|
|
|
|
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 6/23/2009 8:16:15 AM |
. . IE gets singled out cuz its the only one with MESSAGED. all the others are simply LOOKING FOR. big difference.
Well yes, it's singled out (as you put it) only because it has a consideration regarding who you have MESSAGED.
But the reality is that it's no more or less a restriction than any of the others. It's just a restriction.
If a user doesn't wish to be contacted by a smoker (like me), or someone under 40 years old (like you), then that's it.
They've stated their position and laid out their preferences. They're quite entitled to have preferences.
The fact that they're also not wishing to be contacted by those that have "previously messaged others for Sex or Intimate Encounters." isn't remarkable.
However, I would nearly agree with your point in an earlier post that the wording could be tidied up a bit, but I'm guessing the logic in that phrasing was to make it absolutely clear re the meaning of 'intimate encounter' being a euphemism for 'sex'.
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.
Why should it be a two way street? The IE filter (like all the others) is freely available as an option for all individual users. You employ some filters yourself.
I don't think it would be appropriate to impose some kind of restriction on users for merely exercising their permitted freedoms and choices.
Might that not be considered 'controlling'?
They might then need a counter measure for that counter restriction.
Just where might that all end? | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 6/23/2009 8:33:58 AM |
Why should it be a two way street?
All the other filters are two-way streets. You can filter people and filter searches based on smoking, drugs, alcohol, kids, marital status, location, height, ethnicity, religion, smarts, income and even Zodiac sign... but not whether they have 'must not message IE' selected...
And don't give me this BS that this site isn't for people looking for IE... if that was the case, then the option to look for IE wouldn't even be there.
I don't think it would be appropriate to impose some kind of restriction on users for merely exercising their permitted freedoms and choices. They might then need a counter measure for that counter restriction.
See... this is why I say you don't comprehend English. What I propose won't restrict anyone... it simply means that some people won't get as much attention from people they're not interested in to begin with... and anyone would be free to use or not use it.
Having better search results does not qualify as a restriction.
The restriction already exists in the form of the 'must not contact IE' flag. If you're opposed to restrictions, then you should be opposed to having this flag and not the search functionality I propose.
There wouldn't need to be any counter measure. It would work the same way like the filter for people who smoke (for example).
Just where might that all end?
When perfection is attained... | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 6/23/2009 9:06:44 AM |
Why should it be a two way street?
zeke answered that one for me and hit the nail right on the head.
as i mentioned in response to thegirl5, the issue at hand is much larger than just the IE filter's biased restrictions.
the totality of the advanced search parameters and results needs to be overhauled. every restriction should have a counter, meaning those who don't meet restrictions shouldn't appear in results, those with restrictions shouldn't be able to contact those who don't meet them.
having said that, the word 'custom' comes to mind. we all get an email every week telling us about our apparent matches. yet we know a majority of the people on that list aren't matches at all. going beyond just search, my matches should truly be my matches. i'm thinking basic search, not advanced search, should relate directly to mail settings restrictions. that way, when you click it, only those who meet those specific restrictions will appear. that would differentiate it from advanced search where you have more options to play with. | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 6/23/2009 9:12:22 AM |
... 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.
False premise.
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.
Nope. Your very own previous behaviour is now hampering your future behaviour. That's the design intent of the filter.
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...
False premise.
And I have the right to avoid them. And that's what my point is all about... MY right to avoid THEM.
False premise. Members have privileges on PoF, but no rights.
I never said the IE flag isn't useful... quite the opposite actually.
Why is it I find this statement utterly incongruous with all your other statements.
No that is not my point. My point is that I'm not interested in them and they're not interested in me...
False premise.
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.
Disagree. I believe you'll find 'the_humormonger' to be entirely correct at Message 43.
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.
False premise. . . and previously laid to rest. See Message #41 and 42.
Lets not go over the same old ground again, eh.
And some of us don't want to date women who use sex as a bargaining tool...
Non sequitur.
So your point is "There could be better search results... but not for people who don't share my views..."
Well, to the extent that you (and I for that matter) would not be considered as part of 'the crowd' as outlined in Message #43 . . yeah. | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 6/23/2009 11:39:43 AM | ^^^You don't really understand what the terms "false premise" and "non sequitur" really mean, do you?
Your statement...
"I never said the IE flag isn't useful... quite the opposite actually.
Why is it I find this statement utterly incongruous with all your other statements."
...proves that you don't understand at all what I've been saying. If I didn't think the IE flag was useful, why would I suggest an enhancement that REQUIRES this flag? Care to explain your own logic? Clearly your logic does not follow.... hey... isn't that what "non sequitur" means?
And for you to say "Your very own previous behaviour is now hampering your future behaviour. " is a ridiculous thing to say when I've demonstrated that I know how to get around the issue but CHOOSE NOT TO... it only shows that *your* logic is one big "non sequitur" on your part.
This has been explained to you in detail... but still... you don't comprehend.
Buddy, if you took the politics course I took when I was in University, there's no doubt in my mind that you would have failed miserably when it came to actually debating topics.
Presenting a reasoned line of logic involves more than throwing around a few terms like "false premise" and "non sequitur".
You actually have to know what these terms mean and actually explain your position. But you can't because your position is little more than veiled contempt for liberally minded people such as myself. | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 6/23/2009 11:26:11 PM |
We don't agree with you (all of the girls that use the block) and you are sick of being reminded of it every time you open a profile with that restriction, so you want to filter out those that don't agree with you with a reverse filter. Well, that doesn't mean that POF, a mostly free site, has to set that up for you.
in zeke's case, i think he's made it pretty clear by now that it's strictly a time saving measure on his part and i can agree with that on more than just an IE filter level. i don't think anyone, including thegirl5 (if she sends 1st contact emails at all) and faux pa, will disagree that it's kind of a pain in the ass and waste of time clicking on someone's pro who shows up in search results only to find out that you can't email them for whatever reason.
now, i understand that running a website takes money. click through rate and page loads are significant and that's the most conceivable thing i can think of as to why the search parameters have basically remained unchanged regardless of the site's growth. it's a free site and bills have to be paid, i understand that, and one way to pay those bills and stay relevant is cpe for advertisers and click through for search engines/site rankings. i get that. BUT, there has to be a point where functionality and member satisfaction becomes as important as revenue. you can't please everyone, but when you look at all of the ideas that have been tried, and failed, on this site, search has never been touched or improved and i believe it is partly for the reasons i've mentioned.
excluding that, with the site's growth, search parameters will HAVE TO be improved cuz free or not, this site still competes with paid dating sites. if people come here and get no results or ain't happy with the site for whatever reasons, FREE OR NOT, that's still a member lost and in the dating site game, numbers mean everything.
there's the business side of this and the end user side. i don't believe that this particular issue is a minority issue. i think a lot of people have issues with this filter but a vast majority of pof users don't frequent the forums so we'll never truly know. i also believe a lot of pof'ers would agree that they don't like the time wasted doing pointless searches. and i don't believe women would like it cuz they'd have to put in some extra effort since the amount of emails coming in would decrease. they'd be forced to loosen a lot of the restrictions they have if they're the type that collects emails rather than sending 1st contacts.
but to reiterate, in the case of a reverse filter, it's primarily a time saving measure. | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 6/24/2009 6:25:12 AM |
You don't really understand what the terms "false premise" and "non sequitur" really mean, do you?
Non sequitur. (couldn't resist)
But just in case . . let me Google that for you.
http://tinyurl.com/cyjwlt
...proves that you don't understand at all what I've been saying. If I didn't think the IE flag was useful, why would I suggest an enhancement that REQUIRES this flag? Care to explain your own logic?
No . . . It does however prove that, for the second time, I was a bit too subtle, and again it has been missed. I'll try to remedy that.
So to explain . .
Your statement is utterly incongruous, but also, utterly disingenuous.
This is because the IE flag is of course required in order for your self serving suggestion to work.
Specifically, if you hadn't been tagged by the IE filter, we likely wouldn't be having this conversation.
The notion that an 'IE tagged' user would look to present an obviously self serving suggestion and obfuscate the intent in order to pass it off as if it were genuine and of benefit to users as a whole, is absurd and an insult to their intelligence . . in my humble opinion.
The presenter thus far has failed to establish merit, a plausible basis, justification or even minimal user support for the suggestion.
The presenter, as the transparently obvious beneficiary, is hopelessly compromised in terms of credibility and bias.
I wonder if you've seen the Australian movie "The Castle".
From that movie has emerged a classic line that has become a fairy common catch-cry for situations such as these:
Tell him he's dreamin' . .
And for you to say "Your very own previous behaviour is now hampering your future behaviour. " is a ridiculous thing to say when I've demonstrated that I know how to get around the issue but CHOOSE NOT TO... it only shows that *your* logic is one big "non sequitur" on your part.
No. Thegirl5 was talking about users controlling their own personal environment and you were attempting to construe her words to mean she was indulging in an indirect control on your behaviour. Non sequitur is appropriate, I think.
But the idea that you have . . .
. . .demonstrated that I know how to get around the issue but CHOOSE NOT TO...
. . is an interesting point and I think I'll explore it a little further.
Firstly, I have no idea why you haven't taken the option and I wouldn't presume to speculate.
However, I think you've actually hit on something and it seems to meet a lot more of your criteria than your original suggestion.
That is:
If you were to take the option you wouldn't have to sift through all those profiles you can't actually contact, saving that precious time you spoke of earlier.
Secondly, all those 'controlling women' you don't want to see wouldn't have yourself in their searches either.
Brilliant! That's got to be a 'win-win' situation, right there, yeah?
I'd recommend you take the option.
Are you stopping women from eating then?
Now, that's funny. Thanks for the chuckle. | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 6/24/2009 8:54:01 AM |
You don't really understand what the terms "false premise" and "non sequitur" really mean, do you?
Non sequitur.
That was a question, not a line of logic. Responding "non sequitur" to a question simply further demonstrates your lack of comprehension where the English language is concerned.
Specifically, if you hadn't been tagged by the IE filter, we likely wouldn't be having this conversation.
The notion that an 'IE tagged' user would look to present an obviously self serving suggestion and obfuscate the intent in order to pass it off as if it were genuine and of benefit to users as a whole, is absurd and an insult to their intelligence . . in my humble opinion.
Well your not-so-humble opinion is wrong. The reason why we're having this conversation is because of my experience with the site and the people on it and certain personality tendencies I've observed when people select certain options. As for it benefiting users as a whole... you're misstating my position... what I actually said was that it'll benefit some and make no difference to the rest... It's not absurd... it's the truth. Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it absurd.
Firstly, I have no idea why you haven't taken the option and I wouldn't presume to speculate.
There's no need to speculate... I already explained in detail why I don't. Yet another thing you've read but don't comprehend.
However, I think you've actually hit on something and it seems to meet a lot more of your criteria than your original suggestion.
That is:
If you were to take the option you wouldn't have to sift through all those profiles you can't actually contact, saving that precious time you spoke of earlier.
Secondly, all those 'controlling women' you don't want to see wouldn't have yourself in their searches either.
Brilliant! That's got to be a 'win-win' situation, right there, yeah?
I'd recommend you take the option.
I should take "The Option", eh? Which option are you referring to? The option that doesn't exist yet that would enable me to filter out people who have that flag selected from my search results?!? Because if that option DID exist, it would be a win-win... or at least a "sometimes win and at worst no difference"
Oh... I suppose you're being 'subtle'... | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 6/24/2009 9:23:23 AM |
You accused me of being an attention whore, or wanting you to look at my profile. How stupid is that, when, if you had viewed me, you wouldn't be able to contact me - so, how is that attention for me?
Without that search option, you (and others with that flag selected) will still be in my search results and as a result, your profile still gets seen my me... and when I see your profile, you are the recipient of attention.
Geez... it's such a simple thing... I can't believe I had to explain that.
I really don't care if the filter works both ways. It wouldn't affect me at all. The point is, I really don't think that your coding request will be given priority, because so many people like the current filter. You, the one blocked, are not the majority. Regardless of what filter you want to work which way, the site owner doesn't have to honor every request.
It's really not for you to say... since it isn't your site. I'm merely offering a suggestion for the owner of the site to implement... or not.
Back to the worst issue: You should not think that anything that I do is controlling you, because IT ISN'T.
Sure you are... You are indirectly saying you don't want me contacting people seeking IE if I wish to contact you. That's a form of indirect control.
I'm sure that there are things that you don't like.
But I don't tell people who they can and can't contact... directly or indirectly.
For example: Let's pretend that you are not attracted to women that weigh over 400 pounds. Suppose POF put in a block on people that weigh over 400 lbs, and also a block on people that have friends that weigh 400 pounds. Suppose that you select both of those blocks. Are you stopping women from eating then? Or, are you stopping women from weighing over 400 lbs or being friends with women who are? NO. The women are still free to do those things, they just can't bother YOU now.
That's not an accurate analogy. An analogy would be for me to block you for merely *speaking* to people who weigh over 400 pounds. That would be me indirectly pressuring you to shun contacting people who weigh over 400 pounds.
Now I don't know about you, but I would consider it to be pretty close-minded to block someone for merely speaking to someone else for being over 400 pounds.
And consider that I don't like close-minded people... so if such an option existed, I'd ask for a search option to filter out people who have selected the "block users who have contacted someone over 400 pounds" flag.
And yes... I also consider people who select the "must not have contacted users seeking IE" much more likely to be close-minded.
The truth is, you are actually just angry that anyone else has the nerve to not just automatically agree with you.
The truth is that I'm not angry at all... and won't be if the Admin chooses not to take my suggestion.
But at the same time, the sanctimonious attitudes are a little annoying and need to be countered.
And another truth is that you (and others) here get all uppity over a suggestion that will result in me being able to take you out of my search results.
And that is strange. It is strange because you shouldn't want me to contact you or even look at your profile... in theory anyway.
Do you want me to check out your profile even though I can't and don't want to contact you?
If so, why?
I never proposed that the site be only set up for me... and merely offering a suggestion to enhance the search function doesn't qualify as an expectation that it'll be done for sure. You're reading into things that aren't there.
| |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 6/25/2009 6:15:09 AM | I agree with thegirl5, and several others who have posted in the thread.
The "must not have messaged" filter is, first and foremost, a optional way for people to protect themselves when online. For women, it sets up some barriers against being targeted by people who sign up for dating sites and barrage women with lewd and inappropriate requests. I am a guy and I have this in my profile as well. For guys, it sets up some barriers against being targeted by scammers who sign up for dating sites with fake female profiles.
I have been on the site for a few months (with this enabled), and have yet to receive a single scam email. As thegirl5 mentioned, this is most definitely not the case with Match. I have received several scam emails from women with fake profiles during the same time frame on Match.
So - to the OP - while I see your point about perceiving people who use the IE filter as trying to "control," I think you have to respect the need for this control. When a person joins a dating site, they want to have some control over their privacy/security. I shouldn't have to be subjected to scam emails as a guy (and women shouldn't have to be subjected to lewd and inappropriate requests).
And - I also agree that you should be able to filter out women who have this in their profile in your searches. This is more of a POF search/filter technology issue though. | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 6/25/2009 6:29:09 AM |
That was a question, not a line of logic.
Agreed. It was a question and there certainly was no line of logic to support it. That was the point, you see.
Responding "non sequitur" to a question simply further demonstrates your lack of comprehension where the English language is concerned.
So . . nope. If you read back to my Message #56 you'll find that I highlighted the failure of logic on no less than six occasions . . noting either 'False premise.' or 'Non sequitur'.
Given that you've not supplied the missing logic or attempted a rebuttal, it's understood you haven't got it and that my notations are correct.
A brash knee-jerk reaction suggesting that I suddenly don't comprehend the English language doesn't logically flow from the fact that your argument was called (without rebuttal) on six occasions.
Your question is therefor = Non sequitur.
The reason why we're having this conversation is because of my experience with the site and the people on it and certain personality tendencies I've observed when people select certain options.
You mean this? Are we to revisit this yet again? Here's your previously stated position . . stated ad nauseam, in fact:
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.
We've done this one.
It's been laid to rest.
It's a logical fallacy.
Either provide the proof to support your assertions or drop the point.
But as this thread has progressed, I haven't noticed anyone else that supports your view. It is a leap of faith after all.
I wonder why all those women might fall into the same category and be regarded as more likely to . . ummm . . have those issues.
Of course, we could consider the other possibility . . . the alternative view . . . that you could be the common denominator in all this. Just a thought.
... It's not absurd... it's the truth. Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it absurd.
All right . . I'll retract the 'absurd' comment and provide the revised statement . .
The notion that an 'IE tagged' user would look to present an obviously self serving suggestion and obfuscate the intent in order to pass it off as if it were genuine and of benefit to users as a whole, is an insult to their intelligence. | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 6/25/2009 9:05:25 AM |
I'm just concerned about the thought process that makes you think that when a girl is protecting herself from certain types of men she is controlling them.
I'm not opposed to anyone protecting themselves. But then there is being careful and then there is being passive-aggressive.
There's a difference.
And anyway, how does me taking people with that flag OUT of my search results so those profiles come up in the first place make anything less safe for anyone? How does it reduce the so-called 'protection' the flag offers?
The truth is that it doesn't.
A false sense of entitlement.
It would be entitlement if I framed my original post with the *expectation* that this *will* get implemented. But the *truth* is that I'm merely offering a suggestion... and in my view, if the site owner decides to implement the idea, great. If not, no big deal.
But then... I've already said that. You, like fauxpas, simply have contempt for liberally-minded people... and it's affecting your ability to comprehend English.
Of course I don't want you to look at my profile.
Well then you should absolutely LOVE that I'm proposing something that would result in YOU not showing up in MY search results... RIGHT? Oh wait... the truth is you're irrationally opposed to me filtering profiles like yours out. Now why would that be?
As for your suggestion to stop me from even opening your profile if you have the flag selected... that's fine with me... I fully support your suggestion.
Hey... why not make it so you don't even show up in my search results!!!
That would be absolutely dandy...
If you really need a filter, you could start by filtering out girls that select "long term". They are much more likely to be the type that isn't interested in guys that like stranger sex.
Now see... you're showing that you have the same English Comprehension problem as FauxPas... I've clearly stated I'm open to an LTR. It's not the only thing I'm open for... but it's one of them. So for me to filter that out would be illogical. And yes, Liberally-minded people have LTRs too. The last LTR I was in lasted for 14.5 years.
And as for 'stranger sex'... well that's not really my thing... said so in my profile... But *technically*... but since we're on the subject... is a person still a stranger after you've seen them naked and gotten to know them somewhat? Hmmm... that would be a good think to debate in another forum... At what point does someone stop being a stranger...
Why do you care what I want? You should not care what I want.
Well when I'm checking profiles, initially I care in the sense to see if there's some basic compatibility. And in my view, people who have selected the 'must not contact IE' have an outlook on live that strongly suggests to me that the basic compatibility isn't there... like you and me... the basic compatibility isn't there... So I care in the sense that I don't want to waste my time or your time. This flag is useful for that... and it can be made MORE useful if my suggestion is implemented.
Be your own man, and get over what some people do and don't like.
You should follow your own advice...
It doesn't affect you in any reality
Actually it does affect me... you're cluttering up my search results.
I do find it hilarious that you don't realize that people are happy with it, and the current users are in that majority. It should be obvious to you that the majority likes it.
Ah yes... the line that "I am part of the majority... so as part of the majority, I will act like a tyrant towards the minority"... this is where the expression 'The tyranny of the majority' came from.
And what is next on your hit list, hmmm? Gay people aren't the majority. Neither are interracial relationships.
But regardless of who is on your hit list, my suggestion would keep the full functionality that many users like (whether it's the majority is a subject of debate... but it's actually moot in this context), but build on that same feature to improve things for some, while making no difference to the rest... and there is no difference since I've already explained how one can easily get around the flag if they choose.
Still, you persist that others are controlling you. Have you considered counselling?
Counseling for what? Having a clear idea of who I want to avoid?
Pffft...
I don't even disapprove of casual sex, I just don't want to be involved.
Aaaaand you *also* don't want others who want to contact you to be involved with it either... which is what that flag does... which is *why* it suggests passive-aggressive tendencies to me, if not prudishness.
I could understand you attitude if I were trying to make casual sex against the law, but I'm not. I am simply exercising an option provided by POF, an option to avoid those that contact for IE.
And I would like to exercise an option so I don't see people with that flag selected in my search results... but the suggestion you provided would probably work too! Having you automatically filtered out so I don't see your profile at all is EXACTLY like my idea, only better.
YOU are the one trying to control. You are so intimidated by others being against something that you enjoy, you are offended by them not wanting to interact with you.
I want to control people?
Really?
Tell me... ... how does AVOIDING someone and... ... wanting them OUT of my search results... ... control them??
As for being intimidated... do I *sound* intimidated by you (as one example)?
As for being offended... the only thing that's offensive is the 'holier than thou' attitude. The other things you've stated merely range from illogical to silly to just plain hilariously ridiculous... like the idea that I want to control people by *avoiding* them...
You're not the brightest bulb on the chandelier, are you?
As for therapy... all I can say is after your ideas of who wants to control who... I'm *not* the one who needs therapy...
oh well, they are going to continue to exist whether you like it or not.. because, guess what? The world doesn't revolve around which people you like or not.
True, close-minded people will continue to exist... just like open-minded people. And the world doesn't revolve around the people YOU like or not either...
Also, many people resort to using the tired phrase of being "closed-minded" to describe anyone that isn't wishy-washy and easily influenced.
I guess that you've never considered that some people analyze the pros and cons of a stiuation and make a decision?
Yes... someone who is close-minded involves NOT considering the pros and cons of a situation or an idea and instead let your preconceptions do the talking... something both you and fauxpas are guilty of.
Now you could say I'm close-minded too... in terms of my views and generalizations of people who have selected that flag. But the truth is that I didn't form these opinions out of thin air. They are the result of first hand observation of *likelihoods* that occurred over the past year being on this site.
Why should my decision be any less valid than yours, just because you decide to label me closed-minded?
In my view, you are free to be as close-minded as you wish. But then I'm free to not interact with you... or ask to have a way of filtering you out of my search results... as a result of it.
Perhaps I should ask you to experiment with gay sex? If you refuse, are you then closed-minded? Should you spend a year of your life living in an Amish community? Why not, are you closed-minded? Are you going to join the Peace Corps, or decide to start wearing woman's clothing to work? Why not? Closed-minded?
Well you can ask me to have gay sex... but the fact is that I'm not attracted to men. But I would be friends with someone who is gay. As a matter of fact, I am friends with some people who are gay.
As for living in an Amish Community... might be an interesting experience... but what stops me is not being close to my kids, friends and family.
But speaking of the Amish... I actually dated a girl who was Amish in the past.
As for the Peace Corps... nah... I'll join the Swiss Military before I do that. But the reason why I don't do that is the same as the reason why I don't go away to live in an Amish community.
As for Women's clothing... well the truth is that it doesn't make my @ss look good. Thongs with hairy @sses... it's just not a good mix. And none of fits properly around my 'Package'. As for heels... bad for my feet and back. I don't know how you women put up with those heels. I wouldn't if I was a woman. And my boobs aren't big enough to wear a bra, 'bro', or 'Mansserie'
it's fully legal for someone to decide that they don't like someone else's behavior and to decide to avoid them because of it.
Which is EXACTLY what my suggestion is all about... the suggestion that you and others have such a big problem with.
If someone is open-minded about everything, they lack conviction.
Being Open-minded has nothing to do with lacking conviction. But it has everything to do with not letting preconceptions run your life... such as you assuming LTRs aren't for me and jumping to the conclusion that "stranger sex" is what I'm looking for. | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 6/25/2009 9:44:33 AM |
We've done this one.
It's been laid to rest.
It's a logical fallacy.
Either provide the proof to support your assertions or drop the point.
It wasn't laid to rest... at that point, instead of challenging, I merely posted that I emailed BigFish asking him to weigh in when he gets the chance. Just because I didn't immediately oppose it doesn't mean you're in the right.
And a lack of proof doesn't make it a logical fallacy. And you want proof? My proof is what I've observed first hand. I'm not Statcan or Angus Reid. YOU get your own proof that YOUR right.
And between you and me... who has done more dating in the past year? Who has contacted and met more people?
In theory, it should be ZERO for you since you're supposedly married and still with your wife.
For me on the other hand... I've lost count with the number of people I've conversed with... let alone people I've contacted.
But I can tell you that my Inbox stretches to page number 8 at this moment... it would be longer, but the auto-delete culls messages more than 30 days old.
But those aren't all date-related messages. About 2/3 are friend-related messages. And note that at first, I was able to contact people with the flag selected. As for dating... around 10 people met face to face since coming on this site... and 3 led to intimacy so far... and that doesn't include friends I've made.
So unless you are in an OPEN Marriage... OR... You're a statistician who works with stats related to this subject, the only logical fallacy is that *you* would think that you'd know more about this than *I* would.
But either way, it's not even that relevant... which was also covered... because my suggestion doesn't negatively affect anybody... and please... if you disagree with that, feel free to retry your weak argument that it somehow "endangers" all those poor and innocent new users... 'cause I'll just debunk that line of reasoning again with a simple copy/paste.
The notion that an 'IE tagged' user would look to present an obviously self serving suggestion and obfuscate the intent in order to pass it off as if it were genuine and of benefit to users as a whole, is an insult to their intelligence.
Strawman argument. I never stated that it was of benefit to users as a whole. I stated it will be of a benefit to some and make no difference to the rest.
Geez man... you are seriously deficient when it comes to logic and reason. Misrepresenting what I said is a mistake an amateur would make. | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 6/25/2009 11:41:23 AM | Thegirl/Fauxpas
On the subject of who "the majority" is... you both have indicated the view that the majority of women have the 'must not have contacted people seeking IE' selected and have similar views to both of you.
But based on a little ad hoc survey, this is actually NOT TRUE.
I did a little search... all women, aged 18 to 99 in Ontario, sorted by last visited... and I looked at the first two pages of women that came up... 15 per page... or 30 in total... and only 10 out of 30 had the flag selected.
Well that can't be right if "the majority" think the way both of you think... okay... that was for Ontario... and maybe Ontario is a Province of Fornicators... let's check BC...
Oh dear.
Only 3 out of 30... "worse" than Ontario.
Hmmm... let's check Pennsylvania... certainly that must be bastion of virtue... Oh my... 7 out of 30 have the flag selected.
It seem that you two are simply part of a vocal MINORITY.
Now I recognize this little survey is ad hoc and not in any way scientific... and it doesn't paint a complete picture due to the small sample size AND I didn't survey men. But I suspect it's more research that either of you two did to verify whether your views are correct about who's really part of the majority on this site...
One thing is for sure... I gotta take a trip out to BC...
 | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 6/26/2009 8:26:07 AM |
But then... I've already said that. You, like fauxpas, simply have contempt for liberally-minded people... and it's affecting your ability to comprehend English.
You're not the brightest bulb on the chandelier, are you?
Oh dear . . this is just deteriorating into ad hominem attack . . a Troll / Flame Bait.
Please find somewhere else to do that.
Being Open-minded has nothing to do with lacking conviction. But it has everything to do with not letting preconceptions run your life...
. . like the ones where anyone that has the IE flag set is likely to have prudish / controlling / passive-aggressive tendencies?
Yep, that must be the one.
It wasn't laid to rest... at that point, instead of challenging, I merely posted that I emailed BigFish asking him to weigh in when he gets the chance. Just because I didn't immediately oppose it doesn't mean you're in the right.
So, instead of challenging you thought you'd write to BigFish? Yeah . . OK.
I await your proof.
And a lack of proof doesn't make it a logical fallacy. And you want proof? My proof is what I've observed first hand.
Precisely. As I said earlier . . without proof it's merely an opinion. We really did do this one. Please check back to it.
YOU get your own proof that YOUR right.
You and I both know that the burden of proof rests with yourself.
I trust you remember Carl's words I quoted?
"Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless..."
And between you and me... who has done more dating in the past year? Who has contacted and met more people?
In theory, it should be ZERO for you since you're supposedly married and still with your wife.
OK . . between you and me is fine.
You are correct . . ZERO dates for me and for what it's worth, I've never made first contact with anyone on this site apart from a Moderator or two. It's a position that I deem appropriate . . all things considered.
And freebie for you . . I'd hadn't used the search facility before this thread either . . for the same reasons as above.
But either way, it's not even that relevant...
And I agree with you. I find the difficulty with this thread is that in a lot of ways it's quite difficult to make an objective point without appearing to cast aspersions on the poster (any of them) because the very nature of the way the suggestion was framed invariably involves the personality / motives / objectives credibility of said poster.
. . . because my suggestion doesn't negatively affect anybody... and please... if you disagree with that, feel free to retry your weak argument that it somehow "endangers" all those poor and innocent new users... 'cause I'll just debunk that line of reasoning again with a simple copy/paste.
Ummm . . debunk it again? What rubbish. Your message #39 attempted to trivialise it but you haven't debunked it at all . . so I'll be looking forward to that copy/paste.
Strawman argument. I never stated that it was of benefit to users as a whole. I stated it will be of a benefit to some and make no difference to the rest.
More rubbish. This is what you said:
Zekestone Message #22
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.
And then you have the temerity to say:
Geez man... you are seriously deficient when it comes to logic and reason. Misrepresenting what I said is a mistake an amateur would make.
On the subject of who "the majority" is... (Snip) . . . this is actually NOT TRUE.
(Snip) . . . ... and only 10 out of 30 had the flag selected.
(Snip) . . . Only 3 out of 30... "worse" than Ontario.
Pennsylvania... certainly that must be bastion of virtue... Oh my... 7 out of 30 have the flag selected.
Excellent work Zekestone. Happy enough to go along with you're ad hoc survey.
It looks like the numbers don't justify the 'enhanced search' suggestion after all, eh. That is good news.
And anyway, I expect we're all a bit bored considering there's no new information arising and we're relegated to rehashing the old stuff.
I presume we can we call a close to the meeting, and have someone type up the minutes . . should get the whole lot on one page, I reckon.
Please pass the popcorn . . Oh . . and enjoy your trip to BC. | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 6/26/2009 9:34:27 AM |
It looks like the numbers don't justify the 'enhanced search' suggestion after all, eh.
Hmmm... First you say "this feature shouldn't be implemented because it's not the view of the majority"... and now you say "Oh since they're not part of the majority, then we don't need it"... sorry... you can't have it both ways FauxPa... Certainly you can see the fallacy of your logic, can't you?
No... the numbers suggest that there are enough people (in my area at least... and probably other areas too, just not BC) that having the extra search function would be measurably useful.
It also indicates that the flag is used enough that it's worth keeping the feature around.
Oh and you're right... I misspoke on message 22. I should have said "it will make the site better by making additional search functionality AVAILABLE to all if they want to use it."
Myself and one other on this thread would find it useful... and I think most others who would find it useful, probably won't admit it since I believe that MOST people don't want to publicly admit they've conversed with those seeing IE.
Alright... meeting ended... enjoy your popcorn... | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 7/5/2009 11:12:01 PM | | i agree with the filtering ,descent women like me are getting turned off by the manner of respect .i personally has internalized men to be creautures that were made to not have respect for the earth.and that somes it up for me my point is proven you are up here arguing with the server because they are fighting for the human rights and the respect for women .thank yo server of the site keep up the good work .because you all have a mother you may even have a daughter and a neice or aunt or cousins that are women continue for the fight for us women thank you again | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 7/6/2009 1:28:27 PM | | presumably all you people did have sex with SOME body at some time in your relationship or is that why you are FREE now and looking and VERY alone and you will be alone ALL your natural life with this attitude. he has a point being he wants to filter you out of his equation in the search option. some people got ridiculous restriction where they have ticked ALL the boxes because they are illiterate? | |
|
| |
twoo2
|
Joined: 6/27/2009
Msg: 70 | |
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 7/7/2009 4:59:58 AM | I've never contacted any users looking for sex, but have replied to users who are with a "No thank you". Now I'm blocked from contacting certain users? I found someone on this website with whom I am extremely attracted to and I can't contact them? This is a major flaw in this website.
It should only be you can't contact them if you're looking for sex, not if you've messaged/replied people looking for sex. What if you know the person looking for sex and want to say hello/catch up.
This has REALLY annoyed me... | |
|
| |
twoo2
|
Joined: 6/27/2009
Msg: 72 | |
| |
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 7/7/2009 7:07:50 AM | ...I've never contacted any users looking for sex, but have replied to users who are with a "No thank you". Now I'm blocked from contacting certain users? I found someone on this website with whom I am extremely attracted to and I can't contact them? This is a major flaw in this website.
This has REALLY annoyed me...
You know what grinds my gears?
People that make up stories to cover their tracks.
The filter gets tripped only when you make the 1st contact, and it is not just one contact but you must contact multiple users, thus showing a pattern of contacting people with IE accounts.
...It should only be you can't contact them if you're looking for sex, not if you've messaged/replied people looking for sex. What if you know the person looking for sex and want to say hello/catch up....
If you know the person then pick up the phone. | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 7/8/2009 3:01:30 PM | I am really beginning to hate this filter. I understand the reasoning behind it I guess, but the fact is a great catch may have messaged someone that is looking for an intimate encounter for something completely unrelated to what they are looking for then you are tagged.
I messaged someone about a post on the forums I thought was well done, never read the profile did not care to. Now tagged with that stupid block because they were looking for an intimate encounter. The block is really a poorly thought out one, in my opinion.
Bill | |
|
| Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 7/8/2009 5:24:38 PM |
I am really beginning to hate this filter. I understand the reasoning behind it I guess, but the fact is a great catch may have messaged someone that is looking for an intimate encounter for something completely unrelated to what they are looking for then you are tagged.
I messaged someone about a post on the forums I thought was well done, never read the profile did not care to. Now tagged with that stupid block because they were looking for an intimate encounter. The block is really a poorly thought out one, in my opinion.
If they are contacting users with IE profiles in some peoples eyes they are no longer a great catch and those people can choose to filter out those people.
If you only messaged one person then you would not have been blocked, you have to contact multiple people with IE profiles for the filter to kick in.
This filter works in two ways.
1 - Stops people from contacting you if they make a habit of contacting people with IE profiles.
2 - Stops people from contacting you that have a habit of doing stuff before they see what the repercussions are. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
