Comments on: True love with a criminal-background check

CNET News.com explains what's behind the move by many state legislatures to regulate online dating services.

safety and the stauts quo

1) "It also singles out Internet-based dating as a potential source of adulterous spouses and felonious knaves. The truth is that that there's no reason to believe that online dating is more risky than searching for love through telephone-based matchmaking, skimming classified ads in newspapers, or picking up a stranger in a bar."

Our intuitions about the relative safety of meeting someone in a bar versus online clearly differ; however, surely you will admit that, FOR WOMEN, dating is always dangerous. Date rape is an extremely common phenomenon whether the rapist was met in a bar or online. The fact (if it is a fact) that the internet is no less safe a place to meet people than a bar is hardly comforting. True.com provides a SAFER place to meet people.

2) "At the same time, True.com is the first to admit that its background searches are hardly perfect. Without a fingerprint check, the searches can't catch felons signing up under a fake name, for instance. Granting a governmental blessing to such a service might offer some singles a false sense of security."

Don't you remember when car manufacturers made the same claim about seat-belts and air bags? Do seat belts provide a false sense of security? No doubt some people do drive more recklessly than they would if they didn't have such safety devices in their cars, but is that a reason to deny that protection to everyone else? -Or to allow car manufacturers to decide for themselves whether they put in seat belts? True.com's competitors make this fallacious argument to protect their own interests. Why on Earth are you making it?

[declan00]

safety, background checks, seat belts & the law

Dan:
Thanks for your reply. (BTW, with your last name, are you related to Herb Vest, True.com's CEO?)

To respond to your two points -- any meeting with someone you don't know is potentially hazardous. I daresay that meeting someone online -- even on a service that does not perform background checks -- is safer than a bar when someone might be a bit woozy after a few drinks. You have time to verify a phone number, do a Google search on that person, tell your friends where you're going, etc.

And yes, you can even pay for a background check on someone you meet on one of True.com's rivals, if you feel like it. I have no opinion about which type of service is better than the other; consumers will be the ultimate judge. My only point is to critique True.com's proposed legislation.

As for your other point, yes, seat belts do cause people to drive faster. I'm surprised you didn't know that. But a seat belt law vs. a law targeting True.com competitors are two different things: a better analogy would be a car maker lobbying for laws requiring seat belts on bicycles, subway trains, and motorcycles. Absurd, isn't it?

Self-interest and the status quo

1) "Date rape is an extremely common phenomenon whether the rapist was met in a bar or online. The fact (if it is a fact) that the internet is no less safe a place to meet people than a bar is hardly comforting. True.com provides a SAFER place to meet people."
Extremely common? Please. Date rape is a serious problem, but I seriously doubt it's extremely common. As for being safer, I noticed you evaded answering how true.com prevents people from merely using an pseudonym to escape your background checks.

2) True.com's competitors make this fallacious argument to protect their own interests. Why on Earth are you making it?
And True.com is trying to get this law passed to benefit themselves. Frankly, Declan is right. In this case, a false sense of security is worse than no security at all. It's your marketing gimic, and it'd be fine as your gimic if you weren't trying to force it on everyone else (not to mention destroy the smaller companies that could not afford to do background checks on their clients because they don't have the income to do so).

[aabcdefghij987654321]

False statement

"True.com provides a SAFER place to meet people."
Go back and read the article. If you aren't using fingerprints in a background check, you're not catching felons using false names.

Daniel is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased.

As always your opinions are well thought out and succinct. The opinion on this blog seems to be that TRUE is pushing for safer dating legislation for purely self interest reasons only.

As you know, your grandfather was murdered in 1946. You know first hand the effects of criminal predation on the victims and survivors of crime.

If some of the commentators seem unsympathic to the reduction of crime, it may be because they have not experienced its devastating effects and may underestimate the emotional impact on the victims and their families.

Some of the comments on this blog are valid. They point out ways in which criminals can circumvent the background search. However, they may be unaware of the thousands of ex-felons who are caught and prevented from preying on our members.

Moreover, our subscribers must represent that they do not have a felony conviction. If that is a misrepresentation they have committed wire fraud, criminal fraud, and an assortment of other crimes and torts.

TRUE will press for prosecution of any subscriber, attempting to communicate with another member, who has a prior felony conviction. We also will pursue civil remedies. Whether we win or not, the defendent will have extremely high legal fees to defend.

I am very proud of you. As always, you are very respectful of the opinions of others, while at the same time defending your own views vigorously.

Your Dad,

Herb Vest, CEO of TRUE

P.S. This article is extremely well written and interesting, even if the author is a little misguided (in my view). He did hit one nail squarely on the head, I am a scrappy entrepreneur (and proud of it).

background checks will be a MUST

I think that now background checks is a PLUS, but in 5 years will be a MUST. And with a more mature market, the persons (clients) will be glad to pay for background checks, although a a complete investigation (including the fee of a private detective) will cost nearly USD3,000.

Contacting people, COMPATIBLE REAL PEOPLE, is NOT a GAME, NOT a JOKE, is not virtual reality nor something like that.


In 5 years there will exist a border, a frontier between
OFF line Chains (Dating and Matchmaking Agencies)
and
ON line personals / dating / social networking Sites.

Did you notice that Matchmaking/Dating Off Line chains, instead of disappearing, are growing with good health!!!

One of the reasons is that they are reliable; they interview all candidates, they analyze all of their profiles, they do backgrounds-checks to all clients, and most important of all, they receive a payment. They have all clients, never free users. This payment not only covers their costs, but also is like a barrier to avoid free users, who could hurt the clients? feelings; a client is paying and SOONER OR LATER, want to contact COMPATIBLE REAL PERSONS.

Different from some on line dating sites, that problems begin to appear in many of them because conversion rate from users to clients is decreasing due to not reliable profiles database.

On line Dating future = = QUALITY like OFF line Chains

Kindest Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi.
[e-mail]
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.

http://mb.internetdatingconference.com/viewtopic.php?t=30
http://mb.internetdatingconference.com/viewtopic.php?t=134

safety and the stauts quo

1) "It also singles out Internet-based dating as a potential source of adulterous spouses and felonious knaves. The truth is that that there's no reason to believe that online dating is more risky than searching for love through telephone-based matchmaking, skimming classified ads in newspapers, or picking up a stranger in a bar."

Our intuitions about the relative safety of meeting someone in a bar versus online clearly differ; however, surely you will admit that, FOR WOMEN, dating is always dangerous. Date rape is an extremely common phenomenon whether the rapist was met in a bar or online. The fact (if it is a fact) that the internet is no less safe a place to meet people than a bar is hardly comforting. True.com provides a SAFER place to meet people.

2) "At the same time, True.com is the first to admit that its background searches are hardly perfect. Without a fingerprint check, the searches can't catch felons signing up under a fake name, for instance. Granting a governmental blessing to such a service might offer some singles a false sense of security."

Don't you remember when car manufacturers made the same claim about seat-belts and air bags? Do seat belts provide a false sense of security? No doubt some people do drive more recklessly than they would if they didn't have such safety devices in their cars, but is that a reason to deny that protection to everyone else? -Or to allow car manufacturers to decide for themselves whether they put in seat belts? True.com's competitors make this fallacious argument to protect their own interests. Why on Earth are you making it?

[declan00]

safety, background checks, seat belts & the law

Dan:
Thanks for your reply. (BTW, with your last name, are you related to Herb Vest, True.com's CEO?)

To respond to your two points -- any meeting with someone you don't know is potentially hazardous. I daresay that meeting someone online -- even on a service that does not perform background checks -- is safer than a bar when someone might be a bit woozy after a few drinks. You have time to verify a phone number, do a Google search on that person, tell your friends where you're going, etc.

And yes, you can even pay for a background check on someone you meet on one of True.com's rivals, if you feel like it. I have no opinion about which type of service is better than the other; consumers will be the ultimate judge. My only point is to critique True.com's proposed legislation.

As for your other point, yes, seat belts do cause people to drive faster. I'm surprised you didn't know that. But a seat belt law vs. a law targeting True.com competitors are two different things: a better analogy would be a car maker lobbying for laws requiring seat belts on bicycles, subway trains, and motorcycles. Absurd, isn't it?

Self-interest and the status quo

1) "Date rape is an extremely common phenomenon whether the rapist was met in a bar or online. The fact (if it is a fact) that the internet is no less safe a place to meet people than a bar is hardly comforting. True.com provides a SAFER place to meet people."
Extremely common? Please. Date rape is a serious problem, but I seriously doubt it's extremely common. As for being safer, I noticed you evaded answering how true.com prevents people from merely using an pseudonym to escape your background checks.

2) True.com's competitors make this fallacious argument to protect their own interests. Why on Earth are you making it?
And True.com is trying to get this law passed to benefit themselves. Frankly, Declan is right. In this case, a false sense of security is worse than no security at all. It's your marketing gimic, and it'd be fine as your gimic if you weren't trying to force it on everyone else (not to mention destroy the smaller companies that could not afford to do background checks on their clients because they don't have the income to do so).

[aabcdefghij987654321]

False statement

"True.com provides a SAFER place to meet people."
Go back and read the article. If you aren't using fingerprints in a background check, you're not catching felons using false names.

Daniel is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased.

As always your opinions are well thought out and succinct. The opinion on this blog seems to be that TRUE is pushing for safer dating legislation for purely self interest reasons only.

As you know, your grandfather was murdered in 1946. You know first hand the effects of criminal predation on the victims and survivors of crime.

If some of the commentators seem unsympathic to the reduction of crime, it may be because they have not experienced its devastating effects and may underestimate the emotional impact on the victims and their families.

Some of the comments on this blog are valid. They point out ways in which criminals can circumvent the background search. However, they may be unaware of the thousands of ex-felons who are caught and prevented from preying on our members.

Moreover, our subscribers must represent that they do not have a felony conviction. If that is a misrepresentation they have committed wire fraud, criminal fraud, and an assortment of other crimes and torts.

TRUE will press for prosecution of any subscriber, attempting to communicate with another member, who has a prior felony conviction. We also will pursue civil remedies. Whether we win or not, the defendent will have extremely high legal fees to defend.

I am very proud of you. As always, you are very respectful of the opinions of others, while at the same time defending your own views vigorously.

Your Dad,

Herb Vest, CEO of TRUE

P.S. This article is extremely well written and interesting, even if the author is a little misguided (in my view). He did hit one nail squarely on the head, I am a scrappy entrepreneur (and proud of it).

background checks will be a MUST

I think that now background checks is a PLUS, but in 5 years will be a MUST. And with a more mature market, the persons (clients) will be glad to pay for background checks, although a a complete investigation (including the fee of a private detective) will cost nearly USD3,000.

Contacting people, COMPATIBLE REAL PEOPLE, is NOT a GAME, NOT a JOKE, is not virtual reality nor something like that.


In 5 years there will exist a border, a frontier between
OFF line Chains (Dating and Matchmaking Agencies)
and
ON line personals / dating / social networking Sites.

Did you notice that Matchmaking/Dating Off Line chains, instead of disappearing, are growing with good health!!!

One of the reasons is that they are reliable; they interview all candidates, they analyze all of their profiles, they do backgrounds-checks to all clients, and most important of all, they receive a payment. They have all clients, never free users. This payment not only covers their costs, but also is like a barrier to avoid free users, who could hurt the clients? feelings; a client is paying and SOONER OR LATER, want to contact COMPATIBLE REAL PERSONS.

Different from some on line dating sites, that problems begin to appear in many of them because conversion rate from users to clients is decreasing due to not reliable profiles database.

On line Dating future = = QUALITY like OFF line Chains

Kindest Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi.
[e-mail]
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.

http://mb.internetdatingconference.com/viewtopic.php?t=30
http://mb.internetdatingconference.com/viewtopic.php?t=134

So true!

There are so many ways people "connect" online that this surely is a possible "wedge" into personal freedom. What about people making academic or business connections? Where do we draw the line?

A more benign approach would be to require services to post a general statement in their home page, prominently placed, that they do not do background checks, perhaps with a link or two to those online "detective" compnaies that will spit out a simple background for a reasonable fee.

The dating service would be getting affiliate commissions, that way, and the check would be limited to those parties who have the name and address of the individual who interests them.

This way personal information would not be given out to just anyone who logs on or is a member, but only to those who have made enough contact to justify further investigation.

Simpler Still.

Links about background checks still don't solve the problem about felons using an alias. I work with plenty of honest and responsible single people. There's no way to keep me from using their personal data when using any matching service, including that of True.com. Their background check is more false security.

A better answer would be to require that all sites (including True.com) include a "safe dating link" with some advice about how to handle online dating. Some of it's obvious, like making sure the first couple dates are in public places. Like getting a phone number and an address and using them to make sure they're real. Add information about how to do a background check (or brag about the background checks you've already done) but make sure that the checks are only part of the package.

Background checks are a less effective defense than using a little common sense.

So true!

There are so many ways people "connect" online that this surely is a possible "wedge" into personal freedom. What about people making academic or business connections? Where do we draw the line?

A more benign approach would be to require services to post a general statement in their home page, prominently placed, that they do not do background checks, perhaps with a link or two to those online "detective" compnaies that will spit out a simple background for a reasonable fee.

The dating service would be getting affiliate commissions, that way, and the check would be limited to those parties who have the name and address of the individual who interests them.

This way personal information would not be given out to just anyone who logs on or is a member, but only to those who have made enough contact to justify further investigation.

Simpler Still.

Links about background checks still don't solve the problem about felons using an alias. I work with plenty of honest and responsible single people. There's no way to keep me from using their personal data when using any matching service, including that of True.com. Their background check is more false security.

A better answer would be to require that all sites (including True.com) include a "safe dating link" with some advice about how to handle online dating. Some of it's obvious, like making sure the first couple dates are in public places. Like getting a phone number and an address and using them to make sure they're real. Add information about how to do a background check (or brag about the background checks you've already done) but make sure that the checks are only part of the package.

Background checks are a less effective defense than using a little common sense.

[Mikethecat]

Here's a free site to check people out

I saw this press release today about a new company called Pretrieve that let's people search public records for information. If some guy says "yeah, I own an apartment on 5th avenue" you can type in the address and see if he's telling the truth! You can also check out sexual offenders, see if his birthday matches his profile, and see what kind of political contributions he makes. My friends and I have been checking people out all day!

www.pretrieve.com

Interesting.

Interesting site. Looks like it would be a gold mine for someone pretending to be someone else. You could find out all sorts of little details about the person being impersonated. You could also decide if this was the sort of "upstanding citizen" a predator would pretend to be.

[Mikethecat]

Here's a free site to check people out

I saw this press release today about a new company called Pretrieve that let's people search public records for information. If some guy says "yeah, I own an apartment on 5th avenue" you can type in the address and see if he's telling the truth! You can also check out sexual offenders, see if his birthday matches his profile, and see what kind of political contributions he makes. My friends and I have been checking people out all day!

www.pretrieve.com

Interesting.

Interesting site. Looks like it would be a gold mine for someone pretending to be someone else. You could find out all sorts of little details about the person being impersonated. You could also decide if this was the sort of "upstanding citizen" a predator would pretend to be.

[alizardx]

sounds like

this guy got inspired when he heard about SCO's business model... which comes down to:

1. make legal trouble for Fortune 500 companies and lots of smaller ones
2. ?????
3. Profit.

yes like SCO is Acacia...

They've vaguely patented technology related to sending any video and audio over the internet. By being lawsuit bullies they've actually managed to get a large number of companies - Large national/international media companies mind you - to pay them licensing fees.

I'm thinking about getting a patent on the electrical processes a brain uses to function. That way everybody will have to pay me license fees whether they are awake , asleep , comatose, or what have you - well, there may be a few acceptions, Paris Hilton is the first of many that leap to mind...

BTW - who'd be surprised if the info i've used to post this message - my name, login, email (and info used to acquire that email address) were not entirely accurate?

"Gambling? Here?! I'm shocked, shocked I tell you!!"

The bottom line is that using the internet in any capacity requries the use of your brain (circle back to my money making scheme - I mean business model - again!!)

Be safe by reasonably questioning anything people communicate to you. (especially the contents of MY post)

[alizardx]

sounds like

this guy got inspired when he heard about SCO's business model... which comes down to:

1. make legal trouble for Fortune 500 companies and lots of smaller ones
2. ?????
3. Profit.

yes like SCO is Acacia...

They've vaguely patented technology related to sending any video and audio over the internet. By being lawsuit bullies they've actually managed to get a large number of companies - Large national/international media companies mind you - to pay them licensing fees.

I'm thinking about getting a patent on the electrical processes a brain uses to function. That way everybody will have to pay me license fees whether they are awake , asleep , comatose, or what have you - well, there may be a few acceptions, Paris Hilton is the first of many that leap to mind...

BTW - who'd be surprised if the info i've used to post this message - my name, login, email (and info used to acquire that email address) were not entirely accurate?

"Gambling? Here?! I'm shocked, shocked I tell you!!"

The bottom line is that using the internet in any capacity requries the use of your brain (circle back to my money making scheme - I mean business model - again!!)

Be safe by reasonably questioning anything people communicate to you. (especially the contents of MY post)

So how long have you worked for true.com?

"True.com's competitors make this fallacious argument to protect their own interests"

LOL. So, are you nieve or a plant?

Let's be blunt. true.com has a "service" of dubious value. Most people aren't going to take it seriously. Anyone with something to hide will be using a false name anyway. To carry the seat-belt idea further, because True.com's "searches" are soo poor, it's akin to one automobile manufacturer installing seat belts that are torn, ragged and made of cotton rag, while demanding the other manufacturers paint their cars bright orange and label them with "WARNING, NO SEAT-BELTS"

And their claim that 20% of people think a background check has been conducted is a load of marketing. I'm surprised they had the Gaul to make such an absurd claim.

No, this is a company that's found their business sagging trying to legislate themselves some success by using good old "Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt"

And let's not forget the fact that a LOT of sites would have to start adding warning text to their e-mail. Think about this for a second. Let's assume all the states contemplating this pass the legislation. Suddenly, sites like friendster have to start adding a whole slew of warnings to the heads of their e-mail, because you know some twit will sue because they didn't get their state specific warning because someone either lied about their state or the code being used to try and "locate" the user based on their IP address misfired.

No, this is a major pain in the neck form a company that's just earned itself a lot of hostility in the marketplace.

[Ubber geek]

cotton rag

http://www.analogstereo.com/saturn_owners_manual.htm

So how long have you worked for true.com?

"True.com's competitors make this fallacious argument to protect their own interests"

LOL. So, are you nieve or a plant?

Let's be blunt. true.com has a "service" of dubious value. Most people aren't going to take it seriously. Anyone with something to hide will be using a false name anyway. To carry the seat-belt idea further, because True.com's "searches" are soo poor, it's akin to one automobile manufacturer installing seat belts that are torn, ragged and made of cotton rag, while demanding the other manufacturers paint their cars bright orange and label them with "WARNING, NO SEAT-BELTS"

And their claim that 20% of people think a background check has been conducted is a load of marketing. I'm surprised they had the Gaul to make such an absurd claim.

No, this is a company that's found their business sagging trying to legislate themselves some success by using good old "Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt"

And let's not forget the fact that a LOT of sites would have to start adding warning text to their e-mail. Think about this for a second. Let's assume all the states contemplating this pass the legislation. Suddenly, sites like friendster have to start adding a whole slew of warnings to the heads of their e-mail, because you know some twit will sue because they didn't get their state specific warning because someone either lied about their state or the code being used to try and "locate" the user based on their IP address misfired.

No, this is a major pain in the neck form a company that's just earned itself a lot of hostility in the marketplace.

[Ubber geek]

cotton rag

http://www.analogstereo.com/saturn_owners_manual.htm

True Lies

I set up a true account just for laughs a few months ago,and then decided to get rid of it - NOT! I have been getting spammed by them daily ever since. I gave them virtually no personal information about myself but they keep coming up with "matches" for me, women whose only qualification is that they claim to live near my zip code.
Their supposed "background checks" are just so much hooey, IMHO.

True Lies

I set up a true account just for laughs a few months ago,and then decided to get rid of it - NOT! I have been getting spammed by them daily ever since. I gave them virtually no personal information about myself but they keep coming up with "matches" for me, women whose only qualification is that they claim to live near my zip code.
Their supposed "background checks" are just so much hooey, IMHO.

True.com and Choicepoint

I think it's interesting that True.com is a business partner of Choicepoint, or at least that what their website says. Doesn't it seem that Choicepoint has a direct interest in this legislation passing? Obviously Choicepoint doesn't care if they give your private information to criminals, as long as they get paid by the criminals, its fine with them. So maybe True.com has been paid off to front man on the legislative campaign? Choicepoint stands to gain in the billions of dollars for this kind of legislation, so they wouldn't want to be out front. Can anyone say kickback? Scary that people can get away with this crap.

By the way, I just checked out True.com. Its free for women and you don't have to give them any information to sign up, so I guess they are not actually doing background checks on everyone. Interesting tactic. I wonder if the plaintiffs lawyer know about it.

True.com and Choicepoint

I think it's interesting that True.com is a business partner of Choicepoint, or at least that what their website says. Doesn't it seem that Choicepoint has a direct interest in this legislation passing? Obviously Choicepoint doesn't care if they give your private information to criminals, as long as they get paid by the criminals, its fine with them. So maybe True.com has been paid off to front man on the legislative campaign? Choicepoint stands to gain in the billions of dollars for this kind of legislation, so they wouldn't want to be out front. Can anyone say kickback? Scary that people can get away with this crap.

By the way, I just checked out True.com. Its free for women and you don't have to give them any information to sign up, so I guess they are not actually doing background checks on everyone. Interesting tactic. I wonder if the plaintiffs lawyer know about it.

The REAL issue

Isnt it interesting how much some people want to "know" about everyone. How about yet another government database about its citizens. So i guess that if you are a "convicted felon" for any type of issue, you are considered a low life by True.com right? Even if youve paid your debt to society. Lets take a peek at how many people have made some mistakes in the past (of course we wont find most of those "rich and upper crust" people since they have bought/bribed themselves out of it). So the average person who made a mistake, paid his/her dues, will now carry that stigma for the rest of their lives in another area of "government" controlled databases. Oh dont worry, your information is safe though.. we are just protecting the public. Heres a thought.. keep the politicians out of things that normal, responsibile adults should be able to make intellegent decisions on. If you choose to meet someone you havent gotten to know, and checked out information on yourself, thats YOUR FAULT. True.com is simply giving irresponsible people yet another way to blame someone else for their lack of responsibility and judgement. With all the new "regulations" and "homeland security" and other legislation to "protect" ourselves, I can only wonder why we pushed democracy to Russia in the 80's and to Iraq today. We are moving closer and closer each day to the state Russia used to be in with its citizens.

To use a phrase our great bible thumping president loves to use.. " God help us all!"

The REAL issue

Isnt it interesting how much some people want to "know" about everyone. How about yet another government database about its citizens. So i guess that if you are a "convicted felon" for any type of issue, you are considered a low life by True.com right? Even if youve paid your debt to society. Lets take a peek at how many people have made some mistakes in the past (of course we wont find most of those "rich and upper crust" people since they have bought/bribed themselves out of it). So the average person who made a mistake, paid his/her dues, will now carry that stigma for the rest of their lives in another area of "government" controlled databases. Oh dont worry, your information is safe though.. we are just protecting the public. Heres a thought.. keep the politicians out of things that normal, responsibile adults should be able to make intellegent decisions on. If you choose to meet someone you havent gotten to know, and checked out information on yourself, thats YOUR FAULT. True.com is simply giving irresponsible people yet another way to blame someone else for their lack of responsibility and judgement. With all the new "regulations" and "homeland security" and other legislation to "protect" ourselves, I can only wonder why we pushed democracy to Russia in the 80's and to Iraq today. We are moving closer and closer each day to the state Russia used to be in with its citizens.

To use a phrase our great bible thumping president loves to use.. " God help us all!"

[Ray Doustdar]

A safer way to do online dating

I have been an online dater for a few years, and I think it is a good way to meet people. But, there are several concerns that I think we all share:

1. Safety
2. False Profiles
3. Time consumption (man it takes a lot of time)
4. Cost
5. It's just not natural

Well, I just found a site called www.teamdating.com, that allowed me to sign up with my friend, and do online dating together. This is great, now, I can meet people online just how I meet them at the bars, with my friend!

[Ray Doustdar]

A safer way to do online dating

I have been an online dater for a few years, and I think it is a good way to meet people. But, there are several concerns that I think we all share:

1. Safety
2. False Profiles
3. Time consumption (man it takes a lot of time)
4. Cost
5. It's just not natural

Well, I just found a site called www.teamdating.com, that allowed me to sign up with my friend, and do online dating together. This is great, now, I can meet people online just how I meet them at the bars, with my friend!

[raa]

Latest response...

I wrote a complete article on this subject:

http://www.oasisoflove.com/2/articles.php?id=8

It's a must read.

[raa]

Latest response...

I wrote a complete article on this subject:

http://www.oasisoflove.com/2/articles.php?id=8

It's a must read.