"Don't call us, we'll call you"

[two42lovers]

Been thinking about this one... when we see a "we prefer to meet at parties or clubs" in a profile, we are very likely to not write. Don't know why, but we read that as saying they really don't want to meet people. (Maybe they don't play? Move very slowly? Reject the vast majority of people who express interest?) Of course none of that may be true, but we would rather meet people who are actually interested in us, and the "let's say hi at a party" plan sounds like a waste of time.

[socolais]

If someone fails to read and comprehend the information in your profile before they initiate contact, that says a lot about about them. Bad first impressions are difficult to overcome.

I think most people understand that playtime or just plain ole time can be a limited resource. And the way to manage that is to use the resource to its best advantage. If that means you cut back on initial meetings and play more with established friends, then that's the way it is. Does anyone really want to play with someone that can't handle that???

Initially meeting at a local party would be a "waste of time" only for folks that don't care for the parties. If there's no click between the people that have arranged for an initial meet there, maybe someone else would make a fun match. If there is a click, then play and maybe schedule some additional private time together. I know when I'm going to a party that I'm going to have fun whether I actually play or not - that's the part that's missing from the resturant reservation for 4. A nice party is a perfect way to "network".

[two42lovers]

A lot of it may involve regional differences? We've attended some "donation" for entry parties, and a club or two. Not sure about other parts of the country, but the events we've attended here in California are mostly "stand around and socialize" affairs with music so loud you can't hear yourself think. The private "friends only" house parties are completely different - they are full-on play parties - but people have to get invited. Unless the host allows you to invite someone you've never met (and can not vouch for) there is no way to invite someone new to such a party.

If that means you cut back on initial meetings and play more with established friends, then that's the way it is. Does anyone really want to play with someone that can't handle that???

That's what we do, too - easily 80% of our play is with existing friends - and that's exactly why we skip those profiles that say they are too busy to meet people anywhere but a club.

When we meet couples 2-on-2 for drinks, it actually leads to play nearly every time. (Of course no expectations, but we try to choose the couples we meet carefully, and as a result it usually does lead to playing.) Maybe it's because couples who are willing to meet us 2-on-2 are more certain they are actually interested in us?

In contrast, we almost never have actually played with someone we met at a "donation" party or club. Fee-for-entry parties can be fun, but for us, 2-on-2 meet-ups have been a vastly more effective way of meeting couples and actually playing.

[LikeMinds321]

Originally Posted by Pensacolapair

1. "We think it's only common courtesy to respond to emails"

2. "We think not responding to an email is a response..it says we aren't interested"

The options are fairly easy based on which position you happen to subscribe to: If number one is your feeling (which you seem to lean towards), then as has been suggested by a previous poster, invest the almost 5 seconds it requires to hit that "quick reply" button that says 'No Thanks'. At that rate, if the amount of emails you are getting means you are burning more than 2 minutes out of your day - much respect to you!.. you are getting too much mail and should consider adopting the second sentiment.. you won't have to invest all those 5 seconds!

It takes 5 seconds just to open their e-mail. We're on dial-up and our computer is as slow as molasses in January.

Then, after reading their e-mail, I wait for their profile to open, then I wait again for their pictures to open, then I like to read some of their forum posts and I wait some more . And if they have a blog I like to check that out too and wait for that to open. Add this time up and it's more than 5 seconds to handle an e-mail.

It may not be a lot of time - I'd say 10-15 minutes on average - but it is time that over the years nearly always turns out in vain because they aren't people we want to meet. Yeh, I could do a one-click "no thank you" reply and that would take less than 5 seconds, but it's not the reply that takes time, it's the checking our their profile that does. I think I just reached my limit. When I found myself thinking I'd rather be cleaning my house than opening another one of these dead-end e-mails, I decided to do things differently.

LM

[Pensacolapair]

Ohhhhhhh....Dial-up. That puts things into a different light! We can remember how much time it used to take to use the internet on dial-up!

As Roseanne Rosannadanna used to say: "Never mind!"

[cocpl2007]

Just a comment, regarding actually "meeting" other couples. Perhaps it is our age, station in life presently, where we live, or something else, but we have yet to experience a couple who expresses an interest in meeting, and being unable to accomplish that meeting. Also, without exception the other couple always shows up. Another thing we've yet to experience in our meeting other couples is the "trap door" syndrome, where you'd just as soon pull the rope on the trap door and v a p o r i z e, as dine with these folks!

[awesomecplmn]

Originally Posted by two42lovers

the "let's say hi at a party" plan sounds like a waste of time.

Just goes to show how everyone is different. To us this seems like a perfect use of time. Because if we/they aren't interested, there are a bunch of other couples to choose from, whereas if we do a one-on-one meeting, the whole night is a wash if we don't click.