Do We Think This Will Work?

I guess Catherine thought that posting "holler if you are interested in running 3-4 miles with a kinda outtashape but still reasonably fast running partner in DC" was likely to attract a lot of stalkers, so instead she went with:

i should also note that i'm again looking for a running partner on monday AM (7 am-ish, yes this is optimistic, but still) and saturdays at any point, so holler if you are interested in running 3-4 miles with a kinda outtashape but still reasonably fast running partner in DC. and if you're not a psycho stalker.

My feeling is that what differentiates the "psycho" stalkers from the polite, friendly ones is that they're precisely the ones least likely to be dissuaded by a "no psycho stalkers" disclaimer.

Comments

Well, I have trouble thinking that most psychos would label themselves as such. Heck most stalkers probably just think of themselves as highly motivated.

Then again, isn't highly motivated what you're looking for in a running partner?

Or you could just give Jim Henley a buzz.

Posted by Rob | June 6, 2007 1:03 AM

"My feeling is that what differentiates the "psycho" stalkers from the polite, friendly ones is that they're precisely the ones least likely to be dissuaded by a "no psycho stalkers" disclaimer."

I've successfully negotiated a one night stand in my life as follows:

Her: How do I know you're not a psycho stalker?
Petey: Well, if I were a psycho stalker, I wouldn't admit it to you, would I?
Her: Makes sense. Let's go.

Posted by Petey | June 6, 2007 1:09 AM

Mmm. Sounds like low hanging fruit, Petey.

Posted by sangfroid826 | June 6, 2007 1:28 AM

I just go with--

"I may be a stalker, but I'm probably not YOUR stalker." That seems to work.

Posted by beowulf | June 6, 2007 2:09 AM

Presumably the definition of "psycho stalker" includes "willing to wake up at 7 am on Mondays and Saturdays (!) in order to run with a girl."

You can get a restraining order for doing much less.

Posted by JRoth | June 6, 2007 2:15 AM

Off topic:

Jonathon Cohn demolishes your anti-mandate piece in a single clause.

If I understand his argument...

As the kids say, awwww, snap.

Posted by Petey | June 6, 2007 2:31 AM

Funny, why does this post remind me of the argument against "Gun Free Zone" signs?

Posted by Spencer Winters | June 6, 2007 3:17 AM

I can't think of many better motivations to run fast than the knowledge that the person right behind me is a psycho stalker. (Maybe if she could hire a rabid dog?)

Posted by ajay | June 6, 2007 5:16 AM

I know you're kidding, but the ad's probably effective; psycho stalker types tend to focus on people who are polite enough to tolerate weird intrusive behavior. Signaling that you're not particularly tolerant that way, while it's not a magic shield, is going to do you some good keeping weirdos away.

Posted by LizardBreath | June 6, 2007 7:36 AM

I agree that at least some of the lazier stalkers are going for low hanging fruit, and you might dissuade those who take "running partner" to be code for something else, if not explained explicitly. So now all one has to worry about is motivated stalkers.

On another note, back in my early twenties I advertised two times for a roommate to share my apartment. The first time, I said I was specifically looking for a female roommate, I found one, and it worked out fine until she went off to Thailand with the peace corps. The second time, I only needed a roommate for a couple of months, so I didn't specify gender and almost everyone who responded was a man. What's up with that?

Posted by JMS | June 6, 2007 8:39 AM

I've successfully negotiated a one night stand

I find that among the various things I don't need to know about, I really don't need to know about Petey's sex life.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | June 6, 2007 10:40 AM

JMS- should I take it that you're a woman then?

Lemuel- Agreed. I especially don't want to know how John Edwards candidacy factors in.

Posted by mpowell | June 6, 2007 2:54 PM