|
|
|
|
|
| Am I crossing the line doing background checks on a suspicious date?
Posted: 10/20/2007 4:38:18 PM | Sooooooooooo Nick....when you meet someone over the Internet and your asking those getting to know you questions, you know you ask someone "How many times have you been married?" and they reply..."1". When you ask them "Do you have children, how many and did you pay your child support timely and see your kids? " and they answer "2 kids, they are in college now and I pay all their expenses, keeps me somewhat strapped for extra cash, but that's ok, I want them to have that college education and sure, I take care of them" or " Have you ever had any serious run in's with the law?" and they respond...."No Never, Oh you know kids and young people, bad judgements at times, but nothing serious, just foolish things when I was a kid."
"How's your financial status, not meaning what do you make, but how do you handle your financial responsibilities?" reply " I'm solid as a rock, responsible." "I worked over seas for a very wealthy import/export investor for the last 20 years, traveling world wide, doing start up in regards to their investments." "I came back to the states 3 years ago to help my elderly mother get her place in shape, sell it and relocate her"
Then they go on to tell you how they volunteer at a local teen center to be a good influence on young people and btw, I do volunteer work for the elderly, you know minor home repairs, painting, even drive a bus occasionally for the elderly at the local Sr Center. Was a boy scout leader when my son was growing up. My kids and I have a great relationship"
If one takes it at face value and what you've been told, all this sounds like a nice , smart, intelligent, responsible guy...eh?
Then you start investigating with the back ground information you have gathered. You find out, he owes many thousands in back child support and btw, child support can never be discharged through bankruptcy. He has not filed a tax return in over 20 years and owes large sums and penalties to the IRS and oh yes, if you were to intermingle your money with his or marry him or buy a home with him....The government can come in and take everything you have to cover HIS DEBT.
You find out he has been married 3 times, not 1. You find out he never paid for or helped with his kids college educations, let alone his child support obligations responsibly and as far as visitation and being a part of their lives....heck he was overseas, chasing his dreams to hit it rich. You find out the reason his children have very little to do with him is because they have little respect for him and really don't want him in their lives because they fear he just might want to move in on them. You find out, his own brother ordered him out of his house 5 years ago and they have not spoken since then. You find out instead of being back in the USA for 3 years, coming back to help his dear old mom relocate, he's been back 9 years and lived with/off maybe 8 to 10 other women, before making contact with you. Oh and BTW, he has outstanding warrants in Calif, Oregon and Idaho. Minor things, but explains his nomadic life style. Just move on.
He's been married 3 times.......divorced 3 times also, never was faithful to any of his wives, had many affairs and God only knows how many women he has lived off of.
Now do you really want to get involved with this guy, no matter how nice a picture he painted of himself, or are you glad you started doing some digging, BEFORE YOU INVITED HIM ANY FURTHER INTO YOUR LIFE? | |
|
| |
| |
| Am I crossing the line doing background checks on a suspicious date?
Posted: 10/20/2007 5:15:36 PM | Any guy worth his salt, if his intentions were honorable, would offer up front, to send necessary proof of his identity before even asking a woman to consider meeting him. He would provide her with a copy of some sort of identification, a description of his auto and his tag number. Also his address, home phone number, his place of employment and the name and number of a close relative and advise her to give this information to a family member or close friend and make arrangements to check in with that friend during the evening.
oh yeah, we should do that because ALL women online are normal (think fatal attraction here) and of course they would never lie. Get a grip there are almost as many strange women out there as men. If you have a bad feeling don't go. Period. Ever. .. but if it seems ok damn, relax, it's really no scarier than meeting someone in a public place with other people around. Go from there. I wouldn't want to be with anyone with that level of paranoia | |
|
| Am I crossing the line doing background checks on a suspicious date?
Posted: 10/20/2007 5:56:05 PM | re post 505
First of all, I do not do ad hominem posts or comment on them
But, ok, for once: Second, what does "invite one into one's life" mean/translate into? Access to one's bank account? Unprotected sex? Sharing of assets? Sharing of a bed at night? I do not grasp the implied mentality.
People date, take their time, they do not invite people into their lives the way ot is implied, after date 1, 2 or 3. Sorry, but this mentality is alien to me!
I do not ask such questions or run backhround checks. I proceed with caution but without fear. Using my mind not just my emotions. Or PIs etc etc! There is a point beyond which there are vastly diminishing or even negative "returns" over security concerns. Too much worrying is bad for one's own health. Moderation is the key. And prudence is a matter of using our own grey matter and our accumulated "life experience". As they teach in decision sciences, apetite for risk is a personal matter, cannot be objectified.
| |
|
| Am I crossing the line doing background checks on a suspicious date?
Posted: 10/20/2007 8:43:00 PM | I agree, if you live in a metro area or an area where just meeting for coffee is convenient and a casual social thing, no need to go to extremes. But if your talking to someone cross country who maybe is making plans to travel to your area or you to theirs to meet face to face, that's an entirely different set of guidelines.
It's not a one response, meets all kinda answer, depends on the circumstances.
I've met dates from say 2 hours drive away. Them coming here and never seen the need to go beyond the casual conversations we have had via the Internet or phone. Not a problem, I'm in my own element and feel comfortable meeting someone I would consider being a stranger to me, no matter how long we have known each other via the Internet or exchanging phone calls.
I've even driven 4 hours away, with a gal friend and not been concerned in meeting someone for social exchanges.
But due to living in an isolated area, most of the men I have talked with, are from across country, so then there become other considerations, if it comes to the decision to meet in person. That's when more information needs to be exchanged and research needs to be done. After all....no matter how many conversations we have had and how much we have told each other about ourselves....We are still strangers.
Before one says noooo, never............, thats crossing the line, the circumstances need to be defined..... One answer is not a fits all correct response. | |
|
| Am I crossing the line doing background checks on a suspicious date?
Posted: 10/21/2007 2:36:18 AM | I've been reading several threads. This is what I've found out so far...
If someone posts something that isn't agreed with, instead of just giving your opinion also, the person is attacked. I may not agree with a lot that has been said, but it's the person's right to state their opinion in a respectful way.
Definately should have more moderation on these forums! | |
|
| Am I crossing the line doing background checks on a suspicious date?
Posted: 10/21/2007 3:54:43 AM | You already have all the info you need, so don't get involved with this person ! Even the fact that you are creating this thread should be enough red flags to your intuition not too even think about dating this person.
Move on as fast as you can.
good luck | |
|
| Am I crossing the line doing background checks on a suspicious date?
Posted: 10/21/2007 1:10:19 PM | Nick..."Second, what does "invite one into one's life" mean/translate into? Access to one's bank account? Unprotected sex? Sharing of assets? Sharing of a bed at night? I do not grasp the implied mentality.
People date, take their time, they do not invite people into their lives the way ot is implied, after date 1, 2 or 3. Sorry, but this mentality is alien to me!"
First of all, just to consider meeting someone locally, your correct, who cares about anything more than just spending a bit of time conversing and getting to know that person in real time. It's just a casual social encounter.
Inviting someone into your life, denotes that there is what appears to be a mutual attraction and wanting more than a casual date or just a meet. It's someone you might consider for a life mate and yes I agree it depends on what one is seeking for the future.
If your just socializing, dating, having fun, enjoying meeting lots of different people and nothing serious, what do you have to lose, its here today and gone tomorrow. But if your seriously looking for a life mate, someone you want to build a future with, become a partner in an on going relationship with, why would anyone open themselves up to falling in love with someone who might just bring lots of lies, dishonesty, confusion and upheaval with them. Better to know up front, this persons past life style is not for me and once a liar, pretty much always a liar.
Integrity, morals, dishonesty and lies don't usually change....the pattern most generally continues forward. If one wishes to see the pattern for the future, best to look at the track record from the past.
When fishing, why get into the water up to your heart, only to find out the salesman who sold you the waders, held out the information, they were full of holes? | |
|
| |
| Am I crossing the line doing background checks on a suspicious date?
Posted: 10/21/2007 3:22:24 PM | "But if your seriously looking for a life mate, someone you want to build a future with, become a partner in an on going relationship with, ..."
That is not IMO how the thing works. LTRs are not planned. They happen. They evolve from Eros, into Love, into commitment. But an LTR and commitment are "experience goods". Plans and promises? Does not work this way. IMO, of course.
Are locally or distant, that makes no difference IMO as far as the topic of this thread is concerned. We live in global times. Proximity is a very relative matter these days, almost irrelevant. Almost, for now. 100% in a few years, IMO.
Can one "background check" the world? Yes! Read or watch History!! lol
Cheers | |
|
| |
| Am I crossing the line doing background checks on a suspicious date?
Posted: 10/21/2007 11:48:21 PM | Can I ask a really dumb question?
How would I do a background check on another person? I don't work for the police department, the FBI or the CIA. The psych meds a person takes are certainly not public information. And their doctor certainly isn't going to tell you. | |
|
| Am I crossing the line doing background checks on a suspicious date?
Posted: 10/22/2007 12:02:38 AM | " Read or watch History!!"
When I first came on the Internet dating sites, I operated on the misconceived idea that people were like myself, honest, straight forward, had intregrety, values and morals. If people were genuinely looking to date and possibly find someone special, why would they not be so?
My son cautioned me, told me he didn't think I was worldly enough to be on the Internet and tried to discourage me. Being an Adult and thinking I was somewhat knowledgeable and intelligent, I went ahead with my plans, to explore. lol
Well I have learned a bunch, read a lot and watched the history of all those who have shared their stories. I kinda wish I was still naive......but I'm not, so I will continue to be somewhat skeptical, I will look for the red flags, I will do some checking into back grounds of those I choose to think about meeting.......and will do what ever feels right in regards to being safe and informed. Others can do as they please.....but so will I and if asked, will advise women, not to take people at face value......but check out their stories.
There are lots of people on the Internet, who are not as they present themselves to be. | |
|
| Am I crossing the line doing background checks on a suspicious date?
Posted: 10/22/2007 3:57:41 AM | "There are lots of people on the Internet, who are not as they present themselves to be."
Now, now, that is not fair to the www in general not just online dating. There are lots of people IN GENERAL (in the "offline" world) who are not as they present themselves to be. Thinking that the www has a higher share of scammers and other dangers is IMO a popular misconception, fuelled partly by those socio-economic and other "centers" that consider the www a threat to their offline/old Economy dominance and captive markets (eg traditional media). Globalisation and the www have become the object of much intended bad mouthing and equally demonised. Reminds one of the conclusions some people in some societies used to make centuries ago re people who wore glasses. Not funny at all.
That has led to many people approaching the www in a agoraphobic way, much like many people approach the offline world.
Nothing is 100% safe, but we learn how to use our common sense and grey matter to avoid pitfalls. Naivite has same effect off and online, IMO. Whether online dating, e-commercing, online reading - access to info/data.
In effect it takes us back to the little red ridinghood and the wolf parabole. Living in a "Mr Chance" (from "Being There") type of bubble is not good, be it online or offline.
The whole issue of those checks and reliance on them reminds one of the situation with the calculator leading many people to forget how to do adding and subtracting w/o it.
| |
|
| Am I crossing the line doing background checks on a suspicious date?
Posted: 10/22/2007 4:36:35 AM | I'm curious what people define as a background check. The majority of county court houses now offer all court matters online. IT IS DEEMED PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE!!!
So if you do not like knowng that your DUI, check fraud, or whatever is available online through your county court house... take it up with the officials!!! And generally speaking, these "findings" include the birthdate and address of the person. I'm only referring to situations that you have to go before a Judge.
Speaking from a womans point of view... If the guy had 3 domestic battery charges against him from 3 different woman, There will not be a 1st date. 1 DUI I can overlook, but 5 DUI's, and most are recent... is very strange when the guy insists he has never been much of a drinker.
I have men & women call me often, cause they do not own a computer, and ask me to do a criminal check on someone via the county court public record system. I've read many scary rap sheets. And then again... some pass with flying colors. | |
|
gtokid
|
Joined: 2/18/2007
Msg: 517 | |
| Am I crossing the line doing background checks on a suspicious date?
Posted: 10/22/2007 6:15:07 AM | hhhhmmmm, interesting concept!
Imagine giving references before dates, lol.
Well if you got nothing to hide, you got nothing to fear, but there again anyone crooked enough to lie on a date would find a way to fabricate a crooked reference too.
GUT FEELING - trust it, believe in it, it's always right.
 | |
|
| Am I crossing the line doing background checks on a suspicious date?
Posted: 10/22/2007 7:18:47 AM | re 518:
"I've read many scary rap sheets. And then again... some pass with flying colors."
"Flying colors". That is EXACTLY what I find "dangerous" about the background checks and associated mentality of "pocket calculators". Just because he or she has a white rap sheet, that means little. Sorry but IMO people cannot "delegate" or "outsosurce" their need to use their minds in critical and analytical thinking even in the absence of concrete data. Having studied decision sciences, I know nevetheless taht most decisions in life (and business and everything) are not made under "full data" conditions or even anything NEAR that. That is why in that type of thinking, computers and robots will never replace the human mind, when that mind works. And I do not mean "gut" feeling. I mean rational decision making under uncertainty and not full or much data. The idea that criminals and crooks are more brainy than good people is another popular myth. If being a good person means a person who does not use critical thinking, then indeed those good people should maybe not be on the www or even leave their home towns or hoods. Ie they should stay within the "limits" their willingness to use their grey matters DICTATES/"imposes". The world is indeed a very dangerous place these days for people who do not practice the "art" of thinking and I think that bachground checks are only going to offer them a "perception" of safety, instead of a reality of (withhin reason of course) safety. Reasoning uber alles.
| |
|
| Am I crossing the line doing background checks on a suspicious date?
Posted: 10/22/2007 10:24:13 AM | What I find interesting Nick, is that not only do you have your own opinion, but you insist it's the only "correct" opinion and with every post from someone with a different opinion, you must point out the fallacy of theirs and shove yours down their throat. Is this a control issue you have? A need to have to be right or a need to feel superior?
We all know at this point, that you think using some intelligence and doing some checking, by YOUR definition is paranoid and that YOU recommend using that gut feeling. So be it....to each their own. Sorry to tell you....not everyone is 100 percent right or wrong in any given situation. One has to use judgement as to when to seek a bit more information and when to just walk away...saying....I know what I need to know.....to make a good decision here.
Your beating a dead horse, putting others down, is not going to change the way WE each as individuals, chose to do something or think. And if you can't recognize that women have much more to lose in not gaining as much knowledge as they can before hand, I have to ask......Do you have that little respect for women...that you just don't give a dahum and feel they deserve what ever happens to them....if their gut check doesn't quite do it for them?
From experience, I and many women have learned to use all the available avenues to double check our gut check. You are welcome to do it your way, but allow others to do it their way.......OK? | |
|
| Am I crossing the line doing background checks on a suspicious date?
Posted: 10/22/2007 1:24:27 PM | To all that oppose such an idea... may I ask you to seriously think about this?
If your mother, sister, or daughter... met someone via the internet, and on that 1st date they ended up dead, missing, raped, mugged... only to find out later that his rap sheet was clearly available using a few clicks of the mouse... would it change your mind???
And also... women are capable of being psycho as well, so YES the question can be reversed!
And PS... some of the most brutal domestic violence people have an extremely popular public appeal. They are very charming in the public eye. It's what they do behind closed doors that matters, that most of the public isn't aware of. | |
|
| Am I crossing the line doing background checks on a suspicious date?
Posted: 10/22/2007 1:53:00 PM | I would also like to add... that a GUY asked me to do a check on a gal he had met.
She stated that she was recently divorced, had been married for 15 yrs.
She was 1/2 right. During her 3 marriages, she was married for a total of 15yrs. How do you think this guy felt, when he realized he was being scammed by her lies? (divorces have to go before a judge, therefore, all 3 divorces were registered on the court site) | |
|
| Am I crossing the line doing background checks on a suspicious date?
Posted: 10/22/2007 2:01:38 PM | Uh Ya, what business is it of yours, that is invasion of privacy.
Way out of line
Ever heard of talk to his friends and ask. or him also
well no one is perfect.
to answer no 1, we all have illness one way or another or time.
2, perhaps he was carjacked, protection.
3, fired alot, so what, perhaps in the wrong field. Does not mean he does not show up and do a good job. I got fired twice. both from dealing with rotten women
etc etc
married, well, u lll have to find that out on your own u will date 2 and 3
arrested, what the hell do u mean, what business is that to you,
Is he gonna ask u, what size bra do u wear, your chest size is too small
domestic violence takes two
 | |
|
| Am I crossing the line doing background checks on a suspicious date?
Posted: 10/22/2007 2:32:32 PM | | ^^^^ If I decide to spend one on one time with someone, anything that denotes his/her character....IS MY BUSINESS.....Open record laws are there for a reason. Invasion of privacy....plezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz I'm not going through his bank account records, or his drawers or his closets. I'm looking at open records. You don't want your name there....be careful what you do in life....be a good person, other wish you have a history that follows you around. I didn't do it.....you did. | |
|
| Am I crossing the line doing background checks on a suspicious date?
Posted: 10/22/2007 2:59:55 PM | Whisper, I ve asked this question a few times but no one seem to answer, what if you did a back ground search on a man, who came up clean, and he is still a dog when it comes to dating, like ive said numerous times, i know Doctors, Lawyers, Cops , executives that can pass any background check, and they are the biggest pigs/dogs out there
What do you do if you come across a person like that? | |
|
| Am I crossing the line doing background checks on a suspicious date?
Posted: 10/22/2007 3:41:58 PM | re post 521:
"What I find interesting Nick, is that not only do you have your own opinion, but you insist it's the only "correct" opinion and with every post from someone with a different opinion, you must point out the fallacy of theirs and shove yours down their throat."
a) I do not do "ad hominem"
b) May I remind the esteemed fellow poster of the content of the Original Post, on which posters' comments are supposed (according to POFF rules) to be based on?
c) The "arrogance" of reasoning maybe indeed provoke negative reactions, but, I ask, should they be addressed to the messenger of the reasoning or to the reasoning itself? The western way is to do the latter (discuss the issue, not the discussers).
d) The topic discussed is what is called a Public Interest/Public Policy/Public Affairs issue and as such, it justifies discussion in the name of the "public good" as well as "individual rights" issues.
e) The issue is not a national US one, it is an issue of relevance and issues in other American and European countries, etc. ("Global Forums").
"Is this a control issue you have? A need to have to be right or a need to feel superior?"
a) That is an "ad hominem" comment. This poster does not do such or partake in discussions that include such.
b) I may have to do with a "need" to be rational, a fundamental value of our western societies and democratic, another fundamental such value. Tested in times like these.
"We all know at this point, that you think using some intelligence and doing some checking,"
a) I think that the use of the "intelligence" term, as used, refers to official state authorities of countries/states, one that has not been delegated to individual citizens.
b) I am not sure that "you all" do not, actually, not based on the content of the esteemed fellow poster's last post.
"by YOUR definition is paranoid and that YOU recommend using that gut feeling."
Another poster actually recommended that. Please refer to my last post as to what PRECISELY I "recommend" or rather "speak in favor of".
"So be it....to each their own."
Not when it comes to a Public Affairs and legislative issue (IM public policy and legislative experience).
"Sorry to tell you....not everyone is 100 percent right or wrong in any given situation."
That that syllogism can be used by all sides.
"One has to use judgement as to when to seek a bit more information and when to just walk away...saying....I know what I need to know.....to make a good decision here."
I actually agree, in principle.
"Your beating a dead horse, putting others down,"
Now, now, please provide specific examples where this poster "put others down".
And look for examples where other poster did that.
"is not going to change the way WE each as individuals, chose to do something or think."
Of course not, as long of course as this personal "choice"/right is within limits of the rights afforded by the Constitution of the relevant land(s), its laws as well as inter-national binding agreements.
"And if you can't recognize that women have much more to lose in not gaining as much knowledge as they can before hand,"
Actually, indeed, I do not see this as a gender spefific issue. And statistical data (eg US ones) support this "non geneder specific view".
"I have to ask......"
Actually, no one "has" to do anything, unless that is asked by law or supported by rationale (but within the boundaries of laws and Constitutions).
"Do you have that little respect for women...that you just don't give a dahum and feel they deserve what ever happens to them...."
What syllogistic premises lead to such a serious PERSONAL "accusation"?
"if their gut check doesn't quite do it for them?"
Again this poster (I) did not speak in fabor or "gut check". Please refer to my previous post to verify that.
"From experience, I and many women have learned to use all the available avenues to double check our gut check."
I did not speak in favor of gut checks!!!
"You are welcome to do it your way, but allow others to do it their way.......OK?"
We are all free to do it the way we choose of the ones that are available within the rights afforded by Constututions and laws.
May I remind that the OPost asked about the ETHICAL dimenstion of many types of checks? And that THAT is the Topic of this thread (The Original Post)?
'Am I crossing the line doing background checks on a suspicious date?''
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RE Post 474, now where I think there may be some more room for convergence:
"For the life of me, I can't understand why ANY MAN WOULD NOT want a women, who might agree to meet with him, not to feel totally comfortable, safe and at ease."
Why is that a gender specific question? Why not apply to both genders?
"An honest, upfront genuine gentleman would not even wait to be asked, he would offer to send what ever information that would be needed to put the woman at ease and feeling safe and assured, that he was in fact, just who he presented himself to be."
Again, why is a gender specific line? Why not unisex?
"A decent guy, would have concerns for a woman's safety"
Safety with respect to him? Well, HE knows whether he is safe for the woman, but what HE does not know is how safe he is with this woman. Works both ways, and stats support that two-way POV.
"and expect her to protect herself and not do something stupid.....like meeting a cyber stranger, whom she really knows nothing about"
Again to protect her or him self (gender neutral safety issue )
"Any guy worth his salt, if his intentions were honorable"
Now "honorable intentions" is a very subjective term. One for personal interpretation.
"would offer up front, to send necessary proof of his identity before even asking a woman to consider meeting him."
I actually do that, but aware and in spite of the risk I am putting myself in, by offering a total stranger PERSONAL data, eg liable to IDENTITY theft, or is this crime one perpetrated by one gender ONLY? But the issue is not what I do, the issue is a Public Affairs one, IMO.
"He would provide her with a copy of some sort of identification, a description of his auto and his tag number. Also his address, home phone number, his place of employment and the name and number of a close relative"
Again, offer all this data unilaterally? At HIS personal risk of many types? Too many to list here? Similar to a woman's risks?
Why not then a mutual exchange of such data? Why NOT?
"and advise her to give this information to a family member or close friend and make arrangements to check in with that friend during the evening"
Now, some data may be good to be available with a relative, but that again applies to both daters, woman and man? Should he ask for the "rap sheet" of her relative, eg?
"Men need to think of what advise they would give their Mothers, Sisters or daughters under the same circumstances."
They are adults. To suggest that they, as women, need a man's "lights" could promprt the type of "patronising" and "big brother" and sexist approach/menatlity that the fellow poster labelled on this poster in her last post!!!!!!!
So advice would be given only if asked for.
So, my advice would be (on a case by case basis, no general - rules of thumb)
"To me, it just shows respect for women in general and concern for the women they are showing interest in."
To me it shows a gender specific, unilateral concern and request, on a gender neutral matter!
"Would a woman really want a man who didn't have this capacity or concern?"
Would a man really want a woman who didn't have this SAME capacity or concern?
In Peace! | |
|
|
| Page 21 of 23
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 |
|
Home
login 
