I'm not anti-FB. I think FB has some minor benefits but it also has some negatives and for a single guy the negatives are much greater than the benefits.

With respect to keeping in touch with friends who are no longer local it is like e-mail but also with some perks like getting their updates and pictures. I hate chat software so I'm not going to talk to people on FB. Trying to maintain friendship at a distance is a waste of time. Unless you travel back and forth a lot these people are just not part of your life any longer. You have local people to maintain and a finite amount of time.

I am going to take a stab in the dark and say there have been more weird job connections established via old random Facebook friends from college than destroyed relationships with girls.

This isn't about beliefs. It is a fact. If you are single and actively dating then FB is going to lead to your life having much more drama than if you don't have FB. If you find FB that valuable that it is worth the extra drama then fine. This has nothing to do with beliefs or value judgments about FB but simply an evaluation of what will happen if you allow people you are dating to have information and access to your personal sphere.

just gonna drop it b/c it's the same argument every time. A few people say it's bad, everybody else says I'm not gonna quit facebook. Weird how the people that use fb aren't worried about it, but those who don't are worried.

Woah woah woah, paleo diet is tits. Let's not get too worked up and say things we're going to regret here.

But its not. You keep arguing this point, and people keep coming back with 'but privacy settings' which you then seem to ignore?

I just cant think of any example where facebook could possibly be a negative if you have your settings right. These settings are pretty easy as well. Can't be tagged in photos without permission, people can't post on your wall without permission. Easy. Am I missing something?

Say i'm dating three girls, AND for some stupid reason I decide to FB friend them simultaneously, but have the above settings. Even doing that nothing bad can happen from it.

You forgot to hide the list of friends (also easy to do).

I don't ignore it but rather claim that if you do what is necessary you end up with FB being very limited.

As I said above I would have a FB but I'd have it set so only friends can see anything and then I would disable PMs and friend requests. Then I wouldn't really use it. A girl who decides to add me would find my profile but no ability to request being added.

In addition you would also need to hide your friends list which is possible and further set it so that FB does not automatically make system announcements for you about when you have new friends or publish your events / make them publicly accessible. In addition it is not enough to require permission for tagging and wall posts -- you have to just not allow it ever so no wall or picture or event tagging.

The problem I see with privacy settings is butthurt. I never used MSN messenger because I don't want to chat with people but I'd be ok with quick exchanges with a handful of friends if they understood that I'm not interested in more than important short communication. People suggested that I appear offline to 95% of people and allow the 5% to see me as online. It didn't take long for two friends to be chatting and the topic shifts to something involving asking me and one says I'm online and the other gets hurt because I have them set to offline.

Around the same time I had two cell phones for pretty much the same reason. One was the number I gave to people when I met them and the other was the number that I gave to people who I considered friends. This allowed me to filter calls. Of course it didn't take long for people to start trying to figure out which of the two numbers they had and if they had the untrusted line they got butthurt over that.

I basically find it is better to have universal exclusion because these things don't really add much to your life and they cause a lot of small minor conflicts.

Afaik this doesnt happen if you got yourself disabled from search.

New friends are not published if you got your friend list hidden.
Event participation is only shown if the other person is invited to the event or if the event is public. Attending public events on Facebook is lame.
No Wall is possible as well, with the timeline introduction, the wall lost all its value in my opinion. I use it significantly less than before and usually just pm the friend.

I think universal exclusion works fine. My friendlist is hidden for all of my friends (more precisely, they see the mutual friends we have), I could hide the wall for everyone and no one would care I think and all the tagging needs permission. (I am obviously offline in Facebook chat.)

I mainly use Facebook for messages and groups and some news feed reading.
I think it's significantly easier to keep in touch with people than email and you also participate passively in some people's life (if you want that or not is up to you).

loled @ "keeping in touch with friends living far away is lame bcuz finite time/life is short" but 24k posts to randoms on 2p2 is fine, cmon son.

also,

wtf.

Yes, I'm finding some of the positions on this bizarre too.

Completely different.

Chat requires real-time interaction.

Posting on the other uses up otherwise dead time.

For example, this post has been interrupted six times and will likely be interrupted more than four times that before I press submit. I'm working on two projects that will take 4.5 hours and 13 hours and both require my attention at every 30 to 210 seconds. That means that I'll have about 400 tiny segments of time to fill over the next 13 hours. My interest in posting is in filling that dead time. It is also the reason I play countless hours of single table low limit FR limit. This is not possible with chat since people will get pissed off if you write a sentence at a time and then just stop and resume constantly.

With respect to maintaining old friends it is just not realistic if you have a lot of friends are meeting new people. It is hard enough to see and maintain all the local people plus also have time to do relationship stuff or date if single. Unless the distance is temporary friends at a distance will fade to being people you used to know and have fond memories of. If you just accept that from the outset you can save a lot of time and energy and not drag out the inevitable.

While Henry's stance may come off as callous. It applies to my situation pretty well. I grew up in Rockford, IL. One of the worst cities in the U.S. IMO. Every friend I had was pretty much a drug addict or going nowhere, keeping my facebook activated would have made it much much more difficult to cut ties with them and some other people. I must be one of like 3 or 4 people in my old circle, which was pretty large, who doesn't live there anymore. I don't even think about going back there ever tbh. I am positive having a facebook, in my situation at least, would have a non-negligible negative impact on my life.

i see where you're coming from, valid points.

You shouldn't hate FB b/c your high school friends are scum. You don't have to do anything you don't want to on FB. Yet again, a person who doesn't use Facebook thinks it would clearly cause problems. LOL

Sent from my Nexus 7 using 2+2 Forums

Because it has nothing to do with FB and just human psychology. People will be curious and competitive when casual dating. Casual dating works because the other people the person you are sleeping is sleeping with are just abstract concepts. Once you have the possibility of putting an actual substantive person to the abstract concept people will. Guaranteed that if you are casual dating the girls you are having sex with have tried to figure out what other girls on your friend's list you are having sex with.

Then there is the issue of intentionally jamming you up while making it look innocently. You can stop this by not having a wall but I'm assuming somewhat normal use of FB. A wall post by one girl you're sleeping with can cause issues with all the other girls you're sleeping with. Girls will do this intentionally while playing dumb.

Lastly, there is the fact that you are giving people the means to do stupid things while drunk. You stop seeing someone because she wanted more than you do and you use the whole BS "I'm just too busy with work" and then two weeks later you are dating someone else. A bottle or two of wine latter and a pissed off drunk girl can cause a lot of damage / embarrassment that she would never do if access to stuff was not so easy.

This has absolutely nothing to do with FB. It has to do with giving people information and the easy ability to access you other sexual partners, your friends, and your co-workers.

The drunk girl would never have access to my FB. Also, let's be honest here. It's hard enough to get laid let alone having so much ass crawling all over you that you worry incessantly about your FB. Maybe in imaginary Henry is a sex god and his advice is scripture land, but not in my real world.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using 2+2 Forums

Sorry to hear you find getting laid is difficult but that does explain why you don't understand what I'm saying.

Henry has actually proclaimed that he would bang a girl at nearly a 100% success rate if he went into a Los Angeles upscale club with hot girls. If you believe his posts you believe his posts. I know NBA players like Kris Humphries, David Lee, and Lamar Odom and they aren't even close to 80%. Yet Henry17 with 25k posts on 2+2 would take down models.

This is how intelligent some people in this thread are, they take his word as gospel.

Hey, just dress well and the 9s and 10s will be all over you and getting laid is no problem at all.

People believe this here, which is scary.

This is also a guy that when Bond18 produced his figures from a year of picking up girls (which was honest) he was shocked.

I would challenge Henry to come out with me whenever he wants and I guarantee he wouldn't bang one hot girl out of 20 tries if he is as normal looking as he says.

He's a liar and for some reason people believe it.

I know people with a lot less money (basically no money, just a job), who are good looking (i.e. better looking than Henry) who got close to a 90% success rate, I'd say.

Getting laid is not rocket science. I read a statistic the other day that 20% of the people in college get 80% of the sex.
Obviously, it's difficult for the 80% of people to accept the fact that there is a 20% minority.

So, not this discussion again.

A 90% success rate is ridiculous if we are discussing only hot girls.

And if you we want to discuss the successful people why in the world do you expect Henry17 to be in that group? The guy has 25k posts on a poker website and writes some really awkward and weird things. He definitely isn't a life of the party, super extrovert guy by the vibes he gives off. If he was he'd be out doing other things and not writing really weird takes on things like Facebook or anything else in today's social media.

He gets the nerds of 2+2 on his side but I'd wager he's a pretty introverted normal looking, dorky recluse. That's what he posts like.

Basically he's not relating to or hitting it off with a 23 year old party girl with a smoking body.

TheAceMan,

I've never said anything about LA because I've never spent anytime in LA. I don't imagine it is much different than any other major city but I would never have discussed LA.

Speaking for cities I've lived in yes it is easy to get laid as long as you are not clueless and have a decent amount of resources. A guy who meets these two criteria and average looking can pick up an 8+ at least once every three nights out. Because I had a higher amount of resources I did better than this.

I find your claim about NBA athletes odd. I know nothing about the NBA but I do run into NHL players frequently and they have a 100% success rate. This is also true of moderately successful DJs. I find it surprising that the NBA would be at such a disadvantage.

As for going out with you I'm more than happy to meet non-hostile / non-crazy 2p2ers. I've met a few already and am tentatively scheduled to meet some additional ones. I don't really have any desire to hang out with hostile guys with issues though so I'll pass on your invitation.

oh boy, here we go.

lol isnt henry in his late 30s now and also in a relationship? that seems pretty good reasoning as to why he mgiht post a lot/be more reclusive.

also, unless your completely ******ed i dont think anyone is taking someones word on the internet as gospel. Sure henry has a rep here and people look to him as, for want of a better term, a role model.

im also interested as to how you know the success rate of NBA players?

its really unfair to call someone a liar when you have no proof.