almost certain that she will realize that posts about her were redacted after the two of you started dating, and she will almost certainly ask to see them, especially if they were so bad that you had to take them off the blog.
I MURDERED MY MOTHER WITH A SLEDGEHAMMER LAST NIGHT!
I DO EIGHTBALL AFTER EIGHTBALL TO GET ME THROUGH MY DAYS AND NIGHTS!