I just got rejected from a girl AFTER getting her numbers.....

[How Sway?]

at least she let you know and didnt leave you hanging. i had a similar scenario last year but she didnt even bother to respond to me.

 

[Maddmike]

Sociopathic
Why even do that?

In hind sight it was either

a: she felt insulted that I didn't ask her for her number in the first place(yes she was that bad)

b: she gave me the wrong number by accident, and thought I just didn't call her. after all we did just get there going through orietation and all..(I just now thought about this)

 

[Dwolf]

Numbers? She had more then one

 

[semtex]

Don’t catastrophize shyt like this. There are countless possible reasons chicks do this.

This situation aside though, you need to accept that you can’t be everybody’s cup of tea fam

 

[kaldurahm]

Haha this has happened to me so many times it's whatever

I stay catching La, oh well. Time will come

 

[Shadow King]

When you think you pleasin her with that long stroke and then she gets up and looks at you like"nikka you suck"


What do you call it

Issa letdown

 

[Thatrogueassdiaz]

I will say this also. Most guys ARE the back up plan. Usually she is talking to multiple dudes, has one main, and when that main messes up she goes out and tests whether she can talk to someone else. At first she may like it, but then those old feelings for the main creep up and she's gone.

Put it this way, if she doesn't go out of her way to contact you, do stuff with you, initiate conversations, and get to know you, chances are you are one of many. Women like options just like men. The only difference is most of them love playing the game because it gives them thrills. Usually though, time goes along and they find someone else and think shyt is sweet, until they realize that this person they're with doesn't give a shyt about them. At that point, karma is just waiting in the cut like

 

[Thatrogueassdiaz]

By Ben Smith

Jan. 9, 2018
Exactly one year ago BuzzFeed published what’s now known simply as “the dossier”: a set of reports put together by a former British intelligence officer named Christopher Steele during the 2016 presidential campaign. The 35-page dossier suggested that the Russian government had both compromised and colluded with President-elect Donald Trump.

Our choice to publish the dossier was greeted by outrage from two sources. Journalistic traditionalists didn’t like the idea of sharing an unfiltered, unverified document with the public, whatever the caveats and context. NBC’s Chuck Todd told me on air, “You just published fake news.” Mr. Trump agreed. He described CNN’s reporting on the dossier as “fake news” and called BuzzFeed a “failing pile of garbage.”

But a year of government inquiries and blockbuster journalism has made clear that the dossier is unquestionably real news. That’s a fact that has been tacitly acknowledged even by those who opposed our decision to publish. It has helped journalists explain to their audience the investigation into Russian influence on the 2016 election. And Mr. Trump and his allies have seized on the dossier in their efforts to discredit the special counsel leading the investigation, Robert Mueller.

Without the dossier, Americans would have found it difficult to understand the actions of their elected representatives and government officials. Their posture toward Mr. Trump was, we now know even more comprehensively than we did in January 2017, shaped by Mr. Steele’s report. The Russia investigation, meanwhile, didn’t turn out to be some minor side story but instead the central challenge to Mr. Trump’s presidency.

When we published the dossier, we knew a lot: We knew that it had been written by the former head of the Russia desk at Britain’s main foreign intelligence agency, a man whose job had made him a leading source on Russian espionage. We knew that key members of the Senate — Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat, and John McCain, the Arizona Republican — had acted on its contents. We had also learned that intelligence officials had briefed President Barack Obama and President-elect Trump on the dossier, and that the F.B.I. was already looking into it.

We didn’t discount the arguments against publishing salacious allegations — which reporters do all the time in covering lawsuits, internal investigations or reports like Mr. Steele’s. And we understand why President Trump’s supporters remain furious at the airing of a disturbingly vivid unproven allegation about encounters with prostitutes.

But we never bought the notion, made by the traditionalists, that a main threat to journalism is that journalists might be too transparent with their audience. Keeping the reporting process wrapped in mystery only helps those who oppose the free press. This is why The New York Times posts leaked audio recordings, and why news organizations routinely publish raw court documents underlying their articles.

We strongly believed that publishing the disputed document whose existence we and others were reporting was in the public interest.

Since we published, the public has learned a great deal more about how seriously the F.B.I. took the dossier. The F.B.I., CNN reported, used the dossier to justify its effort to spy on an American citizen, and reimbursed Mr. Steele for some of his expenses. The BBC reported that the dossier was a “road map” to the F.B.I. investigation. Fox News recently reported that a top Department of Justice official met with Mr. Steele during the 2016 campaign. And on Tuesday, the public was given a glimpse, in the release of secret testimony, into the fierce battle between Senate Democrats and Republicans over the dossier and how the F.B.I. made use of it during the 2016 campaign.

As the seriousness of the Russia investigation has become clearer, the pro-Trump line has shifted from dismissing the dossier to stressing its role in the investigation: The dossier, some of Mr. Trump’s defenders now say, played too big a part, given that a portion of Mr. Steele’s funding came from political enemies of Mr. Trump, including the Democratic National Committee. “Are we in the midst of a major criminal investigation against the president of the United States as a result of this dodgy dossier?” asked Tom Fitton, a Trump ally, on “Fox & Friends” recently.

While Mr. Trump’s camp dismiss the dossier as malicious fiction or pure political opportunism, some elements have been corroborated. For example, that the Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort hid payments for his work in Ukraine, as federal authorities have alleged; that the Russian diplomat Mikhail Kalugin was withdrawn suddenly from the United States; and that Mr. Trump sought, but never consummated, business deals in Russia.

Mr. Steele also reported, in pages submitted just 11 days after a Russian lawyer reportedly promised Mr. Trump’s aides negative information on Hillary Clinton during a meeting in Trump Tower, that “the Kremlin had been feeding Trump and his team valuable intelligence on his opponents, including Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.”

“One large portion of the dossier is crystal-clear, certain, consistent and corroborated,” a C.I.A. veteran, John Sipher, wrote recently. “Russia’s goal all along has been to do damage to America and our leadership role in the world.”

For all these reasons, the chorus of criticism of our decision to publish has faded. I haven’t had a single person approach me to say, “I wish I hadn’t read the dossier, and wish I had less insight into the forces at play in America.” Do you feel that way? Does anyone?

Ben Smith is the editor in chief of BuzzFeed News.

 

[Cryptocurrency Scarface]

2 months ago got this girl's number and we texted a lil bit, then she just stopped replying...

Backpage >>>>>

I thought you exclusively dealt with backpage

 

[Vinny Lupton]

The anime references..
Maybe you're not as smooth as you think
Anime Set lauce

 

[Vinny Lupton]

nothing you could have really done. fr fr. Your mistake is having too much thought invested in this chick.
If you keep at least 3-4 in rotation while bagging at new ones and keeping them in the tuck, you wouldn't even care about rejection from a chick you never smashed or actually dated.

edit. you met this joint on friday?

Simp Vybz

 

[Kenyan West]

You'll deal with this alot online too. You chop it up with a brawd on the app, get the digits, hit her up on the phone, go for the meeting and... it fizzles out.

Happened to me a couple weeks ago. Normally I'd shake it off, but this chick was just fire and a playa got in his feelings. Convo was ill, she was cute, smart, etc. Cooperated all the way until it was time to meet and.. ghost. I admit, brehs, I lost frame and was in that bar maaad as shyt.

It's life. But what this ultimately teaches me is that getting bytches can be paradoxical. For peace of mind, you need to be desire-less, but not passive and that shyt is difficult to balance. Every single time i figuratively held a girl tight, she always slipped through my fingers. When I deeply focused on me and talked to em bereft of thirst, they always flocked and made meetups easy with minimal effort. But some bytches are just so damn bad and inadvertently knock you out that zen mode and fuk your whole shyt up.

Also, like Patrice O Neal says, you cant be a bytches time-ho. Girls LOVE to waste nikkas time. I feel that alot of the disappointment in situations like this from nikkas come from the fact that we've invested too much time in these hoes (texting, calling, stalking her online, fantasizing etc) and not cutting to the chase and screening these bytches immediately for the time wasting bullshyt.

Dating, like anything, is a sale. And in sales, we're taught to have unbreakable belief in the product, (in this case, ourselves) read people immediately to see what their motives are and if they're actually going to buy.

Because if not, the person you're selling to is going dangle you around like a puppet and toss you the bushes when they're no longer entertained. Real nikkas peep game early in the interaction, dismiss her and don't play themselves.

 

[NotAnFBIagent]

When you think you pleasin her with that long stroke and then she gets up and looks at you like"nikka you suck"


What do you call it

Weak dikk game

 

[scarlxrd]

You must look like one of those nikkas that hit women after rejections.

Have an abusive face brehs

 

[Weaver31]

That's not an L, that's a W OP. As has been said, she could've easily strung you along while having no interest in you, maybe even gotten a few free meals out of you before throwing you to the bushes. But she let you know relatively early that she wasn't feeling you and saved you a lot of wasted time, money and emotional investment.

All it cost you was a few hours of texting. Remember that when it comes to dating, no one owes you shyt and you don't owe anyone shyt either. Then you'll learn to not take things so personally. I suggest doing what she likely is doing and have a rotation of women you date casually. women can tell when they're the only person you're talking to versus them being one of a few. You don't even have to tell them, your energy, neediness and investment in them will make it clear. They're less likely to act flaky if they know they're not your only option.

Real shyt