Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Dating Denial of Service attack (reddit.com)
390 points by mcantelon on Jan 4, 2011 | hide | past | web | favorite | 123 comments



So they created fake accounts and pretended to be attractive women, just to get with a random girl? If that's not the definition of creepy, I don't know what is. The fact that he doesn't want the girl to find out should make this obvious -- any woman who found out you were doing this would be put off immediately, as they should be.

Instead of spending so much time with some weird scheme in an attempt to put down the "hunks," how about just becoming a more attractive and more interesting person on your own? Newsflash, guys: women are attracted to confidence and a sense of self-worth, among other things, not complex mechanisms to distract the other guys.

There are two ways to be the biggest building. One is to tear down the other buildings. Or two, just build the biggest building. - Gary V

Sorry, but this is just really strange, and the lack of ANY negative feedback on here or Reddit is even more disconcerting.


So you've done this online? It worked well for you?

So you know the three sentence opener that is going to compensate for a less than attractive picture?

Let's hear it.

Or is your answer just a stand-in to let you morally condemn these others?

In person, one can project confidence, intelligence, humor etc. Online, being unique is bit harder, not just because someone can copy your words but also because you get to use far fewer of them before a decision is made.

I'm not condemning or condoning the original post. But it's telling that a lot of condemnations for "gaming the dating system" that I hear are prefaced by "it's easy, just become more confident/relax/be yourself". Supply-and-demand says that the common measure of "success" in dating aren't inherently easy. They might not be desirable either but that's a different story.

I think online dating with photo does create a real quandary because it gives one very little time and thus makes the likely winners more based on immediate visual factors.


Perhaps you would like to explain what is wrong with morally condemning others when what they did is in fact morally wrong?

It's very simple and clear cut: he distorted the truth in order for him to get an advantage and put others at a disadvantage. There is no greater good behind the lie, it's just self-interest.


Perhaps you would like to explain what is wrong with morally condemning others when what they did is in fact morally wrong?

If you read my post closely, I hope you'll find that I objected to the "you don't have to do that, there's an easy other way" part. If the poster had just said, "don't cheat, it may be the only way to win this game but you shouldn't do it, it's wrong", well I'd just pass over that comment entirely.


Knowing their targets well and distracting the competition is "morally wrong"?

If, for nothing else, the guy stands out for cleverness.


Morally wrong by whose standards? Just because you consider it morally wrong, does not make it morally wrong by all standards, or even necessarily by society's standards.


Morally wrong by general societal standards such as: * lying is wrong - especially when done with self-serving interests in mind such as in this case. They lied to the other members of the site and he is hiding the truth from the girl. He KNOWS that what he did is wrong and he knows that she would dump him if she found out. * more lying is worse - he now wants to "automate this"

So this is a typical case of someone breaking the rules, getting away with it (even getting commended!) and then wanting to break the rules on a larger scale.


General societal standards - are you sure? The society I know may tell you that their standard is 'lying is wrong', but societies actions proof the opposite.

The whole society works by lies. Sure, they have different names - omission, bluff, exaggeration and so on - but in the end they are still lies and everyone is using them.


That's really a short-sighted way of seeing things. If you lie to your sister about her not looking fat in that new dress then that's not morally wrong. If a girl goes into a relationship with you after you used this trick then she still did it willingly.


she still did it willingly

If, of course, you confessed everything and left no false pretenses.


Confessing everything is better than continuing to hide that you lied. But it doesn't excuse lying in the first place.


"Morally wrong"?

As the poet said: all is fair in love and war.


He also said "like two peas in a pod" and "where there's smoke there's fire". He was a poet, not a moral authority.

I think the gist of the quote is, in love and war folks fall from the path more often than in less important things. Don't think even John Lyly thought it was moral.


> So you've done this online? It worked well for you?

So we can't condemn this unless we have an alternate suggestion for those that can't get any? "I'm not getting any, so immoral hacks are OK"? You could use the same argument to justify rape.


> "I'm not getting any, so immoral hacks are OK"? You could use the same argument to justify rape.

You could, most people would reject such reasoning.

The vast majority of people in dating situations are less than 100% honest. The vast majority of people are also not rapists. This suggests to me that most people do in fact see dishonesty as being different from rape.


Perhaps we could condemn the lying without doing any ourselves.

Simple condemnation of their deception would have ended after the first paragraph. Continuing on to say "it's easy, just be yourself" supports the implicit rule that unattractive males of mediocre net worth don't deserve physical affection.


...but online dating.. ha ha, go out into the real life, so you don't need to hide behind or show off your online profile..


Of course the one hack that will actually improve the success with your desired gender is being downvoted. Because it would mean... going out and meeting people, how gruesome.


Yes, of course, it was downvoted because it means going outside.

Or maybe it's just because "LOLOL ONLINE DATING< WHAT LOSERS!" isn't very constructive. Different people meet people in different ways. I've done it both ways: it's all pretty much the same thing in the end.

Just because you use a website to meet people does not mean that you're some kind of troglodyte whose skin is burned by the sun.

Besides, doing _both_ would increase your chances even more...


This doesn't rank high on the "cruel" factor. It is more resourceful (and hard work to pull off) than cruel. To me, the second guy who pretended to be the hunk, got inside info and then got the woman on a date seems to have used a much more creepy strategy. Why? Because he lied TO THE PERSON HE IS SEEING. The denial of service wasn't lying to the person he is seeing. It is lying to all the other dudes. Which is just fine. Lots of guys are COMPETING for the same girls, and in a competition like that, you don't necessarily have to play fair. I see this more as using intelligence to get a leg up on the competition, and frankly, the only reason why he wouldn't want to confess this to her -- is NOT that he would seem like a lying creep -- but because it would highlight the fact that he wouldn't be able to get her otherwise.

As if girls never do a "denial of service" attack to guys when they are competing for the same guy. Like not inviting their hotter friend along when they are first meeting each other.

PS: Do you find Hitch (the character in the movie) a creepy liar?


> This doesn't rank high on the "cruel" factor

Really? You wouldn't mind messaging a bunch of profiles, receiving no responses, only to later find out that they weren't even real people? That no matter how much time you spent carefully composing your messages, you might as well have directed them to /dev/null?

Seems pretty cruel to me. And once other people start adopting the same strategy, it'll render dating sites useless for everyone. Ultimately the sites will be forced to ask for some kind of proof of identity.


believe it or not, many dating sites start off exactly this way. So first of all, this guy was no more cruel than the creators of the dating site. It won't render dating sites useless, only FREE dating sites. And yes many of them are already littered with fake bots.

Secondly, I didn't say it wasn't cruel at all. I was saying that this guy lied to OTHER GUYS, and not to the object of his affection. It's like walking into a bar, showing up all the other guys, and getting the girl. Many of them, if given the chance, would have done the same to him.

And finally ... sometimes even "lying" to the girl (or rather playing / flirting with her) can be charming. See Hitch the movie as he gets the girl in one of the early bar scenes, when she is surrounded by guys, by getting her all emotionally riled up and chasing him ... right out of the group of guys. She appreciated his efforts.


If the woman was not attracted to him, then he wouldn't have made it past the first (or second date). He obviously has qualities that she desires.


He has an available penis. That's the conclusion I got - deprived of better hunks, she settled.

Maybe she deserved it, being shallow and horny. But that doesn't speak to the morality of it at all.


i'd readily point out the fact that online dating is a two way street. its not a meat market where guys go out and select, while girls sit around waiting to be selected.

if this girl wasn't at least into this guy, and wasn't getting any prospects messaging her, she could've gone looking actively herself and found the exact same guys in the area.


Ok, That speaks to the moral issue. In the end, She chose.

Furthermore, its not the lady that he was messing with. Its the guys that were on the wild-goose chase. He approached this woman in the normal manner.

I don't know, even if she knew, she might give him an A for effort.


So if a woman that is into you would lie and deceive others in order to be with you, you would want a relationship with that woman?

If someone were to do that, it would destroy my confidence in them. The whole relationship has started with a lie, no matter if I like them or not.


  > The whole relationship has started with a lie
You keep using that phrase but I do not think it means, what you think it means.

Should I be worried that my relationship 'started with bribery' because I handed the maitre'd $20 to get us a good table?


I don't know whether you should be worried. I do know that this type of behaviour is antisocial though - it promotes unfairness - people that made reservations or are waiting outside have to wait longer because someone has bribed their way in.

Maybe next time someone will pay $50 - because it is not something to worry about,no? - and you'll have to wait 15 minutes to get a seat.


Along similar lines, it's unfair to get pictures professionally taken, or to use cologne or makeup. Sorry, mating has always been an arms race to some extent, and that's not going to change.


> mating has always been an arms race to some extent, and that's not going to change.

Well. At least we are past the kidnapping and rape stage that was still common a couple centuries ago...


You seem to have the idea that using different channels is somehow the wrong way to go about courtship. Have you ever studied nature? There are tons of animals that abuse and cheat courtship rituals for their own benefit.

Really, the courtship ritual is a game. The women look for traits they desire, but these traits are expensive, so (some) men attempt to fake the traits. The women adapt, the men adapt. It's basically an evolutionary arms race, but about sex, because the reproductive & evolutionary interests of males and females when it comes to mate selection are diametrically opposed.


Dude... were talking online here.

Everybody is 7 foot high jock on teh internetz[1]. Everybody is lying and people discount for that. So unless you lie a bit you started loosing your ground even if you are otherwise the tallest building. Take your moralism somewhere else - cuz. this is teh internetz (and its serious business too!)

You remind me of people who keep whining about cheezy tactics in games - they are there so use them. Have you ever heard that winners are those who are willing to do stuff, losers won't?

[1]: http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/the-biggest-lies-in-online...


Understanding people is hard sometimes. If you yourself have managed to improve yourself in some way, it's particularly hard to understand why someone else couldn't do it too.


It could very well be that because after he created all the fake accounts he felt the confidence he needed.


There was another pretty interesting post a while back along similar lines. The guy set up a fake profile with a very attractive guy, a great job, and an exciting persona. Basically every woman's dream guy.

He then used this fake profile to message the girls he was interested in. Pretty much every woman opened up their souls, dreams, and wishes to this fake Cassanova. He then uses this inside information to make his real self more interesting and the conversation more engaging when he messages them and goes on dates.


I'm surprised that nowadays this trick is considered so fresh. I've done it back in the day in the 90s on chatrooms. But then I was a stupid teenager, nowadays I wonder why these guys do this nonsense. I'm not into online dating right now, but couldn't they gather the same information by simply talking? Isn't this hack a trick reserved for socially awkward people who can't make up a decent conversation on the spot?


You only get one chance to make a first impression. With this hack, you get two.


Every day I discover a new reason not to use dating websites. I think if all these dudes used this time to improve their social skills, they would one day realize such hacks are pointless. And if you imagine adapting these techniques to RL, things start to look really creepy, don't they :)?

Unless they are teens, that's like a hack 'how to avoid natural human communication'. Nevertheless, I wish them good luck in dating experience.


You might as well say that every day you find another reason to not go dating, at least that's how I feel about it. Saying that "not everyone you like will be attracted to you" is a very nice way of putting it. In my experience, most people are attracted to stupid things. I've tried the classical "acting like a charming douchebag" routine, and I've been horrified at the rate of success in the traditional meat markets.

The point is that dating outside of your social circle is a numbers game. You will be seeing the averages most of the time, and most people are simply not worth your time. At least that's the impression I've been left with after playing around with this stuff in different places the last year.

As to whether playing games like this is pointless or not...if you're looking for the love of your life, then probably yes. But if you're looking for sex and short-term, uncommitted relationships, games like these are the best way to get what you want! I see this as just a natural extension of all the phoniness that happens in night clubs. The point is, playing games works! You'd be horrified at how many women, especially under 30, treat dating as a game..and have the most stupid reactions as a result. These people are probably not worth investing too much time in, but they do represent the average person you will meet. Which is really sad, but it's the impression you'll be left with after going out a lot.


Dating IS a game no matter if you're looking for sex or a relationship. It's always a stack of little challenges and responses, and yes, there's also tricking involved. What I implied in my post is that no matter if these online hacks get you where you wanted, in the end you only got there because you were faking accounts just to start a conversation.

Second of all, IRL or online, for me it's about doing it the natural way - you know - talk to people. That's what dating online on dating websites should look like, but from the ammount of 'hacks' and 'howtos' I read about, seems it isn't. If I'm to waste my time playing against bunches of creepos with armies of fake accounts instead of socializing with real girls - sorry, I'm out.

Saying that "not everyone you like will be attracted to you" is a very nice way of putting it

Aren't you replying here to ZoFreX's post above, which is not mine? :)


Could you be more specific about the acting like a charming douchebag routine?


Yeah, sure. Coming from a somewhat over-nerdy background and being a bit of a late bloomer, I've read a lot of the stuff that you can find in the "pick-up community" and tried out some of it in practice. So this particular part is just the more sleazy parts of that; making fun of the girl in a charming way, using jealousy (acting actively uninterested if she shows interest, flirting with her friends) etc, making overtly sexual jokes etc. All this stuff is assuming that you have some semblance of rapport in the first place though, there is a lot of subtelty that's a bit hard to explain in three sentences ;)

The thing is, outside the limited context of completely no-strings flirting, it's really disappointing to see these things work. It's so phony. Maybe some girls feel the same thing the first time they dress up really revealing and all the guys treat them differently.


I'm completely with you. Never had problems swiftly identifying common ground and starting a conversation - isn't that what profiles and messages are for?

Seems some people just aren't happy with the poor response rates on dating sites, but that's just how it goes... not everyone you find attractive will find you attractive. I imagine that the "cheating" method wouldn't produce better long term results, as not cheating means those you talk to genuinely want to connect with you.


> I've done it back in the day in the 90s on chatrooms

In the late 80's I did something similar with a Minitel-based chat system. It required a bunch of computers and a couple phone lines.



I don't see how what amounts to lying can be considered a clever solution. By these standards, the biggest liars are the best hackers.

This is the problem that I have with both of these pseudo-hacks. Both persons are liars and cheaters, which is socially not accepted, except when dating apparently...


From what I hear - yes... My friends who worked for whitehat security companies would first try to hack staff before hacking servers.

Best was to call up the ceo on his personal homephone every night at 3am, until they knew what he sounded like raving mad. Then they called up the admins doing a very good impression of the irate ceo demanding his passwords were reset there and then. Worked a stupid amount of times apparently...

So yes, lying can be hacking and hacking can be lying.


>Best was to call up the ceo on his personal homephone every night at 3am, until they knew what he sounded like raving mad

That is gold...

Now I want to be a whitehat pentester even more than I did before.


tptacek at Matasano is the man you want to talk to: http://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=tptacek


These kind of hacks are paid for and authorised, I didn't see any signed contracts in these dating "hacks".


Don't buy into the notion that if it's not "ethical" it's not hacking.


If its not ethical, its almost illegal. And here it also deals with a buzzword "privacy".


Don't buy into the notion that if it's not "legal" it's not hacking.

One of the things that makes hacking possible is that the actual rules are different than the stated rules.


It's not lying, it's called social engineering.


Social engineering is a euphemism for lying or hiding the truth. It is at its core based on manipulation and as any tool it can be used for good of for bad. Using it to get sex is not what I consider "greater good".

I suppose calling it engineering does make one feel better though... it almost sounds like something positive.


To quote Dr. Gregory House, everybody lies (and hides the truth). Especially during dates. Why do you think the cliché advice for dating is "be yourself"?

For an amusing view of how the world would be without the lying, watch the movie The Invention of Lying.


Lying is probably unavoidable. There are innocent lies, or lies that are told for the greater good - these can be acceptable, although they should still be regarded with suspicion.

And then there are lies like the one in this example. Where not only the lie is self-serving, but it had the potential to hurt other people. Imagine you're one of the other guys using the service and you try to talk to one of those fake profiles. You get your hopes up and then the fake profile cuts communication or plays a practical joke and invites you on a date. Don't you think that's at least a little cruel?


Being cruel to people is cruel. You can accomplish that by telling the truth too ("Yes you are fat", "Santa does not exist").

Lying is a tool, it can be used for good or bad.


> Lying is a tool, it can be used for good or bad.

That's precisely the point. Here lying was done for personal gains.


>You can accomplish that by telling the truth too ("Yes you are fat", "Santa does not exist").

Why are your examples cruel?

Someone learns that they need to address their weight problems before it affects their health badly or if they want to woo you or whatever.

Someone else learns that they receive presents not because they've been good but because people regard them; I was going to say love instead of regard but that's not always true.

Sure you can say things in cruel ways ...


They are cruel because they hurt (and it's beside the point to know whether that's a rational reaction) and you know it. When you do on purpose something to hurt someone, and unless there's some greater usefulness to it and no other way to do or put it, that's cruelty.


> Imagine you're one of the other guys using the service and you try to talk to one of those fake profiles.

Ok, not hard to imagine. I'm using the service, I message one of those fake profiles (amongst the other multiple of profiles I message). I get no response, figure she is not interested and move on (just like most other messages to profiles).

Yes I think it's cruel if they used them to play jokes. Worse yet is that I know people who are using this for financial gain. They setup fake profiles in dating sites, and respond with messages containing premium rate phone lines. They made millions, got fined in one country but the profits made elsewhere made up for that.


Umm, you're making a big assumption that the fake profiles didn't respond. I got the distinct impression from the original article that the fake profiles were kept active. Will that modify your opinion?

Article says: "My two friends operated the 50 accounts while I found the prettiest ..."


Well then, if that is the case, he still technically didn't lie, his friends did. And what isn't a friend if he won't be your wingman?


I was only clarifying the mistaken impression you had that there was no ongoing deception. Clearly to you, the presence of ongoing deception is equivalent to lack of it. Which answers my question to you. Thanks.


Lies != Deceit.


Deception is but one tool in the social engineer's kit.

If you're good you can get what you want without making any assertive statements whatsoever, just by using the right tone of voice.


> Using it to get sex is not what I consider "greater good".

Helping smart people procreate could be considered "greater good"


perhaps if they weren't morally broken. (blah blah, morals are gray, etc etc)


I cannot get the "morally broken" thing. What they did, mostly, is to distract their competition and gather information on their targets.

Keep in mind the targets are not passive ones and if they actually engaged in a relationship with those folks, it was because they wanted it. I never went to a second date with a girl I didn't like.


If you are a more interesting date and shape yourself into a better/more interesting/more exciting person because of it, where's the harm?


Research is always lying...asking questions you don't really need the answer to, at least right now. The questioner is often an agent of the researcher, so is 'lying' about wanting the answer - they are being paid to ask somebody elses question.

Not at all different from putting up fake ads in Google, and counting the number of hits.


It's called social engineering, not lying. Semantics make the hacker.


Added bonus that they have bruised egos from not getting a date with the hot guy, probably a rare occurance for an attractive woman on a dating site.


Groundhog day, anyone?


Six more weeks of datelessness!


Guys, if you do this, just remember that when they use their best friend to hit on you to see if you'll cheat, and how upset that makes you when you find out.

Turn-about is fair play if you aren't going to be straight-up about things.


I think that 'not being straight-up about things' is breaking things down waaay too generally. This guy basically found a way to 'cut in line' so that the woman could evaluate whether or not she liked him. She still got to choose whether she liked him or not based on the qualities that he possesses. He just made sure that he actually got a chance to be evaluated.

Another analogy would be like finding a way to make sure that your resume isn't one of the ones that is immediately thrown out by some HR person before being forwarded to the hiring manager. The hiring manager still gets to evaluate you based on your skills, but you just made sure that he/she even looked at your skills (vs being cut from the list for some arbitrary reason).

On the other hand, a girl having her best friend hit on you to see if you'll cheat demonstrates a fundamental lack of trust in the relationship. Regardless of the outcome, she's already demonstrated that she doesn't feel that she can trust you. This is a far deeper cut than convincing all of the extremely 'hunky' guys at a bar to leave (for some reason or another; maybe spread a rumor that the bar next door is giving away power tools or hair gel or something) so that you even have a chance with some of the attractive women there.

For some reason, it's just the 'pretending to be someone that you are not on the internet' that makes people throw up the 'creepy' flag. If I was to pretend to be someone that I'm not in real life, people would not immediately think that I was creepy. Hell, society seems to celebrate guys that lie about how successful they are in order to impress women.


One redditor, a few weeks ago, related the story of his fiancee using her best friend to test him like that.

However, I have a feeling that the intersection of the sets "Guys who meet girls through large-scale subterfuge" and "guys who get deceptively set up by their fiancees" is not large enough to be worth addressing in a comment like that.


Uh,

If that happened to you, it's one woman who did it, not "they".


It's a pretty common stereotype - I don't know if I've ever seen it happen IRL but I've seen it happen a lot in movies/TV. I think ck can be forgiven the generalization.


We accept fact-less generalizations and stereotypes around here now?


So long as they're presented and taken as such, I don't see why not. ck2 never said "Every woman does X" or "Your girlfriend will surely do X".

I guess I took the "when" as a colloquial "if" - if your reading was more literal then I suppose I can see why you're upset.


If anything, seeing something regularly on TV but not in RL is evidence against it's RL prevalence. The people who write TV generally do not lead statistically typical lives, although they often seem to think that they do. See: Sex and the City.


At first I thought you were trying to say that 'they' couldn't be singular. To save others some time, it can. I double checked and made a post to correct you.

Than I realized what you really meant.


lol, couldn't happen to me but maybe I said that badly. I've seen guys complain about that type of behavior and I am just saying no-one should be playing these kinds of games if you want honesty from a relationship.

Now that I think about it, maybe relationships aren't the goal of this kind of behavior in the first place, so maybe this whole thread is a really bad idea for HN.


But surely it's two.


I saw this earlier today and thought, while it was a less than honorable thing to do, it was a pretty clever bit of social engineering.


I redirected reddit.com to news.ycombinator.com, so I haven't read the article.

I did however, just spend some time talking with my attractive single sister-in-law about dirty guy tricks in the dating scene. She's pretty broad-minded, so I don't think she represents every woman, but I liked her attitude.

She said something like: "Girls stuff their bras, and play all sorts of mind-games to get guys to like them. I would consider social engineering fair turnabout, man! The guys are way behind in this area!"


>"Girls stuff their bras, and play all sorts of mind-games to get guys to like them. I would consider social engineering fair turnabout, man! The guys are way behind in this area!"

This is only that start of it. If you think date-engineering is something typically done by creepy men, you may want to reconsider.


Yes. It's also done by creepy women.


I don't mind stuffed bras.


5 upvotes and nobody has asked for her number yet.

So, how can I get her number?


Do you mean the narrative itself or the use of it? ("Haha, jocks, I got the girl because I know computers. Ain't that grand, fellow computer nerds.")


I didn't read it like that at all. In fact there really weren't any computer skills involved. It seems just good old fashioned ingenuity and elbow grease.

As a commenter further down notes he knew a guy that employed a similar strategy with newspaper personal ads to get people to come to his bands gigs.


As they say, all's fair in love and war. I've been thinking about what part of it, exactly, is dishonorable, and I'm really not sure.


I think it's the part where he is hiding the truth about how he seduced her. Or it could be the part where him and his friends lied and led on a bunch of people online.

Or is it ok if those other people were jocks? What if they weren't jocks? What if it was you and you couldn't get a date because of them?


This is similar to the Sybil attack in peer-to-peer networking. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybil_attack: "A Sybil attack is one in which an attacker subverts the reputation system of a peer-to-peer network by creating a large number of pseudonymous entities, using them to gain a disproportionately large influence."


Only when the fake female accounts upvote his real account in some way.


He should use his female accounts to message his real account, and only "reply" to a few of those. OkCupid would then inform other girls that he "replies very selectively" when they message him, and would thus see him as hard to get!


i don't see how this would work since most guys use the shotgun approach, so none of the women would stop receiving messages.

+ most women get something like 200 messages a week..so even if the numbers went down, they'd still have plenty of messages.

Granted it might work somewhere in the middle of Montana with 20,000 people within 200 miles.


Guys will email the most attractive chicks first then work their way down the ladder (so to speak) ... if any of the chicks at the top of the ladder respond to them, thats where their attention is going to be until the figure out something is up or otherwise lose interest ...

With 50 impossibly (fake) hot chicks on the radar and only 30 real ones who probably fall below the 50 on the scale, that would give our boys more than enough time to seal the deal


This seems like a great answer in response to the YC application's "hack" question.


To be honest, for the past few years, every time I have read about something like that, I have thought about that question.


Survival of the fittest in 2011.


Anyone else slightly reminded of that scene from A Beautiful Mind reading this?


It sounds more like Elijah Wood's character in "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind."


It's been a long time since I've seen that movie, which scene exactly?


John Nash and some guys see a blonde at a bar, which inspires his theory of governing dynamics:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5jrNoNNtrE

It's a great scene.



Heh, quite. I console myself with the thought that good storytelling owes has no obligation to reality.


This scenario will itself soon become a scene in another movie or TV show, mark my words. Stuff like this is gold for screenwriters.


A visionary, to say the least.


i think that the fact that (1) they perceived this was necessary and (2) this worked, shows that online dating needs a better way of doing things.


Highly recommend the Catfish Movie if you have not seen it. A variant of the same technique is employed.

http://www.iamrogue.com/catfish


Somehow reminds me of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbJHkwHZCCM

Will this approach work on the job offers websites?


Service Unavailable

The server is temporarily unable to service your request. Please try again later.

:(


It seems to me the woman would only be impressed by his resourcefulness, and flattered, if he told her how he got her in a joking way over dinner. I, personally, would be impressed if a woman did it.


Haha! This is f-king awesome! :)


Reddit posts are generally useless talks. Cross posting from reddit, solves anything ? This looks out of scope to me.


would you please mind, explaining for the down vote?


I did not vote, but I understand:

You commented solely to complain about the main post. Your comment added no more information than a flag would have.

Your comment was completely generic. It made no specific argument against the link except to disparage reddit. The stereotypical HN reader prides himself on being the type of person who'd appreciate clever, insightful material even from /b/, let alone from reddit.

Also, I realize English is not your first language, but it's the lingua franca of this site; and your English was distractingly poor.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: