Dream come true, or ... nightmare?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: to cheerful

Originally posted by donquixote04
If, by the "chaos thing" you mean I am lousy at covering my tracks
Nothing like it, covering tracks requires a sound grip on the order thing, although as Jeanette Winterson's narrator in Written On the Body points out, it's gosh darn easy to deceive people who trust us.

Evidence that the character DQ sucks at the chaos thing includes his anxiety over exactly who his romantic partner is and how she feels about him and his belief that he will be able to tell how the two of them would get along in the future on the basis of some experiment. Testing is pointless in a chaotic world, because there's only now. Hard work and sensible plans sometimes lead to a profitable sale of business, and sometimes lead to ashes because some Saudi had a grudge and took it out on the building where you were signing the contract.

The original DQ rooled at the chaos thing. Aldonza wasn't working in a tavern a few weeks per year, she wasn't working there at all - she was a princess in a magic castle! I haven't read it since 1970, but if Cervantes' DQ did any reality-checking at all, it's either slipped my mind or Putnam didn't include it in his translation.
 
to cheerful

Okay. Thanks for the clarification.

Originally posted by Cheerful
... The original DQ rooled at the chaos thing. Aldonza wasn't working in a tavern a few weeks per year, she wasn't working there at all - she was a princess in a magic castle! I haven't read it since 1970, but if Cervantes' DQ did any reality-checking at all, it's either slipped my mind or Putnam didn't include it in his translation.
If my memory serves me well, Aldonza certainly did work the tavern -- it was the invented Dulcinea that was the princess.

I have no idea what you mean by the word "rooled" but I suppose you mean Cervantes' DQ was indifferent to thinking through his situation and preferred to act on instinct. In that way, you are accurate to imply I am very different from that DQ. On the other hand, that DQ was quite insane, had no grip on reality at all, and came to a poor end. Is that your prescription for how latter-day DQs should act as well?
 
Originally posted by justme The notion that we should abstain from that which brings us guilt is so deeply flawed that it hardly seems worth refuting.
C'mon, I was pretty explicit that if feeling guilty makes one's dick stiff, one should feel free to mea culpulate. I'm sure there're a dozen websites for folks with this jones, and there's probably a monthly invitation-only party right in town.

We should abstain from stuff that makes us feel bad if we don't want to feel bad.

Turns out that's beside the point in this case, because the character DQ claims that he doesn't feel guilty.
 
Re: to cheerful

Originally posted by donquixote04
I have no idea what you mean by the word "rooled"
Do a google search on SUCKS ROOLZ.

but I suppose you mean Cervantes' DQ was indifferent to thinking through his situation and preferred to act on instinct.
Now why couldn't Cervantes have expressed it so? Think of the trees he'd have saved :)

Is that your prescription for how latter-day DQs should act as well?
My prescription for an order-queen suffering from a perfectly legitimate broken heart continues to be (1) make a list of diverting erotic activities not already tried and found flawed. (2) resolve that in the future, upon discovering a satisfying sex partner who prefers imaginary settings to real ones, strive to be imaginative rather than earthbound. (3) savor the memories.
 
Last edited:
Re: to cheerful

Originally posted by donquixote04
If my memory serves me well, Aldonza certainly did work the tavern -- it was the invented Dulcinea that was the princess.
Don't you get it? Aldonza was invented too, by Cervantes! The whole thing is a lie. Why should you believe Cervantes' lie about Aldonza over Quixotes'? Early in volume 2, Quixote and Panza both take issue with how Cervantes is describing them, just to drive the point home.
 
to cheerful

Originally posted by Cheerful
... (1) make a list of diverting erotic activities not already tried and found flawed. (2) resolve that in the future, upon discovering a satisfying sex partner who prefers imaginary settings to real ones, strive to be imaginative rather than earthbound. (3) savor the memories. ...
Thanks for this list of suggestions.




Originally posted by Cheerful
Don't you get it? Aldonza was invented too, by Cervantes! The whole thing is a lie. Why should you believe Cervantes' lie about Aldonza over Quixotes'? ...
Well, Professor, I'm only guessing here, but it seems to me we might have reason to prefer Cervantes' lie to the original Quixote's lie because Cervantes was real and the original Quixote is fictional. Now, exactly what does this have to do with the topic of this thread?
 
Re: to cheerful

Originally posted by donquixote04
Now, exactly what does this have to do with the topic of this thread?
Thank you. I just finished me second reading. I am going to print it out this week and suggest my wife use it for her book club.......better than the crap they read
 
Last edited:

justme

homo economicus
C'mon, I was pretty explicit that if feeling guilty makes one's dick stiff, one should feel free to mea culpulate

Sure, guilt fetishists should feel free to fetishize, but even for us with less complicated reactions to guilt there is room to partake in guilty pleasures. Are you familiar with the phrase, 'guilty pleasure?'

Because I suck at the tact thing.

Fair enough.

Testing is pointless in a chaotic world, because there's only now.

I think DQ isn't the only one who fails to understand the 'chaos thing'.

(But don't expect me to explain it, my non linear dynamics are more atrophied than my partial differential equations)
 
Re: to cheerful

Originally posted by donquixote04
Well, Professor, I'm only guessing here, but it seems to me we might have reason to prefer Cervantes' lie to the original Quixote's lie because Cervantes was real and the original Quixote is fictional.
Cervantes, the flesh and blood author, is real. Cervantes, the narrator, is a fiction, invented by Cervantes, the author.

What does this have to do with this thread?
It is most apt to this thread:

* The narrative is in the first person, the 'I' being named "Don Quixote," which puts it rather bluntly.

* During the course of the narrative, the other characters change in their accidental qualities such as name, age, occupation, and marital status, and in their essential qualities such as real or imagined, loving or scheming or treacherous, which is certainly how the world would appear to an imperfectly mad Quixote.

* There is an additional voice, that of the author of the frame tale and of the thread exchanges, who advises us that the narrator has falsified his reports, ostensibly to make identification of the persons impossible, but it certainly opens the door. A reader who believes he has spotted an inconsistency in one of the characters' stories based on the nationality of the character is brushed off with "oh, I was lying about that." Suggestions that a Panza be brought in, in the form of a private detective, are dismissed. When it is gently pointed out that increasing the denominator reduces a fraction's value, a mathematical certainty, this voice says it is not a problem, on the grounds of "shut up."

On the basis of evidence and instruction, it is reasonable to conclude that the voices in the narrative and thread replies are comparable, with respect to the underlying reality (if any), with Cervantes' narrator.
 
Last edited:
to cheerful

Originally posted by Cheerful
... On the basis of evidence and instruction, it is reasonable to conclude that the voices in the narrative and thread replies are comparable, with respect to the underlying reality (if any), with Cervantes' narrator.
Well, if you are really convinced that I've b.s.'d this board and made this stuff up, why do you bother wasting your time on it?

The reality is that what I've written is true, except that I have changed lots of details (and nothing substantive) to obscure real identities. You can accept that as true or not, as you wish, but it strikes me as really dumb for someone to think it's false and still spend time posting messages to this thread, including messages which offer advice.
 
Re: Do you ever hear from Lisa, DQ?

Originally posted by backdoor_man Now a year has gone by, can you deal with it better? How's the sportin' life?
Well, backdoor, thanks for asking. It’s actually been more than a year-and-a-half since I’ve last heard from Lisa. As I wrote earlier in this thread, on July 22, 2002, I still don’t expect to ever hear from her again. Of course, I’d be dishonest unless I admitted that if she ever did get in touch again, I’d see her again in a heartbeat. Over the last 20 months, I’ve become convinced that she was not only married (as she had admitted to me) but also most likely has kids, too. Her “excursions” to NYC every 5-8 weeks must have been her way of adding excitement to an otherwise very conventional suburban lifestyle, along with a substantial cash infusion for her otherwise marginal business. Of course, these conclusions aren’t based on any further evidence, since I don’t have any. They just seem to make sense of the facts that I do have.

I have noticed that her visits to NYC have dropped in frequency. Eighteen months ago she was coming to NYC once every 5-8 weeks, but these days it’s more like once every 4-6 months. Perhaps her conventional business has picked up, or changed in some fundamental way, or perhaps the wear-and-tear of her double life is becoming more difficult for her to manage. After all, she is now just past her 37th birthday, and has been doing her excursions to NYC for at least four years. For all I know, she may have also been making excursions to other places, too.

As I wrote back in July 2002, I’m pretty sure I don’t really know Lisa. I feel certain she lied to me in many ways, so that she could project onto me the person she wanted me to see. But, I remain convinced that the sexual chemistry between us was very real. Lisa is beautiful, and has the body type I find the most appealing. She (or at least the person she projected herself to be) is witty, warm, intelligent, and friendly. The sex we had was the best sex I ever had. The best sessions I have had with great providers, and the best sex I have ever had in non-commercial settings, don’t even come close to what I experienced with Lisa. The expression “ATF” was made for these memories.

Life goes on. Business continues to grow strongly. My health is good. I continue to have fun playing tennis with friends. My wife and I separated for a brief period after our youngest went off to college a bit more than a year ago. We’re back together now. Our life together improved for a while, but is now back to the same way it was when I first met Lisa. I’ve continued to visit providers on an infrequent basis, mostly at the upper end of the price structure. Diamond of KW is a lovely and skilled provider, for example. I saw her twice on her visits to NYC in the past couple of months. I also had a terrific session on a business trip to Florida last Spring with Xena of Florida, who I think may now be retired. And, I had a couple of disappointing sessions with 2 very beautiful agency girls, “Sonya” from Fleur de Elite, and “Valerie” from another agency that has more recently ripped off ug for the cost of banner advertising.
 
Im glad to hear things are good don.
Health and family is all that matters in the end.





btw,......I really wish youd post some of that stuff....uh....about the girls....share a little knowledge...and especially the shitty experiences.....might save me and alot of horny hardup guys alot of bucks...........anyway....Im glad to see you post
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by BigMadM Im glad to hear things are good don. Health and family is all that matters in the end. btw,......I really wish youd post some of that stuff....uh....about the girls....share a little knowledge...and especially the shitty experiences.....might save me and alot of horny hardup guys alot of bucks...........anyway....Im glad to see you post
You know, Mike, you're 100 percent right about that. I feel bad about holding off on posting some of my reviews. It's not an excuse, but in way of explanation, I started holding off on posting reviews when the "review site" thread got started. I figured why post them here if there was going to be a separate ug site for reviews? I not only think that a separate review site is a bad idea, I think even a thread about the possibility of a separate review site is bad, because it just discourages the posting of reviews here.
 
Most of the girls I see have been banned from this site.
But I will be putting some new reviews up of girls noone has reviewed here in the next few weeks.
I hope to see some stuff soon.
 
Originally posted by BigMadM ... But I will be putting some new reviews up of girls noone has reviewed here in the next few weeks. I hope to see some stuff soon.
I'll take this as motivation to follow your lead. I'll post reviews of some of my experiences in the next week or so, too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top