I would recommend living in Palermo Soho region to ALL single expats that like going out to nice restaurants, meeting people, etc... It is the "In" neighbourhood right now and near the Plaza serrano at least there are not that many buildings more than 2 storeys high. Lost of transportation, good night life and a nice vibe.
Recoleta is a more traditional neighbourhood, higher buildings, lots of activiy during the day, cinemas, touristic attractions and museums, but less night life... from my view at least...
I agree with coachlowe about some people on this site being confrontational. It seems that everytime someone posts a question here, if it's not phrased perfectly someone is ready to attack. Jesus, it seems like you can take the yanqui out of the world of the hyper-vigilance to be politically correct, but you can't take the hyper-vigilance out of the yanqui.. . .
Well, what other criterion should a (presumably) young heterosexual with active hormones employ? No beating about the bush with euphemisms about where a "richer social life can be found." No sirree. It's about getting laid, pure and simple.
And if getting laid is the issue and the choice is between Recoleta and Palermo Soho, choose the latter. Recoleta is more staid, more formal, with less nightlife, and seemingly inhabited by older and more conservative people.
well, it look like we HAVE identified the problem! nashorama is a canadian! no wonder he has no respect baseball, apple pie, empanadas, and the gentle conversations of good wholesome folk like us personally i say we keep him around just so we can here him mispronounce the word "about" and blame him whenever things get ugly besos y huesos, shpunter
Poster bjrutledge is very observant. I've been following this thread since it started and "coachlowe", the poster so interested in a neighborhood for "a healthy, single heterosexual male" and his subsequent post about being overburdened in Mexico with advice on the best gay places to stay have been deleted. I assume coachlowe deleted them. It's probably for the best. Anyone who has to advertise they are a "healthy heterosexual" has got to be somewhat peculiar. Anyway, he obviously got the message.
As for Nashrama, kudos. If not for parodying what a dollard coachlowe is, he should be awarded thanks for his yogurht recipes. We've followed his advice and are now enjoying an embarrassment of riches. Making yoguhrt is easier than boiling an egg.
I hope I haven't been too confrontational.
But wait! The post accusing Nashorama of being confrontational has ALSO disappearred!!!
Now I am worrying about my own sanity. Have I only imagined this thread or this forum? What if one by one all other posts in this thread disappear and I am left only with my own responses to non-existant posts?
I am still puzzled by one thing. If there is no trace of "coachlowe," are we all sure that he ever existed? And if the virtual coachlowe doesn't really exist, can Nashorama be considered confrontational?
In other words, if you confront something that doesn't exist, is that really considered confrontational behavior, worthy of public scorn and social ostracism?
This thread is now becoming interesting. Of course, an initial post is only an excuse for many of us to develop differing philosophical positions that are often only tenuously related (if at all) to the subject of the original post. And so it is here.
I made the initial (plausible) assumption that behind the cyber-presence of "coachlowe" resided a real person of flesh-and-blood. I now make the initial assumption that so did many others at the time. With this assumption, it is clear that Nashorama's response might be considered by some to be aggressive and bellicose. But I think we can go further than this. Suppose we all knew that "coachlowe" was unreal; I argue that Nashorama's response can be still be considered (by some) to be aggressive and confrontational, even though there is now no human object against whom this attitude was directed.
And I have a second concern. The possibly non-existent coachlowe was the only person I have ever known (if I can indeed consider that I knew him, for the brief time I spent reading and replying to his post) who advertised himself as a healthy heterosexual. So now his disappearance alarms me. If healthy heterosexuals are disappearing at a rapid rate, who will be available to fill the ranks of the US military (I don't think gays can be trusted to keep quiet about their sexual orientation, in case of a future draft...)?
If he was non-existent, there is no cause for alarm. Cause for alarm can only exist if "coachlowe" was a real human being, young, male, and with US citizenship, who has in the interim period either expired or otherwise become ineligible to serve in the fine US armed forces. There is no evidence 1) that he was real and 2) that if he was real, he subsequently expired or became incapacitated. Thus we need not concern ourselves overmuch with USA's capacity to fight other imperialistic wars of aggression.
And also, what caused such a healthy person to disappear so quickly???
Did anybody (maybe even the Administrators) by any chance, happen to save a copy of the now missing posts by "coachlowe"? I was going to reply in what I think is a balanced fashion, but now I don´t remember what he said, or what the missing replies said, either. Too bad. He might even be reading these responses, so I still would have posted mine. Thanks, Joe