FunInDFW, earlier I thought you were just being a dick with your original response to my comment. Now, I believe you really do have a couple of chromosomes missing. So, let me break it down for you...
Have to fix broken quotes...
"Did I miss where this was being equated to "rights" or even negatively with the choice anyone can make?"
Originally Posted by FunInDFW
Evidently you did. You see, CopierGuy dam near rubbed his dick all over your face with his Right's speech. Bfeguytx stated the same thing in my last sentence...with me so far?? Go rub one out, perhaps your brain will be less foggy...maybe.
Originally Posted by Bliss of DFW
I don't think I was being a dick. I was simply questioning (albeit rather aghast) your odd reply to something that hasn't been said. You are indeed correct though that I am missing chromosomes. Specifically the ones where I can't question a woman who's looks have prevented others from questioning her or give her a free pass.
Both posts to which you refer do no comparing. They are actually declarative. The latter of the two, which you say says the same thing, does not say (as it's written, obviously) the same thing: You're saying a guy isn't a match if he can't respect your right to discretion, he's saying he might not be a match if you don't have a face picture (the implication being that an appealing face is important to his connection to the provider).
The crux of the problem here is that, multiple people have said that face pictures are important for their process, and you've seemingly jumped to a conclusion that anyone who needs a face isn't respecting discretion. Hence me asking where those were equated or that needing a face picture was somehow negatively affecting the choices guys make. What you've said is perfectly valid; but given what's already said makes it out of place.
Also odd was your reply to my initial response. It further reinforced that there was some disconnect from what is actually being said.
I won't delve into personal insults; but let's just say you held out longer than I expected. Succumbing was a matter of when, not if. If you'd like an imagine insertion tutorial, I can certainly oblige.
edit: What this boils down to, for you or whomever is wondering as to the "why"... The scenario from the reply I can imagine is that a guy is interested in someone who feels like Bliss does. He's on the fence about her because he can't see her face. He might be a 'pretty face' guy instead of a legs, tits, ass, etc. type of guy. So he asks for information about her face, maybe even a picture. I'd hate to see a potential hookup be ruined by that provider thinking he wasn't respecting her rights to privacy or discretion and giving him the old "reply back and I report you for harassment" card I hear (and have seen personally) being pulled. Too often (and maybe for good reason?) people are quick to think everyone is out to get them when someone is being genuine/sincere and don't get the opportunity to express it unless they preface every pm/reply.