What is a One Week Wonder?

[GQBlues]

One more whack at this desperately dying horse.

OWW is a man who goes to FSU and proposes marriage to a woman he personally met for the first time during first week of their meeting.

It had to happen under these conditions; a) he's wearing dark clothing, b) the right type of shoes, c) the proposal took place on the first tuesday of that week, d) he must be facing south/southwest, e) between the hours of 4-10 PM, f) he must have at least 5 100 crisp hundred dollar bills with him, g) he must have at the least, a photo copy of his passport on his chest pocket, h) he must be staying in an apartment instead of a hotel, i) he must have had at least one bowl of borscht j) she must be ovulating, etc....

This thread reminds me of a joke from an old Cher movie....

Young Indian: Oh, wise Chief, It wonders me so much how wise you are to find names for all the brave of our tribe. How do you do it, wise Chief.

Wise Chief: As our forefathers have done before me, I look to nature's gift to help me find the meanings in life and name our warrior to what nature tells me. When a brave is born and look to the sky and see a flying eagle, I name him "Flying Eagle". When I look to the plains and see a running deer, I name another "Running Deer". When I look upon prairie and witnesses an angry bear, I name that warrior "Angry Bear".

So tell me, two dogs phocking, why do you seek answers to what is obvious to so many?

[Markus]

This is a somewhat interesting if not trivial discussion.

I'm not sure why a 'locked in' RWD definition is really necessary?

It seems like Markus may be insecure with his having been labeled a OWW at some point in time?

I would tend to agree that a OWW technical definition should not include those who married weeks or months after proposing on the first visit.
The reason is simple. A OWW implies that the parties have not given much thought to the repercussions of marrying after such a short period of face-face time (one week).

Going back and having weeks or months to reflect on what may have been a knee-jerk reaction proposal at the time, obviates the "wonder" of a OWW.

Sorry for the delay folks. I had a cold that kicked my behind for 2 weeks. I'm just now able to go back to the gym after 3 weeks. I think it started 3 weeks ago and began draining
my energy then. I couldn't get an interest during that time to post.

Hey CanadaMan,

When a man tells another man not to be a OWW, what is he telling him? That's what I'm trying to figure out and set in stone. The definition on this board states what the 3 letters OWW define. But, there is no definition of what must a man do to make him a OWW. My name on this board and RWG was OWW by choice; there is no insecurity. I actually liked it. Even in your statements you use the term OWW but do you know what a OWW is? I've already defined an OFFICIAL definition (according to me though) and I would like to see either my definition or another definition stick. When we talk about a OWW we should know what a OWW is. It's fair to new folks to understand that when a man tells him not to be a OWW, the understanding is mutual.

[Markus]

Good explanation, Markus.

But allow me to first say before you were "Markus" or "OWW" you were 'JMark' on another board (which I thought, and still do, was the better of the names you had), and that was a time when I first came on that board and you were in the midst of some fairly serious exchanges with some posters (which included 'jb') for reason I no longer remember. I even sent you a consolatory PM as you seemed fairly po'd at the time about whatever it was that was going on. So I mean no disrespect for having this exchange with you now.

Having said that, if I understood this correctly, the intent behind coining the original phrase "One Week Wonder" as defined by Sandro and validated  by KenC, have solely to do with proposing marriage on the first meeting (and does not give any consideration to the period of engagement) and oftentimes within the first week.

But you feel it doesn't really apply to you on the basis that despite proposing on your first meeting, it took you a long time to actually get married. Which KenC may have implied to be the case for de-classifying you as one because of it (?).

  Hhhhmmm, must be my accent.  

GQBlues,

You are correct in that I was JMark, then changed to OWW after Kenc's OWW thread (I think THE preceded the OWW). And you are correct about the exchange between me and many other folks. That was something for me being a newbie, but I didn't run away. I want to be a OWW. I want that name applied to me and what I did. That way we can apply a definition. But, I'm told I'm not a OWW so I want to know what a OWW is.

Again, I and don't want to keep patting you on the shoulder, but you are correct again when you say (and does not give any consideration to the period of engagement). Actually, I don't think anybody takes into consideration anything except that a man proposed during the 1st visit. Heck, I've already proved that can work. So, do you agree with my definition:

OWW is called a One Week Wonder, a man who proposes during the 1st week of meeting his lady in person and they got married within 2 weeks of the proposal.?

[Markus]

Emotional Moderator Daveman? heh.. now what's that supposed to mean?  At least it does have a pretty cool sounding abbreviation E.M.D. 

The reason I think OWW doesn't actually apply to Markus..

From January 2008:


Though it certainly would seem he was taking a chance with a huge risk by proposing early on to a woman he had just met, who didn't share a common language (which is why KenC got on his case.. it DID appear to be a stupid move of a man headed to marriage with a woman he didn't know, with whom he couldn't communicate naturally, etc etc) .. hindsight has proven that he AND she mitigated the risk by taking a very normal approach to the relationship. 

In no way does Markus' story validate those idiots who do marry strangers...  whose stories will one day be told in a thread entitled "It Happened One Day On The Way To A Train Wreck".  His story, early proposal aside, is actually how one SHOULD approach this, IMO.  And Six years later, they're still going strong.

Daveman  E.M.D.

Quote from: Daveman on January 06, 2008, 11:01:41 PM

Here's what I see.. I think there's a lot of joy in ruffling feathers because of past confrontations with some members.. however... let's take a look at what was said in that Great Debate thread some months ago... this is the basic synopsis that I gathered from various posts in that thread.

1) He gets in contact with a woman with little English skills, but communicates with her through translation for a few months prior to the first visit.
2) He visits her and they communicate through translators and translation devices
3) He proposes marriage and she accepts.
4) he returns home
5) He does not file for K-1
6) They continue communication while she completely busts her ass studying English
7) Their relationship grows over time through communication and multiple visits and face time into real love.
Cool She continues busting her ass studying English and their communication improves even more
9) Approximately 1.5 years after the proposal, He travels to Russia for the marriage, and marries her in Russia
10) she continues busting her ass studying English and even wins some awards for her proficiency
11) somewhere in the neighborhood of the two year mark, she arrives on her K-3 and they officially marry in USA
12) both are still dedicated to making the relationship work, flourish, and grow.

Move step 3 down the list to between 8 and 9 and you have the basic foundation of what the Professionals advise...  granted, they do say men will be much better off narrowing down the search to women who speak better English to begin with, but the basic recipe for higher probability of success is there..

Mark wears The One Week Wonder moniker proudly, but is his case, I still say it's a misnomer.

Whether by accident or forethought, they both put in the time and effort as well as had the patience to allow their relationship to blossom into real love prior to marriage.  The only real difference in his story between the Professionals and his plan is that he proposed earlier than recommended.

Worst case scenario would have been a break-up prior to the marriage and the possibility of losing the cost of a ring, and they had the time to identify an incompatibility prior to marriage which would have caused it.  Back to learning, his scenario does provide a glimpse of a lower risk approach.. all the basics are there.. time, communication, hard work, patience

So, although being quite the vociferous emissary of chain yanking, he still didn't follow the path of the One Week Idiots who actually do spend a week with a woman, have some kind of penilary vaginalistic compatibility, run home and file the K-1, get married (to strangers), and wake from the dream to discover the nightmare of Dante's Special Circle for Fools, Idiots, and Other Moronic Entities...  the One Week Wonder aspect is way overplayed and mostly smoke and mirrors..

Dave

Daveman (EMD) I like that too,

You say, "In no way does Markus' story validate those idiots who do marry strangers...  whose stories will one day be told in a thread entitled "It Happened One Day On The Way To A Train Wreck".  His story, early proposal aside, is actually how one SHOULD approach this, IMO.  And Six years later, they're still going strong."

You say my story is actually how one should approach this, except for the proposal. Sensing that my proposal time period is unacceptable to you, does my proposal period fall into the OWW category? I've already proved proposing on the 1st visit is ok. So, obviously your "idiot" comments didn't apply to me proposing on the 1st like I did and 6 years later still going. Perhaps you can clarify yourself without getting emotional and using derogatory adjectives to describe your position. Be careful as you may be moderated. Oh wait, you are a moderator.

Show me a man who falls into the OWW category who proposed to a stranger and show me the train wreck that followed and show me how that train wreck relates to a OWW. First, you have to define a OWW. Also, elaborate on how you "know" the person was a "stranger" to a stranger. You are theoretically speaking; I want evidence instead of emotions. With confidence, I can say that you are a stranger to the strangers you refer to. If I didn't marry a stranger, what does my story have to do with marrying a stranger that you correlated above? Or, if you I think married a stranger, what evidence do you have that I married a stranger. You can't have it both ways. It would be difficult for you to adhere to a definition of a OWW that includes me as I have proved my method. But, do you agree with my definition of a OWW that I stated in posts above? If so, then proposing on the 1st visit and following the time path I did is absolutely fabulous. And I agree!

As far as the facts according to you, your emotions are thinking for you again. You are correct up to 4. If you knew I got married in Russia, why was number 5 necessary? Please tell us how my wife studied her ass off studying English and elaborate. On number 7 you refer to her busting her ass again studying English. How, I ask how? I wish I knew this answer!!!!!!! And, let's see is EMD married to my wife or me. Is there something I don't know? Could EMD have been in Russia during this time? One thing is for sure, he thinks he knows the answer. I'm sure he will scoop up some historic post of mine, but, his emotional words of "studying her ass off" need some evidence. Time, Place, Duration, etc.

EMD, you say, "Their relationship grows over time." How much time I ask. You don't have a clue sir. The rest of your comments posted as facts are emotional, without merit, and since I know the facts, are your way of using words to support a position that cannot support with facts.  I will say this, you need to learn the difference between a K1 and a K3. On number 11, how could I bring my wife to the US on a K3 if I was not married? Huh sir? I got married in Russia 5 months after I proposed during the 1st visit.

For a moderator, you sure don't pay attention much do you? Perhaps I've noticed that and it's why I call you EMD.

 

[CanadaMan]

So, do you agree with my definition:

OWW is called a One Week Wonder, a man who proposes during the 1st week of meeting his lady in person and they got married within 2 weeks of the proposal.?

 That's a pretty tight definition. I could live with it, except for one technical thing and one not so technical thing.

Technical: a man proposes 'marriage'
Not so technical: Can the woman propose marriage for him to be a OWW?

I mean if the thing crashes, he can always fall back on, "Well you know, it really wasn't me who was rushing this". 

[Markus]

I think the tight definition is necessary for clarification.

As far as an FSUW proposing, I'm not sure that will happen. I think the context of a OWW is a man proposing.

[KenC]

GQBlues,

You are correct in that I was JMark, then changed to OWW after Kenc's OWW thread (I think THE preceded the OWW). And you are correct about the exchange between me and many other folks. That was something for me being a newbie, but I didn't run away. I want to be a OWW. I want that name applied to me and what I did. That way we can apply a definition. But, I'm told I'm not a OWW so I want to know what a OWW is.

Again, I and don't want to keep patting you on the shoulder, but you are correct again when you say (and does not give any consideration to the period of engagement). Actually, I don't think anybody takes into consideration anything except that a man proposed during the 1st visit. Heck, I've already proved that can work. So, do you agree with my definition:

OWW is called a One Week Wonder, a man who proposes during the 1st week of meeting his lady in person and they got married within 2 weeks of the proposal.?

Markus,
First let me correct your failed memory.  The title of my thread was "Is it smart to be a one week wonder?"  It was not necessarily directed at you, but the theory of getting engaged to a stranger that one had known for a week or less.  I went on to say that I could even understand the idea if it were just a ploy to jump start the visa paperwork with the "real" thinking of "wait and see if things work out."  To which you replied, that it was not a ploy.  I still maintain that only an idiot would marry a woman they had known for a week or less.

Your definition is incorrect.  The duration of time between meeting and marriage is not relevant.  The time spent face to face is.
KenC

[Daveman]

For a moderator, you sure don't pay attention much do you? Perhaps I've noticed that and it's why I call you EMD.

 

 

Well, obviously that statement is true as your post completely escaped my attention for over a week. 

Hey, my synopsis came from your posts -- not one but rather several over a period of time.  I have no intention of going back and finding them again.  If I was/am mistaken, then so be it and I'll stand corrected.  Nor do I have the need to prove anything here. You are the one who has claimed to have a different and unconventional 'method' (or whatever it is) that led to success. Your method supposedly flies in the opposite direction of our 'common wisdom' so the onus falls upon you to provide empirical evidence of your method being a planned success as opposed to blind luck.

[Markus]

Markus,
First let me correct your failed memory.  The title of my thread was "Is it smart to be a one week wonder?"  It was not necessarily directed at you, but the theory of getting engaged to a stranger that one had known for a week or less.  I went on to say that I could even understand the idea if it were just a ploy to jump start the visa paperwork with the "real" thinking of "wait and see if things work out."  To which you replied, that it was not a ploy.  I still maintain that only an idiot would marry a woman they had known for a week or less.

Your definition is incorrect.  The duration of time between meeting and marriage is not relevant.  The time spent face to face is.
KenC

Sorry, been away for a while, but...

Come on Kenc, your thread wasn't directed at me? It started as a question from me as a newbie that motivated you to start your thread. I debated back and forth, wrote 1 sentence that was inappropriate in that debate, and six years later you claim your thread was just some idea you inhaled from the stars? Oh no, your thread was about me. Your thread wasn't theory then but you want to theorize now. I proposed during the 1st week. Today, you include the word stranger. Is the word "stranger" your out? I knew her only through letters and phone calls 3 months prior to meeting her in person and you knew that information at the start of the OWW thread. She knew about 5% English to my 1% Rusisian. And guess what; we communicated. That sir is a fact that stands 6 years later. Your backtracking isn't working. You only backed off after you learned my wife wasn't able to come to the U.S. after our marriage. Her arrival was 1.4 years from the marriage and 1.9 months after the proposal. The 1.4 year time frame was due to the K3 and my vacation time to make it work. But, I proposed to her during the 1st week we met in person, and six years later we are still married. So, don't try to pull the wool over the eyes of the readers. Your thread was directed at me. 

When you say, "I still maintain that only an idiot would marry a woman they had known for a week or less.", can you give me some marriages that fall into this category that you have personally exchanged opinions with on this board?  And, what does your statement have to do with being a OWW. Your only recourse is to say that I am not a OWW. Based on your original thread, I am a OWW. You can change your thoughts today, but, your original thoughts still exist, unless you say, I was wrong.

From your words, Your definition is incorrect.  The duration of time between meeting and marriage is not relevant.  The time spent face to face is.  I was with the girl that I chose to marry face to face less than 1 week on the proposal and about 2.5 weeks face to face before marriage (that includes the 3rd trip to get married). Would a 3-week wonder be more appropriate? Either way, your original OWW was targeted to me, my tenure at marriage caused you to say I'm not a OWW, now we all don't know the official definition of a OWW. If, a OWW is according to your original thread, then being a OWW is good by definition as manifested by me and my wife.


To EMD,

You state you are giving a synopsis but shouldn't that synopsis, when quoting "what was said" actually generalize what was said instead of fishing for the truth with alleged comments?

Quote from: Daveman on January 06, 2008, 11:01:41 PM

Here's what I see.. I think there's a lot of joy in ruffling feathers because of past confrontations with some members.. however... let's take a look at what was said in that Great Debate thread some months ago... this is the basic synopsis that I gathered from various posts in that thread.
Daveman  E.M.D.

Daveman, I don't see the "making up facts" in the definition of synopsis. The synopsis should be factual. A synopsis, which is a generalization, should not quote situations that don't exist. You quoted statements as fact but after confronted with the truth you then revert to more false statements, such as, You are the one who has claimed to have a different and unconventional 'method' (or whatever it is) that led to success." Where in the past did I state such statements that you are presenting as fact? Does the word synopsis include emotional and creative comments that are written as fact? There's no reason to get emotional and try to create statements that never existed. You should be careful with using emotion in your responses, where truth trumps emotion. Quote the facts and don't make up statements.

Finally, my motivation here is to bring a uniform definition of a OWW. We are still far from a uniform definition.

[KenC]

Markus,
Glad everything worked out for you.  Hope you have a long and happy marriage.
KenC

[BillyB]

I wasn't paying attention when this thread came out and just read it. Grats to you Markus for approaching 6 years in your marriage and tfcrew for approaching 10 years being OWW.

I remember you Markus from the old forum. I just started reading these forums when I seen you and others in some heated debates.

Although it's still risky for anybody to be a OWW, you and your wife probably have 3 important things going for you in your marriage.

1) You are both good people at least to each other.

2) You both are strong mentally. Although you had a language barrier and probably already experienced the normal downs in a marraige, you both are strong enough mentally to stick by each other thorugh thick and thin.

3) You both need each other. Once the need for a spouse diminishes, so does the marriage. Based on your other postings, you and your wife are very close and best friends.

I don't know recall how good you've done your homework before visiting your wife but if any man decides to be a OWW, he should have tons of communication with the lady he's visiting to help figure out who he's about to propose to. Society already views men who go overseas for a wife as big risk takers. Being a OWW adds to the risk.

If I remember correctly, Blues Fairy had 3 years communication with her husband before he finally visited. I don't know if her husband is a OWW but I would say 3 years communication and one visit is better than 3 months communication and 2 visits when it comes to understanding a person you are about to propose to.