About the RSD classes...???
balb...@ziplip.com
Im single again after a long term relationship and Im thinking about
taking the Real Social Dynamics classes in New York. Ive got most of my
game together, but need to improve approaches, flirting etc. and I will
be flying solo this time since my wingmen have married or moved on. I
know there is tons written on FS101, but I'd rather not base my
decision on reviews from a site where RSD advertises. Thanks.
Ray Gordon
Well, I would say if you evaluate RSD's game, you should ask them how much
they are making a year from what they do, since women obviously like guys
with money.
Not that guys with money can't have game, but the more money they have, the
more they should have to do to for it to be attributable to game and not
money.
Whatever it is they earn (you can even piece it together from their own
remarks about how many people go to their workshops and bootcamps), ask
yourself how a guy with that level of income AT THEIR AGES would do with
women; anything better than that should be the results of their game.
Also consider that "Tyler" has said that the RSD website itself is a pickup
tool (I call it the "guru gimmick"). Women like guys who are "experts" on
relationships, and who are leaders among other men (you are boosting their
alpha status if you pay them or follow their teaching). If you want to be
like Tyler, then consider what he DOES (i.e., the RSD website) in addition
to what he teaches, and make sure to factor that into your assessment of his
"game" as well.
A final consideration, of course, is that what they teach might get you
laid, but so might what others teach. You'll have to factor that out as
well if you are to analyze their true value as teachers.
That said, they pack the houses at their workshops (or so I hear), so a lot
of other men seem to think they have value in what they teach.
--
Ray Gordon, Author
http://www.cybersheet.com/easy.html
Seduction Made Easy. Get this book FREE when you buy participating
affiliated books!
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
The Seduction Library. Four free books to get you started on your quest to
get laid.
Don't buy anything from experts who won't debate on a free speech forum.
SluttyFox
Ever thought about looking at ALL the courses that are out there and then
making your decision? But anyway, sounds like you have some knowledge in the
area, which makes me raise an eyebrow.
Ray Gordon
Nice subtle plug for the industry there!
SluttyFox
>> Ever thought about looking at ALL the courses that are out there and then
>> making your decision? But anyway, sounds like you have some knowledge in
>> the area, which makes me raise an eyebrow.
>
> Nice subtle plug for the industry there!
Isn't that common sense?...If you decide to buy a car for the first time,
wouldn't you look at all carmakers?
Not a plug, just sound advice.
I see you have shaken a hornets nest up over at alt.hypnosis. Might as well,
most of the old groups are dead...:)
SluttyFox
No honey I won't cum in your mouth.....now your sister is a different
matter.
balb...@ziplip.com
than NY. I'm a fan of David D. but I don't think his class includes one
on one field work and I don't think he holds it in NY. The Mystery
workshop is a possibility but after reading about both I think RSD is a
better fit for me. If anyone knows of a better workshop in the NY area,
or if you have an opinion on Mystery vs. RSD let me hear it.
Ray Gordon
in Philadelphia and I charge $500.00 for it, but far be it from me to
recommend myself. I work one-on-one as well and provide followup through my
"lounge."
I could set something up in NYC but it would take some doing and cost more
to do since I'd have to travel and stay over. Much easier for people to
come down here.
--
Ray Gordon, Author
http://www.cybersheet.com/easy.html
Seduction Made Easy. Get this book FREE when you buy participating
affiliated books!
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
The Seduction Library. Four free books to get you started on your quest to
get laid.
Don't buy anything from experts who won't debate on a free speech forum.
<balb...@ziplip.com> wrote in message
news:1106854045....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
SluttyFox
> Well if you want to try me, I'm offering a two-day "bootcamp" over a
> weekend
> in Philadelphia and I charge $500.00 for it, but far be it from me to
> recommend myself. I work one-on-one as well and provide followup through
> my "lounge."
Didn't know you had a bootcamp. Do you have an outline of your course?
aardvark9084
"Ray Gordon" <r...@cybersheet.com> wrote in message
news:Mv8Kd.18$y51.14@trndny07...
> > Hi,
> > Im single again after a long term relationship and Im thinking about
> > taking the Real Social Dynamics classes in New York. Ive got most of my
> > game together, but need to improve approaches, flirting etc. and I will
> > be flying solo this time since my wingmen have married or moved on. I
> > know there is tons written on FS101, but I'd rather not base my
> > decision on reviews from a site where RSD advertises. Thanks.
>
> Well, I would say if you evaluate RSD's game, you should ask them how much
> they are making a year from what they do, since women obviously like guys
> with money.
yeah fathead...that's what *you* would say. just admit it ray, you have no
clue what drives the seduction market. "how much they are making a year"
means little as it is only an indicator of how well they market their stuff.
you gave that guy absolutely no advice at all while pumping your bloated ego
up to be some "replacement guru". how transparently pathetic.
> Not that guys with money can't have game, but the more money they have,
the
> more they should have to do to for it to be attributable to game and not
> money.
"they should"? this is the real world, dopey. what your mindless mind of
jealousy says "should" happen means squat. the world does not bend to your
vision of it. you told usenet that you were jesus, but you ain't.
> Whatever it is they earn (you can even piece it together from their own
> remarks about how many people go to their workshops and bootcamps), ask
> yourself how a guy with that level of income AT THEIR AGES would do with
> women; anything better than that should be the results of their game.
ask yourself instead if what they do actually would work.
> Also consider that "Tyler" has said that the RSD website itself is a
pickup
> tool (I call it the "guru gimmick").
you call it a "gimmick", scabby. everyone else calls it something that works
on women.
>Women like guys who are "experts" on
> relationships, and who are leaders among other men (you are boosting their
> alpha status if you pay them or follow their teaching).
you are compensating them for their time and the work they actually did in
chyckworld testing their stuff to see if it would work. ray misses this
because he is extremely stupid and can only muddy the waters.
> If you want to be
> like Tyler, then consider what he DOES (i.e., the RSD website) in addition
> to what he teaches, and make sure to factor that into your assessment of
his
> "game" as well.
if you want to "be like" tyler then you are missing the point. if you want
to duplicate the success he has, then you may wish to evaluate or even
purchase his work.
> A final consideration, of course, is that what they teach might get you
> laid, but so might what others teach. You'll have to factor that out as
> well if you are to analyze their true value as teachers.
of course there is one numbskull out there that has no clue as to how to
teach men to get what they want from women. that would be you, ray gordon.
> That said, they pack the houses at their workshops (or so I hear), so a
lot
> of other men seem to think they have value in what they teach.
>
and people do tend to vote with their feet. if only ray could tend to...
shut up, stupid.
aardvark
Ray Gordon
I've been setting one up recently. It's two days of personalized
instruction, so there is no "course." I also don't work it the way other
gurus do, since my game isn't based on same-day pickups. Rather, I examine
the individual's situation, in the context of CUPID and Foxhunting, and of
course the student's goals, and make recommendations based on that.
If there is "coursework" that would be the material in my books, which I
cover as needed. Things like body language, voice tone, and overall
presence are things that one can't teach over the net, however.
SluttyFox
>
> I've been setting one up recently. It's two days of personalized
> instruction, so there is no "course." I also don't work it the way other
> gurus do, since my game isn't based on same-day pickups. Rather, I
> examine the individual's situation, in the context of CUPID and
> Foxhunting, and of course the student's goals, and make recommendations
> based on that.
>
> If there is "coursework" that would be the material in my books, which I
> cover as needed. Things like body language, voice tone, and overall
> presence are things that one can't teach over the net, however.
Any live demo's ? (ie pickups, or validation of cupid, ect..) Is this
strictly one-on-one or do you also do groups, and how long have you been
teaching?
SluttyFox
Dice Clay...does your girl give good head?.....how do you think she got that
way?
Ray Gordon
>> cover as needed. Things like body language, voice tone, and overall
>> presence are things that one can't teach over the net, however.
>
>
> Any live demo's ? (ie pickups, or validation of cupid, ect..) Is this
> strictly one-on-one or do you also do groups, and how long have you been
> teaching?
I'll demo approaches, but remember I'm 38 and the club scene is a young
man's game.
Mr Nifty
Will you be having any "guest instructors" Mr Rordon?
Such as Jim Summers, or maybe even Aaron Kooklis?
Can't wait to see how this fantasy of yours pans out.
He he.
aardvark9084
"Mr Nifty" <nu...@nullmail.com> wrote in message
news:cpfKd.1356$mA2...@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
you might notice that he never says when or where he will have such a
"semen-arse" (hehehehe). i guess if he'll lie to his mom and tell her he's
not breaking the law under her roof then he'd have no problem lying to the
rest of the world.
maybe he can pay one of the local (non-sexual performer, of course) skanky
strippers or some cheap whore to show up and tell everyone that she's his
"girlfriend" and that he won her heart with his worthless and goofy
"anti-player" methods. all the while he's stuffing 20's down her pants every
10 minutes so she'll "keep the meter running" and not run out on him in the
middle of his semen-arse. hahahahahahaha
would the semen-arse sound like this?....
ray: you'll all notice that this technique will guarantee a drink thrown in
your face if you do it right. go up to the non-whore whore and ask her "if
you can smell her pussy". when she splashes you with her beer and says "hell
no!" you then reply..."then jeez lady you really got bad breath". it works
everytime. it won't get you guys what *you* want from women, but it will get
you what *i* want from women...a chance to stalk and irritate them.
aardvark
Alex
on 1/27/05 2:45 PM:
> Well if you want to try me, I'm offering a two-day "bootcamp" over a weekend
> in Philadelphia and I charge $500.00 for it, but far be it from me to
> recommend myself. I work one-on-one as well and provide followup through my
> "lounge."
>
> I could set something up in NYC but it would take some doing and cost more
> to do since I'd have to travel and stay over. Much easier for people to
> come down here.
Would almost be worth $500 to watch Gordon get drinks thrown at him.
Almost.
Ray Gordon
>> weekend
>> in Philadelphia and I charge $500.00 for it, but far be it from me to
>> recommend myself. I work one-on-one as well and provide followup through
>> my
>> "lounge."
>>
>> I could set something up in NYC but it would take some doing and cost
>> more
>> to do since I'd have to travel and stay over. Much easier for people to
>> come down here.
>
> Would almost be worth $500 to watch Gordon get drinks thrown at him.
>
> Almost.
Alex the effeminate wuss shows again what a real man he isn't.
Then again, his ex-wife already proved that.
Pity the boy, he wishes he weren't so weak; his mouth is all he has. Like
when he threatened a countersuit!
Oh wait, his wife was an office toy for real men...wonder if she fucked any
of them while they were married. If she did, it would have been
understandable.
Alex
wrote on 1/27/05 8:30 PM:
>>> Well if you want to try me, I'm offering a two-day "bootcamp" over a
>>> weekend
>>> in Philadelphia and I charge $500.00 for it, but far be it from me to
>>> recommend myself. I work one-on-one as well and provide followup through
>>> my
>>> "lounge."
>>>
>>> I could set something up in NYC but it would take some doing and cost
>>> more
>>> to do since I'd have to travel and stay over. Much easier for people to
>>> come down here.
>>
>> Would almost be worth $500 to watch Gordon get drinks thrown at him.
>>
>> Almost.
>
> Alex the effeminate wuss shows again what a real man he isn't.
>
> Then again, his ex-wife already proved that.
>
> Pity the boy, he wishes he weren't so weak; his mouth is all he has. Like
> when he threatened a countersuit!
>
> Oh wait, his wife was an office toy for real men...wonder if she fucked any
> of them while they were married. If she did, it would have been
> understandable.
Poor Gordon. Getting his knickers all in a knot because I know he's a
failure.
A REAL man doesn't attack innocent ex-wives any more than they do innocent
mothers.
Of course, my ex never threatened to bash anyone's head in with a baseball
bat now did she?
Anyone who wants to pay $500 to watch Gordon get drinks thrown at him and
escorted to the street by bouncers would definitely get his (or her)
entertainment's worth.
Ray Gordon
>> of them while they were married. If she did, it would have been
>> understandable.
>
> Poor Gordon. Getting his knickers all in a knot because I know he's a
> failure.
Sounds like Alex is projecting his marital FAILURE onto me again. Tsk.
> A REAL man doesn't attack innocent ex-wives any more than they do innocent
> mothers.
Where does Alexandra see the attack? His ex wised up, obviously, since she
LEFT him.
> Of course, my ex never threatened to bash anyone's head in with a baseball
> bat now did she?
I certainly didn't, and neither did my mom, since it was a conditional
statement based on what she'd do if someone who was threatening her life
tried to kill her. Self-defense happens to be perfectly legal.
> Anyone who wants to pay $500 to watch Gordon get drinks thrown at him and
> escorted to the street by bouncers would definitely get his (or her)
> entertainment's worth.
Alexandra would love to believe that's what would happen, because he might
feel a little better about his own failed marriage.
He's my posting bitch, so fixated on my every word. He knows I'm right, and
more of a man than he'd ever be (he's like that little pussy in the
schoolyard people pity too much to take seriously).
As I said before, I could call his woman a slut right in front of his face
and all he'd be able to do about it is nod.
He's just weak. No wonder he lashes out on USENET while trying to convince
everyone of how superior he is to me. There's nothing to do but pity the
poor, pathetic coward.
--
Ray Gordon, Author
http://www.cybersheet.com/easy.html
Seduction Made Easy. Get this book FREE when you buy participating
affiliated books!
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
The Seduction Library. Four free books to get you started on your quest to
get laid.
Don't buy anything from experts who won't debate on a free speech forum.1
Ray Gordon
Alex
wrote on 1/27/05 8:58 PM:
> \>> Oh wait, his wife was an office toy for real men...wonder if she fucked
> any
>>> of them while they were married. If she did, it would have been
>>> understandable.
>>
>> Poor Gordon. Getting his knickers all in a knot because I know he's a
>> failure.
>
> Sounds like Alex is projecting his marital FAILURE onto me again. Tsk.
Gordon accusing anyone of projection?
::bang::
Lost another irony meter on that one.
>
>
>> A REAL man doesn't attack innocent ex-wives any more than they do innocent
>> mothers.
>
> Where does Alexandra see the attack? His ex wised up, obviously, since she
> LEFT him.
Gordon's view of women is apparent in that he believes calling someone the
feminine version of their name is an insult.
As for who left whom, I was the plaintiff in my divorce. Gordon's wishful
thinking is irrelevant.
>
>
>> Of course, my ex never threatened to bash anyone's head in with a baseball
>> bat now did she?
>
> I certainly didn't, and neither did my mom, since it was a conditional
> statement based on what she'd do if someone who was threatening her life
> tried to kill her. Self-defense happens to be perfectly legal.
More obfuscation.
Gordon himself has said it was his mother who "wished it were legal" to bash
someone's head in with a baseball bat.
One day he may have to do so under oath.
>
>
>> Anyone who wants to pay $500 to watch Gordon get drinks thrown at him and
>> escorted to the street by bouncers would definitely get his (or her)
>> entertainment's worth.
>
> Alexandra would love to believe that's what would happen, because he might
> feel a little better about his own failed marriage.
Alex feels just fine about his life.
It's readily apparent to anyone with access to the internet that Gordon is
not happy about his.
>
> He's my posting bitch, so fixated on my every word. He knows I'm right, and
> more of a man than he'd ever be (he's like that little pussy in the
> schoolyard people pity too much to take seriously).
>
> As I said before, I could call his woman a slut right in front of his face
> and all he'd be able to do about it is nod.
>
> He's just weak. No wonder he lashes out on USENET while trying to convince
> everyone of how superior he is to me. There's nothing to do but pity the
> poor, pathetic coward.
More projection from USENET's #1 MOUTH.
Alex
on 1/27/05 8:58 PM:
> Note that Alexandra didn't mention when his countersuit was coming.
>
>
>
Unlike Gordon, I'm not a MOUTH who's full of hot air and bluster.
Gordon will know when my countersuit is coming when the process server
knocks on his door.
HeeroYuy
> Note that Alexandra didn't mention when his countersuit was coming.
The whole point of a countersuit is to first be sued. Gordon has yet to
accomplish this task to cause action by Alex.
Alex
wrote on 1/27/05 9:51 PM:
And it's Gordon's own incompetence that has led him to fail to even get my
address, though I'm listed in the NYC phone book.
He really is an "inexcusable failure."
Ray Gordon
>>
>>
>>
of course he isn't!
>
> Gordon will know when my countersuit is coming when the process server
> knocks on his door.
Of course I will!
<triple snicker>
Ray Gordon
>> news:6%gKd.70$KQ.66@trndny03...
>>> Note that Alexandra didn't mention when his countersuit was coming.
>>
>> The whole point of a countersuit is to first be sued. Gordon has yet to
>> accomplish this task to cause action by Alex.
>>
>>
> And it's Gordon's own incompetence that has led him to fail to even get my
> address, though I'm listed in the NYC phone book.
>
> He really is an "inexcusable failure."
Poor Alex doesn't seem to understand the flaw in his logic, as he could
claim that someone was impersonating him.
Of course, the case was dismissed *without prejudice* which means it can be
refiled. What I sued Alexandra over is no longer relevant, and he very
wisely has backpedalled from what caused him to be named in the last
lawsuit.
Considering that I accomplished the primary objective of the last lawsuit --
to stop publication of a hate website -- without even having the case be
heard, there was no impetus to refile it. That is anything BUT a failure.
Now Alex's MARRIAGE, on the other hand........
When the remaining issues of the lawsuit are brought up in the refiling,
they'll be dealt with then. In fact, since the case was dismissed *without
prejudice* (those key words again), there was no need to appeal it, and I
have plenty of time to plead it the way Judge Kelly prefers; in fact, I have
time to look up other Lanham Act cases to see how they were pled and just
use them as a template (the way I was trained to do at the big law firms I
worked at where I had to do the real work that the eye-candy couldn't).
Of course Alex can mock the refiling, since he won't be the one who has to
defend against it; no skin off his back. Contrast that with how the actual
defendant behaves.
Alex
wrote on 1/27/05 10:13 PM:
That's an awful lot of words for Gordon to admit he's a failure and couldn't
find me if I were standing in front of him.
And *I* haven't changed my behavior one iota, no matter what Gordon wishes
to believe in Ray-ality.
He's being very wise, of course, in NOT naming me in his re-filing. He knows
I'd clean him (and his enablers) out in a counterclaim.
Good BOY.
ghoul
> Well if you want to try me, I'm offering a two-day "bootcamp" over a
> weekend in Philadelphia and I charge $500.00 for it, but far be it from me
> to
> recommend myself. I work one-on-one as well and provide followup through
> my "lounge."
>
> I could set something up in NYC but it would take some doing and cost more
> to do since I'd have to travel and stay over. Much easier for people to
> come down here.
>
this isn't a profession.
Ray Gordon
>> they'll be dealt with then. In fact, since the case was dismissed
>> *without
>> prejudice* (those key words again), there was no need to appeal it, and I
>> have plenty of time to plead it the way Judge Kelly prefers; in fact, I
>> have
>> time to look up other Lanham Act cases to see how they were pled and just
>> use them as a template (the way I was trained to do at the big law firms
>> I
>> worked at where I had to do the real work that the eye-candy couldn't).
>>
>> Of course Alex can mock the refiling, since he won't be the one who has
>> to
>> defend against it; no skin off his back. Contrast that with how the
>> actual
>> defendant behaves.
>>
>
> That's an awful lot of words for Gordon to admit he's a failure
Alex is projecting again.
>and couldn't
> find me if I were standing in front of him.
The only listing in the NYC phone book for an "Alex Kaufmann" is at 4**
Third Avenue. Alex has claimed that wasn't him. Perhaps it was another
Alex.
I did find a Yahoo profile for "AlexKNYC" that lists him as a 38 year old
divorced male who lives in "10016" (lower manhattan), and found a picture of
some doofus standing in front of the Stanley Cup (I saved the picture in
case it isn't accessible). Perhaps it was another Alex.
See for yourself at: http://profiles.yahoo.com/alexknyc
There are posts in Google's archives where "Alex" claims to have watched
Ranger games from a bar on 13th street in the East Village. Perhaps it was
another Alex.
I also saw a reference to an article about HIV activism from the "Downtown
Resident" (an East Village publication) that was written in 1993 by an "Alex
Kaufmann." Perhaps it was another Alex.
> And *I* haven't changed my behavior one iota, no matter what Gordon wishes
> to believe in Ray-ality.
That's Alex's problem.
> He's being very wise, of course, in NOT naming me in his re-filing.
No need to, as Alex wised up and didn't repeat the actionable conduct. Of
course, if he repeats anything that caused him to be named the first time,
all bets are off.
Since Google causes most of the damage with any internet defamation, they
are who should be sued for it.
>He knows
> I'd clean him (and his enablers) out in a counterclaim.
Just like the last time! <snicker>
> Good BOY.
Yes, Alex is a good BOY for backpedalling.
Alex
on 1/28/05 12:11 AM:
>>> When the remaining issues of the lawsuit are brought up in the refiling,
>>> they'll be dealt with then. In fact, since the case was dismissed
>>> *without
>>> prejudice* (those key words again), there was no need to appeal it, and I
>>> have plenty of time to plead it the way Judge Kelly prefers; in fact, I
>>> have
>>> time to look up other Lanham Act cases to see how they were pled and just
>>> use them as a template (the way I was trained to do at the big law firms
>>> I
>>> worked at where I had to do the real work that the eye-candy couldn't).
>>>
>>> Of course Alex can mock the refiling, since he won't be the one who has
>>> to
>>> defend against it; no skin off his back. Contrast that with how the
>>> actual
>>> defendant behaves.
>>>
>>
>> That's an awful lot of words for Gordon to admit he's a failure
>
> Alex is projecting again.
Well, Gordon would certainly know projection, seeing as how he's USENET'S #1
projector.
Being accused of projecting by Gordon is like being accused of corruption by
Jim McGreevey.
>
>> and couldn't
>> find me if I were standing in front of him.
>
> The only listing in the NYC phone book for an "Alex Kaufmann" is at 4**
> Third Avenue. Alex has claimed that wasn't him. Perhaps it was another
> Alex.
Gordon fails to accurately remember the exchange we had regarding that.
>
> I did find a Yahoo profile for "AlexKNYC" that lists him as a 38 year old
> divorced male who lives in "10016" (lower manhattan), and found a picture of
> some doofus standing in front of the Stanley Cup (I saved the picture in
> case it isn't accessible). Perhaps it was another Alex.
>
> See for yourself at: http://profiles.yahoo.com/alexknyc
Even if that were a picture of me, Gordon STILL has no idea where I live.
>
> There are posts in Google's archives where "Alex" claims to have watched
> Ranger games from a bar on 13th street in the East Village. Perhaps it was
> another Alex.
13th Street? I don't know any bars on 13th Street. Another fact Gordon
probably got wrong.
>
> I also saw a reference to an article about HIV activism from the "Downtown
> Resident" (an East Village publication) that was written in 1993 by an "Alex
> Kaufmann." Perhaps it was another Alex.
If that article were written by me, that would put me one up on Gordon who
claims to be a "journalist" but has never had anything he's written
published by anyone else.
So, as a journalist, an oddsmaker, a legal "expert," a seduction "guru" and
accurate reporter of previous events, Gordon remains an "inexcusable
failure."
However, as an internet stalker, Gordon continues to show promise.
>
>
>> And *I* haven't changed my behavior one iota, no matter what Gordon wishes
>> to believe in Ray-ality.
>
> That's Alex's problem.
It's very cute how Gordon still believes (after all this time and examples
to the contrary) that his simply saying so makes it so.
>> He's being very wise, of course, in NOT naming me in his re-filing.
>
> No need to, as Alex wised up and didn't repeat the actionable conduct.
Of course, Gordon is unable to accurately depict ANY conduct I've made that
ANY judge has agreed is actionable.
All he needs is a judge to agree and he's good to go.
Until then, my conduct was not (and is not) actionable.
> Of
> course, if he repeats anything that caused him to be named the first time,
> all bets are off.
Gordon is welcome to elaborate on what that conduct was anytime he feels
like it.
Of course, no judge has agreed with him so he's not quite good to go yet.
>
> Since Google causes most of the damage with any internet defamation, they
> are who should be sued for it.
Gordon couldn't successfully sue several people who defended themselves.
How's he going to do against a public company with an army of litigants on
retainer?
Gordon thinks he's an oddsmaker, what odds would he give someone who can't
even get a case to the part where it's heard on the merits?
>
>> He knows
>> I'd clean him (and his enablers) out in a counterclaim.
>
> Just like the last time! <snicker>
I have to actually be SUED to file a counterclaim.
<snicker>
That Gordon has been so incompetent in the legal arena that he hasn't gotten
past NAMING me (which is NOT the same thing) is hardly MY fault.
>
>
>> Good BOY.
>
> Yes, Alex is a good BOY for backpedalling.
>
Alex hasn't backpedaled.
Gordon has.
And all the hot air and blather on USENET he can muster, won't change that
fact.
balb...@ziplip.com
should ask yourselves what have you done wrong in your lives when you
have nothing better to do than spend hours every day arguing
continuously with each other. The volume of pointless posts gives me
the impression that you're unemployed shut-ins, not PUAs.
Ray Gordon
>>> find me if I were standing in front of him.
>>
>> The only listing in the NYC phone book for an "Alex Kaufmann" is at 4**
>> Third Avenue. Alex has claimed that wasn't him. Perhaps it was another
>> Alex.
>
> Gordon fails to accurately remember the exchange we had regarding that.
Note the indirect "Clinton" style answers. He either lives there or he does
not.
>> I did find a Yahoo profile for "AlexKNYC" that lists him as a 38 year old
>> divorced male who lives in "10016" (lower manhattan), and found a picture
>> of
>> some doofus standing in front of the Stanley Cup (I saved the picture in
>> case it isn't accessible). Perhaps it was another Alex.
>>
>> See for yourself at: http://profiles.yahoo.com/alexknyc
>
> Even if that were a picture of me, Gordon STILL has no idea where I live.
Again, notice the Clintonspeak, where Alex ignores the fact that he can
clear the record at any time.
>> There are posts in Google's archives where "Alex" claims to have watched
>> Ranger games from a bar on 13th street in the East Village. Perhaps it
>> was
>> another Alex.
>
> 13th Street? I don't know any bars on 13th Street. Another fact Gordon
> probably got wrong.
12th street? 14th? Again, semantics.
>> I also saw a reference to an article about HIV activism from the
>> "Downtown
>> Resident" (an East Village publication) that was written in 1993 by an
>> "Alex
>> Kaufmann." Perhaps it was another Alex.
>
> If that article were written by me, that would put me one up on Gordon who
> claims to be a "journalist" but has never had anything he's written
> published by anyone else.
Alex seems to think letting other publishers profit from and control one's
work is somehow superior to owning one's own writing.
Note also how he creates doubt about whether or not this was him, even
though he has no doubt.
That's classic Clintonspeak.
> So, as a journalist, an oddsmaker, a legal "expert," a seduction "guru"
> and
> accurate reporter of previous events, Gordon remains an "inexcusable
> failure."
>
> However, as an internet stalker, Gordon continues to show promise.
Now Alex is getting into defamation territory, since one need not "stalk"
anyone to get publicly available information about someone who created the
controversy in the first place.
>>> And *I* haven't changed my behavior one iota, no matter what Gordon
>>> wishes
>>> to believe in Ray-ality.
>>
>> That's Alex's problem.
>
> It's very cute how Gordon still believes (after all this time and examples
> to the contrary) that his simply saying so makes it so.
Still waiting for Alex's countersuit....<yawn>
>>> He's being very wise, of course, in NOT naming me in his re-filing.
>>
>> No need to, as Alex wised up and didn't repeat the actionable conduct.
>
> Of course, Gordon is unable to accurately depict ANY conduct I've made
> that
> ANY judge has agreed is actionable.
Alex doesn't point out that a judge never said it wasn't actionable. His
ceasing of the conduct is sufficient to show to me that he obviously didn't
think it wise to repeat it.
> All he needs is a judge to agree and he's good to go.
>
> Until then, my conduct was not (and is not) actionable.
Incorrect. Action was taken.
>> Of
>> course, if he repeats anything that caused him to be named the first
>> time,
>> all bets are off.
>
> Gordon is welcome to elaborate on what that conduct was anytime he feels
> like it.
http://pacer.uscourts.gov if anyone wants to find the pleadings. I do my
real talking in court, not here.
> Of course, no judge has agreed with him so he's not quite good to go yet.
No judge has disagreed either.
>> Since Google causes most of the damage with any internet defamation, they
>> are who should be sued for it.
>
> Gordon couldn't successfully sue several people who defended themselves.
> How's he going to do against a public company with an army of litigants on
> retainer?
Alex doesn't quite grasp what *without prejudice* means. If anything, it's
easier the second time around because I have the benefit of the pleadings
from the first, and the orders, which include the other side's position and
the judge's. That allows one to sharpen their pleadings to make them more
efficient and more easily acceptable to the judge.
> Gordon thinks he's an oddsmaker, what odds would he give someone who can't
> even get a case to the part where it's heard on the merits?
Alex still doesn't grasp what "without prejudice" means.
>>> He knows
>>> I'd clean him (and his enablers) out in a counterclaim.
>>
>> Just like the last time! <snicker>
>
> I have to actually be SUED to file a counterclaim.
Funny how last year we were hearing about how he'd already hired an attorney
and spent money, etc.
Still waiting on the other counterclaims too. Wasn't my computer supposed
to have been seized by now?
<snicker>
> <snicker>
>
> That Gordon has been so incompetent in the legal arena that he hasn't
> gotten
> past NAMING me (which is NOT the same thing) is hardly MY fault.
Gee, a year ago Alex was saying he had already spent money etc. blah blah
blah and others were taking about how Does could step in without being
served blah blah blah.
Not a SINGLE counterclaim was filed.
>>> Good BOY.
>>
>> Yes, Alex is a good BOY for backpedalling.
>>
>
> Alex hasn't backpedaled.
>
> Gordon has.
>
> And all the hot air and blather on USENET he can muster, won't change that
> fact.
And the absence of a repetition of Alex's previous statements about me is
all the proof anyone should need that I am indeed correct here.
Ray Gordon
> should ask yourselves what have you done wrong in your lives when you
> have nothing better to do than spend hours every day arguing
> continuously with each other.
Well it's not like we need to figure out women or hunt for them the way some
losers who can't get laid do...
>The volume of pointless posts gives me
> the impression that you're unemployed shut-ins, not PUAs.
What makes you think unemployed (or in my case, artistically self-employed)
"shut-ins" (or in my case, lazy homebodys) don't get laid?
If a hottie wants to fuck you at 2:00 p.m., could you get away from your
job?
Ray Gordon
> that he has NEVER shown that they work, no one has EVER vouched for his
> ability,
Oops:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.romance/msg/a7f03b8ef8d917a8?dmode=source
Title is "I outfoxed a fox 18 months ago."
Here's the exact quote:
"Yep, I just wouldn't take any garbage from a beautiful, 24 year old woman.
She cancelled the first date, and that was the last she heard from me. Until
6 months later, when she called me up. Right now she's asleep in my bed.
Outfoxing The Foxes. Buy the book, live the dream."
Now, if this "anonymous loose cannon" <wink> is lying about this, what other
lies is s/he telling?
HC
>You guys really
>should ask yourselves what have you done wrong in your lives when you
>have nothing better to do than spend hours every day arguing
>continuously with each other.
As opposed to some jerkoff surfing Usenet looking for advice on how to get laid
from a mentally ill newsloon?
Uh, yeah, ok.
HC
stalker
Don't take advice from mentally ill newsloons.
Or stalkers.
Nomen Nescio
Street in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, wrote:
>
>> Despite the fact that he has NEVER shown that they work, no
>> one has EVER vouched for his ability,
>
> Oops:
>
> http://groups-
beta.google.com/group/alt.romance/msg/a7f03b8ef8d917a8?dmode=source
These are the headers from that post:
]
] From: miles...@aol.com (MILESFNW)
] Subject: I outfoxed a fox 18 months ago
] Date: 1999/07/11
] Message-ID: <19990711004825...@ng-da1.aol.com>#1/1
] X-Deja-AN: 499668038
] Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
] Newsgroups: alt.romance
] X-Admin: n...@aol.com
And since YOU have never provided any proof whatsoever, Gordon Roy,
to show that YOU have ever had any success, the OP's statement still
stands true.
Wasn't it proven that "MilesFNW" was a sock of yours?
Have to go look at The FAQ about you to see. (Yes, it is still up,
if you know where to look for it... Moron)
Still no proof.
Are you looking over your shoulder yet?
You should be....
-
Ray Gordon
How conveniently he backpedals when his lies are proven.
By the way, "anonymous" postings are only anonymous on the RECEIVING end.
They have to be sent from an ISP.
Very easy to subpoena an ISP to turn over any e-mails sent from them which
include certain phrases.
Alex
balb...@ziplip.com at balb...@ziplip.com wrote on 1/28/05 10:00 AM:
There is at least one unemployed shut-in here who has demolished the value
of this group.
ASF used to be a thriving forum until Gordon showed up and scorched the
earth. Now you can choose from any number of moderated for a. I prefer mASF
at fastseduction.com but YMMV.
I know nothing about RSD or any of their classes.
Alex
1/28/05 10:17 AM:
>>>> and couldn't
>>>> find me if I were standing in front of him.
>>>
>>> The only listing in the NYC phone book for an "Alex Kaufmann" is at 4**
>>> Third Avenue. Alex has claimed that wasn't him. Perhaps it was another
>>> Alex.
>>
>> Gordon fails to accurately remember the exchange we had regarding that.
>
> Note the indirect "Clinton" style answers. He either lives there or he does
> not.
Note the pathetic attempt to gather information he is not entitled to.
Gordon should do his own homework.
>
>
>
>>> I did find a Yahoo profile for "AlexKNYC" that lists him as a 38 year old
>>> divorced male who lives in "10016" (lower manhattan), and found a picture
>>> of
>>> some doofus standing in front of the Stanley Cup (I saved the picture in
>>> case it isn't accessible). Perhaps it was another Alex.
>>>
>>> See for yourself at: http://profiles.yahoo.com/alexknyc
>>
>> Even if that were a picture of me, Gordon STILL has no idea where I live.
>
> Again, notice the Clintonspeak, where Alex ignores the fact that he can
> clear the record at any time.
Gordon is not entitled to any information about me.
He couldn't get a court to order my ISP to give him my name and address but
now he wants me to volunteer it.
Go stalk someone else, loser.
>
>
>>> There are posts in Google's archives where "Alex" claims to have watched
>>> Ranger games from a bar on 13th street in the East Village. Perhaps it
>>> was
>>> another Alex.
>>
>> 13th Street? I don't know any bars on 13th Street. Another fact Gordon
>> probably got wrong.
>
> 12th street? 14th? Again, semantics.
It's exactly this type of inability to produce FACTUAL information that gets
Gordon's cases tossed.
>
>
>>> I also saw a reference to an article about HIV activism from the
>>> "Downtown
>>> Resident" (an East Village publication) that was written in 1993 by an
>>> "Alex
>>> Kaufmann." Perhaps it was another Alex.
>>
>> If that article were written by me, that would put me one up on Gordon who
>> claims to be a "journalist" but has never had anything he's written
>> published by anyone else.
>
> Alex seems to think letting other publishers profit from and control one's
> work is somehow superior to owning one's own writing.
To use a journalist shield law, one must actually be a journalist and be
able to prove that your writing is published by someone other than yourself
on a poorly-designed web page.
>
> Note also how he creates doubt about whether or not this was him, even
> though he has no doubt.
>
> That's classic Clintonspeak.
Actually, trolling for personal information is classic Gordon.
He is not entitled to my information and will not be getting any from me.
That he is INCAPABLE of doing his own homework on someone he named in his
"fucking lawsuit" does not shift the burden to me.
>
>
>> So, as a journalist, an oddsmaker, a legal "expert," a seduction "guru"
>> and
>> accurate reporter of previous events, Gordon remains an "inexcusable
>> failure."
>>
>> However, as an internet stalker, Gordon continues to show promise.
>
> Now Alex is getting into defamation territory, since one need not "stalk"
> anyone to get publicly available information about someone who created the
> controversy in the first place.
That's the point Gordon can't get through his misshapen head.
I did not start any "controversy" to begin with. Gordon was well into his
third year of scorching the earth of ASF when I arrived here.
And as for publicly available information, obviously my name and address are
not publicly available or else Gordon wouldn't have had to be a FAILURE at
subpoenaing them from my ISP.
>
>>>> And *I* haven't changed my behavior one iota, no matter what Gordon
>>>> wishes
>>>> to believe in Ray-ality.
>>>
>>> That's Alex's problem.
>>
>> It's very cute how Gordon still believes (after all this time and examples
>> to the contrary) that his simply saying so makes it so.
>
> Still waiting for Alex's countersuit....<yawn>
I have to actually be SUED to countersue.
Once Gordon stops being the "inexcusable failure" we all know he is and gets
my information so he can properly sue me, THEN we can talk.
>
>
>>>> He's being very wise, of course, in NOT naming me in his re-filing.
>>>
>>> No need to, as Alex wised up and didn't repeat the actionable conduct.
>>
>> Of course, Gordon is unable to accurately depict ANY conduct I've made
>> that
>> ANY judge has agreed is actionable.
>
> Alex doesn't point out that a judge never said it wasn't actionable. His
> ceasing of the conduct is sufficient to show to me that he obviously didn't
> think it wise to repeat it.
Gordon continues to ignore repeated requests to show WHAT behavior I have
ceased.
A quick review of Google shows my ENTIRE posting history.
Can Gordon say the same?
He's a coward who is so ashamed of his own tantrums that he has to nuke them
off Google, pretend they never happened and sue Google for damages that he
causes himself.
>
>
>> All he needs is a judge to agree and he's good to go.
>>
>> Until then, my conduct was not (and is not) actionable.
>
> Incorrect. Action was taken.
Inept action was.
Gordon tried to bully my ISP into giving up my name and address until the
judge told him to go play in the sandbox.
That Gordon is inept places no further burden on me.
>
>
>>> Of
>>> course, if he repeats anything that caused him to be named the first
>>> time,
>>> all bets are off.
>>
>> Gordon is welcome to elaborate on what that conduct was anytime he feels
>> like it.
>
> http://pacer.uscourts.gov if anyone wants to find the pleadings. I do my
> real talking in court, not here.
In other words, Gordon does NOTHING at all since he has yet to get me (or
anyone of the other 200 John Does) into court.
>
>
>> Of course, no judge has agreed with him so he's not quite good to go yet.
>
> No judge has disagreed either.
Gordon's inability to properly prepare a case so it can be heard on its
merits places no additional burden on me.
>
>
>>> Since Google causes most of the damage with any internet defamation, they
>>> are who should be sued for it.
>>
>> Gordon couldn't successfully sue several people who defended themselves.
>> How's he going to do against a public company with an army of litigants on
>> retainer?
>
> Alex doesn't quite grasp what *without prejudice* means. If anything, it's
> easier the second time around because I have the benefit of the pleadings
> from the first, and the orders, which include the other side's position and
> the judge's. That allows one to sharpen their pleadings to make them more
> efficient and more easily acceptable to the judge.
More hot air and threats that amount to nothing.
Only a fucking moron would view a dismissal as a win.
>
>
>> Gordon thinks he's an oddsmaker, what odds would he give someone who can't
>> even get a case to the part where it's heard on the merits?
>
> Alex still doesn't grasp what "without prejudice" means.
Gordon still doesn't grasp what "dismissed" means.
>
>>>> He knows
>>>> I'd clean him (and his enablers) out in a counterclaim.
>>>
>>> Just like the last time! <snicker>
>>
>> I have to actually be SUED to file a counterclaim.
>
> Funny how last year we were hearing about how he'd already hired an attorney
> and spent money, etc.
And unlike Gordon, *I* actually listen to the advice of professionals.
If Gordon did too, he'd be taking his meds.
>
> Still waiting on the other counterclaims too. Wasn't my computer supposed
> to have been seized by now?
>
> <snicker>
Gordon again has me confused with other people. I've never threatened his
internet access.
>
>
>> <snicker>
>>
>> That Gordon has been so incompetent in the legal arena that he hasn't
>> gotten
>> past NAMING me (which is NOT the same thing) is hardly MY fault.
>
> Gee, a year ago Alex was saying he had already spent money etc. blah blah
> blah and others were taking about how Does could step in without being
> served blah blah blah.
>
> Not a SINGLE counterclaim was filed.
That's because you have to be SUED before you can countersue.
For a legal genius, Gordon sure has NO idea how this works.
If Gordon wasn't such an "inexcusable failure," he'd have gotten my name and
address and served me. From THAT point, a counterclaim can be filed.
If he really WANTS to be sued, he's welcome to get to that point anytime he
wants to stop fucking around.
>
>>>> Good BOY.
>>>
>>> Yes, Alex is a good BOY for backpedalling.
>>>
>>
>> Alex hasn't backpedaled.
>>
>> Gordon has.
>>
>> And all the hot air and blather on USENET he can muster, won't change that
>> fact.
>
> And the absence of a repetition of Alex's previous statements about me is
> all the proof anyone should need that I am indeed correct here.
>
Gordon again refuses to provide any proof of anything.
My history is unabridged in Google.
Alex
on 1/28/05 10:34 AM:
> work. Despite the fact
>> that he has NEVER shown that they work, no one has EVER vouched for his
>> ability,
>
> Oops:
>
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.romance/msg/a7f03b8ef8d917a8?dmode=sou
> rce
>
A post from July 1999 from MilesFNW.
Anyone who wants to can check Google for later posts.
MilesFNW is hardly the big fan Gordon would like him to appear to be.
l ll l
(in message <1106924409.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>):
Uh- oh. Another self- appointed Usenet MonitorŽ who criticizes others for
postng too much... in another post, himself, of course.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---