| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 6/15/2009 10:10:53 AM |
And charmed... once again you've missed the point.
Whether one thing or another trips up the filter or not is irrelevant to what I'm suggesting. If I don't want people in my search results who have selected that flag, why do I care about *what* trips up that flag?
Actually no I did not... the poster before me had the wrong information. I was addressing him, so he could look it up and know the correct information.
~Charmed~ | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 6/15/2009 10:22:27 AM |
People come from all backgrounds, what one thinks is prudish...another may not
Someone's background is irrelevant. I'm merely stating that people who select that flag - regardless of background - are MORE LIKELY to have prudish/controlling tendencies in MY VIEW... because it means they are telling me "I'm not allowed to contact them if I contact a few people with IE selected". THAT is controlling behaviour. THAT is being passive-aggressive. THAT is someone who has a problem with "Intimate Encounters or sex". THAT is someone I'm not interested in because ultimately, I do want to meet someone who enjoys sex and has positive (rather than negative) attitudes towards sex.
And you can rebrand being prudish/controlling all you want. When people talk of having "discerning tastes", "values" or "morals" or "higher standards"... it generally means the same thing as being a prude or being excessively picky... No Thanks... count me out.
I don't care if you have a problem with people with *true* Liberal attitudes.
And btw... Just because I'm Liberal does NOT mean I don't have standards, morals or values as you (and others) insinuate.
I think it's really interesting how some people get so worked up over a suggestion that would result in them getting LESS attention... even though it's attention that they shouldn't want in theory. | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 6/15/2009 10:24:00 AM |
Actually no I did not... the poster before me had the wrong information. I was addressing him, so he could look it up and know the correct information.
u mean lil ol' me? i wasn't wrong. allow me 2 clarify.
if i tried 2 message charmed (n i jus did), this is wut i get:
You are not allowed to message ~Charmed~. Return to your inbox.
that's cuz she has the IE filter selected. but since charmed dont smoke or do drugs (those r my filters), she can contact me jus fine. once she's made 1st contact wit me, i can contact her all i want, regardless of her having the IE filter selected. but dat dont mean i can go around messaging jus anyone wit da filter selected. only her. and only those wit the filter selected who contact me 1st. | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 6/15/2009 10:34:44 AM | It is very hard to understand you when you post in only text speak.
~C~
Kow626,
Are we to presume that both yourself and the OP have tripped the IE filter?
This was not made absolutely crystal clear up front and I've deliberately avoided the assumption.
What FP suggested was that you have contacted ladies for IE in the past and now can not contact anyone using the filter. I just showed you the link explaining how the filter works.
I understand that if I contact you, then yes we can have email contact.
I would be rather happy to have a filter for "My Kind"... saves me making a mistake. I am not sure how popular it will be cause most men are looking to get that status ( sorry used status for lack of a better word) off their profile. There is a lot of threads on this topic here.
~C~ | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 6/15/2009 10:43:43 AM | ADDENUM...
ok so we have an understanding that having the IE filter means:
to the poster and the likes of him: "that does NOT mean I want sex with no relationship."
from the IE filter users: does not mean that we want relationship without sex either
So what's the problem? We're saying the same things in different ways. If you have nothing to hide or haven't tripped the IE filter...why get so hung up on profiles that have this?
I do understand the lineups for the Intimate Encounters stretch a mile long and so are the faves list...so I presume that can create headache and frustration for some POFers; so much so that most probably end up contacting other dating categories to get their needs met. To accomplish this task, they desire the most efficient means and discretion (have the IE filter removed). | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 6/15/2009 11:09:16 AM | here's the thing.
sum women will say they're not looking 4 a quick fling (for lack of a better term) but from my own experience, they are cuz their actions n behavior contradicts wuts said in their pros.
i speak only for myself, but women here will hav looking for long term or talk/email. i've met long termers n wut happened certainly wasnt long term. i've met talk/email...n we did more than talk n email. so from my experience, sum of the chicks on here don't know wut the hell they're looking for. same goes for guys too.
so even though sum will hav the IE filter checked, they contradict themselves by actively searching for a quick fling. mayb they wanna b in control of who they bang n dats fine. i got no prob wit dat. but it falsifies their pro n contradicts it as well. im not sayin this applies to all guys/gals on this site but i know for a fact it does apply to sum.
the IE filter is a waste of time cuz i'll bet a million bucks even ~lucky charmed~ can confirm dat she's been contacted by guys looking to bang at some point, even though she has the IE filter selected. | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 6/15/2009 11:16:12 AM |
the IE filter is a waste of time cuz i'll bet a million bucks even ~lucky charmed~ can confirm dat she's been contacted by guys looking to bang at some point, even though she has the IE filter selected.
You are so right! I have... but I would still rather have the filter then not at this point. And that is what the Block button is for.
~Charmed~... not quite so lucky... | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 6/15/2009 11:23:30 AM | now im curious. wut does 'at this point' mean?
you've also revealed that ur a blocker. now, do u block cuz of harrassment or do u block cuz a guy sent u an email, not necessarily lookin 4 sex or wutever, but u didn't like him or wut he said, n u blocked him only after reading the message or seeing his pic n mayb reading his pro n realizing he's not ur type?
n hav u ever experimented by deselecting the IE filter to see how many more emails you'd get n to see if you'd get quality over quantity by doing so? the man you're lookin for jus may hav messaged someone for an IE for wutever reasons n now you're blockin him wit dat filter... | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 6/15/2009 11:30:42 AM | Experimented? No.
When I am just posting in the forums and not dating I will not have any filters I am not really concerned about who I am speaking to.
When I am looking to date I will use the filters. Now I know you are going to say that I have already let IE users contact me so they could contact me with the filters. I am not going to date them cause they have already been counted out. I will add filters as I go, for example if I start getting too many young guys contacting me... I will add an age filter. I prefer to have as few filters as possible.
My height is a pretty good filter as it is, there is not that big of a tall community in my area...
I only use the blocking at the bottom of the emails if the email received is harassing and the man will not leave me alone or if sexual in nature ie. asking me to "cam" with him. I have also blocked a man that was trying to get me in a pyramid scheme... he was reported. I certainly don't just block because I don't care for their profile...
~Charmed~ | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 6/16/2009 7:29:58 AM |
the diff is in the wording. MESSAGED v. LOOKING FOR. you can choose the filter that you dont want someone LOOKING FOR an activity partner contacting you. you can't choose the filter that you dont want someone who's MESSAGED people looking for an activity partner contacting you cuz it doesnt exist.
(SNIP)
do u see the diff?
Yes, I see the difference clearly.
One significant difference is that people who change their own profile to align with a target fish's mail settings are still thwarted by having tripped the IE filter.
im saying if they're not interested in people contacting them who've messaged those looking for IE, the system should hav a filter to restrict them from contacting those that hav. its contradictory to the system and the user.
i cant contact u cuz i did sumthin u dont like. yet u can contact me even though i did the very thing u say u dont like. makes no sense.
Nah . . it makes perfect sense. Here's two possible scenarios:
1. A user may wish to make a comment or discuss one of your forum postings. This happens all the time.
2. A user may be struck dumb by your overwhelming attractiveness and wish to hook up on Friday for a night of 'fun'.
. . . and presumably you'll have your profile set to something innocent like 'Dating' and she'll be none the wiser, yeah? Just sayin' is all.
And I believe that people who select that flag are more likely to have prudish and possibly passive-aggressive tendencies.
Yep, we read it the first time. The prudish / controlling / passive-aggressive tendencies you mention are included in Message # 3, 7, 9, 22 and 27.
It was a false premise at Message # 3 and no amount of repetition will change that.
Given that the basis for your argument relies on this premise, you'll need to provide some pretty decent supporting evidence.
In the absence of that evidence, I submit that your argument is dead in the water.
the problem is that it gets irritating and wastes time when you get 5 people or more in a row and you're having to flick in and out of profiles because they have that option selected.
This is probably the essence of your position, yeah?
May I translate?
Given that you've tripped the IE filter, you now find that ~ 85% of fish have the IE filter enabled, making any search a veritable log-jam filled with people you can't actually contact.
My goal with this thread is to suggest an enhancement to the site that I think would make the site better and more useful to all.
You mean so that everyone can avoid that vast majority of prudish / controlling / passive-aggressive fish?
I mean . . really . . does any one think that proposal will fly? | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 6/16/2009 7:54:56 AM |
Yep, we read it the first time. The prudish / controlling / passive-aggressive tendencies you mention are included in Message # 3, 7, 9, 22 and 27.
You may be reading it, but you're not *comprehending* it.
Given that you've tripped the IE filter, you now find that ~ 85% of fish have the IE filter enabled, making any search a veritable log-jam filled with people you can't actually contact.
Nice sanctimonious tone... but irrelevant to my suggestion. Anyone can get around tripping the filter by simply closing and reopening their account. So whether I can or can't is completely irrelevant to the enhancement suggestion.
You mean so that everyone can avoid that vast majority of prudish / controlling / passive-aggressive fish?
Wouldn't you want to avoid such people? Oh and people like that DON'T make up the majority from what I've observed.
I mean . . really . . does any one think that proposal will fly?
Never hurts to ask... it all depends on whether the Admin agrees with me or not. | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 6/16/2009 9:39:28 AM |
You may be reading it, but you're not *comprehending* it.
I comprehend it just fine.
And to repeat . . because it appears you didn't comprehend my point; Until you're able to established a plausible correlation between people that have enabled the IE filter and people that have prudish / controlling / passive-aggressive tendencies, there's no rational basis for your suggestion.
Nice sanctimonious tone... but irrelevant to my suggestion. Anyone can get around tripping the filter by simply closing and reopening their account. So whether I can or can't is completely irrelevant to the enhancement suggestion..
Ignoring the ad hominem attack, it's entirely relevant because your so called 'enhancement suggestion' would enable an 'IE tagged user' to eliminate all IE filter users from their searches and thus be able to concentrate solely (pardon the pun) on fish that may not yet realise or understand the purpose / benefit of the IE filter.
That is . . it could be viewed as being open to abuse and unfairly and unduly highlight potential 'victims' (possibly new members) to a predatory male.
I notice that 'kow626', to his credit, has been quite up-front about having tripped the IE filter.
I also notice you've avoided the question.
Wouldn't you want to avoid such people? . .
Non sequitur. | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 6/16/2009 9:59:50 AM |
Ignoring the ad hominem attack, it's entirely relevant because your so called 'enhancement suggestion' would enable an 'IE tagged user' to eliminate all IE filter users from their searches and thus be able to concentrate solely (pardon the pun) on fish that may not yet realise or understand the purpose / benefit of the IE filter.
That is . . it could be viewed as being open to abuse and unfairly and unduly highlight potential 'victims' (possibly new members) to a predatory male.
This is a very good point! I was being selfish in thinking ... create the filter all the better for me cause then there would be no chance of me contacting him or he could filter me out of his searches...
But your rational is is important. Any male/female that has tripped the filter could target unsuspecting users. Someone that is not as street smart about POF or computer savvy.
This is a very important point.
~Charmed~ | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 6/16/2009 10:48:26 AM |
Until you're able to established a plausible correlation between people that have enabled the IE filter and people that have prudish / controlling / passive-aggressive tendencies, there's no rational basis for your suggestion.
The rational basis is they aren't interested in me and I'm not interested in them. Even ~charmed~ understands this. Why can't you understand this?
it's entirely relevant because your so called 'enhancement suggestion' would enable an 'IE tagged user' to eliminate all IE filter users from their searches and thus be able to concentrate solely (pardon the pun) on fish that may not yet realise or understand the purpose / benefit of the IE filter.
That is . . it could be viewed as being open to abuse and unfairly and unduly highlight potential 'victims' (possibly new members) to a predatory male.
Pullleasse... all us "predatory males"... and all those "helpless" newbies... I suppose without you "defending" them, people like me would just eat them alive, right? Except that once I find that the person is of the type that would select that flag, I WON'T continue contact... HORROR OF ALL HORRORS... I don't give people attention who aren't my type.
Oooh... what if everyone who tripped up the IE filter just closes their accounts and opens new ones? And then they'll start contacting people with the IE filter? What are you gonna do then? Such a tragedy...
You really want to know if I tripped the filter? Yes I did... by inadvertantly chatting with some people who had 'looking for IE' selected... even though IE isn't what I'm primarily looking for.
Do I know how to get around that problem? Yes I do.
So why don't I close up my account and reopen it?
Well I don't want to get in touch with people with that flag in the first place... so whether I've tripped the filter is quite irrelevant. The fact you *still* don't understand that clearly shows you DO have a problem with comprehending English.
They're cluttering up my search results because there's no way to filter them out.
I'm suggesting a way to filter them out.
It's that simple.
And calling you sanctimonious isn't so much an attack on you as much as it's an accurate description of how you are behaving in relation to me... | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 6/17/2009 7:15:46 AM |
The rational basis is they aren't interested in me and I'm not interested in them. Even ~charmed~ understands this. Why can't you understand this?
I'm not sure the "even ~charmed~" bit is going to go down well with her  . . but I digress.
Now . . back on track; I do understand it.
Allow me to explain myself so that we might both be singing out of the same hymn book.
There are really two trains of thought running here and whilst they look similar, in fact, they are not.
As per your posts here, your oft repeated position is this:
And I believe that people who select that flag are more likely to have prudish and possibly passive-aggressive tendencies.
You go on at various points to explain why you don't want to contact those people etc. . . . and that's just fine. Its your opinion . . your belief.
While I see logical flaws in your point of view, I'll not look to debate it partly because there's insufficient interest on my part to engage it some kind of tit-for-tat sparring match with no winners . . . and also because it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference to anything. It has pretty much zero impact on anyone other than yourself.
However (and here's the second train of thought), if you are looking to make a site suggestion based on that opinion, things work a bit differently.
What was once merely an belief, is now suddenly being offered as the basis for an argument as if it were true and correct.
Accordingly, it'll be examined more closely and it must stand up to that scrutiny. It must actually be true and correct.
If you are seeking to establish that IE filter users have prudish / controlling / passive-aggressive tendencies, you're going to have to show a correlation between those two things. You're going to have to prove it and provide the evidence in support.
And at this point it's probably worth remembering Carl Sagan's words . . "claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless."
My thinking is (and I'd be happy to be enlightened), you won't be able to provide that proof and that's the reason I keep saying:
In the absence of that evidence, I submit that your argument is dead in the water.
So, in short, you can supply any reasons you like to support your opinion and that'll be fine with me (and likely anyone else).
But if you intend to use those same reasons (without proof) to support the merit of a site suggestion, you're labouring under a false premise.
Anything else is just background noise.
I'll deliberately leave out any verbose comment on your having tripped the IE filter. I'd just note that it's likely to impact this site suggestion given it sees you severely compromised in terms of bias and self interest.
But I did want to make a comment on this:
You really want to know if I tripped the filter? Yes I did... (SNIP)
Do I know how to get around that problem? Yes I do.
So why don't I close up my account and reopen it?
You highlight a good point. It's pretty easy to circumvent having tripped the IE filter, isn't it.
Thinking about this . . we often see users coming and going from the forums . . I've done it myself.
We also see trolls and nuisance forumites doing the same thing and sometimes it's to escape / subvert forum posting restrictions.
I understand also that these returning trolls, when discovered, have their forum posting restrictions re-applied to their new profile when they return.
I now wonder if it might not be a brilliant idea to re-apply the 'IE filter tripping' tag to anyone who makes a new profile as you outline.
I think a suggestion like that has real merit and value. I reckon it's also likely to garner a lot more than the two votes we see for this thread, yeah? | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 6/17/2009 8:10:34 AM |
I'm not sure the "even ~charmed~" bit is going to go down well with her . . but I digress.
Re-read post #15.
What was once merely an belief, is now suddenly being offered as the basis for an argument as if it were true and correct.
Accordingly, it'll be examined more closely and it must stand up to that scrutiny. It must actually be true and correct.
If you are seeking to establish that IE filter users have prudish / controlling / passive-aggressive tendencies, you're going to have to show a correlation between those two things. You're going to have to prove it and provide the evidence in support.
Whether I'm wrong or not about people who have that flag selected isn't relevant... however, I don't believe I'm wrong about this likelihood.
The point is that being able to filter out people who have that flag will enable better search results for at least SOME people on this site and for the rest, in a worst case it won't make a difference.
As for your idea of re-applying 'ie filter tripping' to anyone who makes a new profile... clearly you haven't thought that through.
For one thing... from a systems perspective, how do you separate a genuinely new user from a 'returning new user'? The answer to that is you can't. It's practically impossible.
As for your comment about forum trolls... yup that's a problem... however it's completely irrelevant to what I'm suggesting. | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 6/17/2009 11:55:12 PM |
Re-read post #15.
My point was that using the word 'even' in that context could be construed as derogatory. Maybe I was a bit too subtle . . but no matter.
But specifically re Message #15, you might re-read her Message #38 for an update.
Whether I'm wrong or not about people who have that flag selected isn't relevant...
Agreed.
The point is that being able to filter out people who have that flag will enable better search results for at least SOME people on this site and for the rest, in a worst case it won't make a difference.
Define better.
Your definition of better search results is obviously better for you . . as well as . . ummmm . . SOME people.
Re-read my Message #37 for just one example of why it will make a negative difference to others.
Yeah . . look . . while you're scrolling up there, re-read ~charmed's~ reply in Message #38 just one more time.
Your point has been laid to rest.
Think of it this way:
The site owner has created the IE filter for a specific purpose and from reading threads around here, It appears welcomed by users.
The notion that Admin would now provide functionality that would partially undermine the effectiveness of that IE filter and the obvious potential for abuse, is somewhat fanciful in my book.
For one thing... from a systems perspective, how do you separate a genuinely new user from a 'returning new user'? The answer to that is you can't. It's practically impossible.
Agreed . . you wouldn't catch them all . . probably only a small percentage.
But again . . think of it this way:
First, allow me to set the scene . . have you noticed the number of 18 year old gals that seem to have signed up recently. My guess is that as the awareness of PoF spreads, these 18 year olds out grow and migrate from my-space . . or wherever.
Now . . lets assume PoF were to re-tag just one returning (previously IE tagged) user. That may save about 50 of these 18 year old foundlings from unwanted and unwarranted attention per day.
Conversely, your so called enhanced search facility would unduly expose those same 50 foundlings to every 'IE tagged' user. Not a good outcome.
I realise that an enhanced search facility would be available to all users, but at the end of the day, the pros & cons would be weighed up.
As with many things . . it's about balance. | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 6/18/2009 12:29:23 AM | well, i've been watching this debate; imho, faux pa has the right of it, if one is going to go by salient argument. op thinks women who use the IE filter are frigid, or not his cup of tea, and faux pa points out the failures of that argument.
i say, argue ideals/semantics/whatever all you like. the bottom line is...admin makes these decisions, and all his decisions in the past rest on making $$$. i don't fault him for that. but, his approach is to satisfy the majority. this is evident from his past actions. so, given that those tagged with the IE seeker thing, from either end (no pun intended), are a minority here, one can see why admin chooses to not adopt a filter to enhance the search results of those who have triggered the particular filter. there is no benefit to him. and if you think this site exists for any other purpose, you are mistaken.
MOST folk on here are looking for dating or relationships. admin caters to that crowd, but lets others have a presence. that doesn't mean he's going to waste any time coding some search for the IE-tagged to eliminate those who have blocked them.
this is just simple common sense. sure, one could argue it, but expecting any results/change is no more than pie in the sky. | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 6/18/2009 7:52:13 AM |
admin makes these decisions, and all his decisions in the past rest on making $$$. i don't fault him for that.
Yes... this is the Admin's site... so I just sent him a message with a link to this thread asking for his opinion.
This subject has been debated enough... hopefully Admin has the time to have a little look at this and weigh in with his views. | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 6/22/2009 7:32:48 PM |
So - you're making the point that it's not okay to block people for Contacting those that are looking for intimate encounters - and why don't we block people who contact smokers, or drug users, etc.
the point of all this is that the filter should be a two way street. i believe zeke's stance is that if you dont want him contacting you due to the IE filter being selected, you shouldn't appear in his search results.
after some thought, i believe the IE filter is a small part of a bigger problem (overall search parameters and results). and you have to keep in mind that the simple existence of the IE category means there are those looking for that possibly IN ADDITION to dating. the need to get laid doesn't stop just cuz a person is single. actually, it increases. | |
|
JKLF96
|
Joined: 4/21/2009
Msg: 46 | |
| |
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 6/22/2009 9:10:15 PM | | Wow, where do I begin. I'm a new member and I just wanna say how INCREDIBLY STUPID it is to have a filter that blocks messages based on who you've contacted. I consider myself a seasoned online dater who's ready to settle down. Does the fact that I've contacted a declared IE person mean I dont want a relationship??!! I wish there was a filter that could block some of these girls that claim they're looking for "long term" but hook up with every other guy online..!!! LOL...So hypocritical | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 6/22/2009 9:13:51 PM | this has nothing to do with wanting to get laid or the urge to do it. this has nothing to do with anyone's opinions on how they get laid or who they get laid with. you keep injecting your own morals into it. its your opinion and that's it. you can only speak for yourself. judging by what you're saying though, you'd fall into the category of the type of person zeke definitely doesn't want to contact, IE filter or not.
there could be better search functions, but those of you that are wanting that particular function are probably on the wrong site anyway.
the 1st part is right. there could and needs to be better search functions. IE gets singled out cuz its the only one with MESSAGED. all the others are simply LOOKING FOR. big difference. in addition to all the other updates that need to be done to the search functions.
the 2nd part is more opinionated. IE exists for a reason. for men and women. those people are on the RIGHT site cuz of that existence. its an option. but its one-sided in its execution. all filters should work both ways. yours, and my, experience on this site would change dramatically if the search functions were up to speed.
from looking at your pro, that's the only option you have enabled. so tell me this: you don't smoke but you'd rather get messaged by a smoker than someone who's simply CONTACTED someone who's looking for an intimate encounter on a dating website? how do you know the reasoning behind the message being sent? you don't. but you know th smoker smokes. which is worse to you? | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 6/23/2009 7:23:41 AM | Thegirl,
But, your comments about people trying to control you are ridiculous. Just because someone doesn't want contact with select people, that doesn't mean that they are stopping you from doing whatever you want.
No it's not ridiculous to want better searching abilities. And indirectly, anyone who has that filter is saying "if you want to contact me initially, you can't have contacted someone with IE in the past"... Basically if you really think about it, it says "You want to contact me? Well since I don't agree with IE, so you can't agree with it either. And to push my views on you, I'm not going to let you contact me if you've contacted one of those people."
They are just controlling their own personal environment.
But the IE flag is unique in that I get blocked for simply speaking to a certain type of person in the past... an indirect control on my behaviour. No other flag is like that... and unlike other filters, I can't limit my search to those who do or don't have it selected... unlike other things like smoking, drugs, kids, religion, etc.
Your type of thinking is dangerous, when you start to think that other people have to think or do certain things or they are somehow blocking your rights.
How is it dangerous? The "danger" of people with that flag getting LESS attention?!?!?
Ohh... I see... you want to have that flag enabled, but you still want me to check out your profile but you don't want me to contact you... That, my dear, is called an Attention Wh0re...
I supposed not giving attention to an Attention Wh0re would be "dangerous" from the Attention Wh0re's perspective...
You have the rights to do whatever you want within the law. Other people have the right to avoid you because of your behavior, if they choose to.
And I have the right to avoid them. And that's what my point is all about... MY right to avoid THEM. I never said the IE flag isn't useful... quite the opposite actually.
So - you're making the point that it's not okay to block people for Contacting those that are looking for intimate encounters - and why don't we block people who contact smokers, or drug users, etc.
No that is not my point. My point is that I'm not interested in them and they're not interested in me... so I want to filter them out of my search results. I have no problem with people who choose to block people for some attribute they have or don't have.
I, for one, think that separated should be blocked along with married, as they are the same thing. But, that's probably not going to happen.
Actually you CAN do that by limiting your search to people who are "single", "divorced" or "Widowed" in the Advanced Search area.
Well, whether you agree or not, we may think that contacting is on the same line as advertising for it yourself. It's actually WORSE. Contacting those looking for IE, while putting "dating" on your profile, is a sneaky way to have IE, while trying to appear to be someone that is NOT looking for IE.. SO - it's actually WORSE to just contact those people. People with IE on their profiles are at least up front about what they are ultimately looking for NSA .
And you know sooooo much about people who look for IE because you've conversed with them so much, right?
And I put dating in my profile because that's what I'm primarily looking for. But I'm also open to other things such as friendship too. I've even met some guys on POF... and before your mind starts jumping to conclusions, I am neither bisexual or homosexual.
And on the subject of "being upfront", I can easily say my profile is way more upfront that yours... you're "Looking to find someone similiar to myself"... except that you don't describe yourself much and you have "I'll tell you later" for your profession.
People living in glass houses shouldn't be throwing rocks.
Maybe you are so upset about this, due to the fact that it seems as though so many on this site completely agree with the blocking feature.
Nope... not upset at all. Just interested in better search results to make searching more efficient.
You are spending a lot of time looking for women that would actually want to talk to a guy that frequently contacts strangers for sex.
If you read my profile and comprehended what you read, then you'd know what I'm looking for.
Maybe, that should tell you that the point of this site isn't geared towards the type of dater that you are, if a large percentage of users don't agree with you.
And which type of dater is this site geared for, hmmm? Methodists with sanctimonious attitudes?
No.
This site is every bit as much for me as well as people seeking IE, friends, and people seeking other things such as a SAME-SEX relationship... it's even for Methodists with sanctimonious attitudes.
You see... you are proving one of my points... that people with the "Must not have contacted IE" flag ARE in fact more likely to be prudish and passive-aggressive. | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 6/23/2009 7:26:57 AM |
Face it, some of us just don't want to date men who will accept any woman offering to give it away.
And some of us don't want to date women who use sex as a bargaining tool...
he overall point is: there could be better search functions, but those of you that are wanting that particular function are probably on the wrong site anyway. (there are adult sites for guys that can't live without constant random sex from strangers. )
So your point is "There could be better search results... but not for people who don't share my views..." | |
|
Home
login 
