My Situation with Coworker
Chuckk Hubbard
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.
Later,
Chuckk
User3247
> ...
I didn't even read past the subject line.
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.
Study the materials, practice the theory, and ask your questions in the
moderated forums found there.
Chris
"User3247" <user...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93A8402F05481...@news.teranews.net...
> "Chuckk Hubbard" <chu...@paonline.com> wrote:
>
> > ...
>
> I didn't even read past the subject line.
>
> 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.
Good luck.
LeModernCaveman
>
>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.
James King
lemoder...@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.
James King
Chris
"LeModernCaveman" <lemoder...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030629000417...@mb-m06.aol.com...
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"?
LeModernCaveman
>> 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!
Heero Yuy
They would be if you are a bouncer or a bartender in the club.
LeModernCaveman
>> >> 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!
User3247
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".
Do you understand now, Mr. Moron?
LeModernCaveman
>>
>> 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.
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?
Amusing.
Next!
j...@irt.brt
>>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 lemoder...@aol.com, September 11, 2001, uttered while
thousands of innocent people were burning to death.
Heero Yuy
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.
Next!
Chuckk Hubbard
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.
>
> www.fastseduction.com
I've been reading this. The only thing I saw about coworkers was
http://www.pickupguide.com/classic/cowork1.htm
>
> Study the materials, practice the theory, and ask your questions in the
> moderated forums found there.
Aside from the moderated forums, this is what I've just done.
Thanks for the advice.
-Chuckk
Chuckk Hubbard
news:wzhLa.155584$cm4.3...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "User3247" <user...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns93A8402F05481...@news.teranews.net...
> > "Chuckk Hubbard" <chu...@paonline.com> wrote:
> >
> > > ...
> >
> > I didn't even read past the subject line.
> >
> > 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.
Thanks for the appraisal.
>
> Good luck.
Thank you.
-Chuckk
Chuckk Hubbard
So college classmates are out too?
"Get that pussy out of my face, it didn't require true skills!"
-Chuckk
Paul Robinson
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."
Paul Robinson
> >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.
James King
Paul Robinson <postm...@paul.washington.dc.us> wrote:
> 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.
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.
James King
Bryen193
>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.
"They all want to embrace you; they are all taken in by your frigid elegance,
your postures and poses like frozen roses." - Thomas Ligotti
++++ http://www.angelfire.com/80s/ashenthorn/index.html ++++
James King
brye...@aol.com (Bryen193) wrote:
> James King jlk...@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.
James King
Bryen193
>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.
James King
brye...@aol.com (Bryen193) wrote:
> James King jlk...@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.
James King
HC
>We're talking about a forced interaction between the expletive deleted
>customer and the employee, not between coworkers you censored piece of
>redacted.
Ding ding ding! Its points time!
Two points for you Paul, that was very clever! Made me laugh. :-)
HC
>"LeModernCaveman" <lemoder...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20030629000417...@mb-m06.aol.com...
<snip whining>
>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"?
Ouch again. That's TWO ouches tonight. Ouch ouch.
HC
From: "Chuckk Hubbard" chu...@paonline.com
>"LeModernCaveman" <lemoder...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20030629000417...@mb-m06.aol.com...
>> I actually said that all "forced interaction" was bad because it doesn't
>> reflect true skills.
>"Get that pussy out of my face, it didn't require true skills!"
>
LOL! Thanks, that made me laugh too!
Chuckk Hubbard
news:20030702232403...@mb-m22.aol.com...
Hey, here's a question: Would being in the same cellblock count as forced
interaction? What about being cadets at the same Air Force Academy?
-Chuckk
"Dis girl muss be prackitin ritchcraft!"
-Frank Zappa