|
Dear Amy: I have been divorced for four years -- after 35 years of marriage. My friends encouraged me to try Internet dating. I've dated several men during the past three years -- all very nice but no real "match."
Recently, I had a date with a man I met on the Internet, and we instantly connected. Here is where I need your advice and help. He needed to go back to his hometown to clear up some matters and will be gone for one or two months.
I e-mailed him and told him to keep in touch and to have a safe trip.
Do you think it is inappropriate for me to call his cell phone after two weeks just to say hello?
I don't want to seem desperate or that I am running after him, but the connection was so strong that I need your advice.
Maggie
Dear Maggie: There's nothing wrong with calling someone you like to check in now and then, but the real question here is: Has he been in touch with you, and if not, why not?
One of the most challenging aspects of getting to know people is learning to match their tone and intensity. The simple fact is that when people truly "connect," they want to be in touch frequently. Anybody who is interested in you will find a way to e-mail and call you no matter where he is and what he is doing. You should only contact him regularly if he is also contacting you.
On the face of it, your guy's decision to leave for a month or two and "clear up some matters" doesn't bode well for this relationship -- if he isn't in touch with you while he is gone. He could be otherwise involved -- or not that interested in you. But the good news is that now you know how it feels to connect with someone, and it feels great, right?
You should take that knowledge back out into the dating scene and find someone who is more available.
A book that you might find helpful is He's Just Not That Into You, by Greg Behrendt and Liz Tuccillo.
Dear Amy: My wife and I bought a used Toyota from my sister-in-law. She took good care of it, and Toyotas tend to be reliable.
After four months and about 3,000 miles, the transmission failed, necessitating an expensive rebuild.
Is this simply a case of "caveat emptor"? Does my sister-in-law have any responsibility?
Chris
Dear Chris: You should look on this transaction with your sister-in-law the way you would view it if you had bought the car from a stranger. Ask yourself what you would like for your sister-in-law to do for you. Would you like for her to refund part of the cost of the car? Would you like for her to climb under the car, yank out the transmission and rebuild it for you?
If you paid a fair price for the car and had it thoroughly checked before you bought it, then you are a victim only of bad luck.
Unless the seller offered you a written warranty of some sort, then you bought the car "as is."
It seems unreasonable to expect that she bears any responsibility for an unforeseen mechanical occurrence.
I did an Internet search on "caveat emptor" and learned a lot about the concept of "buyer beware."
The Federal Trade Commission has some useful information about buying used cars on its Web site: ftc.gov (search for "buying a used car").
Send questions to askamy@tribune.com or to Ask Amy, Chicago Tribune, TT500, 435 N. Michigan Ave., Chicago, IL 60611.
Editor's note: Columnist Greg Dawson is taking a break. While he is out, Ask Amy will appear Monday and Wednesday on the Good Grief page.
| 
