It’s Just More Allegations Against It’s Just Lunch
October 25, 2007 by Sean Kelly
Filed under Business
(FranchisePick.Com) Hell hath no fury like a woman who paid $1500 and didn’t even get scorned. These seriously peeved New York women could inspire a whole new wave of reality shows: Flip These Desperate Housewives. Or Dog, The Booty Hunter. Maybe even No Sex in the City!
I’m speaking, of course, of the NY women who recently filed a civil lawsuit in Manhattan federal court claiming the high end dating franchise It’s Just Lunch promised them a veritable all-you-can-date smorgasbord, but didn’t deliver so much as an acceptable appetizer.
They’re still hungry… and they’re pissed.
According to an Oct. 22 story (“Cupid Shook Me Down” ) by the ABC News Law & Justice Unit, the court papers filed last week portray It’s Just Lunch – which has sold more than 100 matchmaking franchises in the U.S. and, um, abroad – as being a moneygrubbing organization focused solely on profits that regularly lies to clients to get into their pants (pockets).
“They lie every step of the way,” plaintiff lawyer John Balestriere told ABC News. “They lie to sign up the client. They lie in the initial interview and they lie about the prospective dates.”
John Balestriere claims that the company imposes monthly client sign-up quotas on their It’s Just Lunch franchise owners, who receive commissions when they sign clients up. According to the complaint, franchise owners “do not receive any compensation on their sales & unless the total number of sales equals or exceeds the monthly quota set by IJL.” Balestriere is seeking class action status for the case.
ABC News cites some of the humiliating lies the victimized women sustained:
One woman complained to the site that she specifically requested no Republicans or “religious types,” but her first two dates were with a Catholic Republican and a Seventh-day Adventist.
Another said a date with an art dealer turned out to be a guy who worked for a freight company. A landscaping executive turned out to be a man who mowed lawns, according to court records. Another woman said the blind date she met in a bar for an introductory drink turned out to be an alcoholic. Yet another said her setup was still legally married, a fact she said she was not made aware of by the company.
According to the It’s Just Lunch web site, IJL has more than 30,000 current clients worldwide. according to Hoover’s, the CA-based franchise company reported $35 million in sales for the 2005 fiscal year. The company was founded in 1992 by scorned woman Andrea McGinty, and built with the assistance of her CEO husband Daniel Dolan. They sold the business last year to a New York private equity firm Riverside Co.
According to a story in the New York Post, It’s Just Lunch had to pay $47,000 after NY state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo’s office found that it was violating general business law by overcharging clients $500 a year.
Of course, FranchisePick.Com has been reporting on It’s Just Lunch since February, 2007 (see below).
WHAT DO YOU THINK? HAVE YOU HAD ANY DEALINGS WITH IT’S JUST LUNCH OR OTHER DATING SERVICES? SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS. LEAVE A MESSAGE.
RELATED STORIES:
It’s Just Lunch Dating Service Franchise:
October 25th, 2007 Dating Franchise It’s Just Lunch Fined by NY Attorney General
July 13th, 2007 It’s Just Lunch… Or a Dating Service Scam? Revisited
February 8th, 2007 It’s Just Lunch… Or Just a Franchise Scam?Mail-Order Bride Franchise:
April 2nd, 2007 Mail Order Bride Franchise Offers Women “Unspoiled By Feminism”
________________________________________
Visit these franchise websites:
TopNewFranchises.Com: America’s Next Top… Franchise
FranBest.Com: The Best in Franchising
Franchise & Marketing Newsletters: Affordable. Stylish. Free.
________________________________________
FREE WHITEPAPER: What’s the best way for companies to respond to online criticism and attacks? A Harvard report with multiple recent case studies compiled and is available for free download.
I think you missed more upcoming TV shows this lawsuit will surely inspire:
Manhatten Manhunters
Law & Order PMS
Pimp My Stockbroker
New York Undercovers
You missed:
How I met your Mother (And what it cost)
I just feel sorry for the warehouse guy who had to face the woman expecting an art dealer, the lawn-mower whose date was expecting an executive or the recovering Christian alcoholic who had to face the Left Wing Radical Athiest at the bar.
The poor guys are not only cited in the lawsuit, they’ll probably be called to testify.
Item 12 clearly delineates what a piece of crap the territority grant is, complete with full disclosure of the quota. Yet another case of people failing to read, and then failing.
Some man with a backbone should challenge the state for messing with an area of life they have no business in. Did you know there is a bill in the State legislature that would fingerprint a NY man for wanting to just say hello to a foreign woman? Do you know it is a racist insult to call a Czech woman a “mail order bride” and get away with it as a NY State official?
Meanwhile, although this lunch service is clearly charging too much, a woman who refuses to meet a Republican male is not going to find too many successful males in a society where 2 out of 3 males, in general, voted Republican in 2004.
It would be difficult to find a male appropriate for her who also paid a lot of money for the service.
Her problem is that East European women are serious competition for the best men, and they can be met through legitimate low-cost dating sites (as compared to the dishonest one featured in the other column here).
The email address of a foreign woman costs only $12 and the unconstitutional federal IMBRA law may be reeking havoc (by blocking all communication with women who do not have email) but it won’t stop the trend for American men to date internationally if they can afford it.
These East Europeans have top-level educations and come from the upper middle class mostly. Only radical feminists pretend they are downtrodden and disadvantaged while secretly knowing that they are brutal competition for the best educated men.
Lawn mowers and shipping clerks are the only men these days who are not flying to Europe for dates, so you cannot blame local dating franchises for trying to set them up with the thirty-something career women who are apparently too lazy to go to a site like http://www.meetmenfromeurope.com and fly to Paris to meet a guy there.
When I lived in New York and owned a company, I was invited to 2 balls and 3 cocktail parties per week just by getting on a few lists. Women outnumbered men in that city so there was no incentive for me to pay more than the, often steep, “donations” for the balls or parties. I could easily have spent more than $2000 per year doing that, but it all went to charity. Elsewhere in the USA, I remember spending $30 per month to belong to Match.com, but there is no need for many men to sign up for any “dating service” when he lives in Manhattan.
So it is not just the $12 email addresses of university graduates in Warsaw and Moscow that cause this market fluctuation in NY. Manhattan simply has a surplus of women and guys have a lot of choice.
Jim: You wouldn’t, by chance, be in the business of selling email addresses of “university graduates in Warsaw and Moscow” for $12 each, would you?
I am a Jr. College Grad (associates degree). Could you sell my email address to desperate women in Manhatten? How much can we get?
No. My interest in this subject is finding a New York woman to challenge the IMBRA law that says she cannot meet a French man online without her being background checked.
I could never own a dating site. There is no money to be made in the dating business (domestic or international) except for those daring organizations like this lunch company that charges so much for intros.
Selling contact for $12 is more of a public service from a foreign born housewife who might earn $300 per month running a website (the new NY State law would, if passed and unchallenged in the courts, have this housewife fingerprinted and ordered to pay a $50K bond which would effectively shut down all such dating sites and the competition New York women have from foreign women).
I would not call the career women in Manhattan desperate by any means. However, their willingness to pay any money at all to meet men shows that there is a huge problem of more women than men in that city.
On Match.com, twenty-something women generally never pay a dime. Men over 30 are, generally, the paying customers of Match.com.
There is something wrong with the dynamic of a city or region if women pay a large amount to a dating agency to meet a man.
Case in point: I went for an interview to a Seattle dating agency that wanted to sell me a $999 membership fee and set me up on dates. The agency made the mistake of having a 21 year old receptionist who was flirtatious and fabulous looking. When the interviewer said that there was nobody like her or anywhere near her age range in the membership, because nobody in that age range would pay $999 to meet a man, I naturally declined to pay $999 not to meet them.
Similarly, I would avoid any black tie ball that cost a $400 donation unless I was assured that young women were let in free for being part of the “committee”…which is how such social events have been setup for centuries.
This is common sense. I think this Lunch company needs to charge men but not women. But then it would look like an escort agency if young women were convinced to go out with some stockbroker because he would take them to a nice restaurant.
This is all a very tough business that I would never want to be involved in.
No. My interest in this subject is finding a New York woman to challenge the IMBRA law…This is all a very tough business that I would never want to be involved in.
Links from your site indicate you are PR Director of a supposed advocacy group called Online Dating Rights (a group with 1 member, possibly?)
It’s hard to believe there’s no economic incentive behind this advocacy. I mean, poverty, starvation, genocide… I’m sure there are better causes to donate your time to rather than helping loser guys hook up with the Svetlana of their dreams without having to disclose their child porn and indecent exposure convictions.
That was a vicious comment. Especially considering the reality that the more successful New York men are the ones who can afford to fly to Europe on weekends and, thus, not bother paying “Let’s Do Lunch” to meet someone who wouldn’t date a Republican.
Are you suggesting that there is no fundamental right of Americans to meet anyone they please without US government intervention? Anyone can read http://www.online-dating-rights.com to see that there are serious Constitutional issues at play here that are much more important than whether someone can say hello to a foreigner or not online.
Also, IMBRA completely blocks contact with 80% of the women on the biggest site, http://www.aforeignaffair.com, because they do not have email addresses:
http://capitolhillcoffeehouse.com/more.php?id=4290_0_1_9_M
So it does not matter how “clean” a man’s background is. The damage is in the impossibility of signing the paperwork in time enough to meet someone who might be in a foreign city for 2 days in his or her entire lifetime.
Ameican women can be badly hurt by this as well. That is why we can expect to get an American female plaintiff soon.
If you are male and hetero, there is nobody here is going to give you a date because you took up an ideological banner. You have nothing to gain as well, if you are a woman, because your disdain for foreign women will not lower their status.
If you say that men are losers for dating foreign women, here are some foreign women responding to your attitude:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihW4P8Bcrxc
See what they mean? You cannot respect them while assuming that men fly to meet them because they are “second best” and could not succeed in dating you.
Foreign women see through that charade.
Vicious? I don’t think so. Mean-spirited? OK, guilty on that one. Sorry.
I just get sick of the posing, fake organizations and BS I’ve got to wade through to get to the truth on the Internet. Funny you end your post with the word “charade.”
You never addressed the economic motive of your silly organization, which tries to exaggerate the issue in the vain attempt someone will care. You must try to raise the alarm by claiming men aren’t allowed to “say hello” to foreign women because of this law. Come on. Are you seriously targeting nutcases, misogynists, and NASCAR fans? Because they’re the only ones who will let you get away with that tripe.
I searched your name and your group on Google. You are posting your message all over, but no one’s reacting. No one cares, except your online dating backers.
Again: what’s your economic interest in fighting this nonsensical battle? Or are you just a loon?
(I can see why these foreign women are willing to sleep their way out of their sh*thole countries, but tell me there’s not something wrong with a guy who can’t find a date within the 100 million women adults in the US. I just saw a TV show about a guy who weighed 1000 lbs. Even HE found a wife in the US. Even HE didn’t have to order a bride from a website.)
$12 Guy:
Don’t knosk it ’til you’ve tried it. And $12 is all you need at my online matchmaking service, Budget Brides Mail-Order Brides 4 Less:
http://budgetbrides.blogspot.com/
See you on the veranda!
RQ
It wouldn’t be getting all over if newssite owners weren’t gladly publishing the articles. And if you look closely, you will see that sometimes insecure leftist males without a penny (who think they are going to impress some fantasy female reader) will argue from the point of view that the men with the money and language ability to fly to Paris and Tokyo for a date are somehow lower than they are on the social scale.
They always lose that discussion if you look closely as well.
Think about it: You make less than $40K and have a community college degree and speak, at best, halting Spanish from a class you took once. I have an MBA and travel the world and speak several languages fluently.
You are the guy the women on “Let’s Do Lunch” complain about. They may have wanted a liberal, but not a doormat who earns so little.
I told you that there is no profit in the dating scene because meeting people should be free and $12 just keeps a server in action. There is no economic gain to fighting IMBRA except to confirm Constitutional rights that never should have been attacked in the first place.
I say that I have a right to date foreign women without the US government interfering…especially when I know that radical feminists, tacitly supported by insecure older women who cannot get a decent date at “Let’s Do Lunch”, pushed the law through when nobody was looking.
It is the competition they are worried about. I do not believe it was a male who just posted the vicious and mean-spirited humiliation of some foreign women on that “brides for less” spoof site.
Tell me: Do you think the foreign women who are condemning IMBRA on this video are unattractive?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xE6dfxZ-5eQ
The bottom line is that the insecure guys who try to argue that their betters are somehow losers for spending weekends in Paris or Moscow, are the guys that these New York women are complaining about being stuck with when the good guys don’t bother joining “Let’s Do Lunch”.
Let’s be honest here. The best and the brightest US males have a choice, and that choice includes some of the best looking and well educated women at places like http://www.aforeignaffair.com.
We can afford a $600 flight to Warsaw on a 4 day weekend. You cannot.
The fat man you talk about could NOT succeed in getting a great looking woman from Eastern Europe, plus he might bring the plane down, so you are making no argument there.
Your comment on Russia being a Blank Blank country is something that the Russian Consulate in New York should look at.
Your comment that these women are prostitutes is also something that is not to be commended.
If you are male, you have no business being mean spirited. You have nothing to gain. Any American women who might agree with you in trying to pretend that men with passports are “losers”…won’t date you themselves.
By the way, the law most definitely prevents men and women from “saying hello” and it does so completely in most cases.
I thought I explained that above by linking to an article that just came yesterday in a Washington DC blog:
http://capitolhillcoffeehouse.com/more.php?id=4290_0_1_9_M
You see, if a foreigner constantly uses email and the web, the IMBRA law offers no serious delay in contact as long as there is some sort of link from the email to a webmessage board where a foreigner can click on a button that says “I approve of contact” and then read some message that an American wrote with his contact info. But if the foreigner does not have email or hardly ever checks email, or deletes emails that seem to be not coming from a specific human being with a personality, then there is no contact at all, or the contact is delayed until after the time when a travelling American is no longer visiting that person’s country.
This is deadly serious intervention in communications between two people. If the law is upheld, it can be used to regulate forums like this by forcing Franchise Pick to do sex offender checks on anyone who wishes to comment anywhere. This would put so much liability on the webmaster that Franchise Pick would probably shut down its comment section (the same way that dating sites are shutting down now). The reason why it is being “ignored” is because only 0.2% of Americans travel and because various media managers are determined that a law like this passes muster (they want Internet forum regulation) so it does not get major media play at all.
Now the foreigners have given total blanket permission upfront to give out specific contact information to anyone and everyone upfront.
IMBRA takes away the rights of the foreigners to broadcast this info on their own free will.
The courts will have to grant the foreign women plaintiffs the right to sign a waiver saying that they now the IMBRA law and refuse to allow themselves to be “protected” by it, choosing instead to be allowed to broadcast their contact information to everyone and anyone at any time.
In any event, IMBRA most definitely prevents people from saying “hello”. You can say this “protects” women, but that would have to be the most radical concept of protecting women from future domestic violence possible.
You make less than $40K and have a community college degree… I have an MBA and travel the world and speak several languages fluently…. We can afford a $600 flight to Warsaw on a 4 day weekend. You cannot.
Jim: I like your style! You speak with passion. Conviction. Sincerity. Like I tell my students, once you can fake those things, making millions is easy!
You’ve got great potential, let me offer a couple of tips. First, NEVER admit you fly commercial, especially coach(!) When I go to Europe, I do so by private jet or yacht, or Air Force One:
http://www.franworst.com/?page_id=30
Second, do not boast about “speaking several languages.” That’s pedestrian. I make others learn MY language.
Third, develop the Millionaire’s Mindset and never say “…there is no profit in the dating scene…” That’s like saying “crime doesn’t pay.” With my Budget Brides Mail-Order Brides 4 Less franchise you’ll never say either statement again. Just ask my successful franchise owners.
$12 Guy: NEVER be ashamed of having gone to Junior College. Just NEVER ever admit to it publicly again. $12 (and several major credit cards) is all you need to begin living a dream that’s too good to be true.
In addition to Budget Brides for Less, I will soon be launching a new opportunity for professional singles: It’s Just Nooners! Until then, I’ve got hundreds of other opportunities for you. See you on the veranda! RQ, Esq.
Jim said: “You see, if a foreigner constantly uses email and the web, the IMBRA law offers no serious delay in contact as long as there is some sort of link from the email to a webmessage board where a foreigner can click on a button that says “I approve of contact” and then read some message that an American wrote with his contact info. But if the foreigner does not have email or hardly ever checks email, or deletes emails that seem to be not coming from a specific human being with a personality, then there is no contact at all, or the contact is delayed until after the time when a travelling American is no longer visiting that person’s country.”
WHAT? Which of your multiple languages is this? I’ve read this 3X and can’t make sense of it. Then again, I’m Junior College educated.
JIM said: “…only 0.2% of Americans travel…”
Excuse my ignorance. My non-MBA research skills led me to believe that 30,148,000 U.S. residents visited overseas destinations in 2006
(Source: http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/cat/f-2006-101-002.html) That would be roughly 10% of the U.S. population in ONE YEAR. I’m sure my math is off.
You and Mr. Quick seem to share the same dedication to truth and accuracy. If only I had an MBA or ESQ. after my name, I could be a hit with the ladies too. then again, I suspect you both may be overcompensating…
OK. I will bring this down to Junior College level:
1) Some women in this world do not have email.
2) This does not mean they are not upper middle class and well educated, gorgeous, etc. It means their cultures are not wired like the US.
3) These women often give full permission that their other contact information be given out to anyone and everyone.
4) Before the Internet, this other contact info was the only way to contact people.
5) IMBRA was written so that it could only be complied with if the foreigner has email.
6) This is because of a small clause that says the foreigner has to give written approval of each and every contact only after reading his or her background check (regardless of how clean the American’s background is).
7) A webmaster is not going to be able to send a background check by phone.
8) A webmaster is not going to WANT to send a background check by snail mail because this whole process can take months and drastically interfere with two people saying hello.
9) More than 50% of women on AFA do not have email.
10) Those who wrote the law knew this.
11) IMBRA was meant to destroy most online dating contact between Americans and foreigners…at least until the time when the rest of the world all has email and the foreigners can “safely” get behind the paranoid Match.com anonymous webmail barriers.
12) Ridiculously, a woman was telephoned to come to a dating site office in Kiev and sign a man’s background form before meeting him in person. The employee arrived late to find the man and woman talking with each other outside the locked doors of the agency office. The employee went berserk saying “You are not allowed to talk with each other yet!”
13) This is the future of domestic partnerships in the USA if the Supreme Court upholds this.
14) Don’t believe that: Try reading the court documents on IMBRA. A judge Clarence Cooper ruled “Meeting someone is like buying a gun. Both should require background checks”.
By the way, only 3% of people who chat or write online internationally ever meet each other. Of those, a small fraction ever marry each other. If you contact a foreign woman, you are not really a “prospective husband” whose background needs to be “disclosed”.
In the book “1984″, which is taught at Junior College level, the government “disclosed” information to Julia about Winston. The information broke the couple up. She could have really used the information because it said he did not love her enough (he basically said “torture her and not me”).
But the point of the book “1984″ is that the govenment must NEVER interfere in private relationships even if the woman could use the information they can find out and provide.
“It’s Just Lunch” will soon be regulated like that. There will be legal liability for the company to “disclose” the background of the men beforehand. Unless we win in court.
And sorry, the 0.2% figure refers to either Americans who marry someone from another country or Americans who marry someone from another country whom they might have met online.
The 30 Million figure shows that enough Americans are worldy and traveled enought that, when they hear about IMBRA, they are shocked. There is still a problem that something lke 70% of Americans do not have passports and a majority of US politicians do not have passports.
Very few people agree with IMBRA when they understand it.
Thank you for pointing out that I had to make the bullet point Junior College explanation.
I will use that from now on.
I was also just thinking that, if I wasn’t too bright, I might ask like Joey on Friends “But how can they be on an Internet site if they are not online?”
The answer is that someone takes professional photos of them and puts them online with their permission. The woman requests snail mail, telegrams and/or phone calls, none of which are conducive to signing approval forms for every guy who wants to talk with them. In non-paranoid societies where men are admired, there is nothing wrong with the women making such requests.
Only a paranoid northeast US feminist would have a seizure about this idea.
Others would agree with me that there needs to at least be a waiver for women to say they do not want to have to sign separate background check forms for each man who wants to call on the phone. Women need to be allowed to decide their own level of security.
The NOW and the US Government must not be in the business of deciding the security level of women who don’t want their rights taken away in this way.
Why a young male fresh out of Junior College would defend the NOW on this is beyond me, except he wants to impress some hypothetical reader who will say “let’s go on a date because you wouldn’t date my competition”.
Ever see “Bridge on the River Kwai”? In the movie, a British officer is convinced by the Japanese via flattery to build a bridge with his men. When some British commandoes sneak through the jungle to blow up his bridge, he gets all upset and alerts the Japanese who kill all the commandoes. Then he realizes that he was fighting for the wrong side and falls on the detonator himself. His last line was “what have I done.”
I have met some guys like that in the discussion about IMBRA. They spend 3 days arguing online about how they are real men because they met their girlfriend or wife without a website…until they finally realize the repercussions of a law like this are far more serious than whether a guy is a nerd or not for meeting someone online and whether she comes from another country or not.
Brilliant! Citing 1984 to prove your point is the ultimate example of your dedication to truth and accuracy!
I read the book 1984 (abridged, large print, JC version). I also was alive during the year 1984. The literal depiction of Orwell’s society and the reality of society in 1984 was about as accurate and real as you and your phony organization. I just didn’t realize you were a work of fiction. Now I get it!
Orville or Wilbur Wright Junior College will be proud!
You are not a male. You are clearly hurt deeply by what I originally wrote about Just Lunch members.
I am sorry for hurting your feelings.
But we can discuss the truth and accuracy if you want. You were right about the 0.2% figure not being about travel, and I clarified that it was about marital relationships.
You may be able to dig and clarify other things. But you are not going to get around the fact that the US government is obstructing communications between men and women for the first time in history, which is precisely what George Orwell warned against.
Here is something to check as well: On May 26th, 2006 a Republican judge denied a restraining order on IMBRA by saying:
“The Supreme Court has never held that there is a fundamental liberty interest in an American contacting a foreigner for a relationship.”
Would you deny he said that as a court decision not to restrain the law (even though it was under restraining order in the 11th district)?
Seriously, let’s drop the pretense that you are male. If you were male, there would be no problem in using an anonymous skype account to talk. My skype is veteransabroad. No reason to be scared. I use Skype to talk with people in Washington everyday about our plans to obliterate a lot more than IMBRA (try the entire VAWA law and the OVW). I can handle a “male” detractor politely in a conversation.
The Internet will be like that within 2 years anyway.
Anyone having an argument in writing like this will be able to get the discussion over faster by voice. Not that I mind harvesting Google hits by having to explain IMBRA to someone who refuses to learn about it.
Let’s imagine, for instance, that I am in a debate with $12Man in front of an audience of women in New York City. If he is really an “alpha male” with superior social skills, he could win verbally hands down.
Nobody has ever tried to argue IMBRA to me in person. Because, verbally, a person really has to answer a question put to them.
I can say “Do you or do you not agree with Republican Judge Thomas Rose that there is no fundamental right to contact foreigners”?
Verbally, the other person must then answer yes or no, instead of making a non-sequitur like “You are a fictional character”.
Jim: Your voracious appetite for being incorrect is truly a thing to behold.
“You are not a male.” WRONG
You hurt my feelings. WRONG
“…the US government is obstructing communications between men and women for the first time in history” WRONG
“‘The Supreme Court has never held that there is a fundamental liberty interest in an American contacting a foreigner for a relationship.’” You’re saying the SC has ruled that it IS a fundamental liberty interest? WRONG
“If you were male, there would be no problem in using an anonymous skype account to talk.” WRONG. I don’t even know what skype is, how it’s pronounced, nor care.
“Let’s imagine, for instance, that I am in a debate with $12Man in front of an audience of women in New York City. ” Let’s not.
“Nobody has ever tried to argue IMBRA to me in person.” There’s a big surprise.
“I can say ‘Do you or do you not agree with Republican Judge Thomas Rose that there is no fundamental right to contact foreigners’?” Distorting the question is one reason no one will debate you. Nor invite you to parties that don’t require $400 payment.
“non-sequitur” Damn. Where’s that JC dictionary?
You still haven’t clarified who you are and what your financial interest in this law is. Americans have kidnapped, detained, tortured and killed suspects without due process. They allow up to 29 innocent civilian deaths without executive approval when shooting missiles at high-profile suspected terrorists (30 or more requires a note from home). And you’re grandstanding about the right for American men to contact European women unspoiled by feminism or email?
As you are a fan of the false dichotomy (look it up), I’ll assert you either A.) have an economic stake, or B.) are a raving nutcase. Which is it? A or B?
“You are not a male.” WRONG
Then you are a male? Really?
What is your stake in supporting the IMBRA law?
What do you know about IMBRA and how long have you known about it?
[“…the US government is obstructing communications between men and women for the first time in history” WRONG]
So you are saying that women who do not have email addresses are able to receive communications from men according to their instructions that all men can contact them?
[“‘The Supreme Court has never held that there is a fundamental liberty interest in an American contacting a foreigner for a relationship.’” You’re saying the SC has ruled that it IS a fundamental liberty interest? WRONG]
OK. Now we are getting somewhere. You agree that there is NO fundamental liberty interest in an American contacting a foreigner.
That would lose you the entire audience of New York City liberal women if we were in a public debate.
It is on this point that the most left wing of all feminists would not be able to agree. After all, it was a Republican judge who said this.
You are agreeing with a Republican judge on this.
You do not see a problem with this comment.
Now regarding whether the SC ever stated that there is a liberty interest: The Constitution says that there is a Right to Assemble. That was meant to include saying hello to anyone in the world.
You cannot say otherwise. Only a rogue court can say otherwise.
And it won’t be complied with.
You were saying you vote Democrat?
Are you for Hillary?
[“If you were male, there would be no problem in using an anonymous skype account to talk.” WRONG. I don’t even know what skype is,]
Right. Junior College type. Sorry.
[how it’s pronounced, nor care.]
You will care when someone introduces it to you. Someone who went to a real college maybe?
[“Let’s imagine, for instance, that I am in a debate with $12Man in front of an audience of women in New York City. ” Let’s not.]
Because you don’t have the social skills.
[“Nobody has ever tried to argue IMBRA to me in person.” There’s a big surprise.]
It is because no common citizen has ever found that the law seems correct. A female colleague silently agreed with the law and told me that my girlfriend in Russia would force me to marry her when she came to visit a conference in Paris last year. But at the conference, dozens of CEOs were dazzled and impressed by the young woman from Russia. The colleague later apologized for having the wrong image of “mail order brides”. She had never voiced her disagreement with me on IMBRA until she apologized for quietly disagreeing.
[“I can say ‘Do you or do you not agree with Republican Judge Thomas Rose that there is no fundamental right to contact foreigners’?” Distorting the question is one reason no one will debate you. Nor invite you to parties that don’t require $400 payment.]
Do you or do you not agree with Judge Thomas Rose’s denial of TRO on IMBRA with those exact words? Is there a fundamental right to contact foreigners or not?
Is there a fundamental right of Americans to contact each other or not? This is important to determine if you would be OK with mandatory background checks for all online dating sites including Match.com and Adultfriendfinder.
[“non-sequitur” Damn. Where’s that JC dictionary?]
Don’t get snarky with me Mr. Junior College.
[You still haven’t clarified who you are and what your financial interest in this law is.]
I am a veteran of the US Army now running a business in Europe. I have zero financial interest in IMBRA and have noted that dating sites are not profitable (in 2000, a site owner needed 2000 hits to get one member to give you $25). I have a girlfriend like most of the people planning to end this law. We just cannot accept the US government blocking us and other Americans now and into the future in terms of contacting others online without background checks and the forcing of the other party to go through the actions of giving written approval for contact.
Ironically, we are fighting for your rights, not ours. You will be interested in a foreign woman at some point in your life.
Remember: The written approval nonsense is much more serious than the background check demand, because it takes the rights of the woman away by demanding she take an action or else she cannot have what she asked for (communication with anyone who wants).
If the law just required that men have background checks to be members of a website at all, I would never have bothered to fight it. The whole problem is in the signed approval, which is impossible to get if the woman does not have email. If she has stated that she wants to be phoned, her right to be phoned must not be abrogated in her own country by US federal mandate.
There are plenty of European social sites where European women give out their phone numbers and home addresses to everyone. They just don’t have the paranoid attitude that exists in the American northeast (and parts of the west coast).
[Americans have kidnapped, detained, tortured and killed suspects without due process.]
Wait a second. So you are not a right-winger?
You could have fooled me when you agreed above that there was no fundamental liberty interest in an American contacting a foreigner.
With your concern about the Bushies torturing people, you are OK with the Clintonite Judge Clarence Cooper saying “Meeting someone is like buying a gun, both processes should require background checks”?
That is OK, correct? After all, it is not as bad as Bush torturing people is it?
Of course not. So let’s have Judge Cooper’s decision on background checks applied “liberally” to domestic dating situtations as well, OK?
You certainly believe in background checks for buying a gun, correct? So admit that Judge Clarence Cooper was sane when he upheld IMBRA on March 26, 2007 by saying that online dating should require background checks as well.
[They allow up to 29 innocent civilian deaths without executive approval when shooting missiles at high-profile suspected terrorists (30 or more requires a note from home). And you’re grandstanding about the right for American men to contact European women unspoiled by feminism or email?]
So you are saying that, because the right wingers are killing terrorists with too much collateral damage…all American males should agonize over that and not notice laws being made to force them to only contact women with email who are hopefully feminist?
[As you are a fan of the false dichotomy (look it up), I’ll assert you either A.) have an economic stake, or B.) are a raving nutcase. Which is it? A or B?]
Referring to the false dichotomy, I am still waiting for a clarification that you are OK with both judge’s comments:
1) No liberty interest in contacting others (if they can get the SC to say there is no interest in contacting the foreigners, the SC will also say there is no interest in contacting fellow Americans as well).
2) Like buying a gun, meeting someone should require a background check
Everyone should read the IMBRA court cases at http://www.online-dating-rights.com in the library section. The two judges really said the above and the upcoming challenge is going to be a real showcase that will blatantly spell out whether Americans really do have the right to contact EACH OTHER without the government interfering with background checks.
Everyone should read the IMBRA court cases at http://www.online-dating-rights.com in the library section. Yeah, I’m sure everyone will be rushing over to do that right away. Dude, if you spent less time obsessing about IMBRA, maybe you wouldn’t have had to move “abroad” to get a comuniss girlfriend.
…That would lose you the entire audience of New York City liberal women… So THAT’S what went wrong on my It’s Just Lunch dates!
You will be interested in a foreign woman at some point in your life. Free psychic reading… cool. Do you also defend the rights of the Psychic friends network?
…She had never voiced her disagreement with me on IMBRA until she apologized for quietly disagreeing… Them Natasha’s know their place…
The Constitution says that there is a Right to Assemble. That was meant to include saying hello to anyone in the world. I’m sure the Founding Fathers were the right for 40 year old losers to hook up with desperate Romanian chicks without having to disclose their past arrests for necrophilia.
This is important to determine if you would be OK with mandatory background checks for all online dating sites including Match.com and Adultfriendfinder. I would rally behind you if you were campaigning to get those a-holes to quit spamming and placing pop-ups and crap all over the Internet. I don’t need to get my “pop-ups” from a website, and I don’t need to fly to Poland to get a little taste of pierogies, if you know what I mean.
I am a veteran of the US Army now running a business in Europe. I don’t know whether to ask what the business is, or whether you’re armed.
Jimbo: nobody cares. I’ve got bigger things to worry about, like whether to go home with the blonde or brunette tonight. If you’d take your medication and stay off dating and porn sites, you could too.
I said: you either A.) have an economic stake, or B.) are a raving nutcase. Which is it?”
You answered: I have zero financial interest in IMBRA…
Got it! Game Over.
As a matter of fact, the founding fathers were thinking of situations like when Ben Franklin travelled to Paris to work out an alliance with the French or about Thomas Jefferson who had an affair in Paris which was none of the new government’s business. If there were many 40 year old losers hoping to score with Romanian chicks back then, they would still have their rights as well.
Don’t you get it?
What if your job took you to Romania? Would you date the blondes and brunettes there?
Yes or no?
And would you go to the Romanian consulate in NYC and tell the employees there that you think Romanian chicks would be desperate to date you if you went to Bucharest on business?
You need to go on Romanian and Russian television and let the women in those countries know what you think of them, dude.
Damn. It is clear you never served overseas in the military.
Folks, this is the kind of girly-man we defend when we serve overseas. He calls soldiers on active duty in Iraq (who are members of ODR) that they are murderers and then he brags about having to chose between a blonde and brunette home in the states while they are out in the desert.
The little braggart who says they are “losers” because they may had a nice date when they last took leave in Romania (major tourist destination for American servicemen on leave from the Iraq War).
You’ve gone way out of line bro.
[She had never voiced her disagreement with me on IMBRA until she apologized for quietly disagreeing… Them Natasha’s know their place…]
I am referring to an American feminist colleague who finally realized her prejudices against Russian women were unfounded after a particular Russian woman wowed a large number of CEOs and their wives with her intelligence and her appearance in an evening gown.
She had never been outside of Russia before when she appeared at the business conference in Paris.
Some of these Moscow State University graduates can get anyone in the world they want and are the opposite of desperate.
They figure correctly, that the American men who speak Russian and German and French, etc, and who take the time to meet them…must be more compatible than the Joeys in Brooklyn who build themselves up by trying to put other guys down for no reason.
There is low likelihood that an MSU grad would date a junior college type guy who didn’t have the guts to serve his country, can’t speak other languages, couldn’t conduct international business in a foreign country and grew to adulthood thinking her country was a blank blank.
It still surprises me that $12Man’s motivation tonight was not a blind regard for the feminist theology that “women might be beaten when they are taken to the US and locked in the basement by their violent husbands”.
Instead, it was a strong desire to build himself up by showing a mean-spirited desire to put other men down.
These guys, especially the Iraq War vets who belong to ODR, have not only never done anything bad to you, but they’ve defended your freedoms.
The only way your mean-spiritedness can be defended, is if you got offended when I said that the only men left at “Its Just Lunch” would be the guys who can’t afford to fly to Europe instead.
That was a low blow on my part.
…the founding fathers were thinking of situations like when Ben Franklin travelled to Paris to work out an alliance with the French…
I heard he had several “alliances” with the French, but not women.
… or about Thomas Jefferson who had an affair in Paris which was none of the new government’s business. Shall we bring back slavery too so you can score like Tommy?
You need to go on Romanian and Russian television and let the women in those countries know what you think of them, dude. OK… I’m wanted back on Earth now, JimBo…
It is clear you never served overseas in the military. You make Incorrectness an art form
…this is the kind of girly-man we defend when we serve overseas. He calls soldiers on active duty in Iraq (who are members of ODR) that they are murderers… When reality doesn’t work in your favor, there’s always name calling and distortion… then there’s always the Patriot Vet card. Here it comes…
The little braggart who says they are “losers” because they may had a nice date when they last took leave in Romania (major tourist destination for American servicemen on leave from the Iraq War). Suddenly the fluent-in-several-languages-MBA-jetsetter-libertarian-sophisticate is all redwhiteandblue-collar Semper Fi macho. You’ve gone way out of line bro? Are you serious?
P.S. You don’t want to compare tours of duty, bro, I’ll guarantee you that.
BS. There is no way you have active duty overseas and still act like such a priss.
Now we have to debate publicly.
Dude. Don’t be a coward. There is no way you served!
You would be a total insult to the uniform.
Noone would serve in the same unit with a guy who had your attitude.
You still haven’t answered what you think of what the two judges said.
Bro,
Go to http://www.online-dating-rights.com and ask that the active duty guys in Iraq check out what you said about them (including what you said about them bombing and killing civilians).
They are going to want to meet a fellow serviceman when they come home on leave.
Obviously, I can tell you now that they would not be afraid to meet you.
Would you be afraid to meet them?
Not man enough to stand behind the words you said online?
They would not hurt you. It could be a public place like the Plaza Hotel.
Still not man enough to meet fellow vets?
I thought so.
Will the real Jim Peterson please speak up… On second thought…
We started with the Prissy, pseudo-sophisticated Jim Peterson:
When I lived in New York and owned a company, I was invited to 2 balls and 3 cocktail parties per week just by getting on a few lists…
He was the arrogant, haughty, jetsetting Jim Peterson:
… I have an MBA and travel the world and speak several languages fluently. and We can afford a $600 flight to Warsaw on a 4 day weekend. You cannot.
And yet the literary reference to 1984 (the only book he read in school, so the only one that came to mind), pop culture references to Joey on Friends and WWII movies (late nite viewing of the lonely and dateless) gave away the lack of breeding. And then there were the allusions to the dating websites, which all int’l playboys frequent: Match.com, Adultfriendfinder, etc. of course The best and the brightest US males have a choice, and that choice includes some of the best looking and well educated women at places like http://www.aforeignaffair.com.
(Yeah, the best and the brightest are logging in with their Platinum cards at icantbuyadateinmyowncountry.com.)
Suddenly, international Playboy Jim Peterson is replaced by 20-something Budweiser commercial (Wassup!?) Jim Peterson, aka Bro: Dude. Don’t be a coward. There is no way you served! You would be a total insult to the uniform.
Sure, Dude, like, bro… Love to meet you and your bros at the Plaza sometime because, I like, don’t have friends. But right now Lily and Tatyana are calling from the hot tub, so I got to go. But don’t worry, they said they’ve got a friend who’s dying to meet you.
Dear Jim: I hear about you and would like very much lunch with you. I have lot of interest and especially I like sport. I am a likable, woman, with a sense of humour lady. I like smile and make laughing other people. Being curious and open I like new impressions, and no background check.
Oksana
(reply: oks89989 http://budgetbrides.blogspot.com/ VISA/MC/AMEX)
In other words:
1) You didn’t disgrace the uniform of a US serviceman. A real vet would not state that the Constitution doesn’t apply to 40 year old men. A real vet wouldn’t be afraid to meet with the vets who oppose IMBRA and tell them in person how he feels.
2) You don’t have the nerve to state whether you agree with the concept that “It’s Just Lunch” should have a federally mandated requirement to background check its members.
3) You won’t answer whether Americans have the fundamental right to say hello to each other without US government intervention.
4) You won’t answer whether you feel Congress has an enumerated power that deals with “domestic violence” which anyone with a brain knows to be a States Rights issue (but legislators seem to have forgotten since 1995).
IMBRA is based on the wacko concept that anyone saying hello to a foreigner will automatically marry them, immigrate them and beat them in his basement.
5) You haven’t thought about how the judges’ comments would affect the universal right to be anonymous on the Internet? This coming from a “man” who wants to remain anonymous on the Internet.
To uphold IMBRA, the SC will have to say that online anonymity is not allowed if one wants to speak with someone else. The ruling might state “with someone else from a foreign country”, but that would only be a temporary distinction for the court.
You are OK with the Right to Assemble being qualified to only include “with other Americans” because your animosity and hatred for “40 year olds” is so strong right?
Or is it a hatred for playboys and jetsetters?
Enough of a hatred to allow the Right to Assemble be qualified to just include “with other Americans?”
6) You are apparently OK with the continued slander by the US Government in calling foreign women “mail order brides” if they sell hello to an active duty serviceman…who is referred to as “probably violent” by these laws.
Or would you agree that the use of the phrase “mail order bride” needs to be stopped.
7) You don’t think the message of “1984″ was important. The theme of government interference in private relationships is a joke to you correct bro?
The book was a joke right?
8) Since IMBRA takes a perceived subset of white Americans generally aged 30-50 and calls them “potentially violent” and then regulates them…it would be OK to prove that African Americans who frequent liquor stores are often more violent to their women, thus justifying regulating such African Americans by background checking them when they speak with others online?
It would be OK with you, bro, if gay men on Gay.com were forced by the US government to undergo HIV tests before being allowed to say hello to other men online…correct? After all, it can be shown that harm can result otherwise, right?
http://www.newswithviews.com/NWV-News/news10.htm
http://www.newswithviews.com/Roberts/carey193.htm
And you never definitively agreed with what the Republican Judge Thomas Rose said about IMBRA:
“There is no fundamental liberty interest in an American contacting a foreigner”. May 26, 2006 (just before Memorial Day)
Jim Peterson & $12 Guy… I’m sure it would be enlightening if anyone had the time to read the mass of wordage you two compiled this afternoon, but could you take your feud to one or both of your own websites?
The subject here is franchising and franchise opportunities, specifically the It’s Just Lunch franchise not personal pissing contests. We’ll be happy to come watch it at your place. Thanks.
The Proprietor.
Just ducked in for more Champagne. Saw your ??? & will try to answer quickly:
1) I’m not
2) Don’t Care
3) Don’t Care
4) EH?
5) Don’t Care
6) I am.
7) The book was a joke right? No, I think he was being serious. Though there were some funny parts.
8a) …African Americans who frequent liquor stores are often more violent to their women… I think that’s a racist contention Jim Peterson and I strongly disagree.
8b)It would be OK…if gay men on Gay.com were forced by the US government to undergo HIV tests before being allowed to say hello to other men online… I think your view is homophobic Jim Peterson and I strongly disagree with you.
8c)“There is no fundamental liberty interest in an American contacting a foreigner”. May 26, 2006 (just before Memorial Day) I strongly disagree with you on this, too. I think the same rules should apply all year, not just before Memorial Day.
Jim… I’m waiting for you long time…
The only date $12 gay has tonight is with 5 Fingered Mary. Any male who doesn’t like ALL women, including foreign women, is either (1) a faggot that sells himself to other men for $12 or (2) a lesbian feminist volunteer from the Tahirih Justice Center or NOW trying to downplay IMBRAs attack on the Constitution.
Hey $12 gay, have you ever made the journey out of “Queens” to Manhatten? You are the epitome of the word “ignorant.”
Very professional, John or Frank or whomever you’re playing today. What are you, 12 years old? Can’t imagine why no one takes your argument seriously. Run along before Mommy finds out you’re on the computer. Shoo!
You actually started out making a bit of sense, but let $12 bait you into making a fool of yourself. Look back… he played you like a violin. Lighten up. And stop hanging out with Frank and John. Now shoo!
$12 Guy: Why fight a battle of wits with an unnarmed man? You should be ashamed of yourself. Now shoo!
Oksana: Email me. I’m a sucker for “a sense of humour lady”
Thanks for building my comment count (and your link count to your incomprehensible websites). Now go away… The grownups are talking!
Sean:
That wasn’t me before that. Now what is your problem? You think background checks for “It’s Just Lunch” would be OK?
Do you really agree that the courts should be saying things like the following:
1) Meeting some is like buying a gun and both should require background checks?
2) No fundamental liberty interest in Americans contacting foreigners?
Where, Sean, do either of those statements relate only to the kind of dating site that you apparently also feel an incredible hatred for?
This issue has everything to do with “Let’s Do Lunch” and their new owners should be looking to stop this in the courts themselves.
Where does this issue only narrow down to the socalled “mail order bride” issue?
Jim: I’m hesitant to even respond, but since you do seem capable of being reasonable at moments I will go against my better judgement.
You might have a point. It sounds like it could be a misguided law or overkill. You’re the only person I’ve ever heard talk about it, and your credibility is suspect with ridiculous assertions like I feel “incredible hatred” for certain kinds of dating sites. Idiotic and insulting statements like that make you an easy target for chumphood. I’ve been married for 25 years and personally couldn’t care less about dating sites. I’m a skeptic, so I carefully researched a “model quality” Eastern European dating site for a friend (who’s far from a loser). The site checked out as legitimate. My associate met his Ukrainian fiance through the site, and they’ve visited back and forth for the past year and a half. It’s been tough going, but it seems to be a good thing for both of them. I don’t have “hatred” for legit dating sites.
(Tip from a marketing guy: Being blatantly wrong at the top of your voice does not help your credibility. And you’re blatantly wrong with that allegation.)
Secondly, the mission of this blog is to help individuals who are looking to open or have already opened a franchise get the best possible results in navigating the difficult business of franchise ownership. Your IMBLA campaigning is your passion, and best kept on your website(s). I don’t disrespect your site, and I’d appreciate the same courtesy.
If you think the new owners should be looking to stop IMBLA in the courts, call them. I doubt they’re favorably disposed to what we’ve posted about them.
Good luck on your crusade.
Sean; do you think that the conversation above has to be in the UFOC?
PS. One last tip: If you want your argument to be listened to, you’d be wise to distance yourself from cretins whose hatred rivals the skinheads and KKK members. When people see your posts side by side with his racist & misogynistic song lyrics and posts on ODR, your credibility goes out the window. Putting up with psychopaths because they agree with your opinion on one issue is not a wise PR strategy.
Sean,
Thank you for that advice. I will ask the moderator to deal with what you might be referring to. It is good you looked into the matter.
The original point was that “It’s Just Lunch” is charging women a lot of money in a market where there is a lot of competition that does not pay money at all. One would never expect a male to respond to that with hostility.
Your response now showed respect for your friend and for the foreign women. But your previous email implied that you agreed with the unreasonable and mean-spirited attack on the character of foreign women as well as any American male with a passport.
Thanx again
Sean; do you think that the conversation above has to be in the UFOC?
Michael: Are you referring to the high level “conversation” on online dating sites, patriotism, the sex lives of the founding fathers and the book report on 1984? IJL would be wise to include it in the UFOC… right up front. It would guarantee that the few prospects who read such things wouldn’t. Then again, their heads might explode before they pay their franchise fee. I think mine is about to.
Sean
Throw this in item 1, and you will have a best-seller. Might not sell any franchises, though.
By the way Sean, I hope your marriage lasts forever, but you could be in the position of your friend at any time. Try not to be so flippant about your own rights. The law really blocks communications in many cases, not just delaying it. $12 was wrong to think this isn’t gathering momentum on sites other than ODR.
Jim:
You are scaring me. Do you think about anything else? Methinks you need a hobby. Or a franchise. I’m trying not to get sucked back in, but can’t help asking: What kind of business are you in? What made you so obsessed about this particular issue (Personally, NOT idealogically, please)
I think you need to understand a few things about your own software. I can be doing other things and then see that someone posted something that distorts the facts and message and then I am forced to respond. No big deal. If I had seen reasonable responses or more talk about that lunch company, I would have ignored the emails.
This Canadian who said “eh” was especially mean-spirited. I still assume it was a smart but bitter female. There was no logical reason for a male to fly off the handle using swear words to describe foreign women and their countries.
You scare me in that you don’t seem to understand this simple dynamic of your own software.
What did you think, that I was coming back to your little website every few minutes to check to see if someone wrote something?
Fat chance.
It also scares me that you seem to think there is 100% chance that you will never be single again or ever like someone like your friend found.
That is truly frightening…this attitude that the law does not affect you…this idea that it isn’t anything to you that a judge just said you don’t have an actual right to talk to a foreigner.
Don’t try to say that Thomas Rose’s decision didn’t show this kind of disdain for what you and I would have assumed all our lives was a fundamental right.
The only thing you can criticize me for, Sean, is the fact that I am on the computer at 10PM European time instead of swimming at the local pool, which would be healthier.
But I had a cold yesterday and today so staying in was probably the wise thing to do.
Having said that, I really do wish that more American males will take a much more proactive role in fighting things like this.
The majority think they are doing so by supporting Ron Paul for President.
But RP has very little chance of doing anything but teaching Giuliani a lesson for not talking more about civil rights…in that an RP third party run can put Hillary in the White House (which would mean more laws like this).
About the personal reasons, go to http://www.aforeignaffair.com and do a search for your ideal height and weight. The absolutely gorgeous women you will see as a result will make Match.com results look like like a bunch of jailbird mugshots.
Don’t you take it personally that special interest groups succeeded in making it impossible to communicate with most of them (I already told you about how they mostly do not have email addresses)?
The US feminists have been trying for 15 years to get a law like this and I always assumed that at least Republicans would stop them on it because it is so blatantly an act to stop the competition and stop guys like me from meeting them.
I took this very personally and so have a few CEOs who are going to do something very big about this when they next transition between jobs. I am in a similar situation to them. I work during the European business day on trading in the industrial products business.
The CEOs I know are going to dismantle the entire Office on Violence Against Women and its $430Million budget.
They went way too far forcing American men to have background checks to say hello to women.