Mate, fuck her.

Emoticons always are exact indicators of a texters feelings and should be agonizingly read into to the point where you think your buddies girlfriend likes you.

She didn't send ;), so it wasn't legit.

Just do a statistical analysis of the situation. Quantify the value of your friendship with the buddy, quantify the attractiveness of the girlfriend, and using sneakiness, paranoia, and insight as guidelines, figure out the odds of his actually finding her messages.

Once those values are obtained, multiply the inherent seriousness factor by the quantified attraction level, and subtract the squared residual of the quantified friendship as compared to other friendships over time. Twice integrate the natural logarithm of the odds constant multiplied by your luck expressed as a function with the times of the original interaction of the planned meeting as bounds. Take the two values found previously and use them for a Dirichlet projection onto a unit 5-sphere, and compare your w value to Euler's table on unwise and spontaneous hook-ups.

Hope that helps! :)

santa - hm... yeah. possible... so you don't think he saw the messages and she is trying to pretend like nothing is happening? i'm just thinking what if he read the messages and now he's out to kill.

Im being sarcastic, she thinks you are a creep and your buddy probably knows, especially after that bear hug stoke of genius

A bear hug? Lol. She probably doesn't think you're a creep, but she almost certainly put you in the friend zone, dude. Nothing good can come of this.

ghug well... actually i said buddy but not really all that long-term friendship. the couple is from out of town and have been in the same hotel room a few weeks... so they could be... a little bit serious. i think i should have called... instead of that chatting crap... but she's in the hotel room with the guy so i didn't know. ah well, i will see what happens. santa might be right. that guy is a total stallion but people also say he's a bit arrogant and over-confident about these things.

haha.... ah.... well first of all how did this become about me, second of all after the bear hug she was sending all these yes let's meet (triple exclamation) thank you (triple exclamation) see you on weds!... so that doesn't scream creeped out to me...

Let's put it this way, whatever she's thinking right now, it most likely is not about you in any romantic sense. The odds of getting anywhere romantically/sexually/etc. with this situation are low, and the odds of getting into a shitfest with your friend* by pursuing this situation are 100%. Not worth it.

*: Speaking of, not much of a friend, huh? I could understand (or, at least, would be in no position to judge) if the guy were some random anon, but if I actually considered the guy a friend I wouldn't do anything to jeopardize his relationship.

there is another option. is it possible that she's just crazy and likes the idea of guys fighting over her?

half friend/half business associate who will leave the city permanently in a month.

Yes.

It is possible that she didn't like the guy in the first place, in that in this world, she didn't like the guy in the first place, and this world accesses itself (it's standard to stipulate the reflexivity constraint on the accessibility relation in modal logic, given that otherwise "if necessarily p then p" is not a logical truth). It's a given that she didn't like the guy in the first place; what's up for debate is whether it's possible, but, hey, reflexivity, right?

In fact, why don't we prove this? Let's try to construct a countermodel where the single premise is "she didn't like the guy in the first place" (clearly true, I mean, geez, it's like this guy has never been friendzoned before) and the conclusion is "it is not the case that it is possible that she didn't like the guy in the first place".

Let's call the world where the premise is true world-0. Let v be a function that assigns a truth-value to each propositional parameter at each world and, by extension, to each truth-functional compound of propositional parameters by the standard classical truth-functions. Thus, for instance, at any given world, v(p ^ q) = 1 iff v(p) = v(q) = 1. Let W be a set of worlds. Let R be a binary relation on W. Given that we want reflexivity to constrain our accessibility relation, stipulate that for all worlds w in W, wRw. OK, so what we have so far is a world, world-0. world-0Rworld-0. At world-0, v("she didn't like the guy in the first place") = 1.

Now we want to make "it is not the case that it is possible that she didn't like the guy in the first place" true at world-0. In K, v("it is not the case that it is possible that p") = v("it is necessarily the case that not-p"). So, convert the modal operator: "it is necessarily the case that it is not the case that she didn't like the guy in the first place" is true at world-0. Thus, at every world w' such that world-0Rw', at world-0, v("it is not the case that she didn't like the guy in the first place") = 1. Since v(not-p) = 1 iff v(p) = 0, at world-0, v("she didn't like the guy in the first place") = 0.

So at world-0, v("she didn't like the guy in the first place") = 1 and 0. Contradiction. Thus, there is not countermodel to the inference. QED

*no countermodel

Apologies for that.

side note - does the friend zone even exist? the idea that girls are less likely to date guys who are their friends? or you mean to say that she's not that into him? yeah... it's possible. with stunning good looks though, he has little experience with that situation.

That is not what the friendzone is.

so what is the correct response to "these pictures are funny" then a girl with a rose in her teeth holding a cocktail? you all seem to think the bears hugging is childish. so what? an emoticon of a couple people banging? i don't think they had that one.

@Acosmist, you're missing the fact that liking the guy is not a binary datum. Given the common mood fluctuations of the human mind and the common occurrence known as "mixed feelings," the state of v("she didn't like the guy in the first place") at world-0 can in fact equal any value between 0 and 1, or even multiple values,much like a qubit. It would therefore make much more sense to model the data with a quantum computer, which unfortunately none of us have access to. Luckily, we have several handy residues left over from our Dirichlet projection that can be used in conjunction with Euler's other tables without much manipulation to determine everything from how much she likes the guy, to the emotional impact of the bear hug emoticon (it seems to have a greater impact on communists), to the average velocity of an African Swallow.

In conclusion, Euler was a player.

so she was thinking 'hey i'd like to meet him' then saw the bears and said 'what a loser, time to ask my boyfriend to come with us'? i don't know. i'm still calling her tomorrow. we'll see what happens. i guess it is like a quantum computer since nobody can tell what a woman is thinking (even the woman herself) until after the action is taken.

ghug: the inference holds in the modal extension of continuum-valued Lukasiewicz logic. That should mitigate your concerns about vague truth-values.

One step further. Sure, it's possible she likes guys fighting over her. If that's so, you are advised to stay the fuck away. That goes for anybody; if your romantic interest of the hour seeks the attention of multiple people for the express purpose of those people fighting over <appropriate pronoun here> then do not even think about entertaining the idea of being one of the chumps in the ring.

Anyway the friend zone is an informal conceptualization for an area where guys end up in a woman's mind that essentially defines the guys as "good friends, not viable romantic partners." Pro tip, you do it too, don't pretend like you don't. It's not that being friends *innately* makes you less likely to be dateable, it's that you, at present, are a friend who is not dateable. Sorry, hate to piss in your Cheerios, but that's where you are right now. The bear hug isn't childish, but think about what it is. It's a bear hug. Who gives bear hugs? Teddy bears. Big teddy bears. You have classified yourself as a big teddy bear. Who dates big teddy bears? The occasional objectophile. That's it. Not anybody you're interested in dating, in all likelihood (and my sincerest apologies if you are in fact an objectophile OR seeking one).

The correct response is that she's not interested in you right now, and that you should proceed as friends if she's worth friendship (tip: if you want to date her, you better want to be her friend, because in a healthy relationship, romantic partners are, if not one another's absolute best friend, certainly up there), and if not, then (a) what were you doing going after her anyway and (b) step back and reassess.

Also if your half-friend/half-business-associate is leaving for good soon then just chill out and wait. For one, that'll probably improve your odds *if* you nonetheless feel the need to plunge down this rabbit hole. For another, it's just basic decency and respect, man. Presumably you're looking at making a move because you anticipate them breaking up when he leaves. Just set this thing on ice for a while, keep living your life, being you, whatever, and if it does come to pass that she's single in the near future, and you *really* think you have a chance, go for it. With less bear hugs.

She brings her boyfriend? You find two of the hottest women in your social circle and bring them. Now we'll see who does the fighting.

probably legit advice. so what makes you think she does think i'm a friend? i guess cause she said 'oh my boyfriend can make it'? uh.... yeah. maybe you're right about that bear... but so wait i'm still wondering what is the correct response there? well.... i don't see it going places with her or the friendship with him lasting. i think they are both gone from the city pretty soon. so it's actually not a big deal either way.

Listen, god-dude, you're approaching this all wrong and the advice these are giving you is good, but it has no spunk. You're playing poker with her and she raised the bet. Now you either call the bet (bring one girl, sort of stretches the poker game), raise her bet (bring two girls, faster resolution), or go all-in (bring all girls, immediate resolution). Or, you leave the table. Then you stick with your decision. Make her feel like you're not a man to be played around with, you're the man. Girls love that (especially the feminists, they can't get enough of it, but you just have to push a little harder).

so should i go to this meeting? or will i get jumped by a gang of men protecting the honor of this poor defenseless girl?

ok... the only thing i'm worried about is that she still likes me but sent me those messages because her bf found out and she's just faking that she doesn't like me? or is that just unprecedented and unwarranted arrogance?

bringing girls could be hard, the meeting is in the daytime when the proletariat are on the farm working working working like the other animals.

i would invite the girl to a dinner i'm having with other girls, but like i said she's leaving the next day, so that's not an option either.