Slashdot Mirror


Dating Website eHarmony's Ad Banned For Claiming Service Is 'Scientifically Proven' (bbc.com)

A dating website's claim that it used a "scientifically proven matching system" to pair up those looking for love, has been banned. From a report: An advert for eHarmony on the London Underground in July read: "It's time science had a go at love." The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) called the claim "misleading." The online matchmaker said while it "respectfully disagrees" with the ruling, it will make its advertising "as clear as possible." The website was unable to offer the ASA any evidence that customers had a greater chance of finding love, despite claiming that its "scientifically proven matching system decodes the mystery of compatibility and chemistry." "Imagine being able to stack the odds of finding lasting love entirely in your favour," the advert read.

160 comments

  1. first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is "science", anyway?.. Vague terminology..

    1. Re:first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Formulas, processes, and other shit that we can do over and over and over over inputs to verify outputs.

    2. Re:first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect what they meant to say is that their matching system is scientifically proven to make fucktons of money. They did not say exactly what the matching system was proven to do.

    3. Re: first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Science equals evolution. So if you donut beeleave in evolution your anti-scientifical and you cant do physics or climate change or light bulb changing cuz scinence is evuhlooshun.

    4. Re:first by JackieBrown · · Score: 0

      Thank goodness we have the EU to save Europeans from there own apparently severe naivety

    5. Re:first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes!

    6. Re:first by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 4, Funny

      And others have the situation firmly in hands.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    7. Re:first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Learn their from there, jackass Trump retard.

    8. Re: first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mmmm donut :)

    9. Re: first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I was thinking about exactly this topic this weekend. What does the Venn diagram for belief look like? If I'm a nuclear physicist, how much biology am I required to believe in? Maybe Venn isn't correct, more of a hierarchy?

      Ex., nuclear physics existed long before plate tectonics, so a belief in same is not required for nuclear physics. I have to think about this more.

    10. Re:first by nitehawk214 · · Score: 3, Funny

      What is science? Baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    11. Re:first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They need to be in pussies, not anuses.

      Tell that to your girlfriend. As a member of small penis community, I greatly appreciate the girlfriends of other people that just can't get enough of it.

    12. Re:first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      also; naiveté

  2. Nope, I've tried it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I go a few days with out getting any responses, I'll end up getting 3 to 5 responses that take a few days to figure out that they are fake responses. It will be just enough to keep you paying for the service.

    That is where the science is, in keeping gullible guys paying for a service that they want to believe that there are women out there that want more than just money.

    Captcha: Immature.

    1. Re:Nope, I've tried it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, obviously, there are women out there that want more than just money (you know, in addition to the money).

      The question is, are there women there who want love but not money?

      And the answer is no, as proven by the fact that women never go to homeless shelters to find men with a heart of gold.

    2. Re:Nope, I've tried it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They are real women, but here's the catch.

      If you "Start Communication" with them (eHarmony term), they can't respond unless they have a paid subscription. So there's no way for you to know if she is ignoring you or just doesn't feel like paying for an account. I feel the service should let you know who has a paid account and who doesn't.

      And yes, they only add 4 or 5 matches to your inbox every day.

      I met my wife on eHarmony. AMA.

    3. Re:Nope, I've tried it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hell was your wife doing on a dating site to begin with!

      CAP === 'volcanic'

    4. Re: Nope, I've tried it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh what a nice guy. I'm sure its that you don't have enough money and not because you are lacking in other areas (no I'm not talking about your penis).

    5. Re:Nope, I've tried it by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem with Dating in general, it is up to the guy to initiate the meeting. So the ladies often complain about too much traffic, while the guys complain about lack of responses.

      So the guy that respects women will rarely get a response as they will sound boring, because they will be polite and respectful. While the jerk will lie and do whatever it takes to get noticed. So the women notices the Jerk.

      If society approved the Woman and Men equally initiating the meeting, then chances are there will be a bit more equal chance of finding each other.
           

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    6. Re:Nope, I've tried it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is simple. If you have money, you wouldn't be needing a dating service. If you don't sport a BMW, a dating service is happy to take your dosh, but don't expect any meaningful responses whatsoever.

      All the action is on Tinder anyway.

    7. Re:Nope, I've tried it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I have tried it as well. So far, dating services have matched me up with:

      Someone who was still married and was looking to toss her hubby, but lied about being single.
      Someone who was asking people to help with bail money for her "brother". After a quick NCIS look, her "brother" was her husband locked up for agg assault.
      Someone who talked my ear off for hours about the mean things she did to her ex.
      Someone who started slashing the tires of a car they thought was mine. (I took the subway for good reason.)

      Sorry, if someone isn't married by 30, they are defective goods and single for a reason.

    8. Re: Nope, I've tried it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Several woman have initiated contact with me for romantic partnership. Society is just fine with it.

    9. Re: Nope, I've tried it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Several woman have initiated contact with me for romantic partnership. Society is just fine with it.

      It's getting better but on average women still get a lot more possible suitors than men.

      As in on average virtually every women has received enough unwanted attention to feel harassed by at some point it while almost no men have received enough to empathize with the concept of being harassed by people giving you compliments unwanted or otherwise.

    10. Re:Nope, I've tried it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure they have very good reasons to do that which aren't BcusRevenue.

      1) End all messages with "recommend directing future correspondence, if any, to username_eharmony@email.com since eharmony has a bug that often blocks replies" or your comm of choice.

      2) Widely circulate the situation/solution, preferably where eharmony can see.

    11. Re: Nope, I've tried it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've received plenty of attention. The reason I don't complain as a man is because even though I'm already happily in a relationship I still find it as a complement. Weird stalkerish behavior is different which I do not have experience with. Constant attempts at sexual encounters though don't bother me much whether they come from men or women. I just say no gracefully and move on.

    12. Re:Nope, I've tried it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having money is not enough. You have to advertise your wealth.

      If you are a millionaire that lives in a one bedroom apartment, drives a low-end car, wears jeans and t-shirts, and generally spends frugally, women just assume you are poor and look the other way.

      If you are not a millionaire, but you dress in nice clothes (or even a suit) and drive a well-kept expensive car...the women crawl out of the woodwork to get to you.

      One of my friends was trying dating sites, and he wasn't getting much in the way of the response until he posted his income. Then women were reaching out to him in droves. It made him mad.

      Alternatively, be tall and muscular. That works too.

    13. Re:Nope, I've tried it by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      You have never been asked out by a woman? That was how my first serious relationship started.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    14. Re:Nope, I've tried it by gnick · · Score: 1

      The question is, are there women there who want love but not money?

      And this makes women unique? Everyone wants money. Love's nice too. One of those I can live without.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    15. Re:Nope, I've tried it by gnick · · Score: 1

      What the hell was your wife doing on a dating site to begin with!

      Dating? I hear it's popular. Never had much of a knack for it.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    16. Re:Nope, I've tried it by gnick · · Score: 4, Funny

      ...if someone isn't married by 30, they are defective goods and single for a reason.

      I must be double-plus special! I'm only 40 and I've already completed 2 entire marriages!

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    17. Re:Nope, I've tried it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Generally speaking, when men evaluate dating prospects, how much money the woman has isn't a criterion. Whereas when women size up a man, his apparent net worth is criterion #1, even if she already has plenty of money of her own.

      Men don't seek women to enhance their financial situation, whereas women do seek men for exactly that reason.

      Many women say "I don't do that, I have my own money," but the stats reveal the truth. Women still insist on marrying up.

    18. Re:Nope, I've tried it by goose-incarnated · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If society approved the Woman and Men equally initiating the meeting, then chances are there will be a bit more equal chance of finding each other.

      That's stupid - society doesn't give a fuck, men don't give a fuck, but women do.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    19. Re:Nope, I've tried it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can be polite and respectful AND *interesting*. You don't need to be a jerk to be attractive to women.

      It's a skill, and it's one that the PUA movement can teach you. Read Natural Game and Magic Bullets for more info.

    20. Re:Nope, I've tried it by MadKeithV · · Score: 1

      I met my wife through online dating. We had a lot of fun talking about our horrible online dating experiences on our first few dates. It's clear that some women get a lot more "interest" from men than men get from women, the bigger problem is that 90% of the people on dating sites (men or women) are basically lunatics, and not in a good way.

      I had the woman who thought it was hilarious to joke about how her dog would eat my cat. I had the one who after chatting for a good while finally came out to say she was married but was looking to introduce polyamory into their arrangement. My wife had the guy who proposed to her after a few dates, the compulsive liar who then ironically went on to contact one of my wife's friends online with more lies, even though they had already met in real life.... goldfish memory, too many lies to keep them straight. And generally just a whole bunch of guys who put zero effort into contacting her, just a basic "hi" in the hopes of getting a response.

      However, the whole "jerks" vs "good guys" thing is baloney. You can be a good guy and be interesting, those two are not mutually exclusive at all. If you can't find a single way to make yourself interesting then change your life habits to be more interesting. Take up a different hobby. Read more. Work out. Be funny. Put some effort into it. And for everyone's sake guys, look further than their physical appearance in a few well-chosen and doctored website shots.

    21. Re:Nope, I've tried it by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Well being most men are doing the serious dating thing in their late teens and 20's. For the most part they are very clumsy at it, and so are the women who feel like they they need to respond to such behaviors.
      You can be all of it, however it usually requires a little more maturity, and less hormones.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    22. Re:Nope, I've tried it by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Whereas when women size up a man, his apparent net worth is criterion #1, even if she already has plenty of money of her own.

      Bullshit.

      BO is probably the #1 criterion. If she can't get near you without retching, everything else will take a back seat. So pro tip: have a shower and use some deoderant and stop blaming women for not picking you because you're not rich enough.

      Men don't seek women to enhance their financial situation,

      Yeah bullshit. I literally know a guy who is doing this.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    23. Re:Nope, I've tried it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Sorry, if someone isn't married by 30, they are defective goods and single for a reason.
      Sorry, if THESE NUTS aren't married by 30, they are defective goods and single for a reason.

      FTFY

      Some people are very adventurous, devoted to a certain profession, or honestly looking for that one specific person. I cite those example because it is me, some people are just late bloomers. I got hitched right at 40 on the dot and it was worth the wait. The communication & patience needed for a LTR, the self-development, the profession, the kids, the house, the everything... they are all lined up very well now. Thanks I'll get my coat.

    24. Re:Nope, I've tried it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, if someone isn't married by 30, they are defective goods and single for a reason.

      On the other hand, if you stay involuntarily single and don't get dates or kisses or even hand squeezes by 40, you get to be a master masturbator! I should have an honorary MsM coming through the postal service any time now.

    25. Re:Nope, I've tried it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's so weird. There are two common threads in all the women you met. They were all terrible people, and they were all people you chose to engage with. Perhaps the type of women you're interested in has a high overlap with high strung and crazy women.

  3. If dating could be scientificly solved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There woudn't be hoards of nerd virgins, and Slashdot would probably not exist as people would be too busy getting laid to use it.

    1. Re:If dating could be scientificly solved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What came first? The laid scientist or the scientist who figured out how to get scientists laid?

      Getting laid is easy. Getting out the hole you've dug for yourself (however pleasantly) is something for the jocks.

    2. Re:If dating could be scientificly solved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What came first? The laid scientist or the scientist who figured out how to get scientists laid?

      The laid scientist came first, and early, and claimed it never happens like that, honest.

    3. Re:If dating could be scientificly solved by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      There woudn't be hoards of nerd virgins

      Why would a dragon take a load of spotty gits and store them in a cave?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    4. Re:If dating could be scientificly solved by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Why would a dragon take a load of spotty gits and store them in a cave?

      To have a WoW clan to play with at a moment's notice.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  4. Mere puffery by aussie_a · · Score: 0

    scientifically proven matching system decodes the mystery of compatibility and chemistry

    Of course eHarmony couldn't provide scientific evidence to back up it's claims. The claims are so over the top that it would be expected no reasonable person would believe they actually had scientists applying scientific methods to the match-making algorithm. This should have been a clear and obvious case of mere puffery.

    Of course, people can be pretty stupid so maybe eHarmony had been defrauding a significant percentage of the British population. God help us all.

    1. Re:Mere puffery by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      scientifically proven matching system decodes the mystery of compatibility and chemistry

      Of course eHarmony couldn't provide scientific evidence to back up it's claims.

      That's simple. Just put add a disclaimer:
      "Scientifically proven(1) matching system decodes the mystery of compatibility and chemistry."
      (1) by social scientists, not real scientists.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    2. Re:Mere puffery by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2

      How about not excusing puffery. It doesn't make the world any better.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    3. Re:Mere puffery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might want to realise that the social sciences exist.

      You most definitely can apply science to things such as dating. They just didn't.

    4. Re:Mere puffery by stephanruby · · Score: 4, Funny

      The claims are so over the top that it would be expected no reasonable person would believe they actually had scientists applying scientific methods to the match-making algorithm. This should have been a clear and obvious case of mere puffery.

      It didn't need to be.

      eHarmony could have said. At eHarmony, we apply the scientific method. By paying for this service, you accept the possibility that you may be part of our double-blind control group, where we assign candidates semi-randomly. By semi-randomly, we mean we'll still try to find someone who fulfills your most basic criteria and who lives near your area, but some of those criteria will be chosen by a random algorithm instead of using our match-making algorithms. This is so that we're able to improve the success rate of our match-making algorithms over time.

    5. Re:Mere puffery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They said it was "proven". That was the key claim, not the flimflam about mystery and compatibility.

      So they were asked to produce the proof. I'm not sure what part of that seems unreasonable to you.

    6. Re:Mere puffery by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      scientifically proven matching system decodes the mystery of compatibility and chemistry

      Of course eHarmony couldn't provide scientific evidence to back up it's claims. The claims are so over the top that it would be expected no reasonable person would believe they actually had scientists applying scientific methods to the match-making algorithm. This should have been a clear and obvious case of mere puffery.

      Of course, people can be pretty stupid so maybe eHarmony had been defrauding a significant percentage of the British population. God help us all.

      Unless you are clearly making a joke (e.g. Red Bull gives you wings) you simply aren't allowed to flat out lie in UK adverts.

      Many beauty products use the "scientifically proven" line but they have to have at least some Noddy form of survey to back it up.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    7. Re:Mere puffery by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Forget the scientific method, for eHarmony to claim that would mean they were being wildly extremely privacy invasive, they would have to know you better than you know yourself and ensure no lies were thought let alone told.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  5. Dating websites can work. by Major_Disorder · · Score: 3, Informative

    I have never tried eHarmony. But I did meet my girlfriend of the past 6 years on OK cupid.
    I am planning to ask her to marry me in the spring.
    But I would hardly call online dating websites scientific. I would say it comes down more to luck, and both of us being honest with what we wanted.

    --
    First law of people: People are generally stupid.
    1. Re:Dating websites can work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Love@Lycos worked for us!

      Now married 10 years with a son.

      We both had to go on some disastrous dates before we met though.

    2. Re:Dating websites can work. by Tempest_2084 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I did eHarmony back when it was newish. While I did get a lot of dates out of it, I never really met anyone I wanted to 'take it to the next level' with. New friends maybe, but not wife material. IIRC the questions they asked you were interesting (although they still sounded a lot like something you'd get asked on a 70's dating show) and probably filtered out the 'really wrong for you' people, but they really didn't help as much as they seem to imply. I still met plenty of people I knew weren't going to work within 5 min of meeting them. Later on I went with a smaller site and met the woman of my dreams almost instantly. We've been married for 8 years now and we couldn't be happier.

      Honestly, if you can find a smaller 'themed' dating site that suits your interests then you'll probably have better luck on those even if they have a smaller pool of people. It helps to have a common starting point that you both feel very strongly about (religion in my case). These larger sites may have more people, but those extra people are probably not going to be what you want anyway.

    3. Re:Dating websites can work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used eHarmony years ago (maybe 12-13 years ago), and found much better results than other dating sites. Even met my wife off of it. At the time it was more expensive than other sites and my theory was people using it was much more likely to be looking for "love" and long term relationships. While on the cheap and free sites, most people were using them as a way to "hook up".

      I had way more "matches" on other sites than eHarmony, but 95% of my dates were with women on eHarmony.

      Again this was 12-13 years ago, so I'm sure a lot has changed.

    4. Re:Dating websites can work. by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      I have never tried eHarmony. But I did meet my girlfriend of the past 6 years on OK cupid. But I would hardly call online dating websites scientific. I would say it comes down more to luck

      Of couse it comes down to luck. It is luck if you find someone you hit it off with whether you meet them through a dating agency or elsewhere. The point is whether there is a better chance of good luck with the agency. But luck can be analysed scientifically - for example science tells us that the chance of getting a six on a dice throw is 1 in 6, whether by analysis of the cube or by statistical counting. eHarmony could bring science into it by doing statistical analysis, but maybe the problem here is that they have not.

      While it may be difficult to analyse, to me it seems bleedin' obvious that you are more likely to hit off with someone you meet through an agency than in a singles bar or public dance, say. At least you are more likely to know some basic facts about the agency date, for example the city where they live, interests, education etc, and you have already seen enough about each other that in agreeing to meet both of you already "agree" that things have potential. They can tell lies of course, but so can someone you meet in a singles bar.

      In my case statistically I was infinitely more likely to meet someone through an agency, because I "met" (if you call it that) zero girls outside it, or rather any circumsatnces in which girls were present they were outnumbered by guys in a ratio of at leat 5:1, so there were always guys present who were more charming and entertaining than I am. Girls I tried approaching at dances told me to get lost, I've no idea why, I'm not bad looking. OTOH I met several dozen girls through agencies of which there were about six I could have settled with (and did with one), including an ex-Playboy Club Bunny Girl believe it or not (but not as sexy as you might be thinking).

      Is there a survey form I could fill in?

    5. Re:Dating websites can work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lycos? Do you have to have a Compuserve email to set up an account? Can I link my Geocities page?

    6. Re:Dating websites can work. by blind+biker · · Score: 3

      OK Cupid is among the only dating websites that works. Why? Because it's free (or it used to, anyway). For-pay websites don't work, because their goal is not to find a match - that would be bad for business.

      I was trying to meet a woman on Match.com, but after about a year I gave up on it. Then I joined OK Cupid and found the woman that became my current wife, in three months. This was 10 years ago.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    7. Re:Dating websites can work. by DaMattster · · Score: 1

      I have never tried eHarmony. But I did meet my girlfriend of the past 6 years on OK cupid. I am planning to ask her to marry me in the spring. But I would hardly call online dating websites scientific. I would say it comes down more to luck, and both of us being honest with what we wanted.

      It's simply another way of meeting someone. It is no better or worse than going to a social or a bar or even a connect through a friend.

    8. Re:Dating websites can work. by DaMattster · · Score: 1

      Nice! A large part of it is still free. You just pay for certain upgrades like being able to see who has viewed you and the like.

    9. Re:Dating websites can work. by nukenerd · · Score: 2

      It's simply another way of meeting someone. It is no better or worse than going to a social or a bar or even a connect through a friend.

      I never had any friends who were so overloaded with girls that they wanted to hand any out to other guys :-( I'mnot sure what you mean by a "social" either - did you mean family funerals which were the only "socials" I was ever invited to.

    10. Re:Dating websites can work. by blind+biker · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well OK then.

      I just want people to realize that for-pay dating sites like eharmony and match.com do NOT work for the users because there is no incentive for these sites to actually find a working match. Their business incentive is all about dragging out the process as long as possible.

      Also, they have an interest in an unsuccessful outcome, even if the user leaves the site. Because successfully married/coupled people are automatically removed from their pool of customers.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    11. Re:Dating websites can work. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      While it may be difficult to analyse, to me it seems bleedin' obvious that you are more likely to hit off with someone you meet through an agency than in a singles bar or public dance, say. At least you are more likely to know some basic facts about the agency date, for example the city where they live, interests, education etc, and you have already seen enough about each other that in agreeing to meet both of you already "agree" that things have potential. They can tell lies of course, but so can someone you meet in a singles bar.

      The point about meeting someone in a bar is that you at least know whether you find them attractive. Your internet date might leave you cold, even if they look like their photo.

      Obviously there is much more to a relationship than physical attraction, but physical attraction isn't really something that you can work on, it's either there or it isn't.

      It often seems to me that meeting people online makes more sense if you're looking for friends, as things like shared interests are more than sufficient for friendship but no indication at all of how romantically compatible you are.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    12. Re:Dating websites can work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worked well for me. I found my wife after I spent 4 months on eHarmony and she spent approx. 2.

    13. Re:Dating websites can work. by dyslexicbunny · · Score: 1

      Visitors no longer exists. They were phasing it out right around the time I met someone on it. Claimed it was "a distraction".

  6. Kind of like "Global Warming" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's just like saying "Global Warming" is "scientific". LOL.

    1. Re:Kind of like "Global Warming" by PPH · · Score: 1

      Global Warming

      That's hot!

      Isn't this what they meant by the Paris accord?

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  7. Bad news for The Human Centipede by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As it is marketed as being âoe100 % Medically Accurateâ...

    1. Re:Bad news for The Human Centipede by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, the whole concept of the Human Centipede is fascinating. I've seen the first movie about the Human Centipede and must say that is real science, not the fake science of global warming which is #FakeScience.
       

  8. Banned from eHarmony by sremick · · Score: 4, Informative

    Eons ago, during a period where I was on the market, I tried making an eHarmony account. They rejected/banned me right off the bat without explaining why. Something about the answers I gave during the lengthy profile creation process caused them to give up on me with no explanation, and no recourse. Just basically, "we can't help you, go away".

    Match.com was useless since both parties had to be paying members in order to send/receive messages. A rather broken and pointless model as it leads to an EXTREMELY limited pool. So I didn't bother.

    OKCupid was and remains free. Met my current partner there and we've been together 5+ years now.

    1. Re:Banned from eHarmony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it was that eHarmony didn't do same sex matching. I am not sure if it has changed and I am way to lazy to use the internet to look. The founder is a Mormon and they do not allow same sex dating, so it might still be that way.

    2. Re:Banned from eHarmony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ProTip: Don't answer any eHarmony question with the phrase "Cowboy Neal."

    3. Re:Banned from eHarmony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Contents are hot."*

      "This bag is not a toy."

      "Don't drink this acid-based cleaning agent."

      "m4k3 UR PEN1S PLEASE HER WITH DISCOUNT V14GR4!!!!!!!"

      "MUH RUSSIA IN PEACHES."

      People are fucking stupid. You might think they aren't, but really, they are. If they weren't, people wouldn't be shocked to know their coffee is hot, their baby has just suffocated, their stomach is ruined, their credit card is now being used by a Nigerian prince, and that our government officials are pretty fucking silly when it comes to fishing scams.

      (* With regard to the infamous lawsuit, the coffee in question was far beyond the realm of 'hot', and it was a good lawsuit. The 'warning' message is still fucking stupid.)

    4. Re:Banned from eHarmony by Major_Disorder · · Score: 1

      Eons ago, during a period where I was on the market, I tried making an eHarmony account. They rejected/banned me right off the bat without explaining why. Something about the answers I gave during the lengthy profile creation process caused them to give up on me with no explanation, and no recourse.

      I was told once that if you are a godless heathen then they will refuse to create your profile.
      I am not saying that is why they rejected you, but it might be.
      For the record, I personally identify as a recovering Catholic, and a godless heathen.

      --
      First law of people: People are generally stupid.
    5. Re:Banned from eHarmony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was on eHarmony about 6 years ago, openly as a godless heathen. Wasn't a problem for allowing me to sign up.
      My current partner of 5 years (met on Okcupid) was not allowed to join eHarmony as she was married but separated (divorce can take over 5 years in the UK if one party wants to be an ass)

    6. Re:Banned from eHarmony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are sorry but your profile will not be created due to the answer you gave for the question "What do you look for most in a partner?"

      "My dick." was not an acceptable answer.

    7. Re:Banned from eHarmony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well as a full practicing pagan I can tell you that eHarmony had no issue with my membership and found me the most wonderful woman I could imagine, and at 50 I have quite an imagination.

    8. Re:Banned from eHarmony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eons ago, during a period where I was on the market, I tried making an eHarmony account. They rejected/banned me right off the bat without explaining why. Something about the answers I gave during the lengthy profile creation process caused them to give up on me with no explanation, and no recourse. Just basically, "we can't help you, go away".

      LOL, I know exactly one other person who eHarmony told to go away -- someone my wife used to work with, he's autistic (in my non-professional but well-informed estimation) with terrible social skills. In fact, he's a downright tool in most situations.

      Their algorithm concluded you are equally defective, and they didn't know how to place you with 'normal' people because you don't fit into their categories and 'defective' people (of which I admit to being one) pretty much can't rely on this kind of service which is based on personality tests, because instead of "ding" it goes "clang".

      My wife and I didn't meet on eHarmony (I never tried it), but she did show me the results of her questionnaire and what it said she needed in a partner ... and surprising, we mutually ticked most of the boxes.

      The problem with eHarmony is there are types of people it can try to match up, and then there are others who their algorithms simply give up on and say "woah, no idea".

      When you don't fit into an easily defined box, an algorithm simply falls apart. People on the spectrum of autism or such things ... algorithms just don't know what to do. Your classic geek tends to exhibit a few traits not easily mapped to the rest of the world. And chances are you pretty much know your own quirks and oddities which would put you into that category.

  9. "Scientific" by Thyamine · · Score: 1

    I think most people understood that this was their attempt at trying to make it work, and only vaguely scientific. Basically they are trying to say they have a better algorithm. However, the commercials really do amp up how they break down the answers and questions and results, and match on all sorts of data points, etc etc so I can understand that the regulators would say 'hey, take it down a notch'.

    --
    I will shred my adversaries. Pull their eyes out just enough to turn them towards their mewing, mutilated faces. Illyria
  10. Re:Scientifically try what I did for yourself... a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Start w/ your OWN Mom & ask her "would you kill dad for us?" & in my case when I asked my own mother & roughly 50 other women who were mothers over time that?

    Sounds like the person she should have killed is you though. Shame that post birth abortions aren't legal....

  11. Re: The only scinetifically-proven dating site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Listen, im all for bashing chris. But you are just going too far. If he posts an affiliate link or the old classic one line post, then flame em, but please let's not start the convo out about chris. He doesn't deserve that much credit.

    Thanks boys, keep up the good work tho.

  12. eHarmony was the worst of the sites I tried by raymorris · · Score: 1

    I tried several web sites, and went to lunch with dozens of women. eHarmony was the worst of the bunch, in my experience. Mate1 was my favorite.

    eHarmony always wanted to match me with women a thousand miles away.

    I went out with a lot of women because I was looking for a very special lady, a one-in-a-million. I did end up finding the love of my life, on mate1.

    1. Re:eHarmony was the worst of the sites I tried by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      eHarmony always wanted to match me with women a thousand miles away.

      >

      You know you could of restricted the distance they matched you up with. At least that was the case when I used it many years ago. I even experimented with the range. At the time, it was known that they perposesly limited the number of matches, so you had time to fully explore each match. Reducing the range increased the number of local women I was matched with.

    2. Re: eHarmony was the worst of the sites I tried by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I met my 1 in 3,400,000,000 woman in person. Word of warning, if your woman is a 1 in a million then she might be a replicant. The odds of finding a woman exactly like 3,400 others on earth is insane!

  13. Why wait till spring??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will she be legal then? (kidding)

    It seems to me that after 6 years together there is no good reason to wait.

    1. Re:Why wait till spring??? by chapstercni · · Score: 1

      Or after 6 years no need to ruin a good thing. Let it be.

    2. Re:Why wait till spring??? by Major_Disorder · · Score: 1

      Will she be legal then? (kidding)

      It seems to me that after 6 years together there is no good reason to wait.

      I am a rather traditional, so the proposal will be down on one knee, with a beautiful engagement ring that I designed just for her, incorporating both of our birthstones framing a central diamond. (Yes, I know diamonds are virtually worthless.) Obviously this ring will be rather expensive. As neither of us believes in going into debt, I am currently saving up for the ring.

      --
      First law of people: People are generally stupid.
  14. Re: I scientifically blow away ads (& threats) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You scientifically blow dudes lol.

  15. I've got big hands and a $1B, date me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you don't, I'm going to grab you by the pussy.

    MAGA

  16. Computer dating used to be sexier by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now it's "meh"

    But back in the day when your information was coded onto a Hollerith card, stacked with the other shlubs, and loaded into hopper on the card reader, now that was sexy.

    An IBM System 360 with tape drives spinning and lights blinking, you just knew it would find the perfect match. Scientifically, of course.

    And the the hope and anticipation while waiting for your own personalized printout on green bar 15 inch wide pulp paper was half the fun.

  17. Secret Science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The issue here is an interesting one: Is secret science still science?

    If I follow the scientific process, do an experiment, validate my results, etc., but don't publish the results, an I say I've done something scientifically? Or is public scrutiny an intrinsic part of science?

  18. AI Dating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Should have called it AI dating, with blockchained dating histories. Stock prices would have quadrupled at least.

    1. Re:AI Dating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your post now has a 1 billion dollar market cap!

  19. Re:The only scinetifically-proven dating site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No one wants to date your mother.

  20. What is science? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is science?

    Well, don't ask the superstitious cluetards who run eHarmony, who think "god" is a real thing sans any evidence at all. That place is a black hole for idiocy, always has been.

  21. Black Mirror by Solokron · · Score: 1

    Where the hell are the 99.8% jokes at?!

    --
    30% off web hosting. Coupon code "SLASHDOT".
    1. Re:Black Mirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I got 99 problem but a girlfriend aint one?

  22. Re: The only scinetifically-proven dating site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So this is an admission that your only interest in slashdot is to spam?
    You want people from slashdot to participate in your youtube channel and other places off site?

  23. Re: The only scinetifically-proven dating site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You must be new around here. Creimer has been drawing off traffic from Slashdot for decades.

  24. Re: The only scinetifically-proven dating site by sexconker · · Score: 1

    I read at -1. I don't click your links.

  25. Re: The only scinetifically-proven dating site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone has to be a special snowflake these days.

  26. Re: The only scinetifically-proven dating site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WARNING! One of my leg humping trolls hacked my Slashdot account during the holidays!
    Until I get it back don't click on any cdreimer links! WannaCry virus in links!!!

    Slashdot management has been notified!

  27. Re: The only scientifically-proven dating site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Decades of work for 692 channel views in total. Truly Creimer is a business genius and social media visionary.
    More people step in dog shit every day than view your atrocious "videos", Chris.
    And those are the lucky ones!

  28. Re: The only scinetifically-proven dating site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your latest video literally has less than 10 views. WTF Chris you have to realize this isnâ(TM)t going to earn you a single dollar.

  29. Re:The only scinetifically-proven dating site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Still better than your mother ... mother.

  30. Re: The only scinetifically-proven dating site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a good thing you're not a snowflake, huh Chris? I don't think they make roofs that can withstand 380 pound snowflakes.

  31. Re: The only scinetifically-proven dating site by duckintheface · · Score: 1

    "Imagine being able to stack the odds of finding lasting love entirely in your favour," the advert read."

    May the odds be ever in your favor! Wait... where have I heard that before?

    --
    "He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
  32. Re: The only scinetifically-proven dating site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He made a dime on that video. His most popular video has 4,500+ views and made him $4.50. That's assuming a $1 CPM.

  33. Re: The only scinetifically-proven dating site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If that's true, I'm filming myself walking to the store, then putting overly-loud generic royalty-free music over it.

  34. Re: The only scinetifically-proven dating site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Creimer, have you actually seen the money? Don't forget Youtube splits about 50% of it. Also, with a CPM of a dollar, your fountain video would make you 1 penny. My Youtube channel (where I am not trying to make money or get followers, I just post random stuff occasionally) has 50,000 views, and of course I haven't earned any money. What you're doing is just not going to work.

    If you want to make money with Youtube, go on to r/Fitness and r/RelationshipAdvice and start posting, giving lots of advice and claiming to be an expert. Post vlogs too, and vlog responses to you. Maybe you will become a popular troll. Being a punching bag is really the only thing you're good at.

  35. Re: The only scinetifically-proven dating site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe you can shave the QR code of that URL in the back of your Yeti-like head, Chris. You'll get more traffic than you get here.

  36. Imagine! by uldics · · Score: 2

    When asked for proof, starting a sentence with "Imagine..." is when healthy people get Tourettes seizures.

  37. "Proven" is tough to say, but it is scientific by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    Apparently many /. readers are unaware of eHarmony's unique scientific background. It is based upon the work of Dr. Neil Clark Warren, who holds a Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology. Dr. Warren studied marriages and realized that there were key elements that produced success (or failure).
      He then backed this knowledge into relationship teachings, and later created eHarmony. See Wikipedia for the details. So yes, his approach is based on actual psychology and research vs. the others, who simply connect people and let them do the work. [Full disclosure: I have no connection to eHarmony and have never used it, I'm just familiar with how it came to be.]

    1. Re:"Proven" is tough to say, but it is scientific by kubajz · · Score: 0

      Interesting, I hope someone mods you up. However, it is sad they were unable to provide evidence, when it seems like they have quite a few fact-based ideas they used to design the website.

    2. Re:"Proven" is tough to say, but it is scientific by shilly · · Score: 2

      The ASA, however, was aware of all this -- but science is not just about inputs and process, it's about replicable outcomes. And there's no studies showing that eHarmony marriages have MTBF that's materially better than other marriages.

  38. Not to sound fatalistic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Data science really can't improve on the dead on accuracy that is fate.

  39. Re:How much is a Chink Wife by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, a china doll is definitely perferable to a mexican mamacita.

    For one thing, any offspring of the relationship with the china doll will have higher IQ and better impulse control than if you were to breed with a mexican.

  40. Re: The only scinetifically-proven dating site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You made $75 over three years? So you made basically no money?

    To me, having only made $75 in three years is a very good reason to stop making Youtube videos.

    Why do you bother? Surely you don't enjoy taking videos of fountains and then doing all the editing?

    What do you hope to get out of this?

  41. Re: The only scinetifically-proven dating site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If creimer wanted to make money, he would have picked something other than PM. That specialized niche requires putting skin in the game. In particular, he bought 100+ ounces of silver each year.

  42. Re: The only scinetifically-proven dating site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That doesn't really answer the question: why are you so intent on making Youtube videos when you are making essentially no money off of them and you surely don't find them enjoyable to make? Videos of fountains, WTF?

    Your brag about buying silver is weird, and not just because it's completely irrelevant. Googling, 100 oz is only like $1700. It's also a very bad investment...silver is basically unchanged after three years, while a simple entire-market-index-fund has gone up about 30% in the last three years. And that's not even counting that the commission to buy and sell silver is huge, while the commission to buy and sell index funds is about zero. So in the end, silver could go up a good amount and you would be doing a lot better if you had just stuffed the cash in your sock drawer.

  43. Re: The only scinetifically-proven dating site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you see now why studying Slashdot's only megamammal is so fascinating? You should have seen the non-sequitur replies back in his "low carb diet" days! He's the only lifeform in the universe capable of gaining weight on a low-carb diet!

  44. good outcome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I saw this ad on a train in the UK a few weeks ago and couldn't believe they were actually making such a claim. Glad someone is awake at the advertising standards agency!

    lol captcha: withdrew :)

  45. Re: The only scinetifically-proven dating site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WARNING! One of my leg humping trolls hacked my Slashdot account during the holidays!
    Until I get it back don't click on any cdreimer links! WannaCry virus in links!!

    Slashdot management has been notified!

  46. Scientifically proven... by hAckz0r · · Score: 1
    Its "scientifically proven" that more people will click on your profile, if you actually have one. That's about it.

    Alternatively they will continue to use statistics to prove almost anything they want, and then try to convince the public that science proves two that people are right for each other. That statistical correlation they offer to the "honest" answers to metaphysical questions, plus an advanced degree in alchemy, will guarantee you live happily ever after.

    Yea, right. I bow in the presence of the deity of statistics. Anyone have a bridge for sale? Its "scientifically proven", by statistical correlation, that the more high dollar things I own the richer I will be.

  47. Scientifically blow away ads/trackers/botnets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject & NEW APK Hosts File Engine 10++ SR-1 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/

    Ads/script/malware rob speed/security/privacy/bandwidth.

    Hosts add speed (via hardcodes/adblocks), security (vs. bad sites/malware/poisoned dns), reliability (vs. dns down), & anonymity (vs. dns requestlogs/trackers).

    Less power/cpu/ram + IO use vs. DNS/routers/addons/antivirus + less security bugs/complexity & faster vs. addons/routers/remote dns!

    Avoids DNSChangers in routers/IP settings & dns redirect (99++% of ISP DNS != patched vs. it) + DNS tracking & lighten DNS load & resolve faster via local RAM!

    * Via what u NATIVELY have in a FASTER kernelmode IP stack (does more w/ less).

    APK

    P.S. - Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/e01211ca36aa02e923f20adee0a3c4f5d5187dc65bdf1c997b3da3c2b0745425/analysis/1433430542/ (self check vs. infection built-in)

  48. I doubt a chump like you has been laid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I doubt a chump like you has been laid - like, EVER! Nice projection of what you think of yourself too, lol - thanks you walking abortion (RoTfLmAo @ U).

    * In fact, only LOSERS use things like 'dating services' - seriously - it takes a serious loser to resort to shit like that!

    (Women who are normal that aren't after money aren't attracted to WHIMPY flimsy not-men - fact!)

    APK

    P.S.=> Ah yes folks - another UNIDENTIFIABLE trolling worm I easily annihilate w/ truth & fact (which I know is true of "his kind", lol)... apk

    1. Re:I doubt a chump like you has been laid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You still haven't killed yourself yet, have you APK? Have you stopped fucking your sister and your mother too? No? Oh. Go back to masturbating of your host files posts already.

  49. Let Me Get This Right by mlw4428 · · Score: 1

    They "respectfully disagree" with the ASA's claim that the ad is misleading in its claim of being a "scientifically proven matching system" (it actually uses that phrase on the ad), but they're unable to show any documentation that their claim is truthful? So they're respectfully disagreeing to being called out for lying when they're outright lying?

  50. Re: The only scinetifically-proven dating site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you want to buy cheap silver, order 6+ rolls of 1942-45 war nickels (35% silver) for $0.19 over spot and qualify for free shipping at APMEX. I can already hear you whining: it's dirty junk silver that I'll have to sell back at melt price instead of getting 30%+ ROI on premiums.

    https://www.apmex.com/product/13023/35-silver-war-nickels-1-face-value-avg-circ

    Or learn how to use eBay Bucks promotions and a 2% back credit card to buy generic silver at or below spot on eBay.

  51. Achievement Unlocked! by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    "I've already completed 2 entire marriages!"... for some reason I translated that into a video game experience and saw the old xbox Achievement Unlocked popup come up in my mind lol!

  52. Re: The only scinetifically-proven dating site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love that creimer is in this thread talking minute details of his life like we're not supposed to know it's him.

    I can already hear you whining: it's dirty junk silver that I'll have to sell back at melt price instead of getting 30%+ ROI on premiums.

    No you can't because I don't care about that stupid shit. Have you noticed that most youtubers who are wrapped up in this stupid game are hot married girls or guys who live in shitty trailers? They are in situations where your rent check alone could sustain their lifestyle. All of these scams fall flat on their face because of where you live.
    I know you won't listen but as FCLM said, it's entertaining to poke a hole to reality and watch you paste it over with a fresh coat of delusions,

  53. Re: The only scinetifically-proven dating site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So you're saying your hobby is playacting businessman? cool. Wanna start a LARP group?

  54. Re: The only scinetifically-proven dating site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One million YouTube content creators are either "hot married girls or guys who live in shitty trailers". Who knew?

  55. Re: The only scinetifically-proven dating site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  56. WoW - you're a twisted freak... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: You're a seriously twisted freak projecting your own issues onto me again - take your own advice - kill yourself!

    * No wonder you had to use a dating service, lol!

    APK

    P.S.=> It has to suck to be "someone like you", no doubt about it... apk

    1. Re:WoW - you're a twisted freak... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Herp derp herp derp! I'm APK and I do nothing but spam /. about my stupid fucking hosts files garbage. HERP DERP!

  57. No, you KNOW who & what YOU are (lol) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're a "jealous jowie" unidentifiable "ne'er-do-well" anonymous fool but you're right: You do NOTHING (of worth). Me? I can easily PROVE otherwise about myself https://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11552701&cid=55852599/

    * What's it like to KNOW you have to use a 'dating service' & STILL GET NO PUSSY on your part?

    APK

    P.S.=> RoTfLmAo @ U "jealous jowie" - hahahaha... apk

  58. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 0

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  59. Re: The only scinetifically-proven dating site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Casey Neistat is successful. The Paul brothers are a joke.

  60. Re: The only scinetifically-proven dating site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you down to one noxious, foul ASCII emanation a day now?

    YEEHAW!!!!

  61. Re: The only scinetifically-proven dating site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You build a business around YouTube.

    But you don't have a business. Your money comes from your work, and then on the side you make small change from Amazon link spam, Youtube videos, Old lottery tickets, and EBooks.

    There is simply no business that is going to be helped by posting videos of fountains that get only 10 views.

    I'm thinking about doing the same for Silicon Valley. Most videos about Silicon Valley is about technology and people. Very few are about Silicon Valley as a place and I know the local landmarks.

    Maybe there's a subculture of people who care about historic buildings or technological headquarters (subjects that are already covered), but nobody cares about some mall fountain.

    I guess you weren't around for the Great Recession when the stock market dropped 50%

    Silver shot up and went down 700% a decade ago...it's even more vulnerable to speculation. In the 70s/80s, two brothers tried to corner the silver market. Stocks go up and down, but there's nothing as crazy as that.

    And not trusting an investment unless it's something you can physically touch is the product of being a simple mind. I suppose if society crashes and we go back to living in a "Conan the Barbarian" universe, old coins will be more valuable than bits in a bank's computer. But if society collapses, the 400 pound fat men of the world are fucked. In the meantime, just buying your coins one day and selling your coins the next means you lose large amounts of money. You're better off just going to Vegas than buying old coins.

  62. Re: The only scinetifically-proven dating site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Making youtube videos for cash as a thinned skinned late middle aged man with a bad personality, all while you live in silicon valley and neglect your IT career is unbelievably fucking stupid.

    Chris, there are many people who make youtube content for a significant part of their income. Most of these people are in positions where they don't require lots of extra income. Such as stay at home wives and people with inexpensive living arrangements.

    Do you not understand what I said or did you pretend to be dumb so you could make a rebuttal?
    Google image "Youtube personality" it's all hot young girls, with the exception of onison and pewdiepie who are both attractive males.

    Onison found accidental success on youtube shortly after being kicked out of the military, he had no career or better options and he got extremely lucky.
    PewDiePie *enjoys* making online content and became a success on youtube after he burned out of his boring yet prestigious college program.
    Then there are the multitude of much less popular fat ugly guys with somewhat popular youtube channels on various niche subjects. This seems to be who you want to be. Except these guys all have good personalities and inexpensive living situations. Look in the background they always have shitty houses.

    Finally I'd like to point out that when people with your limited interpersonal skills get any measure of success on youtube they attract lots and lots and lots of trolls. These youtube celebrity internet personalities with personal brands have sold off any protections they have against harassment and stalking, seeing as how you cry like a baby when people google you and your employer wants you to maintain a low profile.... and you're making less off this shit than you would a paper route.

    Making you tube videos for cash being a thinned-skinned late middle-aged man with a bad-personality, all while you live in silicon-valley and neglect your IT career is unbelievably-fucking-stupid.

  63. Re: The only scinetifically-proven dating site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "YouTube is a platform for building an audience for my side business."

    And after ten years you built an audience of 6 subscribers.

    "You don't make money on YouTube. "

    Boring 400 pound virgins with personality disorders don't.

    "I'm still experimenting with the content. "

    How much more time do you have left? A video of drying paint got more views in one hour than you got in your entire career.

    "Very few are about Silicon Valley as a place and I know the local landmarks."

    Yeah like which bus stops have the best lottery tickets on the ground and which garbage cans have the best Panda Express leftovers.

    "I guess you weren't around for the Great Recession when the stock market dropped 50%"

    That's when you buy, you doof. That's not when you sign documents with "secret business partners" to start a failing business with people even loonier than you. And then go bankrupt.

    "and took nearly a decade to recover that."

    That decade is now. If you had bought in 2008 you wouldn't be scrambling for pocket change and taking the bus in 2018.

    " There's a reason why precious metals in physical form are called hard savings."

    Yeah, because it's hard to save with them. What are you going to do with silver if society collapses, fat man? Start a werewolf killing silver bullet business?

  64. Re: The only scinetifically-proven dating site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess you weren't around for the Great Recession when the stock market dropped 50% and took nearly a decade to recover that.

    You must be fucking kidding the recession was 2007 - 2010 the stock market didn't crash until 2008 and was more or less normal by 2010. What you mean is that the dow never hit it's inflated 2007 all time high until like 2012.

    Gold on the other hand nearly lost half it's value in 6 years and then resumed it's life as a boring as fuck investment as most precious metals usually are. Looking at the chart it seems that gold has been a poor investment compared to the dow for the entire time span since your bankruptcy.

    Before you sperg off into some precious metal nonsense about melting down guldens and bicentennial quarters or some other bullshit... let's apply a simple heuristic here. Do you think that investment shows on fox news are for real investors? Of course not. They're for crazy hicks. What are the commercials for? Precious metals.

  65. Re: The only scinetifically-proven dating site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [...] but nobody cares about some mall fountain.

    Thanks for the tag suggestion. ;)

  66. Re: The only scinetifically-proven dating site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here are some more:

    Autistic loser
    Asperger Supreme
    Virgin Male
    Obese Diabetic
    Heavy Creamer (remember that one? LOL)

  67. Re: The only scinetifically-proven dating site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The funny thing is, being old, fat, gray haired and being named Reimer doesn't prevent people from succeeding.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    What's your excuse, Chris?

    I mean you could make a video of you holding a guitar called "Classical Gas" of you farting the Panda Express menu, that would get quite a few views.

    Especially if you could manage a nice little curtsy at the end.

  68. Re: The only scinetifically-proven dating site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " for my side business"

    Speaking of which... Your ebook "unemployable" has been delayed YET AGAIN to April 1 2018! What happened to January 1 2018? Which was also a delayed date....

    Your procrastination and unrealistic ambitions are going to come crashing around your fat ears one of these days... And I'll be watching the news that day for the inevitable mass shooting.