From Ray, for the wannabe psychs.....

[A Modern Caveman]

This is what these idiots don't WANT to see, anything that doesn't agree with
their agenda:

http://www.rocamora.org/Gifted.html

Misdiagnosis of the Gifted
by Lynne Azpeitia, M.A. and Mary Rocamora, M.A.

Gifted individuals face many challenges. One of them may be in getting
correctly identified by psychotherapists and others as gifted. ~ ~ ~

Ray Gordon: BACK by popular demand!
Limited time only!

Everything you need to know about women. FREE!
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html

[Tarapia Tapioco]

In article <20030314055550...@mb-cm.aol.com>

And don't forget this one:

"A problem in treating individuals with personality disorders is that
many do not believe they have a problem."

Plus several from:

http://60.1911encyclopedia.org/P/PA/PARANOIA.htm

"A not uncommon form of paranoia combining both ambition and persecution is where the subject
believes that he is a man of unbounded wealth or power, of the rights to which he is,
however, deprived by the machinations of his enemies."

"Paranoia is classified for clinical purposes according to the form of delusion which the
patients exhibit. Thus there are described the Persecutory, the Litigious, the Ambitious and
the Amatory types. It will be observed that these divisions depend upon the prevalence of the
primary emotions of fear or suspicion, pride or vanity and love"

"4. Litigious Paranoia (paranoia querulans) .
-The clinical form of litigious paranoia presents uniform characteristic features which are
recognized in every civilized community. The basic emotion is vanity, but added to that is a
strong element both of acquisitiveness and avarice. Moreover the subjects are, as regards
character, persistent, opinionative and stubborn. When these qualities are superadded to a
mind of the paranoiac type, which as has been pointed out, is more influenced by the passions
or emotions than by ordinary rational considerations, it can readily be appreciated that the
subjects are capable of creating difficulties and anxieties which sooner or later may lead to
their forcible seclusion in the interests of social order.

It is important to observe that the rights such people lay claim to or the wrongs they
complain of may not necessarily be imaginary. But, whether imaginary or real, the statement
of their case is always made to rest upon some foundation of fact, and is moreover presented,
if not with ability, at any rate with forensic skill and plausibility. As the litigants are
persons of one idea, and only capable of~seeing one side of the case-their own-and as they
are actuated by convictions which preclude feelings of delicacy or cliflidence, they
ultimately succeed in obtaining a hearing in a court of law under circumstances which would
have discouraged any normal individual. Once in the law courts their doom is sealed. Neither
the loss of the case nor the payment of heavy expenses have any effect in disheartening the
litigant, who carries his suit from court to court until the methods of legal appeal are
ex1iausted. The suit may be raised again and again on some side issue, or some different
legal action may be initiated. In spite of the alienation of the sympathy of his relations
and the advice of his friends and lawyers the paranoiac continues his futile litigation in
the firm belief that he is only defending himself from fraud or seeking to regain his just
rights. After exhausting his means and perhaps those of his family and finding himself unable
to continue to litigate to the same advantage as formerly, delusions of persecution begin to
establish themselves. He accuses the judges of corruption, the lawyers of being in the pay of
his enemies and imagines the existence of a conspiracy to prevent him from obtaining justice.
One of two things usually happens at this stage. Though well versed in legal procedure he may
one day lose self-control and resort to threats of violence. He is then probably arrested and
may on examination be found insane and committed to an asylum. Another not uncommon result ~s
that finding himself non-suited in a court of law he commits a technical assault upon, it may
be, some high legal functionary, or on some person in a prominent social position, with the
object of securing an opportunity of directing public attention to his grievances. The only
result is, as in the former instance, his medical certification and incarceration.' "

http://www.ray-gordon.com

[Scott Bailey]

amodern...@aol.com (A Modern Caveman) wrote in message news:<20030314055550...@mb-cm.aol.com>...

> This is what these idiots don't WANT to see, anything that doesn't agree with
> their agenda:
>
> http://www.rocamora.org/Gifted.html
>
> Misdiagnosis of the Gifted
> by Lynne Azpeitia, M.A. and Mary Rocamora, M.A.
>

Ray, let's assume for a moment that you are in fact gifted. The
question really is, where to from here? Where in life do you want to
be in five years? Where do you want to be in ten years? You are 36
years old. As a 36 year old myself, I understand what that means. At
36, you are still young enough to build a good life, to develop a new
career, to start a family, you name it. Whatever the "good life" means
to you. Yet, at 36 a lot of time has already slipped by, and there
isn't as much slack left. In other words, times a wastin'. We aren't
getting any younger, that sort of thing.

This brings us to the question of exactly what you are accomplishing
with this ongoing flamewar that is now in what, its fifth or sixth
year? Think about that. What exactly are you accomplishing here?

For the most part, I largely steer clear of the flamewar. The reason
being that there is not much point in arguing when nobody ever
concedes a point, where nobody lends the slightest credence to the
other person's position, and where blatant misprepresentation and
distortion are standard fare. It is clear to me that there is a great
deal of disingenuity going on. It is also clear to me that while there
are some very intelligent posters on this board, there is also a lot
of mediocrity, and a couple of out and out idiots. A couple of people
(I won't name names) I seriously believe may be mentally ill. There is
also the laughable tendency of certain posters to scream in righteous
indignation about things that they themselves do all the time. These
same people accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being a sock
puppet. In their warped worlds, it seems to be "Me puncha you...GOOD.
You puncha me back....BAD!!!!!" It can be truly amazing, and a
fascinating display of human psychology - at its worst. This isn't a
productive situation.

I think Paul Robinson and Insane may be onto something. There is
simply little point to all of this (from my perspective), other than
as Jerry Springer style entertainment. But hey, sometimes Jerry
Springer style bizarreness can be fun...but when it becomes a way of
life, then that is another matter. I try to keep my own Springer
viewing (this newsgroup) to under thirty minutes a week. If I go much
over that, my conscience starts telling me "Scott, wake the fuck up.
Surely there is something better that you can be doing with your
time!"

I realize your situation is different from mine. You have a business,
and other interests that far surpass my own stake in the matter (my
own stake - basically zilch). I realize for you it is not just
watching the proverbial Jerry Springer show. I am not suggesting (as I
fully expect you to point out) that you have no right to "defend your
rights." I'm not suggesting that you have no right to fight against
wrongs, etc.

I'm just asking, sincerely, where you think you will be in five to ten
years...and whether what you are doing with this flamewar and
accompanying legal action is going to help you get there. Paul
Robinson, a poster I have disagreed with often, pointed out that after
some of the things that you have posted, you are going to look bad as
well if all of this is put under the microscope. Sorry Ray, but it's
true. Do you really WANT attention to be drawn to some of the things
that you've written, regardless of the wrongs you believe have been
inflicted upon you? Do you really think that is the road to building a
successful business? A successful life?

Maybe your goal is no longer to have a successful business. Maybe you
have simply decided that vengeance against those who you see as having
wronged you is the only motive that energizes you. But if you would
like to have a different kind of life, maybe financial success, a
beautiful wife, etc., then you need to think about how to get from
here to there.

Again, I'm not suggesting that you don't have "rights", or anything
like that. I'm not suggesting that you turn a blind eye to injustice.
I'm simply asking, where do you want to be in five to ten years, and
how is engaging in this never ending battle going to get you there? If
you choose to answer, substantial specificity would be appreciated.
Just saying that you are going to "fight injustice" in a vague sense
doesn't tell me much.

As a final note, and sort of coming back full circle to the article on
the gifted, if your position is that you are a creative genius...then
why are you in a never ending war with people who may not be creative?
I notice that the people that are really coming up with new stuff of
their own (Ross, for example) don't seem to spend much time on this,
unless they are operating under an alias or something. The sad truth
is that you are spending time and energy, and emotional resources as
well...on a battle that I see as doing little or no good. Shouldn't
you be creating instead? At this time, you have gotten to the point
where you won't even release your own work product (Stripper Gold).
For the record, I believe that you can continue to create information
of value. At 36, it's not too late. And there is no way that a
relative handful of people at ASF can stop you if your future
creations have real value. No way. Ray, these guys are not all
powerful. Really, they aren't.

Also, a piece of unasked for advice: if you decide to get back to full
time creating, then I think you can come up with some interesting
stuff. However, once the time has come for marketing...get a PR man.
PR is just not your strong suit, and I doubt that is going to change.
Just something to consider, but I would be interested as to your goals
for five and ten years down the road, should you choose to provide an
answer.

[Nomen Nescio]

On 3/14/03 8:16 PM, Scott Bailey wrote:
> amodern...@aol.com (A Modern Caveman) wrote in message
> news:<20030314055550...@mb-cm.aol.com>...
>
>>This is what these idiots don't WANT to see, anything that doesn't
>>agree with their agenda:
>>
>>http://www.rocamora.org/Gifted.html
>>
>>Misdiagnosis of the Gifted
>>by Lynne Azpeitia, M.A. and Mary Rocamora, M.A.
>>
>
>
> Ray, let's assume for a moment that you are in fact gifted. The
> question really is, where to from here? Where in life do you want
> to be in five years? Where do you want to be in ten years? You are
> 36 years old. As a 36 year old myself, I understand what that
> means. At 36, you are still young enough to build a good life, to
> develop a new career, to start a family, you name it. Whatever the
> "good life" means to you. Yet, at 36 a lot of time has already
> slipped by, and there isn't as much slack left. In other words,
> times a wastin'. We aren't getting any younger, that sort of thing.

<snip>

Brilliant post.

--
voidSonic <soni...@webmail.co.za>
cape town, sunny south africa

[Paul Robinson]

Scott Bailey wrote:

> amodern...@aol.com (A Modern Caveman) wrote in message news:<20030314055550...@mb-cm.aol.com>...
> > This is what these idiots don't WANT to see, anything that doesn't agree with
> > their agenda:
> >
> > http://www.rocamora.org/Gifted.html
> >
> > Misdiagnosis of the Gifted
> > by Lynne Azpeitia, M.A. and Mary Rocamora, M.A.
> >
>
> Ray, let's assume for a moment that you are in fact gifted.

Oh I have no doubt that if he put his mind to it and really did some serious work in formulating some ideas he would
actually have some important things to say. I have always said that I thought some of his ideas were very good.
The problem is that if he is making some claims he needs to test and verify them, and he needs to admit that some of
his ideas will be wrong, or won't work in some circumstances. He shouldn't knock other people's concepts and ideas
when he has not shown by evidence that his ideas work. That means documented fact, freely available for anyone to
see.

Whenever someone makes a claim of something, they typically publish such claims in a peer reviewed journal where
others in the same field of study can examine the claims, see how they were made, and attempt to reproduce the
results. Or they may publish results of failed experiments in order to let others know what they are trying or
perhaps to solicit input on what other possible ideas they might try to perhaps make the experiment succeed. The
documented reports of others who try the same experiments, and the results they get, then form the scientific
literature for such experiments and show whether the claims are valid or not.

> The question really is, where to from here? Where in life do you want
> to be in five years? Where do you want to be in ten years? You are 36
> years old. As a 36 year old myself, I understand what that means. At
> 36, you are still young enough to build a good life, to develop a new
> career, to start a family, you name it. Whatever the "good life" means
> to you. Yet, at 36 a lot of time has already slipped by, and there
> isn't as much slack left. In other words, times a wastin'. We aren't
> getting any younger, that sort of thing.

I was 35 years old when I went on drugs. It was at that point that I was fortunate I did. I was taking Phen-Fen
for treatment of what I didn't realize I had, what is sometimes called bipolar disease or manic depression. (They
also helped me lose weight but that wasn't the biggest benefit.) I would not be surprised if Ray didn't have it
too. I recognize some of the signs in him.

I came to the realization that I had wasted the first 35 years of my life, more-or-less. Later I would discover
what the real issue was. I never really had a purpose, a goal in my life.

At least one result of having been there is I no longer have the really, really bad depressions I used to have
because I can recognize them and pull myself out. He can do the same but he's going to have to learn to let go.

You have to forgive your enemies. All of them. Especially your worst enemy. The one who knows you, knows all your
weaknesses and how to exploit them. The one who betrays you in your worst moments. The one whom you hate the worst
of all. Once you forgive your worst enemy, you can accept that you can like that person and realize that if you
did, you would feel a whole lot better. It is and will be the hardest thing you will ever do. To go to your worst
enemy, look him (or her) in the face and admit everything. And then be willing to say you hate them. And that you
forgive them for everything. And you will find that seething in hate does not make you feel better, it just drains
your life and makes you miserable.

And all it takes in the end, to forgive your worst enemy, is to stand in the mirror and tell him or her that you're
willing to forgive them. But you have to admit everything and accept them for it anyway. Then you can learn to
love yourself all over again, as you did, probably until you were 8 or 9 when the world started corrupting you.

> This brings us to the question of exactly what you are accomplishing
> with this ongoing flamewar that is now in what, its fifth or sixth
> year? Think about that. What exactly are you accomplishing here?

As the judge in my first criminal trial said when I asked the police officer one of two questions that destroyed the
case against me, "That's a very good point." I think he feeds on attention because he still hates himself. More
than he hates anyone else, or anyone here who allegedly maligned him.

> For the most part, I largely steer clear of the flamewar. The reason
> being that there is not much point in arguing when nobody ever
> concedes a point, where nobody lends the slightest credence to the
> other person's position, and where blatant misprepresentation and
> distortion are standard fare.

That's not true. I will not concede to you that nobody ever concedes a point, and I can't lead any credence to your
argument that nobody leads the slightest credence to the other person's position, and I disagree about blatant
misrepresentation and distortion are standard fare. Just because you beat your wife and tell lies here is no excuse
to be accusing us of cop-killing and child molesting.

> It is clear to me that there is a great deal of disingenuity going on.

You're lying.

> It is also clear to me that while there are some very intelligent posters on this board,
> there is also a lot of mediocrity, and a couple of out and out idiots.

Hey! I resemble that remark! Just because you're so stupid doesn't mean you have to malign the rest of us morons.

> A couple of people (I won't name names) I seriously believe may be mentally ill.

I believe that there is some form of existence after death, simply because I can't believe otherwise. I have often
said that if someone conclusively proved to me that the end of life results in annihilation it would drive me sane.

> There is also the laughable tendency of certain posters to scream in righteous
> indignation about things that they themselves do all the time. These same people
> accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being a sock puppet. In their
> warped worlds,

Be very careful, telling the truth like that is liable to get you on the fast track to being sued.

> it seems to be "Me puncha you...GOOD. You puncha me back....BAD!!!!!"
> It can be truly amazing, and a fascinating display of human psychology - at its
> worst. This isn't a productive situation.

No it isn't. I've heard there are some people involved in psychiatry who lurk on this newsgroup to watch the
fights, categorize the information being spread back and forth, and use it as virtually a laboratory analysis of the
walking wounded, the clinically insane who are still out on the streets. Or something like that.

> I think Paul Robinson and Insane may be onto something. There is
> simply little point to all of this (from my perspective), other than
> as Jerry Springer style entertainment. But hey, sometimes Jerry
> Springer style bizarreness can be fun...but when it becomes a way of
> life, then that is another matter. I try to keep my own Springer
> viewing (this newsgroup) to under thirty minutes a week. If I go much
> over that, my conscience starts telling me "Scott, wake the fuck up.
> Surely there is something better that you can be doing with your time!"

I think the same things. It's fun to watch but I have car payments to make. Especially since mine was repossessed
last night because I can't get enough work to feed the finance company. It's ridiculous how many programming jobs
are out there and all of them are interested in one thing: stealing other company's employees who already have a
secret or top secret clearance because they don't want to pay the $50,000 it costs to have one done if the person
doesn't already have one. I may end up having to move if this keeps up. I had to become a notary public to at
least keep myself in eating money. I may just have to give up trying to go back to programming and take a minimum
wage job at $3.50 an hour or whatever it is now, if they even pay that much. I haven't worked at minimum wage in
twenty years, but it may end up going that way. Everyone is scared. And I've been doing programming for 24 years.
Maybe I'm just overqualified and places think I'll be too expensive. Or perhaps I'm totally worthless.

I tried offering to do programming work for free for Arlington County. No cost at all. Woman from the department
wants to find out if I have certain skills in a couple of technologies used on mainframes. I don't. They don't
have the people around to train me - in other words, I could not learn this at all - they don't have the manuals I
could read from to train myself, and they don't have any open desks where I could work even if they did. I have 24
years of experience. The county says that even if I offer to work for free I'm totally useless.

So I would love to find a way to do something usable with my time but apparently nobody will hire me at any wage at
all. Except as a notary public, and the pay ain't bad, I just don't get enough jobs out of it.

> I realize your situation is different from mine. You have a business,
> and other interests that far surpass my own stake in the matter (my
> own stake - basically zilch). I realize for you it is not just
> watching the proverbial Jerry Springer show.

For him, it's the "Ray Gordon Show." I sometimes suspect that we could take the messages passed around on this
group, revise them a bit, and turn it into a fairly good comedy series. Then again, some of the stuff here would
probably hit too close to home for a lot of people.

> I am not suggesting (as I fully expect you to point out) that you have no right to "defend your rights." I'm not
> suggesting that you have no right to fight against wrongs, etc.

I think I've said the same thing. I also pointed out that just because he thinks that something is manifestly wrong
and needs correcting - "a foul and iniquitous rule that needs to be expunged" as was used in the book "The Mill and
the Floss," that does not necessarily mean it is something that I need to get involved in. It's usually not my
problem and it's not my issue to solve.

> I'm just asking, sincerely, where you think you will be in five to ten
> years...and whether what you are doing with this flamewar and
> accompanying legal action is going to help you get there.

It isn't, but he doesn't seem to want to see that.

> Paul Robinson, a poster I have disagreed with often, pointed out that after
> some of the things that you have posted, you are going to look bad as
> well if all of this is put under the microscope.

Thank you, sir. This is the whole point that he does not seem to realize. We have a system here in which everyone
here is able to post their comments freely. You don't have to be suppressed if I don't like or disagree with what
you say, and I don't have to be suppressed because you disagree with my opinion. We can still respect each other as
human beings who have different opinions even if you might think I don't have all my oars in the water or I think
the same thing about other person(s) here. I mean, I can accept that Ray - or anyone else here - can have a really
stupid opinion that I think is crazy. And I can make my comments about his opinion. And as long as it stays that
way, there should be no problem.

The problem is the use of ad-hominem attacks and personalities. Some of which I have been guilty of. I try
sometimes, and it's hard to stay away from the flamethrower, but if someone doesn't say, "I will fight no more
forever" the flamewars will never end and the personal attacks will never stop.

> Sorry Ray, but it's true. Do you really WANT attention to be drawn to
> some of the things that you've written, regardless of the wrongs you believe
> have been inflicted upon you? Do you really think that is the road to building a
> successful business? A successful life?

Thank you sir, you've hit the nail squarely on the hammer. That's backward and you know what I mean, but I think it
has more flavor to say it that way.

> Maybe your goal is no longer to have a successful business. Maybe you
> have simply decided that vengeance against those who you see as having
> wronged you is the only motive that energizes you. But if you would like
> to have a different kind of life, maybe financial success, a beautiful wife, etc.,
> then you need to think about how to get from here to there.

I tell that to people all the time. Where are you now? Call that point "A". Where do you want to be? Call that
point "B". What do you need to do to get from point A to point B? And once you figure out what the plan is,
implement it and work toward that goal. I have many goals in mind of things that I want to do. I always keep a lot
of different things around that I want to eventually do so that I am never without some goal to work toward.

> Again, I'm not suggesting that you don't have "rights", or anything like
> that. I'm not suggesting that you turn a blind eye to injustice. I'm simply
> asking, where do you want to be in five to ten years, and how is
> engaging in this never ending battle going to get you there?

It isn't but he hasn't realized that. The world is going to go on as it does no matter what he does. I don't see
him as the type to fight any real battle of serious importance, even to himself. One thing I notice is that he
refuses to recognize when he's in over his head. Even I'm smart enough when I'm doing a programming problem to stop
and ask for help if it starts to get too hairy for me.

> If you choose to answer, substantial specificity would be appreciated. Just
> saying that you are going to "fight injustice" in a vague sense doesn't tell me much.

It tells us nothing. There are enough injustices in the world to keep a million people busy full time fighting
them. Anyone remember all the stuff in Billy Joel's "We didn't start the fire"? He didn't even scratch the
surface.

> As a final note, and sort of coming back full circle to the article on
> the gifted, if your position is that you are a creative genius...then
> why are you in a never ending war with people who may not be creative?
> I notice that the people that are really coming up with new stuff of
> their own (Ross, for example) don't seem to spend much time on this,
> unless they are operating under an alias or something. The sad truth
> is that you are spending time and energy, and emotional resources as
> well...on a battle that I see as doing little or no good. Shouldn't
> you be creating instead? At this time, you have gotten to the point
> where you won't even release your own work product (Stripper Gold).
> For the record, I believe that you can continue to create information
> of value. At 36, it's not too late. And there is no way that a
> relative handful of people at ASF can stop you if your future
> creations have real value. No way. Ray, these guys are not all
> powerful. Really, they aren't.

I keep trying to say that too. There is no "conspiracy" to keep him down. He just sees that things aren't working
the way he wants them to, and presumes that means there is something there. It's called expecting zebras when you
hear hoof beats instead of expecting horses.

My brother has written a book. I have written a book. I'm working on my second and part of a third. Neither one
of us can be published because of the tight knit system publishing is operating upon. Publishers won't bother with
unagented submissions, agents do not want to bother with unpublished authors. But I keep at it for the same reason
as every other published author: sooner or later they find an opening. Maybe I'll have an idea and write a short
story or something small and get it as a magazine article. Or I'll do something to get exposure. And then there's
the possibility I'll meet someone who can introduce me to someone who can help me. And I'll have highly polished
material ready that might not need a whole lot of work compared with some of the junk coming over the transom these
days.

And even if none of what I write ever sells, I can say that I wrote what I did because there was a story I wanted
someone to tell so I could read it, and nobody ever had until I did it. And I am a very picky reader; I've
sometimes thrown out material I've written because I did not like it or it didn't work.

> Also, a piece of unasked for advice: if you decide to get back to full time
> creating, then I think you can come up with some interesting stuff. However,
> once the time has come for marketing...get a PR man. PR is just not
> your strong suit, and I doubt that is going to change. Just something to
> consider, but I would be interested as to your goals for five and ten
> years down the road, should you choose to provide an answer.

It reminds me of a piece of advice they tell people who start running companies that when you get big enough, and
you need to start hiring and firing people, to get yourself a Harold Geneen type (the former chairman of ITT)
because most people who are of the executive type are not the type who can effectively fire people or be a real
bastard the way Geneen was known to be. Most people have their strengths and weaknesses. It's knowing where you're
strong and delegating to others the things that have to be done where they're strong in that position and you're
not. It's why most successful entrepreneurs don't do their own taxes, they hire someone who studies that sort of
thing full time to do that.

I used to work for a woman who ran a very successful tax business, she routinely pulled in something like $25,000 a
year (back in 1990) for the three months of tax season. (She would have pulled in more if she would remember to
bill people for the about $20,000 to $40,000 in accounts receivable she carried on a routine basis but never got
around to sending out bills for.) I worked for her for four years putting her records on computer, doing data entry
and writing programs to fix things. It took me three and a half years to bring all her records up on line so that,
for the first time in something like twenty years, she was actually able to get her own taxes done on time. Parable
of the shoemaker's children, as they say.

She was very good at doing her business, she was just not very good at running it and keeping her records in order.
That was what I did.

--
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."

[Odious]

A Modern Caveman wrote:
>
> This is what these idiots don't WANT to see, anything that doesn't agree with
> their agenda:
>
> http://www.rocamora.org/Gifted.html
>
> Misdiagnosis of the Gifted
> by Lynne Azpeitia, M.A. and Mary Rocamora, M.A.
>
> Gifted individuals face many challenges. One of them may be in getting
> correctly identified by psychotherapists and others as gifted. ~ ~ ~
>

Ray, the very narcissism that makes you such an annoying ass, unable to
admit any fault or error, is what prevents you from seeing your own
sickness.

You create this fantasy world of grandiose achievement and skill, and
when reality doesn't match up, your sickness won't allow you to admit you
are wrong and deluding yourself. So you have to create more fantasy
about vast conspiracies to discredit you and make you look foolish. You
have to threaten, blame, and attack anybody who recognizes that your Four
Seasons claims just don't mesh with your McDonalds intellect.

Just look at that simple math riddle you blew today.

You are quite obviously painfully un-gifted in any way. But your ego
can't deal with that, can it Ray? So you make all this shit up about
your amazing skills and amazing success... and when someone sees through
it, you have to threaten them and accuse them of libel.

Ray, you are the only one you're fooling.

[A Modern Caveman]

>Ray, let's assume for a moment that you are in fact gifted. The
>question really is, where to from here?

"Results take care of themselves. Just practice right and play right." Don
Shula

Where in life do you want to
>be in five years? Where do you want to be in ten years? You are 36
>years old. As a 36 year old myself, I understand what that means. At
>36, you are still young enough to build a good life, to develop a new
>career, to start a family, you name it.

To answer this question would be to accept its loaded premise.

>Whatever the "good life" means
>to you. Yet, at 36 a lot of time has already slipped by, and there
>isn't as much slack left. In other words, times a wastin'. We aren't
>getting any younger, that sort of thing.
>
>This brings us to the question of exactly what you are accomplishing
>with this ongoing flamewar that is now in what, its fifth or sixth
>year? Think about that. What exactly are you accomplishing here?

Showing that internet bullies will escalate if you don't back down. The
relevance to free speech should be obvious.

>For the most part, I largely steer clear of the flamewar. The reason
>being that there is not much point in arguing when nobody ever
>concedes a point, where nobody lends the slightest credence to the
>other person's position, and where blatant misprepresentation and
>distortion are standard fare. It is clear to me that there is a great
>deal of disingenuity going on. It is also clear to me that while there
>are some very intelligent posters on this board, there is also a lot
>of mediocrity, and a couple of out and out idiots. A couple of people
>(I won't name names) I seriously believe may be mentally ill.
>There is
>also the laughable tendency of certain posters to scream in righteous
>indignation about things that they themselves do all the time. These
>same people accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being a sock
>puppet. In their warped worlds, it seems to be "Me puncha you...GOOD.
>You puncha me back....BAD!!!!!" It can be truly amazing, and a
>fascinating display of human psychology - at its worst. This isn't a
>productive situation.

Such is life on the electronic frontier.

>I think Paul Robinson and Insane may be onto something. There is
>simply little point to all of this (from my perspective), other than
>as Jerry Springer style entertainment. But hey, sometimes Jerry
>Springer style bizarreness can be fun...but when it becomes a way of
>life, then that is another matter. I try to keep my own Springer
>viewing (this newsgroup) to under thirty minutes a week. If I go much
>over that, my conscience starts telling me "Scott, wake the fuck up.
>Surely there is something better that you can be doing with your
>time!"

Then go do it!

>I realize your situation is different from mine. You have a business,
>and other interests that far surpass my own stake in the matter (my
>own stake - basically zilch). I realize for you it is not just
>watching the proverbial Jerry Springer show. I am not suggesting (as I
>fully expect you to point out) that you have no right to "defend your
>rights." I'm not suggesting that you have no right to fight against
>wrongs, etc.

And I'm not suggesting that you're using negative suggestion, which is an NLP
technique.

>I'm just asking, sincerely,

Is that a change from the past?

>where you think you will be in five to ten
>years...

Probably in the year 2008 or 2013.

>and whether what you are doing with this flamewar and
>accompanying legal action is going to help you get there.

You don't see people threatening me out here anymore, do you? Do you realize
there was a time when I was waking up to death threats on a daily basis?

In fact, many of those threats came from someone who had alt.net back in 1998.
I could show you a bread-crumb trail that leads right back to his identity, and
-- surprise! -- that individual is involved in this crap as well.

>Paul
>Robinson, a poster I have disagreed with often, pointed out that after
>some of the things that you have posted, you are going to look bad as
>well if all of this is put under the microscope.

But people who have threatened me and my family, impersonated my mother while
posting her name and contact information to sex newsgroups, and defamed every
aspect of my business while using threats of continued defamation and
harassment to try to *extort* my silence (and the audience revenue that comes
with it), won't look bad?

Hmm...how about someone claiming to have seen my FBI or NSA files? How about
someone else claiming that they have "government connections" that they can
harm me with? (remember Bishop?).

When's the last time you saw Bishop trashing me again? Now think back to 1999,
when he made his original threats to me. At the time, I said that this was
indicative of his character. People kept dealing with him despite this, then
two years later you saw what happened.

Now how was I not helping people by sharing my opinion of him?

>Sorry Ray, but it's
>true. Do you really WANT attention to be drawn to some of the things
>that you've written, regardless of the wrongs you believe have been
>inflicted upon you?

You could ask that of my critics a lot more than you can ask it of me.

>Do you really think that is the road to building a
>successful business? A successful life?

By whose standards? Yours or mine?

Whatever happened to walking through the world without apology? Funny how when
I DO that, people seem to think it's bad advice to follow.

>Maybe your goal is no longer to have a successful business.

Excuse me? Pretty presumptuous of you, especially since my business generates
money that I don't even have to lift a finger to earn.

Three books I finished over three years ago without touching them at all still
generate advertising revenue for me. You think that's a bad thing?

>Maybe you
>have simply decided that vengeance against those who you see as having
>wronged you is the only motive that energizes you.

Why did Ross sue Don Steele again?

>But if you would
>like to have a different kind of life, maybe financial success, a
>beautiful wife, etc., then you need to think about how to get from
>here to there.

Another loaded statement (the presumption is that I am not making enough money,
or that I couldn't marry a hottie tomorrow if I wanted to).

Do you produce TV sitcoms too? When does the quirky, one-dimensional neighbor
show up?

>Again, I'm not suggesting that you don't have "rights", or anything
>like that. I'm not suggesting that you turn a blind eye to injustice.

And I'm not suggesting that you're using a stupid NLP technique to mean
something other than what you say.

>I'm simply asking, where do you want to be in five to ten years, and
>how is engaging in this never ending battle going to get you there?

In five or ten years I will be in 2008 or 2013.

>If
>you choose to answer, substantial specificity would be appreciated.

To what? Your loaded statements?

>Just saying that you are going to "fight injustice" in a vague sense
>doesn't tell me much.

I fight injustice. Pretty simple: I see it, I fight it.

Is that above your head?

>As a final note, and sort of coming back full circle to the article on
>the gifted, if your position is that you are a creative genius...then
>why are you in a never ending war with people who may not be creative?

Who says I'm at war with them? There's a damn BOT harassing me out here.

>I notice that the people that are really coming up with new stuff of
>their own (Ross, for example)

And I'm not?

I am not Ross.

Do you understand that I own a very diverse publishing company? You know me as
the seduction expert, while *thousands* of other people know me as the guy who
"clobbered Saratoga" (1999 and 2000 I had a $1.19 return for every $1.00 bet,
and about double one's money on best bets).

Others know me as the creator of PowerBase (college basketball handicapping
software), and still others know me as the guy who produces erotic hypnosis.
I'm not dependent on any one specific area of my business, which incorporates
many things beyond seduction.

One thing that is interesting is that in each group I frequent, people who know
nothing about the other aspects of my business take the words of my critics as
some kind of gospel, even though it's obviously just expedient for them to do
this.

Ever see HCapper? Read his posts from RGS sometime if you want to talk about
the microscope.

In alt.sports.gymnastics, would you like to see posts from HACKERS who bragged
about their crimes? You think a court would care about THAT? Those "kids"
were terrorists of their own.

Did you know what was going on in gymnastics? In addition to Dominique Moceanu
being abused (in that case I COULDN'T back down without jeopardizing getting
the story out, and notice how she was almost universally believed despite
having no real proof about her dad, who said she was faking), there was a group
of gymnasts, coaches, and parents who were recruiting kids to tell lies about
me, and exposing them to graphic material in the course of those lies. You
think that would look so good in court?

Then of course there are the threats made against me and my family.

Want quotes of rival businessmen to me calling my mother a prostitute and
making horrible accusations about her behavior? If someone did that to your
mother I bet you'd sue as well if you could.

>don't seem to spend much time on this,
>unless they are operating under an alias or something.

They spend money on heavy marketing and have a large following. Bless them for
that. I have a decent following of my own. My "Q" numbers are very good. The
internet, however, is growing fast, and I've laid the infrastructure for an
e-publishing company.

How many people thought writing operating systems was profitable back in 1975?
Bill Gates was OBSESSED with this. I'm OBSESSED with e-publishing, because it
is low cost, the author has total creative control, and no one but the author
has to make money. The knowledge I have regarding e-publishing is such that I
become profitable for other people to use to market their wares as well.

Hellen sure wasn't complaining about the size of her last royalty payment. She
did have a message to those who had accused her of being fake (me in disguise),
or who threatened to discover her identity, and that's if she has to go public,
she'll do it as a Plaintiff against anyone who called her fake.

Now, put yourself in Hellen's place. You think she likes being defamed like
that? As her publisher, part of my job is to PROTECT her, and that includes in
a court of law if I have to. She does not want her name associated with the
recordings, not because she's ashamed of them, but because she just prefers to
make money anonymously. That is a big lure in my business, a "trade secret"
and the reason I get paid what I do. I am a total privacy shield for my
artists and you can see why that is necessary. That said, she still has
standing to sue those who have libelled her, and why they think it's okay
because she chose to work with me is beyond me.

You claim to know the club scene. If you were a bouncer and had the power to
throw out someone who was causing trouble and breaking the law in your club,
wouldn't you do it? I have a right to work with people without those people
being attacked, and find it very offensive that someone would call defending my
rights or my business unproductive.

>The sad truth
>is that you are spending time and energy, and emotional resources as
>well...on a battle that I see as doing little or no good.

Get glasses.

>Shouldn't
>you be creating instead?

Are you implying that I don't create?

Create what?

I upgraded PowerBase this winter and had a winning record in hoops. I upgraded
my horse race handicapping methods and sell those picks. I produced an erotic
hypnosis recording and it sells. You call that not creating?

I have created plenty of quantity. I'm into quality now, and quality isn't
something you rush. Sports and horse racing offer perpetual opportunity to
sell information, and hypnosis can always be created as well. I can assure you
that anything porn sells a lot better than "advice" anyway.

>At this time, you have gotten to the point
>where you won't even release your own work product (Stripper Gold).

Wrong: I said I wouldn't release it until my Yahoo! group had 100,000 members,
then I'd GIVE it away.

Hint: I may SELL it before that time, but I will keep my word just the same
(with an audience that large I'd get advertising revenue).

If I sell it, however, I have to assume that anyone can disseminate it and then
take credit for it, so the first person to buy it would be buying it for
everyone, and the price would reflect that.

Either that or you have to wait until my group hits 100,000 members. That is
not an unreasonable figure, it is just that the internet is very young and not
drawing big crowds. That will change just as it did with television. In 1980,
who thought that starting a network would be a good thing? Ted Turner did,
with CNN, and look at where that got him.

I also get more and more time to perfect Stripper Gold, and boy is that
research BRUTAL!

>For the record, I believe that you can continue to create information
>of value.

Thanks for acknowledging the past value of my information.

>At 36, it's not too late. And there is no way that a
>relative handful of people at ASF can stop you if your future
>creations have real value.

They haven't "stopped" me, the AUDIENCE has. An audience that refuses to
reward quality, and which refuses to punish those who cross over the line in
the name of "marketing" their products.

"In the end, it's not the action of our enemies that we remember, but the
silence of our friends." -- Some activist

>No way. Ray, these guys are not all
>powerful. Really, they aren't.

If I released Stripper Gold tomorrow, what would happen? Here's what:

1. If I sold it, a few would buy it, including some of my rivals, who would
then steal it.

2. Others who bought it would "discuss it" and it would become "common
knowledge."

3. Someone else would start changing the names of my terms, and frown upon the
use of the names I gave them (though Returning Fox seems to be one that is
still mine -- obviously if you piss women off and they say "don't ever talk to
me again" and you hold your ground, then they come back, you have a new
"theory" that's obvious, but you have to piss women off to uncover it).

4. When I tried to claim credit for Stripper Gold, I would then be accused of
piggybacking "the group" and not coming up with anything original.

5. It would wind up free on my site with an audience of 800 in the Yahoo!
group, which again doesn't generate enough revenue.

I can assure you if I got a six-figure advance, I'd publish it tomorrow. Feel
free to lobby the publishing industry.

Now obviously, if I don't reveal my secrets here, and challenge others to
reveal theirs (they are here to "help" aren't they!?), I run the risk of them
stumbling upon my secrets and publishing them. If someone did that, I would
lose my edge (but would never have had it either). This way, however, we can
see how the group deals with a challenge without the benefit of my work. How
have they done so far?

Let's see, we have one guy saying to start a porn company (not only did I do
that but I actually sell the stuff), and another saying "don't tip" (which is
obvious), still others saying "make friends with the DJ," etc.

But what HAVEN'T they said or figured out? You think strip clubs are a simple
equation? Hardly. Even guys and women who work in them don't really
understand them from a seduction angle, because in theory it "doesn't happen"
even if it does.

So the question remains for the group: HOW DO YOU PLUCK A STRIPPER OUT OF HER
CLUB?

Simple question. Does NLP work? Sometimes. Mystery? A lot of times, but
being Mystery helps a little (he's the only one who seems to have thought about
it theoretically, and anything he's talked about I don't include as "gold"
since he covered it). One story about the "fivesome" had a guy walking in with
a bisexual pivot, which also works.

Is this, however, all there is to it? Or is there a sea of opportunity
underneath those "club attitudes" that hasn't been tapped yet?

When I want to score with a hot chick, I'd much rather attempt to do so at a
strip club than at a regular club. A regular club costs $20 to get in the
door, $5-7 a drink, and the environment is piss poor, plus the risks of
violence are great (and apparently the risk for fire is there too). Who needs
that? A fire at a strip club wouldn't kill everyone as there are usually six
exits anyway.

>Also, a piece of unasked for advice: if you decide to get back to full
>time creating,

How do I pay my bills while I do that again?

>then I think you can come up with some interesting
>stuff. However, once the time has come for marketing...get a PR man.

Not a woman? Tsk....

>PR is just not your strong suit,

Or maybe it is.....

>and I doubt that is going to change.

Maybe it is already good and doesn't need changing.

>Just something to consider, but I would be interested as to your goals
>for five and ten years down the road, should you choose to provide an
>answer.

My goal is to get as far away from loaded language as I possibly can.

Ray Gordon: BACK by popular demand!
Limited time only!

Everything you need to know about women. FREE!

http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html

[Heero Yuy]

"Odious" <Odi...@cox.net> wrote in message news:3E7280AC...@cox.net...

And just look at how he flew off the handle when I said he was the cause of
all of his problems. From everything *I* read from him, it seems to be all
too true.

[Scott Bailey]

Paul Robinson <postm...@paul.washington.dc.us> wrote in message news:<3E722FF2...@paul.washington.dc.us>...

> Scott Bailey wrote:
>
> > amodern...@aol.com (A Modern Caveman) wrote in message news:<20030314055550...@mb-cm.aol.com>...
> > > This is what these idiots don't WANT to see, anything that doesn't agree with
> > > their agenda:
> > >
> > > http://www.rocamora.org/Gifted.html
> > >
> > > Misdiagnosis of the Gifted
> > > by Lynne Azpeitia, M.A. and Mary Rocamora, M.A.
> > >
> >
> > Ray, let's assume for a moment that you are in fact gifted.
>
> Oh I have no doubt that if he put his mind to it and really did some serious work in formulating some ideas he would
> actually have some important things to say. I have always said that I thought some of his ideas were very good.
> The problem is that if he is making some claims he needs to test and verify them, and he needs to admit that some of
> his ideas will be wrong, or won't work in some circumstances. He shouldn't knock other people's concepts and ideas
> when he has not shown by evidence that his ideas work. That means documented fact, freely available for anyone to
> see.
>
> Whenever someone makes a claim of something, they typically publish such claims in a peer reviewed journal where
> others in the same field of study can examine the claims, see how they were made, and attempt to reproduce the
> results. Or they may publish results of failed experiments in order to let others know what they are trying or
> perhaps to solicit input on what other possible ideas they might try to perhaps make the experiment succeed. The
> documented reports of others who try the same experiments, and the results they get, then form the scientific
> literature for such experiments and show whether the claims are valid or not.

True enough. The problem with this material in general (not just
Ray's) is that there is little truly scientific evidence out there.
Are there reliable studies showing the success rates of "Foxhunting"
as compared to "Speed Seduction"? I think not. So it pretty much comes
down to anecdotal evidence...and on this board that pretty much boils
down to accusations of "you never get laid" or "all you get are sluts
and whores." So what we are left with is good old-fashioned common
sense: you just have to look at the material, and see what makes sense
to you. Imperfect, but it's all we got. I also agree that some of
Ray's ideas are sound. In my observations of the real world, a lot of
what Ray expresses in his books is on target.

<snip>

>
> I came to the realization that I had wasted the first 35 years of my life, more-or-less. Later I would discover
> what the real issue was. I never really had a purpose, a goal in my life.
>
> At least one result of having been there is I no longer have the really, really bad depressions I used to have
> because I can recognize them and pull myself out. He can do the same but he's going to have to learn to let go.

Having a substantial purpose in life is critical, I certainly agree.
I've tried to address that in a number of posts, to warn people not to
get too caught up in chasing skirts. It can easily take over your
whole life in the sense of "living for the weekend". Nothing wrong
with looking forward to the weekend, but getting too involved in the
skirt chasing lifestyle is the road to nowhere -if it causes you to
not develop in other areas of life. This becomes VERY apparent by the
time someone hits their thirties. I've had to play catch up in a few
areas because of this.

If a person gets his own life in order, the skirts will be there.
That's where Ray's advice is sound...get your own life in order
(CUPID). Of course, that sort of advice has been around from the time
that Ugha realized he could get more chicks if he had a better cave
and more antelope meat. But Ray does update things and puts it into
the context of modern female behavior and the modern dating situation,
and he should get some credit for that.

>
> You have to forgive your enemies. All of them. Especially your worst enemy. The one who knows you, knows all your
> weaknesses and how to exploit them. The one who betrays you in your worst moments. The one whom you hate the worst
> of all. Once you forgive your worst enemy, you can accept that you can like that person and realize that if you
> did, you would feel a whole lot better. It is and will be the hardest thing you will ever do. To go to your worst
> enemy, look him (or her) in the face and admit everything. And then be willing to say you hate them. And that you
> forgive them for everything. And you will find that seething in hate does not make you feel better, it just drains
> your life and makes you miserable.
>
> And all it takes in the end, to forgive your worst enemy, is to stand in the mirror and tell him or her that you're
> willing to forgive them. But you have to admit everything and accept them for it anyway. Then you can learn to
> love yourself all over again, as you did, probably until you were 8 or 9 when the world started corrupting you.

I've thought about this before. I know there is a lot of truth in what
you say, though I can't claim to have accomplished anything overly
decisive in this area.

But one thing that I have done is this: I've realized I can't change
people. It took me until about 30 or so before I realized that. The
person who doesn't realize this is likely to spend his entire life
smashing his head up against a brick wall. I've banged my head against
quite a few over the years, but I've stopped now. It seems like there
is a lot of that going on here.

Now, if I've determined that someone is an asshole, that doesn't mean
I forgive them. Maybe it would be better if I did...but real
forgiveness is hard. Maybe everyone isn't capable of it, I just don't
know. But a normal person should be able to understand that they can't
change other people (I could give exceptions here, but you know what I
mean), and that it is their own damn fault if they stay in contact
with people that are not suitable for them. In another post, you
quoted Harry Browne. You didn't mention the book, but I assume it was
"How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World". There is plenty in that book
that I disagree with...yet in some ways it changed my life. Ray
seriously needs to give it a read - then read it again. I'm serious
about that. It was reprinted a few years ago, so a copy shouldn't be
that hard to find.

<Snip>

>
> > For the most part, I largely steer clear of the flamewar. The reason
> > being that there is not much point in arguing when nobody ever
> > concedes a point, where nobody lends the slightest credence to the
> > other person's position, and where blatant misprepresentation and
> > distortion are standard fare.
>
> That's not true. I will not concede to you that nobody ever concedes a point, and I can't lead any credence to your
> argument that nobody leads the slightest credence to the other person's position, and I disagree about blatant
> misrepresentation and distortion are standard fare. Just because you beat your wife and tell lies here is no excuse
> to be accusing us of cop-killing and child molesting.

lol...yep, that pretty much makes the point.

<Snip>

>
> > There is also the laughable tendency of certain posters to scream in righteous
> > indignation about things that they themselves do all the time. These same people
> > accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being a sock puppet. In their
> > warped worlds,
>
> Be very careful, telling the truth like that is liable to get you on the fast track to being sued.
>
> > it seems to be "Me puncha you...GOOD. You puncha me back....BAD!!!!!"
> > It can be truly amazing, and a fascinating display of human psychology - at its
> > worst. This isn't a productive situation.
>
> No it isn't. I've heard there are some people involved in psychiatry who lurk on this newsgroup to watch the
> fights, categorize the information being spread back and forth, and use it as virtually a laboratory analysis of the
> walking wounded, the clinically insane who are still out on the streets. Or something like that.

lol Whether that is true or not, I have no idea. But it wouldn't
surprise me one bit if it was.

>
> > I think Paul Robinson and Insane may be onto something. There is
> > simply little point to all of this (from my perspective), other than
> > as Jerry Springer style entertainment. But hey, sometimes Jerry
> > Springer style bizarreness can be fun...but when it becomes a way of
> > life, then that is another matter. I try to keep my own Springer
> > viewing (this newsgroup) to under thirty minutes a week. If I go much
> > over that, my conscience starts telling me "Scott, wake the fuck up.
> > Surely there is something better that you can be doing with your time!"
>
> I think the same things. It's fun to watch but I have car payments to make. Especially since mine was repossessed
> last night because I can't get enough work to feed the finance company. It's ridiculous how many programming jobs
> are out there and all of them are interested in one thing: stealing other company's employees who already have a
> secret or top secret clearance because they don't want to pay the $50,000 it costs to have one done if the person
> doesn't already have one. I may end up having to move if this keeps up. I had to become a notary public to at
> least keep myself in eating money. I may just have to give up trying to go back to programming and take a minimum
> wage job at $3.50 an hour or whatever it is now, if they even pay that much. I haven't worked at minimum wage in
> twenty years, but it may end up going that way. Everyone is scared. And I've been doing programming for 24 years.
> Maybe I'm just overqualified and places think I'll be too expensive. Or perhaps I'm totally worthless.

I doubt that you are "worthless". But, and this is completely off
topic, just how bad is the computer job market in the D.C. area now?
Have salaries gone down significantly? Or are there just more
unemployed programmers, with the ones still at work making good money?
I've been out of touch with my one "techie" friend in D.C. for some
time now, so I don't know how the situation really is.

>
> I tried offering to do programming work for free for Arlington County. No cost at all. Woman from the department
> wants to find out if I have certain skills in a couple of technologies used on mainframes. I don't. They don't
> have the people around to train me - in other words, I could not learn this at all - they don't have the manuals I
> could read from to train myself, and they don't have any open desks where I could work even if they did. I have 24
> years of experience. The county says that even if I offer to work for free I'm totally useless.
>
> So I would love to find a way to do something usable with my time but apparently nobody will hire me at any wage at
> all. Except as a notary public, and the pay ain't bad, I just don't get enough jobs out of it.

Again, completely off topic, but how do you get ANY jobs out of it?
The typical bank has a notary (or two) on staff, and most business
offices of any size seem to have an employee around who is a notary.
So what is your niche to get work? Don't worry, I won't be competing
with you for jobs in the D.C. area. lol.

>
> > I realize your situation is different from mine. You have a business,
> > and other interests that far surpass my own stake in the matter (my
> > own stake - basically zilch). I realize for you it is not just
> > watching the proverbial Jerry Springer show.
>
> For him, it's the "Ray Gordon Show." I sometimes suspect that we could take the messages passed around on this
> group, revise them a bit, and turn it into a fairly good comedy series. Then again, some of the stuff here would
> probably hit too close to home for a lot of people.
>
> > I am not suggesting (as I fully expect you to point out) that you have no right to "defend your rights." I'm not
> > suggesting that you have no right to fight against wrongs, etc.
>
> I think I've said the same thing. I also pointed out that just because he thinks that something is manifestly wrong
> and needs correcting - "a foul and iniquitous rule that needs to be expunged" as was used in the book "The Mill and
> the Floss," that does not necessarily mean it is something that I need to get involved in. It's usually not my
> problem and it's not my issue to solve.

Ray will jump on you as being indifferent to "wrongs" and injustice,
thus claiming the moral high ground for himself. He may well have been
wronged...I don't know for sure one way or the other, and in any event
that's not the point that I'm addressing.

My point is that Ray has involved himself in a dysfunctional
situation. Who started it years ago is something of a moot point at
this juncture. The truth is that nobody can solve Ray's problems but
Ray, just as nobody can solve Paul's problems but Paul, and nobody can
solve Scott's problems but Scott. I'm all for helping somebody out if
I can, but most of the time we are the source of our own problems,
just as we are also the primary solution to those problems. Honestly,
the only thing I can think of that I could do to help Ray would be to
send him a copy of the Browne book. It's not even a matter of being
unwilling to help, it's just that we all have a responsibility to
remove ourselves from dysfunctional situations. Nobody can do that for
us.

>
> > I'm just asking, sincerely, where you think you will be in five to ten
> > years...and whether what you are doing with this flamewar and
> > accompanying legal action is going to help you get there.
>
> It isn't, but he doesn't seem to want to see that.
>
> > Paul Robinson, a poster I have disagreed with often, pointed out that after
> > some of the things that you have posted, you are going to look bad as
> > well if all of this is put under the microscope.
>
> Thank you, sir. This is the whole point that he does not seem to realize. We have a system here in which everyone
> here is able to post their comments freely. You don't have to be suppressed if I don't like or disagree with what
> you say, and I don't have to be suppressed because you disagree with my opinion. We can still respect each other as
> human beings who have different opinions even if you might think I don't have all my oars in the water or I think
> the same thing about other person(s) here. I mean, I can accept that Ray - or anyone else here - can have a really
> stupid opinion that I think is crazy. And I can make my comments about his opinion. And as long as it stays that
> way, there should be no problem.
>
> The problem is the use of ad-hominem attacks and personalities. Some of which I have been guilty of. I try
> sometimes, and it's hard to stay away from the flamethrower, but if someone doesn't say, "I will fight no more
> forever" the flamewars will never end and the personal attacks will never stop.

Truthfully, I don't have a problem with the occasional flamewar. But a
flamewar that goes on for years on end? A flamewar that leads to legal
action? A flamewar that involves offline harassment (as some have
claimed)? We can still call it a flamewar as a matter of convenience,
but really we are talking a difference of degree such as to be a
difference in kind. Are people going to be sixty years old and still
fighting this? Hasn't this flamewar gone on about as long as World War
II? Maybe longer?

Of course, the bizarre nature of the situation is what makes it so
fascinating to observe, and occasionally participate in. It's sort of
like a car wreck...you almost can't help but look.

>
> > Sorry Ray, but it's true. Do you really WANT attention to be drawn to
> > some of the things that you've written, regardless of the wrongs you believe
> > have been inflicted upon you? Do you really think that is the road to building a
> > successful business? A successful life?
>
> Thank you sir, you've hit the nail squarely on the hammer. That's backward and you know what I mean, but I think it
> has more flavor to say it that way.
>
> > Maybe your goal is no longer to have a successful business. Maybe you
> > have simply decided that vengeance against those who you see as having
> > wronged you is the only motive that energizes you. But if you would like
> > to have a different kind of life, maybe financial success, a beautiful wife, etc.,
> > then you need to think about how to get from here to there.
>
> I tell that to people all the time. Where are you now? Call that point "A". Where do you want to be? Call that
> point "B". What do you need to do to get from point A to point B? And once you figure out what the plan is,
> implement it and work toward that goal. I have many goals in mind of things that I want to do. I always keep a lot
> of different things around that I want to eventually do so that I am never without some goal to work toward.
>
> > Again, I'm not suggesting that you don't have "rights", or anything like
> > that. I'm not suggesting that you turn a blind eye to injustice. I'm simply
> > asking, where do you want to be in five to ten years, and how is
> > engaging in this never ending battle going to get you there?
>
> It isn't but he hasn't realized that. The world is going to go on as it does no matter what he does.

Ray will accuse you of "presentism" for that remark. However, you are
completely correct, and presentism doesn't have anything to do with
it. Again, we have a responsibility to remove ourselves from
dysfunctional situations and put our time to good use.

Even if there is a conspiracy (which really only takes more than one
person acting in concert), how the hell are some posters on ASF, even
if acting in concert, going to succeed in keeping real talent down? In
other words, I can much more readily accept the concept of a
conspiracy EXISTING than I can of the conspiracy actually WORKING.
After all, people have a natural tendency to conspire...from the time
in second grade when Nancy and Betty secretly agreed to make fun of
Sue the next time they saw her. Can that conspiracy hurt Sue's
feelings? Sure. The conspiracy might work well enough that Sue doesn't
get invited to some birthday party or something like that. But in the
long run, if Sue has the "right stuff", Nancy and Betty's petty
conspiring isn't going to hold Sue down. If Sue doesn't have the right
stuff, then that will show as well. I realize I'm oversimplifying big
time, but I think that pretty much sums up the situation here. Cream
rises to the top...usually. The tragedy is that many people do not
reach their potential, largely because they choose to focus on stupid,
conterproductive things. But it was THEIR CHOICE, nobody else's.

I think especially when a guy hits his thirties, a simple truth should
start clicking: he is where he is as a consequence of prior decisions
- both good and bad. Sometimes this is hard to see when you are really
young, but as time goes by it should become more and more obvious.
Actions have consequences...period. Only by accepting that the lion
share of responsibility for our current situaion rests primarily on
our own shoulders can we begin to make better decisions from that
point on. My life changed dramatically, and for the better, when I
began to understand this. This doesn't mean that I haven't been
wronged, and it doesn't mean that all of life is peaches and cream. It
simply means that I have to take responsibility for my own life, and
not spend much time blameing others.

We are not medieval surfs, tied from birth to a certain patch of land
and a certain lord, with a certain occupation determined before we
were even a gleam in Daddy's eye. There is nobody on this planet that
you absolutely HAVE to deal with, and precious little that you
absolutely HAVE to do. It's your choice....so choose wisely. No matter
what wrongs are inflicted upon you, the basic question remains "At
this point, what is the best thing that I can do to make life
better?". If a guy gets paralyzed after losing a run in with a Mack
truck...the question still stands. If your wife sleeps with your best
friend...the question still stands. If you lose your job and go broke,
well, you get the idea.

He just sees that things aren't working
> the way he wants them to, and presumes that means there is something there. It's called expecting zebras when you
> hear hoof beats instead of expecting horses.

It's also called not taking responsibility.

If Ray is as bright as he says he is, he has a responsibility to use
that intelligence wisely. My own opinion is that Ray is a bright guy,
and that he could accomplish quite a bit if he could get over tilting
at windmills. Again, I'm not saying that he should ignore his "rights"
and give in to "presentism", but picking stupid battles that
accomplish nothing will get you nowhere. Paradoxically, picking stupid
battles that CAN'T be won only reinforces the presentism that Ray so
despises.

In order to change something, one needs to have a meaningful goal, and
a goal that is amenable to change. When your idea of change goes so
against human nature and reality as to be ridiculous, you get a basket
case of a society (like the Soviet Union). When your idea of change is
so far from the real life problems and issues of normal people, you
get freak sideshows like the Hari Krishnas annoying people in
airports. When you want to make a change that is based on reality, on
human nature, and concerns something of real concern to real life
people, spectacular things can happen. Witness what the Founding
Fathers accomplished. But Ray seems to want to focus on things that
are not amenable to change, and seems to want to pick battles that
ultimately can't go anywhere.

In a recent post, Ray mentions that he lost credit for a year of high
school due to some change in administration. He doesn't
elaborate...but I'd be curious as to what the conflict was. I mean,
it's friggin' high school. You just do your time and get the fuck out.
When I was in high school, the "administration" was not even on my
radar...who cared?

But you always get that one kid who has got to butt heads with the
administrator...not realizing that the principal is simply doing his
job, collecting his salary, and living his life normally. For the
administrator, it's just another day at the office. He's seen a
thousand punks, and he'll see a thousand more before he retires. Just
part of his job.

Meanwhile, our hypothetical "rebel without a cause" is simply flushing
his own educational career down the toilet (along with many career
options)...and accomplishes NOTHING in the process. Do these high
school rebels without a cause go on in their adult lives to influence
real change in society, the real successes that have taken place?
Nope. Mostly they are learning to say "Want to super-size that?".
Historically, the real agents of change, the people that have really
made things happen, choose their battles wisely. Ray doesn't do this.
Many of us have made the same mistake, or worse. For instance, I could
really kick myself for some of the idiotic decisions that I made in
the past. But the difference is that at age 36, I've tried to learn
from them. Ray won't even acknowledge error on his part, much less
learn from the school of hard knocks. At 36, it's still not too late,
but time waits for no man.

Yet the truth of it is that if Ray got busy creating and spent less
time fighting stupid battles, he might come up with some really
interesting material. Ironically, maybe the material could be valuable
enough to effect the changes that he claims to champion.
Unfortunately, it seems he would rather continue to butt heads with
the proverbial high school principal.

[A Modern Caveman]

>> > Ray, let's assume for a moment that you are in fact gifted.

Okay, why not?

Moment's up!

>> Oh I have no doubt that if he put his mind to it and really did some
>serious work in formulating some ideas he would
>> actually have some important things to say.

"Important" is an absolute term now?

Tell me, how much do you know about how to make basketball power ratings again?

Tell me how you handicap a horse race, while you are at it.

Then show me your chess rating.

>> Whenever someone makes a claim of something, they typically publish such
>claims in a peer reviewed journal where
>> others in the same field of study can examine the claims, see how they were
>made, and attempt to reproduce the
>> results.

Odd that those academes used USENET itself to accomplish this process before we
invaded its space. We already do this, but the question here is why you need
to have it sanctioned by a university and pay so much for the privilege.

Where's the proof that formal education is superior to informal education for
these fields? Music and art don't require college degrees either. Seduction
can be measured by sex. In fact, formal studies often cloak things the
subjects want hidden.

The
>> documented reports of others who try the same experiments, and the results
>they get, then form the scientific
>> literature for such experiments and show whether the claims are valid or
>not.
>
>True enough. The problem with this material in general (not just
>Ray's) is that there is little truly scientific evidence out there.

Darwin's work, which mine is based on in large part, is very scientific.

>Are there reliable studies showing the success rates of "Foxhunting"
>as compared to "Speed Seduction"?

Define "success?" The methods also have overlap and would be difficult to
compare.

The one time I tried to use NLP seduction (based on stuff I found in the old
speedsed.zip file if anyone has that), a woman I was totally incompatible with
was totally into me. Of course, I was also 6'2", in top shape, and dressed in
a $300 suit.

This was at a "singles business function."

>I think not. So it pretty much comes
>down to anecdotal evidence...and on this board that pretty much boils
>down to accusations of "you never get laid" or "all you get are sluts
>and whores."

Please explain to me how a woman who goes to a club or a bar and goes home with
a guy she just met is NOT a slut.

>So what we are left with is good old-fashioned common
>sense: you just have to look at the material, and see what makes sense
>to you. Imperfect, but it's all we got. I also agree that some of
>Ray's ideas are sound.
>In my observations of the real world, a lot of
>what Ray expresses in his books is on target.

And that should justify people PAYING for it. Unfortunately, the publishing
industry is far from a direct merit system.

Look at how much people pay for the high-end stuff here. My stuff is FREE,
with no obligation, not even someone's contact info.

>> I came to the realization that I had wasted the first 35 years of my life,
>more-or-less. Later I would discover
>> what the real issue was. I never really had a purpose, a goal in my life.

That's you.

>Having a substantial purpose in life is critical, I certainly agree.
>I've tried to address that in a number of posts, to warn people not to
>get too caught up in chasing skirts.

I prefer to stick to what works or doesn't, and why. I'm not out to tell
people how to live beyond my political platform.

>It can easily take over your
>whole life in the sense of "living for the weekend".

Worked for Tony Minero. His boss paid him on MONDAY. Ouch!

>Nothing wrong
>with looking forward to the weekend, but getting too involved in the
>skirt chasing lifestyle is the road to nowhere -if it causes you to
>not develop in other areas of life.

They said this about Bobby Fischer, that he was too one-dimensional.

Sour grapes from those who wished they could play like him.

>This becomes VERY apparent by the
>time someone hits their thirties. I've had to play catch up in a few
>areas because of this.

Hey, chase those skirts when you're young. Chase them when you're old too.

>If a person gets his own life in order, the skirts will be there.
>That's where Ray's advice is sound...get your own life in order
>(CUPID).

CUPID is about what women respond to, and in what degree, from whom.

What to do about CUPID is up to the user. Those who want personal advice from
me can pay for it.

>Of course, that sort of advice has been around from the time
>that Ugha realized he could get more chicks if he had a better cave
>and more antelope meat. But Ray does update things and puts it into
>the context of modern female behavior and the modern dating situation,
>and he should get some credit for that.

Considering that this was the exact purpose of Foxhunting, I'd say so. Did
Ugha rely on the Returning Fox and use pivots too?

Please explain to me who, before me, ever RELIED on a woman who swore she'd
never speak to you again RETURNING.

You know how POWERFUL it is to ask a woman out knowing if she REJECTS you that
you're more likely to get sex from her with less effort than if she doesn't?

Goodbye fear of rejection.

Speaking of which, I have a two-time returning fox who's about to get to "three
and done" land with me.

One and done and she came back; two and done and she didn't believe it, and
waited two months; I'm debating whether three and done is called for.

The rule for a Returning Fox is to get what you want upon her return, and send
her packing as many times as you have to before she gets the memo.

>> You have to forgive your enemies. All of them. Especially your worst
>enemy. The one who knows you, knows all your
>> weaknesses and how to exploit them.

Weaknesses can be corrected.

>The one who betrays you in your worst
>moments. The one whom you hate the worst
>> of all. Once you forgive your worst enemy, you can accept that you can
>like that person and realize that if you
>> did, you would feel a whole lot better.

And not feel the need to sue?

<snicker>

>>It is and will be the hardest
>thing you will ever do. To go to your worst
>> enemy, look him (or her) in the face and admit everything. And then be
>willing to say you hate them. And that you
>> forgive them for everything. And you will find that seething in hate does
>not make you feel better, it just drains
>> your life and makes you miserable.

Actually, paralegals are trained to totally detach from their lawsuits. It's
just paperwork, really.

Even "scandalous" stuff that comes out in court is just a refined version of a
USENET pissing contest, with the public record serving Google's function.

>for it anyway. Then you can learn to
>> love yourself all over again, as you did, probably until you were 8 or 9
>when the world started corrupting you.
>
>I've thought about this before. I know there is a lot of truth in what
>you say, though I can't claim to have accomplished anything overly
>decisive in this area.

For people who aren't using NLP, your speech sure is similar to it.

>But one thing that I have done is this: I've realized I can't change
>people.

And if YOU can't, no one else can, right?

Enjoy your hubris.

>It took me until about 30 or so before I realized that. The
>person who doesn't realize this is likely to spend his entire life
>smashing his head up against a brick wall.

Did Martin Luther King change anyone?

>I've banged my head against
>quite a few over the years, but I've stopped now. It seems like there
>is a lot of that going on here.
>
>Now, if I've determined that someone is an asshole, that doesn't mean
>I forgive them. Maybe it would be better if I did...but real
>forgiveness is hard.

Is "asshole" an objective term now? Absolute?

For someone to hate on those grounds, they are acting as if their personal
opinion gives them a license against the other person.

>Maybe everyone isn't capable of it, I just don't
>know. But a normal person should be able to understand that they can't
>change other people (I could give exceptions here, but you know what I
>mean), and that it is their own damn fault if they stay in contact
>with people that are not suitable for them.

USENET is not "contact." It is an open forum. Get that clear.

>In another post, you
>quoted Harry Browne. You didn't mention the book, but I assume it was
>"How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World". There is plenty in that book
>that I disagree with...yet in some ways it changed my life. Ray
>seriously needs to give it a read - then read it again.

Is that before or after I take everyone's advice not to listen to other people?

>I'm serious
>about that.

Is that a change from the norm?

>It was reprinted a few years ago, so a copy shouldn't be
>that hard to find.

I write books more than I read them. I tend to read magazines and websites and
do these fascinating Google searches.

>> > it seems to be "Me puncha you...GOOD. You puncha me back....BAD!!!!!"
>> > It can be truly amazing, and a fascinating display of human psychology -
>at its
>> > worst. This isn't a productive situation.
>>
>> No it isn't. I've heard there are some people involved in psychiatry who
>lurk on this newsgroup to watch the
>> fights, categorize the information being spread back and forth, and use it
>as virtually a laboratory analysis of the
>> walking wounded, the clinically insane who are still out on the streets.

Are you saying that academic researchers are basing their observations of "real
life" and human behavior on what they see on USENET??

Wouldn't that make them idiots? If not, it would make me a genius and more
relevant than people are willing to admit.

>Or something like that.

Something like that.

>> I think the same things. It's fun to watch but I have car payments to
>make.

I can surf and work!

>>Especially since mine was repossessed
>> last night because I can't get enough work to feed the finance company.

Shocking!!

>It's ridiculous how many programming jobs
>> are out there and all of them are interested in one thing: stealing other
>company's employees who already have a
>> secret or top secret clearance because they don't want to pay the $50,000
>it costs to have one done if the person
>> doesn't already have one. I may end up having to move if this keeps up. I
>had to become a notary public to at
>> least keep myself in eating money. I may just have to give up trying to go
>back to programming and take a minimum
>> wage job at $3.50 an hour or whatever it is now, if they even pay that
>much. I haven't worked at minimum wage in
>> twenty years, but it may end up going that way.

And you're putting ME down?

I make $15-20 an hour when I freelance from home.

>>Everyone is scared. And
>I've been doing programming for 24 years.
>> Maybe I'm just overqualified and places think I'll be too expensive. Or
>perhaps I'm totally worthless.
>
>I doubt that you are "worthless". But, and this is completely off
>topic, just how bad is the computer job market in the D.C. area now?
>Have salaries gone down significantly? Or are there just more
>unemployed programmers, with the ones still at work making good money?
> I've been out of touch with my one "techie" friend in D.C. for some
>time now, so I don't know how the situation really is.

I'm not a techie and I make money online....

>> I tried offering to do programming work for free for Arlington County. No
>cost at all. Woman from the department
>> wants to find out if I have certain skills in a couple of technologies used
>on mainframes. I don't. They don't
>> have the people around to train me - in other words, I could not learn this
>at all - they don't have the manuals I
>> could read from to train myself, and they don't have any open desks where I
>could work even if they did. I have 24
>> years of experience.

And people are advising ME on how to live?

Okay.....

>>The county says that even if I offer to work for free
>I'm totally useless.
>>
>> So I would love to find a way to do something usable with my time but
>apparently nobody will hire me at any wage at
>> all. Except as a notary public, and the pay ain't bad, I just don't get
>enough jobs out of it.

How about process serving?

>Again, completely off topic, but how do you get ANY jobs out of it?
>The typical bank has a notary (or two) on staff, and most business
>offices of any size seem to have an employee around who is a notary.
>So what is your niche to get work? Don't worry, I won't be competing
>with you for jobs in the D.C. area. lol.

Someone might be. No need to reveal a secret.

Actually, most law firms use notaries who aren't with their firms (conflicts).

I'm sure accounting firms and other finance companies also have to do this.

>> I think I've said the same thing. I also pointed out that just because he
>thinks that something is manifestly wrong
>> and needs correcting - "a foul and iniquitous rule that needs to be
>expunged" as was used in the book "The Mill and
>> the Floss," that does not necessarily mean it is something that I need to
>get involved in. It's usually not my
>> problem and it's not my issue to solve.

That's your choice, and not respecting another's choice is my choice. That
doesn't explain away what I go through out here, however.

>Ray will jump on you as being indifferent to "wrongs" and injustice,
>thus claiming the moral high ground for himself. He may well have been
>wronged...I don't know for sure one way or the other, and in any event
>that's not the point that I'm addressing.

And until you address that point you're pretty much persona non grata to me. I
can exchange ideas with you but that's about it. I generally don't solicit
friendships. Those who solicit them from me have to do so on my terms. I am
quite content when alone. That's what LONER means.

>My point is that Ray has involved himself in a dysfunctional
>situation.

The alternative is letting bullies take over the internet and suppress the free
speech of anyone who doesn't have my strength to combat it.

You call that positive?

>Who started it years ago is something of a moot point at
>this juncture.

Hardly. They still quote it as if it were yesterday, and as if I weren't going
to bat for Dominique Moceanu when the world was ignoring her being abused,
including the gymnastics world, which KNEW.

>The truth is that nobody can solve Ray's problems but
>Ray, just as nobody can solve Paul's problems but Paul, and nobody can
>solve Scott's problems but Scott. I'm all for helping somebody out if
>I can, but most of the time we are the source of our own problems,

You mean the way the whistleblowers who get fired bring the problems on
themselves? Or do you mean the way the investors who ignored the
whistleblowers being fired bring THEIR problems on themselves?

>just as we are also the primary solution to those problems.

And when we solve them, the same rules have to apply as when we had them. If
others stand on the sidelines in bad times, they must also do so during the
good.

>Honestly,
>the only thing I can think of that I could do to help Ray would be to
>send him a copy of the Browne book.

That's you thinking you'd be helping, and it's a reflection of YOUR beliefs.
Of course, the real HELP I get is from my legal advisor and expert witness team
(yes, I have those too as people here will see).

>It's not even a matter of being
>unwilling to help, it's just that we all have a responsibility to
>remove ourselves from dysfunctional situations.

And then welcome you with open arms when we're done as if you were helping all
along? You are ignoring a LOT of what is going on here.

>Nobody can do that for
>us.

And I can't help anyone, who needs anything, anywhere, at any time, no matter
what it is, for whom, etc.

Do you let others dictate what constitutes "help" for you? All I hear is
someone screaming about how "helpful" they are.

I'll stick to my lawyer's help.

>> > I'm just asking, sincerely, where you think you will be in five to ten
>> > years...and whether what you are doing with this flamewar and
>> > accompanying legal action is going to help you get there.
>>
>> It isn't, but he doesn't seem to want to see that.

I have warned people what would trigger a lawsuit against them. I am not some
weak idiot who has to take this crap.

I am VERY familiar with the legal system, not from the internet, but from the
insides of law offices. I make cases happen by doing the groundwork for the
attorneys who sign their names.

In a court of law I can explain the remarks I find questionable; to post them
here would be to give them light and then get blamed for highighting it.

Anyone who thinks it's fun and games to try to defame me or do anything to my
rights is going to have to be prepared to defend themselves in a court of law.

Otherwise, they need another target.

As for you, Mr. Bailey, since you are so together, and so "helpful," how about
we scrutinize your life the way mine has been scrutinized.

Your smug attitude appears designed to either provoke me or dupe me. You have
accomplished neither. Your next move is to either escalate or back down.

The group is watching.

[A.Melon]

Everything you need to know about A Modern Caveman. FREE!
http://www.ray-gordon.com/ (now over 19,000 hits)

In an effort to inform the many people on Usenet who have been offended, provoked, harassed
or otherwise puzzled by the individual calling himself "Ray Gordon", the above website was
created to detail some of his behaviors, opinions, mental illness, and his tendency to
proclaim himself an expert on pretty much everything. The site is NOT affiliated with Gordon
Parker and he has made numerous threats of legal action against it.

New visitors to alt.seduction.fast are welcomed and directed to the main website
http://www.fastseduction.com
Most seduction discussion has been relocated to the forums on this website, as
harassment and bad behavior is prevented there.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

For information on Paranoid Personality Disorder please visit

http://www.toad.net/~arcturus/dd/paranoid.htm

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In article <20030314215852...@mb-bj.aol.com>

Then go do it!

And I'm not?

I am not Ross.

Get glasses.

Create what?

Not a woman? Tsk....

Or maybe it is.....

http://www.fastseduction.com/

[Scott Bailey]

amodern...@aol.com (A Modern Caveman) wrote in message news:<20030314215852...@mb-bj.aol.com>...

> >Ray, let's assume for a moment that you are in fact gifted. The
> >question really is, where to from here?
>
> "Results take care of themselves. Just practice right and play right." Don
> Shula

Decent quote, but it would seem that you don't want to give a straight
answer.

>
>
> Where in life do you want to
> >be in five years? Where do you want to be in ten years? You are 36
> >years old. As a 36 year old myself, I understand what that means. At
> >36, you are still young enough to build a good life, to develop a new
> >career, to start a family, you name it.
>
> To answer this question would be to accept its loaded premise.

I mention a couple of things that are commonly associated with most
people's idea of the "good life". I then qualify this by saying
"whatever the good life means to you." There is nothing loaded about
my question. What is so loaded about asking, in essence, "Where do you
want to be in ten years and how is this flamewar helping you get
there?" How is that loaded? Have you given any thought to this? At 36,
you certainly should have.

>
>
> >Whatever the "good life" means
> >to you. Yet, at 36 a lot of time has already slipped by, and there
> >isn't as much slack left. In other words, times a wastin'. We aren't
> >getting any younger, that sort of thing.
> >
> >This brings us to the question of exactly what you are accomplishing
> >with this ongoing flamewar that is now in what, its fifth or sixth
> >year? Think about that. What exactly are you accomplishing here?
>
> Showing that internet bullies will escalate if you don't back down. The
> relevance to free speech should be obvious.

The question is about where you want to be in five to ten years, and
how this flamewar fits in to your getting there. Ray, that's the
issue. "Free speech", and any other issue is, well, a separate issue.

>
> >For the most part, I largely steer clear of the flamewar. The reason
> >being that there is not much point in arguing when nobody ever
> >concedes a point, where nobody lends the slightest credence to the
> >other person's position, and where blatant misprepresentation and
> >distortion are standard fare. It is clear to me that there is a great
> >deal of disingenuity going on. It is also clear to me that while there
> >are some very intelligent posters on this board, there is also a lot
> >of mediocrity, and a couple of out and out idiots. A couple of people
> >(I won't name names) I seriously believe may be mentally ill.
> >There is
> >also the laughable tendency of certain posters to scream in righteous
> >indignation about things that they themselves do all the time. These
> >same people accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being a sock
> >puppet. In their warped worlds, it seems to be "Me puncha you...GOOD.
> >You puncha me back....BAD!!!!!" It can be truly amazing, and a
> >fascinating display of human psychology - at its worst. This isn't a
> >productive situation.
>
> Such is life on the electronic frontier.

Certainly it is life in ASF.

>
>
> >I think Paul Robinson and Insane may be onto something. There is
> >simply little point to all of this (from my perspective), other than
> >as Jerry Springer style entertainment. But hey, sometimes Jerry
> >Springer style bizarreness can be fun...but when it becomes a way of
> >life, then that is another matter. I try to keep my own Springer
> >viewing (this newsgroup) to under thirty minutes a week. If I go much
> >over that, my conscience starts telling me "Scott, wake the fuck up.
> >Surely there is something better that you can be doing with your
> >time!"
>
> Then go do it!

Guess what, Ray? I do!!!

>
>
> >I realize your situation is different from mine. You have a business,
> >and other interests that far surpass my own stake in the matter (my
> >own stake - basically zilch). I realize for you it is not just
> >watching the proverbial Jerry Springer show. I am not suggesting (as I
> >fully expect you to point out) that you have no right to "defend your
> >rights." I'm not suggesting that you have no right to fight against
> >wrongs, etc.
>
> And I'm not suggesting that you're using negative suggestion, which is an NLP
> technique.

I've never studied NLP, it is just my style of writing. Can you
actually accept that I might have meant exactly what I wrote...namely
that I was not suggesting that you had no right to "defend your
rights"? I was vainly trying, in a pre-emptive manner, to get you to
think about and address the issue of my post instead of going off to
the four corners about various causes, etc. Obviously, I can't keep
you on topic.

>
> >I'm just asking, sincerely,
>
> Is that a change from the past?

I was trying to emphasize that it was not a rhetorical question. It
was a genuine, and I think legitimate question. Obviously, you aren't
going to answer it.

>
>
> >where you think you will be in five to ten
> >years...
>
> Probably in the year 2008 or 2013.

It is fascinating to me how, after all of the private information that
you have put out there, that you refuse to answer a question of this
nature. This should be a softball question for you, Ray. Is it because
you are so caught up in a never ending flamewar that you simply
haven't thought about your future?

>
> >and whether what you are doing with this flamewar and
> >accompanying legal action is going to help you get there.
>
> You don't see people threatening me out here anymore, do you? Do you realize
> there was a time when I was waking up to death threats on a daily basis?

No, I didn't realize that. But even if you think that legal action has
yielded some benefits to you, how does the flamewar make your life
better? How does your participation in a dysfunctional situation make
your life better? How does blaming others make your life better?

>
> In fact, many of those threats came from someone who had alt.net back in 1998.
> I could show you a bread-crumb trail that leads right back to his identity, and
> -- surprise! -- that individual is involved in this crap as well.

Even if that's true, that doesn't answer the question - where do you
want to be in ten years, and how is further participation in a
flamewar that has gone on as long as World War II making your life
better? (O.K., I'll admit that's a little loaded. But it is still a
legitimate question that you should be able to answer).

>
>
> >Paul
> >Robinson, a poster I have disagreed with often, pointed out that after
> >some of the things that you have posted, you are going to look bad as
> >well if all of this is put under the microscope.
>
> But people who have threatened me and my family, impersonated my mother while
> posting her name and contact information to sex newsgroups, and defamed every
> aspect of my business while using threats of continued defamation and
> harassment to try to *extort* my silence (and the audience revenue that comes
> with it), won't look bad?

The topic of the post was YOU, not them. You posted an article on the
misunderstood genius, which along with other posts that you have made
clearly implied that you belong in that category. I accepted that as a
premise, and simply tried to point out that you are wasting away with
crap like this. I realize you won't believe this, but I would like for
you to do well for yourself. It is my opinion that you are making a
big mistake in how you are conducting matters, but that is another
reason why I asked the question about ten years out. The first reason
was to get you to think about the issue; the second was that maybe I
would hear an answer that made sense. I still haven't heard that
answer.

>
> Hmm...how about someone claiming to have seen my FBI or NSA files? How about
> someone else claiming that they have "government connections" that they can
> harm me with? (remember Bishop?).
>
> When's the last time you saw Bishop trashing me again? Now think back to 1999,
> when he made his original threats to me. At the time, I said that this was
> indicative of his character. People kept dealing with him despite this, then
> two years later you saw what happened.
>
> Now how was I not helping people by sharing my opinion of him?

Look, I'll say the same thing that I say to your opponents: if you
have a legally valid claim, and it seems worth the hassle, then go for
it. Tell it to the judge. Just as your opponents want to tell people
horror stories about you, I don't really need to hear horror stories
about them. Either you have a legally valid claim or you do not. Same
goes for them. If someone has broken a criminal law, then the State
will determine whether there can be a successful prosecution.

As for warnings, you are certainly free to give them out. Again, my
question was a benign one...where do you want to be, and how do you
plan to get there? I thought there was a chance that you have gotten
so caught up in all this senseless crap that you had lost sight of
that. Now, I'm even more convinced. But again, at 36 it is still not
too late. But spend a few more years living like this, and it just
might be.

>
>
> >Sorry Ray, but it's
> >true. Do you really WANT attention to be drawn to some of the things
> >that you've written, regardless of the wrongs you believe have been
> >inflicted upon you?
>
> You could ask that of my critics a lot more than you can ask it of me.

The point is, assuming that you want a successful business, is this
the way to go about it? Fighting a never ending flamewar that
accomplishes nothing? Blaming others when only you can make your life
better? But in order to make your life the way you want it, you have
to set goals and take the necessary actions to get there. I was simply
asking if you have done this.

>
> >Do you really think that is the road to building a
> >successful business? A successful life?
>
> By whose standards? Yours or mine?

Your standards. I have made it clear, expressly and implied, that I
was interested in learning about the good life as YOU define it. To
pretend otherwise is disingenuous to say the least. Again, after all
of the private information that you have voluntary placed out there,
it amazes me that you won't give a decent answer to a softball
question like this. It leads me to believe that you truly have a
"trench warfare" mentality, where the big picture loses its meaning.
But then, it was my suspicion of this that lead me to write my
original post in the first place.

>
> Whatever happened to walking through the world without apology? Funny how when
> I DO that, people seem to think it's bad advice to follow.

The question is where do you want to be in ten years, and how is this
flamewar going to get you there? That's all Ray. Just a simple
question.

>
>
> >Maybe your goal is no longer to have a successful business.
>
> Excuse me? Pretty presumptuous of you, especially since my business generates
> money that I don't even have to lift a finger to earn.

I presumed nothing. I offered that as a possible alternative. But
frankly, even if I had presumed, you have given plenty of reasons for
me doing so. You have volunteered information repeatedly that you live
at home with your mother, that you aren't exactly rolling in loot, and
that you were having financial difficulties in terms of your lawsuit
(even though you were handling it yourself). Now, I have no problem
with someone in their thirties (or even older) living at home if they
are starting a business, going to graduate school, whatever. I'm not
criticizing you for any of those things.

However, and here I WILL impose MY standards: someone who has a
"successful business" should be able to afford to do things which you
have had difficulty doing. My definition of a successful business (and
I think most people's definition) would include not running into
financial difficulty in proceeding with a pro se lawsuit of the scale
and scope of yours. Is that really such an unfair presumption on my
part? How do you plead poverty while at the same time claiming a
successful business?

In any event, my purpose was not to attack you or put you down, just
to explore a possibility. But it comes down to this: either you are
satisfied with your life as it is, or you are not. If you are
satisfied, then presumably you have nothing to complain about. If you
aren't satisfied, then presumably you need to give some real thought
on how to improve matters. It seems as if you don't want to do that,
but would rather trudge through mud.

>
> Three books I finished over three years ago without touching them at all still
> generate advertising revenue for me. You think that's a bad thing?

No, I think it's a good thing. I have also complimented you on those
books. Who's being presumptuous?

>
> >Maybe you
> >have simply decided that vengeance against those who you see as having
> >wronged you is the only motive that energizes you.
>
> Why did Ross sue Don Steele again?

You put your life on the table. My question had nothing to do with
Ross' life or Steele's life, just your life.

>
>
> >But if you would
> >like to have a different kind of life, maybe financial success, a
> >beautiful wife, etc., then you need to think about how to get from
> >here to there.
>
> Another loaded statement (the presumption is that I am not making enough money,
> or that I couldn't marry a hottie tomorrow if I wanted to).

See above. This is not loaded, it is a simple and fair question. Your
own posts have indicated that you are not happy with certain elements
of your life. It is my opinion that at age 36 it is "get moving" time.
That is just my opinion, it is not the sermon on the mount. I
therefore asked you a fair question, which should have been soft
pitch. Again, you don't want to go there. But it is my opinion that
you really need to go there.

>
> Do you produce TV sitcoms too? When does the quirky, one-dimensional neighbor
> show up?

lol. That was pretty good, albeit revealing a complete lack of
understanding of my post. I'm not going to get sidetracked but so
much: where in ten, and how does the flamewar and blaming others get
you there? (moderately loaded, but fair).

>
>
> >Again, I'm not suggesting that you don't have "rights", or anything
> >like that. I'm not suggesting that you turn a blind eye to injustice.
>
> And I'm not suggesting that you're using a stupid NLP technique to mean
> something other than what you say.

Back to my first post in this thread where I state that any
disagreement leads to this sort of thing. If I disagree with one of
your opponents, then "I am Ray". If I disagree with you, I must be
using NLP. Again, I've never studied NLP. And there was no hidden
meaning there, just a failed attempt to keep you off of a political
rant and get you focused on your life in ten years.

>
> >I'm simply asking, where do you want to be in five to ten years, and
> >how is engaging in this never ending battle going to get you there?
>
> In five or ten years I will be in 2008 or 2013.

Amazing. Why are you so afraid of tackling this, given the nature and
scope of the personal information you have released?

>
>
> >If
> >you choose to answer, substantial specificity would be appreciated.
>
> To what? Your loaded statements?

Ray, give me a break. The basic question is not loaded. The fact that
you are determined not to tackle it tells me that you can't see the
forest for the trees, and it was my suspicion of that which led me to
write my post. I hope, for your sake, that you will consider some of
these issues.

>
> >Just saying that you are going to "fight injustice" in a vague sense
> >doesn't tell me much.
>
> I fight injustice. Pretty simple: I see it, I fight it.
>
> Is that above your head?

Yeah Ray. Way over my head.

>
>
> >As a final note, and sort of coming back full circle to the article on
> >the gifted, if your position is that you are a creative genius...then
> >why are you in a never ending war with people who may not be creative?
>
> Who says I'm at war with them? There's a damn BOT harassing me out here.

I know it wasn't meant to be, but that struck me as extremely funny.
Sorry. I'm back. But that is purely a symptom of continuing to engage
in a flamewar that has gone on longer than most real wars. I have
asked you to explain where you want to be, and how this is helping you
get there. So far, you have totally refused to even consider your
future at 46. You have made a claim on the legal action that it has
reduced harassment. You have utterly failed to address how the
flamewar component will make Ray Gordon better off at age 46. You have
failed to see that only you can make things better for you, and that
there is no percentage in blaming others (except, admittedly, if a
judge agrees with you in a court of law - but not on usenet).

>
> >I notice that the people that are really coming up with new stuff of
> >their own (Ross, for example)
>
> And I'm not?

The line speaks for itself. Ross does not appear to engage in
flamewars nearly as much as you do.

>
> I am not Ross.

Never said you were.

>
> Do you understand that I own a very diverse publishing company? You know me as
> the seduction expert, while *thousands* of other people know me as the guy who
> "clobbered Saratoga" (1999 and 2000 I had a $1.19 return for every $1.00 bet,
> and about double one's money on best bets).
>
> Others know me as the creator of PowerBase (college basketball handicapping
> software), and still others know me as the guy who produces erotic hypnosis.
> I'm not dependent on any one specific area of my business, which incorporates
> many things beyond seduction.

Seriously, all of that is cool. But again, this does raise some
contradictions...as in how do you have these kick ass businesses and
yet struggle financially with pro se litigation? But hey, if you are
happy with life, that is awesome. However, both the substance of your
posts, as well as the tenor, suggest otherwise.

>
> One thing that is interesting is that in each group I frequent, people who know
> nothing about the other aspects of my business take the words of my critics as
> some kind of gospel, even though it's obviously just expedient for them to do
> this.
>
> Ever see HCapper? Read his posts from RGS sometime if you want to talk about
> the microscope.
>
> In alt.sports.gymnastics, would you like to see posts from HACKERS who bragged
> about their crimes? You think a court would care about THAT? Those "kids"
> were terrorists of their own.
>
> Did you know what was going on in gymnastics? In addition to Dominique Moceanu
> being abused (in that case I COULDN'T back down without jeopardizing getting
> the story out, and notice how she was almost universally believed despite
> having no real proof about her dad, who said she was faking), there was a group
> of gymnasts, coaches, and parents who were recruiting kids to tell lies about
> me, and exposing them to graphic material in the course of those lies. You
> think that would look so good in court?
>
> Then of course there are the threats made against me and my family.
>
> Want quotes of rival businessmen to me calling my mother a prostitute and
> making horrible accusations about her behavior? If someone did that to your
> mother I bet you'd sue as well if you could.

Fine. If you think suing is the way to go, then sue. Have your day in
court, and then that's that. But it appears that you let this stuff
consume your entire life, and still come back for more. I was pointing
out that at age 36 you still are, at least relatively speaking, a
young man. But keep this stuff up, and where will you be a 46? An
embittered middle aged guy, living at home with mom, making angry
posts on usenet? Or a cool guy - however you define cool- with a good
life - however you define the good life. The choice is yours.

>
>
> >don't seem to spend much time on this,
> >unless they are operating under an alias or something.
>
> They spend money on heavy marketing and have a large following. Bless them for
> that. I have a decent following of my own. My "Q" numbers are very good. The
> internet, however, is growing fast, and I've laid the infrastructure for an
> e-publishing company.

Now we're getting at least somewhere. There is an infrastructure in
play. Seriously, that's cool. How sure a horse is this?

>
> How many people thought writing operating systems was profitable back in 1975?
> Bill Gates was OBSESSED with this. I'm OBSESSED with e-publishing, because it
> is low cost, the author has total creative control, and no one but the author
> has to make money. The knowledge I have regarding e-publishing is such that I
> become profitable for other people to use to market their wares as well.

Well, seriously, I'm glad that you have some other pots on the fire.
Best of luck in those ventures, I hope you do well.

>
> Hellen sure wasn't complaining about the size of her last royalty payment. She
> did have a message to those who had accused her of being fake (me in disguise),
> or who threatened to discover her identity, and that's if she has to go public,
> she'll do it as a Plaintiff against anyone who called her fake.
>
> Now, put yourself in Hellen's place. You think she likes being defamed like
> that? As her publisher, part of my job is to PROTECT her, and that includes in
> a court of law if I have to. She does not want her name associated with the
> recordings, not because she's ashamed of them, but because she just prefers to
> make money anonymously. That is a big lure in my business, a "trade secret"
> and the reason I get paid what I do. I am a total privacy shield for my
> artists and you can see why that is necessary. That said, she still has
> standing to sue those who have libelled her, and why they think it's okay
> because she chose to work with me is beyond me.

I'm unaware of the situation you are describing.

>
> You claim to know the club scene. If you were a bouncer and had the power to
> throw out someone who was causing trouble and breaking the law in your club,
> wouldn't you do it? I have a right to work with people without those people
> being attacked, and find it very offensive that someone would call defending my
> rights or my business unproductive.

In a vain effort to pre-empt this line of reasoning, I continued to
stress that you have the right to defend yourself. The issue at hand
is not directly about that, but rather where you will be at age 46.

Whether you are offended or not doesn't change reality. If you sue and
lose, then it was unproductive. If someone counter-sues and wins, then
it was unproductive. If your business is not successful enough to
allow you to fund a pro se litigation action without being hindered
due to financial difficulties, then it might be called unproductive.

But all of that is really beside the point. As I've said before, if
you have a legally valid claim and wish to pursue it, you'll get your
day in court. Then it's for the judge to decide.

That still doesn't explain the participation in a senseless flamewar.
Think about this: babies that were born when this started are now
probably in the first grade, maybe second. Are you going to see them
through college?

The substance of your posts often deals with blaming others. Forget
the lawsuit for a moment - how is rolling around in the muck going to
make your life better?

>
>
> >The sad truth
> >is that you are spending time and energy, and emotional resources as
> >well...on a battle that I see as doing little or no good.
>
> Get glasses.

Don't need them. The personal information that you have provided
indicates that your current life situation is less than stellar. This
flamewar has seen you go from a young man to a rapidly approaching
middle aged guy. Where is the pot of gold at the end of this
particular rainbow? That's all I was asking, and you still don't want
to answer.

>
> >Shouldn't
> >you be creating instead?
>
> Are you implying that I don't create?

I'm implying that you have a mentality to blame others, a mentality
that you frequently express in your posts. I'm implying that a person
who creates real value cannot be stopped by a handful of posters on
ASF, and that the only person that really can stop him is.....drum
roll....himself. But show me a guy who spends a lot of time blaming
others, and I'll show you a guy who isn't going very far.

>
> Create what?
>
> I upgraded PowerBase this winter and had a winning record in hoops. I upgraded
> my horse race handicapping methods and sell those picks. I produced an erotic
> hypnosis recording and it sells. You call that not creating?

I didn't call it that at all. Again though, you are caught in an
awkward situation of pleading poverty and victimization on the one
hand, and then playing the "look at what I got" on the other.

>
> I have created plenty of quantity. I'm into quality now, and quality isn't
> something you rush. Sports and horse racing offer perpetual opportunity to
> sell information, and hypnosis can always be created as well. I can assure you
> that anything porn sells a lot better than "advice" anyway.
>
>
> >At this time, you have gotten to the point
> >where you won't even release your own work product (Stripper Gold).
>
> Wrong: I said I wouldn't release it until my Yahoo! group had 100,000 members,
> then I'd GIVE it away.
>
> Hint: I may SELL it before that time, but I will keep my word just the same
> (with an audience that large I'd get advertising revenue).
>
> If I sell it, however, I have to assume that anyone can disseminate it and then
> take credit for it, so the first person to buy it would be buying it for
> everyone, and the price would reflect that.

When you establish conditions precedent to release that are unlikely
to materialize, then that is pretty much the same thing as not
releasing it.

>
> Either that or you have to wait until my group hits 100,000 members. That is
> not an unreasonable figure, it is just that the internet is very young and not
> drawing big crowds. That will change just as it did with television. In 1980,
> who thought that starting a network would be a good thing? Ted Turner did,
> with CNN, and look at where that got him.
>
> I also get more and more time to perfect Stripper Gold, and boy is that
> research BRUTAL!

It would appear that by the time you release it, the research is
likely to be antiquated. I mean, how much would someone pay now for
information on strip clubs in 1985?

>
> >For the record, I believe that you can continue to create information
> >of value.
>
> Thanks for acknowledging the past value of my information.

I have done so frequently in the past, and have the singes to prove
it.

>
>
> >At 36, it's not too late. And there is no way that a
> >relative handful of people at ASF can stop you if your future
> >creations have real value.
>
> They haven't "stopped" me, the AUDIENCE has. An audience that refuses to
> reward quality, and which refuses to punish those who cross over the line in
> the name of "marketing" their products.

Well, that is highly subjective to say the least. But in any event, I
don't think you have done yourself any favors by rolling around in the
muck with these flamewars. That's going to tend to scare the audience
off.

>
> "In the end, it's not the action of our enemies that we remember, but the
> silence of our friends." -- Some activist

I'm one of the few here that has spoken on your behalf, on multiple
occasions no less. But I call it like I see it, and in my view you are
in serious denial on some most important issues.

>
>
>
> >No way. Ray, these guys are not all
> >powerful. Really, they aren't.
>
> If I released Stripper Gold tomorrow, what would happen? Here's what:
>
> 1. If I sold it, a few would buy it, including some of my rivals, who would
> then steal it.
>
> 2. Others who bought it would "discuss it" and it would become "common
> knowledge."
>
> 3. Someone else would start changing the names of my terms, and frown upon the
> use of the names I gave them (though Returning Fox seems to be one that is
> still mine -- obviously if you piss women off and they say "don't ever talk to
> me again" and you hold your ground, then they come back, you have a new
> "theory" that's obvious, but you have to piss women off to uncover it).
>
> 4. When I tried to claim credit for Stripper Gold, I would then be accused of
> piggybacking "the group" and not coming up with anything original.
>
> 5. It would wind up free on my site with an audience of 800 in the Yahoo!
> group, which again doesn't generate enough revenue.

Well, people sell information all the time. Maybe you could learn
something from the tons of people who in fact successfully sell
information without running into these problems? Maybe what you
describe above would happen, maybe not. However, at this point it
looks like your work product will gather dust on the shelf, becoming
less and less relevant with each passing day.

Well, again, it's your call. The fundamental question remains: where
do you want to be in ten years, and how does engaging in a
never-ending flamewar get you there?

>
>
> >Also, a piece of unasked for advice: if you decide to get back to full
> >time creating,
>
> How do I pay my bills while I do that again?

You listed a ton of busineses...don't they pay the bills? If they
don't, you need to seriously thing about ten years down the road.

>
> >then I think you can come up with some interesting
> >stuff. However, once the time has come for marketing...get a PR man.
>
> Not a woman? Tsk....

When I typed that, the thought crossed my mind that you would mention
the gender issue. Thought I would throw a sop out there.

>
> >PR is just not your strong suit,
>
> Or maybe it is.....

No Ray, it really isn't.

>
> >and I doubt that is going to change.
>
> Maybe it is already good and doesn't need changing.

Ray, really, it isn't.

>
> >Just something to consider, but I would be interested as to your goals
> >for five and ten years down the road, should you choose to provide an
> >answer.
>
> My goal is to get as far away from loaded language as I possibly can.

Again, how is that loaded? Not only is it a legitimate question, it
should have been a slam dunk. Your aversion to even deal with it tells
me a lot. Again, I hope that you do well in your business ventures,
but I encourage you to consider some of the questions that I've
raised. I just can't imagine that you want to be in your current boat
at 46. And you are right, that is being presumptuous, but your own
posts provide the presumptions. And I'm not being condescending here
either...I sure as hell am counting on serious improvements in my own
life by age 46.

[A.Melon]

Everything you need to know about A Modern Caveman. FREE!
http://www.ray-gordon.com/ (now over 19,000 hits)

In an effort to inform the many people on Usenet who have been offended, provoked, harassed
or otherwise puzzled by the individual calling himself "Ray Gordon", the above website was
created to detail some of his behaviors, opinions, mental illness, and his tendency to
proclaim himself an expert on pretty much everything. The site is NOT affiliated with Gordon
Parker and he has made numerous threats of legal action against it.

New visitors to alt.seduction.fast are welcomed and directed to the main website
http://www.fastseduction.com
Most seduction discussion has been relocated to the forums on this website, as
harassment and bad behavior is prevented there.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

For information on Paranoid Personality Disorder please visit

http://www.toad.net/~arcturus/dd/paranoid.htm

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In article <20030315002901...@mb-cm.aol.com>

Okay, why not?

Moment's up!

That's you.

Goodbye fear of rejection.

Weaknesses can be corrected.

<snicker>

Enjoy your hubris.

> >Or something like that.

Something like that.

Shocking!!

Okay.....

How about process serving?

You call that positive?

The group is watching.

http://www.fastseduction.com/

[Paul Robinson]

A Modern Caveman wrote:

> >Ray, let's assume for a moment that you are in fact gifted. The
> >question really is, where to from here?
>
> "Results take care of themselves. Just practice right and play right." Don
> Shula

Nothing happens by itself. It takes work and effort and a lot of it.

> Where in life do you want to
> >be in five years? Where do you want to be in ten years? You are 36
> >years old. As a 36 year old myself, I understand what that means. At
> >36, you are still young enough to build a good life, to develop a new
> >career, to start a family, you name it.
>
> To answer this question would be to accept its loaded premise.

This is what most people want in life. If you don't, then maybe you need to think
about what you do want, and see if what you are doing goes in that direction. I
suspect that it does not.

> >Whatever the "good life" means
> >to you. Yet, at 36 a lot of time has already slipped by, and there
> >isn't as much slack left. In other words, times a wastin'. We aren't
> >getting any younger, that sort of thing.
> >
> >This brings us to the question of exactly what you are accomplishing
> >with this ongoing flamewar that is now in what, its fifth or sixth
> >year? Think about that. What exactly are you accomplishing here?
>
> Showing that internet bullies will escalate if you don't back down.

Look who's talking.

> The relevance to free speech should be obvious.

Absolutely right.

> >For the most part, I largely steer clear of the flamewar. The reason
> >being that there is not much point in arguing when nobody ever
> >concedes a point, where nobody lends the slightest credence to the
> >other person's position, and where blatant misprepresentation and
> >distortion are standard fare. It is clear to me that there is a great
> >deal of disingenuity going on. It is also clear to me that while there
> >are some very intelligent posters on this board, there is also a lot
> >of mediocrity, and a couple of out and out idiots. A couple of people
> >(I won't name names) I seriously believe may be mentally ill.
> >There is
> >also the laughable tendency of certain posters to scream in righteous
> >indignation about things that they themselves do all the time. These
> >same people accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being a sock
> >puppet. In their warped worlds, it seems to be "Me puncha you...GOOD.
> >You puncha me back....BAD!!!!!" It can be truly amazing, and a
> >fascinating display of human psychology - at its worst. This isn't a
> >productive situation.
>
> Such is life on the electronic frontier.

You ought to know, pardoner. Check your guns at the door before entering the
saloon.

> >I think Paul Robinson and Insane may be onto something. There is
> >simply little point to all of this (from my perspective), other than
> >as Jerry Springer style entertainment. But hey, sometimes Jerry
> >Springer style bizarreness can be fun...but when it becomes a way of
> >life, then that is another matter. I try to keep my own Springer
> >viewing (this newsgroup) to under thirty minutes a week. If I go much
> >over that, my conscience starts telling me "Scott, wake the fuck up.
> >Surely there is something better that you can be doing with your
> >time!"
>
> Then go do it!
>
> >I realize your situation is different from mine. You have a business,
> >and other interests that far surpass my own stake in the matter (my
> >own stake - basically zilch). I realize for you it is not just
> >watching the proverbial Jerry Springer show. I am not suggesting (as I
> >fully expect you to point out) that you have no right to "defend your
> >rights." I'm not suggesting that you have no right to fight against
> >wrongs, etc.
>
> And I'm not suggesting that you're using negative suggestion, which is an NLP
> technique.
>
> >I'm just asking, sincerely,
>
> Is that a change from the past?
>
> >where you think you will be in five to ten
> >years...
>
> Probably in the year 2008 or 2013.

Okay, I'll give you two points for that, it was a case of obviousness and had just
the right touch of silliness.

> >and whether what you are doing with this flamewar and
> >accompanying legal action is going to help you get there.
>
> You don't see people threatening me out here anymore, do you? Do you realize
> there was a time when I was waking up to death threats on a daily basis?

Does anyone really believe this? Oh wait, he's demanded to be killed more than
once, so maybe it is true.

> >Paul Robinson, a poster I have disagreed with often, pointed out that after
> >some of the things that you have posted, you are going to look bad as
> >well if all of this is put under the microscope.
>
> But people who have threatened me and my family, impersonated my mother while
> posting her name and contact information to sex newsgroups, and defamed every
> aspect of my business while using threats of continued defamation and
> harassment to try to *extort* my silence (and the audience revenue that comes
> with it), won't look bad?

Hey, buddy, I'm not the one who has threatened to sue you. My count so far says
you've threatened me with litigation at least three and possibly four times. And I
suspect that your own comments are going to be so offensive that there is no way
you can spin them into what they are not. Every time you open your mouth you
provide yet a new nail for your coffin. You can file all the lawsuits you want,
you do not have a prayer of winning because you can't suppress all the evidence of
your own misconduct.

I really believe that not one thing that may have happened to you isn't in some
manner or method directly related to your own actions and comments toward others.
I do not believe that a single thing anyone has ever said or acted upon had
anything to do with any commercial nexus, but I think it has all been as a result
of some misbegotten action on your part.

What I see here from the other people who post here is generally a bunch of people
who are apparently sick and tired of you more than anything else, while you
continue to act like an arrogant prick, to put it bluntly. It's not some secret
cabal, or some collection of conspirators out to bankrupt you, it's you, yourself,
being a bully and an obnoxious snot that is causing your problems. It's like you
must like being hated, since you do so much to encourage it.

> >Do you really think that is the road to building a
> >successful business? A successful life?
>
> By whose standards? Yours or mine?

What defines a successful business? One that makes more than enough money to
support its owner.

> Whatever happened to walking through the world without apology? Funny how when
> I DO that, people seem to think it's bad advice to follow.

I've already spoken to that issue. Walking through the world without apology
would, if I understand it, mean you live your life as best you can, you don't hurt
or insult other people and you make your life as you see fit. You've been
consistently unable to keep from being miserable to others and rudely insulting.

> >But if you would
> >like to have a different kind of life, maybe financial success, a
> >beautiful wife, etc., then you need to think about how to get from
> >here to there.
>
> Another loaded statement (the presumption is that I am not making enough money,
> or that I couldn't marry a hottie tomorrow if I wanted to).

I have serious doubts about the veracity of that statement.

[Tasty Mackerel]

Damn, Odious is fucking good.

Laife

"Odious" <Odi...@cox.net> wrote in message news:3E7280AC...@cox.net...
>
>

[Tasty Mackerel]

Yeah, I got to re-word Odious' post and send it to a couple of women.

Laife

"Odious" <Odi...@cox.net> wrote in message news:3E7280AC...@cox.net...
>
>

[HC]

From: "Tasty Mackerel" noe...@net.com

>Damn, Odious is fucking good.
>
>Laife

One of my all-time favorites! ;-) Him and Dirge . . . da best!!

Clap clap clap clap clap clap!

[A Modern Caveman]

Scott:

Your posts are getting RIDICULOUSLY long. Shorten them please.

> >Ray, let's assume for a moment that you are in fact gifted. The
> >question really is, where to from here?
>
> "Results take care of themselves. Just practice right and play right." Don
> Shula

Decent quote, but it would seem that you don't want to give a straight
answer.

I just did: I have a basic long-term plan which I execute in the short-term.
The long-term plan is an internet publishing company. The short-term plans are
whatever makes money now and whatever builds equity.

You're insulting my intelligence tremendously here (part of being gifted is
having to endure that a lot).

understand what that means. At
> >36, you are still young enough to build a good life, to develop a new
> >career, to start a family, you name it.
>
> To answer this question would be to accept its loaded premise.

>>I mention a couple of things that are commonly associated with most
people's idea of the "good life".>>

What is this, a sitcom?

>I then qualify this by saying
"whatever the good life means to you." There is nothing loaded about
my question. What is so loaded about asking, in essence, "Where do you
want to be in ten years and how is this flamewar helping you get
there?" How is that loaded? Have you given any thought to this? At 36,
you certainly should have.>>

It implies I'm not happy where I am.

I know where I'm going in life, thanks. Revealing my plans would be pure
stupidity.

Why don't you go ask Britney Spears what will be on her next album while you're
at it, okay?

> >This brings us to the question of exactly what you are accomplishing
> >with this ongoing flamewar that is now in what, its fifth or sixth
> >year? Think about that. What exactly are you accomplishing here?
>
> Showing that internet bullies will escalate if you don't back down. The
> relevance to free speech should be obvious.

>The question is about where you want to be in five to ten years, and
how this flamewar fits in to your getting there.>>

And the answer is that I am here because Black PR is a pathetic tactic and one
I don't cave into.

Your question is either stupid or a nonsequiter.

>Ray, that's the
issue. "Free speech", and any other issue is, well, a separate issue.>

If it's part of my life, it's part of how I plan my life.

> >Surely there is something better that you can be doing with your
> >time!"
>
> Then go do it!

>Guess what, Ray? I do!!!

When?

Like I don't?

> >I realize your situation is different from mine. You have a business,
> >and other interests that far surpass my own stake in the matter (my
> >own stake - basically zilch). I realize for you it is not just
> >watching the proverbial Jerry Springer show. I am not suggesting (as I
> >fully expect you to point out) that you have no right to "defend your
> >rights." I'm not suggesting that you have no right to fight against
> >wrongs, etc.
>
> And I'm not suggesting that you're using negative suggestion, which is an NLP
> technique.

>>>I've never studied NLP, it is just my style of writing. Can you
actually accept that I might have meant exactly what I wrote...namely
that I was not suggesting that you had no right to "defend your
rights"? I was vainly trying, in a pre-emptive manner, to get you to
think about and address the issue of my post instead of going off to
the four corners about various causes, etc. Obviously, I can't keep
you on topic.>>>>

Your post is a combination of a highly insulting hybrib of passive aggression
and NLP.

To answer your circular post: I do not have to explain my life to you or
justify why I post or why I would sue people. My life is doing just fine, and
I tend not to take advice from others (which is supposedly a sign of maturity).

If and when you can find a POINT to anything you are asking, and can present it
in less than 36,000 bytes, feel free.

[Alex]

in article 20030315221416...@mb-ck.aol.com, A Modern Caveman at
amodern...@aol.com wrote on 3/15/03 10:14 PM:

> Your post is a combination of a highly insulting hybrib of passive aggression
> and NLP.

Some of us spell that H-Y-B-R-I-D.

[Hypnotic Phantom]

>amodern...@aol.com

>Scott:
>
>Your posts are getting RIDICULOUSLY long. Shorten them please.

And who are you to be dictating how long posts should be? You who ramble on and
on about things you know nothing about...hmmm?

>You're insulting my intelligence tremendously here (part of being gifted is
>having to endure that a lot).
>

Ray you ain't gifted...yer tetched (that's deep south for touched in case you
were wondering)

>I mention a couple of things that are commonly associated with most
>people's idea of the "good life".>>
>
>What is this, a sitcom?

uhm Ray "Good Life" was never a sitcom..."Good Times" was the sitcom.

>Why don't you go ask Britney Spears what will be on her next album while
>you're
>at it, okay?

I'm going out a limb as a lay-psychic and say about 13 songs maybe 14 that'll
probably run close to an hour with a possible CD-ROM extra of one of her
videos.

>If and when you can find a POINT to anything you are asking, and can present
>it
>in less than 36,000 bytes, feel free.

The same can be said for you legal boy

HP
To fight in just causes.
To be merciful at all times.
To put the services of Ladies foremost.

Le Morte De Arthur

[Scott Bailey]

>
> >But one thing that I have done is this: I've realized I can't change
> >people.
>
> And if YOU can't, no one else can, right?

Thus far, how much success have you had changing the people in this
never-ending flame war?

>
> Enjoy your hubris.

It's not hubris, Ray, just an observation about life.

>

>
> Did Martin Luther King change anyone?

I'm discussing individual relationships, not political or ideological
shifts.

>
>
> >I've banged my head against
> >quite a few over the years, but I've stopped now. It seems like there
> >is a lot of that going on here.
> >
> >Now, if I've determined that someone is an asshole, that doesn't mean
> >I forgive them. Maybe it would be better if I did...but real
> >forgiveness is hard.
>
> Is "asshole" an objective term now? Absolute?

Didn't say that it was.

>
> For someone to hate on those grounds, they are acting as if their personal
> opinion gives them a license against the other person.

Nothing of the sort was suggested. The overall point is simply that
one is better off surrounding themselves with compatible people as
opposed to trying to change incompatible people.

>
>
> >Maybe everyone isn't capable of it, I just don't
> >know. But a normal person should be able to understand that they can't
> >change other people (I could give exceptions here, but you know what I
> >mean), and that it is their own damn fault if they stay in contact
> >with people that are not suitable for them.
>
> USENET is not "contact." It is an open forum. Get that clear.

I'm clear on that. It can also be a massive waste of time and energy
when carried too far...as a self-proclaimed genius, perhaps that would
strike you as important.

>
>
> >In another post, you
> >quoted Harry Browne. You didn't mention the book, but I assume it was
> >"How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World". There is plenty in that book
> >that I disagree with...yet in some ways it changed my life. Ray
> >seriously needs to give it a read - then read it again.
>
> Is that before or after I take everyone's advice not to listen to other people?

I think that you would benefit from reading the book. Maybe you would,
maybe you wouldn't. But it is my opinon that you would.

>
> >Ray will jump on you as being indifferent to "wrongs" and injustice,
> >thus claiming the moral high ground for himself. He may well have been
> >wronged...I don't know for sure one way or the other, and in any event
> >that's not the point that I'm addressing.
>
> And until you address that point you're pretty much persona non grata to me.

Ray, I've addressed that very "point" in ealier threads on flamewars.
I'm one of the few people that has spoken up for you. If I had a
dollar for every post that I wrote, I'd at least be able to have a few
good nights out on the town. Your response to this: some very
questionable lines which could possibly be construed as threats to sue
at the end of your previous posts. I address this below.

But my bigger point is that perhaps you need to look beyond this
situation and view the big picture. I used the "where do you want to
be in ten years?" angle to illustrate that. If that makes me persona
non grata, then so be it. Hmmmm...I wonder why you don't have more
defenders out here? After what you wrote below...well, anyway, I'll
address it below.

I
> can exchange ideas with you but that's about it. I generally don't solicit
> friendships. Those who solicit them from me have to do so on my terms. I am
> quite content when alone. That's what LONER means.

That's fair enough. In any event, you have put your life out there...I
have given what I considered to be fair advice. Accept it, reject it,
ignore it. I said that I don't expect it to be treated like the sermon
on the mount, but I think it is worth considering.

>
>
> >My point is that Ray has involved himself in a dysfunctional
> >situation.
>
> The alternative is letting bullies take over the internet and suppress the free
> speech of anyone who doesn't have my strength to combat it.
>
> You call that positive?

No, I don't call that positive. But again, I think you are missing the
forest for the trees. You are allowing yourself to get mired down with
a relative handful of posters, and this is bound to cost you more than
you are ready to admit. To use your own premise - that you are a
creator and they are not - who loses more from the time and emotional
energy spent on this situation? You do the math.

>
> >Who started it years ago is something of a moot point at
> >this juncture.
>
> Hardly. They still quote it as if it were yesterday, and as if I weren't going
> to bat for Dominique Moceanu when the world was ignoring her being abused,
> including the gymnastics world, which KNEW.

Again, you can still fight yesterdays battles...or you can stop
blaming others and put your strong suit to work.

>
>
> >The truth is that nobody can solve Ray's problems but
> >Ray, just as nobody can solve Paul's problems but Paul, and nobody can
> >solve Scott's problems but Scott. I'm all for helping somebody out if
> >I can, but most of the time we are the source of our own problems,
>
> You mean the way the whistleblowers who get fired bring the problems on
> themselves? Or do you mean the way the investors who ignored the
> whistleblowers being fired bring THEIR problems on themselves?

Ray, you are not seeing this very clearly. Let me clarify. On the one
hand, it is true that no man is an island. For instance, if the
economy goes into a Great Depression....millions of people will get
wiped out financially, through no fault of their own. That's an
extreme example, but certainly there are plenty of small scale
examples as well. I'm not denying any of that.

What I was referring to is that normally, under typical American
conditions, most of our problems rest with us. In other words,
generally we could have done things better, made better decisions,
turned right when we in fact turned left, that sort of thing. It's
called taking responsibility. You don't seem to want to do that - it's
always somebody else's fault. But the truth is, even when it actually
IS somebody else's fault, we ourselves could have generally handled
things better and lessened the damage.

Often, when something bad happens to us, we wallow in misery, or lash
out in resentment. We waste time. The "something bad" could be
anything from a job loss to losing a serious girlfriend. But in most
cases, ninety percent of the damage done to us by the "something bad"
was caused by our own reactions to it, the time we wasted, the stupid
things we did in response. It was this sort of thing that I was
talking about. Hopefully you understand the difference.

>
>
> >just as we are also the primary solution to those problems.
>
> And when we solve them, the same rules have to apply as when we had them. If
> others stand on the sidelines in bad times, they must also do so during the
> good.

Assuming they knew about the situation, then I can buy that.

>
>
> >Honestly,
> >the only thing I can think of that I could do to help Ray would be to
> >send him a copy of the Browne book.
>
> That's you thinking you'd be helping, and it's a reflection of YOUR beliefs.
> Of course, the real HELP I get is from my legal advisor and expert witness team
> (yes, I have those too as people here will see).

Yes, Ray, when a person intends to help somebody, of course it's a
reflection of his beliefs. What, do you expect them to help in a way
that they don't even think is helpful?

>
>
> >It's not even a matter of being
> >unwilling to help, it's just that we all have a responsibility to
> >remove ourselves from dysfunctional situations.
>
> And then welcome you with open arms when we're done as if you were helping all
> along? You are ignoring a LOT of what is going on here.

No, I was trying to get you to focus on something that I thought would
be beneficial. That is not to say that I deny that there is more going
on. Every topic can't be covered at once. I attempted to focus on the
"ten year out" thing...but you don't want to, so it's moot anyway.

>
>
> >Nobody can do that for
> >us.
>
> And I can't help anyone, who needs anything, anywhere, at any time, no matter
> what it is, for whom, etc.

Good attitude. Can't imagine why you don't have a lot of guys going to
the mat for you here. Why should they help you when in fact you will
turn around and insult them, or possibly threaten to sue them?

>
> Do you let others dictate what constitutes "help" for you? All I hear is
> someone screaming about how "helpful" they are.

Ray, if someone has a point that they think it would be helpful for
you to consider, then how bad is that?

>
> I'll stick to my lawyer's help.
>
>
> >> > I'm just asking, sincerely, where you think you will be in five to ten
> >> > years...and whether what you are doing with this flamewar and
> >> > accompanying legal action is going to help you get there.
> >>
> >> It isn't, but he doesn't seem to want to see that.
>
> I have warned people what would trigger a lawsuit against them. I am not some
> weak idiot who has to take this crap.
>
> I am VERY familiar with the legal system, not from the internet, but from the
> insides of law offices. I make cases happen by doing the groundwork for the
> attorneys who sign their names.
>
> In a court of law I can explain the remarks I find questionable; to post them
> here would be to give them light and then get blamed for highighting it.
>
> Anyone who thinks it's fun and games to try to defame me or do anything to my
> rights is going to have to be prepared to defend themselves in a court of law.
>
>
> Otherwise, they need another target.
>
> As for you, Mr. Bailey, since you are so together, and so "helpful," how about
> we scrutinize your life the way mine has been scrutinized.

Firstly, I'll assume for the moment that your comments about libel or
defamation were not directed at me. I have never said anything about
you that a reasonable person could view as either defamatory or
libelous. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

As to scrutinizing my life...why would we? I'm selling nothing, make
no particular claims, etc. You put your life out there, and I simply
asked a question and expressed my opinion that you are wasting your
talents. THAT'S LIBELOUS? THAT'S DEFAMATORY? That's ridiculous.

I simply gave my perspective as one human being to another. You can
choose to believe that or not. You can choose to give my perspective
contemplation or not. But after making the above comments about
"triggering lawsuits", I would expect you to clarify to just whom that
was targeted.

>
> Your smug attitude appears designed to either provoke me or dupe me. You have
> accomplished neither. Your next move is to either escalate or back down.

I intended to neither provoke you nor dupe you. I offered my
perspective, based on my life experience and my observation of others.
I wasted a lot of time over the years, and could have accomplished a
lot more by now if I hadn't. I believe that you are doing the same
thing. But the important thing is what you believe. That will
determine whether you spend your time wisely or foolishly. The choice
is yours.

You give me an alternative: to either escalate or back down. I shall
do neither. What is there to escalate? What is there to back down
from? I asked a legitimate question. I offered what I consider to be
legitimate advice, advice which you are free to reject. If you see
anything more to it than that, then you are living in a fantasy world.
THIS is what I mean by having gotten so into this flamewar that you
can't even distinguish friendly advice from an attack. You prove my
point so often, but still won't accept that perhaps what I'm saying is
worth considering.

>
> The group is watching.

Really? Are you sure? What do you think they are saying about me? Do
you think I can make them like me?

Ray, give it a rest. Whether you believe it or not, my advice was
friendly. You put your life out there, and I expressed my opinion: I
think you are making a mistake. That is my OPINION, Ray. Nothing more
than that. I think I stressed this enough. You, on the other hand,
have ended your post with what could at least possibly be construed as
a threat. I hope it wasn't, and that we can keep our dialogue
friendly. But in order to do that, the "triggering lawsuits" line
needs to be clarified.

[Scott Bailey]

>
> If and when you can find a POINT to anything you are asking, and can present it
> in less than 36,000 bytes, feel free.
>
>

O.K.

Many has been the post in which you have complained about your life
situation, and blaming others for it (posters here, the beauty
premium, whatever). You have spoken about financial difficulty, and
have made numerous comments about "what you have been through".

I then try to suggest that you might want to consider making some
changes, so as to avoid the crap and capitalize on your strong suit. I
stressed that I wasn't expecting my view to be treated as gospel, but
as something that might be worth considering.

Your response to all of this? Well, here is a minor sampler:

1. The question is stupid, aggressive and insulting.
2. You resent the implication that you aren't happy (even though you
have said this many times).
3. You claim to have a successful business, despite an obvious lack of
funds.
4. You claim I am trying to dupe you or provoke you.
5. You act indignant that someone would offer an opinion on your life,
even though it is YOU that put it out there.
6. You make comments about Britney Spears, as if that has any
relevance to your situation.
7. You try numerous cheap tactics (talk about insulting intelligence)
to distract from the main point. One of many: suggesting that I am
asking for your specific plans, as if to suggest that I expect to
pirate them from you.

But I'll keep it even shorter: Ray, you aren't going to accomplish
much in life until you learn how to stop blaming others. You can learn
it now, or let another ten years waste away. The choice is yours.

[Paul Robinson]

A Modern Caveman (Ray Gordon, the Inexcusable Failure*) wrote:

> >> > Ray, let's assume for a moment that you are in fact gifted.
> Okay, why not?
> Moment's up!

She went in for a little bit, then came out. "Do you need to set up now?"
"No, I can wait until 11, then the Chancellor can watch me and Lynn spend the
next ten or 15 minutes setting up equipment."
"Just a second."
I thought of waiting one second then calling out, "Time's up!" but I remembered
I was supposed to be respectful in here.
- George Green in "The Gatekeeper: The Gate Contracts"

> >> Oh I have no doubt that if he put his mind to it and really did some
> >>serious work in formulating some ideas he would
> >> actually have some important things to say.
>
> "Important" is an absolute term now?
>
> Tell me, how much do you know about how to make basketball power ratings again?

I have no interest in basketball and have no concern over the subject. It's not my
problem.

If you want to raise crazy and ridiculous off-topic subjects, why don't you tell
me how to construct an SQL query to determine the duplicate entries between two
separate databases. That's one I've been trying to do for a long time.

> Tell me how you handicap a horse race, while you are at it.

According to what I've heard, you pick the lead apprentice jockey to place. He's
usually given better mounts and a better chance at winning. Don't know how good it
is as I do not gamble. Period.

> Then show me your chess rating.

I haven't played chess in over twenty years.

> >> Whenever someone makes a claim of something, they typically publish such
> claims
> >> in a peer reviewed journal where others in the same field of study can examine
>
> >> the claims, see how they were made, and attempt to reproduce the results.
>
> Odd that those academes used USENET itself to accomplish this process before we
> invaded its space. We already do this, but the question here is why you need
> to have it sanctioned by a university and pay so much for the privilege.

In case you haven't noticed, peer reviewed journals are usually published by
private companies. Nobody says the work has to be sanctioned by a university.
It's just that's where most of the scientists who are doing pure research are. The
really abstract stuff that doesn't have practical use. Bearden, Shockley and the
other guy were at Bell Labs when they invented the transistor. That's relatively
rare these days as there aren't many privately owned places doing serious
research. And even the universities are starting to make deals on doing commercial
work.

> Where's the proof that formal education is superior to informal education for
> these fields?

In a number of fields there probably isn't. But I have seen places asking for
extremely high degrees for programming and many years of experience, and I suspect
it's because some places want to discriminate against certain classes of people, or
they're too stupid to realize that you're not going to get someone with all the
qualifications they are asking for at the kind of money they're offering, or if
they do, you have to wonder what kind of quality the person is.

I don't think I said one word about formal vs. informal education. I spoke about
how someone who makes a claim usually publishes it in a peer reviewed journal read
by those in that particular field so others can reproduce the experiment. That
does not necessarily mean it is academic in nature. For example, I think
"Telephony" magazine qualifies as peer reviewed for the telecom industry although
it's not necessarily a research magazine. On the other hand, "Software: Practice
and Experience" is probably the primary peer reviewed journal in my field.

> Music and art don't require college degrees either. Seduction can be
> measured by sex. In fact, formal studies often cloak things the
> subjects want hidden.

Someone once said that all professions are a conspiracy against the laity. If I
say I developed a COM Object, ACTIVE-X powered, database driven financial
processing application, I can sound like I'm doing something akin to brain
surgery. If I say that I wrote a payroll program in Visual Basic for Windows 98,
then I can't hide what I'm doing is just mundane work. Same as everyone else.

> >>The documented reports of others who try the same experiments, and the results
> >>they get, then form the scientific literature for such experiments and show
> whether
> >>the claims are valid or not.
> >
> >True enough. The problem with this material in general (not just
> >Ray's) is that there is little truly scientific evidence out there.

I remember one of the characters in the book, "The Godfather" is a doctor who was
trying to explain out how he would write a professional article about the "before
and after" of plastic surgery on his girlfriend's vagina to tighten it.

> Darwin's work, which mine is based on in large part, is very scientific.

I was unaware that Darwin wrote much on how to get a woman to let you fuck her.

> >Are there reliable studies showing the success rates of "Foxhunting"
> >as compared to "Speed Seduction"?
>
> Define "success?" The methods also have overlap and would be difficult to
> compare.

A simple question to define success in a seduction method: Are you now or have you
ever been a member of the Communist Party? Oh, damn, I still keep getting that
wrong question.

For anyone claiming to have a successful method of seduction: In the last 90 days,
using your method, with how many women have you been able to have, or with one
particular woman, how many times have you had, vaginal intercourse?

> >>The one who betrays you in your worst
> >>moments. The one whom you hate the worst
> >> of all. Once you forgive your worst enemy,
> >>you can accept that you can
> >>like that person and realize that if you
> >> did, you would feel a whole lot better.
>
> And not feel the need to sue?

Oh that's an interesting one. I really do wish you'd sue yourself and silence your
worst detractor. He's the only one left that insults you on a near continuous
basis that you HAVEN'T threatened to sue.

> >Now, if I've determined that someone is an asshole, that doesn't mean
> >I forgive them. Maybe it would be better if I did...but real
> >forgiveness is hard.
>
> Is "asshole" an objective term now? Absolute?
>
> For someone to hate on those grounds, they are acting as if their personal
> opinion gives them a license against the other person.

Considering you've also used that term against me - and I believe more than once -
apparently indicates you hate me, too, then.

> How about process serving?

Gee, thanks. I hadn't thought of that. Seriously. Although that sort of thing
might be dangerous; some people get upset.

> Someone might be. No need to reveal a secret.
>
> Actually, most law firms use notaries who aren't with their firms (conflicts).
>
> I'm sure accounting firms and other finance companies also have to do this.

In this state, if a bank has to open a safe deposit box because the owner has
abandoned it, by law they are required to have a notary who is not a bank employee
witness the opening and inventory of the contents. Not sure if they follow the
rule, however.

> >My point is that Ray has involved himself in a
> >dysfunctional situation.
>
> The alternative is letting bullies take over the internet
> and suppress the free speech of anyone who doesn't
> have my strength to combat it.

Et tu, brute?

> >> It isn't, but he doesn't seem to want to see that.
>
> I have warned people what would trigger
> a lawsuit against them. I am not some
> weak idiot who has to take this crap.

No, you're a strong one who makes crap!

> I am VERY familiar with the legal system, not from the internet, but from the
> insides of law offices. I make cases happen by doing the groundwork for the
> attorneys who sign their names.

I make cases happen by appearing before a judge in open court and getting a
decision in my favor.

> In a court of law I can explain the remarks I find questionable; to post them
> here would be to give them light and then get blamed for highighting it.

Seems like you've had a singular incapacity to do so to the satisfaction of any
judge so far. In fact, I think one federal judge referred to your capability to do
so as, what was it? Oh yeah, "inexcusable failure*."

> Anyone who thinks it's fun and games to try to defame me or do anything to my
> rights is going to have to be prepared to defend themselves in a court of law.

Considering your constant inability to do that I don't think that is anything
anyone has to be "prepared" for.

"(For a dissenting opinion on my character, please visit the following
website: http://www.ray-gordon.com). This site contains many lies
about me, but as a defender of free speech I fully support its right
to exist. I just wish that the author of the site had taken more time
to check the validity of its contents."
- Ray Gordon, 19 March 1998 [Website address corrected
to current location]
http://groups.google.com/groups?&selm=6ertau%2476b%241%40nnrp1.dejanews.com

"Have you been threatened with a lawsuit by Ray?
Come visit our website at
http://www.ray-gordon-defendants.org
and learn case strategies. To keep from being sued
by Ray over this, we have however, decided not to
create this website, since we suspect
no one will ever need it."

* "... upon consideration of Plaintiff Gordon Roy Parker's... continued and
inexcusable failure..." {Gordon Roy Parker v.
"Wintermute" et. al.} 02-CV-7215 (Feb. 25, 2003, Eastern District, Pennsylvania)

[A.Melon]

Everything you need to know about A Modern Caveman. FREE!
http://www.ray-gordon.com/ (now over 19,000 hits)

In an effort to inform the many people on Usenet who have been offended, provoked, harassed

or otherwise puzzled during the past eight years by the individual calling himself "Ray
Gordon", the above website was created to detail some of his malicious behaviors, opinions,
mental illness, and his tendency to proclaim himself an expert on pretty much everything from
gymnastics to the stock market despite a lack of any credentials and the fact that he is
still living at home with his mother at the age of 34. The site is NOT affiliated with one
Gordon Parker of Pennsylvania, who has made numerous threats of legal action against it.

New visitors to alt.seduction.fast are welcomed and directed to the main website
http://www.fastseduction.com
Most seduction discussion has been relocated to the forums on this website, as
harassment and bad behavior is prevented there.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

For information on Paranoid Personality Disorder please visit

http://www.toad.net/~arcturus/dd/paranoid.htm and

http://60.1911encyclopedia.org/P/PA/PARANOIA.htm
(scroll down to the section on litigious paranoia)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In article <20030315221416...@mb-ck.aol.com>

Scott:

When?

Like I don't?

http://www.fastseduction.com/

[John C. Randolph]

A Modern Caveman wrote:
>
> This is what these idiots don't WANT to see, anything that doesn't agree with
> their agenda:
>
> http://www.rocamora.org/Gifted.html
>
> Misdiagnosis of the Gifted
> by Lynne Azpeitia, M.A. and Mary Rocamora, M.A.
>
> Gifted individuals face many challenges. One of them may be in getting
> correctly identified by psychotherapists and others as gifted. ~ ~ ~

Grp,

The only thing you're "gifted" at is snivelling.

-jcr

[HC]

>From: hypnoti...@aol.com (Hypnotic Phantom)

>Ray you ain't gifted...yer tetched (that's deep south for touched in case you
>were wondering)

Ahhh, the deep south . . . Ray just checked off Michigan on his "sue to do"
list.

[Odious]

Ray is so fucking stupid, he thinks that a digital revolution is when he
sticks his finger up his ass and twirls it.

[A Modern Caveman]

>> >But one thing that I have done is this: I've realized I can't change
>> >people.
>>
>> And if YOU can't, no one else can, right?
>
>Thus far, how much success have you had changing the people in this
>never-ending flame war?

Go ask all of them and get back to me when you do.

>> Enjoy your hubris.
>
>It's not hubris, Ray, just an observation about life.

The position you're presuming when you address me is hubris. I don't see you
doing this to anyone else, and you are making many negative presumptions.

>> Did Martin Luther King change anyone?
>
>I'm discussing individual relationships, not political or ideological
>shifts.

You seem to have said changing others was impossible.

>> >Now, if I've determined that someone is an asshole, that doesn't mean
>> >I forgive them. Maybe it would be better if I did...but real
>> >forgiveness is hard.
>>
>> Is "asshole" an objective term now? Absolute?
>
>Didn't say that it was.

If not, it's a useless term, purely subjective, a perjorative, nothing more.

>> For someone to hate on those grounds, they are acting as if their personal
>> opinion gives them a license against the other person.
>
>Nothing of the sort was suggested. The overall point is simply that
>one is better off surrounding themselves with compatible people as
>opposed to trying to change incompatible people.

I'm not "surrounding myself" with anyone from this group. I have no "Greek" in
my ancestry, if you know what I mean...I prefer women to men. I post to this
group to communicate my ideas to other men. There is no social interaction as
far as I'm concerned.

In a way, this group is like a coffeehouse: one group stops in for coffee in
the course of its social life, and for others the coffeehouse IS the social
life. You can always tell the difference.

>> USENET is not "contact." It is an open forum. Get that clear.
>
>I'm clear on that. It can also be a massive waste of time and energy
>when carried too far...as a self-proclaimed genius, perhaps that would
>strike you as important.

The negative implications of your posting are too targeted for it not to be
deliberate.

World". There is plenty in that book
>> >that I disagree with...yet in some ways it changed my life. Ray
>> >seriously needs to give it a read - then read it again.
>>
>> Is that before or after I take everyone's advice not to listen to other
>people?
>
>I think that you would benefit from reading the book. Maybe you would,
>maybe you wouldn't. But it is my opinon that you would.

Is that before or after I take everyone's advice not to listen to other
people?

>> >Ray will jump on you as being indifferent to "wrongs" and injustice,
>> >thus claiming the moral high ground for himself. He may well have been
>> >wronged...I don't know for sure one way or the other, and in any event
>> >that's not the point that I'm addressing.
>>
>> And until you address that point you're pretty much persona non grata to
>me.
>
>Ray, I've addressed that very "point" in ealier threads on flamewars.
>I'm one of the few people that has spoken up for you. If I had a
>dollar for every post that I wrote, I'd at least be able to have a few
>good nights out on the town. Your response to this: some very
>questionable lines which could possibly be construed as threats to sue
>at the end of your previous posts.

You're not anyone I'd ever sue based on what you posted.

I just said that I think you're full of shit when you claim to be on my side in
any way.

Even if you aren't passive-aggressive and have no hidden agenda, you seem not
to be recognizing the *possibility* that you could be, or that I would tend not
to trust you at all because of that.

Beyond that, look at your message:

1. You wonder if I should sue people who've defamed and threatened me and my
family, and who are using "Black PR" to try to destroy my business.

2. You patronize me by asking me about my long-term plans and remind me that
"it's not too late to build a life." Should I have one of the psych experts I
am in the process of retaining explain this to you?

3. You ask if what I'm doing here is "productive" without seeming to realize
the highly insulting nature of raising the question.

To answer you, I have said that why I sue should be obvious, and that I move
through the world without apology without listening to other people (as others
also advise). You seem to call into question my ability to live and work
effectively (by my standards), which you are free to do, just as I am free to
disagree with you.

If you had any kind of revelation which would make me question what I'm doing,
then I'd take that into account, but your arguments are extremely weak and way,
WAY too long. Even if you are not out to waste my time (and thus indirectly
deplete my resources), surely you can recognize that others may do that as
well.

In short, whether or not you intend it, you are acting like an enemy in a way
that few outsiders would detect. Even if you aren't an enemy, you should
understand the other person's point of view. Not only do you avoid this
confusion, you don't even acknowledge its possibility.

If someone is dressed like a thug and copies my path after I've made three
detours to shake him, I'm going to assume he's a threat even if he turns out to
be a nice guy. If he doesn't realize that he was acting in the exact manner as
someone threatening, that's not my fault, and I don't apologize for how I
respond to him.

Your behavior is very similar to those of people who are passive aggressive and
who try to befriend me under false pretenses. If you want to establish rapport
with someone, you should avoid creating that similarity.

I would never accuse you of anything like that, of course, as I can't read your
mind, but I will always err on the side of caution, and lately you've been
setting off red flag alarms.

Regarding my comment that you'd have to "escalate or back down" I was referring
to the ineffectiveness of your posts with regard to me. Either you'll have to
make more pointed statements or you'll have to "back down" because whatever you
were trying to accomplish here, it didn't work.

Ray Gordon: BACK by popular demand!
Limited time only!

Everything you need to know about women. FREE!

http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html

[A Modern Caveman]

>> If and when you can find a POINT to anything you are asking, and can
>present it
>> in less than 36,000 bytes, feel free.
>>
>>
>
>O.K.
>
>Many has been the post in which you have complained about your life
>situation,

While I take action to fix the *parts* I complain about. Still, I usually only
"complain" when someone asks for an explanation of something. Usually I'm just
preaching my method out here.

>and blaming others for it (posters here, the beauty
>premium, whatever).

Blame is not inherently good or bad. Without blame, no one is ever wrong or
responsible for what they do to others.

If you believe they are, then you are saying that in my case, they aren't. I'd
say let a court rule on it.

Are you going to say with a straight face that the beauty premium doesn't
exist?

>You have spoken about financial difficulty, and
>have made numerous comments about "what you have been through".

Correct. I also have written many books and accomplished a great deal.
Finances are easier to fix than anything, for it's literally "a numbers game."

>I then try to suggest that you might want to consider making some
>changes,

Which presumes that something is wrong, which obviously I don't agree with or I
wouldn't have chosen the path.

>so as to avoid the crap and capitalize on your strong suit.

While at the same time accomplishing the goals of those who have committed some
serious crimes to achieve what you are *asking* me to do.

Your behavior is again similar to that of someone who would have an ulterior
motive. Kind of like the guy who claims he dates the 10 for her personality.

>I
>stressed that I wasn't expecting my view to be treated as gospel, but
>as something that might be worth considering.

It's already been considered a long time ago.

You should consider that you are behaving exactly like one of "them" and that
doing so is going to cause you to be perceived as them.

>
>Your response to all of this? Well, here is a minor sampler:
>
>1. The question is stupid, aggressive and insulting.

It is.

>2. You resent the implication that you aren't happy (even though you
>have said this many times).

Not happy with some things is not the same as "not happy."

>3. You claim to have a successful business, despite an obvious lack of
>funds.

Compared to the typical internet company, I'm doing fine. Many others went
broke even with investment; I survived without it.

Is money your sole measure of success? A writing business has a creative side.

And of course, the revenue would have been a lot higher without the "Black PR"
campaign against me. You think the courts wouldn't allow me to recover that
money? You're talking millions here, not a few dollars.

You say I should leave the group to avoid the behavior? Why not just have a
court stop it for me and recover damages for me in the process?

Would you tell a bouncer not to use physical force to eject a customer but
instead to avoid a conflict he could easily win?

>4. You claim I am trying to dupe you or provoke you.

Your behavior is similar to those who do. I can't read your mind.

>5. You act indignant that someone would offer an opinion on your life,
>even though it is YOU that put it out there.

I was more indignant over the length of the postings and the repetitious nature
of the questions, as well as your disregard for what your behavior is similar
to.

>6. You make comments about Britney Spears, as if that has any
>relevance to your situation.

You ask me my plans for the future. I said go ask her what will be on her next
album.

Why wouldn't she tell you?

You're asking me to reveal a trade secret. Either you knew this and did it
anyway, or you're too stupid to figure that out.

The agenda you appear to have from my read of your posts is far different from
the one you are claiming to have. Even if you don't have that agenda, another
with that agenda would be behaving EXACTLY LIKE YOU.

If you don't want to be thought an enemy, don't do exactly what an enemy would
do, which is what you are doing here.

>7. You try numerous cheap tactics (talk about insulting intelligence)
>to distract from the main point. One of many: suggesting that I am
>asking for your specific plans, as if to suggest that I expect to
>pirate them from you.

You? This isn't a private discussion, it's a public forum. I do not reveal
my creative plans for the future unless I want to.

>But I'll keep it even shorter: Ray, you aren't going to accomplish
>much in life until you learn how to stop blaming others.

Now we get to the negativity.

Your life hasn't been scrutinized at all and you take a cheap shot like that.
Pathetic.

If you feel that way, too bad, and take up the rights I have with Congress.

>You can learn
>it now, or let another ten years waste away. The choice is yours.

You are incredibly patronizing, which of course you are free to be.

As for my rights, I defend them. If you have a problem with that you can go
fuck yourself. If you have a problem with a worker standing up against
discrimination, you can again go fuck yourself.

I am too polite to get into detail about what I think is wrong with someone
like you. Not too weak, too polite.

I now see you as little more than pitiful.

[HC]

A Modern Eunich wrote:

>I don't see you
>doing this to anyone else

Progress?

[A.Melon]

Everything you need to know about A Modern Caveman. FREE!

http://www.ray-gordon.com/ (now over 20,000 hits)

In an effort to inform the many people on Usenet who have been offended, provoked, harassed,
or otherwise puzzled during the past eight years (yes, EIGHT YEARS) by the individual calling

himself "Ray Gordon", the above website was created to detail some of his malicious

behaviors, opinions, mental illness, threats to sue people on an almost daily basis, and his

tendency to proclaim himself an expert on pretty much everything from gymnastics to the stock

market. All this despite a lack of any credentials and the fact that he still lives at home

with his mother at the age of 34. The site is NOT affiliated with one Gordon Parker of
Pennsylvania, who has made numerous threats of legal action against it.

New visitors to alt.seduction.fast are welcomed and directed to the main website
http://www.fastseduction.com
Most seduction discussion has been relocated to the forums on this website, as
harassment and bad behavior is prevented there.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

For information on Paranoid Personality Disorder please visit

http://www.toad.net/~arcturus/dd/paranoid.htm and

http://60.1911encyclopedia.org/P/PA/PARANOIA.htm
(scroll down to the section on litigious paranoia)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In article <20030316063856...@mb-bj.aol.com>

amodern...@aol.com (A Modern Caveman) wrote:
>

It is.

http://www.fastseduction.com/

[A.Melon]

Everything you need to know about A Modern Caveman. FREE!
http://www.ray-gordon.com/ (now over 20,000 hits)

In an effort to inform the many people on Usenet who have been offended, provoked, harassed,
or otherwise puzzled during the past eight years (yes, EIGHT YEARS) by the individual calling
himself "Ray Gordon", the above website was created to detail some of his malicious
behaviors, opinions, mental illness, threats to sue people on an almost daily basis, and his
tendency to proclaim himself an expert on pretty much everything from gymnastics to the stock
market. All this despite a lack of any credentials and the fact that he still lives at home
with his mother at the age of 34. The site is NOT affiliated with one Gordon Parker of
Pennsylvania, who has made numerous threats of legal action against it.

New visitors to alt.seduction.fast are welcomed and directed to the main website
http://www.fastseduction.com
Most seduction discussion has been relocated to the forums on this website, as
harassment and bad behavior is prevented there.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

For information on Paranoid Personality Disorder please visit

http://www.toad.net/~arcturus/dd/paranoid.htm and

http://60.1911encyclopedia.org/P/PA/PARANOIA.htm
(scroll down to the section on litigious paranoia)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In article <20030316062515...@mb-bj.aol.com>

amodern...@aol.com (A Modern Caveman) wrote:
>

http://www.fastseduction.com/

[The Tennessee Tick]

>In my observations of the real world, a lot of
>what Ray expresses in his books is on target.

>But Ray does update things and puts it into

>the context of modern female behavior and the modern
>dating situation, and he should get some credit for that.

Well I, for one, seriously doubt monkeyboy could (or would) walk up to any
female talking to any man in any club and address her as a slut or whore. Now,
if you actually believe that kind of behavior will lead to anything other than
an arrest or a severe ass beating, do tell.
I don't find anything he says to be worth a shit in the real world. I see no
relevance to what happens in any place I go, or have gone to in the last 30
years.
Which makes me believe the only people who would accept his crap as even
remotely valid are chumps who haven't been out in public in years, if at all.
It's obvious he hasn't.
It's also obvious to see he has no real world experience with warm blooded
females. Whatever he hasn't taken from other authors is so off base, its
written strictly from the viewpoint of a desperately incompetent woman hater,
with no clue about what works and what doesn't in a public setting in today's
society.
He writes from a warped, small minded, narrow view of the opposite sex that
makes sense only to those who share his deep rooted hatred and fear of women.
Reading his trash, any real man can see it's openly hostile to women, and the
only relevance sex has in his "system" is as a means to defeat and humiliate
females. Something it doesn't do, because it doesn't work.

But hey, I'll be willing to sit there any time and witness anybody here who
believes they can follow his advice and do the walkup on any female talking to
any man and start up the slut talk.
I'll bring my cell phone to call 911.

TheTennesseeTick

[The Tennessee Tick]

>If you want to raise crazy and ridiculous off-topic subjects, why
> don't you tell me how to construct an SQL query to determine
> the duplicate entries between two separate databases. That's
>one I've been trying to do for a long time.

Deduping?

TheTennesseeTick

[Scott Bailey]

This post was so absurd and immature, that I seriously questioned even
responding to it at all.

> >
> >Many has been the post in which you have complained about your life
> >situation,
>
> While I take action to fix the *parts* I complain about. Still, I usually only
> "complain" when someone asks for an explanation of something. Usually I'm just
> preaching my method out here.

Regardless of the context, you have done an awful lot of complaining.
Thus, was it so unreasonable of me to suggest that you try to look at
matters from a different angle? The old line about "Doing the same
thing and expecting different results"?

>
>
> >and blaming others for it (posters here, the beauty
> >premium, whatever).
>
> Blame is not inherently good or bad. Without blame, no one is ever wrong or
> responsible for what they do to others.

I agree, there is nothing inherently wrong with apportioning blame.
However, one may be making a mistake if he views his life as being
controlled or unduly influenced by others, as opposed to finding ways
to succeed despite them.

>
> If you believe they are, then you are saying that in my case, they aren't. I'd
> say let a court rule on it.

I do believe that, for the most part, it is possible to do end-runs
around most obstacles. Often, and I believe this is just human nature,
we don't do that. Instead, we focus on playing the blame game instead
of getting on with those things we can control.

>
> Are you going to say with a straight face that the beauty premium doesn't
> exist?

If by that you mean that beautiful people get certain advantages in
life, no, I don't deny that.

>
> >You have spoken about financial difficulty, and
> >have made numerous comments about "what you have been through".
>
> Correct. I also have written many books and accomplished a great deal.
> Finances are easier to fix than anything, for it's literally "a numbers game."
>
>
> >I then try to suggest that you might want to consider making some
> >changes,
>
> Which presumes that something is wrong, which obviously I don't agree with or I
> wouldn't have chosen the path.

If you are happy overall, then great. However, many of your posts have
indicated that you are not. I'm happy to chalk it up as a
misunderstanding.

>
> >so as to avoid the crap and capitalize on your strong suit.
>
> While at the same time accomplishing the goals of those who have committed some
> serious crimes to achieve what you are *asking* me to do.

I'm not asking you to take ANY particular course of action. The only
thing that I asked you to do is consider things from a different point
of view. For example, this whole thread started with you posting the
"misunderstood genius" article. Why are you so eager to try to claim
that mantle for yourself with this group? Your opponents are NEVER
going to buy it, certainly not by your just assuring them it's true.
The only way they would ever buy it is if you succeeded outside of
this group in way they couldn't deny...if they would then. Instead you
spend your time asserting "I'm a genius, I'm a genius." It amazes me
that you don't see what I'm talking about here. Why do you ever CARE
whether some posters see you as a genius or not? It's a perfect
example of not seeing the forest for the trees.

>
> Your behavior is again similar to that of someone who would have an ulterior
> motive. Kind of like the guy who claims he dates the 10 for her personality.

I'm doing no such thing.

>
>
> >I
> >stressed that I wasn't expecting my view to be treated as gospel, but
> >as something that might be worth considering.
>
> It's already been considered a long time ago.
>
> You should consider that you are behaving exactly like one of "them" and that
> doing so is going to cause you to be perceived as them.

Ray, I can grant you that my style of writing on these posts could
come across as a bit condescending. If we were having a one on one
conversation, then it would not come across that way. But if you look
at the substance of what I am saying, you will realize that it is your
"trench mentality" that is causing you to react as you are.
>
>

> >
> >Your response to all of this? Well, here is a minor sampler:
> >
> >1. The question is stupid, aggressive and insulting.
>
> It is.

No, it's not. Back to the earlier example: if you are a genius, why do
you care whether a handful of posters around here consider you one?
Furthermore, have you lost so much touch with the real world that you
seriously believe that asserting that you are a genius to people that
despise you will do anything other than make you look bad? I'm going
to be perfectly clear on one point: I liked your books. I would
probably continue to read books or articles that you put out. But had
I never read your work, and could only judge you based on your posts
to this group...I would have little regard for you. When I read your
books I thought "here is a bright guy. I don't agree with everything,
but this guy is worth the read." But your posts? Frankly, more often
than not they are pathetic. Now alway, but often. I suspected that the
reason was an ongoing flamewar that is never going to resolve itself,
and that it was affecting you negatively. Hence, my post. What do you
do? Shoot first and ask questions later...which of course goes a long
way to proving my entire point.

>
> >2. You resent the implication that you aren't happy (even though you
> >have said this many times).
>
> Not happy with some things is not the same as "not happy."

Agreed, but I think you are being a little pollyanish here.

>
> >3. You claim to have a successful business, despite an obvious lack of
> >funds.
>
> Compared to the typical internet company, I'm doing fine. Many others went
> broke even with investment; I survived without it.
>
> Is money your sole measure of success? A writing business has a creative side.

Money is by no means my sole measure of success. However, at 36 I
think it is time to get real. Being 46 and in the same situation in
which you are currently may not be where you want to be. I suggested
that you give this some thought, that's all.

>
> And of course, the revenue would have been a lot higher without the "Black PR"
> campaign against me. You think the courts wouldn't allow me to recover that
> money? You're talking millions here, not a few dollars.

What I think about this is immaterial. It's what the judge believes.

>
> You say I should leave the group to avoid the behavior? Why not just have a
> court stop it for me and recover damages for me in the process?

I never said you should leave the group entirely. But I think you have
to accept that most of the posters here are hostile to you, and that
fighting a never-ending flamewar is not in your best interests. As
I've said, I have enjoyed reading some of your material, but your
posts are of far, far lower quality. If you can up the quality of your
posts, then fine. I do question how you will do that when so much of
the board is against you.

>
> Would you tell a bouncer not to use physical force to eject a customer but
> instead to avoid a conflict he could easily win?

Poor analogy. This isn't your bar.

>
>
> >4. You claim I am trying to dupe you or provoke you.
>
> Your behavior is similar to those who do. I can't read your mind.

No, you can't. I was trying to do neither, though I will admit to a
somewhat condescending tone which I should have attempted to mitigate.
But this running around saying "I'm a genius, I'm a genius" is no way
for a 36 year old male to build a good life...however he defines a
good life.

>
> >5. You act indignant that someone would offer an opinion on your life,
> >even though it is YOU that put it out there.
>
> I was more indignant over the length of the postings and the repetitious nature
> of the questions, as well as your disregard for what your behavior is similar
> to.

When you have multiple writers (Myself, Paul, and you) the posts are
going to get long. I don't think it takes that long to read what I
write.

As to the repetitious nature of the questions, that was purposeful. I
knew that you would try to go any direction other than the main point,
so I repeated myself to keep you focused, perhaps at the price of
irritation.

Also, I'm not sure exactly what my behavior is "similar to". I've
already acknowledged that I can understand your viewing this as having
a condescending tone, but beyond that it is your imagination. The
substance is genuine.

>
>
> >6. You make comments about Britney Spears, as if that has any
> >relevance to your situation.
>
> You ask me my plans for the future. I said go ask her what will be on her next
> album.

I wasn't asking for any information that would naturally need to
remain private. I was simply trying to get you to view the bigger
picture, and realize that time is waiting for nobody. I did not
expect, nor do I want, a step by step manual full of your "secret"
information.

>
> Why wouldn't she tell you?

For many reasons, none of which are applicable to what I asked of you.

>
> You're asking me to reveal a trade secret.

No, I'm not. That's absurd.

Either you knew this and did it
> anyway, or you're too stupid to figure that out.

Actually, I assumed that you would be bright enough to figure out what
I was asking. Apparently, I was wrong. If I asked a CEO of a
technology company the same thing, I certainly would not expect him to
hand over secrets...and a reasonable person would understand this.

If answering a question like I asked would require you to give up a
trade secret, then of course you shouldn't answer it. But I was asking
in a broader sense. It's true that I would have liked some specifics,
but more on the order of "go back to school" or something like that.
The idea that I expect you or anyone else to reveal trade secrets is
so absurd as to not even be worthy of further comment.

>
> The agenda you appear to have from my read of your posts is far different from
> the one you are claiming to have. Even if you don't have that agenda, another
> with that agenda would be behaving EXACTLY LIKE YOU.

Well, your read is wrong. I have been straightforward, and there is no
hidden agenda. I think you are making a mistake.

>
> If you don't want to be thought an enemy, don't do exactly what an enemy would
> do, which is what you are doing here.

I really don't see how asking you to examine things from a different
angle is behaving as an enemy. It is true that I think you are making
a mistake, so perhaps that is enough to make me an enemy in your book.

>
>
> >7. You try numerous cheap tactics (talk about insulting intelligence)
> >to distract from the main point. One of many: suggesting that I am
> >asking for your specific plans, as if to suggest that I expect to
> >pirate them from you.
>
> You? This isn't a private discussion, it's a public forum. I do not reveal
> my creative plans for the future unless I want to.

Of course. I didn't ask you too.

>
>
> >But I'll keep it even shorter: Ray, you aren't going to accomplish
> >much in life until you learn how to stop blaming others.
>
> Now we get to the negativity.

Ray, I've been there myself...lost a lot of time because of it.

>
> Your life hasn't been scrutinized at all and you take a cheap shot like that.
> Pathetic.

What is pathetic is your complete misinterpretation. It wasn't a cheap
shot, as I have acknowledged several times making a similar error. Was
I also taking a cheap shot at myself?

>
> If you feel that way, too bad, and take up the rights I have with Congress.

Not necessary.

>
> >You can learn
> >it now, or let another ten years waste away. The choice is yours.
>
> You are incredibly patronizing, which of course you are free to be.
>
> As for my rights, I defend them. If you have a problem with that you can go
> fuck yourself. If you have a problem with a worker standing up against
> discrimination, you can again go fuck yourself.

Nah...I don't think I'll do any of that, but thanks for making the
suggestion.

>
> I am too polite to get into detail about what I think is wrong with someone
> like you. Not too weak, too polite.
>
> I now see you as little more than pitiful.

That's politeness? Wow Ray, you really outdid yourself there.

The most pitiful thing here is your complete inability to accept any
perspective
which suggests that you have made a mistake. You are blinded by
arrogance and a trench warfare mentality. This causes you to make the
same mistakes over and over again, in an endless circuit. Hey, I've
been there. Most of the guys I know have been there. At 36, you are
still unwilling to accept that maybe you are not handling things in
the best way. That's your choice. I tried to get you to think in a
different way, and for that all you can see is that I'm trying to fuck
you over.

[A Modern Caveman]

>This post was so absurd and immature, that I seriously questioned even
>responding to it at all.

Then don't bother giving advice that isn't asked for, or trying to paint
something so slanted as "helpful."

In the course of offering that "help" you used several highly offensive
presumptions which enough other people have covered.

For someone who speaks of how to treat others you don't exactly set a pristine
example with how you've been treating me.

[Scott Bailey]

amodern...@aol.com (A Modern Caveman) wrote in message news:<20030316062515...@mb-bj.aol.com>...

> >> >But one thing that I have done is this: I've realized I can't change
> >> >people.
> >>
> >> And if YOU can't, no one else can, right?
> >
> >Thus far, how much success have you had changing the people in this
> >never-ending flame war?
>
> Go ask all of them and get back to me when you do.

From what I can tell, they seem to still be your opponents.

>
>
> >> Enjoy your hubris.
> >
> >It's not hubris, Ray, just an observation about life.
>
> The position you're presuming when you address me is hubris. I don't see you
> doing this to anyone else, and you are making many negative presumptions.

I'm not making any presumptions which your own posts did not strongly
suggest. As for not doing this to anyone else, that's true. The
reason: your situation is different. I made a similar mistake, though
under very different circumstances. Having "been there, done that", I
thought that my perspective was at least worth considering by you.

I realize that my posts on this topic may seem insulting. But at the
same time, they are complimentary. I think you are capable of coming
up with good stuff, and this never-ending battle is turning you into a
bitter paranoid.

>
>
> >> Did Martin Luther King change anyone?
> >
> >I'm discussing individual relationships, not political or ideological
> >shifts.
>
> You seem to have said changing others was impossible.

I didn't say that. What I am saying is that generally speaking, a
person probably has a better chance of winning the lottery than
changing a particular individual.

>
>
>
> >> >Now, if I've determined that someone is an asshole, that doesn't mean
> >> >I forgive them. Maybe it would be better if I did...but real
> >> >forgiveness is hard.
> >>
> >> Is "asshole" an objective term now? Absolute?
> >
> >Didn't say that it was.
>
> If not, it's a useless term, purely subjective, a perjorative, nothing more.

Ray, you are missing the point. I said that when I'VE DETERMINED that
someone is an asshole, then I don't expect them to change. Obviously,
everyone makes their own determinations.

>
>
> >> For someone to hate on those grounds, they are acting as if their personal
> >> opinion gives them a license against the other person.
> >
> >Nothing of the sort was suggested. The overall point is simply that
> >one is better off surrounding themselves with compatible people as
> >opposed to trying to change incompatible people.
>
> I'm not "surrounding myself" with anyone from this group. I have no "Greek" in
> my ancestry, if you know what I mean...I prefer women to men. I post to this
> group to communicate my ideas to other men. There is no social interaction as
> far as I'm concerned.
>
> In a way, this group is like a coffeehouse: one group stops in for coffee in
> the course of its social life, and for others the coffeehouse IS the social
> life. You can always tell the difference.

From my perspective, you have been caught up in an extremely
dysfunctional situation. It has gone way beyond a benign communication
of ideas.

>
>
>
> >> USENET is not "contact." It is an open forum. Get that clear.
> >
> >I'm clear on that. It can also be a massive waste of time and energy
> >when carried too far...as a self-proclaimed genius, perhaps that would
> >strike you as important.
>
> The negative implications of your posting are too targeted for it not to be
> deliberate.

That is the trench warfare mentality speaking.

>
>
>
> World". There is plenty in that book
> >> >that I disagree with...yet in some ways it changed my life. Ray
> >> >seriously needs to give it a read - then read it again.
> >>
> >> Is that before or after I take everyone's advice not to listen to other
> >people?
> >
> >I think that you would benefit from reading the book. Maybe you would,
> >maybe you wouldn't. But it is my opinon that you would.
>
> Is that before or after I take everyone's advice not to listen to other
> people?

Ray, this is what I'm talking about. It's perfectly fine with you when
someone compliments YOUR books. But if that same person says "This is
another good book, maybe you should read it...your choice.", then you
just can't accept that. You can't see the forest for the trees.

>
> >> >Ray will jump on you as being indifferent to "wrongs" and injustice,
> >> >thus claiming the moral high ground for himself. He may well have been
> >> >wronged...I don't know for sure one way or the other, and in any event
> >> >that's not the point that I'm addressing.
> >>
> >> And until you address that point you're pretty much persona non grata to
> >me.
> >
> >Ray, I've addressed that very "point" in ealier threads on flamewars.
> >I'm one of the few people that has spoken up for you. If I had a
> >dollar for every post that I wrote, I'd at least be able to have a few
> >good nights out on the town. Your response to this: some very
> >questionable lines which could possibly be construed as threats to sue
> >at the end of your previous posts.
>
> You're not anyone I'd ever sue based on what you posted.
>
> I just said that I think you're full of shit when you claim to be on my side in
> any way.

I offer my views, and have no secret agenda. I'm not on anybody's side
in terms of this newsgroup. There are some posters I like to read,
others I don't. There are some posters that strike me as "good guys",
that I wouldn't mind having a beer with if I ever ran into them -
which I haven't. Honestly, I would have included you in that
group....but now I wonder if you could even have a normal conversation
without going off on some sort of rage. Hey, I'm opinionated, and it
doesn't seem to take much for you to go off.

However, I enjoyed some of the things that you wrote. I also see a guy
making a mistake, but he can't see it yet. So I thought I would offer
another perspective. Believe it or not, I would like to see you do
well...and also mature enough where you don't see everything as an
attack. I suppose that puts me "on your side", at least in a sense.

>
> Even if you aren't passive-aggressive and have no hidden agenda, you seem not
> to be recognizing the *possibility* that you could be, or that I would tend not
> to trust you at all because of that.

No, I do accept that. You can either take me at my word that there is
no hidden agenda, or you can look at the substance of my advice...and
maybe determine that I wasn't trying to fuck you over.

>
> Beyond that, look at your message:
>
> 1. You wonder if I should sue people who've defamed and threatened me and my
> family, and who are using "Black PR" to try to destroy my business.

I said that if you, or anyone else, has a legally valid claim and
thinks that it is worth the hassle, then pursue it. Let the judge
decide.

I think the mistake is in letting it take over your entire life, in
this case to the point where my advice which was offered with good
intentions is viewed as work of "the enemy". If someone thinks they
should sue, then sue...and let that be the end of it. But Ray, that's
not how you handle things. You really seem to need these posters to
consider you a genius, just as an example. The typical person that
sues doesn't care about that shit...they just want their remedy
(assuming that they can get one), and move on down the road. There is
a big difference between that and what you are doing, but you just
won't examine that as a possibility.

>
> 2. You patronize me by asking me about my long-term plans and remind me that
> "it's not too late to build a life." Should I have one of the psych experts I
> am in the process of retaining explain this to you?

Not necessary. Again, I realize that my perspective has a patronizing
air to it, but that doesn't mean that it is not sound advice. It is my
opinion that you need to wake up and smell the coffee, and I don't
need a psych expert to explain that one to me.

>
> 3. You ask if what I'm doing here is "productive" without seeming to realize
> the highly insulting nature of raising the question.

To use just one of many examples: how does asserting that you are a
genius to posters who despise you help your life, or your "cause"? The
fact that you continue to assert this sort of thing leads me to
believe that their views MATTER to you. It also doesn't seem to occur
to you that there is NOTHING you can say that will cause them to say
"Yeah, Ray's a genius." This sort of absurd show goes on, in one form
or another, all the time here. If that's insulting, sorry, it's
reality. But I have also complimented you in many ways, by saying that
I found value in your work. Hey, if I thought you were handling this
situation wisely, I would tell you in an instant. Ray, you're not
handling this well. That doesn't mean I'm attacking you, it doesn't
mean that I have a secret agenda, and it doesn't mean that I don't
want you to do well for yourself.

>
> To answer you, I have said that why I sue should be obvious, and that I move
> through the world without apology without listening to other people (as others
> also advise). You seem to call into question my ability to live and work
> effectively (by my standards), which you are free to do, just as I am free to
> disagree with you.
>
> If you had any kind of revelation which would make me question what I'm doing,
> then I'd take that into account, but your arguments are extremely weak and way,
> WAY too long. Even if you are not out to waste my time (and thus indirectly
> deplete my resources), surely you can recognize that others may do that as
> well.

Ray, I'm not out to waste your time. If you took my advice seriously,
your time and energy would be freed up immensely.

>
> In short, whether or not you intend it, you are acting like an enemy in a way
> that few outsiders would detect. Even if you aren't an enemy, you should
> understand the other person's point of view. Not only do you avoid this
> confusion, you don't even acknowledge its possibility.

I've acknowledged this. I understand your suspicion. As I've said, you
can either take my word for the fact that I would like to see you do
well, or you can look at the substance of my advice and see that it is
not harmful. But it does require you to acknowledge that you are
making mistakes. That is something that you simply aren't ready to do.

>
> If someone is dressed like a thug and copies my path after I've made three
> detours to shake him, I'm going to assume he's a threat even if he turns out to
> be a nice guy. If he doesn't realize that he was acting in the exact manner as
> someone threatening, that's not my fault, and I don't apologize for how I
> respond to him.

Fair enough.

>
> Your behavior is very similar to those of people who are passive aggressive and
> who try to befriend me under false pretenses. If you want to establish rapport
> with someone, you should avoid creating that similarity.

I'm honest. My opinions are what they are...no secret agendas. I've
even been willing to chalk your rudeness up to the "trench mentality",
and have avoided responding in kind. Throughout, I have given you
credit for your work. But I also am pointing out what I believe to be
a serious mistake on your part. Believe what you want, but I am not
trying to screw you over.

>
> I would never accuse you of anything like that, of course, as I can't read your
> mind, but I will always err on the side of caution, and lately you've been
> setting off red flag alarms.

Well, again, my advice was sincere. I've wasted time, and so have you.
The difference is, you won't acknowledge even the possibility of a
mistake.

>
> Regarding my comment that you'd have to "escalate or back down" I was referring
> to the ineffectiveness of your posts with regard to me. Either you'll have to
> make more pointed statements or you'll have to "back down" because whatever you
> were trying to accomplish here, it didn't work.

I know you don't believe it, but it is your loss that "it didn't
work".

[THughes955]

Well Scott,

No one can say you didn't try. In fact, I think you made a Herculean effort.
Unfortunately, you simply aren't dealing with someone who is capable of looking
at this situation from any viewpoint, save his own.

I too, have come down on Ray's side of things, before. But, since I didn't
come down on his side totally, he decided to treat me as an enemy as well.
Apparently, one must be 100% for Ray or one is 100% against Ray.

I'm glad I don't have to live my life inside such strict constraints.

I mean, sometimes I'm right, sometimes I'm wrong. Generally, I appreciate it
when someone alerts me to my shortcomings. Don't get me wrong, I may not seem
appreciative at the time, but eventually, through self-reflection, I'm often
able to see the other person's argument. If they have a point, maybe I need to
make a change.

Now, I've never read any of Ray's books, but I did visit his "Psychic Caveman"
site.
I actually found much of what he said there to be of interest. Now, I believe
Ray's psychic the way I believe aliens from the moon are keeping Hitler's brain
alive in a jar. Still, some of what he said was clear and rational. Nothing
that I hadn't figured out on my own, but very much in line with some of my
beliefs.

Here's what's important about that:

I went to the site because of you, Scott. I went because I respect the
intelligence in YOUR posts. YOU said that you'd read some of Ray's stuff and
thought he had some good points.

What's sad is that I would have never gone to the site without reading your
posts. Ray has been so venemous and pissy in this forum that I would've never
believed him capable of good ideas.

This is probably what you meant by the on-going flamewar being bad for his
future goals. I mean, even now, I would be reluctant to actually PURCHASE
something from Ray, just because I find his manner to be boorish and rude.

He yells so loudly that the message gets totally lost.

Your questions weren't stupid or loaded. They probably just cut too deeply.
In fact, it's not the first time people here have suggested that Ray not work
so hard at pissing off everyone and that he get back to acheiving some kind of
goal. It seems, however, that Ray's goal is simply to continue to rant and
rave until he runs out of shit to spew.

Me? I'm out of it. Unless he attacks me, I've no more time to waste on him.
I DO have goals and opportunities continue to present themselves to me. A
debate is fun when it leads somewhere. This one just goes around in circles.

I'm going to continue to visit here, because I like it here. Many of the
posters here seem to be good people and I enjoy hearing their points of view.

When this group isn't 100% engaged in fighting Ray, I think some good
discussion goes on. I hope to be able to add to it. I'm planning on posting
my notions about the importance of home decor, in seduction. I hope it will
find a receptive audience. But, make no mistake, if someone disagrees with me,
that's okay. Then, we can debate. Who knows? I could be wrong.

Let's get back to meeting women around here.

I'm out,

T.

[Heero Yuy]

"A Modern Caveman" <amodern...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030316175535...@mb-fp.aol.com...

> >This post was so absurd and immature, that I seriously questioned even
> >responding to it at all.
>
> Then don't bother giving advice that isn't asked for, or trying to paint
> something so slanted as "helpful."
>
> In the course of offering that "help" you used several highly offensive
> presumptions which enough other people have covered.
>
> For someone who speaks of how to treat others you don't exactly set a
pristine
> example with how you've been treating me.

Like we're going to treat an asshole with no intent to treat others well and
thinks he deserves some respect like a king! That's EXACTLY what you've been
demanding throughout your tirades. You won't get any until you change your
attitude... and no, it's NOT a threat or even actionable to say so.

[A.Melon]

Everything you need to know about A Modern Caveman. FREE!
http://www.ray-gordon.com/ (now over 20,000 hits)

In an effort to inform the many people on Usenet who have been offended, provoked, harassed,
or otherwise puzzled during the past eight years (yes, EIGHT YEARS) by the individual calling
himself "Ray Gordon", the above website was created to detail some of his malicious
behaviors, opinions, mental illness, threats to sue people on an almost daily basis, and his
tendency to proclaim himself an expert on pretty much everything from gymnastics to the stock
market. All this despite a lack of any credentials and the fact that he still lives at home
with his mother at the age of 34. The site is NOT affiliated with one Gordon Parker of
Pennsylvania, who has made numerous threats of legal action against it.

New visitors to alt.seduction.fast are welcomed and directed to the main website
http://www.fastseduction.com
Most seduction discussion has been relocated to the forums on this website, as
harassment and bad behavior is prevented there.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

For information on Paranoid Personality Disorder please visit

http://www.toad.net/~arcturus/dd/paranoid.htm and

http://60.1911encyclopedia.org/P/PA/PARANOIA.htm
(scroll down to the section on litigious paranoia)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In article <20030316175535...@mb-fp.aol.com>

http://www.fastseduction.com/

[Paul Robinson]

Odious wrote:

That was very funny, I'll give you five points.

[Paul Robinson]

A Modern Caveman wrote:

> >and blaming others for it (posters here, the beauty
> >premium, whatever).
>
> Blame is not inherently good or bad. Without blame, no one is ever wrong or
> responsible for what they do to others.

Blame presumes fault. Usually an effort is made in constructive arenas to fix the
problem, not try to determine who is at fault for it. It is only in the context of
zero-sum-game transactions where fault has to be an issue.

> If you believe they are, then you are saying that in my case, they aren't. I'd
> say let a court rule on it.

So far they have, and they've been ruling against you.

> >I then try to suggest that you might want to consider making some
> >changes,
>
> Which presumes that something is wrong, which obviously I don't agree with or I
> wouldn't have chosen the path.

Well, you apparently are unable to obtain the particular advances you so
desperately want, and from what I've seen, the penultimate cause of said problem
rests squarely with you.

> >3. You claim to have a successful business, despite an obvious lack of
> >funds.
>
> Compared to the typical internet company, I'm doing fine. Many others went
> broke even with investment; I survived without it.
>
> Is money your sole measure of success? A writing business has a creative side.

More than a hundred years ago, I believe Samuel Johnson, a successful writer, said
that anyone who claims to be a professional writer but writes other than for money
is a fool.

> And of course, the revenue would have been a lot higher without the "Black PR"
> campaign against me. You think the courts wouldn't allow me to recover that
> money? You're talking millions here, not a few dollars.

Which you have been singularly unable to recover $0.01, which kind of defeats your
claim that you've been damaged.

> You say I should leave the group to avoid the behavior? Why not just have a
> court stop it for me and recover damages for me in the process?

As has been said here numerous times, if you can get a judge to agree with you
you're good to go. Basically I think you've been, hmmm, what was that term the
court used? Oh yeah, an "Inexcusable Failure*" in that regard.

> Would you tell a bouncer not to use physical force to eject a customer but
> instead to avoid a conflict he could easily win?

The bouncer can win. Your efforts have shown, over and over again, that you
cannot.

> >But I'll keep it even shorter: Ray, you aren't going to accomplish
> >much in life until you learn how to stop blaming others.
>
> Now we get to the negativity.

It's not negative to admit the truth. And to go back to that quote from Jack
Nicholson again, "Boy, this place really needs an ENEMA." Oh wait, PsyberZombie's
sense of humor is rubbing off on me. "You can't handle the truth!"

> Your life hasn't been scrutinized at all and you take a cheap shot like that.
> Pathetic.

It's not a cheap shot to admit the truth even if you don't want to hear it. Or
read it in this case.

> If you feel that way, too bad, and take up the rights I have with Congress.

Maybe you should do the same since you probably need to have the laws changed to
stack them unreasonable in your favor because you have been singularly incapable of
properly doing what is necessary to defend them, shown by your "inexcusable
failure*" (and on more than one occasion), in court. While I don't know if the
other court felt the same way, I suspect that you probably made the same mistakes
as you did the last time. Or possibly you made new ones.

> >You can learn it now, or let another ten years waste away. The choice is yours.
>
> You are incredibly patronizing, which of course you are free to be.

He is not being patronizing. He's telling you that wallowing in self pity is not
making your life better. I know exactly what he's talking about because, to a
limited degree, I used to be in the same state as you are. I hated myself. And
that's why you act the way you do.

> As for my rights, I defend them. If you have a problem with that you can go
> fuck yourself. If you have a problem with a worker standing up against
> discrimination, you can again go fuck yourself.

Personally I like the phrase Harlan Ellison invented, "Tell him to perform sexual
intercourse reflexively."

> I am too polite to get into detail about what I think is wrong with someone
> like you. Not too weak, too polite.

I think I have to give you three points for that, it's the most hilarious and
ridiculous thing I've ever heard from you so far. Now we can include that in your
comments:

"[Y]ou can again go fuck yourself. I am too polite to get into detail about

what I think is wrong with

someone like you." - Ray Gordon, March 16, 2003
http://groups.google.com/groups?&selm=20030316063856...@mb-bj.aol.com

> I now see you as little more than pitiful.

All together now, everybody: Pot. Kettle. Black.

"(For a dissenting opinion on my character, please visit the
following website: http://www.ray-gordon.com). This site contains
many lies about me, but as a defender of free speech I fully support its right to
exist. I just wish that the author of the site had taken more time
to check the validity of its contents."
- Ray Gordon, 19 March 1998 [Website address corrected
to current location]
http://groups.google.com/groups?&selm=6ertau%2476b%241%40nnrp1.dejanews.com

"Have you been threatened with a lawsuit by Ray? Come visit our
website at http://www.ray-gordon-defendants.org and learn case strategies.
To keep from being sued by Ray over this, we have however, decided
not to create this website, since we suspect no one will ever need it."

* "... upon consideration of Plaintiff Gordon Roy Parker's... continued
and inexcusable failure..." {Gordon Roy Parker v. "Wintermute" et. al.}
02-CV-7215 (Feb. 25, 2003, Eastern District, Pennsylvania)

--

[Paul Robinson]

The Tennessee Tick wrote:

Yes.

>
>
> TheTennesseeTick

Yeah, it's like this. Say I have a list of Zip Codes* in one table,
and a list in the second, say I want a way to either determine which
ones are unique in table 1, or which are duplicates in both tables,
and I want to either find or extract the particular records from the
table that are unique. I've tried several ways on occasion and I
can't seem to find a way that doesn't require making a temporary table
to do it.

Something on the order of (this is not valid SQL but you get the idea)

SELECT * FROM Table1 RIGHT JOIN table2 WHERE table1.zipcode <>
table2.zipcode

So that I could in a single statement select only the unique records
in table 1 and not the ones that duplicate something in table 2 on
that key. It was something I was trying to do for a problem I had at
a previous job I had about three years ago and it's always stuck in my
craw that I couldn't figure out how to do it, and I always felt there
should be a way.

* "Zip Code" is a registered trademark of the United States Postal
Service

[Heero Yuy]

"Paul Robinson" <postm...@paul.washington.dc.us> wrote in message
news:3E7535CB...@paul.washington.dc.us...

Because by remaining her to take said "abuse," you damage your case by
proving to the judge that you don't feel that you are being harmed
psychologically by others.

I doubt people would say things unless you yourself said it.

>
> As has been said here numerous times, if you can get a judge to agree with
you
> you're good to go. Basically I think you've been, hmmm, what was that
term the
> court used? Oh yeah, an "Inexcusable Failure*" in that regard.

By hanging around here, he proves that no one else but himself is ultimately
harming his reputation. He fails the next round (provided there IS a next
round) if he continues to hang out where all of the "abusers" are.

>
> > Would you tell a bouncer not to use physical force to eject a customer
but
> > instead to avoid a conflict he could easily win?
>
> The bouncer can win. Your efforts have shown, over and over again, that
you
> cannot.
>
> > >But I'll keep it even shorter: Ray, you aren't going to accomplish
> > >much in life until you learn how to stop blaming others.
> >
> > Now we get to the negativity.
>
> It's not negative to admit the truth. And to go back to that quote from
Jack
> Nicholson again, "Boy, this place really needs an ENEMA." Oh wait,
PsyberZombie's
> sense of humor is rubbing off on me. "You can't handle the truth!"

He's made that abundantly obvious that he can't. Notice how much he flew off
the handle at me when I said, "because he can't admit to himself that he's
the cause of all of his problems."

>
> > Your life hasn't been scrutinized at all and you take a cheap shot like
that.
> > Pathetic.
>
> It's not a cheap shot to admit the truth even if you don't want to hear
it. Or
> read it in this case.

Most people can't stand hearing the truth when it's about them and BAD. I,
however, take it as a constructive tool and try to change myself to make
myself out to be a better human being.

>
> > If you feel that way, too bad, and take up the rights I have with
Congress.
>
> Maybe you should do the same since you probably need to have the laws
changed to
> stack them unreasonable in your favor because you have been singularly
incapable of
> properly doing what is necessary to defend them, shown by your
"inexcusable
> failure*" (and on more than one occasion), in court. While I don't know
if the
> other court felt the same way, I suspect that you probably made the same
mistakes
> as you did the last time. Or possibly you made new ones.

Seeing as how he's pretty repetitve in his rantings, I'd say he probably
made the same mistakes.

>
> > >You can learn it now, or let another ten years waste away. The choice
is yours.
> >
> > You are incredibly patronizing, which of course you are free to be.
>
> He is not being patronizing. He's telling you that wallowing in self pity
is not
> making your life better. I know exactly what he's talking about because,
to a
> limited degree, I used to be in the same state as you are. I hated
myself. And
> that's why you act the way you do.

Notice how he never took my suggestions in A) getting a sense of humor, or
B) forming his own totalitarian government.

Taking suggestion A would most likely VASTLY improve his outlook on life and
help him get on his feet.

>
> > As for my rights, I defend them. If you have a problem with that you
can go
> > fuck yourself. If you have a problem with a worker standing up against
> > discrimination, you can again go fuck yourself.
>
> Personally I like the phrase Harlan Ellison invented, "Tell him to perform
sexual
> intercourse reflexively."

That is clever.

>
> > I am too polite to get into detail about what I think is wrong with
someone
> > like you. Not too weak, too polite.
>
> I think I have to give you three points for that, it's the most hilarious
and
> ridiculous thing I've ever heard from you so far. Now we can include that
in your
> comments:

I cannot BELIEVE that the rudest asshole on the internet today actually said
that he was not weak, but polite. He is WEAK (oh, and before you go on your
manhood tirade again Ray, there are other things that constitute weakness
besides being able to beat someone within an inch of their lives, contrary
to what you believe [see "lack of good character"]) and RUDE (see all of his
comments to people who even tried to be respectful to him when answering his
posts).

>
> "[Y]ou can again go fuck yourself. I am too polite to get into detail
about
> what I think is wrong with
> someone like you." - Ray Gordon, March 16, 2003
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?&selm=20030316063856...@mb-bj.ao
l.com
>
> > I now see you as little more than pitiful.
>
> All together now, everybody: Pot. Kettle. Black.

Indeed. That pitiful creature likes to project his failure onto others. Oh,
the hypocrisy!

[Paul Robinson]

Whether you agree or disagree with what I say, I would like to make the following statement. I feel that your
comments to Ray have been very good and probably close to dead on accurate. Two of your points you have made: (1)
That you wish him well in his business dealings; and (2) That you've read what he has said, liked what he had to say
and was worth reading even if you do not agree with what he says, are extremely good points and I'm willing to admit
I agree with you on both points.

I have no ill will toward the man. And I agree with your point, the only people who are going to have a non
negative attitude toward him are the ones (like you and me) who read what he had to say BEFORE seeing how he acts
here. He has some sort of martyr complex because he, for some reason, wants to try to make himself into some "hero"
before a bunch of people he knows despises him.

And to put it bluntly, if he spent 1/2 the time doing the legwork to publicize his books and get them before an
agent and possibly a real publisher, he might just be able to get his voice out there in the real world. But he
doesn't want that, because for some reason he likes being this big fish in a tiny little pond of the newsgroups he
infests.

I suspect that the worldwide audience for the entire range of groups he posts to amounts to less than the daily
circulation of the {Anaconda Leader} newspaper of Anaconda, Montana. (I wanted to pick some really small town to
give a gross example)

[Paul Robinson]

A Modern Caveman wrote:

> >This post was so absurd and immature, that I seriously questioned even
> >responding to it at all.
>
> Then don't bother giving advice that isn't asked for, or trying to paint
> something so slanted as "helpful."
>
> In the course of offering that "help" you used several highly offensive
> presumptions which enough other people have covered.
>
> For someone who speaks of how to treat others you don't exactly set a pristine
> example with how you've been treating me.

You haven't been exactly setting a pristine example of anything, Ray. It's hard
to have anything clean when you engage in so much mud slinging.

[Nomen Nescio]

Paul Robinson wrote:
>
> Well, you apparently are unable to obtain the particular advances
> you so desperately want, and from what I've seen, the penultimate
> cause of said problem rests squarely with you.

We never DREAMED that we would ever see this word used in this
newsgroup. Absolutely fantastic!

Except for one thing: "Penultimate" means "next to the last".
So, Mr. Robinson, could you please explain how the next to the
last cause of said problem exists squarely with Ray? We think
we know what you meant, but we would rather hear it from you.

--
A quote from "Ray Gordon"

(For a dissenting opinion on my character, please visit the
following website: http://www.ray-gordon.com). This site
contains many lies about me, but as a defender of free speech
I fully support its right to exist.

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!
BACK by POPULAR DEMAND! For an UNlimited time!
25,000+ Satisfied Visitors, 1 Disgruntled Malcontent.

[Paul Robinson]

Nomen Nescio wrote:

> Paul Robinson wrote:
> >
> > Well, you apparently are unable to obtain the particular advances
> > you so desperately want, and from what I've seen, the penultimate
> > cause of said problem rests squarely with you.
>
> We never DREAMED that we would ever see this word used in this
> newsgroup. Absolutely fantastic!
>
> Except for one thing: "Penultimate" means "next to the last".
> So, Mr. Robinson, could you please explain how the next to the
> last cause of said problem exists squarely with Ray? We think
> we know what you meant, but we would rather hear it from you.

I liked the word and thought that it was essentially the same thing as
"proximate" or "precise" or "ultimate" or "exact."

But I can answer that.

He's the next to the last cause of said problem. The primary cause for
the "inexcusable failure's*" entire set of problems is the unfortunate
decision of his parents not to use contraception when they performed
the particular sex act that brought him into existence. It's
unfortunate of the approximately 500,000,000 sperm that are released in
the average ejaculation, it had to be that particular one that made it
to the egg. That is, indeed, the ultimate cause. He is the
penultimate cause, since he is essentially responsible for everything
that happened after that point.

"There once was a {man, woman} named Thorne
Who wished that {he, she} had never been born.
{He, She} wouldn't have been
If {his, her} {mother, father} had seen
That the end of the rubber was torn."
- Eric Berne, M.D., "Sex in Human Loving,"
Copyright 1962 by City National Bank of Beverly Hills, California

"(For a dissenting opinion on my character, please visit the
following website: http://www.ray-gordon.com). This site contains
many lies about me, but as a defender of free speech I fully support

its right to exist..."

- Ray Gordon, 19 March 1998 [Website address corrected
to current location]
http://groups.google.com/groups?&selm=6ertau%2476b%241%40nnrp1.dejanews.com

"Have you been threatened with a lawsuit by Ray? Come visit our
website at http://www.ray-gordon-defendants.org and learn case
strategies. To keep from being sued by Ray over this, we have however,
decided not to create this website, since we suspect no one will ever
need it."

* "... upon consideration of Plaintiff Gordon Roy Parker's... continued

and inexcusable failure..." {Gordon Roy Parker v. "Wintermute" et.
al.}
02-CV-7215 (Feb. 25, 2003, Eastern District, Pennsylvania)

"[Y]ou can again go fuck yourself. I am too polite to get into

detail about what I think is wrong with someone like you." - Ray
Gordon, March 16, 2003
http://groups.google.com/groups?&selm=20030316063856...@mb-bj.aol.com

--

[Heero Yuy]

"Paul Robinson" <postm...@paul.washington.dc.us> wrote in message

news:3E754CDA...@paul.washington.dc.us...

> Nomen Nescio wrote:
>
> > Paul Robinson wrote:
> > >
> > > Well, you apparently are unable to obtain the particular advances
> > > you so desperately want, and from what I've seen, the penultimate
> > > cause of said problem rests squarely with you.
> >
> > We never DREAMED that we would ever see this word used in this
> > newsgroup. Absolutely fantastic!
> >
> > Except for one thing: "Penultimate" means "next to the last".
> > So, Mr. Robinson, could you please explain how the next to the
> > last cause of said problem exists squarely with Ray? We think
> > we know what you meant, but we would rather hear it from you.
>
> I liked the word and thought that it was essentially the same thing as
> "proximate" or "precise" or "ultimate" or "exact."
>
> But I can answer that.
>
> He's the next to the last cause of said problem. The primary cause for
> the "inexcusable failure's*" entire set of problems is the unfortunate
> decision of his parents not to use contraception when they performed
> the particular sex act that brought him into existence. It's
> unfortunate of the approximately 500,000,000 sperm that are released in
> the average ejaculation, it had to be that particular one that made it
> to the egg. That is, indeed, the ultimate cause. He is the
> penultimate cause, since he is essentially responsible for everything
> that happened after that point.

That was a very funny, and yet very well laid out and logical explanation. I
would definitely give you...

"A TEN! A TEN! A F---ING TEN!!"
- Billy-bob from "Varsity Blues"

I laughed harder then when I read anything else in this newsgroup in the
past... even above all of the other hilarious comments. Good show. ^_^
ROFLLMAO... ACK!!! I just died laughing! X_x'

[Scott Bailey]

thugh...@aol.com (THughes955) wrote in message news:<20030316182611...@mb-md.aol.com>...

> Well Scott,
>
> No one can say you didn't try. In fact, I think you made a Herculean effort.
> Unfortunately, you simply aren't dealing with someone who is capable of looking
> at this situation from any viewpoint, save his own.
>

I appreciate your taking the time to write that post. I think there
was some implied advice there, namely that what I've done is a waste
of time. Just as I can give advice, I can take it too. You are right.

I think Ray is an interesting guy, but...well, from everything you
wrote in your post you already understand the futility of the
situation. Once this thread runs its course, I need to make a point to
stay away from the Ray topic. Short of being attacked or some other
compelling reason, there is really no point to further involvement.
And you are right, let's get back to business.

Anyway, thanks again.

[Scott Bailey]

amodern...@aol.com (A Modern Caveman) wrote
>

> For someone who speaks of how to treat others you don't exactly set a pristine
> example with how you've been treating me.
>
>

Ray, I realize that I played hardball in giving my advice. I still
think I was fair, but I realize that I was also harsh.

Several years ago, when I was wasting a lot of time on the blame game,
it took a friend of mine to really give it to me straight before I
could snap out it. It wasn't pleasant, and yes, I got pissed at the
guy. It wasn't until much later that I realized what he had really
done, and thanked him for it. It is that memory of how I reacted then
that allows me to let some of your insults slide. Anyway, what worked
for me may not be applicable to you. I kind of think it is, though.

I thought there were some things that you needed to hear, and that
there was no way of really treading softly in writing them. Again,
that does not mean that it wasn't sincere, or that I don't want you to
do well for yourself. Perhaps I should not have posted my views here,
and sent a private email instead. Or perhaps you would have found that
just as insulting, I don't know.

I offered a perspective that I thought was valid and that you might
benefit from considering. You consider it neither valid nor worth
considering. Fair enough, and only time will tell who was right. I'm
willing to leave it at that if you are.

[Scott Bailey]

Paul Robinson <postm...@paul.washington.dc.us> wrote in message news:<3E75431F...@paul.washington.dc.us>...

> Whether you agree or disagree with what I say, I would like to make the following statement. I feel that your
> comments to Ray have been very good and probably close to dead on accurate. Two of your points you have made: (1)
> That you wish him well in his business dealings; and (2) That you've read what he has said, liked what he had to say
> and was worth reading even if you do not agree with what he says, are extremely good points and I'm willing to admit
> I agree with you on both points.
>
> I have no ill will toward the man. And I agree with your point, the only people who are going to have a non
> negative attitude toward him are the ones (like you and me) who read what he had to say BEFORE seeing how he acts
> here. He has some sort of martyr complex because he, for some reason, wants to try to make himself into some "hero"
> before a bunch of people he knows despises him.
>
> And to put it bluntly, if he spent 1/2 the time doing the legwork to publicize his books and get them before an
> agent and possibly a real publisher, he might just be able to get his voice out there in the real world. But he
> doesn't want that, because for some reason he likes being this big fish in a tiny little pond of the newsgroups he
> infests.
>
> I suspect that the worldwide audience for the entire range of groups he posts to amounts to less than the daily
> circulation of the {Anaconda Leader} newspaper of Anaconda, Montana. (I wanted to pick some really small town to
> give a gross example)

I agree. I didn't make the point explicitly, but like you I read his
books before coming to this site. If it had been the other way around,
well, I probably would have never read the books.

I also realize that my advice came across as condescending, but there
were some things that needed to be said - and I saw no particularly
pleasing way of saying them. I also should stress that I got caught up
in blaming others at one point in my life, and lost a hell of a lot of
time because of it. Been there, done that. That is one reason why I
felt it was appropriate to give some unasked for advice.

However, at the end of the day I said my piece and it was dismissed.
That's fine. At this point, I plan to retire from the Ray issue after
this thread has run its course. Short of attacks or some other reason
that I find compelling, I'm going to try to stay away from the
subject, at least for a substantial period.

Finally, and I'm not trying to turn this into some sort of mutual
admiration society, but I will point out a couple of things. Yes, I've
disagreed with you some in the past, and I'm sure we'll disagree
again. But whenever we've argued, you've played fair. I respect that.
Further, I appreciate that you are one of the posters that has
something interesting to say. In other words, whether I agree or not,
I enjoy reading your posts.

[Johannes Seppi]

Hi Paul!

Not that this is the right newsgroup...

You don't mean something like

SELECT * from Table1 where not exists (select zipcode from Table2
where Table1.zipcode = Table2.zipcode)
?

Curious,
Johannes

[A Modern Caveman]

>> For someone who speaks of how to treat others you don't exactly set a
>pristine
>> example with how you've been treating me.
>>
>>
>
>Ray, I realize that I played hardball in giving my advice.

And in doing so you became exactly the type of man I warn women not to marry or
date.

>I still
>think I was fair, but I realize that I was also harsh.

It's useful to see your true colors so I can properly judge you.

>Several years ago, when I was wasting a lot of time on the blame game,

What "blame game?" I notice you bring up discrimination against me in your
posts. You realize that to call that a "blame game" you almost have to by
definition attack my professionalism.

Not only that, but you also have to deny what is perhaps the most obvious bias
of all in the workplace.

>it took a friend of mine to really give it to me straight before I
>could snap out it.

My situation is not your situation.

>It wasn't pleasant, and yes, I got pissed at the
>guy. It wasn't until much later that I realized what he had really
>done, and thanked him for it.

You will never be thanked by me for your attempted character-assassination.

>It is that memory of how I reacted then
>that allows me to let some of your insults slide. Anyway, what worked
>for me may not be applicable to you. I kind of think it is, though.

I don't.

I don't consider it a "blame game" to sue employers who refuse to obey the law.
I don't consider it a "blame game" to sue people who break the law out here
either.

Ross sued R. Don Steele. Does what you say to me apply to him as well?

>I thought there were some things that you needed to hear, and that
>there was no way of really treading softly in writing them.

You mean they were things you needed to say.

Like I said, all you did was show me what type of person you are. Second
chances are never given to people who speak like you. I'd be a fool to do
that.

>Again,
>that does not mean that it wasn't sincere, or that I don't want you to
>do well for yourself.

Spare me, please.

>Perhaps I should not have posted my views here,
>and sent a private email instead.

You were effectively telling me to let the world violate my rights.

What type of person would do that is self-evident.

>Or perhaps you would have found that
>just as insulting, I don't know.

I find it highly troubling for reasons I'll keep to myself.

>I offered a perspective that I thought was valid

Valid how? Telling me you don't think I should defend my rights? Pathetic.

>and that you might
>benefit from considering. You consider it neither valid nor worth
>considering.

You stopped just short of defaming me, which you'd have had to do to validate
your points regarding employment.

>Fair enough, and only time will tell who was right. I'm
>willing to leave it at that if you are.

I'm just pointing out that your post was far from anything helpful, and if you
think of it as "tough love" you make my permanent list of personas non grata.
There is no forgiving it, no second chances, no "letting go of the past"
(because it wasn't the past while you were doing it), nothing.

What was exceptionally troubling about the messages were that you refused to
even acknowledge that you were doing exactly what my enemies would have done.
It's kind of like someone who decides to conduct a door-to-door survey at 3:00
a.m. wondering why the homeowner answers the door as if it were an intruder,
without considering the obvious.

Ray Gordon: BACK by popular demand!
Limited time only!

Everything you need to know about women. FREE!
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html

[A Modern Caveman]

>Well Scott,
>
>No one can say you didn't try. In fact, I think you made a Herculean effort.
>
>Unfortunately, you simply aren't dealing with someone who is capable of
>looking
>at this situation from any viewpoint, save his own.

Both of you have made attacks (direct or indirect) on my professional
competence.

That is never forgivable.

[A Modern Caveman]

>> Well Scott,
>>
>> No one can say you didn't try. In fact, I think you made a Herculean
>effort.
>> Unfortunately, you simply aren't dealing with someone who is capable of
>looking
>> at this situation from any viewpoint, save his own.
>>
>
>I appreciate your taking the time to write that post. I think there
>was some implied advice there, namely that what I've done is a waste
>of time. Just as I can give advice, I can take it too. You are right.

My advice? Can the "tough love" or the woman you want more than any other on
the planet will wind up breaking your heart.

The only women who are into that type of cruelty are those who will wind up
lying to you, and the ones who won't lie to you will bail from you because of
it.

>I think Ray is an interesting guy, but...well, from everything you
>wrote in your post you already understand the futility of the
>situation.

The futility is the audience's refusal to require the gurus to play fair. They
are allowed to defame, harass, and break laws, but then if I have the nerve to
take legal action, *I* get criticized for it.

If the public refused to buy into the illegal marketing that goes on here, it
would cease. That is who has the power to make it happen.

>Once this thread runs its course, I need to make a point to
>stay away from the Ray topic. Short of being attacked or some other
>compelling reason, there is really no point to further involvement.

Translation: his attempt failed.

[Scott Bailey]

Apparently this has yet to run its course.

amodern...@aol.com (A Modern Caveman) wrote in message news:<20030318092853...@mb-mm.aol.com>...

> >> For someone who speaks of how to treat others you don't exactly set a
> pristine
> >> example with how you've been treating me.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Ray, I realize that I played hardball in giving my advice.
>
> And in doing so you became exactly the type of man I warn women not to marry or
> date.

Why? In this case, there were some things that I thought you needed to
hear. If I knew you on a personal basis, the context would have been
different. But given that I don't, I had to make my points in print,
and that possibly came across as harsh. I attemtped to mitigate the
harshness by giving credit where that was due.

>
> >I still
> >think I was fair, but I realize that I was also harsh.
>
> It's useful to see your true colors so I can properly judge you.

What true colors? Don't you get it Ray? Just because someone disagrees
with you doesn't mean they are evil.

>
>
> >Several years ago, when I was wasting a lot of time on the blame game,
>
> What "blame game?" I notice you bring up discrimination against me in your
> posts. You realize that to call that a "blame game" you almost have to by
> definition attack my professionalism.

I mentioned that I thought it was sound advice to do an end-run around
obstacles. I also, unlike your assumption, did not suggest that you
leave the group. I did suggest that you look at things in a different
way, and then handle things according to your judgement at that time.
I think your judgement at this time is poor. Doesn't it make any
impression upon you that the people with the best opinions of you
developed those opinions BEFORE seeing you post here?

>
> Not only that, but you also have to deny what is perhaps the most obvious bias
> of all in the workplace.

I'm not at all sure what you are getting at here. I think you are
reading a lot into my words that weren't there. The basic point was
that sometimes we get trapped in situations and can't see the forest
for the trees. That is not a defense of your opponents, or an attack
on you overall. It is a limited observation that, in my opinion, you
are wasting valuable time. That's all. If you don't think so, then to
each his own. I've learned a few things over the years that I think
are useful, but I don't claim to know it all.

>
> >it took a friend of mine to really give it to me straight before I
> >could snap out it.
>
> My situation is not your situation.

No, it's not. But some things have either universal or near universal
application. I think this is one of them, but you are free to
disagree.

>
> >It wasn't pleasant, and yes, I got pissed at the
> >guy. It wasn't until much later that I realized what he had really
> >done, and thanked him for it.
>
> You will never be thanked by me for your attempted character-assassination.

Ray, you are being disingenious now. In no way, shape or form have I
attemtped a character-assassination. I have essentially said "the guy
has talent and potential, but his tactics are all wrong...in my
OPINION." You really are a piece of work to so blatantly misrepresent
my posts. It is only out of a sense of decency, and perhaps a sense of
futility, that prevents me from commenting more strongly on this sort
of thing.

>
>
> >It is that memory of how I reacted then
> >that allows me to let some of your insults slide. Anyway, what worked
> >for me may not be applicable to you. I kind of think it is, though.
>
> I don't.

Good for you, Ray.

>
> I don't consider it a "blame game" to sue employers who refuse to obey the law.
> I don't consider it a "blame game" to sue people who break the law out here
> either.
>
> Ross sued R. Don Steele. Does what you say to me apply to him as well?

Ray, if I've said it once I must have said it one hundred times. My
comments were not at all about whether you should sue or not. To
repeat: if someone has a valid legal claim, and thinks that it's worth
the hassle to pursue that claim, then sue.

The mistake is in letting it consume your entire life, in making you
so bitter and paranoid that you see attacks everywhere. Your
proclaiming to the very people that you are sueing that you are a
genius is a perfect example of this. It shows not only that you are
way too involved on an emotional level, but it also shows a shocking
lack of simple real world social skills. Do you really think that
asserting your genius to people that despise you is going to
accomplish anything? Really? Other than drawing the inevitable hoots
and howls of "idiot"? Then why do you do it? And pray tell how doing
so is going to improve your life and/or business.

>
>
> >I thought there were some things that you needed to hear, and that
> >there was no way of really treading softly in writing them.
>
> You mean they were things you needed to say.

That's possibly the most salient point you've made in awhile. You are
probably right. But I have always, from the time I was a little kid,
tended to take up for the intelligent kid who was going up against
greater numbers. I've always appreciated intelligence, and I value
giving such people the elbow room to create. I got into more than one
fistfight as a kid because of this. But when I see a guy acting like a
tool, ESPECIALLY if he's intelligent, then I'm going to say something.

>
> Like I said, all you did was show me what type of person you are. Second
> chances are never given to people who speak like you. I'd be a fool to do
> that.

You have completely misread what type of person I am. However, it is
your perogative to be wrong.

>
>
> >Again,
> >that does not mean that it wasn't sincere, or that I don't want you to
> >do well for yourself.
>
> Spare me, please.

From what?

>
> >Perhaps I should not have posted my views here,
> >and sent a private email instead.
>
> You were effectively telling me to let the world violate my rights.

Again, that is a blatant misprepresentation of what I was saying. What
I was in essence saying is that even if damage has been done to you
(I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not qualified to say more), then it is my
opinion that you are compounding the damage by your immaturity, as
well as the shocking fact that your opponents opinions of you seem to
MATTER. I don't think that's healthy. Such is my OPINION, nothing
more.

>
> What type of person would do that is self-evident.

The only thing that is self-evident is your trench warfare mentality.

>
> >Or perhaps you would have found that
> >just as insulting, I don't know.
>
> I find it highly troubling for reasons I'll keep to myself.

I guess I would find it troubling as well, if I made as many incorrect
assumptions as you have.

>
>
> >I offered a perspective that I thought was valid
>
> Valid how? Telling me you don't think I should defend my rights? Pathetic.

Again, totally offbase. I know repetition burns you up, but obviously
it's not getting through. So here goes: sue if you want. That's not my
call. It's not my call as to whether you have a good case or not. But
it is your obsession with these people beyond any lawsuit, your
concern with their thoughts of you, etc. Ray, rational people who sue
just want their friggin' remedy, and then move on down the road. They
either succeed or they don't. Doesn't seem to be the way you are
handling things. This tendency to go down to the lowest common
denominator leads you, in your rage, to say things that come back to
bite you in the ass.

>
> >and that you might
> >benefit from considering. You consider it neither valid nor worth
> >considering.
>
> You stopped just short of defaming me, which you'd have had to do to validate
> your points regarding employment.

What points about employment? I never said anything in particular
about your employment. I did say that I felt you were wasting
potential. How the hell is that defamatory? This is making me believe
that your lawsuit is full of shit. Ray, let me be clear about this: I
did not, in any way shape or form, defame you. If what I have written
qualifies as "just short of" defaming you...then defamation in your
book must pretty much mean having a disagreement. Really absurd. If
you are suing guys for the things that I've said, then you may well be
guilty of defamation yourself, and opening yourself up to mucho
countersuits. If you sue, I hope it is for REAL OFFENSES, not merely
someone who disagrees with you. I can say you're intelligent (which I
am now beginning to question a bit), and that is fine with you. But
add on, "I think you need to be more mature about certain life
decisions", and that is somehow "just short of" defamation? Let's be
straight: disagreement doesn't equal defamation. You are proud to
emphasize usnet as an "open forum", but if someone disagrees with
you.....

>
>
> >Fair enough, and only time will tell who was right. I'm
> >willing to leave it at that if you are.
>
> I'm just pointing out that your post was far from anything helpful, and if you
> think of it as "tough love" you make my permanent list of personas non grata.
> There is no forgiving it, no second chances, no "letting go of the past"
> (because it wasn't the past while you were doing it), nothing.

If I'm on that list, then as you say, there is no getting off. At this
point I'm not sure I would want off of it.

>
> What was exceptionally troubling about the messages were that you refused to
> even acknowledge that you were doing exactly what my enemies would have done.
> It's kind of like someone who decides to conduct a door-to-door survey at 3:00
> a.m. wondering why the homeowner answers the door as if it were an intruder,
> without considering the obvious.

No, Ray, I did acknowledge that. I said that I understood your
suspicion. I also wondered how I might have handled things better than
I did. However, if you can't take my word for it, then look at the
substance. And to use your analogy, when the person gets over the
initial irritation of the 3:00 a.m. visitor and realizes that he is
not in fact an intruder, then he has no right to continue to treat him
as if he was.

[Scott Bailey]

amodern...@aol.com (A Modern Caveman) wrote in message news:<20030318093312...@mb-mm.aol.com>...

> >> Well Scott,
> >>
> >> No one can say you didn't try. In fact, I think you made a Herculean
> effort.
> >> Unfortunately, you simply aren't dealing with someone who is capable of
> looking
> >> at this situation from any viewpoint, save his own.
> >>
> >
> >I appreciate your taking the time to write that post. I think there
> >was some implied advice there, namely that what I've done is a waste
> >of time. Just as I can give advice, I can take it too. You are right.
>
> My advice? Can the "tough love" or the woman you want more than any other on
> the planet will wind up breaking your heart.
>
> The only women who are into that type of cruelty are those who will wind up
> lying to you, and the ones who won't lie to you will bail from you because of
> it.

That's actually probably pretty good advice. However, it does not
change the reality of this particular situation. As I've noted
elswhere, print media does have it's disadvantages.

>
> >I think Ray is an interesting guy, but...well, from everything you
> >wrote in your post you already understand the futility of the
> >situation.
>
> The futility is the audience's refusal to require the gurus to play fair. They
> are allowed to defame, harass, and break laws, but then if I have the nerve to
> take legal action, *I* get criticized for it.

This goes to your total misunderstanding of my post, and your tendency
to tack on assumptions willy nilly, assumptions that are simply not
there. I could see how you might have assumed the worst initially,
but since I've clarified, you have no excuse. Yet you continue to do
so.

>
> If the public refused to buy into the illegal marketing that goes on here, it
> would cease. That is who has the power to make it happen.

The real question is: is your current behavior helping you get the
results that you want?

>
> >Once this thread runs its course, I need to make a point to
> >stay away from the Ray topic. Short of being attacked or some other
> >compelling reason, there is really no point to further involvement.
>
> Translation: his attempt failed.

Absolutely. Whether that is a good thing or not, only time will tell.

[A.Melon]

Everything you need to know about A Modern Caveman. FREE!

http://www.ray-gordon.com/ (now over 25,000 hits)

In an effort to inform the many people on Usenet who have been offended, provoked, harassed,
or otherwise puzzled during the past eight years (yes, EIGHT YEARS) by the individual calling
himself "Ray Gordon", the above website was created to detail some of his malicious
behaviors, opinions, mental illness, threats to sue people on an almost daily basis, and his
tendency to proclaim himself an expert on pretty much everything from gymnastics to the stock
market. All this despite a lack of any credentials and the fact that he still lives at home

with his mother at the age of 35. The site is NOT affiliated with one Gordon Parker of

Pennsylvania, who has made numerous threats of legal action against it.

New visitors to alt.seduction.fast are welcomed and directed to the main website
http://www.fastseduction.com
Most seduction discussion has been relocated to the forums on this website, as
harassment and bad behavior is prevented there.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

For information on Paranoid Personality Disorder please visit

http://www.toad.net/~arcturus/dd/paranoid.htm and

http://60.1911encyclopedia.org/P/PA/PARANOIA.htm
(scroll down to the section on litigious paranoia)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In article <20030318092853...@mb-mm.aol.com>

I don't.

Spare me, please.

http://www.fastseduction.com/

[A.Melon]

Everything you need to know about A Modern Caveman. FREE!
http://www.ray-gordon.com/ (now over 25,000 hits)

In an effort to inform the many people on Usenet who have been offended, provoked, harassed,
or otherwise puzzled during the past eight years (yes, EIGHT YEARS) by the individual calling
himself "Ray Gordon", the above website was created to detail some of his malicious
behaviors, opinions, mental illness, threats to sue people on an almost daily basis, and his
tendency to proclaim himself an expert on pretty much everything from gymnastics to the stock
market. All this despite a lack of any credentials and the fact that he still lives at home
with his mother at the age of 35. The site is NOT affiliated with one Gordon Parker of
Pennsylvania, who has made numerous threats of legal action against it.

New visitors to alt.seduction.fast are welcomed and directed to the main website
http://www.fastseduction.com
Most seduction discussion has been relocated to the forums on this website, as
harassment and bad behavior is prevented there.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

For information on Paranoid Personality Disorder please visit

http://www.toad.net/~arcturus/dd/paranoid.htm and

http://60.1911encyclopedia.org/P/PA/PARANOIA.htm
(scroll down to the section on litigious paranoia)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In article <20030318093030...@mb-mm.aol.com>

amodern...@aol.com (A Modern Caveman) wrote:
>

That is never forgivable.

http://www.fastseduction.com/

[A.Melon]

Everything you need to know about A Modern Caveman. FREE!
http://www.ray-gordon.com/ (now over 25,000 hits)

In an effort to inform the many people on Usenet who have been offended, provoked, harassed,
or otherwise puzzled during the past eight years (yes, EIGHT YEARS) by the individual calling
himself "Ray Gordon", the above website was created to detail some of his malicious
behaviors, opinions, mental illness, threats to sue people on an almost daily basis, and his
tendency to proclaim himself an expert on pretty much everything from gymnastics to the stock
market. All this despite a lack of any credentials and the fact that he still lives at home
with his mother at the age of 35. The site is NOT affiliated with one Gordon Parker of
Pennsylvania, who has made numerous threats of legal action against it.

New visitors to alt.seduction.fast are welcomed and directed to the main website
http://www.fastseduction.com
Most seduction discussion has been relocated to the forums on this website, as
harassment and bad behavior is prevented there.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

For information on Paranoid Personality Disorder please visit

http://www.toad.net/~arcturus/dd/paranoid.htm and

http://60.1911encyclopedia.org/P/PA/PARANOIA.htm
(scroll down to the section on litigious paranoia)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In article <20030318093312...@mb-mm.aol.com>

amodern...@aol.com (A Modern Caveman) wrote:
>

Translation: his attempt failed.

http://www.fastseduction.com/

[A Modern Caveman]

>> The only women who are into that type of cruelty are those who will wind up
>> lying to you, and the ones who won't lie to you will bail from you because
>of
>> it.
>
>That's actually probably pretty good advice. However, it does not
>change the reality of this particular situation. As I've noted
>elswhere, print media does have it's disadvantages.

Your point of view was clear. It's one I find pathetic.

>> The futility is the audience's refusal to require the gurus to play fair.
>They
>> are allowed to defame, harass, and break laws, but then if I have the nerve
>to
>> take legal action, *I* get criticized for it.
>
>This goes to your total misunderstanding of my post, and your tendency
>to tack on assumptions willy nilly, assumptions that are simply not
>there. I could see how you might have assumed the worst initially,
>but since I've clarified, you have no excuse. Yet you continue to do
>so.

Because your advice sides with the opposition. Who benefits from my not
suing people who have broken the law against me? They do.

>> If the public refused to buy into the illegal marketing that goes on here,
>it
>> would cease. That is who has the power to make it happen.
>
>The real question is: is your current behavior helping you get the
>results that you want?

Actually, the real question is whether I'm accomplishing a greater good by
posting or not posting, and the answer is clear that posting accomplishes the
greater good, annoying as it may be to have to endure.

Same with discrimination: suing over it is not fun, but it is necessary.

>> >Once this thread runs its course, I need to make a point to
>> >stay away from the Ray topic. Short of being attacked or some other
>> >compelling reason, there is really no point to further involvement.
>>
>> Translation: his attempt failed.
>
>Absolutely. Whether that is a good thing or not, only time will tell.

Not the issue. Why I do what I do is clear to my allies. To me, it's about
the information out here, not the noise. I am one of the few people who
doesn't have to have a million dollars in the bank to be able to defend myself
in court.

[Nomen Nescio]

We'd just like to say that we predicted this.

And no, we're not gloating, we're not saying we told you so,
and we're not mocking you, Mr. Bailey. We're just pointing
out that we predicted this...

Scott Bailey wrote:
>
> Apparently this has yet to run its course.
>
>
> amodern...@aol.com (A Modern Caveman) wrote in message
> news:<20030318092853...@mb-mm.aol.com>...
>>>> For someone who speaks of how to treat others you don't
>>>> exactly set a pristine example with how you've been
>>>> treating me.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ray, I realize that I played hardball in giving my advice.
>>
>> And in doing so you became exactly the type of man I warn
>> women not to marry or date.
>
> Why? In this case, there were some things that I thought you
> needed to hear. If I knew you on a personal basis, the context
> would have been different. But given that I don't, I had to
> make my points in print, and that possibly came across as harsh.
> I attemtped to mitigate the harshness by giving credit where
> that was due.
>
>>
>>> I still think I was fair, but I realize that I was also harsh.
>>
>> It's useful to see your true colors so I can properly judge you.
>
> What true colors? Don't you get it Ray? Just because someone
> disagrees with you doesn't mean they are evil.

We did say that all you had to do to be added to his list was
to disagree with him. You're now "The Enemy"...

> all wrong... in my OPINION." You really are a piece of work

We almost want to gloat here, but we really are sorry that you
had to see this the hard way.

Now we *really* want to say "We told you so"...

>>
>>> and that you might benefit from considering. You consider it
>>> neither valid nor worth considering.
>>
>> You stopped just short of defaming me, which you'd have had
>> to do to validate your points regarding employment.
>
> What points about employment? I never said anything in
> particular about your employment. I did say that I felt
> you were wasting potential. How the hell is that defamatory?
> This is making me believe that your lawsuit is full of shit.
> Ray, let me be clear about this: I did not, in any way shape
> or form, defame you. If what I have written qualifies as
> "just short of" defaming you...then defamation in your
> book must pretty much mean having a disagreement. Really
> absurd. If you are suing guys for the things that I've said,
> then you may well be guilty of defamation yourself, and
> opening yourself up to mucho countersuits. If you sue, I
> hope it is for REAL OFFENSES, not merely someone who disagrees
> with you.

Several people have been saying that he is only suing to harass
and intimidate people, just because they've pointed out what
an ass he is, and how much he contradicts himself. If you get
sued for throwing his own words back in his face, well, you're
in good company.

> I can say you're intelligent (which I am now beginning to
> question a bit), and that is fine with you. But add on, "I
> think you need to be more mature about certain life decisions",
> and that is somehow "just short of" defamation? Let's be
> straight: disagreement doesn't equal defamation. You are
> proud to emphasize usnet as an "open forum", but if someone
> disagrees with you.....

They get "added to the RICO list"... Are you ready? RICO is
coming. Ray said that himself to someone who said less than
you just have.

>>
>>> Fair enough, and only time will tell who was right. I'm
>>> willing to leave it at that if you are.
>>
>> I'm just pointing out that your post was far from anything
>> helpful, and if you think of it as "tough love" you make my
>> permanent list of personas non grata. There is no forgiving
>> it, no second chances, no "letting go of the past" (because
>> it wasn't the past while you were doing it), nothing.
>
> If I'm on that list, then as you say, there is no getting off.
> At this point I'm not sure I would want off of it.
>
>>
>> What was exceptionally troubling about the messages were that
>> you refused to even acknowledge that you were doing exactly
>> what my enemies would have done. It's kind of like someone
>> who decides to conduct a door-to-door survey at 3:00 a.m.
>> wondering why the homeowner answers the door as if it were
>> an intruder, without considering the obvious.
>
> No, Ray, I did acknowledge that. I said that I understood
> your suspicion. I also wondered how I might have handled
> things better than I did. However, if you can't take my word
> for it, then look at the substance. And to use your analogy,
> when the person gets over the initial irritation of the 3:00
> a.m. visitor and realizes that he is not in fact an intruder,
> then he has no right to continue to treat him as if he was.

Mr. Bailey, we don't think you're going to accept this, but
we offer our apologies to you for your being in this situation.

We did try to point out that any discussion with Mr. Parker
would eventually result in this, and we don't blame you a bit
for not listening to us. We are well aware that we come off
a bit like Cassandra, uttering warnings that no one heeds,
but who in their right mind would ever conceive of just how
easily this kind of thing happens?

--
A quote from "Ray Gordon"

(For a dissenting opinion on my character, please visit the
following website: http://www.ray-gordon.com). This site
contains many lies about me, but as a defender of free speech

[Hypnotic Phantom]

>amodern...@aol.com

>Why I do what I do is clear to my allies.

Allies? Ray, you've got about as many 'allies' as Suddam Hussien does.

>I am one of the few people who
>doesn't have to have a million dollars in the bank to be able to defend
>myself
>in court.

Maybe not, but it would help if you had your legal poop in a group before you
trapsed into court. And following the advice of some DISBARRED (god, I love
doing this ridiculous capitalizing of words..:o) ) attorney's videos, you may
have a better shot at it. By the way, I never knew that Estabrooks(or however
his name is spelled) and Carla Emry wrote Law books too!

HP
To fight in just causes.
To be merciful at all times.
To put the services of Ladies foremost.

Le Morte De Arthur

[HC]

>Why I do what I do is clear to my allies.

Allies?

>Ray Gordon: BACK by popular demand!

Oh, THOSE people . . .

cuckoo . . . cuckoo . . . cuckoo . . .

[A.Melon]

Everything you need to know about A Modern Caveman. FREE!
http://www.ray-gordon.com/ (now over 25,000 hits)

In an effort to inform the many people on Usenet who have been offended, provoked, harassed,
or otherwise puzzled during the past eight years (yes, EIGHT YEARS) by the individual calling
himself "Ray Gordon", the above website was created to detail some of his malicious
behaviors, opinions, mental illness, threats to sue people on an almost daily basis, and his
tendency to proclaim himself an expert on pretty much everything from gymnastics to the stock
market. All this despite a lack of any credentials and the fact that he still lives at home
with his mother at the age of 35. The site is NOT affiliated with one Gordon Parker of
Pennsylvania, who has made numerous threats of legal action against it.

New visitors to alt.seduction.fast are welcomed and directed to the main website
http://www.fastseduction.com
Most seduction discussion has been relocated to the forums on this website, as
harassment and bad behavior is prevented there.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

For information on Paranoid Personality Disorder please visit

http://www.toad.net/~arcturus/dd/paranoid.htm and

http://60.1911encyclopedia.org/P/PA/PARANOIA.htm
(scroll down to the section on litigious paranoia)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In article <20030318192404...@mb-fp.aol.com>

http://www.fastseduction.com/

[A Modern Caveman]

>> >Ray, I realize that I played hardball in giving my advice.
>>
>> And in doing so you became exactly the type of man I warn women not to
>marry or
>> date.
>
>Why? In this case, there were some things that I thought you needed to
>hear.

It's what caused you to think it that I find to be the red flag.

Someone at Arthur Andersen once thought I needed mentoring. He was trying to
be helpful and explain to me how their world worked. He had money and power so
his advice was good, right?

>If I knew you on a personal basis, the context would have been
>different.

If you knew me on a personal basis you'd state a general opposition to suing
and not make it so personal.

>But given that I don't, I had to make my points in print,
>and that possibly came across as harsh. I attemtped to mitigate the
>harshness by giving credit where that was due.

Your post added up to a suggestion that I not defend my rights anywhere.

With friends like that....

>> >I still
>> >think I was fair, but I realize that I was also harsh.
>>
>> It's useful to see your true colors so I can properly judge you.
>
>What true colors? Don't you get it Ray? Just because someone disagrees
>with you doesn't mean they are evil.

I didn't say you were evil.

I said that your views are such that I find them repulsive, and further, that
you refuse to acknowledge that what you suggested I do happens to be exactly
what the other side wants me to do. Doesn't mean that you have a hidden
agenda, but when you discount the appearance of one, I start wondering.

>> >Several years ago, when I was wasting a lot of time on the blame game,
>>
>> What "blame game?" I notice you bring up discrimination against me in your
>> posts. You realize that to call that a "blame game" you almost have to by
>> definition attack my professionalism.
>
>I mentioned that I thought it was sound advice to do an end-run around
>obstacles.

One can do both.

>I also, unlike your assumption, did not suggest that you
>leave the group. I did suggest that you look at things in a different
>way, and then handle things according to your judgement at that time.

You mean post here but continue to get defamed? Short of letting lawbreakers
change my behavior that's about all you were suggesting.

>I think your judgement at this time is poor. Doesn't it make any
>impression upon you that the people with the best opinions of you
>developed those opinions BEFORE seeing you post here?

Once again, this is how someone with a hidden agenda would express that agenda.

If you wear a backwards baseball cap on your head, walk like a thug, and follow
someone walking down a street who has made seven illogical turns, don't
complain if they accuse you of following them.

Lots of people dislike Eminem as well.

>> Not only that, but you also have to deny what is perhaps the most obvious
>bias
>> of all in the workplace.
>
>I'm not at all sure what you are getting at here. I think you are
>reading a lot into my words that weren't there.

You mentioned the "beauty premium" as part of my agenda. There's a lawsuit I
filed which is tied to that.

>The basic point was
>that sometimes we get trapped in situations and can't see the forest
>for the trees. That is not a defense of your opponents, or an attack
>on you overall. It is a limited observation that, in my opinion, you
>are wasting valuable time.

By defending my rights? If I don't defend them, I'm wasting a lot more. That
should be obvious.

>That's all. If you don't think so, then to
>each his own. I've learned a few things over the years that I think
>are useful, but I don't claim to know it all.

Was Ross Jeffries wasting valuable time by suing R. Don Steele?

>> >it took a friend of mine to really give it to me straight before I
>> >could snap out it.
>>
>> My situation is not your situation.
>
>No, it's not. But some things have either universal or near universal
>application. I think this is one of them, but you are free to
>disagree.

I'm not about to let my rights be violated by anyone. Pity the man who would
have to do that.

My legal background makes it much easier for me to file suit as well.

>> >It wasn't pleasant, and yes, I got pissed at the
>> >guy. It wasn't until much later that I realized what he had really
>> >done, and thanked him for it.
>>
>> You will never be thanked by me for your attempted character-assassination.
>
>Ray, you are being disingenious now.

You are misspelling.

>In no way, shape or form have I
>attemtped a character-assassination.

Actually, you did.

>I have essentially said "the guy
>has talent and potential, but his tactics are all wrong...in my
>OPINION."

In Congress, they begin with "My distinguished colleague" right before they
ream the legislator.

Now you're just insulting my intelligence.

>You really are a piece of work to so blatantly misrepresent
>my posts. It is only out of a sense of decency, and perhaps a sense of
>futility, that prevents me from commenting more strongly on this sort
>of thing.

If people aren't getting your message you should make the delivery more clear.

How is it a waste of my time to sue over discrimination or being defamed when I
am capable of seeing the cases through trial?

>> >It is that memory of how I reacted then
>> >that allows me to let some of your insults slide. Anyway, what worked
>> >for me may not be applicable to you. I kind of think it is, though.
>>
>> I don't.
>
>Good for you, Ray.

As I said, I can defend my rights just fine.

>> I don't consider it a "blame game" to sue employers who refuse to obey the
>law.
>> I don't consider it a "blame game" to sue people who break the law out
>here
>> either.
>>
>> Ross sued R. Don Steele. Does what you say to me apply to him as well?
>
>Ray, if I've said it once I must have said it one hundred times. My
>comments were not at all about whether you should sue or not. To
>repeat: if someone has a valid legal claim, and thinks that it's worth
>the hassle to pursue that claim, then sue.

Exactly.

>The mistake is in letting it consume your entire life, in making you
>so bitter and paranoid that you see attacks everywhere.

So now my lawsuits aren't a waste of time?

>Your
>proclaiming to the very people that you are sueing that you are a
>genius is a perfect example of this. It shows not only that you are
>way too involved on an emotional level, but it also shows a shocking
>lack of simple real world social skills.

Actually, I put that in my sig. You read way too much into things.

Should I show you some profiles on AOL created by women? Most are horrid, but
I doubt the women are penalized for it.

>Do you really think that
>asserting your genius to people that despise you is going to
>accomplish anything? Really? Other than drawing the inevitable hoots
>and howls of "idiot"?

I'm not out to win over people who have violated my rights.

>Then why do you do it? And pray tell how doing
>so is going to improve your life and/or business.

It won't affect it much one way or another, compared to the lies told about me.
Remove the defamation, level the playing field, and it's a different story.

>> >I thought there were some things that you needed to hear, and that
>> >there was no way of really treading softly in writing them.
>>
>> You mean they were things you needed to say.
>
>That's possibly the most salient point you've made in awhile. You are
>probably right. But I have always, from the time I was a little kid,
>tended to take up for the intelligent kid who was going up against
>greater numbers. I've always appreciated intelligence, and I value
>giving such people the elbow room to create. I got into more than one
>fistfight as a kid because of this. But when I see a guy acting like a
>tool, ESPECIALLY if he's intelligent, then I'm going to say something.

You're entitled to your opinion, but as I said originally, I found your
delivery to be very insulting.

You speak of "social skills" in a corrupt society.

>> Like I said, all you did was show me what type of person you are. Second
>> chances are never given to people who speak like you. I'd be a fool to do
>> that.
>
>You have completely misread what type of person I am. However, it is
>your perogative to be wrong.

Or to call a guy on his bullshit.

The problem isn't that you necessarily have a hidden agenda, but that you
refuse to acknowledge that someone with a hidden agenda would have done exactly
what you did.

[HC]

>If people aren't getting your message you should make the delivery more
>clear.

http://www.ray-gordon.com

[James King]

In article <20030319072701...@mb-mm.aol.com>, A Modern
Caveman <amodern...@aol.com> wrote:

> >Ray, you are being disingenious now.
>
> You are misspelling.

Take the log out of your eye before removing the speck in your
associate's eye.

James King

[A Modern Caveman]

>> >Ray, you are being disingenious now.
>>
>> You are misspelling.
>
>Take the log out of your eye before removing the speck in your
>associate's eye.

Why do so many Christian preachers "mistakenly" believe that premarital sex is
a sin?

[Nomen Nescio]

Raimundo Bizarro, The AMAZING Litigation Lad deflected:
>
> James King wrote:

>>
>> Scott Bailey, the latest target wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ray, you are being disingenious now.
>>>
>>> You are misspelling.
>>
>> Take the log out of your eye before removing the speck in your
>> associate's eye.
>
> Why do so many Christian preachers "mistakenly" believe that
> premarital sex is a sin?

Why does a Self-proclaimed "Expert Secretaries" who is also a
Self-proclaimed "Genius" and who files so many Barratrous and
Frivolous lawsuits only to get social validation, so concerned
with deflecting the issue away from his egregious errors in
spelling, grammar, and legal strategy?

Christian Preachers don't have a thing to do with the fact that
you of ALL people don't have ANY business telling other people
about their spelling errors when YOU make so many of them yourself.

Why have you continued to RUN AWAY from YOUR OWN CHALLENGE to
Denise Hayden? Why have you continued to RUN AWAY from YOUR OWN
CHALLENGE to Lee Darrow? Why have you CONTINUED to RUN AWAY from
EVERY test you have ever made, or been challenged to? Is it only
because you could not stand the PUBLIC FAILURE that would result,
and therefore cannot be seen to be held ACCOUNTABLE?

You ought to see the latest stuff folks have sent us to go up
on The OFFICIAL Ray Gordon FAQ. Lots of great parodies of you,
you PUBLIC FIGURE... (3!)

You don't have the BALLS to take anyone on who can dish out
better than you can. Denise Hayden has them on her mantelpiece.

[James King]

In article <20030319095152...@mb-mg.aol.com>, A Modern
Caveman <amodern...@aol.com> wrote:

> >> >Ray, you are being disingenious now.
> >>
> >> You are misspelling.
> >
> >Take the log out of your eye before removing the speck in your
> >associate's eye.
>
> Why do so many Christian preachers "mistakenly" believe that premarital sex is
> a sin?

You've deliberately ignored the discussion in another thread.

Go read it.

James King

[HC]

>Why do so many Christian preachers "mistakenly" believe that premarital sex
>is
>a sin?

When will Ray get his own woman so he doesn't have to stalk and harrass
everybody elses women?

Everything you need to know about Usenet's biggest asshole. FREE!
http://www.ray-gordon.com

[A Modern Caveman]

>> Why do so many Christian preachers "mistakenly" believe that premarital sex
>is
>> a sin?
>
>You've deliberately ignored the discussion in another thread.

I answered you in that thread.

I want to know why every other preacher I've heard says it's wrong and you
don't.

Ray Gordon: BACK by popular demand!
Limited time only!

Everything you need to know about women. FREE!
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html

[James King]

In article <20030319105335...@mb-mg.aol.com>, A Modern
Caveman <amodern...@aol.com> wrote:

> >> Why do so many Christian preachers "mistakenly" believe that premarital sex
> >is
> >> a sin?
> >
> >You've deliberately ignored the discussion in another thread.
>
> I answered you in that thread.
>
> I want to know why every other preacher I've heard says it's wrong and you
> don't.

And I answered that in the thread in article
<190320030926222721%jlk...@ix.netcom.com> to which I have NOT received
a reply, according to my newsserver.

You've answered other threads though, so I assume that you're
deliberately ignoring my answer.

That's your problem and not mine.

James King

[Scott Bailey]

> Your point of view was clear. It's one I find pathetic.

It was my opinion that certain ways in which you have been acting were
pathetic. I suppose pathetic is in the eye of the beholder.

Also, if my point of view is pathetic, then I suppose we should
reverse the "He's a bright guy with a lot of potential, but who is
wasting a lot of that through foolish choices.", and amend it to "He's
a dumbass with no potential, but he sure is making all the right
moves!" Would that suit you better? I think not.
Or are my views only pathetic when I disagree with you?

>
>
>
> >> The futility is the audience's refusal to require the gurus to play fair.
> They
> >> are allowed to defame, harass, and break laws, but then if I have the nerve
> to
> >> take legal action, *I* get criticized for it.
> >
> >This goes to your total misunderstanding of my post, and your tendency
> >to tack on assumptions willy nilly, assumptions that are simply not
> >there. I could see how you might have assumed the worst initially,
> >but since I've clarified, you have no excuse. Yet you continue to do
> >so.
>
> Because your advice sides with the opposition. Who benefits from my not
> suing people who have broken the law against me? They do.

Ray, how much repetition do you need on this point? I have not advised
you one way or the other on the issue of whether or not to sue. I have
now explained this multiple times. Your continuing to suggest that I
gave advice which I did not in fact give makes me wonder. I have
repeatedly stated that I am not an attorney, and I do not give such
advice.

>
>
> >> If the public refused to buy into the illegal marketing that goes on here,
> it
> >> would cease. That is who has the power to make it happen.
> >
> >The real question is: is your current behavior helping you get the
> >results that you want?
>
> Actually, the real question is whether I'm accomplishing a greater good by
> posting or not posting, and the answer is clear that posting accomplishes the
> greater good, annoying as it may be to have to endure.

Again, for the umpteenth time, I have not told you not to post. I did
tell you that I think that many of your posts are counterproductive.

>
> Same with discrimination: suing over it is not fun, but it is necessary.

Necessary is a pretty meaningless term here.

>
>
> >> >Once this thread runs its course, I need to make a point to
> >> >stay away from the Ray topic. Short of being attacked or some other
> >> >compelling reason, there is really no point to further involvement.
> >>
> >> Translation: his attempt failed.
> >
> >Absolutely. Whether that is a good thing or not, only time will tell.
>
> Not the issue. Why I do what I do is clear to my allies. To me, it's about
> the information out here, not the noise. I am one of the few people who
> doesn't have to have a million dollars in the bank to be able to defend myself
> in court.

That's your call.

[A Modern Caveman]

>> Your point of view was clear. It's one I find pathetic.
>
>It was my opinion that certain ways in which you have been acting were
>pathetic. I suppose pathetic is in the eye of the beholder.

There was a time when I was exceptionally polite in my postings. People were
just as bad in response, even worse because they couldn't find anything to
attack.

I am under no obligation to rise to a standard that others are not held to.
Even the courts recognize that one.

>Also, if my point of view is pathetic, then I suppose we should
>reverse the "He's a bright guy with a lot of potential, but who is
>wasting a lot of that through foolish choices.", and amend it to "He's
>a dumbass with no potential, but he sure is making all the right
>moves!"

It's still opinion.

>Would that suit you better? I think not.
>Or are my views only pathetic when I disagree with you?

The views you expressed were pathetic in my view. Disagreeing with me is one
thing, but that was an all-out attack against me that went beyond disagreement.

A disagreement would be something like "that's not how I'd do things." An
attack is something like "you still have time to build a better life" and the
other patronizing crap that went along with it.

>> Because your advice sides with the opposition. Who benefits from my not
>> suing people who have broken the law against me? They do.
>
>Ray, how much repetition do you need on this point? I have not advised
>you one way or the other on the issue of whether or not to sue.

Your advice was leaning that way (not legal advice obviously).

>I have
>now explained this multiple times. Your continuing to suggest that I
>gave advice which I did not in fact give makes me wonder. I have
>repeatedly stated that I am not an attorney, and I do not give such
>advice.

Not legal advice. Advice not to "waste time" with a lawsuit didn't address the
legal issues, but the concept of suing at all, so I wasn't saying you were
trying to be a lawyer.

I said you seem to rather see me not sue than to sue.

>> Actually, the real question is whether I'm accomplishing a greater good by
>> posting or not posting, and the answer is clear that posting accomplishes
>the
>> greater good, annoying as it may be to have to endure.
>
>Again, for the umpteenth time, I have not told you not to post.

I never said you did.

>I did
>tell you that I think that many of your posts are counterproductive.

Six of one, half-dozen of the other.

>> Same with discrimination: suing over it is not fun, but it is necessary.
>
>Necessary is a pretty meaningless term here.

Not for me.

>> >Absolutely. Whether that is a good thing or not, only time will tell.
>>
>> Not the issue. Why I do what I do is clear to my allies. To me, it's
>about
>> the information out here, not the noise. I am one of the few people who
>> doesn't have to have a million dollars in the bank to be able to defend
>myself
>> in court.
>
>That's your call.

Yep.

I'd have to go back to your original posting to fully construct my rebutall to
it. Generally, I found it to be patronizing and a "nice" attempt to nudge me
in the same direction the "not so nice" folks want to nudge me in.

Instead of examining your demeanor, I just looked at the arrows, as I should.

[James King]

In article <20030319140222...@mb-mg.aol.com>,

amodern...@aol.com (A Modern Caveman) wrote:

> There was a time when I was exceptionally polite in my postings.

Notice the use of the singular: "a time."

James King

[Scott Bailey]

amodern...@aol.com (A Modern Caveman) wrote in message news:<20030319072701...@mb-mm.aol.com>...

> >> >Ray, I realize that I played hardball in giving my advice.
> >>
> >> And in doing so you became exactly the type of man I warn women not to
> marry or
> >> date.
> >
> >Why? In this case, there were some things that I thought you needed to
> >hear.
>
> It's what caused you to think it that I find to be the red flag.

What caused me to "think it" was some of the posts that you made. I
then made a judgement call. I knew you would be irritated by what I
had to say, but at the same time some things take years to sink in.

>
> Someone at Arthur Andersen once thought I needed mentoring. He was trying to
> be helpful and explain to me how their world worked. He had money and power so
> his advice was good, right?

Not relevant at all to this situation. Whether his advice was good
would depend on how well that advice comported with reality, how
successfully that advice could be applied in the real world. Society's
"winners" can give good advice, as can "losers" (they learned the hard
way). The point is that you have to examine the advice and see how it
fits into the real world. I think the perspective I offered to you is
sound, you do not. Time will tell.

>
>
> >If I knew you on a personal basis, the context would have been
> >different.
>
> If you knew me on a personal basis you'd state a general opposition to suing
> and not make it so personal.

Unreal. I have never stated either a general or a specific opposition
to suing. Why do you continue to suggest that I have, despite numerous
protestations to the contrary? Whether your lawsuits are sound or
total bullshit, I have no idea. I'm not an attorney, and therefore I
choose not to give legal advice.

But yes, my post was "personal". That was my motivation, Ray.

>
>
>
> >But given that I don't, I had to make my points in print,
> >and that possibly came across as harsh. I attemtped to mitigate the
> >harshness by giving credit where that was due.
>
> Your post added up to a suggestion that I not defend my rights anywhere.
>
> With friends like that....

Again, I find it astonishing that you continue to blatantly
misprepresent my posts like this. Perhaps you have a different agenda
here. Perhaps you want someone to go on record as saying "sue 'em", so
you continue to make false representations hoping to goad me into that
answer. I don't know, but it's not going to happen, any more than me
telling you NOT to sue is going to happen. I do not give legal advice.
I saw this as being about your attitude and perceptions, not about any
specific acts.

>
> >> >I still
> >> >think I was fair, but I realize that I was also harsh.
> >>
> >> It's useful to see your true colors so I can properly judge you.
> >
> >What true colors? Don't you get it Ray? Just because someone disagrees
> >with you doesn't mean they are evil.
>
> I didn't say you were evil.
>
> I said that your views are such that I find them repulsive, and further, that
> you refuse to acknowledge that what you suggested I do happens to be exactly
> what the other side wants me to do. Doesn't mean that you have a hidden
> agenda, but when you discount the appearance of one, I start wondering.

There doesn't appear to be any point to "discount the appearance" with
you, Ray. You say you find my views repulsive, yet you have completely
misrepresented my views. So are you repulsed by my ACTUAL views, or
rather by views that I do not even hold and have not expressed? Who
the hell can tell. But this constantly playing Br'er Rabbit and "Don't
tell me I shouldn't sue, don't tell me I shouldn't sue" is getting a
little strange. Why do you keep hitting on that one point, when I have
made it clear that I am not advising you one way or the other as to
that issue?

>
>
> >> >Several years ago, when I was wasting a lot of time on the blame game,
> >>
> >> What "blame game?" I notice you bring up discrimination against me in your
> >> posts. You realize that to call that a "blame game" you almost have to by
> >> definition attack my professionalism.
> >
> >I mentioned that I thought it was sound advice to do an end-run around
> >obstacles.
>
> One can do both.
>
> >I also, unlike your assumption, did not suggest that you
> >leave the group. I did suggest that you look at things in a different
> >way, and then handle things according to your judgement at that time.
>
> You mean post here but continue to get defamed? Short of letting lawbreakers
> change my behavior that's about all you were suggesting.

Hypo: two people get into a flamewar on usenet. They sink to the
lowest common denominator, slinging personal insults left and right.
Really crass stuff. One of the two has something to sell, he NEEDS to
be respected. The other is just Joe Blow sitting at home, having a job
and life completely separate from usenet. Who wins and who loses?

>
>
> >I think your judgement at this time is poor. Doesn't it make any
> >impression upon you that the people with the best opinions of you
> >developed those opinions BEFORE seeing you post here?
>
> Once again, this is how someone with a hidden agenda would express that agenda.
>
> If you wear a backwards baseball cap on your head, walk like a thug, and follow
> someone walking down a street who has made seven illogical turns, don't
> complain if they accuse you of following them.
>
> Lots of people dislike Eminem as well.

Given that I have clarified any possible misconceptions, yet you still
cling to them, this line of argument has lost most of its weight - yet
you still trot it out.

>
>
> >> Not only that, but you also have to deny what is perhaps the most obvious
> bias
> >> of all in the workplace.
> >
> >I'm not at all sure what you are getting at here. I think you are
> >reading a lot into my words that weren't there.
>
> You mentioned the "beauty premium" as part of my agenda. There's a lawsuit I
> filed which is tied to that.

I am unaware of your legal affairs concerning this point. We had a
debate on this issue based on the idea in general (from my perspective
at least), not concerning any case which you may have or have had. At
least, that was my understanding while we were debating the issue.

>
> >The basic point was
> >that sometimes we get trapped in situations and can't see the forest
> >for the trees. That is not a defense of your opponents, or an attack
> >on you overall. It is a limited observation that, in my opinion, you
> >are wasting valuable time.
>
> By defending my rights? If I don't defend them, I'm wasting a lot more. That
> should be obvious.

No, by undermining the defense of your rights. Ray, you do a lot of
mudslinging around here. How is that defending your rights? How is
that going to look if a judge or jury were to see them? And yet you
continue to do this while filing? It's really amazing. Had you stopped
rolling in the muck, your position would have been much
stronger...with everybody. Your "rights" would have been easier to
defend. But you can't see this, and can't even acknowledge it as a
valid opinion that is anything but pathetic and repulsive. You know it
all, Ray. The proof is in the pudding.

>
>
> >That's all. If you don't think so, then to
> >each his own. I've learned a few things over the years that I think
> >are useful, but I don't claim to know it all.
>
> Was Ross Jeffries wasting valuable time by suing R. Don Steele?

Again, I don't give advice on legal issues per se. But in terms of
general life advice, he would be wasting his time if he got so
emotionally involved in the situation that it really mattered to him
that Steele considered him a genius. He would be wasting his time if,
while the suit was in progress, he wallowed in the muck and made crass
posts that would only make him look bad to anyone seeing the posts. He
would be wasting his time if he allowed Steele to make him miserable.
He would be wasting his time if he began to see Steele as having
critical control and influence over his life, career, and happiness.

>
>
> >> >it took a friend of mine to really give it to me straight before I
> >> >could snap out it.
> >>
> >> My situation is not your situation.
> >
> >No, it's not. But some things have either universal or near universal
> >application. I think this is one of them, but you are free to
> >disagree.
>
> I'm not about to let my rights be violated by anyone. Pity the man who would
> have to do that.
>
> My legal background makes it much easier for me to file suit as well.

My advice was never inconsistent with your rights being respected. For
whatever reason, whether it be arrogance or another agenda, you don't
want to see that - or at least acknowledge it. By following my advice
your rights would be less likely to be violated.

>
>
> >> >It wasn't pleasant, and yes, I got pissed at the
> >> >guy. It wasn't until much later that I realized what he had really
> >> >done, and thanked him for it.
> >>
> >> You will never be thanked by me for your attempted character-assassination.
> >
> >Ray, you are being disingenious now.
>
> You are misspelling.

Yep, and It'll ahapen agian.

>
> >In no way, shape or form have I
> >attemtped a character-assassination.
>
> Actually, you did.

No, I didn't.

>
> >I have essentially said "the guy
> >has talent and potential, but his tactics are all wrong...in my
> >OPINION."
>
> In Congress, they begin with "My distinguished colleague" right before they
> ream the legislator.
>
> Now you're just insulting my intelligence.

It was only because I considered you intelligent that I made the post
in the first place. However, your continual misprepresentation of my
views is beginning to take it's toll on my original perceptions.
Either (1) you are not bright enough to see what I said and, just as
importantly, what I didn't say or (2)you have another agenda and are
trying to goad me into making a certain remark or (3)you are simply in
the trench warfare mode, and genuinely believe that I am trying to
screw you over when in fact I'm not.

I hope it is (3), as that is the only one that can be undone.

>
> >You really are a piece of work to so blatantly misrepresent
> >my posts. It is only out of a sense of decency, and perhaps a sense of
> >futility, that prevents me from commenting more strongly on this sort
> >of thing.
>
> If people aren't getting your message you should make the delivery more clear.
>
> How is it a waste of my time to sue over discrimination or being defamed when I
> am capable of seeing the cases through trial?

Again, what do you want me to say here? What remark are you trying to
goad out of me? I have made my position on suing quite clear.

>
>
>
> >> >It is that memory of how I reacted then
> >> >that allows me to let some of your insults slide. Anyway, what worked
> >> >for me may not be applicable to you. I kind of think it is, though.
> >>
> >> I don't.
> >
> >Good for you, Ray.
>
> As I said, I can defend my rights just fine.

Great. Ask yourself this. Would a top-notch attorney advise you to
participate in muck while he is trying to pursue your case? Would he
advise you to make crass insults that become part of the usenet
record?

>
>
> >> I don't consider it a "blame game" to sue employers who refuse to obey the
> law.
> >> I don't consider it a "blame game" to sue people who break the law out
> here
> >> either.
> >>
> >> Ross sued R. Don Steele. Does what you say to me apply to him as well?
> >
> >Ray, if I've said it once I must have said it one hundred times. My
> >comments were not at all about whether you should sue or not. To
> >repeat: if someone has a valid legal claim, and thinks that it's worth
> >the hassle to pursue that claim, then sue.
>
> Exactly.

Wow, it only took about a zillion times.

>
>
> >The mistake is in letting it consume your entire life, in making you
> >so bitter and paranoid that you see attacks everywhere.
>
> So now my lawsuits aren't a waste of time?

Didn't say they were, didn't say they weren't. My position concerned
general life principles, not the particulars of whether to sue or not.

>
> >Your
> >proclaiming to the very people that you are sueing that you are a
> >genius is a perfect example of this. It shows not only that you are
> >way too involved on an emotional level, but it also shows a shocking
> >lack of simple real world social skills.
>
> Actually, I put that in my sig. You read way too much into things.
>
> Should I show you some profiles on AOL created by women? Most are horrid, but
> I doubt the women are penalized for it.

>
>
> >Do you really think that
> >asserting your genius to people that despise you is going to
> >accomplish anything? Really? Other than drawing the inevitable hoots
> >and howls of "idiot"?
>
> I'm not out to win over people who have violated my rights.

What about those who haven't?

>
> >Then why do you do it? And pray tell how doing
> >so is going to improve your life and/or business.
>
> It won't affect it much one way or another, compared to the lies told about me.
> Remove the defamation, level the playing field, and it's a different story.

Ray, it seems like you really believe that you are making all the
right moves. Time will tell.

>
>
> >> >I thought there were some things that you needed to hear, and that
> >> >there was no way of really treading softly in writing them.
> >>
> >> You mean they were things you needed to say.
> >
> >That's possibly the most salient point you've made in awhile. You are
> >probably right. But I have always, from the time I was a little kid,
> >tended to take up for the intelligent kid who was going up against
> >greater numbers. I've always appreciated intelligence, and I value
> >giving such people the elbow room to create. I got into more than one
> >fistfight as a kid because of this. But when I see a guy acting like a
> >tool, ESPECIALLY if he's intelligent, then I'm going to say something.
>
> You're entitled to your opinion, but as I said originally, I found your
> delivery to be very insulting.
>
> You speak of "social skills" in a corrupt society.

There was no sugar-coated way of putting it.

>
>
> >> Like I said, all you did was show me what type of person you are. Second
> >> chances are never given to people who speak like you. I'd be a fool to do
> >> that.
> >
> >You have completely misread what type of person I am. However, it is
> >your perogative to be wrong.
>
> Or to call a guy on his bullshit.

The biggest bullshit has been your blatant misrepresentation of my
posts, despite repeated clarifications to the contrary.

Also, was it bullshit to give you credit for your work, to speak of
your potential, etc? I guess it was, by your own logic.

>
> The problem isn't that you necessarily have a hidden agenda, but that you
> refuse to acknowledge that someone with a hidden agenda would have done exactly
> what you did.

Another blatant falsehood. I have repeatedly acknowledged that I could
understand your initial suspicion. But your inablility and
unwillingness to examine your own life, to accept your shortcomings
and mistakes, is disturbing.

[Scott Bailey]

>
> Mr. Bailey, we don't think you're going to accept this, but
> we offer our apologies to you for your being in this situation.
>
> We did try to point out that any discussion with Mr. Parker
> would eventually result in this, and we don't blame you a bit
> for not listening to us. We are well aware that we come off
> a bit like Cassandra, uttering warnings that no one heeds,
> but who in their right mind would ever conceive of just how
> easily this kind of thing happens?
>

Well...what can I say? I can't blame you for getting a few chuckles
out of it. I guess I would too. lol.

In fairness, however, Ray has not threatened to sue me at this time.
His last statement was that I was "just short of defamation" (in and
of itself ridiculous), and earlier he claimed that my posts were
nothing to sue over. We'll see. Personally, I find it offensive that
someone would even mention defamation in the legal context, as it is
clearly intended to have a chilling effect.

Regardless, I have two aces in the hole. One, I never post anything
that could make me liable in a court of law. I don't desire to
"injure" anyone on this board, including Ray. As you know, I've even
defended the guy, only proving that "no good deed goes unpunished." I
realize you didn't consider it a good deed, but you know what I mean.

Secondly, I have considerably more legal resources than the average
person (Let's just say that if anyone hit me with a frivolous suit,
they would soon realize that I have people to draw upon to provide
expert defense - and offense - at basically no expense to myself). I'm
just not as vulnerable as most people in this department, at least in
terms of having access to expert resources at no cost.

The most important thing is that, as a matter of policy, I avoid
posting anything that could come back and bite me in the ass in a
legal sense. So far, Ray has not threatened to sue, and unless he
does, then things can remain amicable. Perhaps in time Ray will see
that I offered a perspective which I believed to be sound, a
perspective which he is free to accept or reject...and leave it at
that. Maybe he already understands this, maybe not. Unless notified
otherwise, I will assume that he does understand.

Yet again, I don't blame you for the "I told you so". I figured it was
coming, just a matter of when. I would have done the same thing.

[A.Melon]

Everything you need to know about A Modern Caveman. FREE!
http://www.ray-gordon.com/ (now over 25,000 hits)

In an effort to inform the many people on Usenet who have been offended, provoked, harassed,
or otherwise puzzled during the past eight years (yes, EIGHT YEARS) by the individual calling
himself "Ray Gordon", the above website was created to detail some of his malicious
behaviors, opinions, mental illness, threats to sue people on an almost daily basis, and his
tendency to proclaim himself an expert on pretty much everything from gymnastics to the stock
market. All this despite a lack of any credentials and the fact that he still lives at home
with his mother at the age of 35. The site is NOT affiliated with one Gordon Parker of
Pennsylvania, who has made numerous threats of legal action against it.

New visitors to alt.seduction.fast are welcomed and directed to the main website
http://www.fastseduction.com
Most seduction discussion has been relocated to the forums on this website, as
harassment and bad behavior is prevented there.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

For information on Paranoid Personality Disorder please visit

http://www.toad.net/~arcturus/dd/paranoid.htm and

http://60.1911encyclopedia.org/P/PA/PARANOIA.htm
(scroll down to the section on litigious paranoia)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In article <20030319105335...@mb-mg.aol.com>

http://www.fastseduction.com/

[A.Melon]

Everything you need to know about A Modern Caveman. FREE!
http://www.ray-gordon.com/ (now over 25,000 hits)

In an effort to inform the many people on Usenet who have been offended, provoked, harassed,
or otherwise puzzled during the past eight years (yes, EIGHT YEARS) by the individual calling
himself "Ray Gordon", the above website was created to detail some of his malicious
behaviors, opinions, mental illness, threats to sue people on an almost daily basis, and his
tendency to proclaim himself an expert on pretty much everything from gymnastics to the stock
market. All this despite a lack of any credentials and the fact that he still lives at home
with his mother at the age of 35. The site is NOT affiliated with one Gordon Parker of
Pennsylvania, who has made numerous threats of legal action against it.

New visitors to alt.seduction.fast are welcomed and directed to the main website
http://www.fastseduction.com
Most seduction discussion has been relocated to the forums on this website, as
harassment and bad behavior is prevented there.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

For information on Paranoid Personality Disorder please visit

http://www.toad.net/~arcturus/dd/paranoid.htm and

http://60.1911encyclopedia.org/P/PA/PARANOIA.htm
(scroll down to the section on litigious paranoia)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In article <20030319072701...@mb-mm.aol.com>

With friends like that....

One can do both.

You are misspelling.

Actually, you did.

Exactly.

http://www.fastseduction.com/

[A.Melon]

Everything you need to know about A Modern Caveman. FREE!
http://www.ray-gordon.com/ (now over 25,000 hits)

In an effort to inform the many people on Usenet who have been offended, provoked, harassed,
or otherwise puzzled during the past eight years (yes, EIGHT YEARS) by the individual calling
himself "Ray Gordon", the above website was created to detail some of his malicious
behaviors, opinions, mental illness, threats to sue people on an almost daily basis, and his
tendency to proclaim himself an expert on pretty much everything from gymnastics to the stock
market. All this despite a lack of any credentials and the fact that he still lives at home
with his mother at the age of 35. The site is NOT affiliated with one Gordon Parker of
Pennsylvania, who has made numerous threats of legal action against it.

New visitors to alt.seduction.fast are welcomed and directed to the main website
http://www.fastseduction.com
Most seduction discussion has been relocated to the forums on this website, as
harassment and bad behavior is prevented there.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

For information on Paranoid Personality Disorder please visit

http://www.toad.net/~arcturus/dd/paranoid.htm and

http://60.1911encyclopedia.org/P/PA/PARANOIA.htm
(scroll down to the section on litigious paranoia)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In article <20030319095152...@mb-mg.aol.com>

amodern...@aol.com (A Modern Caveman) wrote:

http://www.fastseduction.com/

[A.Melon]

Everything you need to know about A Modern Caveman. FREE!
http://www.ray-gordon.com/ (now over 25,000 hits)

In an effort to inform the many people on Usenet who have been offended, provoked, harassed,
or otherwise puzzled during the past eight years (yes, EIGHT YEARS) by the individual calling
himself "Ray Gordon", the above website was created to detail some of his malicious
behaviors, opinions, mental illness, threats to sue people on an almost daily basis, and his
tendency to proclaim himself an expert on pretty much everything from gymnastics to the stock
market. All this despite a lack of any credentials and the fact that he still lives at home
with his mother at the age of 35. The site is NOT affiliated with one Gordon Parker of
Pennsylvania, who has made numerous threats of legal action against it.

New visitors to alt.seduction.fast are welcomed and directed to the main website
http://www.fastseduction.com
Most seduction discussion has been relocated to the forums on this website, as
harassment and bad behavior is prevented there.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

For information on Paranoid Personality Disorder please visit

http://www.toad.net/~arcturus/dd/paranoid.htm and

http://60.1911encyclopedia.org/P/PA/PARANOIA.htm
(scroll down to the section on litigious paranoia)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In article <20030319140222...@mb-mg.aol.com>

amodern...@aol.com (A Modern Caveman) wrote:
>

It's still opinion.

Not for me.

Yep.

http://www.fastseduction.com/

[Scott Bailey]

amodern...@aol.com (A Modern Caveman) wrote in message news:<20030319140222...@mb-mg.aol.com>...

> >> Your point of view was clear. It's one I find pathetic.
> >
> >It was my opinion that certain ways in which you have been acting were
> >pathetic. I suppose pathetic is in the eye of the beholder.
>
> There was a time when I was exceptionally polite in my postings. People were
> just as bad in response, even worse because they couldn't find anything to
> attack.
>
> I am under no obligation to rise to a standard that others are not held to.
> Even the courts recognize that one.

This logic seems to justify going to the lowest common denominator,
which in my opinion has hurt your position. This is precisely the sort
of thinking that caused me to post in the first place. This is a
classic example of what I've been talking about, as it is just the
sort of logic that has caused you to make what are, IN MY OPINION,
mistakes.

>
>
> >Also, if my point of view is pathetic, then I suppose we should
> >reverse the "He's a bright guy with a lot of potential, but who is
> >wasting a lot of that through foolish choices.", and amend it to "He's
> >a dumbass with no potential, but he sure is making all the right
> >moves!"
>
> It's still opinion.

Exactly.

>
> >Would that suit you better? I think not.
> >Or are my views only pathetic when I disagree with you?
>
> The views you expressed were pathetic in my view. Disagreeing with me is one
> thing, but that was an all-out attack against me that went beyond disagreement.

It was not intended as such.

>
> A disagreement would be something like "that's not how I'd do things." An
> attack is something like "you still have time to build a better life" and the
> other patronizing crap that went along with it.

I can see how you could take it as patronizing, but that was an
important part of my perspective. It's not just advice that I've given
to you, but advice that I've tried to follow myself. Reject it, ignore
it, dismiss it. But don't act like it was an "all out attack" just
because you found it patronizing.

>
>
>
>
> >> Because your advice sides with the opposition. Who benefits from my not
> >> suing people who have broken the law against me? They do.
> >
> >Ray, how much repetition do you need on this point? I have not advised
> >you one way or the other on the issue of whether or not to sue.
>
> Your advice was leaning that way (not legal advice obviously).

No, it wasn't leaning any particular way. Whether you sue or not is
extraneous to my real point. People who have their shit together sue,
just as losers sue. I was addressing a broader and more fundamental
point, and whether or not to sue is a particular of which I didn't
concern myself.

>
>
> >I have
> >now explained this multiple times. Your continuing to suggest that I
> >gave advice which I did not in fact give makes me wonder. I have
> >repeatedly stated that I am not an attorney, and I do not give such
> >advice.
>
> Not legal advice. Advice not to "waste time" with a lawsuit didn't address the
> legal issues, but the concept of suing at all, so I wasn't saying you were
> trying to be a lawyer.
>
> I said you seem to rather see me not sue than to sue.

You still can't seem to believe this, but I did not see that issue as
fundamental. I've now said it many times, if someone has a valid legal
claim, and thinks that it is worth the hassle to pursue the claim,
then so be it. You have constantly come back to this point, even
though it is not the point I was attempting to address.

>
>
>
> >> Actually, the real question is whether I'm accomplishing a greater good by
> >> posting or not posting, and the answer is clear that posting accomplishes
> the
> >> greater good, annoying as it may be to have to endure.
> >
> >Again, for the umpteenth time, I have not told you not to post.
>
> I never said you did.

Actually, at one point I believe you accused me of suggesting that you
leave the group.

>

> >I did
> >tell you that I think that many of your posts are counterproductive.
>
> Six of one, half-dozen of the other.

Again, more trench warfare thinking. You are dead wrong. Ray, see, you
could actually discontinue any counterproductive posts and replace
them with productive posts. It's not six of one, half-dozen of the
other. Instead, we're talking two totally different things.

>
>
>
> >> Same with discrimination: suing over it is not fun, but it is necessary.
> >
> >Necessary is a pretty meaningless term here.
>
> Not for me.

We've been down the lawsuit road enough.

>
>
> >> >Absolutely. Whether that is a good thing or not, only time will tell.
> >>
> >> Not the issue. Why I do what I do is clear to my allies. To me, it's
> about
> >> the information out here, not the noise. I am one of the few people who
> >> doesn't have to have a million dollars in the bank to be able to defend
> myself
> >> in court.
> >
> >That's your call.
>
> Yep.
>
> I'd have to go back to your original posting to fully construct my rebutall to
> it. Generally, I found it to be patronizing and a "nice" attempt to nudge me
> in the same direction the "not so nice" folks want to nudge me in.
>
> Instead of examining your demeanor, I just looked at the arrows, as I should.

And in so doing missed the point entirely. The "arrows" were mostly
things that you have ascribed to me that were never written, and which
I did not intend. You assumed. I clarified the assumptions (about
suing, or what have you), and yet you still continue.

[Paul Robinson]

A Modern Caveman wrote:

> >> Your point of view was clear. It's one I find pathetic.
> >
> >It was my opinion that certain ways in which you have been acting were
> >pathetic. I suppose pathetic is in the eye of the beholder.
>
> There was a time when I was exceptionally polite in my postings. People were
> just as bad in response, even worse because they couldn't find anything to
> attack.

I have seen lately when you've asked some reasonable questions - like the one about
Premarital Sex and why it isn't a sin - that you have gotten clear answers without
one bit of attack upon you. I think this would put paid to your argument that
others are the ones who are attacking you. From what I have seen, it looks like
you are the one who is being negative and triggering other people to respond in the
same way.

> >Would that suit you better? I think not.
> >Or are my views only pathetic when I disagree with you?
>
> The views you expressed were pathetic in my view. Disagreeing with me is one
> thing, but that was an all-out attack against me that went beyond disagreement.

You seem to presume every disagreement with your side is automatically an attack
upon you.

> A disagreement would be something like "that's not how I'd do things." An
> attack is something like "you still have time to build a better life" and the
> other patronizing crap that went along with it.

You seem to misunderstand the difference between someone making a comment about you
and someone attacking you. I don't see someone saying that they think you are
wasting your time and valuable intellect and skills here when you could be doing
things more productive for your own life to be an attack.

> Not legal advice. Advice not to "waste time" with a lawsuit didn't address the
> legal issues, but the concept of suing at all, so I wasn't saying you were
> trying to be a lawyer.
>
> I said you seem to rather see me not sue than to sue.

You seem to be consistently unable to properly file a sustainable claim against
anyone who has allegedly libeled or defamed you on USENET. To me it would seem
that you would be better served putting your efforts into some other activity that
would serve to improve your life and make life better for you, not to that which
impairs your life and makes you miserable. Unless, as it turns out, you show up
here because you like it here and want this sort of thing. I think if you didn't
like it, you would have left a long time ago, not stayed around for some six years.

--
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]

Scott Bailey wrote:

> amodern...@aol.com (A Modern Caveman) wrote in message news:<20030319072701...@mb-mm.aol.com>...

> > It's what caused you to think it that I find to be the red flag.
>
> What caused me to "think it" was some of the posts that you made. I
> then made a judgement call. I knew you would be irritated by what I
> had to say, but at the same time some things take years to sink in.

And maybe never.

> > You mean post here but continue to get defamed? Short of letting lawbreakers
> > change my behavior that's about all you were suggesting.
>
> Hypo: two people get into a flamewar on usenet. They sink to the
> lowest common denominator, slinging personal insults left and right.
> Really crass stuff. One of the two has something to sell, he NEEDS to
> be respected. The other is just Joe Blow sitting at home, having a job
> and life completely separate from usenet. Who wins and who loses?

Nobody. That's why I decided to get out of the flamewars too. I realized it was totally unrelated to this group
and it wasn't fun anymore.

> > >The basic point was
> > >that sometimes we get trapped in situations and can't see the forest
> > >for the trees. That is not a defense of your opponents, or an attack
> > >on you overall. It is a limited observation that, in my opinion, you
> > >are wasting valuable time.
> >
> > By defending my rights? If I don't defend them, I'm wasting a lot more. That
> > should be obvious.
>
> No, by undermining the defense of your rights. Ray, you do a lot of
> mudslinging around here. How is that defending your rights? How is
> that going to look if a judge or jury were to see them? And yet you
> continue to do this while filing? It's really amazing. Had you stopped
> rolling in the muck, your position would have been much
> stronger...with everybody. Your "rights" would have been easier to
> defend. But you can't see this, and can't even acknowledge it as a
> valid opinion that is anything but pathetic and repulsive. You know it
> all, Ray. The proof is in the pudding.

Scott, even though you might disagree with me on some points, I think you're starting to see how Ray is. And note
that I've pointed this out to him - hell, I think almost everyone here has - that the comments he makes are "so bad,
so black" that he has exactly zero chance of making a case of libel if he were to actually sue.

All someone would have to do is bring out his own remarks about how "all women are sluts and whores," and he's now
lost all the women on the jury. Then they only need bring out how he said something to the effect that there were
no decent people or good people or honest people or something like that, who died in the terrorist attack in the
World Trade Center, Second Edition, and he's lost everyone else. Then they can bring out how he wished death or
crippling injury on children (or gymnasts, or whomever it was he did), and he's angered the jury members who have
kids.

His own comments are what haunt him, and he's upset because he can't make what he has written before disappear.
That is why the site http://www.ray-gordon.com bothers him so much; it contains the truth in that it quotes what he
has said in a way he can't nuke or spin doctor it out of existence.

> > >That's all. If you don't think so, then to
> > >each his own. I've learned a few things over the years that I think
> > >are useful, but I don't claim to know it all.
> >
> > Was Ross Jeffries wasting valuable time by suing R. Don Steele?
>
> Again, I don't give advice on legal issues per se. But in terms of
> general life advice, he would be wasting his time if he got so
> emotionally involved in the situation that it really mattered to him
> that Steele considered him a genius. He would be wasting his time if,
> while the suit was in progress, he wallowed in the muck and made crass
> posts that would only make him look bad to anyone seeing the posts. He
> would be wasting his time if he allowed Steele to make him miserable.
> He would be wasting his time if he began to see Steele as having
> critical control and influence over his life, career, and happiness.

Scott, I do believe your comment was about dead on perfect. And it applies to anyone and everyone.

> > >> >it took a friend of mine to really give it to me straight before I
> > >> >could snap out it.
> > >>
> > >> My situation is not your situation.
> > >
> > >No, it's not. But some things have either universal or near universal
> > >application. I think this is one of them, but you are free to disagree.
> >
> > I'm not about to let my rights be violated by anyone. Pity the man who would
> > have to do that.
> >
> > My legal background makes it much easier for me to file suit as well.
>
> My advice was never inconsistent with your rights being respected. For
> whatever reason, whether it be arrogance or another agenda, you don't
> want to see that - or at least acknowledge it. By following my advice
> your rights would be less likely to be violated.

You make a good point. Is his inability to see that most of his problems are self-inflicted the result of his
unwillingness to accept that he is sabotaging himself, or his inability to accept it? If that's not what you meant,
I apologize in advance for "putting words in your mouth," but I do believe the question is still valid:

Is Ray's inability to see that most of his problems are self-inflicted the result of his unwillingness to accept
that he is sabotaging himself, or his inability to accept it?

> > >In no way, shape or form have I
> > >attemtped a character-assassination.
> >
> > Actually, you did.
>
> No, I didn't.

"It's RABBIT SEASON!" "It's DUCK SEASON!" etc.

> > >I have essentially said "the guy
> > >has talent and potential, but his tactics are all wrong...in my
> > >OPINION."
> >
> > In Congress, they begin with "My distinguished colleague" right before they
> > ream the legislator.
> >
> > Now you're just insulting my intelligence.
>
> It was only because I considered you intelligent that I made the post
> in the first place. However, your continual misprepresentation of my
> views is beginning to take it's toll on my original perceptions.
> Either (1) you are not bright enough to see what I said and, just as
> importantly, what I didn't say or (2)you have another agenda and are
> trying to goad me into making a certain remark or (3)you are simply in
> the trench warfare mode, and genuinely believe that I am trying to
> screw you over when in fact I'm not.

I do believe Ray thinks - the same as a lot of other people here - that if you're not on his side you're on the
other side against him. The people who post under the alias Nomen Nescio do the exact same thing Ray does when they
say that if you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem. And that's part of the problem too. Many
of Ray's faults are shared by his detractors to a lesser extent.

> > >Do you really think that
> > >asserting your genius to people that despise you is going to
> > >accomplish anything? Really? Other than drawing the inevitable hoots
> > >and howls of "idiot"?
> >
> > I'm not out to win over people who have violated my rights.
>
> What about those who haven't?

Scott, that was utterly perfect. And that's what he can't see. I was on his side originally because I did not know
anything about him except what he wrote. And I liked what he had to say. Then I saw his personality here through
his own words and realized what he is. A pitiful lost soul who presumes the whole world is against him. I think
some call it a paranoid delusion. He seems to be under the impression there are "shills" and a "newsgroup mafia"
here. As if the amount of business he could draw here would amount to much of anything.

> > >Then why do you do it? And pray tell how doing
> > >so is going to improve your life and/or business.
> >
> > It won't affect it much one way or another, compared to the lies told about me.
> > Remove the defamation, level the playing field, and it's a different story.
>
> Ray, it seems like you really believe that you are making all the
> right moves. Time will tell.

Exactly. And so far over a period of at least six years he apparently hasn't changed much. There are complaints
about his conduct on Google Newsgroups that go back four years.

> > >> Like I said, all you did was show me what type of person you are. Second
> > >> chances are never given to people who speak like you. I'd be a fool to do
> > >> that.
> > >
> > >You have completely misread what type of person I am. However, it is
> > >your perogative to be wrong.
> >
> > Or to call a guy on his bullshit.
>
> The biggest bullshit has been your blatant misrepresentation of my
> posts, despite repeated clarifications to the contrary.
>
> Also, was it bullshit to give you credit for your work, to speak of
> your potential, etc? I guess it was, by your own logic.

Scott, you're treading on very thin ice here, you're probably going to get threatened with a lawsuit by him next if
you keep pointing out how he shoots himself in the foot. :).

> > The problem isn't that you necessarily have a hidden agenda, but that you
> > refuse to acknowledge that someone with a hidden agenda would have done exactly
> > what you did.
>
> Another blatant falsehood. I have repeatedly acknowledged that I could
> understand your initial suspicion. But your inablility and
> unwillingness to examine your own life, to accept your shortcomings
> and mistakes, is disturbing.

It's been said that when you peer into the abyss, the abyss peers back at you. Ray won't even go close to the
edge. He's afraid of what he'll see there. What I saw in myself was horrible, terrible, ugly and disgusting. But
I learned to forgive myself and stop hating me. It was then that I could love myself for what I am, warts and all.
Ray still hates himself - as a lot of people hate themselves - and as long as you hate yourself I think it's very
difficult to love anyone else. Or to even care much about others.

[Scott Bailey]

Paul Robinson <postm...@paul.washington.dc.us> wrote

<snip>

>
> It's been said that when you peer into the abyss, the abyss peers back at you. Ray won't even go close to the
> edge. He's afraid of what he'll see there. What I saw in myself was horrible, terrible, ugly and disgusting. But
> I learned to forgive myself and stop hating me. It was then that I could love myself for what I am, warts and all.
> Ray still hates himself - as a lot of people hate themselves - and as long as you hate yourself I think it's very
> difficult to love anyone else. Or to even care much about others.

Well said. Very well said. On one level, I suppose that's what I was
really trying to get at all along. As for myself, a number of years
ago I had to go through the same process. No psychiatrists, no
psychologists, no therapists (I've never seen any of those). Just a
ruthless introspection that was more painful, but also more
exhilarating, than anything I've ever experienced. Those were some
tough times, no doubt.

I think it is in the nature of most intelligent people to introspect,
brood, and in a certain sense to be perfectionists. This is a recipe
for feeling guilty as hell about any number of things - we didn't
measure up to our own standards. But as you say, this needs to be
faced with brutal honesty, and we need to learn to forgive ourselves
for the difference between what is, what might have been, and what may
never be. If we don't, there is going to be a constant inner turmoil,
and most people seem to respond to this by self-medicating. That's
when the real disaster occurs. Eventually, you just have to give up
all the old pretenses and fronts - face reality - and ironically only
then do you have the best shot at being the most that you can possibly
be. And to hell with even that...just being happy with yourself and
life in general. But as you've pointed out, in order to do that you
have to forgive the person that is hardest of all to forgive: oneself.

[Paul Robinson]

A Modern Caveman wrote:

> >> For someone who speaks of how to treat others you don't
> >>exactly set a pristine example with how you've been treating me.

> >
> >Ray, I realize that I played hardball in giving my advice.
>
> And in doing so you became exactly the type of man I warn women not to marry or
> date.

Have you forgotten, Inexcusable Failure*, that the great pick-up-artistes around
say explicitly that "you don't date a woman until after you start fucking her"?
You supposedly are anti-player, how exactly do you advise a woman not to date a
player who won't date her until after he's boinked her? :)

> >I still >think I was fair, but I realize that I was also harsh.
>
> It's useful to see your true colors so I can properly judge you.

Ray, it seems like every time you open your mouth you provide yet another line that
can be turned around and used against you.

Take a piece of advice from every cop show that came out since SCOTUS decided
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966): "You have the right to remain silent. If
you give up that right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used
against you..." And if you continue your chimerical tilting at windmills, we can
finish the statement, "...in a court of law."

> >Several years ago, when I was wasting a lot of time on the blame game,
>
> What "blame game?" I notice you bring up discrimination against me in your
> posts. You realize that to call that a "blame game" you almost have to by
> definition attack my professionalism.
>

> Not only that, but you also have to deny what is perhaps the most obvious bias
> of all in the workplace.

Dislike of incompetence?

> >it took a friend of mine to really give it to me straight before I
> >could snap out it.
>
> My situation is not your situation.

No, you're incapable of learning anything.

> >It wasn't pleasant, and yes, I got pissed at the
> >guy. It wasn't until much later that I realized what he had really
> >done, and thanked him for it.
>
> You will never be thanked by me for your attempted character-assassination.

You couldn't even begin to grasp what character assassination really is, you
haven't even come close to seeing it.

> >It is that memory of how I reacted then
> >that allows me to let some of your insults slide. Anyway, what worked
> >for me may not be applicable to you. I kind of think it is, though.
>
> I don't.
>

> I don't consider it a "blame game" to sue employers who refuse to obey the law.

You seem to be incapable of making those suits stick. What was it a judge called
you? Oh yes, an "inexcusable failure*."

> I don't consider it a "blame game" to sue people who break the law out here
> either.

To the extent anyone allegedly defamed you, they did not "break the law" in the
sense of commission of a crime. If they did defame you, they committed a civil
tort, not a criminal offense. And to even do that, what they have to say must not
only be false, it must be made with malice AND not be privileged. That's why I can
call you an inexcusable failure* even if it was false and made with malice, because
I'm quoting a federal judge, that makes my use of it privileged. Based on how you
have acted, I don't think it is false anyway.

> Ross sued R. Don Steele. Does what you say to me apply to him as well?

That's irrelevant. Ross is not here making claims, nor is R. Don Steele. When
they are part of this conversation it is relevant to include them.

> >I thought there were some things that you needed to hear, and that
> >there was no way of really treading softly in writing them.
>
> You mean they were things you needed to say.

But of course, since you never listen to anything anyone else says if it in any way
says that you are anything other than perfect.

Speaking ex-cathedra as God, contrary to your opinion you were never my son Jesus.
Go ahead and sue me for saying that if you think that I have defamed you by saying
you were never Jesus.

> Like I said, all you did was show me what type of person you are.
> Second chances are never given to people who speak like you.

Again that's a really good quote to use against you. Two of them, actually.

> I'd be a fool to do that.

Too late, Ray.

> >Again, that does not mean that it wasn't sincere, or that I don't
> >want you to do well for yourself.
>
> Spare me, please.

We can't, you've never been bowled over by anything. How does that strike you,
turkey? :)

> >Or perhaps you would have found that
> >just as insulting, I don't know.
>
> I find it highly troubling for reasons I'll keep to myself.

Fuck me! Ray actually had an insulting remark he did not say! Will wonders never
cease!

--
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."

* "... upon consideration of Plaintiff Gordon Roy Parker's... continued
and inexcusable failure..." {Gordon Roy Parker v. "Wintermute" et. al.}
02-CV-7215 (Feb. 25, 2003, Eastern District, Pennsylvania)

[Paul Robinson]

Scott Bailey wrote:

> Apparently this has yet to run its course.

Scott, this 'course' has been running for *six years* if not longer. All these people and Ray have long histories
going back before the turn of the century. (Gad I love to be able to use that phrase!)

Think about this: these people and Ray Gordon, the Inexcusable Failure* have been fighting a war for over six goddam
years.

Do you think if they all didn't find it fun they would have stopped by now?

> amodern...@aol.com (A Modern Caveman) wrote in message news:<20030318092853...@mb-mm.aol.com>...

> > >> For someone who speaks of how to treat others you don't exactly set a pristine
> > >> example with how you've been treating me.
> > >
> > >Ray, I realize that I played hardball in giving my advice.
> >
> > And in doing so you became exactly the type of man I warn women not to marry or date.
>

> Why? In this case, there were some things that I thought you needed to

> hear. If I knew you on a personal basis, the context would have been
> different. But given that I don't, I had to make my points in print,

> and that possibly came across as harsh.

Scott, any comment that isn't lauding Ray to the heavens above he takes as an insult. Any criticism of him he takes
as defamation. Any ridiculing of his invalid claim then leads him to threaten litigation.

> I attemtped to mitigate the harshness by giving credit where that was due.
>

> > >I still think I was fair, but I realize that I was also harsh.
> > It's useful to see your true colors so I can properly judge you.
>

> What true colors? Don't you get it Ray? Just because someone disagrees
> with you doesn't mean they are evil.

You will never convince him of that.

> > >Several years ago, when I was wasting a lot of time on the blame game,
> >
> > What "blame game?" I notice you bring up discrimination against me in your
> > posts. You realize that to call that a "blame game" you almost have to by
> > definition attack my professionalism.
>

> I mentioned that I thought it was sound advice to do an end-run around

> obstacles. I also, unlike your assumption, did not suggest that you

> leave the group. I did suggest that you look at things in a different
> way, and then handle things according to your judgement at that time.

> I think your judgement at this time is poor. Doesn't it make any
> impression upon you that the people with the best opinions of you
> developed those opinions BEFORE seeing you post here?

Like me. Before I saw this newsgroup I thought he had a great deal of important things to say. I still think it is
quite possible he could say something useful. But his problem is that all people have to do is listen to him in the
context of a conversation and they immediately know what kind of small-minded, petty and mean-spirited person he
is. He loves being the center of attention - even if it is negative attention - and he does everything he can think
of to encourage it.

> > Not only that, but you also have to deny what is perhaps the most obvious bias
> > of all in the workplace.
>

> I'm not at all sure what you are getting at here. I think you are

> reading a lot into my words that weren't there. The basic point was

> that sometimes we get trapped in situations and can't see the forest
> for the trees. That is not a defense of your opponents, or an attack
> on you overall. It is a limited observation that, in my opinion, you

> are wasting valuable time. That's all. If you don't think so, then to

> each his own. I've learned a few things over the years that I think
> are useful, but I don't claim to know it all.

You're probably more accurate than you know, Scott. He just does not want to see it.

> > >it took a friend of mine to really give it to me straight before I
> > >could snap out it.
> >
> > My situation is not your situation.
>

> No, it's not. But some things have either universal or near universal
> application. I think this is one of them, but you are free to disagree.

He will disagree with anything that contradicts his world-view, whether that is correct or not.

> > >It wasn't pleasant, and yes, I got pissed at the guy. It
> > >wasn't until much later that I realized what he had really
> > >done, and thanked him for it.
> >
> > You will never be thanked by me for your attempted character-assassination.
>

> Ray, you are being disingenious now. In no way, shape or form have I
> attemtped a character-assassination. I have essentially said "the guy

> has talent and potential, but his tactics are all wrong...in my OPINION."

> You really are a piece of work to so blatantly misrepresent my posts.

Yes he is, isn't he?

> > You stopped just short of defaming me, which you'd have had to do to validate
> > your points regarding employment.
>
> What points about employment? I never said anything in particular
> about your employment. I did say that I felt you were wasting
> potential. How the hell is that defamatory? This is making me believe
> that your lawsuit is full of shit. Ray, let me be clear about this: I
> did not, in any way shape or form, defame you. If what I have written
> qualifies as "just short of" defaming you...then defamation in your
> book must pretty much mean having a disagreement.

You've finally figured it out! Congratulations, Scott.

> Really absurd.

You got that one too!

> If you are suing guys for the things that I've said, then you may well be
> guilty of defamation yourself, and opening yourself up to mucho countersuits.

That is exactly the situation he is in; if he ever was stupid enough to sue he'd be countersued from here to
breakfast and he'd lose what little he does own.

> If you sue, I hope it is for REAL OFFENSES, not merely
> someone who disagrees with you. I can say you're intelligent (which I
> am now beginning to question a bit), and that is fine with you. But
> add on, "I think you need to be more mature about certain life
> decisions", and that is somehow "just short of" defamation? Let's be
> straight: disagreement doesn't equal defamation. You are proud to
> emphasize usnet as an "open forum", but if someone disagrees with you.....

... he immediately claims they are defaming him and threatens to sue them.

--

[Scott Bailey]

Hey Paul.

The really interesting thing about this whole thread was how easily
Ray allowed himself to to tripped up by his opponents (not me).

My original post on the thread was a rather limited criticism of Ray,
but it also had some implicit criticism of at least some of his
opponents (not all; in any event, I didn't name names).

Now, his opponents could have honed in on that implicit criticism and
hammered me. Instead, they either remained silent or threw in praise
of my post. If they were conscious of it, it was a brilliant move. By
praising my post, they enraged Ray, caused him to take the whole post
as solely criticizing him, deflected all criticism of his opponents,
and got Ray in a flamewar with me...one of the few people who has
stood up for him. This provides them with a perfect example of "what
will happen to you" if you defend Ray. It really was perfect - for
Ray's opponents.

They played Ray like a fiddle, and in so doing pretty much forced me
to go along. Such was certainly not my intent. But at least I was
aware of it at the time that it was happening, whereas Ray totally
missed the opportunity to do what his opponents did...deflect
criticism from himself, which he could have easily done if he wasn't
in trench warfare mode and "shoot first, ask questions later". The
truth of the matter - which Ray will of course never believe - is that
I meant the criticism to be constructive, and even now I hope that Ray
will do well in life. I don't have any hard feelings concerning the
thread.

If his opponents simply lucked into this result, then that's one
thing. But if they understood what they were doing, I have to admire
their perceptiveness. Ray lacks this perceptiveness, and his trench
warefare mentality cause him to miss opportunity after opportunity. I
still think that Ray is a bright fellow, and I would still probably
read any future work that he produced. But he's just no match for a
couple of these guys in terms of the flamewar...he just gets engraged
too easily. Like I said, he can't see the forest for the trees.

[Paul Robinson]

Scott Bailey wrote:

> Hey Paul.
>
> The really interesting thing about this whole thread was how easily
> Ray allowed himself to to tripped up by his opponents (not me).

Absolutely. He sees anything short of complete agreement with his
postings as a threat, disagreement as defamation and pointing out his
errors as solicitation of litigation.

> My original post on the thread was a rather limited criticism of Ray,
> but it also had some implicit criticism of at least some of his
> opponents (not all; in any event, I didn't name names).

On occasion you've noted that you disagreed with some of what I said. I
think I said something to the effect that I'm perfectly willing to accept
that someone else may disagree with me and we can still have a civilized
debate over whatever subject even if we did not agree on some points.
That is - or should be - the whole reason for USENET, to allow people to
say things and expose what they think and show their point of view.

--
**

"(For a dissenting opinion on my character, please visit the
following website: http://www.ray-gordon.com). This site contains
many lies about me, but as a defender of free speech I fully support its

right to exist..."
- Ray Gordon, 19 March 1998 [Website address corrected
to current location]
http://groups.google.com/groups?&selm=6ertau%2476b%241%40nnrp1.dejanews.com

"Have you been threatened with a lawsuit by Ray? Come visit our
website at http://www.ray-gordon-defendants.org and learn case
strategies. To keep from being sued by Ray over this, we have however,
decided not to create this website, since we suspect no one will ever need
it."

* "... upon consideration of Plaintiff Gordon Roy Parker's... continued
and inexcusable failure..." {Gordon Roy Parker v. "Wintermute" et. al.}
02-CV-7215 (Feb. 25, 2003, Eastern District, Pennsylvania)

"[Y]ou can again go fuck yourself. I am too polite to get into detail
about what I think is wrong with someone like you." - Ray Gordon, March
16, 2003
http://groups.google.com/groups?&selm=20030316063856...@mb-bj.aol.com

[Paul Robinson]

[The newsreader took a line break as a "send message" so my previous
message was chopped off.]

Scott Bailey wrote:

> Hey Paul.
>
> The really interesting thing about this whole thread was how easily
> Ray allowed himself to to tripped up by his opponents (not me).
> My original post on the thread was a rather limited criticism of Ray,
> but it also had some implicit criticism of at least some of his
> opponents (not all; in any event, I didn't name names).

Some of them don't like it when I point out that they are acting like the
victim in an abusive marriage. If things were as bad as they claim they
were, with threats coming off-line and harassment occurring, it could have
been stopped real fast by court order and force if the police won't do
anything. Either they expect other people to fight their battles - which
seems to be almost exactly how EVERYONE who is involved in the flame wars
here have been acting - or they don't feel it's worth the effort to make
things that they do not want to happen to come a cropper.

> Now, his opponents could have honed in on that implicit criticism and
> hammered me. Instead, they either remained silent or threw in praise
> of my post. If they were conscious of it, it was a brilliant move. By
> praising my post, they enraged Ray, caused him to take the whole post
> as solely criticizing him, deflected all criticism of his opponents, and
> got
> Ray in a flamewar with me...one of the few people who has stood up
> for him. This provides them with a perfect example of "what will happen
> to you" if you defend Ray. It really was perfect - for Ray's opponents.

I have said it over and over, that the only person defaming Gordon Roy
Parker a.k.a. Ray Gordon is Mr. Parker himself.

> They played Ray like a fiddle, and in so doing pretty much forced me
> to go along. Such was certainly not my intent. But at least I was
> aware of it at the time that it was happening, whereas Ray totally
> missed the opportunity to do what his opponents did...deflect
> criticism from himself, which he could have easily done if he wasn't
> in trench warfare mode and "shoot first, ask questions later".

This is why I decided when I realized the flame wars were not fun that it
was time for me to drop my weapons and declare "I shall fight no more
forever."

> The truth of the matter - which Ray will of course never believe - is
> that
> I meant the criticism to be constructive, and even now I hope that Ray
> will do well in life. I don't have any hard feelings concerning the
> thread.

I believe I said I agree with you about that. (I'm not sure if I did;
occasionally I will be writing a message and my newsreader faults,
crashing and taking the unfinished post. And it is usually so reliable
that it tricks me into forgetting it does that, just long enough for me to
lose the posting instead of remembering to save it every paragraph or so,
so that I don't.)

> If his opponents simply lucked into this result, then that's one
> thing. But if they understood what they were doing, I have to admire
> their perceptiveness. Ray lacks this perceptiveness, and his trench
> warefare mentality cause him to miss opportunity after opportunity.

I think that is his problem. He can't see the forest for the trees, as
the saying goes. His inability to realize he has limitations and needs to
compensate for them makes him make lots of mistakes, all expensive for
him.

For example, he posted a message here about whether James King's fiancee
believes in premarital sex. Not sure that's any of his business to begin
with, but if he had bothered to read some of the messages on this
newsgroup, especially when I was first here, I more-or-less posed that to
Mr. King (in a different fashion) and he admitted that. (My comment was
that I thought it would be stupid to expect to marry any person and live
with them for 20, 30, 40 or 50 years without "sampling the merchandise"
first, e.g. to have sex before getting married if for no other reason than
to be sure it will work and that you and the other person are sexually
compatible.)

Either Ray never bothered to read that message, or he forgot it. Or he
intentionally ignored it for the express purpose of trying to bait Jimmy
King.

> I still think that Ray is a bright fellow, and I would still probably
> read any future work that he produced.

If he'd get rid of the kilometer wide chip on his shoulder he probably
could do quite well. But I don't think he's capable of doing so.

> But he's just no match for a couple of these guys in terms of the
> flamewar...he just gets engraged too easily.

Fighting a flamewar against Ray is like using nuclear weapons to kill
flies; it's much to easy to defeat him.

> Like I said, he can't see the forest for the trees.

You mean 'as you said'. And I didn't even realize you were going to use
the same term!

[James King]

In article <3E7C958B...@paul.washington.dc.us>, Paul Robinson
<postm...@paul.washington.dc.us> wrote:

> A Modern Caveman wrote:

> > Spare me, please.
>
> We can't, you've never been bowled over by anything. How does that
> strike you, turkey? :)

I should award you a pin for that. Or maybe ten pins. It depends how
you frame it.

James King