Re: Gets It Exactly Right

1

I kind of want to do that tonight, just because I'm bored and amazingly, have nothing better to do.


Posted by: m. leblanc | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 3:19 PM
horizontal rule
2

On one hand, it seems it would lower expectations. On the other hand, it seems it would exacerbate what is already one of the most annoying things about online dating: the amount of time you invest meeting people you are completely incompatible with.


Posted by: Blume | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 3:20 PM
horizontal rule
3

The time you invest is less, but the likelihood of compatibility is lower.

Frankly, how invested can you get when you have no expectations whatsoever?


Posted by: m. leblanc | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 3:21 PM
horizontal rule
4

I was wondering about the investment factor. I haven't read around the site much, but how do they keep from having a huge no-show rate?


Posted by: Blume | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 3:21 PM
horizontal rule
5

No love for angryarmedandaryandating.com*?

* Made up URL. Please don't (i) check or (ii) hold me responsible.


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 3:22 PM
horizontal rule
6

2: They get around the investment factor by specifically keeping the dates time-limited. They're set up to give you the option of ending them after 30-45 minutes, although you can always keep hanging out with the other person if you want to. (And while you don't get much information about the other person beforehand, afterwards you get full access to their profile.)


Posted by: Josh | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 3:24 PM
horizontal rule
7

how do they keep from having a huge no-show rate?

By saying that no-shows are unacceptable and having a feedback system. Don't know if it works.

the amount of time you invest meeting people you are completely incompatible with

You can pick which neighborhoods you're willing to go to, so you really could spend about an hour, including travel and the date. Not bad.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 3:25 PM
horizontal rule
8

If no one else does it first, I will absolutely try this next week. It would need a fairly large pool of users to actually work, I'd think, but I'm willing to risk it.


Posted by: washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 3:25 PM
horizontal rule
9

And as for the no-show rate, I think the simple set-up of the site works against that. If you're a profile shopper, you're never going to go for what they're offering; they're specifically targeting people who are willing to take a flyer.


Posted by: Josh | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 3:25 PM
horizontal rule
10

I will absolutely try this next week

Woot! We can inaugurate "Report To The Mineshaft" if you do.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 3:27 PM
horizontal rule
11

My coworker told me about crazyblinddate.com, though sadly he hasn't had as good luck with it as Josh and my mutual friend has. (I suspect this has to do with being not picky enough about age and location and too picky about body type. Doesn't help that "full-figured" could mean anything from "I have boobs and hips" to "I am Jabba the Hutt.")


Posted by: Magpie | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 3:34 PM
horizontal rule
12

To me, it was just another dating website until I got where you could request insertion into a double-date. That's awesome and I must try it.


Posted by: als | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 3:48 PM
horizontal rule
13

It seems like the face-to-face is always dispositive anyway, so why not skip right to it? I'm not sure that profile screening on other sites actually saves you any time compared to a short date near your home/work.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 3:50 PM
horizontal rule
14

That site crashed my browser.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 3:51 PM
horizontal rule
15

That site crashed my browser.

You are obviously more suited for saneblinddate.com - currently undergoing beta testing.


Posted by: peter | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 3:52 PM
horizontal rule
16

14: It was loading really slowly in Firefox so I decided to try Explorer, which was of course worse. Haven't been able to determine if the list of the three cities it's live in on the right side of the screen is an exclusive list or not. If it is, that would put a damper on my "absolutely."


Posted by: washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 3:55 PM
horizontal rule
17

11: Though that's true of any dating service, really.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 3:57 PM
horizontal rule
18

I count seven cities. (Austin, Boston, NYC, Chicago, DC, LA, SF.)


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 3:57 PM
horizontal rule
19

Gawd, that's fantastic.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 3:57 PM
horizontal rule
20

Basically, I want to have Josh's baby just for knowing about that site.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 3:59 PM
horizontal rule
21

18: I counted those too. Then I clicked on NYC, and on the right side of what is largely a blank screen (because some part of the so-called date wizard isn't loading) it says, "*Now live in Chicago
* Now live in Los Angeles
* Now live in Washington D.C."

Like I said, I'm not sure if that's an exclusive list, or if they're just mentioning their newest additions. If we have Bay Area people mentioning using it, I guess it's not exclusive.


Posted by: washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 4:00 PM
horizontal rule
22

It's slow, but live in all those cities; the list is just of the latest cities to go live. Most of the "success" stories are from NY.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 4:02 PM
horizontal rule
23

Finally, an alternative to the Minneapolis Airport bathrooms.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 4:03 PM
horizontal rule
24

23: No, that's one of the available neighborhoods.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 4:04 PM
horizontal rule
25

Has leblanc gone on her date yet? I thought she had a boy.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 4:05 PM
horizontal rule
26

For some reason, threads like this one, and the one below, make me feel weird and a bit guilty about being happily married. Maybe I should get divorced.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 4:06 PM
horizontal rule
27

make me feel weird and a bit guilty

I think you mean "old."


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 4:09 PM
horizontal rule
28

25: I don't think you're obligated to make out with whomever you meet up with. It's a way to get people to socially churn with close to no investment. Which is (a) how it should be, (b) how it almost always is when successful, IME, and (c) sheer genius.

26: You should be psyched. Your example has made others want to seek the same. That's the only reason these things work: you!


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 4:10 PM
horizontal rule
29

I don't think you're obligated to make out with whomever you meet up with.

But it's crazy blind date, right? If I showed up for a date and the other person turned out to be happily coupled, I'd be annoyed.


Posted by: Blume | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 4:13 PM
horizontal rule
30

Tim seems uncharacteristically chipper today.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 4:13 PM
horizontal rule
31

30: Yeah. Who stole Tim? We want him back.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 4:14 PM
horizontal rule
32

You should be psyched. Your example has made others want to seek the same. That's the only reason these things work: you!

No smileys please.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 4:15 PM
horizontal rule
33

I do have a boy. I'm just kinda bored (not with my boy, just generally). But like Blume said, it would be annoying to go on a date and find that the other person is happily coupled up.

Alas, I'll have to find something else to do this evening.


Posted by: m. leblanc | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 4:17 PM
horizontal rule
34

Marriage is like a fortress besieged: those who are outside want to get in, and those who are inside want to get out.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 4:17 PM
horizontal rule
35

For some reason, threads like this one, and the one below, make me feel weird and a bit guilty about being happily married. Maybe I should get divorced.

Good lord, man, you have it exactly backwards: reducing romance and connection to shopping is horrifying.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 4:19 PM
horizontal rule
36

If I showed up for a date and the other person turned out to be happily coupled, I'd be annoyed.

Fair point. But maybe they'd both make out with you!

reducing romance and connection to shopping is horrifying.

Pretending it was ever otherwise is lying.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 4:23 PM
horizontal rule
37

Fair point. But maybe they'd both make out with you!

It would be hilarious if leblanc went to one of these and brought her boy along.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 4:24 PM
horizontal rule
38

If I showed up for a date and the other person turned out to be happily coupled, I'd be annoyed.

That's why you're not supposed to tell your date about your partner/spouse. It's a time-honored tradition, naïve people.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 4:28 PM
horizontal rule
39

>reducing romance and connection to shopping is horrifying.

Pretending it was ever otherwise is lying.

Damn it, are you going to make me link to Oakeshott again:

"But there are relationships of another kind in which no result is sought and which are engaged in for their own sake and enjoyed for what they are and not for what they provide. This is so of friendship. Here, attachment springs from an intimation of familiarity and subsists in a mutual sharing of personalities. To go on changing one's butcher until one gets the meat one likes, to go on educating one's agent until he does what is required of him, is conduct not inappropriate to the relationship concerned; but to discard friends because they do not behave as we expected and refuse to be educated to our requirements is the conduct of a man who has altogether mistaken the character of friendship."

(and I am giving someone an absolute layup here, let's see who converts...)


Posted by: baa | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 4:29 PM
horizontal rule
40

Does leblanc's boy call her "sahib", or is there some other designation for ladies. Does she address him as "Boy!"?


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 4:30 PM
horizontal rule
41

Coming soon: Psychotic Blind Date.

For the really adventurous.


Posted by: Timothy Burke | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 4:30 PM
horizontal rule
42

That blind double date option may prove just the thing to get me to cross the threshhold into online dating!


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 4:31 PM
horizontal rule
43

I was going to ask how reducing the role of random chance in coupling up is the same as reducing it to shopping, but I'm not even sure this site does that. It basically just means that instead of randomly meeting people through your extended social networks and seeing if you have any spark with them you'll randomly meet people who are outside those networks and see if you have any spark with them.


Posted by: washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 4:31 PM
horizontal rule
44

That blind double date option may prove just the thing to get me to cross the threshhold into online dating!

Do it! But then you have to revive the blog.


Posted by: SomeCalMeTim | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 4:33 PM
horizontal rule
45

40: "memsahib", obviously.

You must have heard that word before.


Posted by: peter | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 4:34 PM
horizontal rule
46

Pretending it was ever otherwise is lying.

I disagree. It'll be clear by now, I expect, that I don't get it, though I may do it, this online-mediated dating thing. I'm afraid of what it will do to me, shuffling through people.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 4:35 PM
horizontal rule
47

baa, quoting Oakeshott, is of course correct. No doubt Oakeshott would also add that the relationship of a blogger to his commenters is one of overflowing and unconditional love. Indeed, the less you give me, the more I love you.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 4:35 PM
horizontal rule
48

It basically just means that instead of randomly meeting people through your extended social networks and seeing if you have any spark with them you'll randomly meet people who are outside those networks and see if you have any spark with them.

With the added benefit that you know that they're the sort of person to do this kind of thing. Which--given that the incentive is the zero effort/not-quite-zero expectations--is not trivial. Maybe you end up on a date with someone mawkish or bitter, but I doubt it.

and I am giving someone an absolute layup here, let's see who converts...

Way to up the pressure; now no one will take a shot.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 4:38 PM
horizontal rule
49

So according to x/2+7, 38 year-olds can date me. Might as well put that in.


Posted by: washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 4:38 PM
horizontal rule
50

until one gets the meat one likes

IYKWIM. AITYD.


Posted by: Josh | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 4:38 PM
horizontal rule
51

A single year-old is a handful, w/d. Best work your way up to 38.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 4:40 PM
horizontal rule
52

39: Oh. I had tempered my reply considerably in my 46, before seeing 39; it turns out I like baa.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 4:40 PM
horizontal rule
53

Thank you Josh! It never would have taken nine minutes in the old days...


Posted by: baa | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 4:41 PM
horizontal rule
54

He's married, Parsimon. Keep shopping.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 4:41 PM
horizontal rule
55

I'm afraid of what it will do to me, shuffling through people.

That's the difference between window shopping with intent and online shopping, I think. If it works, it works; that's what matters.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 4:42 PM
horizontal rule
56

41: I've known two guys who can find psychotics naturally. One of them actually has quite friendly, sometimes non-dating relationships with women with problems. He's just so pleasant and unthreatening that he attracts them. The other one keeps fucking up his life by falling in love with problem ladies. He himself is nuts too, of course. In a very banal way.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 4:42 PM
horizontal rule
57

It basically just means that instead of randomly meeting people through your extended social networks and seeing if you have any spark with them you'll randomly meet people who are outside those networks and see if you have any spark with them.

Quite an improvement, for people with little or nothing in the way of "extended social networks".

And of course it selects for people who have certain things in common, like spontaneity, and the feeling that they are too ugly to get any responses on the profile-shopping sites.


Posted by: Auto-banned | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 4:43 PM
horizontal rule
58

the feeling that they are too ugly to get any responses on the profile-shopping sites

I've never tried online dating, but my impression from what I've heard is that this would likely include supermodels.


Posted by: Josh | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 4:45 PM
horizontal rule
59

I thought she had a boy. [...] I do have a boy.

I didn't even know you were pregnant!


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 4:53 PM
horizontal rule
60

54: Obnoxious. The man said something I agreed with.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 4:56 PM
horizontal rule
61

I don't understand how this is better than just randomly hitting on people. at least that way you know that you think they're hot.


Posted by: yoyo | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 4:58 PM
horizontal rule
62

at least that way you know that you think they're hot

That is a disadvantage. On the other hand, this way you know they're interested in being hit on.


Posted by: washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 5:01 PM
horizontal rule
63

Which is much more fruitful than knowing they're hot, generally.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 5:05 PM
horizontal rule
64

fruitful

You've got a one-track mind.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 5:06 PM
horizontal rule
65

Blind dates can lead to grapefruit.... sized cysts.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 5:11 PM
horizontal rule
66

A fortress besieged

I started reading this last year, but I got bogged down about a third of the way in.


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 5:18 PM
horizontal rule
67

62 gets it exactly right.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 5:32 PM
horizontal rule
68

is this the bestmost likely to get sued when someone winds up dead in a ditch dating site ever?

Why yes; yes it is.


Posted by: Robust McManlyPants | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 5:33 PM
horizontal rule
69

He himself is nuts too, of course. In a very banal way.

I want this on my headstone. (With appropriate pronouns and verb tense, of course.)


Posted by: Wrenae | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 5:38 PM
horizontal rule
70

OT: More OT: More Niemoller.


Posted by: Wrongshore | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 5:43 PM
horizontal rule
71

Stupid wrist brace.


Posted by: Wrongshore | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 5:43 PM
horizontal rule
72

"An error has occurred because you don't have permission to view this feed."


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 5:45 PM
horizontal rule
73

69: DO you have the requisite 3 marriages, two bad, followed by a nightmare unmarried relationship ending up with you in jail, bankrupt, and homeless?

but banal. He's just a jolly old guy.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 5:53 PM
horizontal rule
74

11: Now here is an object lesson in the importance of proper grammar: I read "he hasn't had as good luck with it as Josh and my mutual friend has" as saying that Josh had had success with crazyblinddate.com. I know Californians generally have no morals, but since Josh & Magpie have had the benefit of prior red-state residence, I expected more of them.

But then I realized that "Josh's and my mutual friend" was intended. See, I'm not a grammar pedant,* I just want clear communication.

*Yes I am.


Posted by: Sir Kraab | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 6:45 PM
horizontal rule
75

Sir Kraab, on your original reading of 11, what did you think the word "mutual" meant in the sentence? Of course you're right that the grammar is off, but it doesn't strike me as ambiguous.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 6:52 PM
horizontal rule
76

I want sex on short notice.

I cannot believe nobody linked this gem from the FAQ. Guys! I expect more from this site.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 6:54 PM
horizontal rule
77

75: It's ambiguous if you don't read it carefully, which the writer should obviously anticipate.


Posted by: Sir Kraab | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 6:58 PM
horizontal rule
78

72: Stupid feed reader. More Niemoller!


Posted by: Wrongshore | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 7:03 PM
horizontal rule
79

12: To me, it was just another dating website until I got where you could request insertion into a double-date.

I think it's more traditional to only request insertion in one-on-one situations. At least at first, anyway.


Posted by: Tom | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 7:42 PM
horizontal rule
80

I now know what I'll be doing every single night from here on out.


Posted by: Zippy the Comment Frog | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 7:49 PM
horizontal rule
81

Also in the FAQ, they say that once they get the formula down pat, they plan to launch a public beta of CrazyBlindOrgy.com.


Posted by: Zippy the Comment Frog | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 8:37 PM
horizontal rule
82

(By the way, Zippy, you mendacious person, I'm taking back the fruit basket. Lil' slow on the uptake, but I get there eventually. You're no newbie.)


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 8:40 PM
horizontal rule
83

I almost wish I were still single, just so I could go on a crazy blind double date. The key term being "almost," of course.

I'm counting on the unfogged commentariat to live life to its fullest, and then report back on what I'm missing.


Posted by: Mary Catherine | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 9:23 PM
horizontal rule
84

Posted by: Brock Landers

It lives! Ia! Ia! Brock Landers fhtagn!


Posted by: Robust McManlyPants | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 9:56 PM
horizontal rule
85

RMMP I am deeply saddened that you didn't take my bait about a friend jizzing on the 5ESS console keyboard from t'other day. That was for you, babe.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 10:00 PM
horizontal rule
86

It lives! Ia! Ia! Brock Landers fhtagn!

Alive but supposedly still thinning. Apparently Brock is Billy Halleck.


Posted by: gswift | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 10:16 PM
horizontal rule
87

85: I'm afraid I missed it, Sifu. You had a friend jizz on an actual 5ESS? Was it a special occasion or is he just really really into central office equipment?


Posted by: Robust McManlyPants | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 10:25 PM
horizontal rule
88

He'd broken into the CO and couldn't figure out what else to do. I only heard about it years after the fact; leave me out of it!


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 10:29 PM
horizontal rule
89

He'd broken into the CO and couldn't figure out what else to do.

OK, that is fucking hilarious.


Posted by: Robust McManlyPants | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 11:10 PM
horizontal rule
90

29: What if happily coupled but non-monogamous? A friend of mine who I just turned onto crazyblinddate.com insists that I join her in The Grand Experiment, and my wife would probably be supportive of the idea.


Posted by: Hamilton-Lovecraft | Link to this comment | 03-27-08 11:51 PM
horizontal rule
91

Oh, it's by the same guys that made OKCupid. I've thought for a while, based on the expansions to OKCupid, that those folks have this idea that the problem with online dating is that people overthink it and spend too much time browsing profiles looking for That Perfect Someone rather than HAVING A DATE FRIDAY NIGHT. This is a perfect expression of that philosophy, if so.

They may be right. So much of romantic and sexual attraction is mediated by things like body language and scent that I suspect that people would be happier and find someone to be in an LTR / have hot weasel sex with faster with the scattershot approach rather than attempting to snipe particular profiles.


Posted by: NBarnes | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 2:50 AM
horizontal rule
92

reducing romance and connection to shopping is horrifying.

I wish romance made me as happy as shopping does.


Posted by: Populuxe | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 6:58 AM
horizontal rule
93

85,88,89: Can you get him to do an Ericsson IMS Call Session Control Function next? Damn, I hate those fucking things. Or does he only get off on circuit-switching?


Posted by: Alex | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 7:08 AM
horizontal rule
94

A friend of mine who I just turned onto crazyblinddate.com insists that I join her in The Grand Experiment, and my wife would probably be supportive of the idea.

You should do it, if it's not a pain. It's supportive of your friend. And who knows, maybe she and your wife will make out!


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 7:25 AM
horizontal rule
95

A friend of mine who I just turned onto crazyblinddate.com insists that I join her in The Grand Experiment, and my wife would probably be supportive of the idea.

No! That's too much crazy, even for a crazy blind date. Most single women would be seriously annoyed to be matched up with a guy who turns out to be married.


Posted by: Mary Catherine | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 7:48 AM
horizontal rule
96

See? Mary Catherine would do this thing, and so would I, if it weren't for humorless people like LeBlanc and Blume, who forbid us coupled up types from playing along.

Also, I maintain that this is the *opposite* of shopping. Shopping is when you're looking for "someone compatible." Saying "hey, I wanna go out this evening; put me together with someone else who's bored and needs something to do and someone to do it with" isn't shopping--it's being social.

And I for one am PISSED that I don't get to play, just because some stupid-ass single people think that "date" has to mean "looking for loooooove."


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 10:33 AM
horizontal rule
97

the less you give me, the more I love you.

Noted. See if I ever send you flowers again.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 10:34 AM
horizontal rule
98

if it weren't for humorless people like LeBlanc and Blume, who forbid us coupled up types from playing along.

And apparently MC herself. Jeez, MC, make up your mind, would you?


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 10:35 AM
horizontal rule
99

Oh, I dunno. I'm married and hetero and all, but I guess I'd go on a date with Tracey Ullman if I had the chance. Brief clip of her Renée Zellweger imitation is the funniest thing I've seen in a long time.


Posted by: Mary Catherine | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 10:46 AM
horizontal rule
100

My impression was that, so long as you were up front about it, anything goes. But you know, not everyone is polyamorous and some people would prefer not to date someone already married, and that seems fair enough, too, no?


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 11:57 AM
horizontal rule
101

I think the point of the site is that you don't get to vet people in advance. So.

Plus, I maintain that meeting new people shouldn't be just for the single. So there.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 11:59 AM
horizontal rule
102

101.1: I thought you got some sort of profile before agreeing to show up. May be wrong.

101.2 Triage? 9i.e., the single are in more critical need.) Anyway, that's an argument for social sites in addition to dating sites, methinks. And not a bad one either.


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 12:04 PM
horizontal rule
103

You can answer a bunch of questions, including how you hope the other person will answer, and there is a whole genre dedicated to relationships with the already-coupled -- so if you set it up and answer those questions, you'll be more likely to get someone who's open to that kind of thing or doesn't particularly care. People who have really strong feelings against it would probably be matched up with someone else.


Posted by: Zippy the Comment Frog | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 12:32 PM
horizontal rule
104

101

"meeting" =/= "dating"


Posted by: peter | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 12:32 PM
horizontal rule
105

Meeting doesn't have to mean dating, but people totally use "a date" to say that they're meeting someone specific at a specific time to do a specific thing. Regardless of whether they Have Intentions towards that person.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 12:36 PM
horizontal rule
106

women use "date" in a friendly way more often than men.

men don't say that about meeting other men. too nervous about gaydom.

Therefore we don't want to say it about meeting women for non-romantinc purposes either, because our own brains misconstrue it as romantic.

not an argument, just an observation.


Posted by: peter | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 12:38 PM
horizontal rule
107

If that is the case, then declaring unequivocally that "meeting /= dating" was sexist.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 12:41 PM
horizontal rule
108

Well they aren't synonyms.

you don't want to meet someone for a blind date and be surprised when they say "I hope this platonic blind friendly-date goes great so I can tell my wife".


Posted by: peter | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 12:42 PM
horizontal rule
109

I thought you just said that men don't use the word that way.

I'd be perfectly fine meeting a lesbian for a blind date and having her say that she hoped it went great so she could tell her wife, yes.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 12:44 PM
horizontal rule
110

I'd be perfectly fine meeting a lesbian for a blind date and having her say that she hoped it went great so she could tell her wife, yes.

I think the idea is that this should be clear up front, prior to the meeting. That said, apparently there's some sort of feedback mechanism, so if someone was dicking around--no-shows, marrieds, nightmare personalities, etc.--their reputation would go down.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 12:48 PM
horizontal rule
111

I like how married people = nightmare personalities. Issues, Tim?


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 12:49 PM
horizontal rule
112

But it's not just a date, it's a blind date. Which generally falls more in the looking-for-romance category. (No, not every single time, and no, not for every single person. Okay?)

The "date" you have with your friend to catch up over coffee could never be a blind date.


Posted by: Blume | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 12:50 PM
horizontal rule
113

I like how being next to each other in a list automatically = equivalence. Huh?


Posted by: Blume | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 12:50 PM
horizontal rule
114

The "date" you have with your friend to catch up over coffee could never be a blind date.

What is your friend is the new governor of New York?


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 12:51 PM
horizontal rule
115

112: That's exactly my point! You single people are hogging all the blind date fun.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 12:51 PM
horizontal rule
116

Aaaand my first CBD is scheduled for Tuesday at 7:30. She namechecked both hidden markov models and greedy algorithms in her profile, so I know that at least I'll be meeting a fellow nerd.


Posted by: Otto von Bisquick | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 12:52 PM
horizontal rule
117

I like how married people = nightmare personalities. Issues, Tim?

I like your reading skills.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 12:52 PM
horizontal rule
118

Well, married people wouldn't be no-shows if you dating fascists didn't insist that it be so.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 12:54 PM
horizontal rule
119

those are commas in #110, not equals signs.


Posted by: peter | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 12:55 PM
horizontal rule
120

But you can't just say, But I wanna do that too! and whine about it not being fair. If the expectation of a single person going on a blind date is that the person s/he is meeting will also be single, you can't just insert yourself into that situation because you think it will be fun. Unless the non-singledom is on the table, then you're depriving the other person of what is generally expected of a blind date.


Posted by: Blume | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 12:56 PM
horizontal rule
121

119: At this point, she's joking. I think.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 12:56 PM
horizontal rule
122

then


Posted by: Blume | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 12:57 PM
horizontal rule
123

you can't just say, But I wanna do that too! and whine about it not being fair

Why not?

If the expectation of a single person going on a blind date is that the person s/he is meeting will also be single, you can't just insert yourself into that situation because you think it will be fun.

Why is it my job to read the minds of single people?

then you're depriving the other person of what is generally expected of a blind date.

Doesn't it seem like the entire point of this site is to confound "what is generally expected"?


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 12:58 PM
horizontal rule
124

Bitch, of course married people can go on blind dates. I never said that they couldn't, or that they should never register for dates on this site or any other site. I'm just saying you couldn't really blame anyone for being like wtf? if the person who showed up for the date they were on was monogamously married or otherwise not open to the possibility of dating or nookie.


Posted by: m. leblanc | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 1:00 PM
horizontal rule
125

118: But no one is insisting that there not be an equivalent service for people interested in meeting new people w/out the romance. There just isn't one. Which is, in fact, a shame. Even as a single person, I wouldn't mind just meeting new people without making it a "date."


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 1:01 PM
horizontal rule
126

124: Yes, but if you went on a blind date set up by this site and met me, you *wouldn't* be all wtf. So.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 1:02 PM
horizontal rule
127

B is the mcmanus of sex and romance. You're (we're) being trolled.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 1:02 PM
horizontal rule
128

I'm not sure what you're saying, but if I read it right, yeah, married people looking for dating/action/alleyway-smooches are immune from wtfery.

Alternative reading, yes, if I met you on a blind date, I'd be stoked.


Posted by: m. leblanc | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 1:04 PM
horizontal rule
129

Why not?

Well, if you don't mind being whiny, I guess there's no reason why not.

Why is it my job to read the minds of single people?

You're right. I'm making totally unreasonable demands of you. How could you possibly, in any situation ever, guess what someone else might be thinking?

Doesn't it seem like the entire point of this site is to confound "what is generally expected"?

Not the entire point, no.

Jesus, Bitch.


Posted by: Blume | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 1:05 PM
horizontal rule
130

If I am trolling you guys on the all-important question of whether or not married people can use that site, then all I can say is you guys are way fucking easily trolled about some petty-ass shit.

128.2: See?


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 1:05 PM
horizontal rule
131

then all I can say is you guys are way fucking easily trolled about some petty-ass shit.

Hence "mcmanus."


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 1:06 PM
horizontal rule
132

Meh. There's a difference between "trolling" and "joking around, and then deciding to run with it when people take it seriously."


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 1:15 PM
horizontal rule
133

I'm not sure that's true.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 1:16 PM
horizontal rule
134

Saying you're trolling is the trump card. There's no way I can respond to anything now without it being all, "Ha ha, boy is she ever trolled!"


Posted by: Blume | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 1:19 PM
horizontal rule
135

Okay, now I'm all confused. Are we arguing about a married person who is looking to date using this site or about a married person who i just looking to meet peopl, not to date, should use the site?


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 1:19 PM
horizontal rule
136

If the joke should have been obvious? I mean, hell, even Tim figured out eventually that I was joking.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 1:20 PM
horizontal rule
137

I don't know what you guys were arguing about. I was saying it's unfair that the obvious awesomeness of that site is only available to you humorless single people.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 1:21 PM
horizontal rule
138

I often can't tell the difference between you joking and you arguing in a particularly annoying way, B.


Posted by: Blume | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 1:22 PM
horizontal rule
139

But aren't you supposed to be humorless? I didn't think the humorless could joke.


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 1:22 PM
horizontal rule
140

139 to 136. I'm both mentally slow and slow of typing...


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 1:23 PM
horizontal rule
141

I would think someone would be wtf? about meeting an attached person through the site, but at the same time I imagine (perhaps wrongly) that the sort of person inclined to use the site might just roll with it and view it as a fun night out. Some perhaps disappointment that there's no chance of nookie (or, that any nookie that occurs would be with an otherwise attached person, with which many people aren't comfortable), but I'm not sure that disappointment would be greater quanitatively or meaningfully different qualitatively than just going on a blind date and meeting someone with whom you are generally incompatible. And since in this case there's little to no upfront investment in the blind date, I would think that disappointment would be small.

I could be wrong though. And obviously some people might feel differently.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 1:23 PM
horizontal rule
142

139: Ogged claims that I'm humorless because I'm a feminist. It's up to you to decide whether or not that's the case.

at the same time I imagine (perhaps wrongly) that the sort of person inclined to use the site might just roll with it and view it as a fun night out.

See, this is what I want to hear. Anyway, anyone who would expect nookie from a completely random blind date with someone they've never so much as emailed before is insane.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 1:26 PM
horizontal rule
143

135: were I single, I think I would find a blind date with a married person looking to date more disconcerting than a married person just looking to meet people. In the first case, I'd feel like that's really something I should have known upfront before going on the date. In the latter case I'd just think we were two people looking to meet new people, and well, mission accomplished.

Maybe I've forgotten what it's like to be sex-starved, though. I could be totally wrong about this.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 1:28 PM
horizontal rule
144

CBD recommends you answer a bunch of questions in order to "improve your matches," just like OkCupid (they seem to be the same questions, really), and one of them last night was about meeting people who are already coupled. The implication was that you'd be meeting that coupled person for romance, however, and not just to find a new platonic buddy. So it's factored in, though not completely in the manner discussed.


Posted by: Otto von Bisquick | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 1:29 PM
horizontal rule
145

... is insane

We are still talking about "crazy blind dates", right?


Posted by: Nathan Williams | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 1:29 PM
horizontal rule
146

They're the same questions because the sites are run by the same people.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 1:30 PM
horizontal rule
147

145: And what could be crazier than having coffee with a . . . married person.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 1:31 PM
horizontal rule
148

Oh wait, it's an okcupid site? Never mind then. You guys can have it all to yourselves.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 1:31 PM
horizontal rule
149

at the same time I imagine (perhaps wrongly) that the sort of person inclined to use the site might just roll with it and view it as a fun night out.

I don't think this is quite right. There are Craigslist services for that. And I don't think, per Bitch, that this site is about getting "nookie from a completely random blind date," either -- there are Craigslist categories for that, too. What makes this site seem charming to me is that it relies on luck, charm, and a seat-of-your-pants willingness to go with it to try to create love connections. The possibility of love connection is essential, though -- without that, there's no real point to the meetings and the dates. If you have a bunch of marrieds or attached people trolling the site for their own fun times that don't have to do with the possibility of a love connection, it's kind of a bummer.

And B, I know that married people might be in polyamorous relationships, and can have romances outside of relationships. That isn't the typical expectation of people who use dating sites. There are other dating sites for polyamorous people, and each should seek their own.


Posted by: jms | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 1:33 PM
horizontal rule
150

Anyway, anyone who would expect nookie from a completely random blind date with someone they've never so much as emailed before is insane.

The "nookie" framing is moving the goalposts.
(now there's a sentence that has never been uttered before.)

the reason "dating" =/= "meeting up" is the possiblity of romantic intrigue and flirtation. not the physical act of intimacy. One can seek the former and even have expectations for some degree of it, while never considering the latter to be remotely likely.


Posted by: peter | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 1:33 PM
horizontal rule
151

I take it all back.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 1:35 PM
horizontal rule
152

There are Craigslist services for that. . . . . There are other dating sites for polyamorous people

It's true, until now there's been a marked dearth of online sites for singles who want to meet other singles.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 1:36 PM
horizontal rule
153

The possibility of love connection is essential, though -- without that, there's no real point to the meetings and the dates.

ah, you beat me to it.

And B, I know that married people might be in polyamorous relationships, and can have romances outside of relationships. That isn't the typical expectation of people who use dating sites. There are other dating sites for polyamorous people, and each should seek their own.

yes...polyamorous people are not the norm. Most people don't know any, and would be unable to leave the frame of "you must be doing this because you are neglected by your mate or trying to induce jealousy in your mate". even the open-minded people who would use wackyblinddate.gov.


Posted by: peter | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 1:37 PM
horizontal rule
154

150: What would you call "romantic intrigue" sans "the physical act of intimacy"? I, personally, would call it flirting.

Moreover, I, personally, would call anyone who wants to declare that Married People Should Never Flirt! Because that would be Unfair to Singles!, "no fun." Aka "humorless." Which is how this whole "argument" got started.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 1:39 PM
horizontal rule
155

152: B, please don't twist my words. What I am saying, as I think you know, is that this site is differentiated by the fact that users know very little about one another except that they are interested in romance. If you have a bunch of coupled users on the site, that really puts a damper on things -- single people typically aren't looking for romance with coupled people, and if coupled people want to change that, they can make their own damned site.


Posted by: jms | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 1:41 PM
horizontal rule
156

As we've discussed on this site before, there are different approaches to flirtation.


Posted by: Blume | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 1:42 PM
horizontal rule
157

Where did I say that I was looking for romance with single people?


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 1:44 PM
horizontal rule
158

Exactly! Your participation in the site would, to many people, seem to say just that.


Posted by: Blume | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 1:45 PM
horizontal rule
159

156: And my idea that it would be fun to meet people for coffee and maybe, if they are attractive and interesting, flirt with them, and if they are *also* available, maybe "pursue romance" and if not, say hey, thanks, that was fun is apparently completely Bad and Unfair.

You all are dating fascists, that's what you are. (No aspersions on anyone's significant others intended.)


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 1:46 PM
horizontal rule
160

If you have a bunch of coupled users on the site, that really puts a damper on things -- single people typically aren't looking for romance with coupled people, and if coupled people want to change that, they can make their own damned site.

The system needs to be robust enough to account for that. Trolling-B is an outlier. There aren't going to be that many people looking to fuck things up for the sake of fucking things up. Those that there are will, one assumes, get handled by the feedback system. I can't see this being a real problem.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 1:47 PM
horizontal rule
161

158: Please see my *initial comment* in this thread, to wit:

I for one am PISSED that I don't get to play, just because some stupid-ass single people think that "date" has to mean "looking for loooooove."

In short, no duh.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 1:47 PM
horizontal rule
162

I can't see this being a real problem.

It's not, but the single people all need something to be self-righteous about, to make up for their lack of orgasms.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 1:49 PM
horizontal rule
163

162: ?????


Posted by: Blume | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 1:50 PM
horizontal rule
164

What I am saying, as I think you know, is that this site is differentiated by the fact that users know very little about one another except that they are interested in romance.

Actually, I don't think they know that they are interested in romance. All they know is that that other person wants to go on a Crazy Blind Date, too. maybe because they're looking for love, maybe because they're looking to get laid, or just to have a good story, or on a dare, or because they're bored shitless and have nothing ebtter to do, etc etc. Not to say that if I were single and I met someone who was liquid dreamy and they were like "oh, I'm married" I wouldn't say "DAMNIT!"

But maybe if the guy was interesting or funny, and not just hot, then we could become friends.

Imagine that! Making friends! The horror.


Posted by: m. leblanc | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 1:50 PM
horizontal rule
165

I actually think the site might be a pretty decent way of making a new friend or two, which I need. I like my peeps, but I tire of hanging with just lawyers after a while.


Posted by: m. leblanc | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 1:52 PM
horizontal rule
166

You should hang with Kotsko and pals, m.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 1:53 PM
horizontal rule
167

Unfogged used to pride itself on being hard to troll. Now I wonder if there are any sites easier to troll. I blame Blume.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 1:53 PM
horizontal rule
168

this site seems to take "date" as less romantic than other dating sites, meaning more like "need somebody to go to something with so won't be alone".

by the time one signs up as a member, it should be pretty clear whether one is likely to be matched up with people looking for love or people who want to go to this particular concert but can't find any friends to go with them. in either situation it would be okay to be disappointed to find oneself matched up with someone with different goals. but that would be inevitable.


Posted by: peter | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 1:54 PM
horizontal rule
169

163: She's saying she's willing to play this game as long as you are, but she's playing a game. I think.

Question: what is in the minimum set of questions would you most want answered to test for compatibility? If you could only get terse answers to three questions, and none of the information could identify the person specifically, what would want to know? Other than age and probably education, I can't think of anything. There's no easy way to get a sense of demeanor that I can think of. Maybe "Last weekend I did...." But maybe the other person does really fun things in a peculiarly annoying/grim/angry/etc. way.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 1:55 PM
horizontal rule
170

Never mind the others, B. I'm on your side. Because I know it must suck to be humorless and ineligible for CBD.


Posted by: Populuxe | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 1:56 PM
horizontal rule
171

I blame Blume.

B certainly pushes my buttons. I ban myself ex post facto!


Posted by: Blume | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 1:56 PM
horizontal rule
172

164: You are now totally contradicting yourself, LeBlanc. If all you know is that the other person wants to go on a Crazy Blind Date, and it would be perfectly fine to use that to make some friends, then why the previous hating on married people, HMMMM?


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 1:57 PM
horizontal rule
173

You are quite right, ben, which is why I plied Kotsko with a 12-pack of beer in exchange for his promise to be my friend just two nights ago.

Luckily, his friendship goes pretty cheap.


Posted by: m. leblanc | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 1:57 PM
horizontal rule
174

169: I was just wondering who she was talking about, that's all.


Posted by: Blume | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 1:59 PM
horizontal rule
175

You are now totally contradicting yourself, LeBlanc

That's correct, because I changed my mind. Happy now?!


Posted by: m. leblanc | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 1:59 PM
horizontal rule
176

Happy now?!

Absolutely! Will you go on a date with me?


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 2:00 PM
horizontal rule
177

Anyway, my mind change didn't go that far. All I said before was "it would be annoying to go on a date and find that the other person is happily coupled up."

Which would be true if I was the sort of person who was going on a CBD looking for loooooove. But in that situation, I would be annoyed if the person was smelly, or dumb, or an Evangelical, or really into running, or highly organized, or any of the other things that are incompatible with being a person to be the object of my looooove.


Posted by: m. leblanc | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 2:01 PM
horizontal rule
178

173: Cleveland reserve Scot Pollard, on what the Cavaliers could expect in return for him in a trade: 'Cleveland would take a 12-pack in return. They wouldn't just take anything, like Keystone Light. It would have to be one of those expensive Belgian beers.'

This is the same guy whose TV advice to kids was "Do drugs".

Greatest basketball player of all time, if you forget the boring on-court bullshit.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 2:02 PM
horizontal rule
179

If you're buyin'. I just found out that I owe someone 6 grand, so it's pb&j for me for the foreseeable future.


Posted by: m. leblanc | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 2:03 PM
horizontal rule
180

Lookin' for love in all the wrong websites........


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 2:05 PM
horizontal rule
181

If you could only get terse answers to three questions, and none of the information could identify the person specifically, what would want to know?

"Do you collect trolls?"

"Do you still live with your parents?"

"Have you ever had sex with a corpse?"


Posted by: Populuxe | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 2:05 PM
horizontal rule
182

177 is basically what I said in 141, and people got very exercised about it.

179:???


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 2:05 PM
horizontal rule
183

Crap, man, that sucks. Sure, I'll buy.

BUT I WON'T SLEEP WITH YOU. Well, okay, maybe.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 2:06 PM
horizontal rule
184

Scott Pollard is a Mormon.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 2:08 PM
horizontal rule
185

"Oh, yeah. That $6,000."


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 2:09 PM
horizontal rule
186

184: Is or was raised?


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 2:10 PM
horizontal rule
187

If you could only get terse answers to three questions, and none of the information could identify the person specifically, what would want to know?

Great question.

1) Which blogs do you read?

2) If you had to kill one person, who would it be?

3) Have you ever been double-penetrated?


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 2:10 PM
horizontal rule
188

181: Yes to all 3 questions and you get to date Populuxe!

Lots of people answer yes to 1 & 2 but it's question 3 that has been keeping Populuxe lonely all these years.


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 2:11 PM
horizontal rule
189

I just found out that I owe someone 6 grand

Sometimes a date is not just a date.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 2:11 PM
horizontal rule
190

Actually, this question deserves its own post.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 2:13 PM
horizontal rule
191

1) Which blogs do you read?

Huh. I assume it's a pretty small subset of potential people who read blogs, and a smaller set yet that have enough familiarity with them to read telling blogs.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 2:14 PM
horizontal rule
192

#188. Naturally. Answering "yes" to all three would be totally HAWT.


Posted by: Populuxe | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 2:15 PM
horizontal rule
193

Re: The 6 grand, it's a long story. Basically, I was given a whole bunch of a money by two different entities to help pay my loans, because I'm a low-paid public interest lawyer, yadda yadda, and based on my calculations with those amounts I thought I wouldn't have to pay any of the loan indebtedness from my salary, that the fund would cover it all. They just figured out that they miscalculated. Plus, I spent some of the money. So I have 6 grand to pay them now (due by next Friday, they remind me), but that means that in 3 months my "loan" fund will be dried up, and I'll have to pay $1800 a month out of my rather meager salary until November.

Fuck.


Posted by: m. leblanc | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 2:20 PM
horizontal rule
194

Hey, anyone out there thinking about going to a private law school? Don't.


Posted by: m. leblanc | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 2:22 PM
horizontal rule
195

B, let's go get coffee sometime.


Posted by: Hamilton-Lovecraft | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 2:27 PM
horizontal rule
196

But, but . . . you're MARRIED!!!

Actually there's a remote chance I might be in your neck of the woods on, say, Tuesday. If you and Rocky want to have coffee or a drink or whatever, drop me an email.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 3:01 PM
horizontal rule
197

If not for your unfortunate straightitude, I'd set you up to crash my friend's Crazy Blind Date Tuesday night.


Posted by: Hamilton-Lovecraft | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 4:48 PM
horizontal rule
198

I say B should sign up for the site. Maybe if she started hooking up with people, she could write about it and recover her faltering place in the Blog Pantheon.

Even better: she and Mr. B both sign up and make it a contest.


Posted by: Zippy the Comment Frog | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 4:53 PM
horizontal rule
199

There are enough people using the site that you'll get set up with someone. I'm not yet in a position to comment on anything else about it.


Posted by: washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 03-28-08 9:56 PM
horizontal rule