Couchsurfing dating site scott disick dating
Guaka , 11 February 2007 (UTC)What is the fact behind "Couch Surfing reports itself to be a non-profit registered according to section 501(c)(3) of the United States"?
It seems the only fact that justifies the claim "Couch Surfing reports itself to be a non-profit registered according to section 501(c)(3) of the United States" is a link to a feb 2003 demo page (the first sentence is "Warning: This site is in demo mode" and there are 8 surfers).
Since 1915 there is a big effort to rule people by brains alone, and it is VERY successful USA, Iraq, WMD etc. As a compromise I reworded and added both sides of the debate (to show that it's not some huge one-sided problem that CS is constantly fighting). Couchsurfing makes a big deal out of saying it is not a dating site.
The founder 'used' it as a dating site (he met his wife through CS).
This article is within the scope of Wiki Project Travel and Tourism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of travel and tourism related articles on Wikipedia.
This article is part of Wiki Project Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web.
FB, ebay, amazon, twitter, etc don't claim to be or not be dating sites.
So it makes sense to have a Dating Site heading for CS without needing the same heading for all social websites. Comments about CS being or not being a dating site are observations and opinions, not criticisms, unless your point of view is that online dating is a bad thing.
18.104.22.168 (talk) , (UTC) I wonder about this: "Couch Surfing as we knew it doesn't exist anymore." Does this mean that it is now existing in *some new form*? Look at: - 22.214.171.124 , 30 June 2006 (UTC) I want to know the reason for using the word allegedly. --Anderssr , 30 June 2006 (UTC) I didn't write that sentence (using "alleged") so I don't know, but there seems to be a lot of evidence emerging that using the term "fatal" to describe the error, while perhaps technically correct, carries misleading connotations to many.But the only sources cited were links to CS's blog, making it largely original research.So I've decided to go ahead and remove it, since there seems to be no good reason for including it in this Wikipedia article.Such as in which looks like a replacement site (or maybe it's just a knock-off ...)? --Chickensoda , 30 June 2006 (UTC) No this was not the end. Like Casey says, everyone has the Flame inside him. If it's a fatal error that seems to imply that CS (or at least the CS database) is dead, gone, and not coming back.The email discussions that have happened today, though, seem to suggest that CS is probably not permanently dead, and even the databse is not really fully dead.