And reading this I conclude …
What’s not to understand? Clearly, a Bonnie was looking for her Clyde, in order to embark on a media-romanticized crime spree of robbery and murder across the central United States. Or Clyde looking for Bonnie, as the case may be.
Or, not to be hetero-chauvinist, maybe Bennie and Clyde.
FYI, everyone has seen that movie, and they have cops all over the Trevi Fountain now, so don’t even try it 
Hence my OP. Just finding whether everyone is as obnocted as I am by the phrase. Apparently not.
They’re really great screening devices, by which I’m able to rule out over 99% of the women who place them as being remotely suitable for me. The other 1% I find out when I meet them that 99% of them don’t work out either. The rarities that DO work out, I date them for a few months until I’m able to rule them out , too.
“Screening devices / dealbreakers when you were (are) dating” would be a good thread topic in itself.
One of mine when I was dating was when my date would say “I’m just a meat and potatoes girl”. I actually had two different women tell me that on a first date, one when I took her to a pretty innocuous Olive Garden-style Italian restaurant. Who doesn’t like good old-fashioned Americanized Italian food? I knew it was the last date then, because I’m pretty adventurous with different cuisines, and I think it says a lot about how adventurous one’s character is in general.
FFS, it’s just an expression - another way of saying “buddy”, person you hang out with, pal around with, or er partner in crime.
I’ve been asked this by a manager in the office, like “hey Velomont, is your partner in crime in the office today? I need to ask him about something on the helicopter project.”
It’s not some nefarious reference to bank heists at lunch or after work kidnappings; it just means that we shoot the breeze a lot during breaks, have coffee together and share a bunch of laughs and maybe work well together.
Shame that your conclusions totally miss the mark.
I use that phrase, and the LAST thing I am is a Trumper. I am also not a drug user or religious nut. I don’t post a lot here, but I’ve not yet been accused of being unable to express myself clearly. I’m a lot clearer on the cliche use than you are, as well.
If cooking shows are reality tv, well, you got me on that one I guess.
But, you go on doing you , and I’ll know who to avoid.
… And some unknown woman figured out a great way to weed him out.
Random data point: I’d be far more intrigued by someone looking for a “partner in crime” than I would be by someone who used the (non)word “obnocted.”
It’s doubtless a good thing that mileage varies in this regard. (As my late mother used to say, “there’s someone for everyone.” )
Somewhat similarly, I refer to a buddy with whom I regularly attend the local horse race book as my “partner in crime.” Despite the fact that horse race wagering is perfectly legal in my jurisdiction, and intertrack wagering is similarly legal, we tend to use our own language (“Tab for later,” “Gets the chalk,” “That’s a rabbit, who’s the closer?,” “Worked four furlongs in forty-eight and three, under hand”), which is all but incomprehensible to anybody except the veteran horseplayer.
We’re not partners, in any sense. Just close friends who happen to enjoy the same hobby. But close enough in that hobby that we can be called “partners in crime.”
All the cool kids go to Bernini’s fountain in Piazza Navona, anyway.
You seem to be conflating the concept of “or” with the concept of “and”–I don’t find women guilty of Trumpism or illiteracy if they use the phrase “partners in crime.” Those are all separate offenses I suss out by reading their personal ads closely. although “unable to read closely” is a different standard 'I’ll use too, which rules you out.
I was imagining, just now, someone being cross-examined in a court of law about her use of the phrase, and how little it actually means. According to Manda Jo, it means a co-worker with no romantic overtones, according to you it seems to be a perfectly clear jocular reference to a prospective lover, according to a cop, of course, it means something quite nefarious, It’s amusing to think of you explaining to a judge how little the phrase “in crime” means to you.
“No, Your Honor, I did not think he would conspire with me in committing actual crimes–that phrase was just a joke. Everybody knows that.”
“Yes, Ms. Saje, but could you explain to the court what the joke is, as opposed to simply saying you were seeking a partner. What did the phrase ‘in crime’ add specifically to your personal ad?”
“You’re taking it way too literally. ‘In crime’ has nothing to do with a crime. Don’t be stupid. It’s just a lighthearted reference.”
“A reference to what, Ms. Saje? I’m confused.”
“It’s just a joke!”
“Yes, I understand that, but what’s the funny part of the joke?”
“You can’t explain a joke!”
“I see. So you contend that you had no knowledge that the defendant had been previously convicted of burglary?”
“Of course I didn’t know that!! You dense, literal-minded idiot! ‘Crime’ doesn’t mean ‘crime’–how stupid can you be?”
“Apparently, quite stupid. Now, Ms. Saje…”
Exactly. I’m delighted to have someone repelled by my neologism ‘obnocted’ immediately rather than wasting weeks learning that she doesn’t get my sense of humor. I’ve learned over the years to be as up-front as I can about my strong political, religious, aesthetic preferences rather than trying to disguise them as more mainstream than they are. I probably lose quite a few perfectly fine women by coming on too strong, but that’s OK, as long as I can weed out a few who would never get me in a million years. Personal ads are underrated as effective tools for identifying and discriminating against people with whom one would never get along. For example, I don’t want to be with someone who smokes, and I’ve learned that if someone confesses to smoking a cigarette on a rare occasion, her definition of ‘rare’ rarely coincides with mine–usually it means that she will sneak a cigarette whenever I’m not looking, so O-U-T. Am I losing that rare women who really does smoke only on her birthday and Shrove Tuesday? Probably, but that’s a cost of doing business.
That was a pretty convoluted response to someone saying that you might be overreacting to the use of a very common and benign phrase.
And yes, you’re still overthinking it.
That’s okay. You’re still underthinking it.
This whole “overthinking” and “misthinking” thing is kind of funny–what does it mean, other than someone holds a different opinion than mine? I’m supposed to feel chastised by someone characterizing my thinking as wrong, for vague unspecified reasons? You disagree. Fine. I assume some people would.
Taking this particular one, @Spiderman commits the somewhat comical error of planning his hypothetical crime only with those he would “trust enough to not dime [him] out.” This is error #1 of actual criminals, entering into a conspiracy with someone he trusts but whom the cops can manipulate into offering damaging testimony against him. This is the entire basis of plea-bargaining, on which the criminal code depends. Someone must be in your confidence to have the information the cops want, and if they can’t get these “trusted confidants” to cave then there are no criminal cases to be made. But I’M the one who’s misthinking here?
All that I’m doing is pointing out a verbal tic that’s so devoid of actual meaning that its defenders can’t cough up a definition of the term that they themselves agree with, and which identifies its users as too feeble-minded for me to find dateable, a practice that suits me just fine, and yet people feel compelled to tell me that my standards for ‘datability’ are wrong. OK, fine, the next time I’m on the dating market, I will seek out feebs to date and thus satisfy my critics here.
Never mind. Not worth the effort.
This is excessively jerkish for IMHO. You asked a question. Various posters are trying to answer it. You don’t have to like their answers, but you aren’t allowed to attack them, either.
Please drop it. And everyone else, please stop responding to that post.
And this is insulting the posters who are trying to help you out. I think we posted simultaneously. This one is precious close to a warning.
“Good Morning!” said Bilbo, and he meant it. The sun was shining, and the grass was very green. But Gandalf looked at him from under long bushy eyebrows that stuck out further than the brim of his shady hat.
“What do you mean?” he said. “Do you wish me a good morning, or mean that it is a good morning whether I want it or not; or that you feel good this morning; or that it is a morning to be good on?”
“Stop overthinking things, Gandalf,” said Bilbo.