STILL ****NO**** pictures of Ray Gordon with a woman?
theVoid
a woman long enough to take a photo.... Shame.
--
theVoid
Ray Gordon
would be in it for me if I produced said pictures is valid.
If I did satisfy your requirement, it's not like people would suddenly bow
down; they'd just find something else to whine about.
Daniel
"Ray Gordon" <r...@cybersheet.com> wrote in message
news:_Bwcc.2520$WX....@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...
what, you mean whine about things like having never seen you give meaningful
"advice"?
James King
<r...@cybersheet.com> wrote:
a HA!
NOW we get to the root of the matter.
Gordon wants people to worship him; to "bow down" to him.
Gordon wants the immunity that comes from being a leader with "divine
rights."
It shows in his every action online.
I suspect it shows in his every action offline.
It appears it's not enough for him just to be liked: he must be adored.
It seems it's not enough for him just to be respected by some: he must
be revered by all.
Gordon missed his calling; he should have become a religious cult
leader. Then he would have received the adoration and worship he
appears to crave.
Not only that, but he seems to believe that he somehow, sometime, will
wield such power as to punish those people who do not adore or worship
him as was ordained.
His greatest fantasy appears to be God and smite those who speak
against him.
The truth is, the production of a photo featuring Gordon with a woman
(even if it's a $10 polaroid with one of the strippers from the local
strip club) would silence many of the questions and requests to produce
one photo of Gordon and a woman.
Gordon won't do it because he hasn't found the "right" person to have
the photo with.
It has to be someone that EVERYONE will find "hot." Surely with his
CUPID system, he can find such a person that 100% of men find
breathtakingly attractive <snicker>. So far, the only two women I've
seen in photos that appear to have had any contact with Gordon (by his
claims) are his stripper "girlfriend" who was cute, but not stunning,
and some claim he got the photo from an online porn gallery), and the
girl in a bikini who acts like she's in a trance (the same one in a
photograph which Gordon claims shows his arm). In my opinion, she was
less attractive than the "girlfriend."
So, if my opinions are correct, Gordon won't be satisfied until he
becomes "more popular than Jesus" (apologies to John Lennon).
Ray Gordon
rewards
> > would be in it for me if I produced said pictures is valid.
> >
> > If I did satisfy your requirement, it's not like people would suddenly
bow
> > down; they'd just find something else to whine about.
>
> a HA!
>
> NOW we get to the root of the matter.
>
> Gordon wants people to worship him; to "bow down" to him.
Jamie again hits the slippery slope. I was being figurative.
The point is it would prove NOTHING, and the second I produced said pics,
you'd see why.
James King
<r...@cybersheet.com> wrote:
> > > Aside from the stupidity of what you point out, the question of
> > > what rewards would be in it for me if I produced said pictures is
> > > valid.
> > > If I did satisfy your requirement, it's not like people would
> > > suddenly bow down; they'd just find something else to whine about.
> > a HA!
> > NOW we get to the root of the matter.
> > Gordon wants people to worship him; to "bow down" to him.
> James again hits the slippery slope. I was being figurative.
> The point is it would prove NOTHING, and the second I produced said
> pics, you'd see why.
It would prove that you're capable of producing a picture of you with a
woman.
It would prove to others that you are capable of being in a close
enough physical proximity to a human being who does not possess Y
chromosomes to have a unretouched photo taken of both of you without a
wide angle lens.
Unless you believe that being seen with a woman is "nothing."
So much for your belief in what you call "pivot" theory.
James King
Ray Gordon
>
> > James again hits the slippery slope. I was being figurative.
>
> > The point is it would prove NOTHING, and the second I produced said
> > pics, you'd see why.
>
> It would prove that you're capable of producing a picture of you with a
> woman.
Which wouldn't prove shit as it relates to seduction.
James King
<r...@cybersheet.com> wrote:
But it would get that nasty question off of your back for good,
wouldn't it?
Obviously, you're either unwilling or incapable of producing such a
picture.
Most people will assume that you're incapable of producing that picture.
Feel free to clear the air at any time, however ...
James King