Maxim Tests Speed Seduction
belo...@talkcity.com
On a day like all other days that expose the WUSS, the men’s magazine
Maxim had a reporter spend $895 to learn how to Speed Seduce women in
order to TEST this rocket ship system. The result?
MAXIM’S TEST PAGE
Speed Seduction: Ross Jeffries Gets all the Women by Jeff Wise
For a long time I thought the way to get girls to like me was to be
nice to them. Then I took Ross Jeffries’ three-day Speed Seduction
Seminar ($895, 703-791-6412) and learned I’d have much more success
using a mind-control technique called a pattern, in which a seemingly
innocent anecdote is loaded with subliminal cues intended to get a
girl’s pulse racing.
To try it out, a female friend set me up with a blind date-- I’ll call
her Gloria--who met me one night after work. After preliminary small
talk, I steered the conversation to cable television and unleashed the
LETHAL Discovery Channel pattern!
I told her that I was watching the Discovery Channel and saw this guy
who designed theme park attractions. I said, “The host asked the guy
what made a perfect attraction,” and subtly point to myself as I had
been taught, thereby implanting in Gloria’s unconscious mind the idea
that, in fact, was the perfect attraction. Unfortunately, Gloria was
busy signaling the bartender for hummus dip.
I continued. “He said the first thing is a feeling of excitement. You
know how a roller coaster goes higher and higher, and you get more and
more excited as the car goes up and up and up, and just as you reach
the climax, you go whooshing down in a rush of excitement?”
At the word “climax,” Gloria’s pita collapsed, dropping a blob of
hummus into her lap.
“The second thing,” I said, “is a feeling of total safety, because you
know you’re in good hands.”
Skeptical would not begin to describe the expression on Gloria’s face
at this point.
“And then, uh,” I stammered, “the third thing is knowing that as soon
as the ride is over, you’ll want to climb back on and ride it over and
over and over again.”
The patter was complete!
An uncomfortable silence hung over the bar. Even the bartender was
embarrassed. Gloria wiped the remnants of the hummus from her skirt and
said, “That wasn’t about amusement park rides, was it?”
It was a long and lonely night.
FRAUD EXPOSED HAS MOVED:
http://homepages.go.com/~rossjeffries/index.html
See what WUSSIES talk about after their wallets are empty. The goofs
who when to the Bahama Mamma will soon be saying similar things about
not getting the phone number because his anchor wasn't right or his
chunking up was to fast or such.
Rasta Mon1
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
night...@hotmail.com
honest I think that's a plus.
NightLight9
In article <7vsmmi$7u4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
cloviscolley
did not work out for this guy because its way to direct in my opinion. On
the other hand I do subscribe to getting a women to think about ideas and
anchor them to my presence and voice. Did the guy pace, and set up comfort,
did he set up the pattern at all? Sounds like it was his first try. Maybe
hes figured out how to delover it a little softer now. Ive been stopped in
my tracks delivering patterns and have had success also. The times I was
successful I believe that It was because 1 I didnt care if i got caught. 2
I was not as direct. I just started talking about things and payed
attention to her and set up the anchors at the right time. I dont know Im a
novice and just sharing what my experiance has been.
venus uzynski
Odious wrote:
> And for those who think they can recite patterns word for word, with none
> of the lead in or follow up, they will all be lonely nights.
belo...@talkcity.com
UH, DUH, HE DID NOT PAY $900 TO LURN HOW GO THE FUCK OUT THERE AND FUCK
UP UNTIL HE WAS REDUCED DO A BLITHERING IDIOT LIKE YOU.
DUH! THE SHIT DOES NOT WURK?
KAN YOU READ THAT SENTENCE?
DUH!
SEE WHAT THE FOOOOOOOLS HOW SPENT THOU$AND$ TALK ABOUT. LURN HOW TO PUT
ON A LUBED RUBBER WITH ONE HAND FROM THE SECOND IN COMMAND, RYKER!
Hi, I'm Paul Wussberg! I'm not just a buyer of DickHead Hair for Men, I
own DickHead Hair For Men. This is my EXTINGUISHED GRAY model.
I am also the president of Sleaze Seduction, a rocketship technology
for "seduction" that replaces the 65 million year old mammalian
courtship system.
I used to sell X-Ray Vision glasses. I guaranteed that the dweeb who
bought them could see right through a woman's clothes! But, that yellow
dog R. Don Steele exposed that as a fraud, too. That was back before I
could afford to sue him. If I could have sued him, I'd still be selling
those X-Ray Vision glasses and I'd sell Spanish Fly, too. I wouldn't
lie to you.
I seduced these two HB (TM). We had a threesome. They are models, not
lap dancers. Trust me. I would never lie to you.
I will teach you how to seduce women, believe me, I know what I'm
doing. I wouldn't lie to you. On the next page, you will see my famous
FLYING BLACK MANE toupee. I wear it when I'm seducing women on the
beach. I wear my dweeby wire-rims so that women don't notice my scrawny
bod and humped shoulders. They love the toupee so much, I have to run
away from them! See the picture for photographic proof that I am not a
fraud.
I seduced that HB (TM) too. She thought she was just going to get paid
for pretending to be my girl but I laid the Blowjob (TM) Pattern on her
and she was mine. I wouldn't lie to you.
There are a few people who help me remove your wallets. One of them is
Riker/Ryker. His job is to pretend he knows that my rocketship
seduction system works. When a magazine sends a fool to interview me, I
lie and Riker/Ryker backs me up. He's very inventive since I have been
coaching him for several years. Riker/Ryker pretends he gets laid all
the time. He makes up details to have it seem more believable. Kewl.
Here's Ryker/Riker's advice to the HOPELESS guys on my secret list
about condoms. Riker knows all about sex with women, okay! Trust me on
this. I wouldn't lie to you.]
Two queries (Condoms)
Dan said: 2) What brands of condoms do you all reccommend?
Hmm. I dunno if this is off-topic, but if the Guru chimes in and says
to shut up about it I will. Several condom notes that some may not be
aware of. Always buy lubricated ones. Trust me. Taking off a non-
lubricated one is like having someone pull out your pubes with pliers.
It can hurt like hell.
Check condom status frequently. Pull out several times during
lovemaking and make sure everything is intact.
And now for the stuff you probably did not know about.......
Make sure that the condom is not too small. No, this is not a chance
just to go to the drug store and throw a pack of Magnum Extra Large
condoms on the counter in front of HB checkout girl. The fact is that
many guys can believe that condoms are supposed to be *very* tight.
This sucks for two reasons. One, they can break more easily when they
are kept under stress (stretched). Two, when the condom is tight YOU
feel less of what is going on. Go ahead and try a pack of large ones at
least once, you may find that they feel better (less constricting) and
make this more enjoyable. Just be aware that if they are more loose,
they can slip off more easily - so check status frequently.
Also, there *used* to be a brand of condoms called "Pleasure Plus"
which were tight around the base and quite loose half way up the shaft.
These were GREAT. But I cannot find them anymore. These had a great
deal of sensitivity to them. The problem (reason I think they went off
the market) was that the manufacturer was not quite good, and used
inferior latex or something. But they felt great. Tight (normal
tightness that is) around the base, but a lot of room near the top. If
anyone knows of any condoms made today with a similar design, let me
know.
Also, I learned how to put on a condom with one hand. I think its cool
to surprise 'em by never having less than one hand on a woman at all
times, and then they realize that you are already prepared. I just hate
that delay of several moments when she is waiting.....and I am putting
it on so I keep her busy while I get myself properly suited. hehe. It
takes some practice to get it correct, but it is possible.
Anyway, hope this helps.
Riker ri...@mail.com
COMMENT: My absolute FAVE part is to pull out and make sure it's still
on. HAR DE HAR! Not only that, he tells the dweeebs to pull out several
times! I couldn't make this shit up if I had the rest of my life.
Nobody but a virgin would say something like this!
HERE'S A LONG TIME STUDENT WHO TALKS A LOT. GEORGE WROTE SLICK PATTERNS
TO SEDUCE STRIPPERS BUT HE'S STILL WASHING HIS DICK REAL FAST
During my last few visits to strip bars, I've come up a couple patterns
I wanted to share with you guys. I've found that strippers are a pain
in the ass to date (my model of the world - you guys might love dating
strippers), but they are a lot of fun to practice with. The first
pattern I've described below is ROLE REVERSAL.
In designing this pattern, I asked myself, "What are the roadblocks in
a stripper's mind to getting together with a customer?" The chunked-up
answer's that came to me (from interviewing strippers and my intuition)
are as follows:
1. Customers = cash flow
2. Getting together with customers = PHYSICAL and emotional risk.
I've found that the best way to overcome the first roadblock is to lead
with either 'visual' or 'body feeling' patterns and follow up with
'emotion' patterns. This will often get me by the second roadblock
also, but I've found in many cases what seems to be a genuine concern
for safety. My ROLE REVERSAL PATTERN gets around this and has worked
quite well.
The second pattern outlined below is one that has worked well for me
when giving my phone number out so that I am almost assured of getting
a call.
1. ROLE REVERSAL: In this pattern, I express my reservations about
getting together with an HB stripper before she can express hers.
Basically, you build up her desire for you in her mind, and then
threaten the notion of ever being able to have you. When you make
yourself available again, she wants you even more. This is a fun brain
scramble. Before doing this pattern, soften her up with a variety of
visual/body sensation/connection patterns to the point of getting her
really interested in her. The pattern goes as follows:
ME: "You seem like a really intelligent, exciting and adventureous
person
(NEVER comment on her attractiveness - everyone else does this, and she
doesn't want to hear it).
It's too bad that we'll never be able to get together and enjoy each
others company."
HER: "What do you mean?" (This is what you are looking for. She's
feeling a sense of loss, because you're threatening those future-paced
pictures in her mind of you and her that you built while time
distorting)
ME: "Well, even though I feel like I've known you for months, I have
some real concerns with going out with someone who I don't know really
well. See, I just broke off a pretty bad relationship about a month
ago. I put my complete trust in someone. I was supportive of her and
treated her with the utmost respect I believe every woman deserves. She
violated this trust and didn't show me the same respect I gave to her."
(What I've done here is portray myself as the victim of what she fears.
As the victim, how can I be the attacker?)
HER: "Wow. What did she do?"
ME: "Well, I really don't want to get into it now because it's still
pretty painful. You know, you seem to be the type of person who
wouldn't hurt me." (say this in an 'evaluative' tone)
HER: "No, I wouldn't voilate someone's trust." (like she's going to say
anything else!)
ME: "You know, you seem really sincere. Maybe after we get to know each
other a little better after, say, meeting for coffee, we'll both FEEL
REALLY SAFE AND COMFORTABLE."
HER: "Yea, yea!" (The future paced pictures are coming back now!)
ME: "Should we meet for coffee tommorow afternoon or would Sunday be
better?"
2. PHONE NUMBER: I've used this pattern successfully when giving girls
my phone number. Basically, this pattern future paces the wonderful
experiences of being with me and links them to the sheet of paper on
which I write my phone number. This pattern is very direct, and
therefore must be delivered without a hint of incongruity and from a
state of deep rapport. I like using it on strippers, and it usually
works for getting calls from them.
ME: "I'm not going to give you my phone number unless YOU KNOW YOU'RE
GOING TO CALL ME."
HER: "Yea, I'll call you."
ME: (Write phone number out and as you're both holding the piece of
paper and she's looking at it):
"You know, I know that YOU'LL CALL ME. I know this because every time
you look at this phone number, you may find yourself thinking about all
of those great times we'll have together in the months to come. Have
you ever anticipated wonderful things to the point that those things
for some reason seem to become almost like wonderful memories of
something that has already happened? It's like you imagine a time in
the future when you look back NOW at all the fun we've already had.
Isn't that wild when that happens?"
(Every time she looks at your number, she will remember the feelings
you've anchored to it. This should overpower her resistance to calling
you.)
Ciao, George
WUSS BEWEIVES IN MAGICK! AND SO DO THE DEFRAUDED
The Pittsburgh Playboy wrote to George: One of the books you might be
interested in reading about the Alpha state Vs. the beta state is the
Silva mind control method by jose silva, A book I think ross himself
recomended in one of his newsletters.
WUSS HIS'SEF
Silva has some excellent stuff. I've integrated it into stuff I've
learned studying Hindu Magick, German Sex Magick, etc etc. Very paint
by the dots, structured and easy to follow, but sometimes Silva can get
a bit boring. Take a training if you can; I recommend it!
REV. MARCUS SURREALIUS (I'M NOT MAKING THESE NAMES UP!]
Sex magick! This is the book recommended by Ross "he has three copies."
Does anyone know where i could find a copy "it seems as though both
amazon and barnes and nobles say that the book is out of print?
>thanks guy's Jerry
WUSS HIS'SEF
The title has been changed to Secrets Of Sex Magick, available from
Blowme Press at 1-800-BELOWME
COMMENT: Sex Magick?! Sleaze Seduction, Hindu Magick, Psychic
Sleazeseduction, Visualization and Channeling. All we are missing is
blood doping for these desperate, hopeless fools and their "GooRoo."
My Friends
Ryker/Riker is my friend, kind of. He's the enforcer of my secret, well
not so secret list. See his advice on condoms above and you'll see that
over the past three years, I have taught him everything I know about
women.
I have no real friends, that should be obvious from how I behave in MY
PERSONAL, PRIVATE newsgroup. However, you may have known that. How's
that you say? Well, since I never ever mention friends or
acquaintences. Everything is about me, me, me, me and how great I am. I
have never been rejected in my life! Never. I wouldn't lie to you.
Why don't I have any friends? Well, if you've ever been around me, you
will notice that I am an abrasive, obnoxious, braggart who is a genuine
buffoon. This act covers up my infinite insecurity. Of course most
people realize that so they haul ass. However, the HOPELESS think I'm
really a kewl dude. They think my posturing and posing means I know how
to seduce women.
Some of them are not taken in. Probably because R. Don Steele has told
them to look at my aura and bailed out quick! You know, bitten to the
quick nails, permanently hunched shoulders, eternally clenched jaw,
trapped-rat eye movements topped off by a cheesy, phony smile.
Anyone who is around me for more than a few minutes can see that I am a
fraud, phony and farce. They don't realize that I hurt inside. I am
enraged inside. That's why women are repusled. So I pay the Lap Dancers
what they want.
I AM THE YUGO OF GOOROOS
My job description is: posture, pose, threaten, rant, rave, insult,
attack, ridicule, and sue those who expose me and my defrauded
students. At least I say I'm suing them. Other than that, my job is to
re-frame any doubts you have about how my rocketship system can be used
to get you from your present HOPELESS state into bed with all the HB
(TM) you can handle!
The more desperate you are, the easier my job is. So I specialize in
fatsos, geeks, dweebs, nerds, computer twits and all other HOPELESS
guys. I sell you a system of Norman Vincent Peale, Dale Carneigi, est,
Lifespring, Dyanetics, and NLP combined with the salesmanship of
Anthony Robbins and the Dickhead Hair Club for Men, that I founded.
Truth is my enemy. Death to the truth. I swear a blood oath that TRUTH
will get sued.
NEXT PAGE
CLICK HERE FOR NEXT PAGE
DA WUSS FOR MORE INFO
Defrauded Sophomores Talk About Getting Laid! IF they could only get
the anchor right or the submodality right! HELLO! Why don't you just
PAY the Lap Dancer Like the GooRoo duz!
NOW THAT IS A FLYING BLACK MANE TOUPEE from the Dickhead Hair Club for
Men! I fucked this bitch! She thought she was just being hired to
pretend she was chasing me. But after I laid the BELOW_me (TM) pattern
on her, she loved my scrawny bod! and started chasing me! The
photographer took the pictuure. The Dickhead Club loved the flowing
black hair! I would not lie to you! She blew me and then RAN AFTER me
for more! SS works! I would not lie to you!
Read about what the guys who paid for my toupee, defrauded sophomores,
have to say as they try to convince each other that if they can figure
out patterns and anchors and other silly shit they can join the human
race. Good fucking LUCK!
They are so HOPELESS THAT they don't realize that if you are scrawny,
ugly and have no social skills or worse, you have never had a
girlfriend like me, that you have to pay for pussy. DUMB!
They should listen to Steele and lose weight, shave the dweebie beard,
wash, bathe, get a hair cut, learn how to dress read his books and
start over.
BUT NO! I don't tell them that! I would be broke and have to go back to
being a coffee gofer again at age 40! MY SOLUTION TO ALL THIS REALITY
BEING EXPOSED?
Sue STEELE! That will stop this horrible revealing of the truth.
Sue him! I make him pay lawyers and shit. That will make dweebs,
fatsos, nerds, geeks and so on send me money for my Home Studly CURSE.
COMMENT: MY COUNSEL HAS DUN TOL ME AN TOL ME DAT DA WUSS BE BAD MOFO!
HE BE A PARAWEGAL AND SHIT.
HE KNOWS HOW TO SPEN MUNNIES ON 'TRUNIES AND SHIT.
HE BE KICKIN' ASS AFTER SPENDIN' THOUSANDS TO SAVE HIS KRUMBLING
BUSINESS ONCE THE FATSOS, NERDS AND GEEKS GET A LOAD OF WHAT HAPPENS
ONCE THEY GO TO THE $3000 SEMIMAR AND MEET DR. DEF and shit! Bad mofo
Dr. Def. and Kimmy teach dem foo's how to TonE anal ITY shit and Tommy
belowme who now pays dat Kimmy's rent and teach the nerds and other
HOPELESS dweebs how to get the ESSential SCAM down.
any ways. I gots to get back to my mai tai and shit. so I be leavin'
you brahs.
Da kine shit!
Aloha, Don be off to Hawaii and be bak wif da Mooks and Titas again.
Fuk da wuss and his silly shit. 'lo-ha!
Losing my SS virginity
Brothers,
This one is VERY long, and I'm not sure where to start, but I know
that, even though I am so completely drained I am compelled to post the
following field report for my own sanity and also because I'm obligated
by my virtue as a man.
See, I'm new at this (a month), but I (thought I) knew the capabilities
that SS has over women and I could understand (most of the time) how
and why the stuff would work, but still harbored doubts deep inside my
psyche, without showing it and always just believing in it.. Well check
this out: An HB that I have met this year at school has been friendly,
at best, and is someone I've been able to vaguely pattern here and
there, without much success or knowing what I was doing.. Then, one
night I told her about NLP and what it 'purports' to do and how and why
I would use it (to make others *feel* what I feel, namely pleasure). I
even ran IC on her, saying, "NLP would work like this:" and go into the
pattern.. She would trance out, but that would be the end of it-- as
caused by my google deficiency, I assume or a not-yet-found-
comfortability with the language and its purpose, I would just go back
to fluff once again.. Regardless, TONIGHT, I was fluff talking with her
for about an half-hour or so.. She showed me her pictures from her
canoeing trip. I said, AHH.. and OH in the appropriate places and
showed my interest in everything.. Then I reciprocated when I showed
her my pictures from Italy, France, and Holland -- describing the
feelings I had there: the excitement, the awe, etc.. etc.. She yawned..
And said, wow, that's interesting... And I didn't want her to go, but I
still (especially tonight for some reason) didn't fully believe in SS,
so to pattern with congruency and believability and had my doubts up to
wazoo!
But, I went blindly through a canned pattern (mixing from other
patterns, occassionally) and then saying something like, "See, and I
don't think this is working.. I don't really believe this stuff.. It
doesn't work the way it's supposed to.. I really think that this stuff
just demeans Love and makes it superficial by bringing it to the level
of fabrication." I SAID THIS! And went on! I kept telling her how I
didn't feel like I was able to do it.. or that whatever it is, doesn't
work..
She said, well, I think it might.. she said, because she felt something
before.. So I continued to pattern a bit more... and WHOA BABY! She was
purring and humming like a Dodge Viper.. I couldn't believe it! (If
this doesn't sound like a virgin losing his virginity, I don't know
what does!) Her chest was moving up and down, her eyes were glazed and
concentrated only on me, and her body was all squirm and tingles... I
thought, HOLY SHIT! Umm.. BETTER ANCHOR! So I did.. (on the back of her
left calf?!) and then, sort of fell out again, because my mind went
occassionally blank (so was the feeling of incredible intensity between
us) and I just couldn't think of ANYTHING I had been studying night and
day for the past month... So we'd just stare at each other for a minute
or so, and I'd say something like "Isn't it funny how you can become so
fascinated with someone that the rest of the world just seems to fade
away and it's like everything you ever wanted was right there in front
of you? etc.. etc.." And I'd watch her chest start to rise and fall
again.. I got SUCH A KICK out of this! And I showed it too.. I was so
completely honest with her, it was pathetic.. I told her EVERYTHING
except for the fact that this stuff was called Speed Seduction and I
didn't tell her any of YOUR names, thank God (so, don't worry!) But
everything else she knows because, as I told her, "I don't want to
decieve you, so I'm going to be completely honest with you: I've been
studying how people connect and I found that if I describe a state,
you'll go into it."
And she's like, Yeah, I think that might work..
It went on like this for about another hour and a half--taking her up
to such high states of arousal, and not finishing because I'd get so
turned on or because I felt that I hadn't studied enough or wasn't
convinced that it was SHE was what I wanted, etc... that I lost my
concentration.. (There's so much more to this night that I can't even
put into words, guys, you just have to believe me that it was very
INTENSE to my standards, and I'm a pretty intense guy naturally.)
So, she was a bit overwhelmed, to say the least.. And being that I was
too nervous to close (shivering, even) and she was so saturated and
submerged, when she talked about her awkwardness (a.k.a. my
awkwardness) or her uncomfortability (a.k.a. my uncomfortability), she
decided it was best that she go to bed and see me tomorrow.. I didn't
protest at all (because, hey, why let the fish feel the tug.. hehe),
because I need to take a breather and learn from what was happening.
So, it took her about 3 minutes to explain herself in broken
paraphrases of how she was feeling and then, searching for the
doorknob, she disappeared..
I didn't know what to think! Like, WHOA! is all I could think of...
And that's it..
I must say that this evening has been quite a learning experience and
will prove to be quite beneficial to me in the future.. I wonder how
this HB is going to feel towards me tomorrow.. hmmm.. we'll find out..
won't we?
I appreciate all comments, suggestions, complaints, etc..
Keep sarging and good things will cum! ~Dan
This is really hard to believe, I know. But it's true. Someone from the
"inside" sent this to me because he knew it was "representative" of the
FRAUD that goes on!
From: Ross Jeffries Subject: Re: rokan's poem - a belated commentary
To: s...@seduction.com
About a month ago, ro...@earthlink.net asked for feedback on a poem: I
said I'd get right on it. Oh well. Basically, the poem, as a poem, is
okay. As an SS poem, it's got a few problems.
WUSS SPEEKS! Not being the poet Nick is, but something of an apsiring
Magickian, let me say that a GOOD seduction poem is really not a poem
at all..but an invocation..an artifact designed to stir up, amplify,
awaken, invoke and evoke energies and feeling states in your intended
subject. As such it should pace and lead the current state, deliciously
introduce the possibility...the outline of the the desired
states/state...inviting her to step...toe first...into those lovely
waters and then..the full immersion..the reveling..and the
opportunity/chance to experience it again.
Poems that MATCH her ongoing state and present the opportunity for
more/better are VERY powerful indeed.
Example: recently, I ran into the luscious Alisa, who I had known a few
years back. She was bartending at the time, and now is waitressing(also
teaches grade school..teachers get paid shitty). Came up, hugged
me....didn't have time to talk....gave me her voicemail number which
she said she hardly ever listens to..(In effect, nice to seeya, but
don't try to get in touch with me)
ANyway, went in a few times while she was working and she was lukewarm
to cold. I knew from what she had said that she had broken up with the
abusive borefriend she had been seeing when I first knew her..
anyway, I had dismissed her as a candidate for Sargin, as she was so
fuckin' cold the last few times I went in. Then..on a lark..I called
the voice mail with a a "fuck it" attitude..let's see what happens..and
left my "Essence" poem..essentially the Gemini pattern in verse..on her
voice mail.
about 5 days later I get a call from her..."Hi..it's Alisa..I just
listened t my voice mail and that poem..it is SO beautiful..oh my
god..did you write that? It's just SO amazing!"
We talked on the phone for about 45 minutes..I told her I had a poetry
tape she might like(hee hee) plus a nice, stress-reduction/motivation
trance induction tape(I call it guided visualization, of course..not
hypnosis!)
She couldn't wait to have me bring them in, which I did last
night...she was all over me! I can well imagine she will be
masturbating herself into a frenzy waiting for me to return from
Cancun..she wants to go "rock climbing" ha ha ha with me when I get
back.
Poems should NOT be viewed as enjoyable literary devices. They are
ARTIFACTS...TROJAN HORSES...MAGICKAL invocations......
Ross "Abermerlin" Jeffries...
COMMENT! I did not make this up! Nobody could make this up! I could
not, under the influence of any drug I have taken, and that would be
just about everything known, could I make this up.
WUSS is a obviously a baaaad seductin' mofo. I mean it. He takes your
money and feeds you this silly shit and you eat it? WUSS BE BAD!
He makes Anthony Robbins and Jerry Fawell look like foo’s!
This is also very difficult to believe that anyone who is not HOPELESS
could fall for this silly shit.
From: Ross Jeffries Subject: Re: Psychic Transmissions To:
s...@seduction.com Cc: Date:
Is anyone out there dipping into the realm of psychic transmission? If
so, please let me know. I want to get material on this, but am having
trouble sorting out what is legitimate and what is bullshit. I hope to
eventually get access to my father's research, but that could take some
time. Ciao, George geor...@idt.net
WUSS SPEEKS! Here's the quote from my upcoming Cancun psychic training
(the last two days of the seminar!):
(P.S. This quote is copyright 1998 Ross Jeffries and may NOT be
reproduced in whole or in part in ANY medium for ANY purpose! All
rights reserved WORLD WIDE!)
I do NOT belief that psychic influence works by "transmitting" signals.
I realize that this model has its usefulness. Instead I believe it
works by:
Thus, personally, I do not believe that a person, apart and separate
from the "subject" one wishes to influence, "beams a message" thru the
"ether" that reaches inside the other person and "forces" or "compels"
that person to do one's bidding. But rather by identifying with that
person on as one shifts one's own thoughts, experiences, internal
representations, the other person shifts right along with you thus
giving the APPEARANCE that a thought or thoughts or set of perceptions
has been "transferred". In fact, the thought, thoughts or set of
perceptions have, without any "travelling" been REPLICATED. No
electronic medium of transmision will EVER be found to explain "psi"
phenomena because NOTHING is transmitted. Order/information is instead,
replicated/duplicated.
COMMENT! I am not making this up. I could not make this up!
Send your money to WUSS at Marina Del Rey Plastic People Capitol, 6969
Fool Street. LA CA 90069.
Defrauded Sophomores Talk About Getting Laid! IF they could only get
the anchor right or the submodality right! HELLO! Why don't you just
PAY the Lap Dancer Like the GooRoo duz!
Read about what the guys who paid for my toupee, defrauded sophomores,
have to say as they try to convince each other that if they can figure
out patterns and anchors and other silly shit they can join the human
race. Good fucking LUCK!
They are so HOPELESS THAT they don't realize that if you are scrawny,
ugly and have no social skills or worse, you have never had a
girlfriend like me, that you have to pay for pussy. DUMB!
They should listen to Steele and lose weight, shave the dweebie beard,
wash, bathe, get a hair cut, learn how to dress read his books and
start over.
BUT NO! I don't tell them that! I would be broke and have to go back to
being a coffee gofer again at age 40! MY SOLUTION TO ALL THIS REALITY
BEING EXPOSED?
Sue STEELE! That will stop this horrible revealing of the truth.
Sue him! I make him pay lawyers and shit. That will make dweebs,
fatsos, nerds, geeks and so on send me money for my Home Studly CURSE.
HERE'S WHAT MY "STUDENTS" TALK ABOUT ONCE THEIR WALLETS ARE EMPTY
Losing my SS virginity
Brothers,
This one is VERY long, and I'm not sure where to start, but I know
that, even though I am so completely drained I am compelled to post the
following field report for my own sanity and also because I'm obligated
by my virtue as a man.
See, I'm new at this (a month), but I (thought I) knew the capabilities
that SS has over women and I could understand (most of the time) how
and why the stuff would work, but still harbored doubts deep inside my
psyche, without showing it and always just believing in it.. Well check
this out: An HB that I have met this year at school has been friendly,
at best, and is someone I've been able to vaguely pattern here and
there, without much success or knowing what I was doing.. Then, one
night I told her about NLP and what it 'purports' to do and how and why
I would use it (to make others *feel* what I feel, namely pleasure). I
even ran IC on her, saying, "NLP would work like this:" and go into the
pattern.. She would trance out, but that would be the end of it-- as
caused by my google deficiency, I assume or a not-yet-found-
comfortability with the language and its purpose, I would just go back
to fluff once again.. Regardless, TONIGHT, I was fluff talking with her
for about an half-hour or so.. She showed me her pictures from her
canoeing trip. I said, AHH.. and OH in the appropriate places and
showed my interest in everything.. Then I reciprocated when I showed
her my pictures from Italy, France, and Holland -- describing the
feelings I had there: the excitement, the awe, etc.. etc.. She yawned..
And said, wow, that's interesting... And I didn't want her to go, but I
still (especially tonight for some reason) didn't fully believe in SS,
so to pattern with congruency and believability and had my doubts up to
wazoo!
But, I went blindly through a canned pattern (mixing from other
patterns, occassionally) and then saying something like, "See, and I
don't think this is working.. I don't really believe this stuff.. It
doesn't work the way it's supposed to.. I really think that this stuff
just demeans Love and makes it superficial by bringing it to the level
of fabrication." I SAID THIS! And went on! I kept telling her how I
didn't feel like I was able to do it.. or that whatever it is, doesn't
work..
She said, well, I think it might.. she said, because she felt something
before.. So I continued to pattern a bit more... and WHOA BABY! She was
purring and humming like a Dodge Viper.. I couldn't believe it! (If
this doesn't sound like a virgin losing his virginity, I don't know
what does!) Her chest was moving up and down, her eyes were glazed and
concentrated only on me, and her body was all squirm and tingles... I
thought, HOLY SHIT! Umm.. BETTER ANCHOR! So I did.. (on the back of her
left calf?!) and then, sort of fell out again, because my mind went
occassionally blank (so was the feeling of incredible intensity between
us) and I just couldn't think of ANYTHING I had been studying night and
day for the past month... So we'd just stare at each other for a minute
or so, and I'd say something like "Isn't it funny how you can become so
fascinated with someone that the rest of the world just seems to fade
away and it's like everything you ever wanted was right there in front
of you? etc.. etc.." And I'd watch her chest start to rise and fall
again.. I got SUCH A KICK out of this! And I showed it too.. I was so
completely honest with her, it was pathetic.. I told her EVERYTHING
except for the fact that this stuff was called Speed Seduction and I
didn't tell her any of YOUR names, thank God (so, don't worry!) But
everything else she knows because, as I told her, "I don't want to
decieve you, so I'm going to be completely honest with you: I've been
studying how people connect and I found that if I describe a state,
you'll go into it."
And she's like, Yeah, I think that might work..
It went on like this for about another hour and a half--taking her up
to such high states of arousal, and not finishing because I'd get so
turned on or because I felt that I hadn't studied enough or wasn't
convinced that it was SHE was what I wanted, etc... that I lost my
concentration.. (There's so much more to this night that I can't even
put into words, guys, you just have to believe me that it was very
INTENSE to my standards, and I'm a pretty intense guy naturally.)
So, she was a bit overwhelmed, to say the least.. And being that I was
too nervous to close (shivering, even) and she was so saturated and
submerged, when she talked about her awkwardness (a.k.a. my
awkwardness) or her uncomfortability (a.k.a. my uncomfortability), she
decided it was best that she go to bed and see me tomorrow.. I didn't
protest at all (because, hey, why let the fish feel the tug.. hehe),
because I need to take a breather and learn from what was happening.
So, it took her about 3 minutes to explain herself in broken
paraphrases of how she was feeling and then, searching for the
doorknob, she disappeared..
I didn't know what to think! Like, WHOA! is all I could think of...
And that's it..
I must say that this evening has been quite a learning experience and
will prove to be quite beneficial to me in the future.. I wonder how
this HB is going to feel towards me tomorrow.. hmmm.. we'll find out..
won't we?
I appreciate all comments, suggestions, complaints, etc..
Keep sarging and good things will cum! ~Dan
COMMENT: This is really hard to believe, I know. But it's true. Someone
from the "inside" sent this to me because he knew it was
"representative" of the FRAUD that goes on!
From: Ross Jeffries Subject: Re: rokan's poem - a belated commentary
To: s...@seduction.com
About a month ago, ro...@earthlink.net asked for feedback on a poem: I
said I'd get right on it. Oh well. Basically, the poem, as a poem, is
okay. As an SS poem, it's got a few problems.
THIS IS THE WUSS HIMSELF: Not being the poet Nick is, but something of
an apsiring Magickian, let me say that a GOOD seduction poem is really
not a poem at all..but an invocation.an artifact designed to stir up,
amplify, awaken, invoke and evoke energies and feeling states in your
intended subject. As such it should pace and lead the current state,
deliciously introduce the possibility...the outline of the the desired
states/state...inviting her to step...toe first...into those lovely
waters and then..the full immersion..the reveling..and the
opportunity/chance to experience it again.
Poems that MATCH her ongoing state and present the opportunity for
more/better are VERY powerful indeed.
Example: recently, I ran into the luscious Alisa, who I had known a few
years back. She was bartending at the time, and now is waitressing(also
teaches grade school..teachers get paid shitty). Came up, hugged
me....didn't have time to talk....gave me her voicemail number which
she said she hardly ever listens to..(In effect, nice to seeya, but
don't try to get in touch with me)
ANyway, went in a few times while she was working and she was lukewarm
to cold. I knew from what she had said that she had broken up with the
abusive borefriend she had been seeing when I first knew her..
anyway, I had dismissed her as a candidate for Sargin, as she was so
fuckin' cold the last few times I went in. Then..on a lark..I called
the voice mail with a a "fuck it" attitude..let's see what happens..and
left my "Essence" poem..essentially the Gemini pattern in verse..on her
voice mail.
about 5 days later I get a call from her..."Hi..it's Alisa..I just
listened t my voice mail and that poem..it is SO beautiful..oh my
god..did you write that? It's just SO amazing!"
We talked on the phone for about 45 minutes..I told her I had a poetry
tape she might like(hee hee) plus a nice, stress-reduction/motivation
trance induction tape(I call it guided visualization, of course..not
hypnosis!)
She couldn't wait to have me bring them in, which I did last
night...she was all over me! I can well imagine she will be
masturbating herself into a frenzy waiting for me to return from
Cancun..she wants to go "rock climbing" ha ha ha with me when I get
back.
Poems should NOT be viewed as enjoyable literary devices. They are
ARTIFACTS...TROJAN HORSES...MAGICKAL invocations......
Ross "Abermerlin" Jeffries...
COMMENT! I did not make this up! Nobody could make this up! I could
not, under the influence of any drug I have taken, and that would be
just about everything known, could I make this up.
WUSS is a obviously a baaaad seductin' mofo. I mean it. He takes your
money and feeds you this silly shit and you eat it? WUSS BE BAD!
He makes Anthony Robbins and Jerry Fawell look like foo's!
This is also very difficult to believe that anyone who is not HOPELESS
could fall for this silly shit.
From: Ross Jeffries Subject: Re: Psychic Transmissions To:
s...@seduction.com Cc: Date:
Is anyone out there dipping into the realm of psychic transmission? If
so, please let me know. I want to get material on this, but am having
trouble sorting out what is legitimate and what is bullshit. I hope to
eventually get access to my father's research, but that could take some
time. Ciao, George geor...@idt.net
WUSS SPEEKS! Here's the quote from my upcoming Cancun psychic training
(the last two days of the seminar!):
(P.S. This quote is copyright 1998 Ross Jeffries and may NOT be
reproduced in whole or in part in ANY medium for ANY purpose! All
rights reserved WORLD WIDE!)
I do NOT belief that psychic influence works by "transmitting" signals.
I realize that this model has its usefulness. Instead I believe it
works by:
Thus, personally, I do not believe that a person, apart and separate
from the "subject" one wishes to influence, "beams a message" thru the
"ether" that reaches inside the other person and "forces" or "compels"
that person to do one's bidding. But rather by identifying with that
person on as one shifts one's own thoughts, experiences, internal
representations, the other person shifts right along with you thus
giving the APPEARANCE that a thought or thoughts or set of perceptions
has been "transferred". In fact, the thought, thoughts or set of
perceptions have, without any "travelling" been REPLICATED. No
electronic medium of transmision will EVER be found to explain "psi"
phenomena because NOTHING is transmitted. Order/information is instead,
replicated/duplicated.
COMMENT! I am not making this up. I could not make this up!
Send your money to WUSS at Marina Del Rey Plastic People Capitol, 6969
Fool Street. LA CA 90069.
MAXIM, NOVEMBER 1999
MAXIM’S TEST PAGE
The patter was complete!
Odious
night...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Retards (particularly ones with no congruencey) can't use SS... To be
> honest I think that's a plus.
>
I think it was obvious the guy was not real clear on the SS concepts,
when he says this:
> > Speed Seduction
> > Seminar ($895, 703-791-6412) and learned I’d have much more success
> > using a mind-control technique called a pattern,
Not only is that a vast over-simplification of what SS is, but it
reflects the fact he's placing importance on the wrong area. Rather like
saying that baseball is all about, "swinging this stick thing, called a
bat."
> > To try it out, a female friend set me up with a blind date-- I’ll call
> > her Gloria--who met me one night after work. After preliminary small
> > talk, I steered the conversation to cable television and unleashed the
> > LETHAL Discovery Channel pattern!
> >
> > I told her that I was watching the Discovery Channel and saw this guy
> > who designed theme park attractions. I said, “The host asked the guy
> > what made a perfect attraction,” and subtly point to myself as I had
> > been taught, thereby implanting in Gloria’s unconscious mind the idea
> > that, in fact, was the perfect attraction. Unfortunately, Gloria was
> > busy signaling the bartender for hummus dip.
> >
This would seem to be an indication that he had not done any of the
preliminaries to get her attention. What kind of dink would go running
patterns when she wasn't paying attention? It is no surprise this guy
flopped.
> > I continued. “He said the first thing is a feeling of excitement. You
> > know how a roller coaster goes higher and higher, and you get more and
> > more excited as the car goes up and up and up, and just as you reach
> > the climax, you go whooshing down in a rush of excitement?”
> >
> > At the word “climax,” Gloria’s pita collapsed, dropping a blob of
> > hummus into her lap.
> >
> > “The second thing,” I said, “is a feeling of total safety, because you
> > know you’re in good hands.”
> >
> > Skeptical would not begin to describe the expression on Gloria’s face
> > at this point.
> >
No shit, if this material was delivered like it is being written it
wouldn't work. You don't just launch into reciting patterns word for
word like this. Was this guy sleeping through the seminar?
> > “And then, uh,” I stammered, “the third thing is knowing that as soon
> > as the ride is over, you’ll want to climb back on and ride it over and
> > over and over again.”
> >
> > The patter was complete!
> >
> > An uncomfortable silence hung over the bar.
As this twit waited for the secret magical powers of SS to turn this
woman into a sex zombie. It isn't an incantation, silly git.
> > Even the bartender was
> > embarrassed. Gloria wiped the remnants of the hummus from her skirt
> and
> > said, “That wasn’t about amusement park rides, was it?”
> >
> > It was a long and lonely night.
> >
And for those who think they can recite patterns word for word, with none
of the lead in or follow up, they will all be lonely nights.
--
The Spiffy Page, home of the Alt.Seduction.Fast FAQ:
http://meltingpot.fortunecity.com/burnaby/851
Dawn O' The Dead
>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?
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
Odious
Dawn O' The Dead wrote:
>
> On Thu, 04 Nov 1999 19:42:33 GMT, night...@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?
>
Speaking of amusement parks...how's your beard?
Odious
belo...@talkcity.com wrote:
>
> DUH, UH, HE PAID $900 TO LURN HOW TO SPEED SEDUCE WOMEN.
>
Which begs the question, why didn't he pay attention at the seminar? The
guy made basic basic mistakes, fucking up things that even newbies know
how to avoid after reading the free material. It isn't like this basic
material isn't covered in the seminar. Yet, obviously something kept
this guy from learning or utilizing these basic ideas covered in the
seminar.
Could it be he was assigned the story, the magazine footed the bill, and
he either wasn't trying to learn anything or had his mind made up from
the start?
Whatever the reason, this article doesn't show that SS doesn't work, but
rather that it shows that speed seduction methods can be fucked up when
used by a person who doesn't understand what they are doing.
Patrick E. Merlevede, M.Sc (Acknowledge.net)
fo the missing element of "ecology check" for all those present in the
system, I agree with the postings in the tread that hte journalist didn't
prove anything. I thinkk this is a "good example" of a typical journalist.
Ask yourself the question: what is the most interesting news? My answer:
"bad news". So this journalist's bad news is "it didn't work".
I personally think "it did work" would have been worse, and I think there is
a great story in checking out which woman got what I would call a "date
rape" because of this speed seduction courses. (The way to check this is by
finding out "some time after the faxts" how the "secuced" victims feel about
what happened.
--
Patrick E.C.Merlevede, M.Sc
p/a: Acknowledge cvba - Bardelare 18 - B-9971 Lembeke - Belgium
Tel: +32 (75) 87.08.52 -- e-mail: Patr...@compuserve.com
--------------------------
The site of "7 lessons in emotional intelligence"
http://www.7EQ.com
Contains a review of Goleman's book and a series of newspaper
articles for a large audience explaining some applications
of neurolinguistics. (English / Dutch / French)
Visit Merl's World on Neurologistics!
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PatrickM/nlp_home.htm
an internet resource since 1994, with FAQ and over 130 book reviews
on Neurologistics (NLP, general semantics, cognitive science);
home to the NLP trainers list (over 250 institutes - WORLDWIDE)
Further Notes:
- follow the 7EQ quest - subscribe to the FREE "7EQ Newsletter"
- use our Amazon.com service - just 1 mouse click from our book reviews!
Odious <Odi...@home.com> wrote in message news:3822860B...@home.com...
>
>
> belo...@talkcity.com wrote:
> >
> > DUH, UH, HE PAID $900 TO LURN HOW TO SPEED SEDUCE WOMEN.
> >
>
> Which begs the question, why didn't he pay attention at the seminar? The
> guy made basic basic mistakes, fucking up things that even newbies know
> how to avoid after reading the free material. It isn't like this basic
> material isn't covered in the seminar. Yet, obviously something kept
> this guy from learning or utilizing these basic ideas covered in the
> seminar.
>
Odious
"Patrick E. Merlevede, M.Sc (Acknowledge.net)" wrote:
>
> I personally think "it did work" would have been worse, and I think there is
> a great story in checking out which woman got what I would call a "date
> rape" because of this speed seduction courses.
I personally think you are talking out your ass with no clue what so ever
as to the actual structure, use, or capabilities of speed seduction.
Only the uninformed think using SS is equivalent to date rape. It is no
more a date rape drug than berry white, a dozen red roses, or mood
lighting.
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.
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
exactly the way she fantasizes about, she's going to want to reciprocate.
That is what SS is about. So get a clue before you start spewing
accusations and crying rape. Feel free to check out the ASF faq on my
web page, it covers this subject quite well.
night...@hotmail.com
In article <382d69f2....@news.pacifier.com>,
java...@pacifier.com (Dawn O' The Dead) wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Nov 1999 19:42:33 GMT, night...@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?
>
> 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
>
>
Patrick E. Merlevede, M.Sc (Acknowledge.net)
>
> 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
> 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.
So I wonder, can the SS guys on this forum tell us systematic "day after"
stories or rather some "month after stories", about how happy all those
women that got laid were some time into (or after) the relationship? (My
guess is that most will be to ashamed to admid they feel "betrayed".)
Sales persons CAN promise you things they cannot deliver (and even trick
people with high IQ). Often they will only succeed once, but so what, they
then move to the next victim. Hard sales gets very close to this.
You CAN use technology such as NLP for making up something that won't be
"valuable" for the person getting it (even if the person beleivese it at
first).
Technology such as NLP CAN be used to manipulate and SURE, it WILL work on
short term notice, and the person will be VERY mad once he finds out that
the promises are not kept. (Note; the speed secuction FAQ claims you can't
do turn people into mindless zombies. Never heard of brainwashing?)
What is missing from the whole SS FAQ is anything like the presuppositions
from NLP.
Normally, in NLP we are supposed to give *only* certificates to people that
will behave according to the presuppostions
(but I *admit* that the Bandler way of certifying isn't that "strict'
anymore)
I have my doubts about ecology when I read the reactions and personal
attacks being made by people claiming to be SS experts.
Why do you need SS anyway, if you are looking for a long term relationship.
If you are looking for "long term", how come *speed* is important?
What presupposition is there behind this?
I will be surprised ONLY if I succeed at getting GENUINE answers to this
posting, WITHOUT FLAMING PLEASE!
--
Patrick E.C.Merlevede, M.Sc
p/a: Acknowledge cvba - Bardelare 18 - B-9971 Lembeke - Belgium
Tel: +32 (75) 87.08.52 -- e-mail: Patr...@compuserve.com
--------------------------
Patrick runs a training & consulting company
http://www.acknowledge.net
Acknowledge - your partner for emotional intelligence
Dawn O' The Dead
>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.
Cedrick Hardrod
>I personally think "it did work" would have been worse, and I think
>there is a great story in checking out which woman got what I would
>to check this is by finding out "some time after the faxts" how the
>"secuced" victims feel about what happened.
Please correct me if I am wrong, because I want to understand you.
You say finding out how somebody feels some time after the fact
is most important. This is because of benefit of 20/20 hindsight?
Anyway by same reasoning, if a guy later regrets paying for dinner
having a bad date, did she "date rob" him? It seems that being an
consenting adult at the time is not enough, because emotions and
other factors can cloud the issue. So if a woman gets to decide a
sexual encounter was "date rape" after the fact, then a man can
decide paying for dinner was "date robbery" or "date fraud" after
the fact. They are both adult and always live by same standards,
otherwise is sexual discrimination. One more thought. If the man
has second thoughts after the sex, did woman also "date rape" him?
Thank you!
=====
Cedrick
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
night...@hotmail.com
view a sales man, a con man and thief as 3 different things. There is
a real question as too how willing a PUA is to lie or lie through
omision. I try to be as straightforward as possible, without having to
sit down and have a "big talk".
I have done ecology tests on various women (weeks or months after).
Some want to sleep with me again, others are hurt (even thought they
admit I was quite honest in disclosing my intentions) and some seem to
just want to ignore that it took place (rare). I am looking for clues
in how to determine the former from the latter two. My intention is to
try to not engage those women who I think will be negatively effected.
Eventually I would like to eliminate the negative feelings altogether,
but this is a pretty complicated challenge given all the variables and
my being loathe to become a full time therapist for these women.
I would also note that if you look at the way people feel
about "normal" LTRs they are not necessarily more possitive afterwards
than they are of SS induced passions.
NightLight9
In article <7vv0n3$d5u$1...@news0.skynet.be>,
"Patrick E. Merlevede, M.Sc (Acknowledge.net)"
Anonymous
>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.
ross' lying is not a plenary indulgence for your own.
hth
jackie 'anakin' tokeman
'never miss an chance to be a bitch' indeed
hhh
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
Crackpot
>What presupposition is there behind this?
The presuppostion is the one YOU made, that *speed* is important-
Do you realize plenty of people use NLP "normal paced" seduction?
and btw i know people who can't pry the girls off of them with a crowbar.
Literally. They love it.
>I will be surprised ONLY if I succeed at getting GENUINE answers to this
>posting, WITHOUT FLAMING PLEASE!
not a priority of mine, sorry.
--
. . . . . . . . ... . . . . . .
"La la la laaa laaa laaa " | Niente Totalera V.
La la la laaa laaa laaa." -Stereolab | shi...@gweep.net
Tom
concerns.
Despite the high amount of flames going on here, most people are smart (Ray,
I said 'most') and I think we all, at one point or another, sat down and
wondered how much good or evil we're doing this way.
I think that a women that has been seduced that way will be really happy
while... it lasts, so I agree with you. And then, when she realizes that
there's no tomorrow she'll be sad or/and mad.
Now, the whole purpose of this group is mainly to seduce girls to get laid,
not to get into relationsships. I think there are the following categories
of people
- those that want to get laid and don't want a relation ship
- those that want to get laid and if the right girl comes up, go into a
relationship (I'm among those)
- those that are looking for a relationship
I think most people, in this group, are belonging to 1) and 2) so to some
extent, yes we're not delivering the promised goods and we move on to the
next victim to use your terms.
Lots of non regular came and said we were women haters, etc. It is absolutly
not true at all. I can't think of anyone here that hates them (but Ray) and
even people I fight with sometimes here are more human than many people I
know in real life. I think that, in contrary, we are women lovers, but we
can't seem to satisfy with one. Of course I'm speaking for myself but I
believe that others share that feeling. What do you think ?
Tom
Patrick E. Merlevede, M.Sc (Acknowledge.net) <Patr...@acknowledge.net>
wrote in message news:7vv0n3$d5u$1...@news0.skynet.be...
> If you are looking for "long term", how come *speed* is important?
> What presupposition is there behind this?
>
> I will be surprised ONLY if I succeed at getting GENUINE answers to this
> posting, WITHOUT FLAMING PLEASE!
>
Jet
Odious <Odi...@home.com> wrote in message news:38238BA4...@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.
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.
J
Odious
Dawn O' The Dead wrote:
>
> 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.
>
Still pissed that you did not get the roll of harry in Harry and the
Hendersons?
Odious
"Patrick E. Merlevede, M.Sc (Acknowledge.net)" wrote:
>
> 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.
Well is getting what she want or having her desires fulfilled, synonymous
with being date raped?
Obviously the question isn't, does SS or NLP work. The question is do
they work in the way you claim...allowing them to be used to commit an
act of rape?
It would seem you're trying to change the subject. Though to answer you
new question...one could try this material on a completely one sided
level, giving nothing back and not making her feel anything she wants to
feel...and you know what, he'd fail. 99 out of 100 times the woman would
leave, because there would be nothing there to appeal to her.
SS is based in reciprocity. One-sided SS doesn't work.
> I wonder how much women are looking for sex without a relationship connected
> to it.
I wonder what makes you think that using SS somehow precludes a
relationship.
> 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.
>
> So I wonder, can the SS guys on this forum tell us systematic "day after"
> stories or rather some "month after stories", about how happy all those
> women that got laid were some time into (or after) the relationship? (My
> guess is that most will be to ashamed to admid they feel "betrayed".)
>
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.
You seem to assume that with SS comes some predetermined standard that
men must only use it for one night stands. That is simply an ignorant
uninformed opinion.
If a man wants to use SS for one night stands, that's his choice, not
something determined by the material. Some men, I'm sure, do use the
material for one night stands. However some men use it to better their
relationships with their wives and some men use it to win the heart of
the woman they've loved from afar for years.
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.
> Sales persons CAN promise you things they cannot deliver (and even trick
> people with high IQ). Often they will only succeed once, but so what, they
> then move to the next victim. Hard sales gets very close to this.
> You CAN use technology such as NLP for making up something that won't be
> "valuable" for the person getting it (even if the person beleivese it at
> first).
> Technology such as NLP CAN be used to manipulate and SURE, it WILL work on
> short term notice, and the person will be VERY mad once he finds out that
> the promises are not kept.
SS is not simply NLP. Again you are speaking from an uninformed
position. I implore you to do a little reading and learn about what you
are attacking, so you stop looking like such a reactionary fool.
SS doesn't use NLP in the way a sales person might use NLP to close a
hard sell. SS doesn't make someone feel like they need to be with you,
it allows you to determine what it is they want to feel so you can create
those feelings using some NLP techniques and some other techniques. The
result is that this person WANTS to be with you because you are able to
make them feel the way they want to feel.
You're not fooling her into thinking you have some value, that you really
do not. You're not tricking her into thinking she wants you, when she
really doesn't.
What you do is make her feel what she desires, and that gives her
pleasure. Pleasure she wants to reciprocate.
> (Note; the speed secuction FAQ claims you can't
> do turn people into mindless zombies. Never heard of brainwashing?)
>
The faq says you can't use SS to make someone into a mindless zombie and
you can't use it to make someone do something against their will.
What can or can not be accomplished via brainwashing is not relevant to
an SS FAQ, since it has nothing to do with SS. SS is not brainwashing.
> What is missing from the whole SS FAQ is anything like the presuppositions
> from NLP.
> Normally, in NLP we are supposed to give *only* certificates to people that
> will behave according to the presuppostions
> (but I *admit* that the Bandler way of certifying isn't that "strict'
> anymore)
>
Once again, SS is not just NLP. SS is far more. Maybe a decade ago SS
was basically NLP, but since then it has grown and developed into
something quite different and unique.
There is no certification, and no rule book one must agree to follow.
What the individual does with these tools is the individual's
responsibility. SSers do not go around policing the people who buy the
material to make sure they are using the stuff amicably.
The only time something like that happened was the door pattern
incident. The door pattern was basically a pattern that created an
anxiety response. The guy who created it used fear to try and keep a
girlfriend from leaving or something like that. It wasn't particularly
effective, because negative responses like that simply don't work well
with SS. However the guy who created it was banned from the group, as
is anybody who reposts the text of the pattern. It went in directions
that nobody in the group wanted to see.
> I have my doubts about ecology when I read the reactions and personal
> attacks being made by people claiming to be SS experts.
Welcome to usenet.
> Why do you need SS anyway, if you are looking for a long term relationship.
Who says I am looking for a long term relationship? I don't see
anything wrong with short term relationships. Provided that is what both
parties are interested in. I make it quite clear upfront what i expect
and what I am looking for.
However that's just me. Some of the men here look for one night stands,
which I don't agree with. Some of the guys using SS are married. Some
of the guys are looking to settle down. It all depends on the
individual. SS doesn't determine these things, the individual does.
> If you are looking for "long term", how come *speed* is important?
> What presupposition is there behind this?
My car can go 120 mph...why, if the speed limit is only 65? Does the
availability of a tool mean one must use that tool? THe speed in speed
seduction, is in that one can cut through the initial bullshit and move
directly to where you want to go...or to decide there is no reason to
continue and bug out before you waste your time.
The speed is an option, nothing more. I can use it to make a woman feel
so good that she'll want to have sex right away, or not. I can simply
use the tools to better understand her, or to help her get rid of some
fear that is holding her back. Once again, these are not things
determined by SS, but by the individual.
Speed seduction is a set of tools. They have many uses. The individual
determines how and to what end, he will use these tools.
> I will be surprised ONLY if I succeed at getting GENUINE answers to this
> posting, WITHOUT FLAMING PLEASE!
I will be surprised if you take the time to learn about this material,
instead of stereotypically attacking all the practitioners based on your
inaccurate assumptions.
Odious
Jet wrote:
>
> Odious <Odi...@home.com> wrote in message news:38238BA4...@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!?
>
I wasn't saying it was a long relationship, just that it wasn't a one
night stand. But then you knew that...you just like to fling shit.
> > 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.
I'm not playing...I am coy.
> 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.
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.
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. Which you've
been told multiple times is a marketing tool, not a fucking clinical
analysis of the product.
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?
> 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.
> 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.
>
> J
Sure, they'll go for anything down on the docks...at least that's what
ray says.
Tom
> 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 ? 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 ?
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 !)
>
> 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.
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 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
Tom
Jet
Tom <tom...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BqRU3.38222$Rx2.3...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com...
> >
> > 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?
J
Jet
Odious <Odi...@home.com> wrote in message news:3823DE7A...@home.com...
> > SS is marketed as a tool to trick women into sleeping
> > with you.
>
> 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?
> 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.
> 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.
>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.
> 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?
> > 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.
> Sure, they'll go for anything down on the docks...at least that's what
> ray says.
He would know.
J
Odious
Jet wrote:
>
> Odious <Odi...@home.com> wrote in message news:3823DE7A...@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 claim that SS is a trick. 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.
>
So it is only a threat 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.
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
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.
William Sakovich
> Now, the whole purpose of this group is mainly to seduce girls
to get laid,
> not to get into relationsships.
I read this in alt.psychology.nlp. What makes you think that is
the whole purpose of this group?
Have a little courtesy and pay attention to where you're sending
notes and to whom you're talking.
- Bill Sakovich
Odious
Jet wrote:
>
> Tom <tom...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:BqRU3.38222$Rx2.3...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com...
> > >
> > > 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! "
>
Notice she doesn't cite the source of this quote. 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.
He is talking about the interaction in her mind, between parts of her
mind. She is still very aware on a conscious level that you made the
comment or suggestion and it caused a reaction in her. However, using
SS allows you to have more control over the nature of that reaction. One
way it does this is by presenting the comment or suggestion in a way that
is more effective at circumventing barriers in the conscious part of the
mind.
I don't run a blow job pattern and have the woman tricked into thinking
that the sexual imagery and innuendo is her idea. She knows I'm talking
in sexual metaphors and she knows exactly what I'm talking about. All
the pattern does is present the imagery in a way she's more open to,
because the two parts of her brain are not in conflict over how to
process the information.
> >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.
> > 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
Since when does the make-up determine your behavior? You have to add on
the addendum, because make up is a trick. It is an alteration of the
truth...a trick of light and shadow to make you look more appealing
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?
>because use them as a sex toy.
>
Once again troll...no where in SS is there anything that determines how
the individual chooses to use it. The individual is the one who decides
how they will treat a woman, not SS. So don't trying and blame SS for
what in an individual choice, when the fact is each and every SSer uses
SS in their own way to their own individual ends.
Claiming that SSer only use SS so they can use women as a sex toy, is a
blatant bigoted and dishonest stereotype. Rather like saying the only
reason a black person would own a gun would be because they are a
criminal.
Now there are black criminals, who choose to misuse tools like guns to
commit crimes. SO following your logic, because of this...all blacks
who own guns are criminals and that is the only use for the gun.
Tom
I didn't realize. I guess I didn't play attention because we got so many
people asking about ethics and such in a.s.f...
It's not the first time it happens. Sorry about the confusion.
Tom
William Sakovich <sako...@gol.com> wrote in message
news:e1UU3.45$Yb.1...@nnrp.gol.com...
> "Tom" writes:
>
> > Now, the whole purpose of this group is mainly to seduce girls
> to get laid,
> > not to get into relationsships.
>
Tom
> > >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's the difference ?
> > > 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
>
> Since when does the make-up determine your behavior? You have to add on
> the addendum, because make up is a trick. It is an alteration of the
> truth...a trick of light and shadow to make you look more appealing
>
> 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.
>
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 ?
Tom
Nathan SZILARD
>
> Jet wrote:
> >
> > Tom <tom...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:BqRU3.38222$Rx2.3...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com...
> > > >
> > > > 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! "
> >
>
> Notice she doesn't cite the source of this quote. That's because it is
> from a newsletter archived on ross' site from 5 or 6 years ago.
That's not the point. Jet is wrong because NOTHING involves lying or
cheating in the quoted paragraph. Getting someone to believe it's 'their
idea' is pervasive in sales, marketing, advertising, and communication
in
general. It's not called lying.
What Jet is telling us is that it's the same thing as making false
claim,
such as 'You will lose 30 pounds in two days with this magic powder'.
Would she claim that EVERY advertising is based on this principle?
Paul
Some idiot spewed forth the following ill-conceived utterance:<snip>
we all know that you can't force someone to do something they don't
>want.
What friggin' world are ypu in pal? As an ex military person I can tell you
straight off there are LOTS of ways to force people to do things they don't
want. Grow up.
Odious
Um, nate, that's basically what I covered in the rest of the post. Why
cut what I said so that you can paraphrase it?
Not only was ross not talking about what she claimed, but also what she
claims is happening is something that happens everyday in all our lives
and is not considered dishonest.
Odious
Well clearly the military did not teach you how to read context. He was
talking about using NLP/SS to force someone to do something against their
will. He was not talking about using any means to force someone to do
something against their will. Do try to pay attention before you speak.
Here is the above quote, in context "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 ? 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 ?"
--
Dawn O' The Dead
>Certainly, I view Date Rape and SS as two different things,
Well, of course. The Date Rapist actually gets some.
>but I also
>view a sales man, a con man and thief as 3 different things.
Which did you consider Ross Jeffries as you were opening your wallet
for him?
Vlar Schreidlocke
Perhaps you guys have never actually checked it out and if you have I
doubt you have ever really paid attention to what was being taught. Is
it possible that you have based your whole argument on hearsay and
what you wish SS was just to come to someone's rescue. From what I
read in here you have no first hand knowledge of SS at all. Why not
set aside your preconceptions and check it out for yourself. This
whole controversy over Ross and SS is what made me curious enough to
check it out for myself first hand. Thanks for keeping it for so long.
Hopefully, enough people will read your rantings and go check it out
personally and come to realize just how empty your arguments are after
all.
On Fri, 5 Nov 1999 09:46:53 +0100, "Patrick E. Merlevede, M.Sc
(Acknowledge.net)" <Patr...@acknowledge.net> wrote:
>Even if I think this whole idea of "speed seduction" is disgusting because
>fo the missing element of "ecology check" for all those present in the
>system, I agree with the postings in the tread that hte journalist didn't
>prove anything. I thinkk this is a "good example" of a typical journalist.
>Ask yourself the question: what is the most interesting news? My answer:
>"bad news". So this journalist's bad news is "it didn't work".
Jet
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.
J
Jet
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.
And to compare wearing lipstick to trying to emotionally manipulate someone
into sleeping with you, is a real 1=2 argument.
J
J
Patrick E. Merlevede, M.Sc (Acknowledge.net)
I didn't realise this tread was posted over several forums.
I'm not that interested in the "fast seduction" idea, since for me it is
mostly an application of NLP.
My intention is to make clear how NLP material should be used in a proper
way.
Therefor, my future answers (after this one) will be ONLY to the NLP
newsgroup.
I'll start a new tread there on ecology, using speed seduction as an
example.
Cedrick Hardrod <we_4...@yahoo.com> wrote
venus uzynski
similarity.
This is a poor attempt at justifying date rape which cannot be justified
under any circumstance.
Get your head out of your ass and start comparing apples to apples if you
want to make a valid argument.
Venus
Nathan SZILARD
Th eperson Cedrick was responding to equatted lying to get
laid to (date) rape. So I say I'm a movie producer, the girl
sleeps with me because of that, and well, actually I'm
not and all of a sudden it's 'rape'. Hm ... not.
venus uzynski a écrit:
Patrick E. Merlevede, M.Sc (Acknowledge.net)
Nathan SZILARD <nat...@metabork.fr.eu.org> 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".
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
Nathan SZILARD
>
> Nathan SZILARD <nat...@metabork.fr.eu.org> 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".
Well in one case it's a crime, that should be punished by several years
in jail, and in the other it's a ... err ... well it's basically
nothing and it should be at most punished by a gentle slap on left
cheek.
You can't see the difference? Well I can't communicate with you then.
> 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
Fundamental risk of unethical behavior? Major bullshit.
Jet
Odious <Odi...@home.com> wrote in message news:38240650...@home.com...
me say:
> > 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.
If it is so old and outdated, why does he have it on his site?
> 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.
If Clinton set up a web site a web site that now said he was half way though
his first term as president, you'd have point.
> That claim is inherent in the claim that SS is a trick. If you concede
> there is no difference in those emotions, then where's the trick?
LOL. Learn logic. You are the one who came up with this "fake" an "real"
emotion nonsense.
> 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...
It's up on the site NOW. That makes it current marketing, Einstein.
yeah, you are talking out your
> rather rotund ass.
Rotund? LOL. My hip measurement around the biggest part of my ass is 34
inches. I bet that is smaller than your waist, and larger than your IQ.
>
> > >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.
>
Translation: You have no real argument. You are like Aaron Jr. I court
directly from primary soures, and all you can come back with is
"AAsssHHHoollllEEEE!!!"
>
> That's far from the only use for SS. You claim it is marketed as a way
> to trick women, is a lie.
I posted direct proof, Ross' own words. QED.
> So it is only a threat 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.
Yep, you have no real argument. You are just upset because I am speaking the
truth.
> Oh and please cite you support to show that SS only works on stupid women
> or drunk women.
I said I don't see how it could work on any woman that wasn't really stupid
and/or really drunk. How else could anyone fall for lines like those? Why
would any woman listen to an UG like you long enough to hear them?
Laife
> Nathan SZILARD <nat...@metabork.fr.eu.org> 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".
>
Interesting point. And as I'm reading that, another idea popped into my head.
If someone lies or pretends to like someone in order to get something, that
would constitute a crime equivalent to date rape. Let's say strippers for
instance, when a stripper pretends to like some guy, and most guys are really
convinced that the stripper indeed does like him, in order to get table dances
and more money, that would constitute date rape as well. And while you are
thinking about that, a lot of good looking American women are guilty of using
men in one form or another. Not informing the guys that they would have no
romantic possibility with her. That is equivalent to date rape.
You seem like a reasonable person so the thing to do is to start seeking charges
to jail these good looking women. Unless these women are punished for their
crimes, they will continue to do it over and over again. So the next time you
see a good looking woman making claims, you should ask yourself 'Would this
woman be guilty of date rape if the roles are reversed?'. Knowing that a woman
will not likely admit to this, you find yourself questioning her behavior more
and more. Until it dons on you that denial is her way of living with her
actions. Amnesia as it were. And that to blame all the problems on men. As
men are the problems in this world. These women are all decent and honest,
aren't they?
You look at them and find yourself at crossroads, is it the reality of which
they speak or the reality of which they would like to believe. As your thoughts
can control your behavior. You wonder that if these women were to admit to the
crimes they have commited, could they really live with themselves? Could they
function in normal society? Or would the be locked up in a mental institution.
Reality is different for each person. You wonder if her reality is the reality
you believe. For amnesia is a wonderful thing. And blame dissolves all guilt.
--
Laife
Odious
Jet wrote:
>
> Odious <Odi...@home.com> wrote in message
> >
> > 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?
>
ROTFLMAO!!! You stupid stupid troll. I've just proven you have no clue
what you are talking about. That particular quote is not from any of the
newsletters, it is a summation of concepts covered in two or three
separate newsletters. That quote is from the page describing SS's
creation.
http://www.seduction.com/18pgfull.html
It is a quote you no doubt were handed or pulled out of another post.
Had you read the site, as you claim, you'd have known this. So not only
have you not read the material you're attacking...you've not even read
the site you're quoting. You're a fucking troll, plain and simple.
> > 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.
No, you simply quoted the few lines that you thought would support your
troll. You gave no location, because you didn't knwo it. You were not
concerned with the facts or the vast amount of material which that small
quote is referring to. In fact, the above test makes it clear that
you're not even aware of the material it is referring to.
Your ignorance doesn't constitute a flaw on the part of SS, but rather a
shortcoming inside you.
> > > >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.
>
There's nothing dishonest about SS. You've never been able to cite
anything dishonest about SS, because SS is a tool and tools are neither
honest nor dishonest. They are inanimate objects. How they are used, be
it honestly or dishonestly, is a determination made by the individual
using the tool, not the tool itself.
> > 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."
>
Yet you can't point out logically or with any substantive argument how
they differ on this conceptual level. In fact, I would argue that make
up is even more dishonest than SS.
Make up is used to create interest by making someone look more attractive
than they really are. In the morning, the make up washes off and you go
back to being less visually appealing than you were the night before.
Whereas SS is used to create interest by making someone feel better than
they normally might. However in the morning...I'm still an SSer and
those skills are still present, as are the feelings I create with them.
So again I ask you, where is the trick?
> SS is a trick. Period. I have proved it with Ross' own words.
No you haven't. You cited a quote of ross talking about a basic concept
of an internal mental process. You've not proven anything but your own
lack of knowledge on the subject you are attacking.
> 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.
>
Again you attach a specific behavior, that of using a woman. You must
attach addendums to the use of the tool, and presuppose that it will be
misused, so you can support your troll. You must try to make it seem as
if the individual who chooses to misuse the tool, does so because of the
tool and not because of his individual decision.
This is dishonest and incorrect. Why can't you admit that a tool makes
no determination as to the integrity with which it is used by a given
individual? Why do you continue to lie and try to claim that SS
determines these behaviors or that the material instructs these actions.
Once again...rather like saying all blacks who buy guns must be
criminals, simply because some choose to misuse that tool for criminal
purposes.
> > 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.
Hardly, a site dedicated to figuring out how best to communicate,
understand, and give pleasure to women...is hardly an indication that
they are seen as worthless. Were women worthless in the eyes of SSers,
would we go to all the trouble of learning this material to seduce them?
The site is crass and some of the humor is sexist, I concede that. The
over the top nature of ross' site has never been in question. However
that site is like that for two reasons.
1. Ross is a boisterous over the top kind of guy, and he wrote most of
the stuff on the site, himself. So it is no surprise it reflects his
individual humor and mentality.
2. The customer base to which the material is being marketed is male.
Men respond better to boisterous over the top material that is direct and
to the point, than they do to hyper-sensitive material which beats around
the bush in an attempt not to offend anybody.
Once again, we've covered this before, the marketing is not the
material. You can't site the marketing to support claims about the
nature of the material. You say SS is dishonest and causes men to use
women...yet to support that claim you point to the advertisement page?
IF you are making clear and specific accusations about the nature of the
material and how it is used, then you need to cite the material.
Pointing to the page and crying that it offends your widdle ears does
nothing to demonstrate your claims that the men who use SS are abusing
women or being dishonest.
If Gatorade isn't going to make those who drink it turn into fantastic
athletes, simply because athletes are shown drinking it in the ads...why
then would SS turn men into dishonest abusers of women, simply because
the ads have some crass or sexist humor?
How exactly is the web page making all the men who use the material, even
those who've never seen the page, behave in the same dishonest and
abusive way towards women? Do you claim all SS users behave this same
way? Or do you concede that it might be possible that different SSers
use the material in differing ways?
If that is possible than you must concede that how the material is used
is a determination of the individual, not the tool itself. If that is
the case, then your attacks on SS for this behavior are unwarranted. You
should be attacking those responsible for the behavior. That is unless
you're claiming men who are dishonest and use women are not responsible
for their own actions, because they've been made to behave this way by SS
and ross' web page.
So tell me, troll....what exactly is it you are claiming now?
venus uzynski
think it was rape, either.
It would be a really low-life thing to do, though.
Venus
Nathan SZILARD wrote:
> No Venus, the problem lies in the definition of 'date rape'
> Th eperson Cedrick was responding to equatted lying to get
> laid to (date) rape. So I say I'm a movie producer, the girl
> sleeps with me because of that, and well, actually I'm
> not and all of a sudden it's 'rape'. Hm ... not.
>
venus uzynski
Laife wrote:
> "Patrick E. Merlevede, M.Sc (Acknowledge.net)" wrote:
>
> > Nathan SZILARD <nat...@metabork.fr.eu.org> 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".
> >
>
> Interesting point. And as I'm reading that, another idea popped into my head.
> If someone lies or pretends to like someone in order to get something, that
> would constitute a crime equivalent to date rape. Let's say strippers for
> instance, when a stripper pretends to like some guy, and most guys are really
> convinced that the stripper indeed does like him, in order to get table dances
> and more money, that would constitute date rape as well. And while you are
> thinking about that, a lot of good looking American women are guilty of using
> men in one form or another. Not informing the guys that they would have no
> romantic possibility with her. That is equivalent to date rape.
>
<snipped>
matt_...@my-deja.com
1) Still haven't managed to get a copy of the original article (yet)
but it wouldn't surprise me if this is an another example of someone
stammering and stuttering their monotonous way through one pattern,
without a set-up, to see if it "works". Very unfair.
2) The pattern chosen is - IMHO - one of Ross's weakest. It is the one
he always seems to "give away" to the media. Very cheesy.
3) ***My big problem with Ross/SS***
...is tonality. Let me explain.
RJ says SS runs on tonality, that this is the fuel pattrens need.
Ross himself has one of the most remarkable voices I have ever heard
and I have seen the effect he can produce with it.
But I think he really doesn't teach enough of this. I would love to
know how he does it. I challenged him on this once and he said that his
courses provided a great start to getting the voice. I would say *a*
start. I know practice counts too... but wouldn't it be great if he
could bring his students up to his level, in regard to tonality?
Wasn't it realy his voice that convinced the Rolling Stone writer on SS?
(If Ross taught tonality to the degree that he ought to, I would be one
of his biggest defenders. (His only other mistake being a choice of
trainer to one of his seminars not long ago...)As is, I remain a
skeptic.
4) I know Mark Cunningham has contributed a lot to SS but aren't there
even more (in the sense of numbers not degree) talented hypnotists out
there who could make SS patterns all the more powerful?
Best//Matt
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Odious
Jet wrote:
>
> 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.
>
Funny, didn't you just claim SS only works on stupid women? If SS is a
trick, because it somehow fools stupid women. Then wouldn't make up be
a trick in the exact same sense, if it fools stupid men? If that is the
case, I can hardly be held responsable for that level of stupidity in
others.
Though, you claim above rests on the idea that it is only a lie if
someone believes it. So your make-up is only hiding the truth about how
you look if someone believes that's what you really look like. That is
wrong. Since when is a lie defined only as a lie if somebody believes it
is the truth?
It is a lie, because it hides the truth. The fact people know you're
lying and hiding the truth about your face, doesn't mean it is no longer
a lie.
Make up, push up bras, high heels...these things temporarily alter/hide
the truth about your appearance. That is a fact. It is a transitory
alteration for the sake of increasing the aesthetic value of your
appearance. In the morning you go back to looking, short, flat chested,
and zit faced.
So yes, make up is a trick. In every sense of the word. Hell the first
make up most women put on is called, CONCEALER.
Whereas, SS is something that I still have in the morning. When a new
day dawns, I'm still an SSer and I'm still able to create in her the
feelings she desires. So I would go so far as to say, because of the
transitory nature, make-up is far more dishonest than SS.
> And to compare wearing lipstick to trying to emotionally manipulate someone
> into sleeping with you, is a real 1=2 argument.
Hardly. It is a demonstration of the fallacy inherent in your troll.
You claim SS is a trick, and do so illogically with no real foundation
for the claim. As such, it is easy to show the claim is invalid by
applying the same standard to something you yourself do.
If you can't even live up to the standards by which you are judging speed
seduction...then maybe those standards are unfair or flat out wrong.
Odious
"Patrick E. Merlevede, M.Sc (Acknowledge.net)" wrote:
>
> Nathan SZILARD <nat...@metabork.fr.eu.org> 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".
>
> 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
There is a risk for unethical behavior in everything from sewage
treatment or VCR repair. The risk for unethical practices is not unique
to SS, nor is it justification to homogeneously accuse all SSers of being
unethical or to claim the material itself is unethical.
The individual considerations of the person using the tool are what you
are talking about. If someone misuses SS, that is the fault of that
person, and not SS. Blaming SS is not only wrong, but is saying the
individual is not the one responsible for their own actions.
What it does is basically defend these dishonest abusers, by attacking SS
as a scapegoat. Put the blame for the individual's actions where it
belongs...with the individual.
Odious
Nathan SZILARD wrote:
>
> Patrick E. Merlevede, M.Sc (Acknowledge.net) a écrit:
> >
> > Nathan SZILARD <nat...@metabork.fr.eu.org> 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".
>
> Well in one case it's a crime, that should be punished by several years
> in jail, and in the other it's a ... err ... well it's basically
> nothing and it should be at most punished by a gentle slap on left
> cheek.
>
Technically I think that is she was so inclined a woman could sue for
fraudulent misrepresentation in a case where a man lie about being a
movie producer to get in her panties. However it would require the women
to admit she only fucked him because she thought he was a movie producer
and she thought it would help her career. So chances are we won't see a
case of that sort any time soon.
Though IMHO something like that is two fucked up people fucking each
other...boo hoo no harm no fowl.
Morg
>> 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
Great! kindly keep that discussion in that NG.
Odious
Jet wrote:
>
> Odious <Odi...@home.com> wrote in message news:38240650...@home.com...
> me say:
> > > 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.
>
> If it is so old and outdated, why does he have it on his site?
>
It is called an archive.
> > 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.
>
> If Clinton set up a web site a web site that now said he was half way though
> his first term as president, you'd have point.
>
If he had a website where you could access 6 year old material that says
that...which I believe he does...would that make it current material?
> > That claim is inherent in the claim that SS is a trick. If you concede
> > there is no difference in those emotions, then where's the trick?
>
> LOL. Learn logic. You are the one who came up with this "fake" an "real"
> emotion nonsense.
>
Then where is the trick. If there is no issue of fake vs real
emotions...then how is a woman being tricked?
> > 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...
>
> It's up on the site NOW. That makes it current marketing, Einstein.
>
DNC newsletters are on the web NOW, the are from years and years ago.
That doesn't make them current, you moron. Simply being on the web
doesn't make anything current. Especially when the date, showing the
material is from 94-95 is right there on the page.
Though you'd know that had you bothered to read the page. You simply
parrot what you've seen in other posts, I demonstrated that in another
post in this thread. You don't know if you're quoting newsletters,
references to newsletters, or what. You just parrot trolls.
> yeah, you are talking out your
> > rather rotund ass.
>
> Rotund? LOL. My hip measurement around the biggest part of my ass is 34
> inches.
You're supposed to measure all the way around your ass, not simply the
width.
> > > >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.
> >
>
> Translation: You have no real argument. You are like Aaron Jr. I court
> directly from primary soures, and all you can come back with is
> "AAsssHHHoollllEEEE!!!"
>
Perhaps you missed this part... "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."
So once again jet, who says the marketing is part of the methodology?
How exactly does the material on the web page support claims you are
making about the specific nature of the methodology itself?
> >
> > That's far from the only use for SS. You claim it is marketed as a way
> > to trick women, is a lie.
>
> I posted direct proof, Ross' own words. QED.
>
No you didn't. You posted an out of context quote that referred to a
concept that's covered in three or foure of the newsletters, covering
this idea about the internal interaction of the different parts of a
woman's brain.
You've still not shown any trick. How is the woman being tricked? You
concede the emotions are real. So where's the trick?
> > So it is only a threat 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.
>
> Yep, you have no real argument. You are just upset because I am speaking the
> truth.
>
No, I'm just responding to your more blatantly stupid comments with
insults.
> > Oh and please cite you support to show that SS only works on stupid women
> > or drunk women.
>
> I said I don't see how it could work on any woman that wasn't really stupid
> and/or really drunk. How else could anyone fall for lines like those?
You inability to understand, is hardly my fault or the fault of SSers.
We're not to blame for you being blinded by bitterness and hate, to the
fact than normal women respond to men who can make them feel the feeling
they desire.
You are still operating from a position of complete ignorance as to the
structure and nature of SS. You still seem to think it is nothing more
than reading scripts word for word and spewing prewritten lines...that
women somehow fall for. So it is no surprise you come up with such
ignorant and uninformed opinions about the type of women this works on.
>Why
> would any woman listen to an UG like you long enough to hear them?
Simple...because it makes her feel better than she's felt before with any
man, ever. But only stupid women want to feel pleasure like that, right
jet?
Jet
Odious <Odi...@home.com> wrote in message news:38261194...@home.com...
>
>
> Jet wrote:
> >
> > Odious <Odi...@home.com> wrote in message
> > >
> > > 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?
> >
>
> ROTFLMAO!!! You stupid stupid troll. I've just proven you have no clue
> what you are talking about. That particular quote is not from any of the
> newsletters, it is a summation of concepts covered in two or three
> separate newsletters. That quote is from the page describing SS's
> creation.
>
> http://www.seduction.com/18pgfull.html
And that is not Ross' site? LOL!
> It is a quote you no doubt were handed or pulled out of another post.
> Had you read the site, as you claim, you'd have known this. So not only
> have you not read the material you're attacking...you've not even read
> the site you're quoting. You're a fucking troll, plain and simple.
So, was that quote from the site or not? That's a question so simple even
you should be able to answer it. Clap your hands once for "yes" and twice
for "no".
>
>
> > > 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.
>
> No, you simply quoted the few lines that you thought would support your
> troll. You gave no location, because you didn't knwo it.
Ross' site is the location. Do you get it now?
> There's nothing dishonest about SS. You've never been able to cite
> anything dishonest about SS, because SS is a tool and tools are neither
> honest nor dishonest. They are inanimate objects. How they are used, be
> it honestly or dishonestly, is a determination made by the individual
> using the tool, not the tool itself.
LOL. Here we are again. You are tying to be coy. SS is marketed as a tool to
trick women into sleeping with you. The quote I posted from Ross' own site
proves that. Period. QED. Check and mate.
>
>
> > > 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 sufficiently large values of 1."
> >
>
> Yet you can't point out logically or with any substantive argument how
> they differ on this conceptual level. In fact, I would argue that make
> up is even more dishonest than SS.
No need to, we already know you are a moron.
>
> Make up is used to create interest by making someone look more attractive
> than they really are. In the morning, the make up washes off and you go
> back to being less visually appealing than you were the night before.
>
> Whereas SS is used to create interest by making someone feel better than
> they normally might. However in the morning...I'm still an SSer and
> those skills are still present, as are the feelings I create with them.
>
> So again I ask you, where is the trick?
Sigh. Here we go again. A trick is an attempt to get someone to believe
something that is not true.
"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!"
You try to get three to think it is her own idea. Thus...it is a trick.
Next.
> Again you attach a specific behavior, that of using a woman. You must
> attach addendums to the use of the tool, and presuppose that it will be
> misused, so you can support your troll. You must try to make it seem as
> if the individual who chooses to misuse the tool, does so because of the
> tool and not because of his individual decision.
Again, you are trying to play coy. If I teach a course called "How to hit
people on the head with a hammer." And go on for pages and pages about how
to hit people on the head with hammers, and then put out a newsletter called
"Hit them on the head", I can't then bat my eyes and say, "Oh, hammers are
just tools, it's up to the person to decide how to use them." when I am
criticized for the course.
J
Jet
Odious <Odi...@home.com> wrote in message news:382616BD...@home.com...
> Funny, didn't you just claim SS only works on stupid women?
No. Reading comprehension...you should get some.
>If SS is a
> trick, because it somehow fools stupid women.
No, SS is a trick because it is an attempt to get someone to believe
something that is not true.
>Then wouldn't make up be
> a trick in the exact same sense, if it fools stupid men? If that is the
> case, I can hardly be held responsible for that level of stupidity in
> others.
Sigh.
> Whereas, SS is something that I still have in the morning. When a new
> day dawns, I'm still an SSer and I'm still able to create in her the
> feelings she desires.
Even if that were true, you would still be using a trick to do it.
>So I would go so far as to say, because of the
> transitory nature, make-up is far more dishonest than SS.
1=2.
J
Jet
Odious <Odi...@home.com> wrote in message news:38262123...@home.com...
> Though you'd know that had you bothered to read the page. You simply
> parrot what you've seen in other posts, I demonstrated that in another
> post in this thread. You don't know if you're quoting newsletters,
> references to newsletters, or what. You just parrot trolls.
AFIAK, I was the first person to post that quote.
>
> > yeah, you are talking out your
> > > rather rotund ass.
> >
> > Rotund? LOL. My hip measurement around the biggest part of my ass is 34
> > inches.
>
> You're supposed to measure all the way around your ass, not simply the
> width.
I did, as well as my hips. Or more accurately, where my hips would be if I
had any. Now is that more than larger or smaller than your waist?
I notice you bitter boys love to rag on women for their dimensions, or what
you think they are, but as soon as you get asked yours, you seem to have
memory problems.
> You inability to understand, is hardly my fault or the fault of SSers.
> We're not to blame for you being blinded by bitterness and hate, to the
> fact than normal women respond to men who can make them feel the feeling
> they desire.
LOL. Damn, that's funny. And as far off taget as saying I have a big ass.
> >Why
> > would any woman listen to an UG like you long enough to hear them?
>
> Simple...because it makes her feel better than she's felt before with any
> man, ever.
Until the booze wears off.
J
Nathan SZILARD
hopefully not a crime. I'm sure you've done things that, in
retrospect, are not very great in your life, haven't you?
venus uzynski a écrit:
>
> Well, Nathan, I guess you're right -- in the situation you described I wouldn't
> think it was rape, either.
>
> It would be a really low-life thing to do, though.
>
> Venus
>
> Nathan SZILARD wrote:
>
> > No Venus, the problem lies in the definition of 'date rape'
> > Th eperson Cedrick was responding to equatted lying to get
> > laid to (date) rape. So I say I'm a movie producer, the girl
> > sleeps with me because of that, and well, actually I'm
> > not and all of a sudden it's 'rape'. Hm ... not.
> >
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> On Thu, 04 Nov 1999 19:42:33 GMT, night...@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.
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> Odious <Odi...@home.com> wrote
> >
> > 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
> > 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.
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
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
>
> Odious <Odi...@home.com> wrote in message news:38238BA4...@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
>
>
> >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
> > >
> > > You're playing coy. SS is marketed as a tool to trick women into
> sleeping
> > > with you.
> >
> > 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! "
>
> > want. So it's not tricking people. Does 'creating interest' sounds better
> ?
>
> No.
>
> 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.
> > >
>
> Did it make you horny?
If it wasn't from a butt-nasty pig like yourself...yea, it could...
>
> J
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> Jet wrote:
> >
> > Odious <Odi...@home.com> wrote in message news:3823DE7A...@home.com...
> > > > SS is marketed as a tool to trick women into sleeping
> > > > with you.
> > >
> > > 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.
>
> 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.
>
> > > 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 claim that SS is a trick. If you concede
> there is no difference in those emotions, then where's the trick?
>
> > > 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
> rather rotund ass.
>
> > > 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.
>
> > > 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
> 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.
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
>
> So it is only a threat 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.
>
> --
> The Spiffy Page, home of the Alt.Seduction.Fast FAQ:
> http://meltingpot.fortunecity.com/burnaby/851
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> LOL. When I said it is from Ross' site, that is the source. ROSS' SITE IS
> THE SOURCE. Get it now?
>
> > 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.
> > > > want. So it's not tricking people. Does 'creating interest' sounds
> better
> > > ?
> > >
> > > No.
> > >
> >
>
> 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.
>
> > 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?
>
> for suffiently large values of 1."
>
> 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.
>
> > 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
>
> 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
Odious
Jet wrote:
>
> Odious <Odi...@home.com> wrote in message news:38261194...@home.com...
> >
> >
> > Jet wrote:
> > >
> > > Odious <Odi...@home.com> wrote in message
> > > >
> > > > 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?
> > >
> >
> > ROTFLMAO!!! You stupid stupid troll. I've just proven you have no clue
> > what you are talking about. That particular quote is not from any of the
> > newsletters, it is a summation of concepts covered in two or three
> > separate newsletters. That quote is from the page describing SS's
> > creation.
> >
> > http://www.seduction.com/18pgfull.html
>
> And that is not Ross' site? LOL!
>
> > It is a quote you no doubt were handed or pulled out of another post.
> > Had you read the site, as you claim, you'd have known this. So not only
> > have you not read the material you're attacking...you've not even read
> > the site you're quoting. You're a fucking troll, plain and simple.
>
> So, was that quote from the site or not? That's a question so simple even
> you should be able to answer it. Clap your hands once for "yes" and twice
> for "no".
>
The point is that you don't know the exact location of the quote, because
you've probably never even read the page. Therefore you can't know the
context of the material you're quoting. Clearly you are citing material
you know nothing about.
> >
> >
> > > > 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.
> >
> > No, you simply quoted the few lines that you thought would support your
> > troll. You gave no location, because you didn't knwo it.
>
> Ross' site is the location. Do you get it now?
>
You can continue to state this over and over, but it will not change the
fact that you don't know the meaning of the quote because you don't know
the context.
You try to hide behind this mantra of you pulled a quote from ross' site,
as if all parts of the site are the same. That's not the case. You'd
know that had you have knowledge of the site at all.
> > There's nothing dishonest about SS. You've never been able to cite
> > anything dishonest about SS, because SS is a tool and tools are neither
> > honest nor dishonest. They are inanimate objects. How they are used, be
> > it honestly or dishonestly, is a determination made by the individual
> > using the tool, not the tool itself.
>
> LOL. Here we are again. You are tying to be coy. SS is marketed as a tool to
> trick women into sleeping with you. The quote I posted from Ross' own site
> proves that. Period. QED. Check and mate.
>
How does that quote show that SS is a trick? Where's the trick? SS is
marketed as a tool that will help you get laid. There is no trick.
How do you support the claim about this quote, when the fact is it in NOT
refering to what you claim.
The context of the quote is clearly not what you claim. It is about the
internal interaction between parts of her brain. It is not saying that
she doesn't know what's going on or is being tricked.
Misrepresenting a quote to support you, is quite dishonest, jet.
> >
> >
> > > > 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 sufficiently large values of 1."
> > >
> >
> > Yet you can't point out logically or with any substantive argument how
> > they differ on this conceptual level. In fact, I would argue that make
> > up is even more dishonest than SS.
>
> No need to, we already know you are a moron.
>
Wow, just like arron, when faced with an argument you can't BS your way
through or can't lie about...you just spew insults and run.
> >
> > Make up is used to create interest by making someone look more attractive
> > than they really are. In the morning, the make up washes off and you go
> > back to being less visually appealing than you were the night before.
> >
> > Whereas SS is used to create interest by making someone feel better than
> > they normally might. However in the morning...I'm still an SSer and
> > those skills are still present, as are the feelings I create with them.
> >
> > So again I ask you, where is the trick?
>
> Sigh. Here we go again. A trick is an attempt to get someone to believe
> something that is not true.
>
What is not true? You are assuming the individual using SS is being
dishonest automatically. That's another lie jet.
What exactly is it, that you claim all SSers are saying that isn't true?
> "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!"
>
> You try to get three to think it is her own idea. Thus...it is a trick.
> Next.
>
You really have no clue. Read the newsletters....or even quote the whole
fucking paragraph and it is clear ross is talking about a basic concept
of how the parts of the brain interact, not advising a specific course of
action. Not only that, he's doing it in the PAST tense...talking about
the inception of SS.
Here's a little context on that quote:
"At that time, I only knew it was time to go balls-out and become "the
mad scientist of seduction" to see if I could make this work. And the
only principle I had to guide me was the one key principle I'll reveal to
you right now the "golden key" secret to success and power with women
beyond your wildest dreams. So read on, because here it is...
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!
Now, in order to translate this "secret" in to real-world, hard-hitting,
practical stuff that worked, I had to do a lot of research."
Notice how he says that this was the principle idea behind the inception
of SS back in 1988 and not the current material, as you claim. Notice
how he also says the very first thing he did was begin to translate and
change things about this idea. Notice how he says it is an idea, not a
specific course of action.
The quote you are citing does not support your claim that SS is a trick
or that it is marketed to men as a way to use or abuse women. You are
pulling it out of context and misrepresenting it. That's a lie, jet.
You are a hypocrite.
You can't quote the part of ross page that actually addresses the claims
you are making, because it contradicts you.
______________________________________________________
Is this disrespectful of women?
No..absolutely not! I love, love, LOVE women. Women, when properly
communicated with, can be the delights of the universe. It is not
disrespectful to give a woman an opportunity to discover that she doesn't
need the outdated courting rituals of the modern world in order to feel
that wonderful sense of attraction and connection with a man. AND it is
even more wonderful to realize that you can get a woman past what she is
"typically" attracted to. As I said on TV, "the problem with a woman
going for her "type" is that what is typical never lets her discover the
extraordinary, which by definition isn't what she is expecting".
Does this course require I be mean/cruel/a jerk to women? I sure don't
want to do that!
Absolutely, 100% NO! It's true, most men when they "date" have to choose
between being a "bully"...a "jerk" who never gives in or a
"supplicant"...a beggar who does ANYTHING a woman wants. My course gives
you the option to be a truly gentle-MAN; someone who NEVER bullies or
BEGS, but instead structures wonderful opportunities, offers her
challenges, and captivates and stimulates her deepest levels of
imagination. That's not being cruel; that's being awesome. And you
deserve to be know how good it feels for you and her to do this.
________________________________________
That is the material on the page that directly addresses the claims
you're making and is current. But it blows your troll out of the
water...so you have to scour the site for some quote you can pull out of
context to support your lies and attacks.
> > Again you attach a specific behavior, that of using a woman. You must
> > attach addendums to the use of the tool, and presuppose that it will be
> > misused, so you can support your troll. You must try to make it seem as
> > if the individual who chooses to misuse the tool, does so because of the
> > tool and not because of his individual decision.
>
> Again, you are trying to play coy. If I teach a course called "How to hit
> people on the head with a hammer." And go on for pages and pages about how
> to hit people on the head with hammers, and then put out a newsletter called
> "Hit them on the head", I can't then bat my eyes and say, "Oh, hammers are
> just tools, it's up to the person to decide how to use them." when I am
> criticized for the course.
As the above quotes from the current SS FAQ show, that is NOT how SS is
marketed and it never has been marketed as a way to abuse, use, or harm
women.
Care to try again?
Odious
Jet wrote:
>
> Odious <Odi...@home.com> wrote in message news:382616BD...@home.com...
>
> > Funny, didn't you just claim SS only works on stupid women?
>
> No. Reading comprehension...you should get some.
>
So you didn't say that stupid or drunk women would fall for SS?
> >If SS is a
> > trick, because it somehow fools stupid women.
>
> No, SS is a trick because it is an attempt to get someone to believe
> something that is not true.
>
And what is that? What isn't true, that all SSers try to convince all
women, is true?
And regardless of the fact that you are lying...you're still claiming SS
is a trick because it fools women. You claim it only fools stupid
women. THerefore SS is a trick because it fools stupid women...at least
according to you.
> >Then wouldn't make up be
> > a trick in the exact same sense, if it fools stupid men? If that is the
> > case, I can hardly be held responsible for that level of stupidity in
> > others.
>
> Sigh.
where's your counter argument jet? What's the matter...nothing to say?
> > Whereas, SS is something that I still have in the morning. When a new
> > day dawns, I'm still an SSer and I'm still able to create in her the
> > feelings she desires.
>
> Even if that were true, you would still be using a trick to do it.
>
What trick? Using a trick to create emotions and feelings you admit are
real. So, I'm tricking her into feeling real feelings? Where's the
trick?
> >So I would go so far as to say, because of the
> > transitory nature, make-up is far more dishonest than SS.
>
> 1=2.
So all you can do now is plug your ears and repeat yourself.
Odious
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Jet wrote:
> >
> > 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.
Notice that jet pointedly ignored my response to her above comment,
wherein I called her on this claim that something is only a lie if
someone believes it.
--
nic...@my-deja.com
folowwing, you will ben in measure to evaluate yours....
http://adult.dencity.com/hotteens
all theses tests are free...more test on the guide site ara also
available for ordering...
good evalutoin...
see ya
sunbird
> 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.
Actually SS is fairly effective, I have found. I've been using a
slightly
modified form of it to help in sales.
> 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.
Well, it might, but not due to the wonders of SS.
--
wherever you go, EM has been there first
sunbird (Pt)
Aaron R. Kulkis
Lies are Jet's favorite currency.........
Dawn O' The Dead
>Jet wrote:
>>
>> Odious <Odi...@home.com> wrote in message news:38240650...@home.com...
>> > When all current material contradicts your claim, and all you can find to
>> > support it is old outdated material, yeah.
>>
>> If it is so old and outdated, why does he have it on his site?
>>
>
>It is called an archive.
Jet, apparently you missed the disclaimer that said, "Oh, by the way,
all the archived material on our site is outdated and we don't really
use Speed Seduction like this anymore - now it's all about respect and
caring. We just have it here for you to read because we don't know
what else to do with it."
Dawn O' The Dead
>And regardless of the fact that you are lying...you're still claiming SS
>is a trick because it fools women. You claim it only fools stupid
>women. THerefore SS is a trick because it fools stupid women...at least
>according to you.
Let me clear this up: SS is a con perpetuated by Ross Jeffries that
purports to be a "tool" that men can use to make women horny.
If it works at all, it only works because the pathetic jerks who spent
money for it now have the confidence to actually talk to women, which
they didn't have before. It's Dumbo's Magic Feather - all they needed
was confidence, not some lame "imagine yourself on a rollercoaster"
patter.
For SS to actually work as advertised, the woman targeted would have
to mentally impaired is some way, i.e., drunk or very, very stupid. Of
course, on those women reading the phone book might work, or simply
telling them they have nice teeth. Sure, go ahead and say it was the
SS that did it. Uh huh. <point at crotch>
The bottom line is that SS is a con designed to suck money out of the
pockets of guys so desperate they will do _anything_ to learn how to
approach women. And SS is sold as a tool to manipulate women into bed
by playing stupid-ass word games that ostensibly fool them into
feeling things they otherwise would not - the fact that it is
mind-numbingly stupid doesn't change the fact that the intent is
deceitful.
HTH,
Dawn
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
>
> >And regardless of the fact that you are lying...you're still claiming SS
> >is a trick because it fools women. You claim it only fools stupid
> >women. THerefore SS is a trick because it fools stupid women...at least
> >according to you.
>
> Let me clear this up: SS is a con perpetuated by Ross Jeffries that
> purports to be a "tool" that men can use to make women horny.
>
> If it works at all, it only works because the pathetic jerks who spent
> money for it now have the confidence to actually talk to women, which
> they didn't have before. It's Dumbo's Magic Feather - all they needed
> was confidence, not some lame "imagine yourself on a rollercoaster"
> patter.
Actually, you are quite wrong.
After I started playing around with the ideas and techniques, as they
watched me get observably positive results with one hot looking woman
after another throughout an entire evening....guys would literally
come up to me and say, "Wow! YOU'RE the man!"...and I'm even talking
about "studly-looking" guys who women tend to throw themselves at.
And opinions from women....
"Wow...you are DEFINITELY different from the usual guys I meet"
"Can I have your business card? I would LOVE to talk to you again"
[a 22-year old stewerdess who is everything that the description implies]
"mmmmmm........yeaaaaaaaaaaahh"
>
> For SS to actually work as advertised, the woman targeted would have
> to mentally impaired is some way, i.e., drunk or very, very stupid. Of
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Drunk women can't keep up.
Stupid women can't keep up.
It works wonders with Irina PRECISELY because she is intelligent
and avoids drinking.
> course, on those women reading the phone book might work, or simply
> telling them they have nice teeth. Sure, go ahead and say it was the
> SS that did it. Uh huh. <point at crotch>
Show me one guy who has gotten anywhere with ANY woman by reading
the telephone book to her, and we'll give credence to what you say...
UNTIL THEN, you're full of shit Donut-muncher, and you know it.
>
> The bottom line is that SS is a con designed to suck money out of the
> pockets of guys so desperate they will do _anything_ to learn how to
> approach women. And SS is sold as a tool to manipulate women into bed
> by playing stupid-ass word games that ostensibly fool them into
> feeling things they otherwise would not - the fact that it is
> mind-numbingly stupid doesn't change the fact that the intent is
> deceitful.
Actually, you're wrong again. There are a large number of books that
cost between $5 and $15 that explain the basic theory of NLP, and
most touch on the subject of romantic relationships.
Where Ross is different is that he has built a framework around
NLP that is custom-tuned for men looking for female companionship.
By the way, what's more expensive?
A Lamborghini? or one of Ross's courses?
And which is more effective?
The Lamborghini is outrageously expensive, and primarily only useful
for attracting gold-diggers.
Conversely, Ross's material is less than the price of two car payments,
and will work on practically ANY sober, reasonably intelligent woman who
is reasonably free of psychological baggage and less than satisfied with
her current partner.
Women's biggest complaint about the man they are with:
"HE DOESN'T LISTEN TO ME"
What Ross teaches:
"How to listen to a girl and DEMONSTRATE TO HER that you are listening to her"
>
> HTH,
> Dawn
Jet
Aaron R. Kulkis <aku...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:3823E27E...@flash.net...
> 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.
LOL. No bitterness in Aaron's posts.
> 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.
Is Aaron a bitter woman hater or what? I think hookers are great. I'd rather
my honey went to a hooker than hump a friend.
And who are you to say what are the "right" and "wrong" amounts of money to
spend on things?
I could care less about a man's money. I make my own.
J
Jet
> Works with Irina, and she's smarter than you'll ever hope to be.
LOL. Yeah, "Iriana" ended up with you, so she has to be a moron! Did you
keep pointing at your dick and saying, "I'll pay you a TINY amount of money
if you let me touch one of your tits."
> > 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...
It gave you a tiny boner didn't it? Oh no wait, you're an idiot.
J
Jet
> > Odious <Odi...@home.com> wrote
> > >
> > > 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.
Not if he looks like you!
J
Jet
> the smartest woman I know, and also doesn't drink....which would be
> the lovely Irina.
How much Vodka did she down before she posed for that web site?
> 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?
"She" keeps thinking "money", "green card".
> To say that she LOVES it would be an understatement :-)
Anyone who is getting a free ticket out of hell would LOVE it. HTH.
Have you seduced her mom yet? I know you were trying.
J
Jet
> >
> > LOL. When I said it is from Ross' site, that is the source. ROSS' SITE
IS
> > THE SOURCE. Get it now?
> >
> > > 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.
> > > > > 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.
> >
> > > 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
> >
> > 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...
Tee-hee. Ya got no arument, have you KKKulkis? Just more woman hating spew.
What ya going to do when "Irana" gets "over the hill"? Or when her tits
start to sag? Re inflate her?
And how big is your dick? I must have missed the post where wrote your
dimensions.
J
Jet
Odious <Odi...@home.com> wrote in message news:3826F7C4...@home.com...
> Notice that jet pointedly ignored my response to her above comment,
> wherein I called her on this claim that something is only a lie if
> someone believes it.
Mainly because I never made that claim. Repost where I did, and I will
respond to it. Or adimt you are full of it.
J
Jet
> absolutely NO reason to pay attention to an jerky old hag loser like
yourself.
Odius tried this stupid argument, and now you are tying it. Problem is,
you're not half as smart as he is.
The world is about 50/50 when it comes to men and women. You and Odius claim
only desparte men would go after me. Now, if every single man learned SS,
(first, it would lose all it's power, assuming it has any, because women
would know about it), it would mean either the same men would want me, or
better men. So, why would I hate it? LOL.
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?
Now, I know you are going to respond with nothing other than a personal
attack, because you have no real argument.
J
Jet
> you've probably never even read the page.
I cut and pasted it directly from the site. Next...
> How does that quote show that SS is a trick? Where's the trick? SS is
> marketed as a tool that will help you get laid. There is no trick.
> How do you support the claim about this quote, when the fact is it in NOT
> refering to what you claim.
A trick is an attempt to get someone to believe something that is not true.
That quote is talking about getting a woman to believe something that is not
true so that you can hump her. Next...
> Wow, just like arron, when faced with an argument you can't BS your way
> through or can't lie about...you just spew insults and run.
I'm right here. How is that running?
> Notice how he says that this was the principle idea behind the inception
> of SS back in 1988 and not the current material, as you claim.
He says that is the "Golden Key", and gave no indication that that key has
changed. The "Golden Key" is getting a woman to think that "it" was her idea
when it was not, IOW, a trick.
> Is this disrespectful of women?
>
> No..absolutely not! I love, love, LOVE women.
It's like the people who run the "Hooters" restaurants saying, "It refers to
owls", or the Miss America people saying, "It's about scholarship, it's not
a beauty contest".
J
Jet
Odious <Odi...@home.com> wrote in message news:3826DB4A...@home.com...
> >
> > > Funny, didn't you just claim SS only works on stupid women?
> >
> > No. Reading comprehension...you should get some.
> >
>
> So you didn't say that stupid or drunk women would fall for SS?
No. I said I didn't see how any but the drunkest or stupidest of woman could
fall for it. Is the difference too subtle for you?
> where's your counter argument jet? What's the matter...nothing to say?
It is obvious that I meant that nobody believes a woman's eyelids are really
blue. She is not trying to get anyone to think her eyelids are really blue,
so there is no trick.
J
Jet
Dawn O' The Dead <java...@pacifier.com> wrote in message
news:382c0b28....@news.pacifier.com...
> Jet, apparently you missed the disclaimer that said, "Oh, by the way,
> all the archived material on our site is outdated and we don't really
> use Speed Seduction like this anymore - now it's all about respect and
> caring. We just have it here for you to read because we don't know
> what else to do with it."
LOL. My bad.
J
Steve Chaney
>
>Aaron R. Kulkis <aku...@flash.net> wrote in message
>
>What ya going to do when "Irana" gets "over the hill"? Or when her tits
>start to sag? Re inflate her?
>
>And how big is your dick? I must have missed the post where wrote your
>dimensions.
TWO HOURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRS!!!!!!!
-- Steve
*tag*
Steve Chaney
>
>Aaron R. Kulkis <aku...@flash.net> wrote in message
>> absolutely NO reason to pay attention to an jerky old hag loser like
>yourself.
>
>on a sit com in youth obsessed Hollywood when I was 39?
Which one?
-- Steve
Jessekess
>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
What is unethical behavior and how do you know it is unethical?
John C. Ryan, Jr.
>
>
> 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?
>
I'd have to see proof of this, before I'd believe it.
Care to supply some?
--
Jack
<----------<< =+= >>---------->
No longer peaceful, or tranquil...
It has returned.
(Reverse "oohay" to reply.)
Jet
Odious <Odi...@home.com> wrote in message news:3827B608...@home.com...
>
>
> Steve Chaney wrote:
> >
> > In article <807e4b$2pqc$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>, Jet
<postm...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> > >
> > >Aaron R. Kulkis <aku...@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.
> > >
student
> > >on a sit com in youth obsessed Hollywood when I was 39?
> >
>
> She was the crack whore snitch in 3 episodes of NTPD blue. And she was
> bitchy fat waitress #2 in that episode of sienfield.
What part of "19 year old college student" didn't you get? And at a fictious
Ivy League school at that, very upper class.
And the fat dis makes you look really stupid when you us it against someone
who is a size 3, like me. HTH
J
Odious
Dawn O' The Dead wrote:
>
> On Mon, 08 Nov 1999 01:03:51 GMT, Odious <Odi...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >Jet wrote:
> >>
> >> Odious <Odi...@home.com> wrote in message news:38240650...@home.com...
>
> >> > When all current material contradicts your claim, and all you can find to
> >> > support it is old outdated material, yeah.
> >>
> >> If it is so old and outdated, why does he have it on his site?
> >>
> >
> >It is called an archive.
>
> Jet, apparently you missed the disclaimer that said, "Oh, by the way,
> all the archived material on our site is outdated and we don't really
> use Speed Seduction like this anymore - now it's all about respect and
> caring. We just have it here for you to read because we don't know
> what else to do with it."
>
Everybody who pays attention knows SS has changed drastically from what
it was when it was first created. It is no secret, dawn, that SS has
grown and changed a lot over the past 12 years. It started out as the
desperate groping attempts of ross to find anything to pull himself out
of his situation. When he first found the success that could be had with
SS, he was very much like a kid in a candy store. He's the first one to
tell you that.
To put this in terms you might understand dawn. You've been fat and ugly
all your life. You've been the object of scorn and ridicule because of
this. If tomorrow you were suddenly skinny and attractive...you're
behavior would probably change from that of a caustic bitter troll.
You'd probably go out with your new found attractivness and see just what
you could do with it.
The same was true for SS, for many years ross was testing limits and
learning new things. SS had not found the identity is has today.
However as students like mark and tom and ryker...as these guys started
contributing their ideas and philosophies to the group, the whole thing
started to take shape. Over time SS was refined into what it is today.
The archived material is up there to read for two reasons.
1. It demonstrates this progression and growth of SS from what it was to
what it is today. This progression is important for students of SS to
understand. That's why material which demonstrates it, is made available
to everybody. The newsletters are there to help people understand.
Though that requires that people like you and jet actually be interested
in understanding...and not simply searching for fuel to feed your trolls
and flames.
2. So people who can't afford to buy the material, or are not sure if
they want to buy the material, can look at some of the ideas and concepts
free of charge to see where SS has come from and where it is heading.
They can try some of the basic principles to see how they work.
Quoting some the old newsletters, which are all clearly dated, and trying
to pass it off as current material or some current call to action, shows
only that you have no real evidence to support your case.
Odious
Dawn O' The Dead wrote:
>
> On Mon, 08 Nov 1999 14:17:46 GMT, Odious <Odi...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >And regardless of the fact that you are lying...you're still claiming SS
> >is a trick because it fools women. You claim it only fools stupid
> >women. THerefore SS is a trick because it fools stupid women...at least
> >according to you.
>
> Let me clear this up: SS is a con perpetuated by Ross Jeffries that
> purports to be a "tool" that men can use to make women horny.
>
Make up your mind, troll....is it snake oil or a date rape drug. It
can't be both.
> If it works at all, it only works because the pathetic jerks who spent
> money for it now have the confidence to actually talk to women, which
> they didn't have before.
While it is true that SS does indeed boost confidence, that's hardly all
it does. Though since you've admitted a number of times you neither
know nor understand the structure or functionality of SS, it is no
surprise that you think this is all SS can do. Really how valid are the
opinions of someone who doesn't understand the mechanics of the system?
Rather like going to an interior decorator to get your car's engine
repaired.
However, even if all it did was boost men's confidence it would still be
worth it to many men who are in need of a way to boost their confidence.
Though I suspect ross would see more than a 1% return rate on his full 1
year money back guarantee offer. As it is now, the product works so well
and exceeds expectations so much, the only people who attack or criticize
it seem to be those who have not actually bought or used the material.
Or IOW people who do not know what they are talking about.
>It's Dumbo's Magic Feather - all they needed
> was confidence, not some lame "imagine yourself on a rollercoaster"
> patter.
>
Well that might be a valid claim were it not disproved by so many men
using SS who were not in need of a confidence boost. In my case, I did
not need any boost. I was doing quite well with women. Getting laid was
not a problem for me, nor was confidence with women. Though when I
started using SS, I saw a rapid and marked change in the way women
reacted to me. It was like kicking on a turbo booster. Over and over I
hear women tell me how much they love my words and how I talk...how much
they love the effect it has on them.
So, your uninformed claims ring hollow in the face of real world
experience with these methods. Though if you have some actual evidence
to support this claim, I'd love to see it.
> For SS to actually work as advertised, the woman targeted would have
> to mentally impaired is some way, i.e., drunk or very, very stupid.
Proof please? The fact of the matter is, SS works worst on stupid or
intoxicated women. It works best on intelligent and vivacious
women...which might be why you have such a hard time understanding it.
> Of
> course, on those women reading the phone book might work, or simply
> telling them they have nice teeth. Sure, go ahead and say it was the
> SS that did it. Uh huh. <point at crotch>
>
> The bottom line is that SS is a con designed to suck money out of the
> pockets of guys so desperate they will do _anything_ to learn how to
> approach women.
Not many cons offer a full money back guarantee for one year. If the
goal was simply to get people's money, ross wouldn't be offering to give
it back upon request. Yet, less that 1% ask for their money back.
>And SS is sold as a tool to manipulate women into bed
> by playing stupid-ass word games that ostensibly fool them into
> feeling things they otherwise would not
Fooling someone into feeling something they otherwise would not? So now
creating any feeling other that what is the monotonous standard, is
somehow dishonest? Got news for you dawn, most women want a man who can
make them feel things they otherwise would not.
And calling SS "stupid-ass word games" shows again you do not know what
you're talking about. You've never even read the material or heard the
tapes...yet you think that it is anything other than dishonest to openly
make claims about this material you admit you've not read or heard? You
are lying.
Word games, is an idiot's description of SS. It shows you do not
understand the structure or purpose.
>- the fact that it is
> mind-numbingly stupid doesn't change the fact that the intent is
> deceitful.
>
So now the tool has intent, and that intent is deceitful. Well then, to
make such a claim about the intent of the actual material, you must have
some proof, right? Let's see it.
How does the tool have intent? How is that intent deceitful?
Has you claim that SS is deceitful, now changed to only the intent is
deceitful?
Odious
Jet wrote:
>
> > > Odious <Odi...@home.com> wrote
> > > >
> > > > 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.
>
> Not if he looks like you!
I'm curious why you feel that your shallow ignorance is shared by more
desirable women?
Tom
> Proof please? The fact of the matter is, SS works worst on stupid or
> intoxicated women. It works best on intelligent and vivacious
> women...which might be why you have such a hard time understanding it.
>
The dumbest people are the most difficult to deal with. Fortunatly, despite
what some say, they are the people we're not interested into anyways.
Tom
Odious
Jet wrote:
>
> Aaron R. Kulkis <aku...@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.
>
> Odius tried this stupid argument, and now you are tying it. Problem is,
> you're not half as smart as he is.
So it will take him twice as long to demonstrate your bias?
>
> The world is about 50/50 when it comes to men and women. You and Odius claim
> only desparte men would go after me. Now, if every single man learned SS,
> (first, it would lose all it's power, assuming it has any, because women
> would know about it),
You mean the way romance has lost it's power because women know about it?
>it would mean either the same men would want me, or
> better men. So, why would I hate it? LOL.
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.
Odious
"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."
Hiding the truth is a lie. So it is only a lie if someone is stupid
enough to believe it is true?
Odious
Jet wrote:
>
> Odious <Odi...@home.com> wrote in message
> > The point is that you don't know the exact location of the quote, because
> > you've probably never even read the page.
>
> I cut and pasted it directly from the site. Next...
>
Oh so you intentionally pulled it out of context and knowingly lied by
misrepresenting the quote.
> > How does that quote show that SS is a trick? Where's the trick? SS is
> > marketed as a tool that will help you get laid. There is no trick.
> > How do you support the claim about this quote, when the fact is it in NOT
> > refering to what you claim.
>
> A trick is an attempt to get someone to believe something that is not > true.
So what is it that SSers are all trying to get women to believe that is
not true? I did not ask for the definition of trick...I asked you what
the trick is? Where is the trick in SS?
> That quote is talking about getting a woman to believe something that is not
> true
Wrong. That is a lie. Anybody who read the page:
http://www.seduction.com/18pgfull.html
can see that you are lying about the context of that statement.
I posted the context with shows that quote is talking about a basic
concept regarding how the brain works, which was the impetus for the
creation of SS. It is not some piece of current advice or some
instruction for a specific course of action.
You know jet, you win more customers for SS via your lies than I think
you know. You lie about SS, then people go to check on your lies, they
see you're full of shit and a lot of them end up checking out the
material and finding how well it actually works.
>so that you can hump her. Next...
>
> > Wow, just like arron, when faced with an argument you can't BS your way
> > through or can't lie about...you just spew insults and run.
>
> I'm right here. How is that running?
>
You're running away from the claims you've made and avoiding the
arguments which negate them. Such as the make up comparison. You can't
negate that argument without attacking your own standards by which you
judge SS. So you run by avoiding it and repeating your "4 legs good, 2
legs bad" level mantra of 1=2.
> > Notice how he says that this was the principle idea behind the inception
> > of SS back in 1988 and not the current material, as you claim.
>
> He says that is the "Golden Key", and gave no indication that that key has
> changed.
"At that time, ... the only principle I had to guide me was the
..."golden key" ... "
A little lesson in reading comprehension. Ross says that this was the
only principle at that time....clearly an indication that more has been
added since that time. That's change one.
"Now, in order to translate this "secret" in to real-world, hard-hitting,
practical stuff that worked,"
Here ross clearly says the material was translated into something
different that would by effective and practical. Change two.
That's just is the short few lines on either side of the paragraph. That
whole piece is actually about 20 pages long. He says several times that
SS has changed a great deal over the years and it is nothing like the
material from which it was born. What you are doing is like juding
michelangelo's David, by looking at the pile of marble rubble left behind
after it was carved.
But nobody has to take my word for it. GO to:
http://www.seduction.com/18pgfull.html
And see for yourself. You'll see that jet is lying.
>The "Golden Key" is getting a woman to think that "it" was her idea
> when it was not, IOW, a trick.
>
Wrong. The key being talked about is being able to get one part of her
mind to think he idea came from the other part, and thus not subject the
idea to standard barriers to outside stimuli. By stimulating her
imigination, and getting her to start imagining these images and
ideas...there effect is greater than if you just presented the stimulus
in the standard way.
It does not mean that she is unaware that you are presenting this
stimulus. Nor does it mean she suddenly will think that she's having
these ideas and not know that you're causing it. It means only the
stimulus will have a more profound effect. She knows I'm doing it.
WOmen are always telling me that they love the way I talk...they love the
effect it has.
The real audio file:
http://www.seduction.com/sed1.rm
It demonstrates a great example of the idea behind this. Simply it is
the difference between, asking "what kind of job do you have" and "what
is it about your job you love." One question is boring and
unexciting...the other one requires a woman to actually start thinking
about things on a level that will have a more profound effect.
No trick has been played...no lie has been told...it is simply presenting
information in such a way as to allow her reaction to that information to
be more profound.
So once again I ask you to demonstrate the trick you claim is inherent in
SS.
> > Is this disrespectful of women?
> >
> > No..absolutely not! I love, love, LOVE women.
>
> It's like the people who run the "Hooters" restaurants saying, "It refers to
> owls", or the Miss America people saying, "It's about scholarship, it's not
> a beauty contest".
Well accept for the fact that ross explained why it was not disrespectful
in the lines after that quote, and you cut them. Once again you need to
remove the context to even be able to try and support your trolls and
attacks.
This another case of you plugging your ears and screaming "nuh uh"
whenever evidence that contradicts your claims is presented.
Odious
Steve Chaney wrote:
>
> In article <807e4b$2pqc$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>, Jet <postm...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> >
> >Aaron R. Kulkis <aku...@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?
She was the crack whore snitch in 3 episodes of NTPD blue. And she was
bitchy fat waitress #2 in that episode of sienfield.
--