She's been talking about loving dancing for a while. I did some digging and we found a funk group was playing at a local bar tonight. We were planning for about a week, have dinner an hour before and talk, then dance funky. I tried some noncommittal patterning on the exhilaration of all the bodies bouncing up and down and sweat and panting and walls shaking. Tonight when I got to work she told me right out that she might not be able to do it, she's got a bunch of stuff to do before her vacation, she had to be home cause some guy was coming to help clean her pool (I know, sounds like a porno), she had some other guy dropping off a truck for her. She left well before me and said she would call and let me know for sure. Now, that we were doing anything other than hanging out as friends was never specified- though it was just the two of us, no one else, and funk music- but she did immediately tell me she's known the guy for years and they're just friends. This at least suggests to me that she recognized the romantic potential with us. So while waiting for her to call I went over how to handle it; not to bow down and "oh no no that's fine" it nor pout nor harumph, but to tell her when we'll hang out again and get her #. She told me before she left that she's a totally different person outside of work, where it could be said she is almost mousey... So anyways she calls in and says can't do it, all the time she's saying "I really wanted to too" etc. and we'll find another place (she went online at work while I was there, looking for schedules and asking me about places). She tells me about her pool ("I just like to get wet" she said a few days ago) and her vacation schedule and the fact that some nights she volunteers to teach women to do self-exams (no shit), and I says "We'll do it Sunday." Not firm, just friendly, but without stuttering, the tone of offering a solution, almost like I did her a favor. She says she's free that evening and gives me her number, I didn't even have to ask. She tells me it's unlisted so don't give it to anyone. As for what we're doing Sunday, that was totally up in the air. But we'll think of something.
My pivot has been telling me a while that this lady likes preppies so clean up my act. I figure she likes confident guys who exude sophistication and who drop a few smirks, so while I work out and clean up my act some, I spout the occasional quote in German, Italian or Spanish so she can overhear, I talk to everyone at work and make some references to rock-climbing, chess, composing music (for which I'm soon to leave for college), and the Opera Company of Philadelphia (where I'm soon to move for college). All the time very friendly, which I am anyway. So far I think it's working.
I'm pretty convinced tonight was not a brush-off, by her eagerness to reschedule, and by the fact she's been talking about fixing up and cleaning the pool for weeks. And the fact that she offered up her # like pie to a grandchild.
Now that I've posted her life story, anyone have any feedback or suggestions? If, of course, she's reading this, then perhaps she's slicker than I thought.
Don't bang coworkers. Things get complicated no matter how things end up. If she becomes your steady, or even just a fuck-buddy, then all of your other female coworkers know all of your intimate little secrets, because women talk. If things don't work out, then she's talking trash behind your back, and all of your coworkers begin treating you like shit.
Don't shit where you eat. Don't fuck women you work with.
Now, so that you don't make any other mistakes, lemme point you to the materials, so you can read them.
> Don't bang coworkers. Things get complicated no matter how things end up. > If she becomes your steady, or even just a fuck-buddy, then all of your > other female coworkers know all of your intimate little secrets, because > women talk. If things don't work out, then she's talking trash behind > your back, and all of your coworkers begin treating you like shit.
He seems British. They bang coworkers all the time. LOL!
You seem to be doing just fine on your own. You're getting good "intel" (hopefully) from your pivot, and she definately does seem to be putting out good signals.
>Don't bang coworkers. Things get complicated no matter how things end up. >If she becomes your steady, or even just a fuck-buddy, then all of your >other female coworkers know all of your intimate little secrets, because >women talk. If things don't work out, then she's talking trash behind >your back, and all of your coworkers begin treating you like shit.
>Don't shit where you eat. Don't fuck women you work with.
I couldn't agree more.
In fact, I said as much in my first book, five years ago.
I actually said that all "forced interaction" was bad because it doesn't reflect true skills.
In article <20030629000417.27102.00002...@mb-m06.aol.com>,
lemoderncave...@aol.com (LeModernCaveman) wrote: > I actually said that all "forced interaction" was bad because it > doesn't reflect true skills.
This, of course, would include seducing strippers in a strip club, which is also a "forced interaction" environment. In fact, strip clubs are perhaps the most highly "forced interaction" environment that exists.
> >Don't bang coworkers. Things get complicated no matter how things end up. > >If she becomes your steady, or even just a fuck-buddy, then all of your > >other female coworkers know all of your intimate little secrets, because > >women talk. If things don't work out, then she's talking trash behind > >your back, and all of your coworkers begin treating you like shit.
> >Don't shit where you eat. Don't fuck women you work with.
> I couldn't agree more.
> In fact, I said as much in my first book, five years ago.
> I actually said that all "forced interaction" was bad because it doesn't > reflect true skills.
Why is it almost every post you make tends to harp on some book you wrote, yet you'll sit here and post about others being "shills"?
>> I actually said that all "forced interaction" was bad because it >> doesn't reflect true skills.
>This, of course, would include seducing strippers in a strip club, >which is also a "forced interaction" environment. In fact, strip clubs >are perhaps the most highly "forced interaction" environment that >exists.
> >> I actually said that all "forced interaction" was bad because it > >> doesn't reflect true skills.
> >This, of course, would include seducing strippers in a strip club, > >which is also a "forced interaction" environment. In fact, strip clubs > >are perhaps the most highly "forced interaction" environment that > >exists.
> Strippers aren't co-workers.
> Next!
They would be if you are a bouncer or a bartender in the club.
>> >This, of course, would include seducing strippers in a strip club, >> >which is also a "forced interaction" environment. In fact, strip clubs >> >are perhaps the most highly "forced interaction" environment that >> >exists.
>> Strippers aren't co-workers.
>> Next!
>They would be if you are a bouncer or a bartender in the club.
lemoderncave...@aol.com (LeModernCaveman) wrote: >>> I actually said that all "forced interaction" was bad because it >>> doesn't reflect true skills.
>>This, of course, would include seducing strippers in a strip club, >>which is also a "forced interaction" environment. In fact, strip clubs >>are perhaps the most highly "forced interaction" environment that >>exists.
> Strippers aren't co-workers.
> Next!
Excuse me, Mr. Moron.
He never said that strippers were coworkers. He said that strip clubs are a "forced interaction" environment, which is the same thing you said about the work site. Strippers are forced to interact with the clientele (which means you, genius), since it is their JOB to "approach" you. And you just said "all "forced interaction" was bad because it doesn't reflect true skills." Therefore you are saying that strip clubs are 'bad' because it doesn't reflect true skills, since it is "forced interaction".
>He never said that strippers were coworkers. He said that strip clubs are >a "forced interaction" environment, which is the same thing you said >about the work site.
Work is forced on both sides. Strip clubs aren't.
>Strippers are forced to interact with the clientele >(which means you, genius), since it is their JOB to "approach" you. And >you just said "all "forced interaction" was bad because it doesn't >reflect true skills."
This is true, which is why I qualify the strip club recommendations by saying that they should be viewed as a means of getting EASY sex.
Odd then, that if the sex is so EASY, the alleged gurus STILL can't forumate a theory on how to get them.
Oh yeah, they can't co-opt my ideas this time!
>Therefore you are saying that strip clubs are >'bad' because it doesn't reflect true skills, since it is "forced >interaction".
The good overrides the bad because they are hot, because the man isn't forced to be there (true forced interaction requires both to be there), and because getting hit on is also part of the job (which is not the case with a regular waitress, for example).
>Do you understand now, Mr. Moron?
Pretending you're a tough guy again with that mouth?
>>Strippers are forced to interact with the clientele >>(which means you, genius), since it is their JOB to "approach" you. And >>you just said "all "forced interaction" was bad because it doesn't >>reflect true skills."
>This is true, which is why I qualify the strip club recommendations by saying >that they should be viewed as a means of getting EASY sex.
Of course, this is someone who states that bringing food into a strip club and NOT giving it to the girls will get him laid by them.
>Odd then, that if the sex is so EASY, the alleged gurus STILL can't forumate a >theory on how to get them.
Mainly because others know the clubs are where the girls remove $$$ from the rubes, and will tell them most anything to do so. grp-ie thinks that will get him laid.
>Oh yeah, they can't co-opt my ideas this time!
and other's want your ideas 'why'..?
>>Therefore you are saying that strip clubs are >>'bad' because it doesn't reflect true skills, since it is "forced >>interaction".
>The good overrides the bad because they are hot, because the man isn't forced >to be there (true forced interaction requires both to be there), and because >getting hit on is also part of the job (which is not the case with a regular >waitress, for example).
Mainly because others know the clubs are where the girls remove $$$ from the rubes, and will tell them most anything to do so. grp-ie thinks that will get him laid.
>>Do you understand now, Mr. Moron?
>Pretending you're a tough guy again with that mouth?
It's better then threatening children, tough guy, and running away from every adult who has challenged you to back up your foul cake hole. ANYTIME you'd like to prove them wrong, the line starts on the left, jack, of men, women AND children who could cripple your sorry ass. Of course, being the gutless coward you are, your dollies will do it for you..
>Amusing.
no. grp-ie, you are no longer amusing. Pithy, yes, moronic, sure, but amusing, not any longer.
>Next!
WHAT next? You haven't finished the last 1 zillion challenges made to you in the past.
YOU just run and hide, clutching your 'helen' dolly, and pretending how tough you are to them.
JJT
Freedom of Speech is WORTHLESS without Social Responsibility. The OFFICIAL Ray Gordon FAQ: http://www.ray-gordon.com Everything you need to know about Usenet's biggest NewsLoon! Gordon Roy Parker, aka Ray Gordon, aka a modern caveman, lemoderncaveman & more screen names then space allows here.
"There was no significant loss of life in those towers, not a one." - Ray Gordon, aka lemoderncave...@aol.com, September 11, 2001, uttered while thousands of innocent people were burning to death.
> interaction" was bad because it > >> >> doesn't reflect true skills.
> >> >This, of course, would include seducing strippers in a strip club, > >> >which is also a "forced interaction" environment. In fact, strip clubs > >> >are perhaps the most highly "forced interaction" environment that > >> >exists.
> >> Strippers aren't co-workers.
> >> Next!
> >They would be if you are a bouncer or a bartender in the club.
> Then date dancers from other clubs!
> Next!
Excuse me Mr. I-change-what-I'm-saying-every-post, YOU wanted to keep on the subject of coworkers when replying to Mr. King.
I would have appreciated some feedback on my technique.
> Don't bang coworkers. Things get complicated no matter how things end up. > If she becomes your steady, or even just a fuck-buddy, then all of your > other female coworkers know all of your intimate little secrets, because > women talk. If things don't work out, then she's talking trash behind > your back, and all of your coworkers begin treating you like shit.
Won't happen, she has much more to lose than I do.
> Don't shit where you eat. Don't fuck women you work with.
I'm moving 100+ miles away at the end of summer, and they all know this.
> Now, so that you don't make any other mistakes, lemme point you to the > materials, so you can read them.
> > Don't bang coworkers. Things get complicated no matter how things end up. > > If she becomes your steady, or even just a fuck-buddy, then all of your > > other female coworkers know all of your intimate little secrets, because > > women talk. If things don't work out, then she's talking trash behind > > your back, and all of your coworkers begin treating you like shit.
> He seems British. They bang coworkers all the time. LOL!
Maniac High says: "Note, for those readers living in repressed countries still in the sexual dark ages like the Islamic Republic of Iran, or the United Stated of America, I do not advice attempting this..trouble with the legal system, sex harrassment shit, or loss of your job could result.. For the rest of you living in countries that have both feet planted firmly in the 20th century, no problem, lets rock on- here is the report!"
> You seem to be doing just fine on your own. You're getting good "intel" > (hopefully) from your pivot, and she definately does seem to be putting out > good signals.
> >Don't bang coworkers. Things get complicated no matter how things end up. > >If she becomes your steady, or even just a fuck-buddy, then all of your > >other female coworkers know all of your intimate little secrets, because > >women talk. If things don't work out, then she's talking trash behind > >your back, and all of your coworkers begin treating you like shit.
> >Don't shit where you eat. Don't fuck women you work with.
> I couldn't agree more.
> In fact, I said as much in my first book, five years ago.
> I actually said that all "forced interaction" was bad because it doesn't > reflect true skills.
So college classmates are out too? "Get that pussy out of my face, it didn't require true skills!"
LeModernCaveman wrote: > >> I actually said that all "forced interaction" was bad because it > >> doesn't reflect true skills.
> >This, of course, would include seducing strippers in a strip club, > >which is also a "forced interaction" environment. In fact, strip clubs > >are perhaps the most highly "forced interaction" environment that > >exists.
> Strippers aren't co-workers.
We're talking about a forced interaction between the expletive deleted customer and the employee, not between coworkers you censored piece of redacted.
-- Paul Robinson "Above all else... We shall go on..." "...And continue!" "If the lessons of history teach us anything it is that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us."
LeModernCaveman wrote: > >Therefore you are saying that strip clubs are > >'bad' because it doesn't reflect true skills, since it is "forced > >interaction".
> The good overrides the bad because they are hot, because the man isn't forced > to be there (true forced interaction requires both to be there), and because > getting hit on is also part of the job (which is not the case with a regular > waitress, for example).
Oh please. You are so disingenuous as to almost make me nauseous.
By your comments the only thing that would be classed as a forced interaction would be when I was appearing before Circuit Court Judge Ann Simpson last week. She has to be there because she's the judge. I have to be there because I'm defending my case. Now, of course I shouldn't hit on her, first because if I piss her off I get a bigger fine and second because she's unlikely to see me as anything except another one of the hundreds of defendants who appear before her each week.
But the point is that it's a forced interaction if one of the parties has to be there. When I go to McDonalds to get a chicken sandwich, or I go to Office Depot to make photocopies, it's a forced interaction on the part of the clerk. They don't have a choice.
> >Do you understand now, Mr. Moron?
> Pretending you're a tough guy again with that mouth?
As you try to do all the time. And fail spectacularly.
> Amusing.
You are becoming not amusing much faster than I expected. You really do need psychiatric help of some kind. Your own comments indicate there is something wrong with you.
If you think my comments are libelous toward you, please sue me, I would love to have the opportunity to get you in front of a psychiatrist and a jury and have them see you as you are. That will never happen, because you wouldn't dare submit to a psychiatric exam. It would prove everything. Not to mention having a jury see what you have said in the past.
-- Paul Robinson "Above all else... We shall go on..." "...And continue!" "If the lessons of history teach us anything it is that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us."
> > >Therefore you are saying that strip clubs are 'bad' because it > > >doesn't reflect true skills, since it is "forced interaction".
> > The good overrides the bad because they are hot, because the man > > isn't forced to be there (true forced interaction requires both to > > be there), and because getting hit on is also part of the job > > (which is not the case with a regular waitress, for example).
> Oh please. You are so disingenuous as to almost make me nauseous.
> By your comments the only thing that would be classed as a forced > interaction would be when I was appearing before Circuit Court Judge > Ann Simpson last week. She has to be there because she's the judge. > I have to be there because I'm defending my case. Now, of course I > shouldn't hit on her, first because if I piss her off I get a bigger > fine and second because she's unlikely to see me as anything except > another one of the hundreds of defendants who appear before her each > week.
> But the point is that it's a forced interaction if one of the parties > has to be there. When I go to McDonalds to get a chicken sandwich, > or I go to Office Depot to make photocopies, it's a forced > interaction on the part of the clerk. They don't have a choice.
But according to Gordon, it isn't *true* forced interaction, because obviously you don't have to be there. I'd let this stand and catch him later on when he starts to criticize someone trying to pick up a cashier. He'll come up with an appropriate rationalization/explanation that suits his short-term needs, just as he did here.
Also, notice the very first reason he states in his apologia for strip club "forced-interaction" pickups: "because they are hot."
And of course, if being hit on is part of the job, it's ok, too.
So, Gordon approves of forced-interaction pickups only if:
1) the woman is hot,
2) the woman is forced to be friendly and is not allowed to openly "reject" anyone,
3) the man is not forced to be there.
In other words, according to Gordon, if the deck is stacked in your favor so that the woman cannot reject you, but you can reject them, then forced-interaction environments are preferable to any other environment.
That description sounds like someone with precious little real-world experience with women to me, especially if one is only be able to seduce a women when her job requires that she must get hit on by the customers and cannot reject them.
>So, Gordon approves of forced-interaction pickups only if:
>1) the woman is hot,
>2) the woman is forced to be friendly and is not allowed to openly >"reject" anyone,
>3) the man is not forced to be there.
>In other words, according to Gordon, if the deck is stacked in your >favor so that the woman cannot reject you, but you can reject them, >then forced-interaction environments are preferable to any other >environment.
>That description sounds like someone with precious little real-world >experience with women to me, especially if one is only be able to >seduce a women when her job requires that she must get hit on by the >customers and cannot reject them.
This "stacked deck" is not really all that stacked, since she is only required to present this illusion of interest within the confines of the adult fantasy establishment. Only a fool would harbor any illusions that this "forced interaction" (ie The Entertainment) has put him any closer to an actual seduction than before he walked in. This has been repeatedly confimed in my mind through the response (or lack thereof) to the simple question: How many strippers have been plucked and fucked using the "stripper gold" technique?
How many men leave a strip club after a private dance and think "Man that chick was hot for me. I think she really wanted me"? Lots? The validity of what goes on verbally in the "forced-interaction" environment MUST be confirmed with subsequent "voluntary-interaction" environment activity (ie. fucking her), in order to determine whether what happened in the forced-interaction environment was of any importance or legitimacy whatsoever.
bryen...@aol.com (Bryen193) wrote: > James King jlki...@ix.netcom.com: > >So, Gordon approves of forced-interaction pickups only if: > >1) the woman is hot, > >2) the woman is forced to be friendly and is not allowed to openly > >"reject" anyone, > >3) the man is not forced to be there. > >In other words, according to Gordon, if the deck is stacked in your > >favor so that the woman cannot reject you, but you can reject them, > >then forced-interaction environments are preferable to any other > >environment. > >That description sounds like someone with precious little real-world > >experience with women to me, especially if one is only be able to > >seduce a women when her job requires that she must get hit on by the > >customers and cannot reject them.
> This "stacked deck" is not really all that stacked,
Even if she is stacked (sorry, couldn't resist the pun) ...
> since she is only > required to present this illusion of interest within the confines of > the adult fantasy establishment. Only a fool would harbor any > illusions that this "forced interaction" (ie The Entertainment) has > put him any closer to an actual seduction than before he walked in. > This has been repeatedly confimed in my mind through the response (or > lack thereof) to the simple question: How many strippers have been > plucked and fucked using the "stripper gold" technique?
You are correct here. However, Gordon appears to promote this venue for seduction because of the lack of initial rejection.
> How many men leave a strip club after a private dance and think "Man > that chick was hot for me. I think she really wanted me"? Lots?
Quite a few, from my experience as a strip club DJ.
> The validity of what goes on verbally in the "forced-interaction" > environment MUST be confirmed with subsequent "voluntary-interaction" > environment activity (ie. fucking her), in order to determine whether > what happened in the forced-interaction environment was of any > importance or legitimacy whatsoever.
Exactly. If Gordon indeed got laid by a dancer because he refused to share his prawns with her or any other dancer, then that information would be useful. Gordon hasn't made any claims like that, though. He'll say that he "could have gone all the way if he wanted" or other allusions that indicate that he didn't actually achieve the goal that others desire.
Many of Gordon's explanations and rationalizations seem to indicate a lack of actual success, and are just speculation on his part that "success was imminent."
One way he rationalizes events is by changing the definition of success. This was the introduction of the word "pluck" to mean that she accepted your phone number or that she told you her "real" name or that she made a verbal agreement to meet you outside the club -- given how he apparently tried to make people think that he was seeing, dating and fucking the girls, he might as well have called it "vucking" to increase the disingenuity.
Another rationalization was the indication that merely destroying someone else's relationship could be considered a success with women in the realm of seduction.
Another rationalization is having "hot women" send you instant messages online as a sign of success in seduction. Whether these women are honest in their portrayal of themselves is something that can only be determined in an offline meeting. The mere IM means little without any followup.
His CUPID rating system claims to be precise and objective, yet when questioned and cornered on flaws in the system, he resorts to saying that what really counts is the subjective partner rating. However, in the partner rating system, you're rating how you value her and how you perceive her value of you. The former is probably quite accurate, even if subjective, because it is unlikely that you will argue with your rating of someone. However, the value she places on you is critical, and this information cannot be accurately determined without extended contact or observation of the woman, and even then, the value given as her value of him is likely to be colored by the user's bias regarding how he wants her to value him. Any use of the "society" rating to mitigate this coloring would then be colored by the maker's opinions and ratings, unless he can demonstrate that the percentages he offers are based on sound, repeatable scientific study.
Since the author claims to have destroyed the raw data involved in his analysis, all of his claims resulting from that raw data, however plausible, are suspect and cannot be considered to have any credibility whatsoever.
>Many of Gordon's explanations and rationalizations seem to indicate a >lack of actual success, and are just speculation on his part that >"success was imminent."
>One way he rationalizes events is by changing the definition of success.
Hmm. The problem with changing the definition of success when it comes to the strip club method (aside from the whole not having sex with the hottie thing), is that the very nature of the forced-interaction (forced on her part) scenario requires a higher standard of proof than a "voluntary action" scenario, in order to determine whether the seduction technique actually worked.
For example, several years ago there was this smokin hot barista at the coffee shop that I frequent. Her verbal interaction with me was extremely flirtatious, well beyond what one would expect from a customer/clerk interaction, very similar to behavior from other women (in voluntary interaction situations) who turned out to be very attracted to me. When I mentioned her behavior with me to a friend who knew her, the friend told me "Oh, she acts that way with ALL the customers." It turned out that my friend was quite correct, the smokin hot barista was not available, and probably acts that way out of boredom on the job, wanting tips, or some other motivation. In an "off the job" situation, the flirting with me would have never happened. It only happened out of a "forced interaction" scenario, and any thoughts about her being romantically attracted to me were pure fantasy.
In another post Ray said that what we are talking about here is EASY SEX from strippers. Fair enough, but I see it more as "easy interaction", which it certainly is. The proof of success, however, is purely in the sex and nothing else.
In article <20030630174938.23689.00001...@mb-m27.aol.com>,
bryen...@aol.com (Bryen193) wrote: > James King jlki...@ix.netcom.com : > >Many of Gordon's explanations and rationalizations seem to indicate > >a lack of actual success, and are just speculation on his part that > >"success was imminent." > >One way he rationalizes events is by changing the definition of > >success. > Hmm. The problem with changing the definition of success when it > comes to the strip club method (aside from the whole not having sex > with the hottie thing), is that the very nature of the > forced-interaction (forced on her part) scenario requires a higher > standard of proof than a "voluntary action" scenario, in order to > determine whether the seduction technique actually worked.
I agree entirely. How many times did Gordon brag about a "conquest" only to discover intense over-optimism, sometimes so much optimism that he hadn't even met the person, yet he would call her his girlfriend? I can think of two instances off the top of my head.
If one's goal is sex, then anything short of sex is either a step towards sex, or a failure, depending on how one looks at it.
If one's goal is a relationship, then anything short of a relationship is either a step towards a relationship, a step away from the relationship, or an outright failure, depending on how one looks at it and what the long term ramifications are.
> For example, several years ago there was this smokin hot barista at > the coffee shop that I frequent. Her verbal interaction with me was > extremely flirtatious, well beyond what one would expect from a > customer/clerk interaction, very similar to behavior from other women > (in voluntary interaction situations) who turned out to be very > attracted to me. When I mentioned her behavior with me to a friend > who knew her, the friend told me "Oh, she acts that way with ALL the > customers." It turned out that my friend was quite correct, the > smokin hot barista was not available, and probably acts that way out > of boredom on the job, wanting tips, or some other motivation. In an > "off the job" situation, the flirting with me would have never > happened. It only happened out of a "forced interaction" scenario, > and any thoughts about her being romantically attracted to me were > pure fantasy.
Yet I suspect Gordon might have considered it a "pluck" depending on the circumstances. In any case, he wouldn't consider it a forced interaction scenario because both parties aren't required to be at the coffee shop.
Forced interaction situations can only happen (according to Gordon) in a courtroom, as Paul stated, or through working together at the same business on the same shift in the same department in the same office on the same project.
> In another post Ray said that what we are talking about here is EASY > SEX from strippers. Fair enough, but I see it more as "easy > interaction", which it certainly is. The proof of success, however, > is purely in the sex and nothing else.
Exactly. Gordon himself even said that live internet sex would be the only standard of proof that he would accept. I assume he will hold himself to the same standard. Assuming that Yahoo! will allow him the bandwidth to do live video <snicker>.
Maybe he'll do his "Madeline Elster" impersonation.
