S17.E11: Taking It Day by Day

[Lindz]

Out by the monthaversary & then hadn't talked for 2 days & probably would've continued not talking? They should've quit days before the "special" day if it wasn't something they were looking forward to celebrating. Still, Cam sure found the right opportunity to pull the plug, IN FRONT OF EVERYONE. 😬 Was he waiting for a relevant question/statement for him to do that? Pretty appropriate the next couple to quit was just "counseled" by the other couple that quit. 🤣 Cam really should've put her on blast & ask her why she was there, especially after not speaking for 2 days. When was she gunna set him free?

[Lindz]

Emily looks crazy complaining to the camera & making faces at the table. Does she seriously still like him because of how he acted the first few days??? It's too soon to be longing for the good 'ol days! LET IT GO!!! You can't put in extra effort to make up the difference in his lack of effort & just hope he'll try one day. MATCH HIS EFFORT & PULL BACK! Like him so much? Like how he's treating you???? She sounds ridiculous!!! & Now one from the 2nd expired couple is giving advice? That's promising! 🤣🤣

[Yeah No]

On 1/4/2024 at 6:42 PM, seacliffsal said:

Pastor Cal seemingly implied that there wasn't a difference between believing in Christ and not believing in him but following his principles/teachings.  There are many, many people who accept and follow the principles of loving our neighbors (as well as those we do not know), trying to do good to/for others, bring peace into the world, and other morals/values/teachings.  But, Jesus himself is clear (as well as multiple biblical references) that it is in accepting him as one's savior (believing in him as the son of God who came to redeem us) that makes one a Christian.  One may be a good person but that does not make one a Christian.  

<snip>

I actually think that Pastor Cal was trying to emphasize the similarity of Austin and Becca's values, but the way he framed it didn't quite convey that idea, at least to me. 

I agree with you that Pastor Cal didn't articulate what he was talking about very well, but I don't know if I agree that he was implying that there was no difference between believing in Christ and not believing in Christ but following his teachings and principles.  He just may feel that heaven isn't exclusive to Christians based on a different interpretation of the Bible texts and Jesus quotes on this issue.  Whether accepting the teachings of Christ and following them without being a Christian and without accepting Christ's identity as the son of God and savior of the world is enough to make one eligible for heaven is the issue.

Some liberal Christian thinking on this is that if one accepts the general teachings and spirit of Christianity heaven is potentially open to them even if they don't identify as Christian and they don't accept Christ as the son of God and savior of the world.  Some people would say that Christ is a symbol for what God intends for humanity, so accepting his teachings and Word is also technically and essentially accepting him.  Does that make it possible for a person to be a Christian in spirit even if not professing to be so?  Perhaps, and perhaps that is a way to believe that they would also be eligible for heaven without completely contradicting what's in the Bible about this.  If it can be said that they're enough like Christians to be essentially in line with Christianity and de facto Christians in a sense, they can go with that and feel consistent with the Bible. 

Other liberal Christians are not as strict about what the Bible says and don't expect everything they believe about their faith to be 100% consistent with a literal interpretation of the text of the Bible.  They may be able to stretch and interpret the meaning of the texts to be more inclusive and match their views on this.  And I think Pastor Cal is like that, as am I.  Jesus was speaking symbolically about himself in the Bible and some liberal Christians can feel that there are other more inclusive ways to interpret his meaning there.  If Jesus is "the way" and one must go through him to redeem oneself, there are ways you can believe that certain other symbols and gateways to God can also technically go through Christ and that God would accept them even without outward acceptance of Christ as savior.  Of course people who adhere to a strict, literal interpretation of the Bible would not accept this.  But the liberal Christians that do consider themselves to be just as Christian as any other, and in some cases may even feel that their view is more in line with the true spirit of Christianity.  Not speaking for anyone here but myself and based on conversations I've had with friends on this.

Edited January 6 by Yeah No

[LennieBriscoe]

Christianity is Christianity,  not simply a moral code of ethics (NTTAWWT). 

I'd say more, but IMO there lies madness!

 

Edited January 6 by LennieBriscoe

[Yeah No]

3 hours ago, LennieBriscoe said:

Christianity is Christianity,  not simply a moral code of ethics (NTTAWWT). 

I'd say more, but IMO there lies madness!

OK, but as I wrote in another post, even the Pope/Roman Catholic church has come out within the past decade to say that it allows for the potential salvation of Jews without being converted to Jesus, although the Pope didn't really specify why and it has been called a divine mystery.  That's an interesting resolution!  So it's not just liberal Protestants.  YMMV.

[LennieBriscoe]

36 minutes ago, Yeah No said:

OK, but as I wrote in another post, even the Pope/Roman Catholic church has come out within the past decade to say that it allows for the potential salvation of Jews without being converted to Jesus, although the Pope didn't really specify why and it has been called a divine mystery.  That's an interesting resolution!  So it's not just liberal Protestants.  YMMV.

A source for your comment:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2015/12/can-jews-go-to-heaven-vatican-reconfirms-yes.html

Luckily for me, I'm a proverbial "lapsed Catholic"! 😉

But I am a great admirer of Pope Francis, who, by this declaration, is hoping to remove any vestiges of anti-Semitism (aka, the doctrine of "forced conversion") from the faith. 

But apparently  the concepts of Heaven and Hell differ between Catholicism and Judaism.

"I don't believe we've met. You are....? St. Peter? May I call you 'Pete'? I'm familiar with gated communities, but I kind of expected to arrive....well, nowhere, really. Or at least some place darker, given my behavior, you shouldn't ask. There's so much bright light here! I wasn't ready for....where am I, again? Heaven? Do you mean The Villages?" 

 

Edited January 6 by LennieBriscoe

[Hip-to-be-Square]

9 hours ago, Lindz said:

Emily looks crazy complaining to the camera & making faces at the table. Does she seriously still like him because of how he acted the first few days??? It's too soon to be longing for the good 'ol days! LET IT GO!!! You can't put in extra effort to make up the difference in his lack of effort & just hope he'll try one day. MATCH HIS EFFORT & PULL BACK! Like him so much? Like how he's treating you???? She sounds ridiculous!!! & Now one from the 2nd expired couple is giving advice? That's promising! 🤣🤣

Such great points 😃🙌💯! Emily only likes Brennan because he's playing hard to get and she's trying to hold onto her winning streak of making it past a 3rd date- even if her partner has zero attraction to her. I think that the couples who do make it to decision day and beyond on this show are a blend of desperation and Stockholm Syndrome.   I'm sure Brennan would be animated and flirtier if he was paired with a lady that he thought was hot. Hell, we saw that he had great chemistry and happiness with a horse, so he can be fun and animated when paired with something he enjoys.  She absolutely should match his effort and pull back.  She looks so desperate making faces and complaining.   Also, she really needs to blend her extensions better with her actual very fine hair that's too yellow for platinum blonde extensions.  

Edited January 6 by Hip-to-be-Square

[Emma Snyder]

While I understand this show has become boring and predictable AF, please don't take the conversation too off track. Please take further religious discussion to Small Talk. Thanks in advance!

[kikicat]

I've only been watching bits and pieces of the episodes, so my only comment is: What a Disaster!

And it sounds like I missed the only Afterparty worth watching...dammit.

[Lois Sandborne]

On 1/3/2024 at 8:14 PM, Elizzikra said:

I will say that I am enjoying the different outings. That ski-treadmill thing that Cameron and Claire did looks awesome!

 

It looked like some kind of snow boarding practice. I'd love to try that.

I'm not sure how the hell conversation played out between Austin and Becca, but to me it seemed like Becca really wanted assurance from him that she wasn't going to hell and he personally didn't think she was. But Austin is not an agnostic. It's probably not possible for him to tell someone who hasn't accepted Christ, "hey, you're great, God'll make an exception for you." People may think his beliefs are silly or demeaning or myriad other things, but he's said that his faith is important to him, and he's been clear about what that means. It doesn't mean Austin thinks Becca is a bad person. It means Austin thinks Becca does not have the belief you need to get into heaven.

If he's pressuring Becca to consider becoming Christian or something like that, that's truly wretched, but I think it's equally as unfair for Becca to push the issue and challenge his thinking at every turn.

A few people objected to the experts matching people with different religious beliefs, but it happens a lot. Couples can exist accepting a difference like that, as long as there really is mutual acceptance. I think it's much less egregious to mismatch religions than to disregard whether people are on the same page about kids.

[Crashcourse]

never mind.

Edited January 6 by Crashcourse

[Retired at last]

9 minutes ago, Lois Sandborne said:

A few people objected to the experts matching people with different religious beliefs, but it happens a lot. Couples can exist accepting a difference like that, as long as there really is mutual acceptance. I think it's much less egregious to mismatch religions than to disregard whether people are on the same page about kids.

I do agree that, of course, couples with differences in many things, like religion or race, even political affiliation, do and can have a happy relationship. The difference is that those couples know each other and have determined that their feelings outweigh the differences. In this case, these couples have no say, since we have seen people paired with people with preferences they have clearly expressed that they don't want. Many of the characteristics they have requested on their Santa list seem very surface level, such as no bald men, or a certain body type, and when they are paired with those types, SOMETIMES it doesn't matter. But, if you are talking about religion, choice of whether or not to have kids, and even pet preferences, THOSE are significant core values and should be respected. 

[SummerDreams]

On 1/5/2024 at 1:14 AM, Kiss my mutt said:

I wish they’d give the Australian version format a try. 

Sorry to go a bit off topic here but I actually started watching last season of Australian MAFS and there are indeed differences, and the most important difference I noticed is that the "experts" actually care if a couple is compatible, I mean from the couples I've already met I can see how and why there were matched, while in the American version I'm left unsure about that. I think though that the reason for that is that Australia is huge and they match people from all over the country while Denver only had like 1000 applicants as I read somewhere, so the applicants pool is really big in Australia and thus they have so many and more or less successful matches.

So yeah, I'd love to see this version in the American MAFS and thank you for giving me the idea to actually try watching the Australian one. :)

[Hip-to-be-Square]

I wonder how many couples stuck it out in their terrible marriages just for the all-expense paid 1 month anniversary fancy steakhouse dinner? Cameron's huge steak and French fries dinner looked absolutely DELICIOUS! Totally worth weeks of Clare's lip injection frowns 🥴 and stiff conversation 😄😋💖🥩🍟🙌💯!

Edited January 6 by Hip-to-be-Square

[Crashcourse]

You could tell that Cameron was more interested in that delicious meal than hanging with Clare.

[Elizzikra]

4 hours ago, Crashcourse said:

You could tell that Cameron was more interested in that delicious meal than hanging with Clare.

And why wouldn't he be? His relationship with Clare is already over. He had at least a good 45 minutes remaining in his relationship with that steak dinner. Love the one you're with, man...

[Crazydoxielady]

I just binged MAFS Australia, season 10 (on the lifetime app if you have a smart TV or regular lifetime app on phone). It was insane, with people that actually had sex, gas lit each other, fought, tried.... Best MAFS I have ever watched, followed by the last season of MAFS UK.

This season is a true snooze. NONE of these people like each other. Emily, girl, he sees you as a red flag. He doesn't like that you have been ghosted in every relationship, and see's it as your fault. He is stiff, stilted, and boring. He is NOT the one! RUN!

Clare had alot to say on the aftershow, said she had tried to have sex with him, and he literally said "ew" and would not partake. He is sweet but incredibly awkward. And Clare is incredibly rehearsed and harsh. Bad match up, but what else is new this season?

Becca needs to leave Mr. "your going to hell." Who says that? He does not like her, it is obvious. There was a couple on MAFS Australia, the woman had cystic fibrosis, he quickly got the "ick" with her and dropped her. I wonder with this iteration if Austin also has the "ick" as other than little closed mouth kisses/pecks, it's clear he wants nothing physical. 

Micheal coming back is interesting. Can you imagine walking up to the aisle and seeing a dude with a Flock of Seagulls haircut, with a crown and septor? Just no...honestly less than 5% of women would likely go for that look. So why set the bride up? It's such a ploy for ATTENTION to run around like that, where does that leave room for attention to your lady, sir?  I notice he is downplaying that look a bit now, and actually looks so much better. So if he is back, let's hope that is all toned down. Initially I thought he looked very "Orion-esque" but more flamboyant.  But honestly, Micheal's personality is so much better than cry baby Orion, so I am here for a better match up and him dialing back on all the props. On the after show his hair was cut very close to his scalp, with a normal sweater and jeans on. VOILA! 

Edited January 7 by Crazydoxielady

[Yeah No]

9 hours ago, Elizzikra said:

And why wouldn't he be? His relationship with Clare is already over. He had at least a good 45 minutes remaining in his relationship with that steak dinner. Love the one you're with, man...

Hah, 45 minutes!  That huge steak looked like it could feed a family of 4 for a week!  😄

[Elizzikra]

Quote

Can you imagine walking up to the aisle and seeing a dude with a Flock of Seagulls haircut, with a crown and septor?

In Michael's defense, the crown and scepter were gifts from the runaway bride, so I thought it was nice of him to use them.

[Yeah No]

2 hours ago, Yeah No said:

Hah, 45 minutes!  That huge steak looked like it could feed a family of 4 for a week!  😄

All kidding aside, I just had a horrible thought - Based on the preview during this episode where Cam reveals that he just found out he has a heart condition and wonders how much doing the show contributed to that, if he ate huge cholesterol filled meals like that all the time, that may be the primary reason, not the stress from his marriage to Clare!  🤯

[candall]

To me, the best part of Australia MAFS is that every two or three weeks, everyone gets together and the couples reveal cards where each has marked whether s/he wants to stay together or split.  If they both agree to continue, great; if they both want out, sayonara.  BUT if only one wants to keep on working on it, they have to gut it out together until the next gathering.  That's pretty fun--has the unhappy partner come around or has the other partner given up or will there be another round of awkwardness and torture?

New couples rotate in to take the place of the couples who quit.  (One time, one of the "new" couples was a man from an earlier unsuccessful couple and a woman from a different earlier couple.  Gasp!)

 

With the US version, they'll produce 25 boring episodes showcasing couples who haven't wanted anything to do with each other since Day Two.  I usually wind up skipping the last part of each season--it's interminable.

###

 

I agree that all the pearl clutching and dismay from Dr. Pepper et. al about Michael's situation is pretty laughable, considering the poor rate of success they've had.

[Elizzikra]

Quote

With the US version, they'll produce 25 boring episodes showcasing couples who haven't wanted anything to do with each other since Day Two.  I usually wind up skipping the last part of each season--it's interminable.

I can see where the Australia version would be more appealing. I am old, though and it takes me most of the season to even figure out who's who with five couples. I'd have a hard time keeping up with Australia.

A changed that I would really like to see is for the couples to get a lot more expert support (maybe even from actual experts?). I think they should do a joint session with a marriage counselor twice a week for the duration of the "experiment" to help them process everything and communicate better together. Right now it seems that the "Experts" match them and they are cast adrift to figure it out from there, except for the occasional meetings they have when a big problem arises. I'd really like to see if things work out better if the couples had actual regular, meaningful support from experts throughout the duration of the experiment. Then again, maybe random activities to "build trust" like blindfolding your partner and making him/her lick whipped cream off one of your body parts makes for better television than teaching communication skills?

[Lindz]

You guys. 2 couples are now out, with another one close behind & it's only been a month! WORST RATE YET! They're dropping fast! Michael says the right things, but we haven't seen him with a stranger spouse. If it doesn't go how he wants, what's he gunna say & do??? He gets credit for his response to his 1st bride saying no, but there wasn't any history there, no chance for him to like her that much. Before his 1st bride, there was an 100% yes rate at the altar. For what that's worth. 🤣

[Katie111]

Didn't they used to have cameras in their apartments so we could see the fights?  I remember the very tall black guy from San Diego and his wife having some good screaming matches at night.  Also, the woman married to the tall basketball player, they would show her pacing the floor at night wondering where her husband was.  Now it all seems so staged and they all talk openly on the after-show about how their spouses act differently when they are filming vs not filming.   It seems like they used to always be filming. 

Also, I don't think we ever used to have talking heads of them throughout the season.  They're always in the same outfits, so clearly these were taped after season was completed.  Don't know the point of them besides just filler.  

[Shrek]

41 minutes ago, Katie111 said:

Didn't they used to have cameras in their apartments so we could see the fights?  I remember the very tall black guy from San Diego and his wife having some good screaming matches at night.  Also, the woman married to the tall basketball player, they would show her pacing the floor at night wondering where her husband was.  Now it all seems so staged and they all talk openly on the after-show about how their spouses act differently when they are filming vs not filming.   It seems like they used to always be filming. 

Also, I don't think we ever used to have talking heads of them throughout the season.  They're always in the same outfits, so clearly these were taped after season was completed.  Don't know the point of them besides just filler.  

At this point everything is filler, needs a giant refresh or moving over to the UK/AUS way of doing things as they're much more fun.

[Hip-to-be-Square]

The MAFS AUS series has some of the best fights! Sometimes I re-watch them on YouTube while I'm putting on my makeup! 😄💄

[Vanderboom]

On 1/6/2024 at 1:48 PM, Lois Sandborne said:

A few people objected to the experts matching people with different religious beliefs, but it happens a lot. Couples can exist accepting a difference like that, as long as there really is mutual acceptance. I think it's much less egregious to mismatch religions than to disregard whether people are on the same page about kids.

Yeah, but it's very different when a third party is making the choice for you. Despite the "experts" patting themselves on the back and absolving themselves of any blame for Michael's non-wedding, they (or the producers) can't take that sort of risk on someone else's behalf. Religion, kids, intimacy needs, and financial mindset are some of the deal-breaking areas that should factor into a MAFS match. Mismatches in these areas makes them look incompetent. A few seasons ago, one of the grooms lied about his job as a principal and couldn't answer questions about where he worked or when his contract started. The experts can't know everything, but this was fundamental information that people should know if they're going to marry someone.

This show was more enjoyable when there was a reasonable chance to see at least one successful pairing. In the most recent seasons, even getting to the monthiversary seems like a slow and painful drag.

Edited January 9 by Vanderboom
Added example

[princelina]

On 1/6/2024 at 1:48 PM, Lois Sandborne said:

A few people objected to the experts matching people with different religious beliefs, but it happens a lot. Couples can exist accepting a difference like that, as long as there really is mutual acceptance. I think it's much less egregious to mismatch religions than to disregard whether people are on the same page about kids.

That's why it's important to know what they said in the interview/audition process - Becca seems to have a real problem with Christians, and Cameron said that he absolutely would NOT raise his kids in any kind of religion.  (I wondered for a while if that was a reason he could not see a future with her.)   It would be interesting to know if they made that clear to the "experts".  Clare and Austin seem less rigid but maybe they realize they care more once they've been given partners with such strict attitudes.

21 minutes ago, Shrek said:

At this point everything is filler, needs a giant refresh or moving over to the UK/AUS way of doing things as they're much more fun.

This show has an identity crisis - they act like they are at the original idea of an "experiment" to see if people matched can give it a chance and see that their picker is off and they are not choosing the right things but the "experts" can do it for them.  But then they cast and pair them as if they are looking for conflicts and fights.  If they want to lure us in with sex and arguments they really need to be doing a better job - this cast for the most part has politely split up, with a little crying from Orion and Lauren. 😂

[Yeah No]

4 hours ago, princelina said:

That's why it's important to know what they said in the interview/audition process - Becca seems to have a real problem with Christians, and Cameron said that he absolutely would NOT raise his kids in any kind of religion.  (I wondered for a while if that was a reason he could not see a future with her.)   It would be interesting to know if they made that clear to the "experts".  Clare and Austin seem less rigid but maybe they realize they care more once they've been given partners with such strict attitudes.

This show has an identity crisis - they act like they are at the original idea of an "experiment" to see if people matched can give it a chance and see that their picker is off and they are not choosing the right things but the "experts" can do it for them.  But then they cast and pair them as if they are looking for conflicts and fights.  If they want to lure us in with sex and arguments they really need to be doing a better job - this cast for the most part has politely split up, with a little crying from Orion and Lauren. 😂

You know, you bring up something I've been thinking about for a long time.  It seems like every season the show picks a certain type of mismatch for at least two of the couples.  This season it's two couples with religious differences.  In other seasons it was couples with very different ideas about money, or children, sex, or (insert issue here).  Or they match people with very specific deal breaking requests with someone completely the opposite on that dimension, (like Alyssa who was hung up on perfect teeth, who they matched with a guy noticeably imperfect teeth).   I have always been convinced that this is no accident and is part of that "social experiment" they keep billing the show as, but I also think it's part of their M.O. to create train wrecks waiting to happen just for show drama.   The bit about their pickers being off and seeing if they can live with someone without one of their deal breakers is BS, IMO.  They know very well that the matches are likely not going to work out.  In fact I feel that they go out of their way to find at least one big thing that will put a wrench into the whole relationship.   Usually even people who are very ready for marriage will only compromise on things of lesser importance to them, but big things not so much.  And if they pick people with long lists of absolute deal breakers, well that's their fault for picking people who are not realistic and therefore not ready for marriage.

[princelina]

7 hours ago, Yeah No said:

You know, you bring up something I've been thinking about for a long time.  It seems like every season the show picks a certain type of mismatch for at least two of the couples.  This season it's two couples with religious differences.  In other seasons it was couples with very different ideas about money, or children, sex, or (insert issue here).  Or they match people with very specific deal breaking requests with someone completely the opposite on that dimension, (like Alyssa who was hung up on perfect teeth, who they matched with a guy noticeably imperfect teeth).   I have always been convinced that this is no accident and is part of that "social experiment" they keep billing the show as, but I also think it's part of their M.O. to create train wrecks waiting to happen just for show drama.   The bit about their pickers being off and seeing if they can live with someone without one of their deal breakers is BS, IMO.  They know very well that the matches are likely not going to work out.  In fact I feel that they go out of their way to find at least one big thing that will put a wrench into the whole relationship.   Usually even people who are very ready for marriage will only compromise on things of lesser importance to them, but big things not so much.  And if they pick people with long lists of absolute deal breakers, well that's their fault for picking people who are not realistic and therefore not ready for marriage.

Absolutely!  But I don't think the original premise had anything to do with "deal breakers" but rather people who ran away too soon or didn't realize what they wanted.  So casting people who announce that if "they're not immediately attracted to their partner they're done" is a violation of that premise to begin with.  And at the beginning they touted the "extensive psychological testing" the candidates undergo, so the "experts" should be aware of deal-breakers that are absolute, such as having/not having kids, being firm on a certain religion, etc. and should not be asking people to give those up - those are real, lifelong things that people know they want or need to live with.  If they are not going to make the matches in good faith, which clearly they have not been, then they should dispense with the "legal marriage" BS and just be a disastrous matchmaking show and let the fur fly!

[Elizzikra]

2 hours ago, princelina said:

Absolutely!  But I don't think the original premise had anything to do with "deal breakers" but rather people who ran away too soon or didn't realize what they wanted.  So casting people who announce that if "they're not immediately attracted to their partner they're done" is a violation of that premise to begin with.  And at the beginning they touted the "extensive psychological testing" the candidates undergo, so the "experts" should be aware of deal-breakers that are absolute, such as having/not having kids, being firm on a certain religion, etc. and should not be asking people to give those up - those are real, lifelong things that people know they want or need to live with.  If they are not going to make the matches in good faith, which clearly they have not been, then they should dispense with the "legal marriage" BS and just be a disastrous matchmaking show and let the fur fly!

I agree, or perhaps “deal breakers that shouldn’t be deal breakers” - like the woman who always went for bad boys and was inevitably let down by them. I do think it was also designed to get people to look past initial physical attraction for deeper connections.

I think, to the degree that any of that might have been genuine to start, it’s all out the window now. 

[Retired at last]

I never understand why the participants insist of having exactly the type of people they want, which, clearly, hasn't worked for them. Why would the "experts" waste time finding people like the ones they already have experience with and it hasn't worked?  As I have stated before, SOME THINGS are critical and have to be considered; other, more superficial, requests should be ignored, and if the participant is so hung up on what color eyes or how much hair, then they aren't ready to be married.

[Crashcourse]

I don't have an issue with wanting/not wanting certain physical characteristics in a partner.  It doesn't mean they shouldn't be married.  However, if a person is adamant about this, they shouldn't go on MAFS.   

[kristen111]

On 1/6/2024 at 1:04 PM, kikicat said:

I've only been watching bits and pieces of the episodes, so my only comment is: What a Disaster!

And it sounds like I missed the only Afterparty worth watching...dammit.

That sucks too.

[Meowwww]

I still maintain that part of the quality demise of this show is choosing participants who have never seen the show.  These people just want to be on tv and be “famous”. The format of the show is optional to them…moving in? Optional. Getting together in groups?  Optional. Sharing “true” feelings? Optional.  Honesty and intergrity? Also optional. 
I know a lot of us have watched since the beginning….remember when they used to show the people waiting in line, taking all of the personality tests, all the focus on the experts actually using those results to find a match?  Now they do none of that…it seems like they used to care so much more about finding true matches. It’s really disappointing.  

[StatisticalOutlier]

On 1/3/2024 at 10:14 PM, Elizzikra said:

I will say that I am enjoying the different outings. That ski-treadmill thing that Cameron and Claire did looks awesome!

I taught skiing on one of those 25 years ago.  It was a nice way for Texans to get on skis before heading to the slopes for the first time.