I got stood up today...

[BellyBionic]

Plus, she'd assured him that she was there - not that she'd be running over to another store and would be back.  Because of that, I don't think it would be really off-base for him to just assume that she got tired of waiting and left.

She said she'd see him at 4.  Not 3.45, not 3.50 or whatever other time he says he was there.  4 o'clock is 4 o'clock.  He could and apparently did assume that she was lying when she said she'd see him at 4, but that's not really someone I'd want to be in a relationship with.  "Well, you said you'd do X, but since you didn't do Y, so I just went home."  Nope.

No, she didn't.  She said "I am here."  Not "I'm here but if you won't be here until 4 then I'm going to run an errand and be back at 4."  She just said "I am here."  Which probably suggested to the man that she was there are waiting for him to show up.  He got there as quickly as he could, which was a little bit before 4, and she was not there.  How was he supposed to interpret that except that she'd been there and was not there anymore?  In the same situation, I also would have assumed that the person I was meeting had left.  No point in waiting around until the appointed time if you have good evidence that she's been and gone.

[Celany]

Plus, she'd assured him that she was there - not that she'd be running over to another store and would be back.  Because of that, I don't think it would be really off-base for him to just assume that she got tired of waiting and left.

She said she'd see him at 4.  Not 3.45, not 3.50 or whatever other time he says he was there.  4 o'clock is 4 o'clock.  He could and apparently did assume that she was lying when she said she'd see him at 4, but that's not really someone I'd want to be in a relationship with.  "Well, you said you'd do X, but since you didn't do Y, so I just went home."  Nope.

No, she didn't.  She said "I am here."  Not "I'm here but if you won't be here until 4 then I'm going to run an errand and be back at 4."  She just said "I am here."  Which probably suggested to the man that she was there are waiting for him to show up.  He got there as quickly as he could, which was a little bit before 4, and she was not there.  How was he supposed to interpret that except that she'd been there and was not there anymore?  In the same situation, I also would have assumed that the person I was meeting had left.  No point in waiting around until the appointed time if you have good evidence that she's been and gone.

If I got there a little before 4, and the person I was meeting wasn't there after saying they would be there, I would assume that a) they might be in the bathroom or b) they ran out to the car to get something or c) they went for a walk...because it's not "that time" yet. I sure as heck wouldn't stick around for a few minutes and leave.

Also, and maybe this is just me, but if I was changing a date where we both had to drive a long time to meet each other mere hours before the meeting, I would explain a darn good reason for it, not just "hey, can we reschedule to XXX?" Because I would want the person I'm meeting to know that I value their time, and that something really unavoidable came up. I wouldn't want them to just suspect that I'm flakey and have poor time management.

[KimberlyRose]

Plus, she'd assured him that she was there - not that she'd be running over to another store and would be back.  Because of that, I don't think it would be really off-base for him to just assume that she got tired of waiting and left.

She said she'd see him at 4.  Not 3.45, not 3.50 or whatever other time he says he was there.  4 o'clock is 4 o'clock.  He could and apparently did assume that she was lying when she said she'd see him at 4, but that's not really someone I'd want to be in a relationship with.  "Well, you said you'd do X, but since you didn't do Y, so I just went home."  Nope.

No, she didn't.  She said "I am here."  Not "I'm here but if you won't be here until 4 then I'm going to run an errand and be back at 4."  She just said "I am here."  Which probably suggested to the man that she was there are waiting for him to show up.  He got there as quickly as he could, which was a little bit before 4, and she was not there.  How was he supposed to interpret that except that she'd been there and was not there anymore?  In the same situation, I also would have assumed that the person I was meeting had left.  No point in waiting around until the appointed time if you have good evidence that she's been and gone.

You're right, I misremembered and thought she said she'd see him at 4.  I still think it's a complete fail on his part to say 4 and than not follow through, and again it shows a lack of reliability on his part.

[kareng57]

Plus, she'd assured him that she was there - not that she'd be running over to another store and would be back.  Because of that, I don't think it would be really off-base for him to just assume that she got tired of waiting and left.

She said she'd see him at 4.  Not 3.45, not 3.50 or whatever other time he says he was there.  4 o'clock is 4 o'clock.  He could and apparently did assume that she was lying when she said she'd see him at 4, but that's not really someone I'd want to be in a relationship with.  "Well, you said you'd do X, but since you didn't do Y, so I just went home."  Nope.

No, she didn't.  She said "I am here."  Not "I'm here but if you won't be here until 4 then I'm going to run an errand and be back at 4."  She just said "I am here."  Which probably suggested to the man that she was there are waiting for him to show up.  He got there as quickly as he could, which was a little bit before 4, and she was not there.  How was he supposed to interpret that except that she'd been there and was not there anymore?  In the same situation, I also would have assumed that the person I was meeting had left.  No point in waiting around until the appointed time if you have good evidence that she's been and gone.

You're right, I misremembered and thought she said she'd see him at 4.  I still think it's a complete fail on his part to say 4 and than not follow through, and again it shows a lack of reliability on his part.

By "follow through"  I still don't understand what you thought that the guy should have done.  No personal phone numbers were available, and he announced his slight delay as soon as he could, via the dating website.  We don't know what happened at 4 pm.  Maybe OP and the other party didn't give great physical decsriptions of themselves?

[Shoo]

I think Whiterose wasn't all that interested in meeting the guy in the first place.  The time change was a convenient excuse to bail on the meeting.  Which is okay -- I think we've probably all done something similar.  But it's not fair to place all the blame on the guy.

If it were me and it was someone I really wanted to meet, I'd have stuck around.

[KimberlyRose]

By "follow through"  I still don't understand what you thought that the guy should have done.  No personal phone numbers were available, and he announced his slight delay as soon as he could, via the dating website.  We don't know what happened at 4 pm.  Maybe OP and the other party didn't give great physical decsriptions of themselves?

He said he'd be there at 4, so following through would be waiting until 4.  Why assume the worst, thereby wasting everyone's time?

I think Whiterose wasn't all that interested in meeting the guy in the first place.  The time change was a convenient excuse to bail on the meeting.  Which is okay -- I think we've probably all done something similar.  But it's not fair to place all the blame on the guy.

If it were me and it was someone I really wanted to meet, I'd have stuck around.

She did, she got back about 4 (the revised time that he chose) and stayed til about 4.15.  She stuck around fifteen minutes past his new time, he didn't even wait until the time he suggested.

[TychaBrahe]

I think the take away lesson from this is that you never go off to meet someone without having a phone number where you can reach them.  Access to the Internet site where you met is not sufficient.  If you think it will be a problem, get a disposable phone from Wal-Mart or something and use that number until you feel more comfortable giving your "real" number to a guy.

Personally I'd give the guy another chance, but you may have already burned that bridge.

[whiterose]

I double-checked what I messaged him upon noticing the time change. It said "aye- see you at 4". I thought I had said "I am here"- but I double-checked, and I just said "aye- see you at 4".

Had I been more interested, I would have given him another chance. I was the one who picked the location, since it was in between to both our living places. It is easy to find- right off the interstate- and not confusing at all. He was aware that the location was centric and about the same driving distance to both of us- though I never told him where exactly I was coming from, since my city is quite large.

We both had pictures of each other- though I did not tell him what I was going to be wearing. I did think "what if I had gone to the bathroom while he was waiting?".

I will certainly get the person's phone number next time. I have had dates gone well without phone number exchange. In fact, I dated someone for a month (plus two months of friendship beforehand)- and our communication outside our dates was strictly through MySpace- not even email or IM. I had raised my eyebrow at this but since I do not particularly like talking on the phone, it was not a dealbreaker. But from now on, I will make sure I get his.

[hjaye]

I would have brought something with me so I could wait from 15 minutes before to 15 minutes after. 

Leaving and coming back is always an iffy proposition - if one person is looking the wrong way, or in the washroom, etc. it's easy to miss each other.

As for the poster who was bemused at the person he was waiting for not having taken a seat in a more prominent position - maybe that was the only spot available when she arrived?

Actually it really wasn't, the bar was not busy, out of about fifteen bar seats there was only one or two people sitting at the bar.  That plus all the tables and booths around the bar area that would give you a view of the door were open.  I was five minutes early, she only got there a few minutes before I did so I'm fairly certain she could have sat somewhere where she could have a view of the door.  We both just laughed about it, I didn't say anything, I didn't see a reason too.  We had a nice dinner and a nice conversation and that was it.  There was no spark for either one of us, and I doubt there would have been even if there had not been a glitch in our getting together (I know there would not have been on my part for sure.)  I just chalked it up to these are the kinds of things you can expect when you're meeting people through a dating site (or just dating for that matter)

[Twik]

Whosever fault it was, if whiterose finds herself feeling relieved rather than disappointed, I think it means that the date would not have been all that much fun in the first place, for either party.

[whiterose]

Whosever fault it was, if whiterose finds herself feeling relieved rather than disappointed, I think it means that the date would not have been all that much fun in the first place, for either party.

I was not relieved. I was just not tremendously upset either. I was mainly a bit annoyed because gas is expensive and the other places I needed to go to were not nearby.

[HeebyJeebyLeebee]

I think the take away lesson from this is that you never go off to meet someone without having a phone number where you can reach them.  Access to the Internet site where you met is not sufficient.  If you think it will be a problem, get a disposable phone from Wal-Mart or something and use that number until you feel more comfortable giving your "real" number to a guy.

Personally I'd give the guy another chance, but you may have already burned that bridge.

I think Tycha's got a good idea, if you can afford keeping a spare phone.  But in general, I don't agree to meet people unless we've exchanged phone numbers in advance for this very type of scenario. 

Once Juana La Loca and I were meeting for lunch.  We've met up before and at the same spot too, yet we somehow managed to miss each other in a tiny cafe.  We had our phones and were able to eventually figure out where we messed up.  No one was at fault - we just didn't see each other and other groups of people were probably blocking our views (it gets BUSY there at lunch).

What bothers me about the OP's situation is that he said 4:00 but didn't stay until 4:00.  That just doesn't sit right with me.  My very first impression of him from the very limited information we have isn't positive.  By changing the time, I view that as he doesn't value the OP's time as much as his own and that he has poor time management skills.  By not even waiting until the time he'd requested, I also take that as not valuing the OP's time and as being impatient.  Based on that very limited information, I wouldn't be interested in attempting a reschedule either.

[rashea]

I think the take away lesson from this is that you never go off to meet someone without having a phone number where you can reach them.  Access to the Internet site where you met is not sufficient.  If you think it will be a problem, get a disposable phone from Wal-Mart or something and use that number until you feel more comfortable giving your "real" number to a guy.

Personally I'd give the guy another chance, but you may have already burned that bridge.

I think Tycha's got a good idea, if you can afford keeping a spare phone.  But in general, I don't agree to meet people unless we've exchanged phone numbers in advance for this very type of scenario. 

Once Juana La Loca and I were meeting for lunch.  We've met up before and at the same spot too, yet we somehow managed to miss each other in a tiny cafe.  We had our phones and were able to eventually figure out where we messed up.  No one was at fault - we just didn't see each other and other groups of people were probably blocking our views (it gets BUSY there at lunch).

What bothers me about the OP's situation is that he said 4:00 but didn't stay until 4:00.  That just doesn't sit right with me.  My very first impression of him from the very limited information we have isn't positive.  By changing the time, I view that as he doesn't value the OP's time as much as his own and that he has poor time management skills.  By not even waiting until the time he'd requested, I also take that as not valuing the OP's time and as being impatient.  Based on that very limited information, I wouldn't be interested in attempting a reschedule either.

POD. After all, if she had gotten the message (which she did) she might not have even shown up until then. To me, not waiting until at least the time he changed it to is a pretty big indicator that he's not interested enough for me to bother with.

I would recommend people in this situation not wanting to give out their number look at GoogleVoice. It lets you create a phone number that you can forward to your cell or home phone.

[gollymolly2]

The way I read the OP, and his reply email, was that he didn't get her message and therefore assumed that she hadn't gotten his.

In other words:
12:45. He sends a message asking to reschedule.
In the meantime, he hasnt heard back so he thinks she didn't get the message and does his best to get there close to 330.
She sends her message after he has left, so he doesn't get it.
He gets to panera late and, believing they still have plans at 330, thinks he's arrived too late and she's already left.
She returns from the pet store and has missed him.

Maybe I've misread his message. But assuming this is the case, what she wrote in her message doesn't matter since he didn't get it.

It seems to me that if we have to attribute fault in this, it's with him, since he tried to change the plans. But I don't think fault is necessary here. People's lives are very busy, it's understandable to need to make a slight tweak to plans. If you don't have phone numbers, communication is difficult. If he hadn't sent the original message, if she hadnt left, if he'd stuck around just in case - they would have found each other. Nobody did anything wrong, IMO, just an unfortunate series of events.

[gollymolly2]

Also, I think the response was unnecessarily curt. If he did do something wrong, it was pretty minor.  Its perfectly fine if you decide you don't want to go out with him again, but I think the "thanks but no thanks" was pretty harsh. I think you would have been better off saying something like "sorry we missed each other today! It sounds like we were both in the right place at the wrong time. I appreciate your suggestion that we reschedule but I think I'd prefer to just go our separate ways at this point. Good luck to you!"

Obviously not that exactly, but something that shows you're not making a mountain out of a molehill and you're not angry at him, you just don't want another date.


And finally, OP, I remember a while back you had a series of posts about your dating adventures. If I recall correctly, you had a tendency to overanalyze and maybe attribute bad things to people when there were much more innocent explanations. I see that same thing happening here. My general dating advice to you is simply to go out with people when you're interested, and if your gut tells you you're not interested for whatever reason, then simply turn down the person (politely).  No need to figure out whether he did something wrong or to suggest that you did something wrong by having interests. Sorry if I'm off course here, it just seems like sometimes you feel the need to justify why you're cutting things off with someone when really it's perfectly okay to do so for any reason.


(also, sorry for sort of bumping this topic )