Sneaky means of manipulating the Member Search

In order to avoid legal issues and the like, Tom made the searchable ages 18-110. Behold, a search for single female members aged 5-12. If this isn't a problem with anyone, I just thought I'd point it out. If it is, all you really need to do to manipulate the searches is modify the numbers in the link. It's a means of finding Osama bin Laden that the American government's just too proud to try.

What the hell? who cares if a five year old is single or not no offense but that's just creepy

who cares if a five year old is single or not

Dunno, might make a big difference to somebody. I just did a search for married 5-12 year-old girls and got 2 results.

0_0 omfg really? damn these kids are getting married young
who is it?

What the hell? who cares if a five year old is single or not no offense but that's just creepy

Isn't it?

I just did a search for married 5-12 year-old girls and got 2 results.

Smart little six year old, there. Avoiding pedophilia early with a 2 carat diamond ring.

it's creepy that such a young person would be married
eeew

Good point, I've made it so it will always search 18 minimum

Now the search shows single female 18 year olds. Much more helpful. :)

This whole issue is rather pathetic, I think. Who cares, seriously...?

I don't care an incredible deal, but I thought I'd bring it up for those that might. A sum of guardians have in recent years taken advantage of the alternative parenting methods known as 'television' and 'overall neglect'. This means that the instant a child is poorly influenced by one or more of these mediums, the parent(s) will take advantage of the alternative problem-solving method known as 'taking the medium to court'. It proves a great decline in regards to human beings' grasp on what is really important, and there's really no moral justification for it.

The youngest parents alive are like 12 year olds. PARENTS. WITH CHILDREN.

What? Off topic? No way.

Doesn't surprise me too much. I hope to God that wasn't a very painful process for the girl (giving birth despite the lack of physical maturity), but it still doesn't surprise me.

EDIT: I see already that these older girls post much more pornographic material than their 5-12 year old counterparts. :(

I see where you are cmong from now - but I think there's no legal case to take a website to court for a search function itself, that's not an offense, you know. :)

I was playing peek-a-boo with a little girl in Galveston and her mom got pissed off at me. Peek-a-boo, for Chrissake.

I have something else I'd like to bring up about the 'People' page. Looking at a search - the points query can be our example - the page navigation bar is carried over beneath the last row of members. I'm sure it was meant to be positioned in the blank space where three avatars seem to be absent. Maybe fill in that space with three more query responses and keep the navigation bar underneath? If anyone else gets this image when they load the page, I don't know - it could be my service.

I'm referring to the bar that goes Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next. Anyone else notice it carrying over to the bottom, leaving an empty space where three more members' avatars could fit?

This is me:



EDIT: Yeah, nice photoshop there guy! :P