Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1exp 11/4/83; site ihldt.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!harpo!floyd!clyde!ihnp4!ihldt!paveleck
From: paveleck@ihldt.UUCP (Bob Paveleck)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: Video dating
Message-ID: <2147@ihldt.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 13-Dec-83 12:12:36 EST
Article-I.D.: ihldt.2147
Posted: Tue Dec 13 12:12:36 1983
Date-Received: Thu, 15-Dec-83 01:13:42 EST
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, Il
Lines: 26

Greg's article mentioned that he felt ripped-off by the video dating
service he was involved with and that a couple of the women he met
through it told him they thought they "didn't have enough in common"
with him to justify a close relationship. 

Although I'm not sticking up for these services, I wonder if the one
Greg mentioned is like one I know of in Chicago.  This one only introduces
two people if both of them agree to want to meet each other.  Obviously,
this means that if you think the other person is unattractive, dull or
undesirable in some other manner, you don't have to meet that
person.   If that philosophy was taken in the video dating service Greg
joined, then the parties involved can't complain about the service (nobody
forced either person to choose to meet the other).  The unequal
costs and the uneven mixture of male and female members is something
you can understand complaining about (although you can't MAKE more
women join), but if both of you decided to meet each other and both of
you were disappointed, it's your (collective) mistake.

If the service Greg mentioned merely played "matchmaker" by just passing
along information about a member to any member who wanted it, then it
probably wasn't what he wanted (i.e., he shouldn't have to feel compelled
to meet someone from the dating service that he didn't want to meet).

					That's my 2 cents worth,
					Bob Paveleck
					ihldt!paveleck