Chicks who learn about ASF HATE the guys who use the methods
Ray Gordon
the masses.
"The Game" hits the bookstores within a month. Should be fascinating
fireworks!
--
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.
Mr Nifty
news:2o0Ad.5822$sh5.1166@trndny08...
> This is a no-brainer, but apparently it's taking a few examples
> to convince the masses.
LOL!
> "The Game" hits the bookstores within a month. Should be
> fascinating fireworks!
And it will be fascinating to see what sort of spin you put on
this in half a years time when NOTHING has changed. Apart
from the author of said book raking in some cool seduction
cash that is.
Back to your dollies newsloon.
Mr Nifty (Agent of S.C.A.M.)
AlphaHot1
>This is a no-brainer, but apparently it's taking a few examples to convince
>the masses.
>
>"The Game" hits the bookstores within a month. Should be fascinating
>fireworks!
:::::::Funny Ray ... with each new publication that comes out, you claim it's going
to be the final downfall of pickup artists and seducers everywhere, and render, as
you like to call them, "ASF methods" obsolete.
Why is it that I can still take the simple old patterns from, say, Ross' first SS
course book--a book that is over a DECADE old--use them with women, and they still
WORK? A book that has had over 10 YEARS of mainstream exposure. It still works!
You can't explain this, can you.
You can't explain this because, the secret is that there IS NO secret. Look at it
like this einstein: let's say women are Ferrari. If you put vinegar in the fuel tank
of your Ferrari, it doesn't run. If you put gasoline in the fuel tank of your
Ferrari, it runs.
Nice guys and chumps (lazy guys, etc.) put vinegar in their fuel tanks. PUA and
seductionists put in gasoline. The car is designed to run on gas. Why do you INSIST
on trying to run it on the vinegar? Are you just an attention seeker, Ray? Do you
just want to be noticed for being different, no matter how much your theories go
against just about every law known to man? "If I can't join them, I'll contradict
them."
JJT
>LOL!
FORGET who is spewing such crap, but
WHY would anyone want to deal with
ANYONE who cared a shiet about how
some game playing jerk-off mommie's
boy cannot keep up with me or 'da boyz.
We just laugh at those 'foxlosers' who
play games while us sharpie's 24/7 get
boinked by those girls YOU dream about.
AND..please, keep buying ANYONE's jpke,
cause if you need to pay $$$ to talk to women
you already lost, and you eat *OUR8 leftover dust.
It has nothing to do with YOUR game or MY
game. It has to do with class. I boinked
girls decades ago who remember me 2day cause *I*
care more about them *NOW* then the 'f/h'
they married. I hold that card, and play it well..
Fuck you losers. Be a man or step
aside. Women want MEN who don't bow
to the media, some other 'f/h' joke
so, be there or be square. HA HA HA HA HA
You jokes r searching via trees for a forest..
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
JJT
-----------------------------------
www.jtashjian.com
-----------------------------------
Krus T. Olfard
news:05c1t0ho4b9g7drvc...@4ax.com:
I suspect that your last paragraph hits him... oops, I mean IT... on the
head.
--
KTO
------------------
Everything I post is my opinion. If you don't like my opinions then
killfile me, if you have the balls.
Johannes Seppi
> This is a no-brainer,
self referential statement?
Ray Gordon
>>convince
>>the masses.
>>
>>"The Game" hits the bookstores within a month. Should be fascinating
>>fireworks!
>
> :::::::Funny Ray ... with each new publication that comes out, you claim
> it's going
> to be the final downfall of pickup artists and seducers everywhere, and
> render, as
> you like to call them, "ASF methods" obsolete.
Obsolete? Well, "What's your sign?" is still a valid pickup line, so I'd
hardly say it will be totally obsolete, but it will be a lot more
transparent, both to the target women and the rival males.
The process has been underway for a few years; of course it's not an
overnight process, but it's definitely occurring, as each penetration into
the media is stronger. A bestselling book published by HarperCollins
represents a bit of a breakthrough.
>
> Why is it that I can still take the simple old patterns from, say,
> <snip>--a book that is over a DECADE old--use them with women, and they
> still
> WORK? A book that has had over 10 YEARS of mainstream exposure. It still
> works!
>
> You can't explain this, can you.
How tall are you and how much do you earn a year? Your CUPID stats are
definitely relevant to your "game." You want the credibility that comes
when one sheds their anonymity, without shedding the anonymity.
> You can't explain this because, the secret is that there IS NO secret.
> Look at it
> like this einstein: let's say women are Ferrari.
Instead of being pompous and overbearing, how about you tell the world who
your girlfriend is and how you seduced her, and let's see what she has to
say. That you can NOT do this and spend all this time word-farting only
*proves* my point about exposure.
>If you put vinegar in the fuel tank
> of your Ferrari, it doesn't run. If you put gasoline in the fuel tank of
> your
> Ferrari, it runs.
If you put a bad analogy in your argument, it doesn't fly.
> Nice guys and chumps (lazy guys, etc.) put vinegar in their fuel tanks.
What exactly does the "nice guy" do wrong again? See, this is interesting;
you talk about pleasing women, yet there you are birdogging other guys with
remarks like that, implying that somehow you're a "real man" and they are
wussies.
Real men have nothing to hide about the details of their love lives. A nice
guy will be happy to share how he hooked up with his girlfriend; a player
will not. Who's your girlfriend, and *exactly* how did you seduce her?
What exactly is it about this "nice guy" that lets you paint the picture of
you being the clued-in insider and he the hapless, clueless "outsider?"
That he's DECENT? That he doesn't view women as stupid, childish, or
dishonest? Do the women who laugh at a guy like this for an ego-boost while
in bed with a man who uses them as free callgirls realize that if the nice
guy "gets it" the way they want him to, the first thing he stops doing is
trusting women? The devil is in the details.
How much do you charge for your stuff again? The RSD and other workshop
guys put their conquests on VIDEO; do you? They pull in front of large
crowds; can you? Can you PROVE all this prowess you report?
>PUA and
> seductionists put in gasoline.
If you call dishonesty (about the agenda when picking up) and lies by
omission (about wanting a relationship rather than to just fuck multiple
women) "gasoline," perhaps.
>The car is designed to run on gas. Why do you INSIST
> on trying to run it on the vinegar?
Anyone with "gas" in their car wouldn't mind having a look taken under the
hood.
How tall are you? How much do you make a year? Who is your current
girlfriend, how did you seduce her, and would she publicly endorse the
sedcution method used? Simple questions with simple answers, at least for
anyone claiming to be alpha.
You want people to spend how much money on your products? When you offer
them for sale you make *all* of the above questions fair game. A true alpha
would not duck them.
>Are you just an attention seeker, Ray?
Are you? You're the one coming out of the woodwork to respond to my post
here.
>Do you
> just want to be noticed for being different, no matter how much your
> theories go
> against just about every law known to man?
My theories actually are more in line with evolutionary theory that almost
anyone's. Many of my methods have been co-opted by other gurus and
"reinvented" (to use a generous term). The validity of my work is
self-evident; should I link to a post that you yourself made about my second
book that was quite positive? Did my book suddenly become bad because you
now sell something on your own? How quaint.
>"If I can't join them, I'll contradict
> them."
I put out materials long before 90 percent of the guys on the net who have
them did it there.
Lately, a number of women have learned about the community and its methods,
and their reactions have been anything but positive. Considering that we
are on the eve of "The Game" being released, we can look to the reactions of
the women who are seeing the methods now as an indicator of what will happen
in the future.
You see, little man, in the *real world* the "players" can't handle
discussions of this nature where the slut-trash they fuck has to get
involved. They are like the male characters on sitcoms who try to pretend
to be real men in front of their kiddies, but who crumble into pussy-whipped
AFCs whenever the *real* head of the house shows up, as the kids and the
audience have a good laugh. The men of ASF are a lot like that: "real men"
until their girlfriends sit at the table.
If you can't handle showing the details of your own love life on ASF, how on
earth can you handle them in front of your lady? For all your *talk* you
clam up VERY quickly when this is pointed out.
aardvark9084
"Ray Gordon" <r...@cybersheet.com> wrote in message
news:fP9Ad.4690$PY6.4448@trndny02...
> >>This is a no-brainer, but apparently it's taking a few examples to
> >>convince
> >>the masses.
> >>
> >>"The Game" hits the bookstores within a month. Should be fascinating
> >>fireworks!
> >
> > :::::::Funny Ray ... with each new publication that comes out, you claim
> > it's going
> > to be the final downfall of pickup artists and seducers everywhere, and
> > render, as
> > you like to call them, "ASF methods" obsolete.
>
> Obsolete? Well, "What's your sign?" is still a valid pickup line, so I'd
> hardly say it will be totally obsolete, but it will be a lot more
> transparent, both to the target women and the rival males.
remember when i mentioned that carrying around that much stupidity in your
bent gumby head?
then that (and your nasty tumor eating away at your cartoon of a brain) must
be absolutely excruciating, fathead.
if you're dumb enough to believe that "what's your sign" still works (if it
ever did) then you are not just behind the times, you are as ignorant as a
31 day month is long. you are a demented fool, ray gordon. an absolute
laughingstock that begs for any tiny scrap of attention like a mangy
starving dog, desperatly seeking anything he can get thrown his way.
> The process has been underway for a few years; of course it's not an
> overnight process, but it's definitely occurring, as each penetration into
> the media is stronger. A bestselling book published by HarperCollins
> represents a bit of a breakthrough.
blah blah blah...more of the same idiocy, lamebrain, with (again) nothing to
back it up.
> >
> > Why is it that I can still take the simple old patterns from, say,
> > <snip>--a book that is over a DECADE old--use them with women, and they
> > still
> > WORK? A book that has had over 10 YEARS of mainstream exposure. It still
> > works!
> >
> > You can't explain this, can you.
>
> How tall are you and how much do you earn a year? Your CUPID stats are
> definitely relevant to your "game." You want the credibility that comes
> when one sheds their anonymity, without shedding the anonymity.
a woman can only guess how much i make a year if she looks at someone, and
that's only if she cares about such things. cupid is stupid because it can
be bypassed & some women like tall men, some don't, some don't care when a
person has the stuff inside. you only wish you had the stuff inside.
> > You can't explain this because, the secret is that there IS NO secret.
> > Look at it
> > like this einstein: let's say women are Ferrari.
>
> Instead of being pompous and overbearing, how about you tell the world who
> your girlfriend is and how you seduced her, and let's see what she has to
> say. That you can NOT do this and spend all this time word-farting only
> *proves* my point about exposure.
be honest for once in you life, you feckless dork. what you really mean is
"tell filthy ray who your gf is so he can abuse the information". you've
proven absolutely nothing with your weak spews about "exposure".
> >If you put vinegar in the fuel tank
> > of your Ferrari, it doesn't run. If you put gasoline in the fuel tank of
> > your
> > Ferrari, it runs.
>
> If you put a bad analogy in your argument, it doesn't fly.
you mean like your "exposure" or "cupid" nonsense?
> > Nice guys and chumps (lazy guys, etc.) put vinegar in their fuel tanks.
>
> What exactly does the "nice guy" do wrong again? See, this is
interesting;
> you talk about pleasing women, yet there you are birdogging other guys
with
> remarks like that, implying that somehow you're a "real man" and they are
> wussies.
>
> Real men have nothing to hide about the details of their love lives. A
nice
> guy will be happy to share how he hooked up with his girlfriend; a player
> will not. Who's your girlfriend, and *exactly* how did you seduce her?
there you go again, scumbag..."who's your girlfriend...ray's gotta have the
info so he can stalk her and make her miserable."
> What exactly is it about this "nice guy" that lets you paint the picture
of
> you being the clued-in insider and he the hapless, clueless "outsider?"
> That he's DECENT? That he doesn't view women as stupid, childish, or
> dishonest? Do the women who laugh at a guy like this for an ego-boost
while
> in bed with a man who uses them as free callgirls realize that if the nice
> guy "gets it" the way they want him to, the first thing he stops doing is
> trusting women? The devil is in the details.
>
> How much do you charge for your stuff again? The RSD and other workshop
> guys put their conquests on VIDEO; do you? They pull in front of large
> crowds; can you? Can you PROVE all this prowess you report?
>
>
> >PUA and
> > seductionists put in gasoline.
>
> If you call dishonesty (about the agenda when picking up) and lies by
> omission (about wanting a relationship rather than to just fuck multiple
> women) "gasoline," perhaps.
>
>
> >The car is designed to run on gas. Why do you INSIST
> > on trying to run it on the vinegar?
>
> Anyone with "gas" in their car wouldn't mind having a look taken under the
> hood.
of all the cars i've ever owned, nobody ever asked me to look under "the
hood". they were sane enough to be content to admire the vehicle from afar.
> How tall are you? How much do you make a year? Who is your current
> girlfriend, how did you seduce her, and would she publicly endorse the
> sedcution method used? Simple questions with simple answers, at least
for
> anyone claiming to be alpha.
there you go...asking for the third time in the same message who the
girlfriend is. obsessed doesn't even start to tell your story, stalker boy.
> You want people to spend how much money on your products? When you offer
> them for sale you make *all* of the above questions fair game. A true
alpha
> would not duck them.
>
> >Are you just an attention seeker, Ray?
>
> Are you? You're the one coming out of the woodwork to respond to my post
> here.
>
> >Do you
> > just want to be noticed for being different, no matter how much your
> > theories go
> > against just about every law known to man?
>
> My theories actually are more in line with evolutionary theory that almost
> anyone's. Many of my methods have been co-opted by other gurus and
> "reinvented" (to use a generous term). The validity of my work is
> self-evident; should I link to a post that you yourself made about my
second
> book that was quite positive? Did my book suddenly become bad because you
> now sell something on your own? How quaint.
your book stinks because it doen't work. you have yet to prove that you have
*even one* workable idea in your books that you didn't steal from someone
else. nobody swiped from you. you swiped from them.
> >"If I can't join them, I'll contradict
> > them."
>
> I put out materials long before 90 percent of the guys on the net who have
> them did it there.
>
> Lately, a number of women have learned about the community and its
methods,
> and their reactions have been anything but positive. Considering that we
> are on the eve of "The Game" being released, we can look to the reactions
of
> the women who are seeing the methods now as an indicator of what will
happen
> in the future.
and where are these women? of course they don't exist.
> You see, little man, in the *real world* the "players" can't handle
> discussions of this nature where the slut-trash they fuck has to get
> involved. They are like the male characters on sitcoms who try to pretend
> to be real men in front of their kiddies, but who crumble into
pussy-whipped
> AFCs whenever the *real* head of the house shows up, as the kids and the
> audience have a good laugh. The men of ASF are a lot like that: "real
men"
> until their girlfriends sit at the table.
sitcoms? you blathering idiot...admit it, con artist...you have nothing at
all tethering you to reality.
> If you can't handle showing the details of your own love life on ASF, how
on
> earth can you handle them in front of your lady? For all your *talk* you
> clam up VERY quickly when this is pointed out.
and there's the fourth time in the same message you've asked for a woman's
personal information. you are too sick and lame for words to describe you.
shut up, stupid.
aardvark
HC
WOW! That's a lot of typing! FREAK!
Krus T. Olfard
> word-farting only
ray - thank you for posting the perfect description of your posts!
Krus T. Olfard
news:fP9Ad.4690$PY6.4448@trndny02:
> Real men have nothing to hide about the details of their love lives.
Now we know why you make unverified claims about getting laid.
Krus T. Olfard
news:fP9Ad.4690$PY6.4448@trndny02:
> They pull in front of large
> crowds; can you?
"They pull in front of large crowds; can you?"
No, I thought not.
Krus T. Olfard
news:fP9Ad.4690$PY6.4448@trndny02:
> My theories actually are more in line with evolutionary theory
Just another evolutionary dead-end - rather like ray.
Krus T. Olfard
news:fP9Ad.4690$PY6.4448@trndny02:
> Did my book suddenly become bad because you
> now sell something on your own?
your book didn't "suddenly become bad". In my opinion it was bad from the
moment it was conceived.
Krus T. Olfard
news:fP9Ad.4690$PY6.4448@trndny02:
> I put out materials long before 90 percent of the guys on the net who
> have them did it there.
>
"How quaint."
Krus T. Olfard
news:fP9Ad.4690$PY6.4448@trndny02:
> The men of ASF are a lot like that: "real men"
> until their girlfriends sit at the table.
>
I'm afraid that I don't believe you on that, ray. I don't believe you have
any idea of what a 'real man' is and I do not believe that you have ever
had a girlfriend, much less gotten laid.
Well, that means that you do not have to worry about having a girlfriend
read your vicious posts in this newsgroup and forming an accurate opinion
about you.
Krus T. Olfard
news:fP9Ad.4690$PY6.4448@trndny02:
> If you can't handle showing the details of your own love life on ASF,
> how on earth can you handle them in front of your lady?
So when you gonna do it, dismissed baybee?
I need a good laugh!
Krus T. Olfard
news:loaAd.816069$8_6.594430@attbi_s04:
>> You see, little man, in the *real world* the "players" can't handle
>> discussions of this nature where the slut-trash they fuck has to get
>> involved. They are like the male characters on sitcoms who try to
>> pretend to be real men in front of their kiddies, but who crumble
>> into
> pussy-whipped
>> AFCs whenever the *real* head of the house shows up, as the kids and
>> the audience have a good laugh. The men of ASF are a lot like that:
>> "real
> men"
>> until their girlfriends sit at the table.
>
>
> sitcoms? you blathering idiot...admit it, con artist...you have
> nothing at all tethering you to reality.
>
>
Come on... ray gets his reality from telly.
That's reality, isn't it?
<snicker>
AlphaHot1
>>>This is a no-brainer, but apparently it's taking a few examples to
>>>convince
>>>the masses.
>>>
>>>"The Game" hits the bookstores within a month. Should be fascinating
>>>fireworks!
>>
>> :::::::Funny Ray ... with each new publication that comes out, you claim
>> it's going
>> to be the final downfall of pickup artists and seducers everywhere, and
>> render, as
>> you like to call them, "ASF methods" obsolete.
>
>Obsolete? Well, "What's your sign?" is still a valid pickup line, so I'd
>hardly say it will be totally obsolete, but it will be a lot more
>transparent, both to the target women and the rival males.
:::::::Women have wanted men to be able to communicate with them in their own natural
style perhaps since the beginning of human life. How do you get "transparent" out of
this.
>
>The process has been underway for a few years; of course it's not an
>overnight process, but it's definitely occurring, as each penetration into
>the media is stronger. A bestselling book published by HarperCollins
>represents a bit of a breakthrough.
:::::::What's the process. What are women being told? To avoid men that feel
completely right to them? To avoid men they strongly feel they WANT a sexual
experience with? To avoid men they WANT to be with ... whom they may have been
literally LONGING for? I wouldn't run it up the flagpole. Go ahead, try marketing
that crap. See how far you get.
>
>
>
>>
>> Why is it that I can still take the simple old patterns from, say,
>> <snip>--a book that is over a DECADE old--use them with women, and they
>> still
>> WORK? A book that has had over 10 YEARS of mainstream exposure. It still
>> works!
>>
>> You can't explain this, can you.
>
>How tall are you and how much do you earn a year? Your CUPID stats are
>definitely relevant to your "game."
:::::::If you can't bring Darwin in through the front door, you have to bring him in
through the back. It makes no difference, Darwin is in just the same.
> You want the credibility that comes
>when one sheds their anonymity, without shedding the anonymity.
:::::::Why do you always default to this. Do you do this when your hand is weak?
Your argument completely falls apart when you take into account the fact that short
guys with very little money are getting/laying women they want. Do you think you've
actually stumbled onto something when you say that wealthy, well-known basketball
player get women as well? What you don't like, or simply don't acknowledge, is that
this system archetype has been short circuited and near utterly crushed in the 90s,
and is still picking up devastating, additional momentum in the 21st century.
>
>
>> You can't explain this because, the secret is that there IS NO secret.
>> Look at it
>> like this einstein: let's say women are Ferrari.
>
>Instead of being pompous and overbearing, how about you tell the world who
>your girlfriend is and how you seduced her,
:::::::That's funny as well. I've made invitations for you to see what I do
firsthand, in person, in a completely academic and non-antagonistic environment. You
refuse. You REFUSE. How do you explain that to everyone reading this? How do you
explain the fact the you've had the chance to have your question answered, and yet
you REFUSE to see it for fear of what you may find out?
>and let's see what she has to
>say. That you can NOT do this and spend all this time word-farting only
>*proves* my point about exposure.
:::::::Want to take a plane ride? On me.
>
>
>>If you put vinegar in the fuel tank
>> of your Ferrari, it doesn't run. If you put gasoline in the fuel tank of
>> your
>> Ferrari, it runs.
>
>If you put a bad analogy in your argument, it doesn't fly.
:::::::In fact the analogy is perfect. You just don't like the analogy.
>
>
>> Nice guys and chumps (lazy guys, etc.) put vinegar in their fuel tanks.
>
>What exactly does the "nice guy" do wrong again? See, this is interesting;
>you talk about pleasing women, yet there you are birdogging other guys with
>remarks like that, implying that somehow you're a "real man" and they are
>wussies.
:::::::No. You just applied the labels. I haven't.
What they are is what they are, without the labels. The only difference between them
and us is the KIND of results we produce, and the QUALITY of results we produce.
Other than that, there is very little difference.
>
>Real men have nothing to hide about the details of their love lives.
:::::::So this obligates them to give a full and complete dissertation, here, to you,
in this group, complete with all specific details they probably wouldn't even tell
their best friend about? Interesting. What makes you so privileged Ray?
>A nice
>guy will be happy to share how he hooked up with his girlfriend; a player
>will not. Who's your girlfriend, and *exactly* how did you seduce her?
:::::::So you can refute it with more empty word play and endless, meaningless
scenarios that you conjure up and then attempt to present as a reality of which you
have no knowledge whatsoever ? See above.
>
>What exactly is it about this "nice guy" that lets you paint the picture of
>you being the clued-in insider and he the hapless, clueless "outsider?"
>That he's DECENT?
:::::::Decent educated (self or otherwise) men get what they want. Decent UNeducated
men do not. Perhaps they're too lazy. Perhaps they hate women. Perhaps they're too
consumed with whining to do themselves any good. They're decent alright, just not
willing to adjust their game to get what they WANT. If you and I are playing chess
and I start moving my rook diagonally, as my bishop, is that allowed? The game has
paradigms and rules. If I'm not willing to play by them, I'm not allowed to play,
much less win.
>That he doesn't view women as stupid, childish, or
>dishonest? Do the women who laugh at a guy like this for an ego-boost while
>in bed with a man who uses them as free callgirls realize that if the nice
>guy "gets it" the way they want him to, the first thing he stops doing is
>trusting women? The devil is in the details.
:::::::You paint a very ugly picture of the entire seduction and pickup process. When
these women are in bed with these men, fact is they're not thinking about the other
guy at ALL. "Getting" it doesn't mean you become a ruthless bastard. It mean you
treat women consistent with what they were PROGRAMMED to respond to, LONG before you
or I were around. You still see this as somewhat of an enigma, do you?
>
>How much do you charge for your stuff again? The RSD and other workshop
>guys put their conquests on VIDEO; do you? They pull in front of large
>crowds; can you? Can you PROVE all this prowess you report?
:::::::Yes. And already have, and will again. You can see it firsthand if you have
the stones.
>
>
>>PUA and
>> seductionists put in gasoline.
>
>If you call dishonesty (about the agenda when picking up) and lies by
>omission (about wanting a relationship rather than to just fuck multiple
>women) "gasoline," perhaps.
:::::::Do you really think picking up/seducing women is all about dishonesty and
nothing but? SOME guys are dishonest, certainly. And I say those guys aren't very
good pickup artists. Can you even imagine a seduction that doesn't involve
dishonesty? No that's not NLP. Serious question.
>
>
>>The car is designed to run on gas. Why do you INSIST
>> on trying to run it on the vinegar?
>
>Anyone with "gas" in their car wouldn't mind having a look taken under the
>hood.
>
>How tall are you? How much do you make a year? Who is your current
>girlfriend, how did you seduce her, and would she publicly endorse the
>sedcution method used? Simple questions with simple answers, at least for
>anyone claiming to be alpha.
:::::::(As stated above) So this obligates men to give a full and complete
dissertation, here, to you, in this group, complete with all specific details they
probably wouldn't even tell their best friend about? Interesting. What makes you so
privileged Ray?
>
>You want people to spend how much money on your products? When you offer
>them for sale you make *all* of the above questions fair game. A true alpha
>would not duck them.
:::::::I will and have answer(ed) the questions to anyone who asks... just not to
you, as you look to garner this information for your own private misuse or ill
intent.
>
>>Are you just an attention seeker, Ray?
>
>Are you? You're the one coming out of the woodwork to respond to my post
>here.
:::::::Yes, to say that you're an attention seeker, and apparently very little more
from what you've shown.
>
>>Do you
>> just want to be noticed for being different, no matter how much your
>> theories go
>> against just about every law known to man?
>
>My theories actually are more in line with evolutionary theory that almost
>anyone's. Many of my methods have been co-opted by other gurus and
>"reinvented" (to use a generous term). The validity of my work is
>self-evident; should I link to a post that you yourself made about my second
>book that was quite positive? Did my book suddenly become bad because you
>now sell something on your own? How quaint.
:::::::I believe you're referring to the book "29 Reasons," and my comments regarding
it. But that's not all. There's something you don't even know about. About a year or
so ago, I acknowledge something in FormHandle's moderated ASF. I made clear that I
AGREED with you (yes YOU) on the fact that women's selection criteria is completely
and totally FUCKED UP. Agreeing with you is not a good idea, especially in mASF of
all places (the place you are banned from, remember?). But fact is fact and I call it
how I see it, regardless of who I may be agreeing with. That's why people know they
can trust me and what I say. There was once a time when I respected you, at least to
some degree. This was before your "anti-player" theories, which are going to turn out
to be pure crap not only for you, but for anyone who unsuspectingly buys into it.
Once upon a time, you were doing people a service. Now you're doing them a DISservice
by leading them down a path you know must ultimately lead to nowhere. I acknowledge
truth, so please do post the link.
>
>
>>"If I can't join them, I'll contradict
>> them."
>
>I put out materials long before 90 percent of the guys on the net who have
>them did it there.
:::::::So have other people.
>
>Lately, a number of women have learned about the community and its methods,
>and their reactions have been anything but positive. Considering that we
>are on the eve of "The Game" being released, we can look to the reactions of
>the women who are seeing the methods now as an indicator of what will happen
>in the future.
:::::::The other night this movie came on television ... I believe it was the Austin
Powers II movie (the Spy Who Shagged Me thing). Do you remember the part in the movie
where Austin is doing his groovy moves all over the rotating bed, and he's trying to
convince the dark haired girl that they should shag? Anyway, this chick says she
wouldn't have sex with Austin, ever, not if they were the last man and last woman on
earth and the only reason for the sex would be procreation solely for the continued
propagation of the species. End of the movie, she has sex with him.
This account of a fictional movie wouldn't be relevant were it not for the fact that
this type of turn-around situation ACTUALLY HAPPENS ALL THE TIME, more frequently
than anyone (most of all the niceguy) would believe. Still haven't learned the first
rule of seduction and chick logic 101 have you: what women SAY, and what women DO,
are two entirely different things. They're not lying, they simply don't even know
themselves.
>
>You see, little man,
:::::::"Little man." Ha! I love it.
>in the *real world* the "players" can't handle
>discussions of this nature where the slut-trash they fuck has to get
>involved.
:::::::In the words of Harrison Ford, "Now yer gettin' nasty"
Ray Gordon
>>hardly say it will be totally obsolete, but it will be a lot more
>>transparent, both to the target women and the rival males.
>
> :::::::Women have wanted men to be able to communicate with them in their
> own natural
> style perhaps since the beginning of human life. How do you get
> "transparent" out of
> this.
Transparent in that the hidden agendas that the players have will no longer
slip "under the radar."
Women wanting sex does not equate to women wanting the men they fuck to lie
to them or to make key omissions.
>>The process has been underway for a few years; of course it's not an
>>overnight process, but it's definitely occurring, as each penetration into
>>the media is stronger. A bestselling book published by HarperCollins
>>represents a bit of a breakthrough.
>
> :::::::What's the process. What are women being told?
On Oprah, three times in the last month, they're being told "He's just not
that into you" and learning the difference between being a "tier one girl"
and a "tier four girl."
When "The Game" comes out, there's going to be a huge publicity wave that
will ripple throughout the media. People who think this stuff won't replace
the mainstream are short-sighted, as the media already devotes a ridiculous
amount of time and energy towards "getting it right." That their advice is
bad (in the ASF view) means little, as they just upgrade when something
better comes along, and that becomes the new theory.
This is how we went from nice guys ruling the game in the 1970s to the
players of the 1980s and 1990s. The AFC was born when he thought that this
was the way to get laid, and he woke up sometime down the road (late 1990s)
to realize he'd been had.
So we have AFC men who want the truth, and who can now get it, and a media
that wants to broadcast that truth, and that adds up to the mainstream
exposure process I've been speaking of.
>To avoid men that feel
> completely right to them?
If the man's hidden agenda is no longer hidden, it won't feel as "right."
That's the point. On the other hand, should the women *not* change, the men
will simply change into what they complain about, and then the nice guys
will all but disappear since they'll be constantly called chumps by even
their friends and co-workers (most of whom will read or have heard of "the
game" by then).
What exactly is the process by which you help a woman to "feel right" again?
>To avoid men they strongly feel they WANT a sexual
> experience with?
On what do they base this desire? Do the women have all of the information?
One Nobel Prize winner got his prize because he pointed out that in a
transaction, the parties usually have lopsided information (the "used car
dealer" principle), and because of this, people often behave against their
own interests.
>To avoid men they WANT to be with ... whom they may have been
> literally LONGING for?
Again: WHICH men are you talking about, and WHY do these women want these
men? You are being *very* general here.
When one gives details of an actual "player" seduction, usually I can find
several points where the outcome would have changed if the woman had been
better informed. If the outcome doesn't change, then the AFC men will
change because they will no longer dismiss it as female ignorance.
Either way, something has to give, just as it gave when card-counting books
hit the shelves. The casinos didn't roll over and play dead, and neither
will the AFCs. The women aren't going to let their reputations take the
hit, either. Some MAJOR changes are on the horizon, and this next year is
going to be fascinating as we watch it unfold.
>I wouldn't run it up the flagpole. Go ahead, try marketing
> that crap. See how far you get.
It's not "crap" to say that men who have hidden agendas (which is what
"under the radar" means) will have more difficulty getting laid when the
truth becomes known.
>>> WORK? A book that has had over 10 YEARS of mainstream exposure. It still
>>> works!
>>>
>>> You can't explain this, can you.
>>
>>How tall are you and how much do you earn a year? Your CUPID stats are
>>definitely relevant to your "game."
>
> :::::::If you can't bring Darwin in through the front door, you have to
> bring him in
> through the back. It makes no difference, Darwin is in just the same.
Notice that he didn't answer the question.
Is he saying that money is not relevant to seduction now? Interesting. It
works for many men, though, even more interesting.
>> You want the credibility that comes
>>when one sheds their anonymity, without shedding the anonymity.
>
> :::::::Why do you always default to this. Do you do this when your hand is
> weak?
It's not weak, it's just the truth: you're not sharing relevant details yet
want the same credit for doing so as if you had.
> Your argument completely falls apart when you take into account the fact
> that short
> guys with very little money are getting/laying women they want.
Show me some. The more this stuff spreads on the internet, the more I see
men who aren't tall, handsome, or wealthy complaining that they do NOT get
the same results. Some gurus even talk about the need to be "cool," which
is what the AFCs have known since high school.
The original marketing was that these men didn't have to become the "jerks"
they hated to get the women, but as the customer base grows, many gurus have
had to make concessions to reality.
That you don't share this information would seem to imply that you wouldn't
like the resulting analysis. I'm not shocked.
>Do you think you've
> actually stumbled onto something when you say that wealthy, well-known
> basketball
> player get women as well?
The CUPID rating system generally explains value in a numerical context.
>What you don't like, or simply don't acknowledge, is that
> this system archetype has been short circuited and near utterly crushed in
> the 90s,
> and is still picking up devastating, additional momentum in the 21st
> century.
Has it? High CUPID ratings still seem to pull very easily.
What is changing is that the lame "website tactics" that men have been
relying on for the last several years are beginning to filter into the
mainstream of females and AFCs, or "the matrix" as some call it.
The Matrix will be biting back in a big way, unless you believe that the
"chump boyfriend" likes being laughed at behind his back about what a
clueless loser he is by his chick as she fucks another guy.
>>> You can't explain this because, the secret is that there IS NO secret.
>>> Look at it
>>> like this einstein: let's say women are Ferrari.
>>
>>Instead of being pompous and overbearing, how about you tell the world who
>>your girlfriend is and how you seduced her,
>
> :::::::That's funny as well. I've made invitations for you to see what I
> do
> firsthand, in person, in a completely academic and non-antagonistic
> environment.
No need to meet up to do that.
>You
> refuse. You REFUSE. How do you explain that to everyone reading this?
Too many threats against my life have been made online by too many people
for me to meet anyone from here. Since this is a seduction newsgroup, why
not share the wisdom here?
>How do you
> explain the fact the you've had the chance to have your question answered,
> and yet
> you REFUSE to see it for fear of what you may find out?
See above.
>
>>and let's see what she has to
>>say. That you can NOT do this and spend all this time word-farting only
>>*proves* my point about exposure.
>
> :::::::Want to take a plane ride? On me.
If you have money for that you must be doing pretty well. How much you make
a year again?
Chicks LOVE guys with money, so your "game" should be netting you beauty
queens.
>>>If you put vinegar in the fuel tank
>>> of your Ferrari, it doesn't run. If you put gasoline in the fuel tank of
>>> your
>>> Ferrari, it runs.
>>
>>If you put a bad analogy in your argument, it doesn't fly.
>
> :::::::In fact the analogy is perfect. You just don't like the analogy.
How generous you are at assessing your own logic.
>>> Nice guys and chumps (lazy guys, etc.) put vinegar in their fuel tanks.
>>
>>What exactly does the "nice guy" do wrong again? See, this is
>>interesting;
>>you talk about pleasing women, yet there you are birdogging other guys
>>with
>>remarks like that, implying that somehow you're a "real man" and they are
>>wussies.
>
> :::::::No. You just applied the labels. I haven't.
You used the term "chump." Shows that you aren't above bird-dogging at all.
> What they are is what they are, without the labels. The only difference
> between them
> and us is the KIND of results we produce, and the QUALITY of results we
> produce.
Many AFCs wind up in LTRs where they get laid hundreds of times from one
seduction. Many players wind up with STDs, in fights, or getting played by
women who are smarter than they are.
Drug dealers earn more than the average worker, but that doesn't mean the
average worker is going to want to risk the downsides.
One thing my methods are GREAT for is the *total* elimination of that
downside. A man doesn't have to be cool, doesn't have to be rich, smart and
good-looking (one of the three is sufficient), he doesn't even have to
approach, and he can (through pre-emption) set it up so the woman makes the
passes at him.
Men who don't understand the power of that approach deserve what they get.
> Other than that, there is very little difference.
There are tons of differences, especially in how they act in relationships.
The devil, of course, is in the details.
>>Real men have nothing to hide about the details of their love lives.
>
> :::::::So this obligates them to give a full and complete dissertation,
> here, to you,
> in this group, complete with all specific details they probably wouldn't
> even tell
> their best friend about? Interesting. What makes you so privileged Ray?
They're not obligated to do anything, but if they don't supply details, it
weakens their arguments considerably.
When "The Game" comes out, many men will have their methods shown to women
who will know all the details because they were there.
>>A nice
>>guy will be happy to share how he hooked up with his girlfriend; a player
>>will not. Who's your girlfriend, and *exactly* how did you seduce her?
>
> :::::::So you can refute it with more empty word play and endless,
> meaningless
> scenarios that you conjure up and then attempt to present as a reality of
> which you
> have no knowledge whatsoever ? See above.
There is no knowledge of the reality because you don't share that knowledge;
it's up to YOU to enlighten us, since YOU are the one making these claims.
How did you seduce your girlfriend? Are you loyal to her or do you fuck
other women?
>>What exactly is it about this "nice guy" that lets you paint the picture
>>of
>>you being the clued-in insider and he the hapless, clueless "outsider?"
>>That he's DECENT?
>
> :::::::Decent educated (self or otherwise) men get what they want.
If you're talking about formal education, that is not the case with women.
>Decent UNeducated
> men do not. Perhaps they're too lazy. Perhaps they hate women. Perhaps
> they're too
> consumed with whining to do themselves any good. They're decent alright,
> just not
> willing to adjust their game to get what they WANT.
You left out the most obvious problem the men have: they give women the
benefit of the doubt and presume they are honest when they aren't. Once a
man is willing to view women as liars, the rest almost always falls into
place rapidly. Their logical minds see it, but their emotions don't let
them believe it until all other options are exhausted.
What you call "whining" is actually the man saying to women "I can't believe
this guy says women are sluts, but he's getting laid." What he's telling
the woman is "give me a reason not to be like him or I'm going to turn into
him." His only mistake was being too trusting. Once that trust is gone,
women will stop fucking with him because they know he won't buy into their
bullshit.
Now, what adjustments to a man's game are necessary to get him laid? How
exactly did you seduce your girlfriend again?
>If you and I are playing chess
> and I start moving my rook diagonally, as my bishop, is that allowed?
My USCF rating peaked at 2000, or in the top 5-10 percent of *tournament*
players in the United States. You really want to use chess analogies now?
And yes, your move is allowed until your opponent calls you on it. Some
Blitz players will use illegal moves when they have a lost position in a
last-ditch effort to save the game. I know one who has gotten away with it
many times, and I've even used the trick myself (usually by moving the
knight an extra square such as from f3 to e6.
>The game has
> paradigms and rules. If I'm not willing to play by them, I'm not allowed
> to play,
> much less win.
Women can and do change the rules of the game, as did casinos, when they saw
someone raping them out of money through card-counting. Tell someone how
you are picking their pocket and they are likely to guard it in the future.
>>That he doesn't view women as stupid, childish, or
>>dishonest? Do the women who laugh at a guy like this for an ego-boost
>>while
>>in bed with a man who uses them as free callgirls realize that if the nice
>>guy "gets it" the way they want him to, the first thing he stops doing is
>>trusting women? The devil is in the details.
>
> :::::::You paint a very ugly picture of the entire seduction and pickup
> process.
I didn't paint the picture, I merely observed it. It IS ugly, when you
examine it: the men who get laid the most tend to be dishonest, assholes
(sometimes with looks or money), while the decent men get screwed over. On
top of this, women like to insist that they aren't doing what they know full
well they are doing.
The problem the women have is that men are picking up on what they do. ASF
and its theory was a reaction to the lies women tell men. The reason women
have been able to play AFCs as chumps is that the men didn't "get it" or
want to "get it." Now the men ARE getting it and women have little ground
to stand on since they blamed the men for "allowing" themselves to be lied
to. Well, women "allow" themselves to be played.
I notice that every time I ask you to share details of this "process" as you
apply it in your own life, you decline. Pretty pictures usually aren't so
well-hidden.
>When
> these women are in bed with these men, fact is they're not thinking about
> the other
> guy at ALL.
That goes counter to dozens of lay reports I've seen from men who talk about
women taking calls on their cell from their "borefriends" and then talking
about what clueless losers they are. The women most definitely do this and
they do it a lot. It's a "secret society" thing, but the problem is, the
secret society is no longer secret. In effect the ASF movement has put a
microphone in a place where men and women used to speak freely.
>"Getting" it doesn't mean you become a ruthless bastard. It mean you
> treat women consistent with what they were PROGRAMMED to respond to, LONG
> before you
> or I were around.
Women are programmed to respond to loyal men who are good providers. Women
are programmed to reject men who lie as mates because they can't trust those
men (that rules out hidden agendas).
Aside from arguing that women are "all alike" (otherwise you couldn't make
that statement), you don't get specific on what they are programmed to
respond to. Since this is a seduction newsgroup where people share
information freely, perhaps you could enlighten us.
Another underlying premise of your argument is that the method trumps the
man, and that is what women argue against. As if all a man has to do to
figure out this programming is to buy a product. Otherwise, what use would
the product be?
>You still see this as somewhat of an enigma, do you?
I don't answer loaded NLP bullshit.
>>How much do you charge for your stuff again? The RSD and other workshop
>>guys put their conquests on VIDEO; do you? They pull in front of large
>>crowds; can you? Can you PROVE all this prowess you report?
>
> :::::::Yes. And already have, and will again. You can see it firsthand if
> you have
> the stones.
Yet you haven't provided *anything* even here. If you share details here,
then we have a frame of reference for anything that would occur afterwards.
I could look into arranging for a reporter from your area to interview you,
though. The reporter would be more objective than me anyway.
>>>PUA and
>>> seductionists put in gasoline.
>>
>>If you call dishonesty (about the agenda when picking up) and lies by
>>omission (about wanting a relationship rather than to just fuck multiple
>>women) "gasoline," perhaps.
>
> :::::::Do you really think picking up/seducing women is all about
> dishonesty and
> nothing but? SOME guys are dishonest, certainly. And I say those guys
> aren't very
> good pickup artists. Can you even imagine a seduction that doesn't involve
> dishonesty? No that's not NLP. Serious question.
I can imagine many seductions that don't involve dishonesty. All one has
to do is be honest and require the same from his partners, and of course
know how to spot it or deal with it if it's spotted.
NLP is a form of persuasion, and while it may not involve lying directly,
there are a lot of implications in the communication that could easily be
construed as lies by omission. That's why it's pointless to ask the man's
side of an NLP seduction, but instead to go over it with the female.
>>>The car is designed to run on gas. Why do you INSIST
>>> on trying to run it on the vinegar?
>>
>>Anyone with "gas" in their car wouldn't mind having a look taken under the
>>hood.
>>
>>How tall are you? How much do you make a year? Who is your current
>>girlfriend, how did you seduce her, and would she publicly endorse the
>>sedcution method used? Simple questions with simple answers, at least
>>for
>>anyone claiming to be alpha.
>
> :::::::(As stated above) So this obligates men to give a full and complete
> dissertation, here, to you, in this group, complete with all specific
> details they
> probably wouldn't even tell their best friend about? Interesting. What
> makes you so
> privileged Ray?
As stated above, if you're the one trying to make the argument, and back off
when one asks for more details that would shed light on your argument,
that's not on me.
If you don't want to share those details, don't make arguments that rely on
them.
>>You want people to spend how much money on your products? When you offer
>>them for sale you make *all* of the above questions fair game. A true
>>alpha
>>would not duck them.
>
> :::::::I will and have answer(ed) the questions to anyone who asks... just
> not to
> you, as you look to garner this information for your own private misuse or
> ill
> intent.
That's libelous. You'd be wise not to make accusations like that; people
get sued for that stuff.
>>>Are you just an attention seeker, Ray?
>>
>>Are you? You're the one coming out of the woodwork to respond to my post
>>here.
>
> :::::::Yes, to say that you're an attention seeker, and apparently very
> little more
> from what you've shown.
Guess it's easier to insult me than to reveal details that might show my
theories have more to do with seduction than you want to admit.
Of course, you are the one reacting to me, which means you're being sucked
into my reality here, according to ASF theory.
>>>Do you
>>> just want to be noticed for being different, no matter how much your
>>> theories go
>>> against just about every law known to man?
>>
>>My theories actually are more in line with evolutionary theory that almost
>>anyone's. Many of my methods have been co-opted by other gurus and
>>"reinvented" (to use a generous term). The validity of my work is
>>self-evident; should I link to a post that you yourself made about my
>>second
>>book that was quite positive? Did my book suddenly become bad because you
>>now sell something on your own? How quaint.
>
> :::::::I believe you're referring to the book "29 Reasons," and my
> comments regarding
> it. But that's not all. There's something you don't even know about.
> About a year or
> so ago, I acknowledge something in <snip>. I made clear that I
> AGREED with you (yes YOU) on the fact that women's selection criteria is
> completely
> and totally FUCKED UP.
You mean the "ugly picture" of seduction that I have painted?
>Agreeing with you is not a good idea, especially in <snip> of
> all places (the place you are banned from, remember?).
Why would anyone be proud of banning anyone from a discussion? Censorship
NEVER adds to the quality of content of anything, and when the moderator
gets a cut of revenue from the sales of the prodcuts being discussed, it's
even more suspect.
>But fact is fact and I call it
> how I see it, regardless of who I may be agreeing with. That's why people
> know they
> can trust me and what I say. There was once a time when I respected you,
> at least to
> some degree. This was before your "anti-player" theories, which are going
> to turn out
> to be pure crap not only for you, but for anyone who unsuspectingly buys
> into it.
Anti-player is not a negative method. On the other hand, players seem to
get very negative in birddogging other men, using terms like "Waldo" to
describe them. How amusing that they can't seem to take what they love to
dish out.
Anti-player is based on a position of strength: the man already has what he
wants and can speak his mind; in the course of doing so, a number of
seductions will result.
The fact is, the player, for all his talk about being hard to get, isn't
really. For all his talk about calling women on their bullshit, he doesn't
really, at least not the REAL bullshit. Women respect honesty a lot more
than some birdogging player trying to posture his way into their pants.
> Once upon a time, you were doing people a service. Now you're doing them a
> DISservice
> by leading them down a path you know must ultimately lead to nowhere. I
> acknowledge
> truth, so please do post the link.
A true alpha wouldn't worry about the details of what he does being known,
since he answers to no one.
Are you an alpha MALE or an alpha MOUTH?
>>>"If I can't join them, I'll contradict
>>> them."
>>
>>I put out materials long before 90 percent of the guys on the net who have
>>them did it there.
>
> :::::::So have other people.
Not 90 percent of them.
>>Lately, a number of women have learned about the community and its
>>methods,
>>and their reactions have been anything but positive. Considering that we
>>are on the eve of "The Game" being released, we can look to the reactions
>>of
>>the women who are seeing the methods now as an indicator of what will
>>happen
>>in the future.
>
> :::::::The other night this movie came on television ... I believe it was
> the Austin
> Powers II movie (the Spy Who Shagged Me thing). Do you remember the part
> in the movie
> where Austin is doing his groovy moves all over the rotating bed, and he's
> trying to
> convince the dark haired girl that they should shag? Anyway, this chick
> says she
> wouldn't have sex with Austin, ever, not if they were the last man and
> last woman on
> earth and the only reason for the sex would be procreation solely for the
> continued
> propagation of the species. End of the movie, she has sex with him.
Men who have writers dictating their real lives should be inspired by such
an example.
> This account of a fictional movie wouldn't be relevant were it not for the
> fact that
> this type of turn-around situation ACTUALLY HAPPENS ALL THE TIME, more
> frequently
> than anyone (most of all the niceguy) would believe.
And when the nice guy she lied to about being a good girl hears about it,
she loses a chump and his resources and tells her to go play with the
player, and let the player do for her what he was.
Once those resources are lost, then the woman's priorities shift. She can't
fuck the poolboy if the rich AFC chump doesn't marry her and put her in the
house with the pool and all that free time, now can she?
Your theory seems to rely on the idea of men staying stupid; they obviously
aren't or this community wouldn't exist. We are seeing the very last line
of resistance right now, the hardcore AFCs who refuse to believe the truth,
but even those men have the same agenda as the PUA, which is to get laid.
Once it sinks into their heads that the "jerks" were right, the women will
have very little left to turn to to protect their reps or to get resources.
No man in his right mind will part with resources for women if he knows that
doing so will LESSEN his chances of getting laid. Even if you are correct
in that women won't change what they respond to (I don't agree, as women
have done this many times already), the MEN will change, simply because
their stupidity will be on display for all the world to see, including
themselves.
>Still haven't learned the first
> rule of seduction and chick logic 101 have you:
You're the one who hasn't learned debating 101 if all you can do is birddog
me.
>what women SAY, and what women DO,
> are two entirely different things.
Gee, I only wrote that in my FIRST book.....
What women DO, of course, can change over time as the paradigm shifts.
What casinos DO changed when Beat The Dealer was published. What
slaughterhouses DO changed when Upton Sinclair wrote that book about all
that disgusting stuff that went on there.
All women are also not alike, so it doesn't always pay to generalize.
>They're not lying, they simply don't even know
> themselves.
Now THIS is where we definitely digress: women benefit way too much from
this for it to be an accident. Then again, I'd love to hear you explain in
front of your girlfriend about how you know her brain better than she does;
as I said, the devil is in the details. Of course, if your income is really
high she might agree with anything you say, which is why that information is
relevant (notice he won't share that here even though it's the first thing a
woman checks for).
The only AFCs who are left at this point are the ones who really believe
that women are well-intentioned victims of men who "game" them. The problem
is, when you publish the playbook, it's going to be next to impossible for
women to convince any man that it's still unintentional. If a store is
robbed six times in a month, and you show the storeowner the flaw in his
security system, he doesn't fix it, and STILL gets robbed, you can be sure
he is not unaware of what is causing it.
The AFC who confronts the woman is not whining and not bitter, but simply
giving her the benefit of the doubt, because the implication is that if a
woman is made aware of the mistakes she is making, she'll be thankful for
having it pointed out and correct the behavior. If she instead says "Fuck
you! I'll fuck any guy I want you bitter loser!" the nice guy is going to
think "hmm, she really is a cheap slut. Why'd I ever respect her?" He will
no longer feel guilty about playing women, and if she whines down the road
about being played by the guys she fucked, he's going to say that the slut
brought it on herself.
>>You see, little man,
>
> :::::::"Little man." Ha! I love it.
You are.
>>in the *real world* the "players" can't handle
>>discussions of this nature where the slut-trash they fuck has to get
>>involved.
>
> :::::::In the words of Harrison Ford, "Now yer gettin' nasty"
Men who treat women like mindless, programmable sluts shouldn't take offense
when someone calls their woman a slut. Enjoy the sex, but don't try to make
a woman like that into something she's not.
Until you answer the income question, it can't be known what your level of
"game" is, since if you earn past a certain point, you could just about
ANYTHING and get laid. You can still have game if you're wealthy, but your
conquests would be hitting the papers at that point.
NLP seduction generally involves using hypnotic language to get a woman into
a diminished-capacity state so that she is less resistant to sexual
advantages. How is your system any different?
Mr Nifty
news:JDpAd.13746$152.4731@trndny01...
Err... how long did it take you to type all this crap up?
Just wondering.
Ray Gordon
> Mr Nifty (Agent of S.C.A.M.)
It should be noted that "S.C.A.M" is but a JOKE from this "Mr. Nifty" guy.
If he were ever confronted on any legal basis regarding it, he'd be the
first to admit it.
Krus T. Olfard
> On Oprah, three times in the last month, they're being told
WOW! he watches Oprah often enough that he knows how many times the program
says something in a month.
And he says he has a job.
And he says he goes out and picks up women.
And he says... well, you know.
Krus T. Olfard
And just how fucking long did it take you to figure that out?
Pathetic.
Krus T. Olfard
And your rather odd 'seduction methods' include insulting women until they
will fuck you.
Yeah right!
<snicker>
This whole spew is really pathetic, ray.
Bryen193
>> Mr Nifty (Agent of S.C.A.M.)
>
>It should be noted that "S.C.A.M" is but a JOKE from this "Mr. Nifty" guy.
Thank you Captain Obvious.
"There is only one real antidote to the anguish engendered in humanity by its
awareness of inevitable death: erotic joy." Gilles Neret
++++ http://www.angelfire.com/80s/ashenthorn/index.html ++++
HC
>It should be noted that "S.C.A.M" is but a JOKE from this "Mr. Nifty" guy.
It should also be noted that one should NEVER take any advice from a mentally
ill newsloon.
Krus T. Olfard
news:20041231095148...@mb-m07.aol.com:
And one should definitely check the posting history of anyone that one is
tempted to accept advice from.
Ray Gordon
>
> Thank you Captain Obvious.
It's not so obvious, because pretending to be joking could easily be part of
it.
He lives in the UK. All I have to do is not contest his statements (for
litigation purposes) and put the burden on the other side to get him to
refute them.
Johannes Seppi
If it only were so easy to "put the burden on the other side"...
HeeroYuy
I don't think that there's an intelligent person alive who didn't think
S.C.A.M. was a joke to make fun of Gordon because he consistently accuses
people of shilling when he has no proof of such activities.
Krus T. Olfard
Hell, probably even ray knows it's a joke.
Probably...