Got access to all my hacked AM info and Mail is wrong...

[Anonymous]

I am a female who was on Am for a while with good success (fish in barrel and all). However the number of female users sounded really off to me. I haven't been on in a long time and found someone to send me a record of what was in the hack. Everything is correct EXCEPT the mail fields. It says I never checked and never replied. That's just not true. I replied to many over a several month period. I think the tables the pulled on mail responses had to be inaccurate. Not sure. Just saying...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a female who was on Am for a while with good success (fish in barrel and all). However the number of female users sounded really off to me. I haven't been on in a long time and found someone to send me a record of what was in the hack. Everything is correct EXCEPT the mail fields. It says I never checked and never replied. That's just not true. I replied to many over a several month period. I think the tables the pulled on mail responses had to be inaccurate. Not sure. Just saying...

Yeah I don't believe that only a few thousand women ever responded to emails. I think maybe that specific field got filled by messages that used up credits, and since women never had to use credits to open or respond to messages, it shows they didn't use the message feature.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a female who was on Am for a while with good success (fish in barrel and all). However the number of female users sounded really off to me. I haven't been on in a long time and found someone to send me a record of what was in the hack. Everything is correct EXCEPT the mail fields. It says I never checked and never replied. That's just not true. I replied to many over a several month period. I think the tables the pulled on mail responses had to be inaccurate. Not sure. Just saying...

I think you're full of it.

You're probably a man, and probably used the site and are now embarrassed that really no women are interested in old, balding, overweight husbands looking for adventure.

[Anonymous]

I promise I'm not but believe what you will.

[Anonymous]

Do women have to pay? It would seem to be an incentive to attract more women if they can use AM for free. If you didn't pay then it may not have consensus counted the usage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a female who was on Am for a while with good success (fish in barrel and all). However the number of female users sounded really off to me. I haven't been on in a long time and found someone to send me a record of what was in the hack. Everything is correct EXCEPT the mail fields. It says I never checked and never replied. That's just not true. I replied to many over a several month period. I think the tables the pulled on mail responses had to be inaccurate. Not sure. Just saying...

I think you're full of it.

You're probably a man, and probably used the site and are now embarrassed that really no women are interested in old, balding, overweight husbands looking for adventure.

And posting on DCUM anonymously serves what purpose exactly in helping to reduce embarrassment.... You need help.
The thing about DCUM is people don't need to pretend to be anything they are not... That is the beauty of anonymity
Welcome to DCUM !!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do women have to pay? It would seem to be an incentive to attract more women if they can use AM for free. If you didn't pay then it may not have consensus counted the usage.

Woman didn't have to pay anything...which is one of the reasons the reported numbers are so low

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I promise I'm not but believe what you will.

I believe you, and I think there's lots of problems with the numbers of women being reported. I'm female, and just from people I met and the stories we shared, I know there were more than 1,200 women on the site, or whatever the number is.

But, the party line seems to be "Honey, there were actually no women on AM so I'm just a dummy. Sorry!" So be it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I promise I'm not but believe what you will.

I believe you, and I think there's lots of problems with the numbers of women being reported. I'm female, and just from people I met and the stories we shared, I know there were more than 1,200 women on the site, or whatever the number is.

But, the party line seems to be "Honey, there were actually no women on AM so I'm just a dummy. Sorry!" So be it.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a female who was on Am for a while with good success (fish in barrel and all). However the number of female users sounded really off to me. I haven't been on in a long time and found someone to send me a record of what was in the hack. Everything is correct EXCEPT the mail fields. It says I never checked and never replied. That's just not true. I replied to many over a several month period. I think the tables the pulled on mail responses had to be inaccurate. Not sure. Just saying...

I think you're full of it.

You're probably a man, and probably used the site and are now embarrassed that really no women are interested in old, balding, overweight husbands looking for adventure.

Or one of those high moral patrol members that was jumping all over OM like crazy only to find out all those cheaters were cheater wannabes. lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do women have to pay? It would seem to be an incentive to attract more women if they can use AM for free. If you didn't pay then it may not have consensus counted the usage.

Woman didn't have to pay anything...which is one of the reasons the reported numbers are so low

It wasn't about the pay or not pay. They compared a lot of data...email accounts, responses as well as cross referencing names and location....read about it.

[Anonymous]

I heard that the majority of the women on AM were not even real people.

They were go bots.

[Anonymous]

I think the person who said that's the party line has something. With one in four married men on AM based on the numbers, it's a lot easier for spouses to take the idea that there were "no women." As a woman on AM who knows other real women on AM and who met men who had met other real women on AM, I just don't buy it...unless my town has a critical mass of kinky.

[Anonymous]

There was a story on Gizmodo (sorry, no link) that outlined that the database fields about email and such were so the bots that targeted men to get them to pay more were not missing people. Or contacting the same people over and over.

The more I read about AM the nastier the business practices seem to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the person who said that's the party line has something. With one in four married men on AM based on the numbers, it's a lot easier for spouses to take the idea that there were "no women." As a woman on AM who knows other real women on AM and who met men who had met other real women on AM, I just don't buy it...unless my town has a critical mass of kinky.

That was me, the party line poster. I think there's a lot of weight in denying evidence of cheating so as to avoid dealing with it.

Also, the more I think about it, the more it makes sense that female profiles would not have been given the same attention as men. AM was only making money off men so of course their info was kept and probably used for marketing. Everything about the site was aimed at attracting men, although women were given the best treatment by not being charged any money to participate.

I mean, we know the hackers' main goal was to destroy AM as a business. What better way to do that than to say look, I've got all the database info and it's all men. You're wasting your money, stop using the site. Maybe they intentionally didn't release female profiles. Who knows, really.