h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Dedicated to Frs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyRunLCpoT4

I met someone once who I concluded had no sense of humour. Very strange.

Taff is a mate. He's highly intelligent IMO. I reckon if he'd had my chance of 11plus he might not now be in this position. He's an easy target for cheap shots like yours NTM. People often act in a certain way to cover other stuff.

I don't need a book on Marx to stick by a mate.

I'll miss him a lot.

And I don't care what anyone on h2g2 thinks about it.

Someone would have to be *especially* humourless not to recognise self-deprecation when its shoved in her face.

Well that's why it's subjective. I didn't find your remark in the least funny.

And I find it especially ironic that Taff got off his *arse* because his area of Wales was decimated by the pit closures by the Tories. And yet he is easy meat here for you to poke fun at. I don't call that funny.

Anyway I'm too angry now to be rational so I'm unsubbing.

Bigotry, wilful stupidity (especially if done to be 'cute'), lack of intelligence, no sense of humour. Those are pretty much my dealbreakers.

Although some of the above can be mitigated by nice .

This post has been removed.

You forgot the catch-all, unexplainable "Too nice".

Yeah, if I were just hooking up for a one night stand I'd only be concerned with physical appearance... but I don't do one night stands (or at least have never been offered the opportunity for one, but I'd certainly never go seeking such a thing).

Cor, see, for me a deal breaker can be a tiny thing. I don't decide to get into anything heavy if they do *anything* I find unacceptable. That's sort of the long and the short of it. Plus side to that is it can be the smallest thing that convinces me how right someone is as well.

I think bigotry, lack of humour, lack of honesty and rigidity/narrowness of opinion are pretty much up there in the category. I can't stand people who are too nice though either, especially when they'll slavishly follow your every word and command. It's either a lie (I can't stand lying!) or they have so little confidence/personality (often the two are linked I find. People who've never found themselves can't be confident in what they don't know) that I've no idea who they are and they tend to fall into being a shadow-you, then resent you for it.

Looks have very little impact on whether or not I like someone although I have to be honest and say that someone I find actively unattractive probably won't win me over. But I like em weird-looking so...

OP:
>> You've met the person of your dreams, everything's perfect
but for one wee thing .... <<

Size isn't everything y'know.


The persons of my dreams (they change regularly - such is
the nature of dreaming) are not interested in long term
relationships and neither am I. Why spoil a good dream.

Oh and so far we've left out too young and too old.

Surely ageism is another of the modern sins whereby
we must judge others. In relationships it is one of
those factors where we'll be judged by third parties.

So you'd better add third party judgements in all the
above categories as yet another thing to consider (if
in fact it isn't already the real basis for all our own
judgements).

And finally, 'long term relationships' are the dream.
Who we spend time with in the meantime is entirely a
product of circumstance in the real whirled.

But as always swl, an interesting question that drags
the naked truth out of a lot of hootootists.



~jwf~

Too distant (geographically) might be considered a negative attribute.

Which leads me - while Effers is away - to an anagram that (some say) explains the 'Welsh' thing: 'Welsh sort = Worthless'.

It just occurred to me that besides age
no one has yet mentioned the question of
financial resources. Money may not buy
happiness but it can afford an extended
lease.

Nor has anyone dared to discuss physical
infirmities - one eyed, one armed, legless,
covered in scars or scabs. But perhaps that's
what swl was leading us into with the OP.

~jwf~

Well now Rudest Elf, that's you sorted into the appropriate bin

....no mention of selfish deceitfulness? Without trustworthiness, everything else is invalid. The most physically beautiful, funny and engaging person is no use if they're not actually there for you.

Don't take it to heart, Rod. It's just an anagram.

No more meaningful than:

Cairngorms = Minor crags

Congenial = Non-Gaelic?

Bellyached = Delay belch?

Hard and fast = Daft and rash = Fart and dash

I think it would be easier to make a list of what we each insist on than what all the potential dealbreakers are.

Pleasant, humorous, reasonably easy on the eye (I like scars, but I'm not so fond of a dribbler or someone who leaves food in their hair for instance), reasonably well mannered, trusting, trustworthy, confident, financially stable (that's all I ask), reasonably healthy, no major vices (I don't have a personality that gets addicted to things really so I don't appreciate it in others, it's a bit of a nause), generous, interested in me. Other than that it's bonus time, isn't it?

On the age thing, I've dated six years below my age (at 25 there wasn't a lot of room for manoeuvre there) but find that even the most mature-seeming 19-year-old is STILL a 19-year-old. I've also had relationships (of many different weights, if you will) with men up to about 25 years my senior. Well, physically anyway. Emotionally I swear some of you just stop at about 14 and never grow up.

As for 'deformities', They are as individual as a preferred height or hair colour (ginger please), size or accent. If I really fancied someone, a missing arm or leg wouldn't necessarily put me off.

"1) Too tall"

Never dated anyone taller than 5'9". Probably not a dealbreaker.

"2) Too short"

Never dated anyone under 5". Definitely not a dealbreaker, up to a point. Not into midgets, but Kylie is lovely and she's extra-mini.

"3) Too fat"

I like 'em skinny. Which is to say "healthy", not anorexic. But healthy, in today's world, means somewhere in the skinniest 10%. Frankly I find excessive weight physically sickening.

"4) Racist"

Hmm. Tricky one. Wouldn't date an out-and-out Nazi (couldn't, in fact, one of my better friends is of Somalian descent). On the other hand, if you're asking would I dump someone if they laughed guiltily at a racist joke, then no, I wouldn't. Isn't everyone a *bit* racist in attitude? Isn't the important thing that you agree that those tendencies are something to be actively resisted?

"5) Sexist"

If a man refused to date women who are sexist, he'd be single all his life. Every woman I've ever met, no exceptions, considers it acceptable to make sexist jokes about men. It's pointless to even complain about this.

"6) Poor personal hygiene"

Hmm. How poor? Fresh sweat, tousled hair and a little dirt under the fingernails - good. Stale sweat, hair that's not been washed for a week and dirt under the toilet seat - no thanks.

"7) Extreme political views"

I could actually go for this IF *everything* else was perfect. You might have noticed I like an argument.

"8) Extreme religious views"

I need to respect a partner. If Jebus wants you for a sunbeam, there is no possibility I'm ever going to have any respect for you.

"9) Welsh"

Catherine Zeta Jones. Cerys Matthews. Annabel Giles. Mandy Rice-Davies. Danielle Lineker. Charlotte Church. Sorry, what was the question?

"10) Smoking"

As long as they don't do it in my house, not a dealbreaker for a short-term deal. Won't expect it to last, though, as it has catastrophic effects on the looks as time goes on.

"11) Excessive drinking"

Lived with an alcoholic. It's not as much fun as it's made out to be. Probably wouldn't do it again.


Basically, if everything else was spot on, I think I could turn a blind eye to practically everything except fat and religious.

Form an orderly queue, ladies.

Someone who, during , insisted on wearing socks.
All the other stuff, I'd expect to have figured out and be matched on, by the time it got to the point of it being a serious relationship... but socks during sex... naa...