| Listing of Car or no car unfairly penalizes less affluent
Posted: 5/31/2008 7:39:49 AM | I so agree with sweetness one.....this is just a test guys to see how honest and real you's are why are you sooo bothered about the car thing!!! i want honesty in my relationship about everything and if you lye once then there will be another and another..right? like someone said its not asking what kind of car or truck or bike you own, its just asking if you have a car...take a pill..like i was told by some of you people on here... but its ok if i was your taxi ,because you don't have a car to meet me???    | |
|
| Listing of Car or no car unfairly penalizes less affluent
Posted: 5/31/2008 10:33:27 AM | Maybe more pertinent would be: Do you have a Criminal Record? Yes, I'm an idiot and got caught.
No, I'm a brilliant sociopath and hid the bodies really well.
No, I don't even jaywalk and always remember to say grace.
There was a Lady here a while back that stated right at the Top of her Profile: "Criminal Record Check on you before we meet". She claimed it knocked off better than half Mail she was used to receiving.
A lawyer should be able to be turned out in 6 months.
If you know how to Research you don't need any School Time to prepare your own Case. That however doesn't mean you are qualified to represent others. In my Book, even 5 Years is not enough, as you are dealing with the very Lives of other People (not that Lawyers are a particularly caring Lot), and minimally you have to be qualified to a certain Point. 6 Month ain't enough. | |
|
| |
| Listing of Car or no car unfairly penalizes less affluent
Posted: 5/31/2008 12:43:54 PM | TBH that would kinda scare me off too and I dont even have a criminal record.
If she is "Hot", you have no criminal Record, your Pickings just went up a Notch, because like you, many just walk away ...
I can't chide anyone who had the bad luck of having gotten caught up with some Characters who spend more time in front of the Judge than with the Family. You can extrapolate and capitalize on that.
Thank god she wasn't asking for a car ...  | |
|
| Listing of Car or no car unfairly penalizes less affluent
Posted: 5/31/2008 2:11:05 PM | I'll let the lawyers and pharmacists respond to your claim
i was formulating at age 19. i learned enough pharmacology from going to Stanford's Medical library to be COMPETENT in doing what pharmacists do today. I visited a gal in a graduate pharmacy course at Oregon State and was shocked to see junk being spoken of that I learned at age 18. There is not much to know about pharmacy to be functionally literate. If you want to have a mental block in thinking it is tougher than it really is, then it will be..
Look at low level accountants making $3-4K per month. even though some accountants need to learn much more ONLY becasue humans wanted to make accounting more difficult, to do accounts payable and accounts receivables oguht to be a $10/hr job in my opinion. At the tender age of 10 I was invoicing, doing the payroll BY HAND, doing banking by hand, and doing the accounts payable and receivables, also by hand, no computer. There is not much involved in many occupations but for some reason lots of people think there is more to it than what there really is.
Being a doctor? Imagine if the time was spent actually performing and if the person sought out knowledge on their own, EARLIER and concurrently with the course work out of exhibitign a strong interest in the subject. That's who i'd like to operate on me. Not some person who relies only on what school feeds them. i want someone who really gets into what they do. For that i will bring up the magic number 7. I view 1/7 of people in any given occupation excel at what they do. for those i do not think they needed school to supplant in them what others may NEED. for those outside of the 1/7, i'd think they could use more training to reach competency.
I've done enough legal work for myself, written legal letters to lawayers for my parents, was able to save a good deal of money on two fronts. I've spoken with plenty of lawayers and again i am not impressed. Only a few I actually knew they thought logically to do a good job. One case where a $00 per hour arbitrater was involved in a property worth over half a million, split between two persons, one was trying to sell to a particulary person at lower than market rate of interest and the other wanted the fair market price. I quickly came up with an apportinioned payment and he screamed at me. Nice to see emotions take over with the ego in trouble as opposed to conducting one's self in the best possible way to conclude a case. apparently he wanted to stretch the case out to make more money. It was clear to me how to solve it yet i see halfwits go astray in their normal routine of obtuseness. I saved $15,000 from one leter to a real estate company involved in the same matter and was able to prop up the sellign price another $100K but the judge who appointed the arbitrator wasn't going to listen to me about the interest rates because i did not have the proper standing, lol....our culture is a joke when those who do have something important to say can't and those who are able to make changes often screw things up. Look at corn for ethanol and the california boondoggle of underground gas tanks that cost consumers many billlions of dollars - had there beena voice of reason we'd have a more effiicient society. apparently the bulk of people do not want reason - or will only wake up when they see things adversely affecting their own selfish lives..
With today's way of dealing with court cases, a lawyer amkes or breaks a case. To be higly analytical (and logical) to me is all that is sufficient and that should have been learned at a young age. I've countered lawyers and they try to hold their degree over my head when they can't supply a meaningful argument. someday i hope lawyers will be turned into logicians and paralegals would be needed to assist in the legal time and sufficiency requirements. A COURT CASE SHOULD BE DECIDED ON THE MERIT OF THE CASE, and not any speciifc lawyer!!!!-A person versed in logic cannot be more logical than anyone else who is also versed in it and so if opposing logicians representing clients in court painstakingly went through the facts, they'd both have to agree on the outcome of a case. To think well in conducting one's self in a court should be expected of those who think well. Some may need the typical law school but i don't see why all those who are able to perform the work with less training needs to be confined with the rest.
school is necessary for many, no doubt. less school is required for a few. let those who can excel, EXCEL and so they can do the most for society without handcuffing them. | |
|
| Listing of Car or no car unfairly penalizes less affluent
Posted: 5/31/2008 7:17:36 PM | | Live and let live... Some judge by body type, physical attractiveness, whether or not there are children, eye / hair color, height... the list goes on. All these criteria are subjective; why is education any different? Interesting huh? | |
|
| Listing of Car or no car unfairly penalizes less affluent
Posted: 5/31/2008 11:14:27 PM | i am glad eye color isn't a criterion on this site. how would that matter in dating? i still don't get the zodiac sign but that's another topic.
if a car is going to be listed, since women do size up men on their car, maybe we should state exactly what our car(s) is/are. so many claim they don't look at the car, but when i pull up in my 20 year old station wagon that will survive another 10 years, she'd be let down for hoping I'd arrive with a mustang 5.0. might as well let them see what i have to begin with - you know i have to fight off hundreds of women on this site so maybe this would help me out. LOL | |
|
| Listing of Car or no car unfairly penalizes less affluent
Posted: 6/1/2008 7:47:15 AM |
A COURT CASE SHOULD BE DECIDED ON THE MERIT OF THE CASE, and not any speciifc lawyer!!!! Problem is, how to define "merit of the case" -- this is the reason there are judges, lawyers, jurisprudence, etc. The rules and laws in our society are far from absolutely logical, are sometimes conflicting, etc. It's complex and full of competing interests. We have concepts like "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "juries of our peers", etc. You're talking about an ideal that is not applicable to our society. So, if you can fix all those complexities of the system, maybe I'd agree that a 6-month schooling is all that's needed for a lawyer. 
As Ticket pointed out, if I were falsely accused of a crime that was going to land me serious jail time (or worse, the death penalty), I'd like to have a lawyer who's had more than 6 months' school.
I agree that some lawyer-related tasks do not require any law school. How to send a good cease-and-desist letter, bankruptcy advice, estate planning, etc. can be gleaned from books off of Amazon or maybe even web pages. If your time is worth it, and you're willing to make a mistake that costs you, do it yourself. This also applies to fixing your car and home renovations. Some lawyers do a crappy job at the "more trivial" tasks that mere mortals can do, despite their years of education. Incompetent people are rife in society - bad lawyers, doctors, professors, teachers, judges, pilots, brick layers, plumbers, cashiers, etc. But I still go back to the statistics I cited that people with diplomas are less likely to be unemployed. Would you agree that some incompetent employed people are better for society than lots of competent unemployed people? | |
|
| Listing of Car or no car unfairly penalizes less affluent
Posted: 6/3/2008 8:55:22 PM | Someone who has a decent job but has no car is impressive to me. That person pollutes less, saves money on gas and insurance, and probably has less stress. Driving is a health risk! Cars kill over 30,000 people every year in the US, I think. Walking/biking is healthy! - DiveFree
I totally agree with you, DiveFree. My boyfriend drives, but I walk/bike everywhere. It's natural &
healthy. I would never consider whether or not a man has a vehichle, in determining his suitability
as a potential match for me.
If someone is judging you because you don't have a car, then that person's not right for you -- next fish please!
Absolutely!! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Put it in your profile that you don't own a car because you're ecological. Guaranteed that will impress some women in Canada and Switzerland!!! Green is sexy! Go Green! -DiveFree
That is so true! We L VE recycling & being environmentally sensitive. F*cking bunch of tree-huggers!
ROFL!
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
If a woman is basing her opinion of whether to get in touch with me/date me based on whether i own a car or not (I dont), then I want absolutely no contact with such a superficial person to begin with. If they dont want to contact me because I dont drive, its her loss. - ShinyToyGuns
I agree with you, 100%!! | |
|
| |
| |
| NEW FEATURE: Listing of Car or no car unfairly penalizes less affluen
Posted: 6/4/2008 4:57:44 PM | I suppose those that are sensitive or offended by the question do not have a car. Franky when someone indicates "prefer not to say" I always think the worse !
As was previously stated, depending on where you live, having your own transportation is a big deal. I do not want to be a chauffer, nor do I want to entertain someone while they wait an hour for the next train to take them home. If the person had no car but was local then I would consider dating them. | |
|
| NEW FEATURE: Listing of Car or no car unfairly penalizes less affluen
Posted: 6/4/2008 9:35:19 PM |
I suppose those that are sensitive or offended by the question do not have a car I voiced my displeasure of the question earlier. (I don't know if that means I'm sensitive or offended) But I do have a vehicle. I just think it's a stupid question which I'd rather not answer.
Perhaps to some people it's a relevant question.
But I think it would be better to find out, while getting to know the person, whether they had transportation, or why they didn't; Rather than make stupid assumptions about a person based on the one word option they selected from a limited menu of choices.
I do not want to be a chauffer So,
-if someone says "No": people will assume that person is looking for a chauffer
-if someone says "yes": people are assuming that the person is willing to be a chauffer | |
|
| NEW FEATURE: Listing of Car or no car unfairly penalizes less affluent
Posted: 6/5/2008 5:54:43 AM | I have to say for one side of the debate that it always helps is someone has a vehicle.
Its very flattering to get a message and its everything you like about a person BUT,
You have to draw the line when you know you will be doing all the travelling to start and there are instances where the other person is not working.
Yes its the person, however it comes down to what you are comfortable with.
I agree it should be there on a need to know basis and us blokes especially do not want to taken for granted.
If someone has put N/a, Just dont there!
I have had messages from 2 hours + drive away
I rest my case M'lud! :modhammer:  | |
|
| NEW FEATURE: Listing of Car or no car unfairly penalizes less affluen
Posted: 6/5/2008 9:59:27 AM | I totally agree.....it is an instant strike against a person....but thats what some people want to know.....(women mostly)who need a man to have a car (status) to drive them around.
Ask yourself these questions...
Do you really want to meet a person who only cares about the car you drive?
Do you think a person so superficial is worth the time and effort of getting to know?
I also think it's wrong to judge a person if they only have high school (yes I went to college...thanks) no ones life is perfect they may reasons they don't drive or only went to high school this doesn't them less of a person or a loser.
I don't want to drive a car (unless they final make a clean car)I'd rather walk, bike or take transit.....my environmental footprint is pretty low and I'm not feeding money to the big oil machine and government who take advantage of the masses.
One day your children will ask...."mommy...daddy why is the sky brown" well suzie mommy and daddy screwed up the sky because they didn't care and decided to leave this for you.  | |
|
| NEW FEATURE: Listing of Car or no car unfairly penalizes less affluen
Posted: 6/5/2008 5:26:53 PM | Yep agreed it is a strike against you if you don't have a car. I'm glad it's there though. I consider not having at least a clunker a sign of poor character. Seriously, how messed up are your priorities if you can't afford your own work transportation.
My priorities
Child support
Car
Gas
insurance
rent
food
utilities
student loans
If my car doesn't run I don't go to work. I don't go to work the rest of my priorities suffer. | |
|
| NEW FEATURE: Listing of Car or no car unfairly penalizes less affluen
Posted: 6/6/2008 10:54:45 AM | for the gentleman that stated women need or want a man to drive them places ...well there are those dead beat dads that forget to pay support and the women has three little kids to take care of and taxi is not cheap and transit is to slow when a child is needing to rush to hospital.....a car would be needed for a women of three little kids....rest my case!!!!  | |
|
| |
| NEW FEATURE: Listing of Car or no car unfairly penalizes less affluent
Posted: 6/20/2008 6:50:20 PM | I think the reason why POF has this in the menu is simple. Lets say a man and woman (or whatever gender specifics you wish) seem to have good chemistry. Without a car, it makes dating a little more tricky. And being upfront about this in the begining, wards off disappointed, ugly feelings once you feel attraction. I think it would be a whole lot more fun if instead of asking if you have a car, asking the name of your car.
which brings me to a second thought, I NEED to name my car. I am thinking of simply C. cargo | |
|
| |
| NEW FEATURE: Listing of Car or no car unfairly penalizes less affluent
Posted: 6/22/2008 10:15:37 AM | | Example: I'm in Queens and have a car. I may meet up with someone who lives in NJ suburbs or farther out on Long Island who has no car (a rare thing). Although its not super far, the gas and tolls add up . Unless we meet in Manhattan all the time or I do all the driving which I can not afford, maybe it would be best for me to look at other options. Realistically it wouldn't be a convenient or do-able situation long term. I know plenty of affluent people who don't own cars and vice versa. It's just another tool to help us make better selections for potential catches. | |
|
| NEW FEATURE: Listing of Car or no car unfairly penalizes less affluent
Posted: 6/22/2008 11:29:12 AM |
It would be better to NOT have this option listed on profiles. And allow people to get to know each other as PEOPLE first. Not for what they have or don't have. And if they like each other, whether or not they have an automobile becomes less of an issue. Or IF it's that important to someone, they can ask the question themselves. This makes it a fairer playing field and encourages better relationships.
I'm hoping the administrator of plentyoffish can and will remove this from the profiles headings.
I disagree, I say keep it. For some people who live in more rural areas (such as myself), it is helpful to know whether the person they might be interested in has a car or not. Not that it will always affect the chances of sending them a message, but it's useful to know beforehand. | |
|
| NEW FEATURE: Listing of Car or no car unfairly penalizes less affluent
Posted: 6/22/2008 12:00:55 PM |
For some people who live in more rural areas I live in a very rural area.
But I think the feature should be abolished.
I'll agree that it is useful to know if a person who you're planning to meet has a car or not.
But, I think you can just as easilly learn that about them if/when you start planning to meet them.
I see no need to include it on profiles, since I (and I believe many others) aren't making a decision to meet someone, based on the 1st glance at their profile.
If I am interested in getting to know a person, and she's likewise interested in getting to know me, she'll eventually learn that I do have a vehicle and I'm legally allowed to drive it.
If that person's only interested in forming an initial impression of me, based on my response to that question, then chances are she'll never get to know me anyways. | |
|
| NEW FEATURE: Listing of Car or no car unfairly penalizes less affluent
Posted: 6/23/2008 9:50:18 AM | i couldnt care less if a guy has a car, im more interested that he has a job and can support himself. there are many reason why ppl dont have cars, why have a car if u stay in the city and work in the city someplaces price for parking is crazy, it will cost u more to park the darn thing then buy one. plus if u live in the city u have public transportion and y waste gas when u dont have to, there is enuf pollution.
If i was younger i wouldnt have a vehicle at all. insurance is outrages.
between gas and insurance prices u have to have a job just to pay that.
LITTLE INFO FOR PPL THAT HAVE A VEHICLE AND DONT DRIVE ALL THE TIME- U CAN LOWER RATES FOR UR INSURANCE ASK UR AGENT. SOME PPL DONT KNOW THAT. IF U DRIVE LESS THEN 35 MILES A DAY U GET SPECIAL RATES WITH CERTAIN COMPANIES. SO CHECK INTO IT.
SORRY I KINDA WENT INTO ANOTHER SUBJET , BUT I THINK WE ALL NEED TO HELP EACH OTHER ABOUT WHATS OUT THERE.
TAKE CARE EVERYONE! | |
|
| |
Home
login 
