This is topic I would like everyone's opinions in forum All about Love! at The Geek Culture Forums!.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.geekculture.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=000615

Posted by Steen (Member # 170) on October 01, 2007, 16:57:
 
I have a friend who feels guilty for having checked to see if a guy she's been talking to online for a relatively short period of time is listed in the national sex offender registry (he's not).

I say "Good job! I think all women should do that." and I'm proud of her.

So, my questions are:

1) Do you think she did the right thing?

2) If someone you were talking with checked you out that way, would you be offended?
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on October 01, 2007, 18:06:
 
Yes.
No.
 
Posted by Xanthine (Member # 736) on October 01, 2007, 18:36:
 
Yes.

At a visceral level yes, but I'd understand.
 
Posted by Sxeptomaniac (Member # 3698) on October 01, 2007, 19:01:
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
Yes.
No.

Ditto.
 
Posted by iWanToUseaMac (Member # 4993) on October 01, 2007, 20:45:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sxeptomaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
Yes.
No.

Ditto.
Me too.
 
Posted by Bibo (Member # 1959) on October 01, 2007, 21:30:
 
My wife did a background check on me when we were dating, I was not offended.
 
Posted by TMBWITW,PB (Member # 1734) on October 01, 2007, 21:36:
 
With a person I had met face-to-face and known for just a little while I think I would have Xanthine's response. But someone I only know online? Not offended at all. That was definitely the right thing to do.
 
Posted by Grummash (Member # 4289) on October 01, 2007, 21:59:
 
1) Yes.

2) Probably. After all, no one likes to be doubted. But I'd understand, as it is a sensible thing to do, particularly for an on-line relationship where you don't get the same opportunities to evaluate a new person that you get IRL.
 
Posted by Ashitaka (Member # 4924) on October 01, 2007, 23:43:
 
1) yes

2) I I was the first one or she didn't tell me she did it and I found out througfh other means.
 
Posted by Rhonwyyn (Member # 2854) on October 02, 2007, 04:38:
 
I think it's true.com that does background checks on its members. When I first signed up, it thought I was my father, and thus ineligible to be a member since he was married at the time.

Since I was the victim of a fraud when I was a freshman in college, I say "go girl!" for checking into this guy. Someone checking into me? Since I don't have anything to hide, I wouldn't mind.
 
Posted by MacManKrisK (Member # 955) on October 02, 2007, 06:49:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Xanthine:
Yes.

At a visceral level yes, but I'd understand.

^^^ what she said
 
Posted by Stereo (Member # 748) on October 02, 2007, 07:32:
 
1 - Yes

2 - "So, what came out of it?" (Hey! I'm curious about what Big Bro' knows about me, but not to the point to request a background check on myself! [Big Grin] )
 
Posted by Xanthine (Member # 736) on October 02, 2007, 10:40:
 
I had to submit to a background check a couple years ago so I could use the facilities at a national lab. It must've come up clean 'cuz they let me in.
 
Posted by Stereo (Member # 748) on October 02, 2007, 11:15:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Xanthine:
I had to submit to a background check a couple years ago so I could use the facilities at a national lab. It must've come up clean 'cuz they let me in.

Unless I got something wrong, so did I. Technically, all STC employees must get a "Confidential" security clearance, which would require (I hope!) such a background check. (The thing I'm not sure is: I thought I'd have to give my fingerprint for that, but they never asked.) It's the content of the report coming back from the check I am curious about. Is it just a "clear" vs. "problem" flag, or something more? Aren't you curious about how far they search into your life before giving out the "clear" signal?

(Oh, right: I have to say that any opinion contained in this post - or any of mine, actually - is mine and mine only, and does not represent the position of my employer.)
 
Posted by stevenback7 (Member # 5114) on October 02, 2007, 12:07:
 
1) Of course she did the right thing. In this day and age who knows who you are really talking to online. It is so easy to make yourself be someone you are not online. Just remember because the guy cleared the first test it doesn’t mean he is necessarily totally who he says he is.

2) Absolutely not as long as they told me they did it. If they tell me then I'm perfectly fine with it, if I find out some other way then I would start questioning her trust and personality.
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on October 02, 2007, 13:21:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stereo:
(Oh, right: I have to say that any opinion contained in this post - or any of mine, actually - is mine and mine only, and does not represent the position of my employer.)

On of the nice things about being self employed - my .sig on my company email says
"The views expressed in this email do represent those of management."
 
Posted by Grummash (Member # 4289) on October 02, 2007, 13:28:
 
quote:
Originally posted by the Famous Druid:
On of the nice things about being self employed - my .sig on my company email says
"The views expressed in this email do represent those of management."

[Applause] Lovely! [Big Grin] [Applause]
 
Posted by Maggs (Member # 4682) on October 03, 2007, 18:13:
 
She's was just being prudent, hell I've googled significant other potentials before. I want to see if they were on the up and up.
 
Posted by hal9000 (Member # 9896) on October 04, 2007, 13:51:
 
thats a good idea.
i would dothe same, and no i wouldnt be offended.
 
Posted by CommanderShroom (Member # 2097) on October 04, 2007, 14:31:
 
I am gonna have to go with Xan on that one. I may understand the reason for it. It would weird me out if I was the one being researched.

Good thing I haven't been caught for the more interesting things I have done... [evil]
 
Posted by Steen (Member # 170) on October 04, 2007, 16:28:
 
Heh... I should probably go ahead and admit that I'm the one she was looking up.

Yay... I'm not on the national sex offender registry! Go me [Smile]

My first reaction when she told me was to be amused, then to tell her that she did the right thing. [thumbsup]
 
Posted by Nick (Member # 2413) on November 26, 2007, 22:38:
 
I think every girl should do it and also look at sites like "Dontdatehimgirl.com" I had seen girls date guys who I am sure are posted about on sites like that.
 
Posted by Steen (Member # 170) on January 02, 2008, 11:40:
 
Just to piss the spammer off...

The linked background search site is actually just redirecting the search to a company called Intelius People Search. While I don't recommend using these services (because they generally stink), I would suggest that you go directly to the company rather than using the spam link so that the spammer doesn't get any referral fee.

Oh, and from Intelius's site...
"Live in the know. Live Inteliusly."

*throws up on the marketing idiot that came up with that line of drivel*
 
Posted by ora (Member # 2769) on January 30, 2008, 04:26:
 
The unromantic realities of modern relationships, AIDS tests and SO register checks, somewhat passion killing but they make sense!
 


© 2018 Geek Culture

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.4.0