Slashdot Mirror
True.com Wants Warnings On Personal Ads
An anonymous reader submits "News.com.com is reporting that personals company True.com is behind a push in several state legislatures to require everyone but them to include scary looking warnings above personals ads. I'm sure they're not the first, but this looks like a particularly slimy way to corner a market. And the unintended consequences look big, too: by my read of the proposed law, even Slashdot would need to include the warnings above user profile pages." In just a few weeks, this would sound like an April Fool's joke. I hope every legislator to whom this is being shopped is sent a copy of Declan's counter-example.
what are you talking about?
No reasonably sensible person "needs" a warning to remind them of this fact.
Show me a reasonably sensible person, and I'll show you twelve people who have "met their true love" on the Internet, willing to drop everything to go meet some random person they only know from talking on AIM for a week. Sex is powerful, and sometimes it makes people do very, very dumb things.
Bears don't normally eat things that talk and move backwards.
1. Create new laws and impose them on yourself.
2. Influence new legislation that will force your competition to abide by your bogus laws.
3. Create a new market by having the government eliminate your competition.
Sounds like the American way to me...
By stating that they *have* done a background check on a person, aren't they assuming liability (at least partially) if the person turns out to be a psycho?
Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"
Mandatory bash.org quote.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Ever since I signed up for True.com about 6 months ago (and quickly abandoned it), they've been bombarding me with fake Emails such as "User wants to talk to you !" and "Hundreds of people are compatible with you !". Sure I got Thunderbird and it's intelligent Junk filter, but the very fact of them being so annoying (and lying) ensures I will never use their slimy site again.
I wrote to my state senator:
I read with tremendous dismay that True.com has managed to bribe at least one assemblymember into introducing their special interest legislation. I assume it will be crushed immediately, it's just so astonishingly moronic. My confidence in democracy would be somewhat improved if Fran Pavley is removed from office as expeditiously as possible. It's incomprehensible to me that anyone could be so naive and stupid as to believe that this legislation is in the public interest or anything but a bald-faced attempt to create legislative favor for a specific company. I would think that unless Fran Pavley has some plausible excuse, it would be appropriate to investigate him for ethics violations.
I want to run a video recorder company now just so I can use this one:
PLEASE NOTE: Some Quantum Physics Theories Suggest That, When Unobserved, This Product May Cease to Exist or May Exist Only in a Vague and Undetermined State. Therefore all warranties are in effect only while this product is under the direct observation of a human being.
and secretly snap video of people glancing back at frantically.
Nice post!
You are checking your backups, aren't you?
I disagree about them "not being the greatest idea". Back when I was single I used to use online dating services all the time. I met a fair number of people online, and went out on dates with 6 or 8 of them over the course of a couple of years. They were all nice people. Some of them were better matches than others. There was this one woman who forgot to mention that she was an ultra-conservative who was offended by everything the least bit progressive (and of course I'm an advertised ultra-liberal) but overall it wasn't too bad. No serial killers, no stalkers, no married women, and no psychopaths. We would usually go on a few dates and then decide that we weren't quite right, and then I'd meet someone else. Overall it was really much different than "normal" dating. The biggest difference with a service is that you're selecting from a pool of people who are looking to meet someone, whereas with normal life that woman at the coffee shop who's cute may have no interest in meeting someone.
While there's no guarantee that you won't meet some psycho using a dating service, there's also no guarantee that that you won't meet a psycho at the bar, grocery, laundromat, office, friend's house, church, or anywhere else you pick someone else up. As long as you are careful (don't give out too much personal info, take it slow, meet in public places until you get a good feel for the person, follow your gut instincts, etc) then there shouldn't be problems.
Being successful when dating online is just like being successful at dating in real life - you need to not only be a good catch, but you also have to go after people who will thikn you're a good catch.
You're part-way there by underestimating your income, if hot money-grubbing bitches are not the kind of women you are interested in. Although to be honest, even most normal women are attracted to a guy who is not por, not because they want money, but because they don't want a guy who wants their money.
But, that aside, the real trick to success on sites like match.com is to mail girls who do not have pictures up. They receive a lot less mail, so you won't fall through the cracks. Of the 20 girls you emailed, MAYBE 10 actually found the time to read your email, and of those 10, maybe 5 actually found the time to read your profile, and maybe 2 of them were impressed with it.
Emailing girls without pictures not only means there's less competition for that particular girl, but it also means as a result that girl will have more time to see that you've got things to offer that may not be as obvious as a tan and a 6-pack.
paintball
People who are allergic to stuff like peanuts, or fucking wheat, should be euthanized at birth, or at least, sterilized for chrissake.
Up until the framing and child-prostitution charges, I was nodding and saying, "Yeah, that sounds like my fiance."
He sorta stalked me for about a year, we were introduced by nosy friends when I was on the "off-again" part of an "on-again/off-again" five year abusive and manipulative relationship. About a month after meeting, I got back together with my ex. My now-fiance figured my ex had screwed up more than once in the past, and so he just had to be patient for him to do so again. Over the course of about a year, he lightly "stalked" me, mainly trying to keep the lines of conversation open. Finally, my ex did screw up catastrophically. Also around that time, a lot of my friends in the area were moving away, and I was having severe chronic health problems again. So during that time, he was very supportive of me and although I knew he had feelings for me, he was supportive more in a "This is someone I care about, and I'm going to do whatever I need to do to comfort her" than a "I have ulterior motives and I'm just doing this to get a date."
Anyways, persistence/stalking isn't ALWAYS a scary/bad thing.