Daters Sue Matchmaking Sites for Fraud [& WTC Fraud ]
Online Daters Sue Matchmaking Web Sites for Fraud
I belong to Match.com
(Score:4, Interesting)
by RonUSMC (823230) Alter Relationship on Sunday November 20, @01:45PM (#14076916)
I belong to Match.com here in Los Angeles and I liken it to shooting fish in a barrel. If you have a decent tech job and do not have the inclination to hide heads in the freezer or stroke a rabbit's paw and call it "my precious" you will score.
The amount of decent looking people out there that just want someone that is 'normal' is dumbfounding. The majority of men in LA either have an ego that you need to help through a door or demands that even Stalin would shy away from. You also get your small bit of crazies, but I really enjoy those because it actually gives me a reason to blog.
==========================
Old saying holds true
(Score:5, Insightful)
on Sunday November 20, @01:41PM (#14076898) (http://www.abandonedstuff.com/ | Last Journal: Friday November 25, @01:07PM)
Don't spend what you can't afford to lose.
That being said though, I'm pissed off at Yahoo now, since I signed up for a month to try it out and was possibly scammed since someone had "messaged" me before I signed up, but never messaged after I contacted them back. Not even a note to blow me off, which I found strange, but figured she'd found someone else or my reply wasn't interesting. While I accepted that my shortlived subscription was just a Blind Date that was a bit expensive and failed, now I feel victimized too. There's no way to know if she was a Yahoo shill, or just some woman that didn't find me interesting. Either way it's not a happy outcome. There can't be too many happy online daters out there in cyberland today upon hearing this news.
Fortunately I've since been tipped off to the existence of 100% free sites like http://www.craigslist.com/ [craigslist.com] and http://www.plentyoffish.com/ [plentyoffish.com] which don't require you to pay. Plenty of Fish makes their money from Google advertising instead of scamming people with fake people.
========================
Complaints from female friends
(Score:5, Insightful) on Sunday November 20, @01:42PM (#14076903) (http://www.phormix.com/ | Last Journal: Monday May 19, @11:08AM)
For all those seeking, I would offer advice. Don't look for love on the internet. Look for people of similar interest to hang around with, if things work out it might go further. If you go expecting something more however, you'll probably seem way too needy and throw off a negetive vibe.
Allowing users to run as root is like sticking drivers with a class 5 license in the pilot seat of a 747 - phorm
===================
I have, er, my friend has noticed that whenevr his subsciption was about to expire he would suddenly get a ton of "winks" or "flirts" that you have to subscibe to reply to. Could be a coincidence
If you are using these sites, my "friend" would give this advice- when you see a 20 y/o female who is seeking men 18-45 they are usually a fake profile (Not from the provider necessarily, but these "women" usually reply back with a link to their paysite.)
The worst offenders, not that I would know, are the companies that advertise on porn sites. They have nude pics come up of women in the "next town over" or your town (you get these if they know your ip and can tell where you are) and you just know that there aren't 50 nubile young 18-25 y/o women in these towns looking for no strings sex on the net.
=============
In soviet russia...
(Score:5, Funny) <tmh@nodomain.org> on Sunday November 20, @03:01PM (#14077315) (http://www.nodomain.org/)
==============
Online dating - real or scamtastic?
(Score:5, Interesting).../... I had a little bit of luck on Craigslist actually, where they let you post free personals. Only problem is, Craigslist seems to be unusually full of singles who act interested, correspond with people daily for a while, and then just vanish. (Both men and women complain about that on there quite a bit.) I think a lot of people just don't take it very seriously since it's free. They're just "fishing" for Mr. or Mrs. Perfect and if you're 80% of what they'd ideally like but not 100%, they "throw you back in the water" and try again.
I think okcupid.com is pretty cool too. But I haven't yet met a woman from it. (There's one gal who emailed me a couple times just to talk politics, since we had that in common... but no interest in actually meeting.) I'm just impressed with how it does the "compatibility scores" and testing, and offers so much for free. It seems like it's *got* to work for somebody. .../...
===============
April 13, 2002 Deconstructing the 911 Coverup
Practically every act of the clowns who now control the White House is an outrage and an insult to intelligence, but Bush and Cheney's attempt to put the squeeze on the investigation of 911 is the most egregious of many loathsome acts. This may be even more outrageous than their thuggish seizure of the White House after losing the election.
CNN reported that both Bush and Cheney personally gave Daschle a leaden tap on the shoulder and warned him to back off. Daschle, wisely, made the requests public, saying, "The vice president expressed the concern that a review of what happened on September 11 would take resources and personnel away from the effort in the war on terrorism." Newsweek reported the incident too.
Investigating the attack would take resources AWAY from the war on terrorism?
This is such an affront to the most rudimentary logic it defies comprehension. The Bushes have gotten tremendous mileage out of being incomprehensible, but this may be beyond the limit of acceptability even from a previously docile public.
You have to stop still for a minute to appreciate the colossal arrogance of suggesting a limit to the inquiry into the most horrific assault ever perpetrated on U.S. citizens. How could anyone dare to suggest that an investigation into the failures that led that catastrophe would "divert resources from the war on terrorism"? It should be the foundation of that effort.
It is no use tiptoeing around it, these guys have manipulated 911 from Day One to push their same old agenda. "The war on terrorism," like everything else the Bushes claim disingenuously to be doing, is nothing more than a front for doing exactly what their corporate controllers want, no matter how detrimental it is to the vast majority. Any war on terrorism that does not incorporate a thorough public investigation is a fraud.
Ashcroft and George W. would say, "We didn't say no investigation. We'll have an investigation all right, but we'll be in charge of it. And we'll keep the information we uncover secret, for National Security, of course." This administration, which is transparently an extension of the old gang led by the former CIA director, is inherently anti-democratic, seeking at every turn to thwart democratic processes, to centralize, privatize and monopolize power and resources. Covert action is its stock in trade, a family tradition. The CIA cult of secrecy is the antithesis of democratic processes. The Bush administration maintains its assault on the rights of the majority at a furious pace on many fronts at once, but the Republican elite are always consistent in their preferences: all power and wealth to the richest one percent; let the rest make do with what trickles down, if we're feeling generous.
Since the idea that an all-out investigation would divert resources from the war on terrorism is a ludicrous, desperate ploy, we are left with the question: Why do Bush and Cheney want to limit the investigation? Why indeed? Logic leads inescapably to the proposition that they would not like what such an investigation would uncover. What then might that be?
Is it possible that when the disaster is closely examined, and Americans for the first time are able to soberly contemplate how such a mountain of simultaneous security breaches took place, they may cease to lionize the commander in chief who presided so gaily over the failure? To select one fact out of that mountain of dysfunctions: It was 35 minutes from the second crash at the World Trade Center to the attack on the Pentagon. Thirty-five minutes since millions of average Americans knew the crashes were no accident, and yet the nation's capital, the center of the world's most powerful military, only moments from Andrews Air Force Base where fighters fly in and out at all hours, was defenseless. We were sitting ducks. A quarter of a trillion dollars spent on the military every year and there was no defense of Washington. The first attack in New York may be called a surprise, even though air traffic controllers knew about the hijackings for a long time before the crashes. But the Pentagon attack was no surprise. The average 10-year-old knew by then an attack was underway and had known about it long enough for fighters to fly from Andrews to the Pentagon and back many times over.
Even in the absence of an investigation, basic logic leads to the conclusion that a great many things had to go wrong that day. Many of the reports that have come out raise more questions that the public needs answered, if we are to consider ourselves a democratic nation. Among the most intriguing of a myriad of disturbing reports were those of FBI agents complaining that the Bush administration took steps to limit investigations into Bin Laden before Sept. 11 too. (See The Guardian and The Sydney Morning Herald)
What can be said in the face of such an outrage? The time for talking is over. Let the investigations begin.
-- David Cogswell
=================
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/6-20-03/discussion.cgi.53.html
Here is how it would work: A relatively few well-connected correspondents provide the "scoops" that get the coverage in the relatively few mainstream news sources - the four TV networks, TIME, Newsweek, CNN - where the parameters of debate are set and the "official reality" is consecrated for the bottom feeders in the news chain. In other countries, this is what is known as propaganda - or, put less politely, psychological warfare.
But before I leave this topic, I would like to provide an example of "news management" that is revealing for what is omitted - that is, the "smoking gun" of Pakistani ISI involvement in the events of 9/11. On October 9, 2001, the Times of India dropped this little bombshell: "Top sources confirmed here on Tuesday that [ISI Chief Mahmud Ahmad] lost his job because of the "evidence" India produced to show his links to one of the suicide bombers that wrecked the World Trade Centre. The US authorities sought his removal after confirming the fact that $100,000 were wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan by Ahmad Umar Sheikh at the instance of Gen. Mahmud."
-------
.../... Another anomaly: on the very day that the ISI Chief was in deep consultation at the Pentagon, Ahmed Shah Massoud, the head of the Afghani Northern Alliance - a cultishly popular figure within that group, and a mortal foe of Pakistan's ISI - was assassinated by two terrorists posing as cameramen. Keeping in mind the fact that, throughout the '90's, American leaders such as Clinton, and American companies such as Unocal, were largely throwing their support over to the Taliban in opposition to the Northern Alliance (or United Front), it seems rather convenient that, in the aftermath of 9/11, the way was now cleared for the Northern Alliance to be co-opted as an instrument for setting up a more pliant Afghani government (now headed, incidentally, by a former consultant to Unocal).
So who are the ultimate controllers? To begin with, the circumstantial evidence seems to point to an operative clique primarily based out of New York City and the State of Florida. I stress the word "operative", as this clique appears to consist of subservient agents involved in laying the preparations. Once again, John O'Neill serves as an effective Rosetta Stone in interpreting the raw outlines of this operative clique (which is by no means a "rogue" clique). The FBI and CIA elements involved in counterterrorism have a checkered past. For one, Oliver North in the 1980's served as Counterterrorism Chief while he used his office as a cover to deal with such narco-terrorists as Monzar al-Kassar (who figures in the crash at Lockerbie - also investigated by Cannistraro). In the late '90's, O'Neill was transferred from the federal office of Counterrorism to the New York Counterrorism Office of the FBI - and it was the New York branch which was then designated as the primary investigator of all overseas investigations involving bin Laden. Moreover, this branch was also involved in the somewhat suspect investigation of TWA 800 - investigated by O'Neill and reported upon by ABC's John Miller, who was formerly the Deputy Police Commissioner of Public Relations for the NYPD before he joined up with ABC.
posted by USSSlavebation @ 11/30/2005 06:25:00 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home