Re: Enlighten me!
is that thing a PM affair?..
Re: Enlighten me!
you are not far from reality…sadly…arranged marriage rocks and PM affair is just for fun sake…nothing serious
Re: Enlighten me!
As I said in my original post, this thread was not meant to criticize, it was meant to express my amusement at the choice of words ‘having an affair on pms’. ADGSKS was a wonderful idea. I personally feel ‘romantically involved’ could be a better substitute. You can’t have affairs online unless you decide to follow it up offline. It was more an issue of semantics than anything else. I know it was all light-hearted banter.
I think internet relationships are possible. There are all kinds of relationships. You could be romantically involved. You could be ‘unromantically’ (emotionally) involved. You may even look up to a person as a mentor or just someone you could talk to. Like different types of relationships there are different types of motives for these relationships.
Barbie: You’re doing an excellent job interviewing people.
MYwish: You’re right, truck drivers are different. As a matter of fact every person is different. I never talked about taking someone to bed. Besides, I don’t have a bed. I understand what you’re saying. 
TNWB: Are you talking about my virtual wife who used to beat me? Oh yea, she also called me fat and smelly. Wives these days!
Rukhsar: I’m not verizon.
FG: Thanks for explanation. ADGSKS was a very good idea.
LD: I’m cynical about almost everything in life. You can’t make me any more cynical. All your points are valid.
fayax: I undertsnd what you mean.
I personally feel that chances of a successful online romantic relationships are pretty low. If both of you are sincere, forthcoming and ready to take the risks that come with such relationship, you might give it a shot. But there’s a high chance that your ‘relationship’ will fail when you see the multidimensional persona in real time rather than the 2D or three 3D persona you’re used to online. Secondly, like in real life, there aren’t many people who would be honest and understanding while talking anonymously online. These days even truck drivers are technology-savvy. So if that’s what you’re up against, you gotta be real careful.
Thanks for the contribution everyone! Now you can take the thread in any direction you like.
Re: Enlighten me!
coz they dont have enough balls to walk upto a real dude or gul besides online BABE is much easier to find and safe to have relation with. lol
Re: Enlighten me!
Ahh some of us are stupid enough to believe and trust in someone we havent met or seen...
Guilty.
Re: Enlighten me!
I said it before and I will say it again, I know of quite a few couples who initially met online and then met in person, got along great and are now happily married. No, these people are not "losers" as some of you will believe.
It is really up to you if you are willing to give it a chance and make it work. That requires BOTH parties to want to go ahead with seriously exploring the relationship. The minute you get emotionally involved, it is a relationship. Why limit this to "affairs" only? What about people who become friends with others online. I have made plenty of friends with people on GS who I ended up meeting in real life. How is it any different?
Regardless of the type of relationship, if you want something to work, you can make it work, regardless of whether it is a friendship, arranged marriage or a relationship that initially began online.
Re: Enlighten me!
You’d have to be extremely needy (emotionally) and unstable (mentally) to become “emotionally involved” with your PM buddy or email friend. What exactly do you mean by emotional involvement? Lighting candles when exchanging PMs? Humming songs when typing away IMs? Do you dress up nicely when you are yapping away with the emotionally “involved”?
You could label it as a relationship like you’d label your penpal. But I just don’t understand this “emotionally involved” bit.
In the world of the sane, it’s a relationship ONLY when you have spent time togehter and shared growth fostering or positive experiences in the PHYSICAL world and not the realms of bits & bytes i.e. internet.
Please don’t cite the psychotic stupidity of you-know-who as an example of a “relationship”!
Re: Enlighten me!
I don't know about you LI but I have plenty of friends here on GS who I genuinely care about. That 'care' comes from feelings from within. It makes you write to the person after you know they have had a crap day asking them if they are o.k. How is it any different than in the 'real' world when you would do the same thing for any of your other friends?
I'm not cynical like the rest of you simply cause I have seen plenty of real life examples around me where people have met online and went on to get married and start a family. If that makes me "unstable" and mentally unfit in your eyes, then so be it!
Re: Enlighten me!
i think only people who dont get any real life look to the net for their needs of compnanionship. Pretty sad if u ask me :(
Re: Enlighten me!
There are many people whose lives have been totally altered with websites such as GS, chat programs etc etc. The right thing to do is to find a balance between the reality and the fantasy that is automatically created online.
Re: Enlighten me!
Caring for someone is quite normal and degrees of caring would vary – solely net based interaction v/s a real life phsyical relationship. Emotional involvement is a very, for the lack of a better word, charged term. I won’t use it so casually.
I have seen it too. But their net-acquaintance status was upgraded to a ‘relationship’ with ‘emotional involvement’ once they became involved in the physical world and the 'net just became a medium of communication and not the sole universe of their shared experience(s) together.
Uffooo, itna ghussa? 
Re: Enlighten me!
^^^ I agree
except for the last line
I would never say "uffooo"
Re: Enlighten me!
But lazy I love you 
Re: Enlighten me!
LI: I can see your point. By emotional involvement I meant that you care about someone without any ‘real need’ to care about him/her. Let’s call it sincere friendship and not emotional involvement. ‘Emotional involvement’ is rather generic I can see. I should’ve been clearer about what I attempted to say. My mistake!
MehnazQ: I never disagreed with your views. Your optimism is refreshing. ( No sarcasm intended. )