Why Trust Sisters?

quote:

Alliteration is using the same beginning sound in each word (ex. slippery slide).

See, Frenchy, this is the main reason why I make fun of some of you africanamerica.org regulars. I know full well what the definition of alliteration is--Hmmmm. I wonder, Frenchy, who came up with this title that caught so much attention:

"Subduing Intimidating Sisters."

Okay, so I bent the definition of alliteration a little by entitling this discussion, "Why Trust Sisters?" (So sue me) but it was done on purpose. Sure, I could have easily entitled this discussion, "Why Trust Women," but that title would have been too broad.

quote:

Upon observation of a variety of your posts thusfar, I've come to the (at least preliminary) conclusion that you may very well be (at least most) of all you say you are, with an undoubtedly complex persona that would make you categorically unable to fit into any one style and make it difficult (at best) to fully capture the whole of your essence in a few message board postings.

But that being said, you really are indeed arrogant! It's a trait that seems to run within every Aries man that I know. Now, not that that's necessarily a bad thing ... (everybody's boat floats a different way!) ... but, since you place such high esteem on truth and honesty, it would do you well to embrace that part of your character along with all the rest of it if you are going to present your observations as substantive of your knowledge and experience!

You think you're slick don't you, EbonyRose? HA HA HA HA HA....I appreciate you at least having the tact to use praise before telling me I'm arrogant. I guess I'm going to have to make the distinction that I'm not being arrogant everytime I make a statement that may be percieved as arrogant--no, that would be too much like trying to appease some of you AA.org regulars--so, you're just going to have to get to know me--decipher when I'm just playing around and when I'm being serious.

Appeasing an audience is only necessary when you're trying to sell books. I'm not selling books, I'm just interacting with people on AA.org in a casual manner. Now, when I do start selling books (Most likely self-help and memoirs) I will word my comments in such a way that I would be careful not to offend or turn off my audience.

Now, EbonyRose, you want to know who is arrogant on this site? Let me show you who is the personification of arrogance, not to mention cocky, sexist and self-absorbed:

quote:

I walk the way I do, FOR A WOMAN. I cut my hair, FOR A WOMAN. I shave, FOR A WOMAN. Whatevery THEY like, you best believe Ima do. A man that says otherwise is the one hiding in the closet. THEY turn heads all the time. I DO TO. Mix my Alpha Mentality with some nice fittin's, and skurp (they hittin' the breaks). I don't know when the last time I had to build the nerve to approach a woman. Shux, lately I've been trippin' off of womens pick up lines... ({stops dead in her trax} oh my god...{talking to her friend} he is so beautiful) (my numbers in your pocket)and the latest (So... when are you going to call me?) --HeruStar

But I'm arrogant, right? There is no way in hell I would say, much less write some garbage like that to anyone, let alone approach a woman with that kind of 'God's gift to women' mentality

quote:

APPRECIATE you at least having the tact to use PRAISE before telling me I'm arrogant

o.k.
Way to go Iron
Iron Iron he's our man....
Good job Iron
Iron have you been working out?...
Boy, only you can make them rinkled jeans look good


Are those webbed feet
I'm pretty sure you're a GOOD swimmer


O.k. I've run out of praises but there will be more to follow

quote:

Okay, so I bent the definition of alliteration a little by entitling this discussion, "Why Trust Sisters?"

"Why Trust Sisters" in no way uses alliteration. And I'm fairly certain it is not alliteration if a word other than a conjunction separates the two alliterative words. So "Subduing Intimidating Sisters" is also not alliterative. Why didn't you just get to know me and ask for my advice?

quote:

Originally posted by little minx:
**i posted this on your other thread, but i thought it was actually better placed here**

ironhorse,

i'm really starting to wonder what's up. if you are half of what you say you are, you should be dating non stop, with sisters of great character, education and intelligence. heck, i might even expect you to be married with children by now. perhaps what frenchy and mbm have said are points that you really need to consider. perhaps you put off a vibe that keeps you from attracting the women you want.

you seem to be reading alot into things and assuming i said things i didn't. you do this to the point of failing to respond to the points i did bring up.

"i might even expect you to be married with children by now" is not the same as saying "you should be married by now." if i meant that i would have said you should be married by now. what i said was that i really wouldn't be surprised if you were married considering your self professed attributes. i don't perceive that it is considered a problem if a man isn't married. where do you think the term "eligible bachelor" came from? but there is still a stigma for a woman who is not married by a certain age. ever heard of an eligible bachelorette? i haven't.

and when did i ever talk about how you conduct yourself on a date? i didn't. when did i call you ignorant? although i certainly was tempted to do so, i dont believe i ever said that. i respect the fact that you are at least asking the questions, even if you don't accept the answers.

are you aware that we live in a patriarchy? that's why a woman is called names for free sexual expression. i don't know what you're talking about. i know plenty of women who would be glad to date a brother who was saving himself and wasn't obsessed with sex.

in fact many sisters have experienced dating men who think something is wrong with the sister if she doesn't jump into bed with him. i've had discussions with men who think it is somehow immature to wait to have sex. yet, sisters are also called ho's if she does have sex on the first date. . . .confusing isn't it? damned if you do, damned if you don't. there's a taste of womanhood. no wonder you don't understand the behavior of some women. you don't understand the crap we're put through and the contradictory standards to which we're held.

this discussion is somewhat circular so i don't know how helpful it is. truth be told, i find you to be somewhat amusing. you criticize the "regulars" on AA. org., and yet you are one of them. you make generalizations about women, but then get annoyed when you perceive they are made about you. you go on and on and on about how wonderful you are and what's wrong with these sisters out here. yet you are indignant when folks say you sound arrogant. even though many have said they pick up arrogance in your posts. saying you consider yourself a good potential partner has a different flavor than what you've been presenting.

you remind me of one of those brothers that sisters complain about. either a black men is not educated, with a record or too many baby momma's. or he's educated and hopelessly arrogant. isn't there a middle ground? isn't there? wink, wink (ofcourse there is . it's just not very common) makes me glad i'm married and no longer dating in the current climate.

quote:

"Why Trust Sisters" in no way uses alliteration. And I'm fairly certain it is not alliteration if a word other than a conjunction separates the two alliterative words. So "Subduing Intimidating Sisters" is also not alliterative. Why didn't you just get to know me and ask for my advice?

...and I get accused of not reading people's responses? Frenchy, first of all, you must not have read my response, and, secondly, you must not have clicked on my hyperlink. Thirdly, if you did click on my hyperlink, you must not have taken the time to scroll down and read the entire hyperlink--you most definately must not have bothered to fully investigate the entire history and terminologies of alliteration.

If I bothered to create a hyperlink to a site that completely describes, not only the origins of alliteration but also, the adaptations over the years, common sense would tell you I already know what alliteration means. Damn, I was an english minor in undergrad--I definately deserve to bend if not break the rules by the criteria of this casual interaction on a free website.

What is the point of creating hyperlinks if the people that demand a certain level of interaction on this site want to create excuses, trying to dispel the source or ignore the source altogether, it's not worth going through the trouble to create a hyperlink to support my discussions--you may as well just take my word for it.

If you had gotten to know me, instead of maintaining your own closeminded views, you would know I bend the rules from time to time. Since I know you didn't bother to check the hyperlink I'm not even going to bother to explain the adaptation I was using for fear of sounding too 'arrogant.'

quote:

Originally posted by HeruStar:

quote:

APPRECIATE you at least having the tact to use PRAISE before telling me I'm arrogant

o.k.
Way to go Iron
Iron Iron he's our man....
Good job Iron
Iron have you been working out?...
Boy, only you can make them rinkled jeans look good


Are those webbed feet
I'm pretty sure you're a GOOD swimmer


O.k. I've run out of praises but there will be more to follow

You don't think fast enough on your feet, HeruStar, that's why you're always two steps behind me.

quote:

...and I get accused of not reading people's responses? Frenchy, first of all, you must not have read my response, and, secondly, you must not have clicked on my hyperlink. Thirdly, if you did click on my hyperlink, you must not have taken the time to scroll down and read the entire hyperlink--you most definately must not have bothered to fully investigate the entire history and terminologies of alliteration.

If I bothered to create a hyperlink to a site that completely describes, not only the origins of alliteration but also, the adaptations over the years--what is the point of creating hyperlinks if the people that demand a certain level of interaction on this site want to create excuses, trying to dispel the source or ignore the source altogether, it's not worth going through the trouble to create a hyperlink to support my discussions--you may as well just take my word for it.

If you had gotten to know me, instead of maintaining your own closeminded views, you would know I bend the rules from time to time. Since I know you didn't bother to check the hyperlink I'm not even going to bother to explain the adaptation I was using for fear of sounding too 'arrogant.'

I read your entire message and link and you are still incorrect. All of the listed literary and common examples support what I said: the alliterative words must be successive or interrupted by a conjuction (ex from your link: Back to Basics). "Subduing Intimidating Sisters" does not fit, neither would "Why Trust Women." "Why Trust Sisters" does not use the same beginning sounds nor the same stressed syllables. You are free to bend whatever rules you wish, however, in this case, "bending the rules" means your title is no longer alliterative.

quote:

Originally posted by Frenchy:

I read your entire message and link and you are still incorrect. All of the listed literary and common examples support what I said: the alliterative words must be successive or interrupted by a conjuction (ex from your link: Back to Basics). "Subduing Intimidating Sisters" does not fit, neither would "Why Trust Women." "Why Trust Sisters" does not use the same beginning sounds nor the same stressed syllables. You are free to bend whatever rules you wish, however, in this case, "bending the rules" means your title is no longer alliterative.

Frenchy, you are hilarious...

Ironhorse, just admit that you didn't know the meaning of "alliteration" when you made the first post referencing it. You learned it after the ladies here questioned you on it. There is no form, shape, type, manner or kind of alliteration in the title of this thread, nor in the "subduing" title thread. No one who knew what alliteration is would have said that they were. If that was "bending the rules," then I guess killing somebody must be "bending the rule" against murder...

It's not dumb that you used the wrong word. It's okay to admit you used the wrong word...

quote:

I read your entire message and link and you are still incorrect. All of the listed literary and common examples support what I said: the alliterative words must be successive or interrupted by a conjuction (ex from your link: Back to Basics). "Subduing Intimidating Sisters" does not fit, neither would "Why Trust Women." "Why Trust Sisters" does not use the same beginning sounds nor the same stressed syllables. You are free to bend whatever rules you wish, however, in this case, "bending the rules" means your title is no longer alliterative.

*Laughing so hard, fell out of my desk chair, bumped my head on the corner of my desk, hit the floor, and still laughing*

If I didn't know the meaning of alliteration, why would I have even braught the word up to begin with? This is the main reason why I changed my mind and stayed on this site instead of going somewhere else: Everyone denied and evaded the fact that I was right about some of you people being rude, conceited, arrogant, cocky, and self-righteous, making this site inhospitable among other things. When Faheem finally admitted that some of you made this site inhospitable, and that certain people "couldn't hang" because "this is how we get down here," I knew, right then and there, I had my work cut out for me.

*Sigh* Frenchy, since you're trying so hard to prove me wrong, and since you at least scrolled down to the bottom of the site I linked, I guess I'm going to have to spell it out for you.

In the use of alliteration, as time went on, poetry writing evolved, and a technique developed, known as using half rhymes. where the last consonant sounds of words were involved. I thought to myself, "Self, why don't I just spin it around and use the first consanant sounds of words instead of the last?"--hence, the title ideas of, "Subduing Intimidating Sisters," and "Why Trust Women?".

As I had already explained earlier, I chose to use "Why Trust Sisters" instead because I knew it would give that little extra punch in attracting the attention of curious sisters.

quote:

All of the listed literary and common examples support what I said: the alliterative words must be successive or interrupted by a conjuction (ex from your link: Back to Basics).

I'm glad you at least scrolled down to the bottom of the page to read the examples but you still failed to pick up on what I was talking about. I'll post some more examples and see if you can pick up on the type of pattern I used. I'll give you five minutes *Starting stop watch*:

back to basics, balance the books, boom or bust, Green as grass, Hale and hearty.

*Stopping stop watch* Did you pick up on the pattern I used? You didn't did you? Well, let me tell you--I thought to myself, "Self, since I bent the rules using words with ending consanant sounds, why don't I bend the rules a little more and leave out the conjunctions too? Now, here's the pattern I used: Three word titles. It's easier for human beings to memorize numbers and words in groups of two or three. Was that so hard, Frenchy? I thought not.

See, I've noticed over the years, especially with Prince, how people like to break the rules, like using "U" instead of "you," and using lower case "i" instead of "I" when exercising freedom of expression. Now, there's this new craze of kids using the number "3" in words. For example, "For3v3r" or "Chinky 3y3d Fr3ak." How is it that, by your standards, Frenchy, I'm not allowed to exercise my own special brand of creativity?

When I used the phrase, "Literary Terrorism," That is exactly what I meant, and Oshun can tell you what I mean but she only understood it from a violent perspective,attacking people on AA.org, Hence her comment, "I'm afraid he's going to turn AA.org into another Blackplanet." I've used that technique of literary terrorismon Blackplanet before I even knew this site, AA.org, existed, and I'm using it now.

Look around you--how many newbies could come to this site and start out writing discussions that produced an average of 4 to 6 pages? Some of you suckers would say, "Eh, he's just looking for attention." Nah, I don't need attention--my goal was to turn this muhfucka upside down--my goal was achieved.

quote:

Originally posted by IRONHORSE:
But I'm arrogant, right? There is no way in hell I would say, much less write some garbage like that to anyone, let alone approach a woman with that kind of 'God's gift to women' mentality

Agreed. But that's why I didn't call you conceited.

quote:

Ironhorse, just admit that you didn't know the meaning of "alliteration" when you made the first post referencing it. You learned it after the ladies here questioned you on it. There is no form, shape, type, manner or kind of alliteration in the title of this thread, nor in the "subduing" title thread. No one who knew what alliteration is would have said that they were. If that was "bending the rules," then I guess killing somebody must be "bending the rule" against murder...

The only thing to admit, Vox, is the excruciating stupidity, and ignorance you're submerged in. You also identify your cowardice, through your stupidity and ignorance, because you probably thought a long time ago I was wrong but you didn't have the balls to call me on it because you were afraid you would make yourself look stupid in doing so if you were wrong. Well, Vox, you accomplished the very thing you set out to avoid--making yourself look stupid

quote:

Originally posted by EbonyRose:

quote:

Originally posted by IRONHORSE:
But I'm arrogant, right? There is no way in hell I would say, much less write some garbage like that to anyone, let alone approach a woman with that kind of 'God's gift to women' mentality

Agreed. But that's why I didn't call you conceited.

EbonyRose, I refuse to accept being labeled arrogant. Just because a person is opinionated does not make him or her arrogant.

Let's go back to the begining--just because I made the comment, "a man of my caliber," in my first discussion, "There IS no Black Male Shortage!" doesn't make me arrogant. I consider 'a man of my caliber' to be a man of class, style, integrity, and good home training. It has nothing to do with whether I think I'm better than anyone or how much money I make--just different.

I didn't even imply that I was better than anyone, not here, not anywhere else--my purpose was to identify that I wasn't an average brother but, nooooo, MBM couldn't just ask the question: "What do you mean by saying, a man of your caliber?" He had to get overzealous and call me arrogant, under devil's advocate point of view, of course.

Even if I speak of my accomplishments, it isn't an attempt to flaunt--it is used in the purpose of making a valid point. Like I said from the first day I came in here--some things are going to change....

quote:

I thought to myself, "Self, since I bent the rules using words with ending consanant sounds, why don't I bend the rules a little more and leave out the conjunctions too?

As I said, this is precisely why it's not alliteration.

quote:

How is it that, by your standards, Frenchy, I'm not allowed to exercise my own special brand of creativity?

You can. But it's "your own brand of creativity" not "alliteration."

At any rate, I didn't intend to derail this thread. I'd be happy to continue this discussion with you (and anyone else) in a different thread if you're so inclined.

See, Frenchy, now you're just being hardheaded, stubborn and difficult. You refuse to accept the fact that I'm right and you're wrong--plain and simple. Why is it so hard for you people to accept being wrong? People prove you wrong and instead of just saying, "Okay, you got me." you have to stick to your same pitiful stance.

I said, from the very begining, that I was being creative, thereby, breaking the rules. I even spelled it out to you in detail my reason for doing what I did, and you still want to stick to that garbage, "As I said, this is precisely why it's not alliteration."

Just like I told, Faheem, a long time ago, who are you to tell me what to do and what not to do? If I choose to misspell every second word in every sentence of my paragraphs, I damn well will do it.

You know your intension was to 'derail this thread' or you wouldn't have gone as far as you did to backup your moot point.

Frenchy, have you ever heard of this expression:

You have to learn the rules first before you can break them.

I had to know precisely what alliteration meant to come up with the formula I created to begin with.

Let's continue, shall we?

Ohhhhh, the formula! Brother in his lab coat, creating formulas for posting on a website... I see now!

The only creativity going on from you, Ironhorse, is in trying to argue that "Why trust sisters" contains some novel, unique kind of alliteration. It has none, but go ahead if you wish... I'm just glad to see you learning a new word today. Thanks to Frenchy...

Hey, ladies and gentlemen, let's take a brief journey to the planet of Ironhorse...

Here's a new style of rhyming I just made up:

Roses are red, violets are blue,
Most grass is green.

See, it rhymes because the first two letters in both blue and green are consonants. So see, like, um, that's bending the rules of what rhyme is, but see, check it: bam! There it is. I'm flippin' da skripp, makin' ya brains perspire! Bringin' the lyrical fire!

Scintillatin', ain't it?

By the way, Little Minx, you know I'm laughing at this calm, conservative demeanor you coming at me with, right? You see, before I joined this site, I did a little recon myself. I noticed where you cussed out a brother by the name of, Fugunwa, a brother that, Vox, claims everybody loves.

Now, I was thinking to myself, wow, if this Fugunwa guy is supposed to be so loved by everyone, but this one sister, Little Minx, is cussing him out, then she must be a bitch.

Did I impose myself into one of your conversations and say, "Well, Little Minx, I've taken the time to read your threads, and I think your a bitch." No, I didn't. I may have thought it but I didn't bother to write a comment on it because I prefer to judge people by how they treat me instead of making generalizations--that's what makes me different.

Hell, I was never given the opportunity to post more than one new discussion before the AA.org committee came in and pitched what they thought of me. All my activity, which you term as being the same as the AA.org regulars, was just responses to everyone's rudeness.

quote:

in fact many sisters have experienced dating men who think something is wrong with the sister if she doesn't jump into bed with him. i've had discussions with men who think it is somehow immature to wait to have sex. yet, sisters are also called ho's if she does have sex on the first date. . . .confusing isn't it? damned if you do, damned if you don't.

How is it, little minx, that your experiences are true and valid but my experiences are lies? This is what you're implying by making the statment I just quoted. I've experienced sisters that think something is wrong with a brother if he doesn't want sex. I've experienced other brothers that say the same thing. I've experienced sisters accusing brothers of the same stigmas that many close-minded brothers accuse sisters of.

It goes both ways for brothers and sisters--damned if you do, and damned if you don't. The only difference is, it happens more frequently with sisters than it does brothers, nevertheless, it doesn't make the experiences any less valid.

quote:

you remind me of one of those brothers that sisters complain about. either a black men is not educated, with a record or too many baby momma's. or he's educated and hopelessly arrogant.

I could say the same thing about you, Little Minx, but since I don't know you, personally, I wouldn't make a statement like that. That's when you know people have either been online too long or they're online too much--they merge a person's internet personality with their real personality.

The things I write in forums may be what I'm thinking, they may be something exaggerated but it may or may not be something I would say or do in person. I can write forums all day but until you have a conversation with me on the phone or interact with me in person, you will never get the full scope of what kind of person I am. I believe EbonyRose put it rather briliantly:

Upon observation of a variety of your posts thusfar, I've come to the (at least preliminary) conclusion that you may very well be (at least most) of all you say you are, with an undoubtedly complex persona that would make you categorically unable to fit into any one style and make it difficult (at best) to fully capture the whole of your essence in a few message board postings.

Here's what else I think is stupid--if I agree with what someone said that is in favor of me, then I'm licking ass--if I reject what someone says about me that I think is wrong, then I'm a hypocrite. That doesn't make any sense--if I'm wrong, I'll admit I'm wrong--if I'm right I'll say I'm right--if you're wrong about something said about me, I'm going to say you're wrong--bottom line.

I don't mind being wrong, as a matter of fact, I like being told what the correct answer is if I am wrong but what I hate is people that attack others because they may think they know something that the other person doesn't.

and if i judged you based on what others have said, i wouldn't even be bothering to chat with you at all. i have simply made my own observation and then noted that others seem to be in agreement with me. you can think i'm a bitch if you want to. that's your opinion. but if we're keeping score, i had one disagreement with someone on this board. you seem to have inspired many to thinking you are arrogant. you are so unwilling to face that, that you decided to go scouring the site to find a disagreement i had with someone else? how sad. you clearly have not read anything else that i've posted. especially directed to you. if you did bother, you would have noted that i am a reasonable person. note, if you will, that i only respond in a nasty fashion when others step to me that way. but, you are just looking for a reason not to listen to a word i've said. fine.

i'm bored with this discussion.

It's a shame, Vox--you are such a loser.

No forums posted of your own worth a damn-no ideas on any discussions posted by anyone else in the forums, and the more responses you type the less sense you make, the more stupid graemlin faces you paste, and the more insulting you get.

Why are most of you men on this site who are regulars possess such easily bruised egos and persist in following the men, or one man, in this case, that bruised your ego? One of the funniest and most childish things I've seen on this site is if you say you don't want to be bothered, one of you fuckers will say, "Oh, he just can't hang."

Seriously though, guys, most of you are so haughty, you should get nose bleeds if you get up and step away from your computers. Some of you try so hard to maintain a bourgie persona, and you ain't writing discussions about shit--nothing that the average Joe, with some common sense and up on current events, couldn't talk about.

Some of you are no different or better than some of those hoodrats in Blackplanet. The only difference is you don't talk about trivial subjects like pop culture and you can discuss issues in complete sentences, otherwise, some of you are just as ignorant and ghetto as the ones on Blackplanet.

I was bored with your discussion from the very begining, little minx, because 80% of it was generalizations and biased stigmas.

and just what have you been doing that's so different than generalizing? for the most part, i've been responding directly to what you've said. you're a bit hypocritical. one minute you're quoting vox, then the next you are telling him you think what he says is invalid.

It's a two way street, Little Minx. In case you haven't noticed, I don't bother going in other peoples discussions and make personal comments toward people, regardless of whether they agreed with what I said or disagreed.

I prefer to go in someone's discussion and talk about the topic, not make up some bullshit about what I think their personality is, what they should do, what they should say, and how they should say it. Any behavior you've seen from me in that nature has only been as a response not as a means to begin a conversation with someone.

You can say I'm wrong or I'm doing the same thing as the others are doing all you want--remember, I was never given the opportunity to choose--I was attacked from day one.

Some of these people need a lesson on being a host--if you make the effort to welcome someone (you're taking it upon yourself to be a host), then you should make the effort to be a gracious host. You don't say "Welcome" and then turn around and be rude to them.

That would be like welcoming someone to a party, at your house, giving them a cup of punch, and cussing them out because they belched, regardless of whether they said excuse me or not. That is just plain tacky.

okay. you just came here making snap judgements about sisters.

What snap judgments about what sisters??????

I haven't made any judgments about any women in here. Please quote any snap judgments I've made about any women in AA.org.

And another thing--I came from a totally different format--when I came up in here, I wasn't quoting shit--every word, every sentence, every paragraph.

I wasn't doing all the shit y'all do to people's discussions--butcher them up with quotes and stupid smiley faces, and colorful text.

Even now, many times, I refrain from using all that garbage because it disturbs the continuity of the thought being expressed in what you're writing. I only got into all this other bullshit later--all this boldface, hyperlinking, italizing, and all that other shit.

To my brother IronHorse,

I feel ya bruh, but I think it is time to judge the company you are keeping. Take responsibility for the women you are dating. I've learned, the hard way, that when you pick the wrong woman, you waste both time and money. I would like to suggest to you to simply choose better women...and take them out on inexpensive dates [chinese food, TGI Fridays, Starbucks, etc...keep it cheap in the beginnning...BUT NO FAST FOOD JOINTS!!!

My experience teaches me that the best women are the giving type with low drama levels [what's the opposite of a giving woman??]. With that as my target, i've found futuristic women, positive women, goal-oriented women, good women. Unfortunately, many of those women have 'fouled out' for other reason, but they at least had some of the positive qualities that I desire. I would also suggest that you judge her attitude correctly from the jump. On first dates, treat them as if you are an employer trying to hire the right team member [partner/wife] to you staff [your family]. Ask the hard questions and get into how she loves, how she treats men, her thoughts on men, and dig dig dig for information on her past loves. Many blk women have a thug love mentality...eliminate these types QUICKFAST!! Ask open ended questions and keep your mouth shut about your past loves [if she ask, only say positive things like 'we grew apart'...this is a fact finding mission...learn all you can about her, before she learns about you. You are judging her to see if she is worth the 'long haul',...or at least a second date. My brother, when you choose better, you'll be and feel better about your love situation. Good Luck bruh...stay up!