> > That has nothing to do with ross' material. Are you so desperate for > > support hat you're argument has degraded to "Ross is a con, because cons > > exist."
> No, your claim was that Ross' SS can't be a con because he offers money > back. Am I right?
No, my argument was that the fact ross offers a money back guarantee and gets less that a 1% return rate, shows he is clearly delivering exactly what he promises.
> So, the good luck charms can't be cons, because they offer > money back. Get it? Simple really.
The charm isn't a con....selling luck it the con...I'm sure a lot of people buy the charms simply because they like the charms. Though as I said, I bet they get way more than 1% returns.
> > What is the percentage of people who return those charms and ask for > > their money back? I bet it is more than 1%.
> If I asked the people who place the ads, what do you think they will say? > Has any independent entity verified the 1% return figure for SS?
The IRS. Though, tell me how many people do you see posting that SS is bullshit, who've bought and learned the material? I don't recall EVER seeing anybody do so. At most I've seen people say SS is great, but they don't like ross on a personal level.
Your claim that SS is a con, is negated by this lack of unsatisfied customers who say the material doesn't work as promised.
Isn't it fascinating how all those 'good' people, fighting against the 'unethical' risks of Speed Seduction (or any kind of male-> female seduction for that matter), are actually depicting women as: 1 - only willing to have sex in exchange of something else 2 - because they can't just enjoy a good fuck 3 - feeble weak gullible humans 4 - with no personality on their own who can't say 'no' when thay mean it 5 - yet morally superior to men
1) is called prostitution in my book.
On Tue, 9 Nov 1999 12:56:20 -0000, Dave H. <d.hi...@k-net.co.uk> wrote:
| | Patrick wrote | >Nathan wrote | >> sleeps with me because of that, and well, actually I'm | >> not and all of a sudden it's 'rape'. Hm ... not. | >> | > | >What's in a word? Maybe it's not rape, but to discuss the example you | give, | >it's certainly not honest from the person claining a false identity, since | >you won't be delivering the goods "promised" in exchange of sex. So in | that | >example, you certainly "stole" sex. In this case let's call it "sex theft" | >or "sex swindle". | > | Hi, Surely this promised "exchange" implies that prostitution is taking | place? Perhaps the whole issue with SS (of which I know little->0) is that | it presumes that women are not in control of their sexuality, to the extent | that they must expect a "reward" for "giving away" their "favours"? Women | can, in fact, *enjoy* sex, and with the advances in contraception over the | last century or so, can do so without fear of pregnancy and STD's. There is | of course the double standard which has been imprinted into much of our | societies ( stud vs slut ), since the days of St Paul (corruptor of the | Chr*stian message) (if not before with the rise of patriarchal Judaeo | Chr*stian religeons), but surely we should be above such superstitions by | now? I am happy to acknowledge that in the USA, parts of Europe and other | backward societies these superstitions still hold a significant part of the | population, but I don't really see how persuading someone to partake in a | mutually enjoyable bedroom exercise can be unethical, unless they are | mentally incompetent to consent through age, infirmity etc., or | risky/harmful sexual practices take place? | Dave H. | | | >The whole point of my discussing SS is the fundamental risk of unethic | >behavior. More on that on my new tread in the alt.psychology.nlp newsgroup | > | > | > | |
> Odious <Odi...@home.com> wrote in message > > I don't disagree that there are shallow women out there jet, but being > > shallow is hardly a desirable trait. And not all women are as shallow as > > you or your friends.
> But a large number are, especially if they are babes. I won't even settle > for an ugly guy, why would a babe?
Because being a babe doesn't mean a woman is shallow...only a shallow person would make such an idiotic assumption.
> And you have no room to talk about being shallow! LOL.
> When was the last time you went after an ugly woman? Check and mate.
I go after all sorts of women at all level of physical beauty, jet. Don't even try to to justify your shallow bullshit by claiming I am the same way. The pictures on my web page show that to be quite untrue.
> > Honestly, even if every woman you know is exactly as ignorant, shallow, > > and closed off as you...that would be what, 20 women...50 maybe?
> A lame dis. Face it, most women want good looking men.
Not a dis...a simple numerical fact. Even if every woman you know what as big a bitch as you...that would still be a number so insignificant that it would never effect me.
> > I know that this is probably hard for you to believe, given the fact you > > wear blinders and refuse to acknowledge the vast amount of information > > which proves you wrong.
> As soon as I see some, I'll reconsider my position.
And you can't see through blinders, so you're all set, huh jet?
> > But the fact is most women are not driven by looks, but rather the > > feelings caused by things like how a guy looks, talks, and acts.
> On which planet?
Your ignorance of the underlying functionality of the human brain, doesn't constitute a valid counter argument.
> >These > > things create feelings, and women define what they are attracted to by > > what things cause them to feel the feelings they desire. For some it is > > looks, for some it is security, for some it is excitment...the list goes > > on and on.
> > What an SSer can do is determine what that feeling is that she wants to > > feel, and make her feel it, regardless of looks, money, or anything else.
> Yeah, right.
Oh now there's a devastating rejoinder. Did you come up with that all by yourself?
> And men don't care about a woman's looks. They just care about her IQ.
Men respond more to visual stimuli and women to emotional stimuli. So men tend to be more driven by looks. Whereas women tend to be driven by feelings.
> > Why is that such a threat to you?
> Another lame dis. It's not a threat to me. I just don't like the idea of a > program the teaching men to treat women like Kleenex.
Please cite the section of the workbook or the tape where this lesson is taught, because I must have missed it. It was probably buried under the 20 hours of material teaching men how to give women greater pleasure, how to listen and understand her needs, and how to fulfill her desires.
Though, if the material doesn't work or is a placebo as you claim, then no women have to worry about being treated like kleenex, correct? Since they'll just walk off, right? So the questions stands. Why is this such a threat to you, that you feel the need to lie, misquote, and attack people who use this material?
> > > Odious <Odi...@home.com> wrote in message > news:3827A62C.7DF05FEE@home.com... > > > > Simple, because you know that there will never be a point when all men > > > > are homogeneously skilled at these methods. Much like men who know > how > > > > to romance a woman, there will always be a skill gradient. Men who > are > > > > most apt at the skills will be in demand. Men who do not know these > > > > skills will have to settle for women like you.
> > > Maybe I have to re-evaluate your intelligence.
> > > You claim only the worst men settle for me now. With me so far?
> > > Now, if all men learned SS, either things would stay the same for > me...still > > > with me? Or different men would have to settle for me. Still following?
> > > OK, now these different men would have to be better. Why? Because only > the > > > worst ones settled for me before.
> > When the bar is raised, those at the bottom are that much farther from > > the top. They may not have changed relative to their own position, but > > when compared to the now higher standards, they have lost value.
> But the bar can't be raised, dumb ass, because there are only so many people > on the planet.
Raising the bar is simply a matter of adding new and better skills to the mix. It doesn't require a higher population, you twit...see the value scale demonstrated below me.
> > On a scale from 1 to 100...1 is the lowest. It is 99 less than the top > > level of 100.
> > On a scale from 1 to 150...1 is the lowest. It is 149 less than the top > > level of 150.
> > 1 is equal to 1....however on the second scale, 1 is of lesser value than > > on the first scale, because the bar was raised.
> But you'd have to increase the number of men without increasing the number > of women for this to make any sense. Guess that is why it doesn't.
No it doesn't make sense to you, because you're unable to see anything outside your little bias ignorant bubble. The above scale is not a representation of population, but of the collective skill level.
One needs not raise the population to add skills to the existing population, thus raising the bar and devaluing those who lack the skill.
> > So the more men who learn SS, the higher the bar is raised, and the less > > value the men who lack these skills will have. These are the men, who > > women like you are limited to, so it is no surprise that you fear things > > like SS that will raise the bar.
> Again, you show your argumet bites itself on its flabby ass. Nothing changes > for me in the above senerio.
Save for the fact that the men you are with become less valuable. Your inability to understand this concept doesn't invalidated anything but your claims to not be a moron.
Lets look at the skills introduced to the workforce due to computers. Say a new system is introduced, that will revolutionize the business office. What happens? Those workers who know the new system become more valuable. The skill raises the bar, and those with the skill are more in demand and thus more valuable.
Now those without the skill...what happens to them? Well nothing at first. They may not even worry, thinking, "nothing going to change for me...my office isn't even using the new system." Though what happens? Very soon, the other offices using the system start to gain an advantage, and then the office has to change over to the new system to stay competitive. The people without the skill start to sweat. Some rush to learn the skill, but some refuse...still thinking they won't need it. Then the office starts hiring based on the skill. Soon those without the skill are phased out as dead weight...and the one who was convinced nothing would change, finds they're now trying to get a job in a market where offices only want to hire those who have the new skill for the new system. They might get some crappy job in some old office, but it will be less desirable and they will be paid less for not having the skill.
Jet, the world is a constantly changing place. Staying right where you are, means you get left behind. When SS was introduced, it raised the bar. You can sit and claim it won't effect you, but the fact is that eventually it will, and you know it. It is already devaluing the men you are able to get.
> Besides, assuimg it works, if enough men learned SS for it to really make > any statistical difference, it would lose its power, because women would be > wise to it. Again, your argument is flacid.
Knowing about SS does NOTHING to hinder it's effectiveness. Because SS is not the deceptive trick you keep trying to make it out to be. Since it is not a trick, her knowing about it, actually enhances it's effectiveness in a lot of situations.
So again, you are stuck with the raw end of the deal. Men learn the skill and want nothing to do with you...men who don't learn the skill and will still settle for you are devalued.
> > Odious <Odi...@home.com> wrote in message > > > I don't disagree that there are shallow women out there jet, but being > > > shallow is hardly a desirable trait. And not all women are as shallow as > > > you or your friends.
> > But a large number are, especially if they are babes. I won't even settle > > for an ugly guy, why would a babe?
> Because being a babe doesn't mean a woman is shallow...only a shallow > person would make such an idiotic assumption.
> > And you have no room to talk about being shallow! LOL.
> > When was the last time you went after an ugly woman? Check and mate.
> I go after all sorts of women at all level of physical beauty, jet. > Don't even try to to justify your shallow bullshit by claiming I am the > same way. The pictures on my web page show that to be quite untrue.
> > > Honestly, even if every woman you know is exactly as ignorant, shallow, > > > and closed off as you...that would be what, 20 women...50 maybe?
> > A lame dis. Face it, most women want good looking men.
Henry Kissenger has throngs of females competing for his attention. He's anything but "good looking". Same can be said for Mick Jaggar, Meat Loaf, and several other rock stars who are DEFINITELY lacking in the bodily appearance department.
-- Aaron R. Kulkis Unix Systems Engineer ICQ # 3056642
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup ...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a response until their behavior improves.
> On Thu, 04 Nov 1999 19:42:33 GMT, nightlig...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >Retards (particularly ones with no congruencey) can't use SS... To be > >honest I think that's a plus.
> "Retards" - like guys who spens hundreds (or thousands) of dollars to > learn that amusement park crap?
It also doesn't work ON retards, either.
It's about engaging the imaganition...something a fat little hog like yourself doesn't have...otherwise, you would have realized where your cheesy-poof and donut habit would lead. i.e. there is good evidence that YOU are an idiot...and idiots, by definition, are poor subjects for NLP, hypnosis, and SS.
-- Aaron R. Kulkis Unix Systems Engineer ICQ # 3056642
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup ...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a response until their behavior improves.
> > What SS does is give one the tools to determine what feelings a woman > > wants to feel, and then to create and/or enhance those emotional states. > > When you can cause a woman to feel the feelings she desires, she's going > > to be attracted to you. When you can make a woman feel pleasure in
X-Mozilla-Status: 0009e fantasizes about, she's going to want to reciprocate.
> ---- > I'll leave your personal ass-full thinking for you. > Just know that I have done NLP training up to trainer's and modeler's > levels.
> I have a philospohical question for the interested reader: > "If it looks like a Duck, and it walks like a Duck and it 'talks' like a > Duck, then is it a Duck?" > (this question is famous in Artificial Intelligence. There the question is > formulated as: "Is it still 'intelligent' once we know how to do it?")
> Here is another one: > "Did you even have this experience you told a salesperson exactly what you > wanted, and he told you how his product would exactly fullfill your needs > and then offer some more? Only to come home with it, discovering that the > product didn't work 'as advertised'. That's why in Europe we have > legislation that makes a money back guarantee mandatory for many kinds of > sales."
> Of course, these were metaphors for the following: > I have no doubt that speed seduction works. I even think that a skilled > practitioner in it will really succeed to get laid regularly. > BUT I have my doubts that the women being seduced *really* get what they > want. > I wonder how much women are looking for sex without a relationship connected > to it. > It is no coincidence that on EQ tests men score better at getting what they > want, while women score better at (long-term) relationships and empathy.
You know why women want "Long Term Relationships?"
Simple. It's about money. Nothing more, nothing less. The more "long term" the relationship, the more solid the footing for getting some judge involved in the guy's finances, and ordering him to pay her for what she was quite willing to do for free in the first place.
You know why women hate prostitutes? Because when a man pays a prostitute, that diminishes the amount of HIS MONEY that his "regular partner" has access too. Basically, it's a presumption that all of his finances are to be disposed of only as SHE sees fit....you never see these SAME women admitting that it was wrong for them to go out and spend $400 on some hideous dress without consulting their husband first.
-- Aaron R. Kulkis Unix Systems Engineer ICQ # 3056642
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup ...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a response until their behavior improves.
> > What SS does X-Mozilla-Status: 0009to determine what feelings a woman > > wants to feel, and then to create and/or enhance those emotional states. > > When you can cause a woman to feel the feelings she desires, she's going > > to be attracted to you. When you can make a woman feel pleasure in > > exactly the way she fantasizes about, she's going to want to reciprocate.
> ---- > I'll leave your personal ass-full thinking for you. > Just know that I have done NLP training up to trainer's and modeler's > levels.
> I have a philospohical question for the interested reader: > "If it looks like a Duck, and it walks like a Duck and it 'talks' like a > Duck, then is it a Duck?" > (this question is famous in Artificial Intelligence. There the question is > formulated as: "Is it still 'intelligent' once we know how to do it?")
> Here is another one: > "Did you even have this experience you told a salesperson exactly what you > wanted, and he told you how his product would exactly fullfill your needs > and then offer some more? Only to come home with it, discovering that the > product didn't work 'as advertised'. That's why in Europe we have > legislation that makes a money back guarantee mandatory for many kinds of > sales."
> Of course, these were metaphors for the following: > I have no doubt that speed seduction works. I even think that a skilled > practitioner in it will really succeed to get laid regularly. > BUT I have my doubts that the women being seduced *really* get what they > want. > I wonder how much women are looking for sex without a relationship connected > to it. > It is no coincidence that on EQ tests men score better at getting what they > want, while women score better at (long-term) relationships and empathy.
By the way...idiot. I used the techniques specifically TO SECURE A RELATIONSHIP with a woman living 8,000 miles away.
Why? Because she is EXACTLY what I was looking for....what I decided I wanted one day while *not* under the influence of hormones....I met her on a trip...she worked for me as an interpreter....things went up from there...had a setback due to an e-mail screw up...started learning SS with a vengeance...and now SHE HAS A LONG TERM RELATIONSHIP....in fact...my intention is that it is permanent, until one or the other of us dies.
-- Aaron R. Kulkis Unix Systems Engineer ICQ # 3056642
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup ...despite (D) aboX-Mozilla-Status: 0009 nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a response until their behavior improves.
> Odious <Odi...@home.com> wrote in message news:38238BA4.9A30A3CC@home.com... > > Actually most, if not all, of the SSers here can do just that. I've not > > had any relationships end on bad terms because of SS, and in fact the > > woman I'm currently seeing I used SS with when we first met...and we are > > still together and it has been about two months.
> Two whole months!?
> > Someone who has studied NLP should be aware of the fact that the tools do > > not determine how the individual uses them. THat's a decision of the > > individual.
> You're playing coy. SS is marketed as a tool to trick women into sleeping > with you.
> It's hard for me to believe those corny SS lines could work on anyone but > the stupidest of women, but con men of every type seem to be able to find > marks.
Works with Irina, and she's smarter than you'll ever hope to be.
> I think I'll go up to a guy I think is cute and say, "Would you like to go > for a RIDE to MY CoUNTry home?" while pointing at my crotch. That'll work.
Sure will, unless he's an idiot (or just repulsed by ugly wart-hogs like yourself)...but...assuming that an attractive woman did it...yeah, it would work...
> J
-- Aaron R. Kulkis Unix Systems Engineer ICQ # 3056642
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup ...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a response until their behavior improves.
> On Fri, 05 Nov 1999 10:08:42 GMT, Odious <Odi...@home.com> wrote:
> >SS can't make someone do something against their will. SS can't make a > >woman into a mindless sex zombie. SS is not a magic spell or incantation. > >SS is not something you do to a woman, but rather something you do WITH a > >woman.
> You know, like when you tell her you're a movie producer and you can > get her part in your next film. It's still _her_ idea to sleep with > you, so it's not like you really lied or anything.
What does that have to do with SS, other than her idiotic fantasy that a movie producer is somehow a better lover than someone who is not a movie producer.
> Dawn
> ------------- > People who talk during movies may have rabies and should be approached > cautiously. Since the link between their eyes and tongue bypasses the > brain, it is effective to simply stand up, blocking their view of the > screen. Deprived of inspiration for their running commentary, they fall > silent, or revert to soft animal snuffling noises as they root in their > popcorn. -- Roger Ebert
-- Aaron R. Kulkis Unix Systems Engineer ICQ # 3056642
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup ...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a response until their behavior improves.
> l.Tom <tom...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:ySUU3.38534 > > Jet : since when make-up is not a trick ? isn't it hiding the truth ? > isn't > > putting a wonder-bra altering the truth as well for example ?
> It's only hiding the truth if someone is stupid enough to think a woman > really has bright red lips, blue eye lids, or her boobs really stick up like > that.
The purpose of red lipstick is to simulate the appearance of sexual arousal. ANY physician can tell you that.
> And to compare wearing lipstick to trying to emotionally manipulate someone > into sleeping with you, is a real 1=2 argument.
Do you go to movies? Isn't it all to easy to "suspend disbelief", especially with modern special effects, and really get into the plot, even though you know the whole thing is "make believe".
Movies, and lipstick are based on the same NLP principles.
You're just pissed because once men learn these things, they will have absolutely NO reason to pay attention to an jerky old hag loser like yourself.
> J > J
-- Aaron R. Kulkis Unix Systems Engineer ICQ # 3056642
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup ...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a response until their behavior improves.
> > Notice she doesn't cite the source of this quote.
> LOL. When I said it is from Ross' site, that is the source. ROSS' SITE IS > THE SOURCE. Get it now?
> > That's because it is > > from a newsletter archived on ross' site from 5 or 6 years ago. Also, > > she doesn't want anybody reading the context of the material which she > > pulled it out of, that shows ross is explaining a concept here of > > circumventing the conscious mind's resistance to outside ideas.
> LOL! I told people where I got it from, sorry I didn't quote the whole site. > > > >we all know that you can't force someone to do something they don't > > > > want. So it's not tricking people. Does 'creating interest' sounds > better > > > ?
> > > No.
> > Yeah, jet can't troll with that statement, because it is accurate.
> What part of "No" didn't youl get. The statment is not accurate at all. If > you are trying to fool someone, IOW, "creating interest" in a dishonest way, > you are tricking them.
> > Though you can't admit this, because in doing so you'd have to concede > > that tricking one's mind happens all the time and is not considered > > dishonest or underhanded. It is simply part of existence.
> > If you admit this, you undermine you trolls...then what would you do?
> This dumb comparison of SS to wearing makeup reminds me of the joke, "1=2 > for suffiently large values of 1."
> SS is a trick. Period. I have proved it with Ross' own words. Now you may > think it is OK to try to trick a woman so that you can use her, but you > should at least admit that's what SS is.
> > Once again troll...no where in SS is there anything that determines how > > the individual chooses to use it.
> Don't be coy. The whole site paints women as worthless things to be > manipulated.
And who STARTED this "manipulating the opposite sex" routine?????
Women have been doing this for CENTURIES, so get off your high horse, you skanky, piggy-piggy faced, over-the-hill has-been...
> J
-- Aaron R. Kulkis Unix Systems Engineer ICQ # 3056642
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup ...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a response until their behavior improves.
> In article <807e4b$2pq...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>, Jet <postmas...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> >Aaron R. Kulkis <akul...@flash.net> wrote in message > >> You're just pissed because once men learn these things, they will have > >> absolutely NO reason to pay attention to an jerky old hag loser like > >yourself.
> >But if I am such an "old hag", hows come I was a 19 year old college student > >on a sit com in youth obsessed Hollywood when I was 39?
> Which one?
In the picture frame next to her Robert Redford shrine...
> -- Steve
-- Aaron R. Kulkis Unix Systems Engineer ICQ # 3056642
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup ...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a response until their behavior improves.
> > > You're playing coy. SS is marketed as a tool to trick women into > sleeping > > > with you.
> > I think you're mistaken about SS/NLP. When you trick someone into doing > > something it is when you make someone do something they don't want to do, > > right ?
> No. Tricking someone is trying to get them to believe something that is not > true. > Here is a quote from Ross' site: > "Whatever You Can Get A Woman To Imagine Will Be Perceived As Her Own Idea > Because She Imagined It, And Therefore Will Not Be Resisted. So Use Your > Language To Capture And Lead A Woman's Imagination, And You Can Lead Her To > Have The Wildest, Most Intense Thoughts, Feelings And Actions With You..And > All The While She'll Think It is Her Idea! "
> >we all know that you can't force someone to do something they don't > > want. So it's not tricking people. Does 'creating interest' sounds better > ?
> No.
> > but when you dess well before going out, don't you 'create interest' ? > isn't > > it a trick to put make-up on ? (I hate that : that's hiding the truth !)
> Give it up. Dressing up is not the same as trying to trick someone so you > can use them because use them as a sex toy.
> > because thos 'corny lines' are merely examples. Read some transcripts from > > sessions by Bandler and you'll notice that the key is how you build > > sentences. Read 'magic in action' and you'll notice that most of his > > sentences have a meaning, but nothing sounds corny.
> I read some of the crap on Ross' site. These lame, lame lines. And then he > asked any pretty, young woman who was reading it and getting horny to write > to him.
> I should get a picture of a PYT and mail it to him saying it's me, and see > how he likes being tricked. After all, I would just be using the picture to > "create interest". Tee Hee.
> > > I think I'll go up to a guy I think is cute and say, "Would you like to > go > > > for a RIDE to MY CoUNTry home?" while pointing at my crotch. That'll > work.
> > hey, I never thought of that one :) hehe
> Did it make you horny?
If it wasn't from a butt-nasty pig like yourself...yea, it could...
> J
-- Aaron R. Kulkis Unix Systems Engineer ICQ # 3056642
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup ...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a response until their behavior improves.
> > Odious <Odi...@home.com> wrote in message news:3823DE7A.5DE2B7FC@home.com... > > > > SS is marketed as a tool to trick women into sleeping > > > > with you.
> > > Oh we've been through this before jet, and the best you could do > > > demonstrate this claim was point to a quote from ross in a newsletter > > > from years ago.
> > Yeah, quoting directly from the primary source is weak, huh?
> When all current material contradicts your claim, and all you can find to > support it is old outdated material, yeah.
> So, if I were to find a 6 year old newsletter from the DNC in the LOC > archives...that said clinton was only half way through his first term as > president, it would be rather weak to cite that as support for a claim > that the president is currently only half way through his first term.
> > > There is no trick. You've still not been able to demonstrate any > > > substantive difference between the real emotion and this fake emotion you > > > claim the woman is being tricked into feeling against her will.
> > Maybe because I never made that claim.
> That claim is inherent in the claX-Mozilla-Status: 0009 If you concede > there is no difference in those emotions, then where's the trick?
> > > Oh, and please cite the chapter in the workbook or the tape where ross > > > covers "Tricking" women or taking advantage of women ect? Oh wait, > > > you've never read the material, have you. So you're talking out your > > > ass...basing you claims on nothing more than the web page.
> > LOL! Yeah, quoting the primary source, Ross, is talking out of my ass. Sure.
> When that quote's source is a tongue in cheek comment in a newsletter > that's 5 or 6 years old, and you are using it to support claims about the > actual methodology and current marketing...yeah, you are talking out your > rather rotund ass.
> > >Which you've > > > been told multiple times is a marketing tool, not a fucking clinical > > > analysis of the product.
> > The marketing is part of the product in this case.
> According to whom, you? The marketing is completely separate from the > methodology (which you'd know if you had any fucking clue about the > methodology) and the methodology is not what determines to what specific > end any individual uses the material.
> You are full of shit, jet.
> > > Tell me, are chevy trucks really "like a rock?" Do the scrubbing > > > bubbles really do the work so you don't have to? Does that low-fat lard > > > you use really prevent your ass from looking like a hefty bag full of > > > cottage cheese?
> > What does that have to do with anything?
> Marketing is about getting attention, not about doing a detailed report > of every aspect of a product. It is a summation to highlight selling > points. One of many selling points for SS is that you can use it to make > women feel the things they desire, and consequently get laid.
> That's far from the only use for SS. You claim it is marketed as a way > to trick women, is a lie. Plain and simple. You know it is a lie, and > you continue to spew the same half-truths and you continue to ignore the > fact which negate you claims. You behavior has long passed the point of > simple ignorance, and moved into the area on intentional trolling.
> > > > It's hard for me to believe those corny SS lines could work on anyone > > but > > > > the stupidest of women, but con men of every type seem to be able to > > find > > > > marks.
> > > Make up your mind troll, is it snake oil that doesn't work or is it the > > > newest date rape drug? Either it is effective or it is not > > > effective...you can't have it both ways.
> > Damn, you are stupid, aren't you? I said it is hard for me to believe it > > would work on any but the stupidest of women. IOW, it seems it would be > > effective only on really stupid women. Or maybe really drunk ones, too. An i > > ntelligent sober woman would just laugh at the moronic come on lines, or > > wouldn't hang around long enough to hear them.
X-Mozilla-Status: 0009eat to stupid women or drunk women, yet you claim it
> won't work on you and you're obviously both stupid and a heavy drinker.
See, I'm not the only one who notices Jet's THUNDERBIRD HABIT!
> Oh and please cite you support to show that SS only works on stupid women > or drunk women. As the fact of the matter is that these are two of the > few groups SS works very poorly on. So I'm quite interested to see what
Absolutely true. The woman who I know who responds best to it is also the smartest woman I know, and also doesn't drink....which would be the lovely Irina.
Ever call a girl and send her into her own, personal, heavenly little ideal La-la Land within 15 seconds after she picks up the phone?
To say that she LOVES it would be an understatement :-)
> information, other than your own hate and ignorance cocktail, you have to > support this claim about the functionality of methods you openly admit > you know nothing about.
On 9 Nov 1999 14:06:42 GMT, nat...@metabork.fr.eu.org (Nathan SZILARD) wrote:
>Well I think a good point can be raised here ...
>Isn't it fascinating how all those 'good' people, fighting against >the 'unethical' risks of Speed Seduction (or any kind of male-> >female seduction for that matter), are actually depicting women as: > 1 - only willing to have sex in exchange of something else > 2 - because they can't just enjoy a good fuck > 3 - feeble weak gullible humans > 4 - with no personality on their own who can't say 'no' when thay mean it > 5 - yet morally superior to men
It seems to me that the people who are commenting on how lame Speed Seduction are - myself included - continue to point out that most women are actually too smart and have too much self-respect to fall for transparent and mind-bogglingly inane drivel like the SS "patterns". At least the women I know are.
I have a strong feeling that the same guys who buy into SS are the same guys who want to know Why All [American] Women Are Bitches. (Answer: If all women tell you to go fuck yourself when you point at your crotch and say "b'low me", the clue is in your behavior, not the women).
>1) is called prostitution in my book.
So what would you call a man who pays hundreds or even thousands of dollars expecting that, in exchange, he'll get sex? A john, right? Would that make Jeffries the pimp or the whore?
Dawn (I know where my money's riding)
------------------- Those who write clearly have readers, those who write obscurely have commentators. -- Albert Camus
jet wrote: >Anonymous <nob...@neuropa.net> wrote in message >news:199911090650.GAA24532@berlin.neuropa.net... >> jet yanked aaron's... chain: >> >And how big is your dick? I must have missed the post where wrote your >> >dimensions.
>> in a post to ssfa he said it was eight inches.
>Well, he said, "how does 8 inches sound?" :)
true.
>Sounds like about 4 more than he's got.
sounds like wishful thinking. jackie 'anakin' tokeman
it's evolution baby - pearl jam
grab a kleenex for this one, cuz there's no god and your idiotic human ideals are laughable! ha ha ha ha ha ha ha heh! - bender
there are only two ways of telling the complete truth - anonymously and posthumously. - thomas sowell
larry flynt is right! you all suck! - homerjsimpson
| On 9 Nov 1999 14:06:42 GMT, nat...@metabork.fr.eu.org (Nathan SZILARD)
| wrote:
| | >Well I think a good point can be raised here ... | > | >Isn't it fascinating how all those 'good' people, fighting against | >the 'unethical' risks of Speed Seduction (or any kind of male-> | >female seduction for that matter), are actually depicting women as: | > 1 - only willing to have sex in exchange of something else | > 2 - because they can't just enjoy a good fuck | > 3 - feeble weak gullible humans | > 4 - with no personality on their own who can't say 'no' when thay mean it | > 5 - yet morally superior to men | | It seems to me that the people who are commenting on how lame Speed | Seduction are - myself included - continue to point out that most | women are actually too smart and have too much self-respect to fall | for transparent and mind-bogglingly inane drivel like the SS | "patterns". At least the women I know are.
Whatever. Anyway, what's your opinion on NLP? On Hypnosis?
For that matter I reported some time ago in ASF how my cousin, who knows zilch on SS, and close to nothing on hypnosis, actually happened to hypnotize female friends of him and got them to masturbate. (FYI, he's the kind of the guy who puts people at ease immediately, bc he's so easy going.) He gets women to confess their sexual fantasy really easily. That's an interesting sighting.
Anyhow, he got them to do that, by first gaining rapport, getting them to confess their fantasy, and then building a story on this. They seem to love it.
I've seen it happening (not to the point of having them masturbating, but that seems entirely plausible). He's leading their imagination. He uses their initial ideas / thoughts / words as starting points. IOW, he discovered some NLP/SS by himself.
Now, I want you to ask yourself, can't that be possible?
Haven't you ever been turned on by an erotic story? If not, I pity you. If, however, you have, what if you were to meet someone whoud would be able to tell you such an erotic story, albeit with a human voice, and this story is about you, and it's just for you there, in your ear ... ? What if? Can you answer honestly to this question.
(Or will you just reply by a one-line sarcasm)
| I have a strong feeling that the same guys who buy into SS are the | same guys who want to know Why All [American] Women Are Bitches. | (Answer: If all women tell you to go fuck yourself when you point at | your crotch and say "b'low me", the clue is in your behavior, not the | women).
Hm, well for what it's worth I'm fucking an american girl tonite.
| >1) is called prostitution in my book. | | So what would you call a man who pays hundreds or even thousands of | dollars expecting that, in exchange, he'll get sex? A john, right? | Would that make Jeffries the pimp or the whore?
Weak pun, I don't think Ross Jeffries ever puts 'providers' and 'customers' in contact, does he?
On 9 Nov 1999 19:22:37 GMT, nat...@metabork.fr.eu.org (Nathan SZILARD) wrote:
>For that matter I reported some time ago in ASF how my cousin, >who knows zilch on SS, and close to nothing on hypnosis, actually >happened to hypnotize female friends of him and got them to >masturbate.
Was this before or after he seduced the lesbian nun?
Dawn (the details, they are so hazy)
------------------- Those who write clearly have readers, those who write obscurely have commentators. -- Albert Camus
