...is dating necessary?
Ray Gordon
> > waiting for the right person to come along. is there any shame in
> > that?
>
>
> Dating is one way to spend time with a woman.
> If it works for you and is enjoyable, that's
> good. One should date when one's nature is up
> to it.
>
> But trying to run a date while you're busy
> being morose and needy seldom works out. If
> you can't make it a merry occasion for all
> concerned you might be happier on your sofa.
The players who fuck multiple women simultaneously agree. In fact, they say
that because they have so many options, they never "need" any specific
woman.
It's those desperate, loyal, "decent" guys who pin their hopes on one woman
who ruin the game for the players who fuck multiple women.
> If you are going to wait like a flower, be
> sure to plant yourself where Miss Right is
> likely to pluck you.
And make sure you know her selection process.
A good example of how this works occurred in the movie "Groundhog Day" where
Bill Murray's character would make one extra step of progress with his
target each time he relived the day.
--
Everything you need to know about women. FREE!
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
The Seduction Library
http://www.cybersheet.com/hotties.html
Why Hotties Choose Losers
Wookie
> It's those desperate, loyal, "decent" guys who pin their hopes on one woman who ruin the game for the players who fuck multiple women.<
...i'm to blame. only me. i just don't want to be fake. i have very
few friends and they all have girlfriend or kids. so, i'm on my own.
lost.
> If you are going to wait like a flower, be sure to plant yourself
where Miss Right is likely to pluck you.<
...forgot to say, i'm not a virgin. been with a few women just fresh
out of high school. i just haven't been on a date in 5 years. i don't
know why. i guess it would be easier if some great woman took a slight
interest in me. maybe it would realize what i'm missing, if anything.
i just feel like a loser.
evan
"Wookie" <set_the_woo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:40f81ec5.04031...@posting.google.com...
get out there.. unfortunately.. theres no safe way to do this.. u have to
risk rejection.. but what the heck.. its not as if yur gonna be imprisoned
if someone says no.. as opposed to imprisoning yourself at the moment.
Ray Gordon
> > i just feel like a loser.
>
> get out there.. unfortunately.. theres no safe way to do this.. u have to
> risk rejection.. but what the heck.. its not as if yur gonna be imprisoned
> if someone says no.. as opposed to imprisoning yourself at the moment.
there often is a subtle *attempted* character assassination that accompanies
rejection, and of course the idiot third parties who grant themselves the
right to comment on or otherwise interfere in your interactions (women of
course allow this and like seeing men fight over her).
My "foxhunting" method teaches men how to avoid the risk of rejection
altogether if they want to.
John C. Randolph
> My "foxhunting" method teaches men how to avoid the risk of rejection
> altogether if they want to.
Would that be simply staying home with your mommy?
-jcr
Ray Gordon
> > altogether if they want to.
>
> Would that be simply staying home with your mommy?
Only a whore cares about a man's finances.
I don't need women with price tags. Maybe you do.
James King
<r...@cybersheet.com> wrote:
> > > My "foxhunting" method teaches men how to avoid the risk of rejection
> > > altogether if they want to.
> >
> > Would that be simply staying home with your mommy?
>
> Only a whore cares about a man's finances.
Or a woman who cares about the welfare of her future children.
If I remember correctly, I believe Gordon has stated that he desires a
large family of 7 or more children.
I would expect a woman who also desires a large family to care that the
household earns enough income to house, feed, clothe, and educate the
children properly.
The fact that Gordon appears to be looking for a woman who:
1) wants a large family, and
2) doesn't care about feeding, clothing, or housing the children to
whom she gives birth,
implies to me that Gordon is not only abusively irresponsible, but is
also looking for abusively irresponsible women.
The "fact" that Gordon calls the *responsible* women (who are actively
insuring that their children or future children are provided for)
"gold-digging whores" doesn't change the *real* facts.
> I don't need women with price tags. Maybe you do.
I prefer women who have integrity and are willing to make sure their
children are provided for.
James King
WaNkEr
.
"John C. Randolph" <j...@nospam.idiom.com> wrote in message
news:405EA6AE...@nospam.idiom.com...
HeeroYuy
> > > My "foxhunting" method teaches men how to avoid the risk of rejection
> > > altogether if they want to.
> >
> > Would that be simply staying home with your mommy?
>
> Only a whore cares about a man's finances.
Perhaps, but most women prefer a man who's independent. Living with your
mother is not what I'd call independent. Hey, I think we had this
conversation before. Woah, deja vu!
>
> I don't need women with price tags. Maybe you do.
So don't look for a prostitute.
John C. Randolph
>
> > > My "foxhunting" method teaches men how to avoid the risk of rejection
> > > altogether if they want to.
> >
> > Would that be simply staying home with your mommy?
>
> Only a whore cares about a man's finances.
What does that have to do with avoiding the risk of rejection by hiding
at home?
-jcr
John C. Randolph
>
> In article <UHx7c.5982$o76....@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>, Ray Gordon
> <r...@cybersheet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > My "foxhunting" method teaches men how to avoid the risk of rejection
> > > > altogether if they want to.
> > >
> > > Would that be simply staying home with your mommy?
> >
> > Only a whore cares about a man's finances.
>
> Or a woman who cares about the welfare of her future children.
Good point.
-jcr
John C. Randolph
>
> "Ray Gordon" <r...@cybersheet.com> wrote in message
> news:UHx7c.5982$o76....@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
> > > > My "foxhunting" method teaches men how to avoid the risk of rejection
> > > > altogether if they want to.
> > >
> > > Would that be simply staying home with your mommy?
> >
> > Only a whore cares about a man's finances.
>
> Perhaps, but most women prefer a man who's independent.
Well, more to the point: I would expect a thinking woman to want a man
who has demonstrated some level of competence. Imagine for a moment,
being the father of a daughter who brought grp home to meet you.
-jcr
Ray Gordon
>
> Or a woman who cares about the welfare of her future children.
The classic justification for golddigging. Problem is, players generally
don't want to settle down and have children, and many hotties who fuck men
surely aren't doing it to start a family either. It is, however, a
convenient way for a golddigger to appear altruistic, even if she's really
after the money for herself (and any bragging rights it would bring her).
Stilll, taking Jamie's statement at face value would demonstrate that CUPID
has a lot of validity, since money does score points with golddiggers. I
wouldn't call that "game" however.
> If I remember correctly, I believe Gordon has stated that he desires a
> large family of 7 or more children.
>
> I would expect a woman who also desires a large family to care that the
> household earns enough income to house, feed, clothe, and educate the
> children properly.
A man need not be wealthy to do this, and as I have said, not all players
(very few, in fact) are looking to settle down.
> The fact that Gordon appears to be looking for a woman who:
>
> 1) wants a large family, and
>
> 2) doesn't care about feeding, clothing, or housing the children to
> whom she gives birth,
>
> implies to me that Gordon is not only abusively irresponsible, but is
> also looking for abusively irresponsible women.
>
> The "fact" that Gordon calls the *responsible* women (who are actively
> insuring that their children or future children are provided for)
> "gold-digging whores" doesn't change the *real* facts.
The fact is women with price tags are whores.
Notice how Jamie didn't address the notion that perhaps the woman should
contribute to raising the family.
> > I don't need women with price tags. Maybe you do.
>
> I prefer women who have integrity and are willing to make sure their
> children are provided for.
I prefer women without price tags and who have true integrity. Money can be
made if and when it needs to be made.
Then again, men who earn well don't want to confront the real reason women
suddenly "want" them. After all, no man wants to think of himself as a
JOHN.
As for seduction experts earning a lot of money, their level of "game"
should be viewed in the context of their net worth.
Ray Gordon
> >
> > Or a woman who cares about the welfare of her future children.
>
> Good point.
Women who care that much about it shouldn't be waiting for some rich man to
come along and foot the bill.
Further, players aren't exactly the type of men who settle down and raise a
family. That's what pussy-whipped AFC provider types do.
Ray Gordon
"HeeroYuy" <h@h.h> wrote in message
news:ZOO7c.6862$9L6....@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
>
> "Ray Gordon" <r...@cybersheet.com> wrote in message
> news:UHx7c.5982$o76....@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
> > > > My "foxhunting" method teaches men how to avoid the risk of
rejection
> > > > altogether if they want to.
> > >
> > > Would that be simply staying home with your mommy?
> >
> > Only a whore cares about a man's finances.
>
> Perhaps, but most women prefer a man who's independent. Living with your
> mother is not what I'd call independent. Hey, I think we had this
> conversation before. Woah, deja vu!
Independence from a corrupt corporate structure is far more important than
building a nest for some golddigging whore.
We see many headlines these days about men who would have lost their jobs
had they whistleblown about this or that problem (most recent was today with
the Medicare cost estimate). The men who play along are rewarded
financially, but they are hardly "independent," just a slave to a system
that benefits them financially and makes them more appealing to the whores.
A man can live with his family and be quite independent. Logistically, it's
no different than living with roommates, which many men do, and still more
men fund their "independence" with assistance from the parents, so it's a
sham at best for those men.
This is just another way for men who have to buy their women to feel better
about doing it. In the ghetto, where some of the best players of all live,
the men often live 6-12 to a house, without their own rooms, and believe me,
they get quite busy.
Now if you want to argue that people in the ghetto don't exist (even if
they're fucking the women of the AFC providers), that's another story, but
just because a woman wants ONE man for money it doesn't mean she won't fuck
another. Since she's a whore, the player is getting the best value from
her, since he's getting the only thing she's good for.
> > I don't need women with price tags. Maybe you do.
>
> So don't look for a prostitute.
Women who have financial requirements are prostitutes, that's the point.
Ray Gordon
> >
> > Perhaps, but most women prefer a man who's independent.
>
> Well, more to the point: I would expect a thinking woman to want a man
> who has demonstrated some level of competence. Imagine for a moment,
> being the father of a daughter who brought grp home to meet you.
Imagine being an adult woman who had to get her daddy's approval for the men
she dated. Maybe if he's trying to use money to control her, he might do
that, but generally, I date women who don't give a shit about what their
parents think.
Independence means choosing one's lovers on their own, not because Daddy
wants someone who fits an image.
Maybe you date women who never grew up; I can't relate to that.
Ray Gordon
>
> What does that have to do with avoiding the risk of rejection by hiding
> at home?
Nothing, since I don't "hide at home" and couldn't possibly relate to what
you are talking about.
If you do that yourself, just get out more.
James King
Is it any wonder no one believes or trusts you?
James King
In article <XW48c.3893$Uh5....@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>, Ray Gordon
<r...@cybersheet.com> wrote:
> > > Only a whore cares about a man's finances.
> > Or a woman who cares about the welfare of her future children.
> The classic justification for golddigging. Problem is, players generally
> don't want to settle down and have children, and many hotties who fuck men
> surely aren't doing it to start a family either. It is, however, a
> convenient way for a golddigger to appear altruistic, even if she's really
> after the money for herself (and any bragging rights it would bring her).
> Stilll, taking Jamie's statement at face value would demonstrate that CUPID
> has a lot of validity, since money does score points with golddiggers. I
> wouldn't call that "game" however.
CUPID still isn't that valid, because it misleads the reader into
thinking that it is an objective method for rating people when in fact
it is just as subjective as any 1-10 scale. Just needlessly complex.
Gordon himself has said that the method is precise, yet inaccurate. He
has never explained to anyone's satisfaction (other than himself) why
one would need something so precise if it is inaccurate.
Engineers who build bridges use precise measurements, but they only
provide the bridge with the projected strength if the tools used to
measure are accurate. An inaccurate measurement can create a disastrous
situation.
CUPID is no less different. The tools used to quantify "looks,"
"brains," "status," and "personality" must be accurate.
Even worse, the author has stated that "the individual value system
(the partner rating) is objective as a person knows their own desires."
(Google link upon request.) In other words, he has argued that it is
objective because it is subjective (based upon one's own desires).
He has also stated that "until you know a person's value system, it's
best to assume they mimic society's." In other words, you are supposed
to *stereotype* people according to Gordon's determination of what
society thinks.
One would think that someone who is such a civil rights activist would
cry out against the stereotyping of anyone, but in fact, this
self-proclaimed civil rights activist actually ENDORSES the mass
stereotyping of individuals based upon his personal beliefs!
> > If I remember correctly, I believe Gordon has stated that he desires a
> > large family of 7 or more children.
> >
> > I would expect a woman who also desires a large family to care that the
> > household earns enough income to house, feed, clothe, and educate the
> > children properly.
>
> A man need not be wealthy to do this,
If one is a socialist and chooses to receive public assistance, perhaps
not. But that standard of living is very poor. I'm glad your
"supermodels" don't mind living in section 8 housing and living off of
WIC and Food Stamps, and buying clothes from Goodwill.
> and as I have said, not all players
> (very few, in fact) are looking to settle down.
But your system isn't designed for players. It's designed for people
who don't want to be players: people who want to settle down with that
one special person while having lots of casual sex with workers in the
adult entertainment industry.
> > The fact that Gordon appears to be looking for a woman who:
> > 1) wants a large family, and
> > 2) doesn't care about feeding, clothing, or housing the children to
> > whom she gives birth,
> > implies to me that Gordon is not only abusively irresponsible, but is
> > also looking for abusively irresponsible women.
> > The "fact" that Gordon calls the *responsible* women (who are actively
> > insuring that their children or future children are provided for)
> > "gold-digging whores" doesn't change the *real* facts.
> The fact is women with price tags are whores.
> Notice how Jamie didn't address the notion that perhaps the woman should
> contribute to raising the family.
Oh, the woman *does* contribute. But she looks for someone who will aid
her contribution, and not for someone who will require her to
contribute 100% to the kids while the man contributes 0%, as you seem
to want to do.
In the traditional two-parent household, one or both parents work to
provide income, and one or both parents spend their time with the
children changing their diapers, educating them, keeping them safe, and
giving them "life-experiences," helping them with their homework when
they get older, teaching them the value of manners, how to manage
money, kissing their scraped knees when they fall down, reading to the
child, watching the child put on a puppet show with friends, pretending
not to see the child give away the secret of a newly learned magic
trick, taking the child to music lessons, watching the child perform at
recitals, celebrating with the child afterwards, taking the child
across the country on summer vacations, helping the child deal with the
world of personal relationships--choosing the right friends, etc.
Perhaps your household wasn't like that, Gordon, but I was lucky for
the first 12 years of my life to have caring parents who not only CHOSE
me out of several infants up for adoption, but sacrificed so that Mom
could stay at home with me and show me what a loving parent is supposed
to do and supposed to be. Dad's mom (my grandmother) raised me during
most of my adolescent years after my mom's death, and she was a saint
of a soul with patience even greater than mine.
The women in my family contributed so much that I can't quantify the
value of what they did. My family made sure I was provided for in ALL
areas: physicially, intellectually, socially. I will always thank them
for what they did.
> > > I don't need women with price tags. Maybe you do.
> > I prefer women who have integrity and are willing to make sure their
> > children are provided for.
> I prefer women without price tags and who have true integrity. Money can be
> made if and when it needs to be made.
Is that why you file "in forma pauperis?" Because the money could be
made when it "needs to be made?" You'll have to provide a better reason
than that.
James King
Ray Gordon
>
> Is it any wonder no one believes or trusts you?
Jamie now thinks he speaks for the whole world.
James King
<r...@cybersheet.com> wrote:
I speak for common sense.
If you cry "wolf" too many times, people stop listening to you and stop
trusting you and stop believing you.
Just from this one time, most people would not trust what you say in
the future.
Some people will always believe someone, no matter what he's said or
done.
So I don't speak for the whole world.
Only the part that has the same common sense that I have and would
share my opinion.
James King
Ray Gordon
People trust my ideas because they can prove their validity independently.
James King
<r...@cybersheet.com> wrote:
> Jamie speaks for JAMIE, no one else.
I speak for all who share my views and agree with me on the specific
points which I speak. I do not speak for those who do not share my
views and do not agree with me on the specific points which I speak.
That's not so hard to comprehend, is it?
> People trust my ideas because they can prove their validity independently.
But smart people won't trust someone who constantly shows themselves to
be untrustworthy. They won't even likely take the time to "prove [the
ideas'] validity" to determine trust because the poster has proven
himself generally to be an untrustworthy person.
Start following through on most of your claims and most of your threats
of action and people in the future may come to trust you and believe
what you say.
I wouldn't trust your seduction advice because your goal is to teach
men how to seduce women, and then teach the women how to avoid the men
that you're teaching.
This makes your advice suspect, because why would I follow what you say
if you're teaching the woman in whom I'm interested to spot it and
avoid me?
It is yet another reason your advice cannot be relied upon or trusted,
outside of your complete lack of personal integrity and lack of
trustworthiness.
James King
Ray Gordon
independently.
>
> But smart people won't trust someone who constantly shows themselves to
> be untrustworthy.
I'm not untrustworthy.
> They won't even likely take the time to "prove [the
> ideas'] validity" to determine trust because the poster has proven
> himself generally to be an untrustworthy person.
So if a guy wants to ignore what will get him laid by a 10 because others
badmouth the source, he sure showed the world!
Fact is, my methods work, and not just on slut trash. Men who know the
difference between a keeper and a one-night stand appreciate that.
HeeroYuy
> > > People trust my ideas because they can prove their validity
> independently.
> >
> > But smart people won't trust someone who constantly shows themselves to
> > be untrustworthy.
>
> I'm not untrustworthy.
Yes, you are.
>
> > They won't even likely take the time to "prove [the
> > ideas'] validity" to determine trust because the poster has proven
> > himself generally to be an untrustworthy person.
>
> So if a guy wants to ignore what will get him laid by a 10 because others
> badmouth the source, he sure showed the world!
>
> Fact is, my methods work, and not just on slut trash. Men who know the
> difference between a keeper and a one-night stand appreciate that.
And to date we haven't heard a lay reports from those using said methods in
question... especially not from the one who teaches them.
Ray Gordon
>
> Yes, you are.
Hardly. You mean YOU don't like me.
> > > They won't even likely take the time to "prove [the
> > > ideas'] validity" to determine trust because the poster has proven
> > > himself generally to be an untrustworthy person.
> >
> > So if a guy wants to ignore what will get him laid by a 10 because
others
> > badmouth the source, he sure showed the world!
> >
> > Fact is, my methods work, and not just on slut trash. Men who know the
> > difference between a keeper and a one-night stand appreciate that.
>
> And to date we haven't heard a lay reports from those using said methods
in
> question... especially not from the one who teaches them.
I should quote another guru's old "Who I am doesn't matter" but there's no
need: I'm not trying to get people to spend large amounts of money in
response to a sales pitch. The information is there for them to use whether
or not they want to.
On my moderated forum, in fact, someone posted about how he used Foxhunting
techniques and suddenly found that hot chicks were approaching him in a bar.
http://www.cybersheet.com/6/ubb.x is the link for those boards.
HeeroYuy
> > > I'm not untrustworthy.
> >
> > Yes, you are.
>
> Hardly. You mean YOU don't like me.
Telling people that you're going to leave Usenet for a few days and then
come back less than a day later only proves you are not to your word.
Admittedly though, I don't like you, but if you didn't think it would be
funny to antagonize me when I wanted serious discussion way back when I
first started to post, you may find that opinion could have been different.
It could also have been something to do about your erroneous claims back
then as well.
>
>
> > > > They won't even likely take the time to "prove [the
> > > > ideas'] validity" to determine trust because the poster has proven
> > > > himself generally to be an untrustworthy person.
> > >
> > > So if a guy wants to ignore what will get him laid by a 10 because
> others
> > > badmouth the source, he sure showed the world!
> > >
> > > Fact is, my methods work, and not just on slut trash. Men who know
the
> > > difference between a keeper and a one-night stand appreciate that.
> >
> > And to date we haven't heard a lay reports from those using said methods
> in
> > question... especially not from the one who teaches them.
>
> I should quote another guru's old "Who I am doesn't matter" but there's no
> need: I'm not trying to get people to spend large amounts of money in
> response to a sales pitch. The information is there for them to use
whether
> or not they want to.
That's what a certain other website is there for, as well.
>
> On my moderated forum, in fact, someone posted about how he used
Foxhunting
> techniques and suddenly found that hot chicks were approaching him in a
bar.
>
> http://www.cybersheet.com/6/ubb.x is the link for those boards.
What would you need with a moderated forum?
James King
<r...@cybersheet.com> wrote:
> > > People trust my ideas because they can prove their validity
> > >independently.
> > But smart people won't trust someone who constantly shows themselves to
> > be untrustworthy.
> I'm not untrustworthy.
People who promise to file lawsuits against certain individuals and
then fail to file lawsuits against those certain individuals are
absolutely untrustworthy. They have demonstrated that they don't follow
through on their statements.
People who promise to leave Usenet for an extended period of time, only
to return less than 24 hours later, show that they can not be counted
on to keep their word.
You, Gordon, are unreliable when it comes to keeping your promises and
maintaining your personal integrity. Therefore, it is unlikely that I,
or anyone else who is aware of this behavior, would trust you with
sensitive data or material.
You've demonstrated how you will use data you receive, and therefore, I
would not trust you with ANY data whatsoever.
> > They won't even likely take the time to "prove [the
> > ideas'] validity" to determine trust because the poster has proven
> > himself generally to be an untrustworthy person.
> So if a guy wants to ignore what will get him laid by a 10 because others
> badmouth the source, he sure showed the world!
I thought a 10 was really poor in your book. CUPID scores from 0-100,
does it not? Are you now finally admitting that the 1-10 system is
actually no better a way of rating women than using your CUPID system?
> Fact is, my methods work, and not just on slut trash. Men who know the
> difference between a keeper and a one-night stand appreciate that.
Yet you encourage men to find the "keeper" while engaging in risky
sexual behavior with adult entertainment workers, by bragging that you,
the author, engage in such behavior. The fact that you are on record as
having admitted to being a carrier of an STD makes the fact that you
willingly engage in such behavior even worse. I have even less respect
for the women, if they know your condition--and far less respect for
you, if you don't tell them about your condition.
You never mention the phrase "safe sex" in your books. Not even *once.*
Don't believe me? I went to Google, and asked it to look for the phrase
"safe sex" on your website. Google said it couldn't match anything.
How irresponsible can an author be? You mention "condom" only one time
... and the context of that statement is questionable.
Men who value their *health* appreciate me (or should appreciate me)
for pointing that out.
Besides, your seduction advice is designed to be "caught" by women,
since you teach women how to avoid the men you teach to seduce. Why in
the world would someone want to learn your method is a mystery to me: I
mean, I wouldn't want you to teach me something only for you to go to a
woman and tell her "See how he's acting? You need to avoid him."
Some teacher you are. Designing a course that students are DOOMED to
fail because you teach women to avoid the VERY men who follow your
method of seduction.
No wonder people don't trust you.
That and the fact that you didn't know where South Carolina is in
relation to Atlanta, Georgia--and ARGUED that you were correct, even
when you were proven several times NOT to be correct. And the fact that
you've claimed on at least two different occasions to be Jesus Christ.
And Galileo.
You are incapable of displaying any integrity or genuine honesty. Your
trustworthiness is absolutely zero as far as Usenet is concerned.
James King
Alex
r...@cybersheet.com wrote on 3/23/04 9:10 PM:
> Jamie speaks for JAMIE, no one else.
>
> People trust my ideas because they can prove their validity independently.
Name three people who trust anything Gordon has to say.
Thought so.
Alex
r...@cybersheet.com wrote on 3/23/04 9:24 PM:
>>> People trust my ideas because they can prove their validity
> independently.
>>
>> But smart people won't trust someone who constantly shows themselves to
>> be untrustworthy.
>
> I'm not untrustworthy.
Is there another person with a posting history in ANY of the groups Gordon
haunts that would agree with this statement?
Speak now or forever hold your piece.
>
>> They won't even likely take the time to "prove [the
>> ideas'] validity" to determine trust because the poster has proven
>> himself generally to be an untrustworthy person.
>
> So if a guy wants to ignore what will get him laid by a 10 because others
> badmouth the source, he sure showed the world!
>
> Fact is, my methods work, and not just on slut trash. Men who know the
> difference between a keeper and a one-night stand appreciate that.
More unsubstantiated allegations from Gordon.
>
>
>
James King
<r...@cybersheet.com> wrote:
I also notice that Gordon failed to respond to the rest of the post.
I sure took his breath away, didn't I?
Here's the remainder, just in case Gordon "changes his mind:" (This is
another reason he cannot be trusted--he changes his mind quite
frequently in areas where not changing his mind would enhance his
believability and trustworthiness.)
aardvark9084
> > Less than 24 hours from your "I'm leaving" to when you came back.
> >
> > Is it any wonder no one believes or trusts you?
>
> Jamie now thinks he speaks for the whole world.
he speaks for *enough* of the whole world...no one believes or trusts you,
ray.
hey, ray what is one billion minus two hundred?
hahaha...yeah that's right...hahahaha
aardvark
John C. Randolph
>
> > > > Only a whore cares about a man's finances.
> > >
> > > Perhaps, but most women prefer a man who's independent.
> >
> > Well, more to the point: I would expect a thinking woman to want a man
> > who has demonstrated some level of competence. Imagine for a moment,
> > being the father of a daughter who brought grp home to meet you.
>
> Imagine being an adult woman who had to get her daddy's approval for the men
> she dated.
If any woman were considering getting involved with you, her father, her
friends, her siblings, her priest or rabbi, and for that matter, any
person who had any inkling of what kind of a cretin you are should intervene.
-jcr
John C. Randolph
>
> > > Only a whore cares about a man's finances.
> >
> > What does that have to do with avoiding the risk of rejection by hiding
> > at home?
>
> Nothing, since I don't "hide at home" and couldn't possibly relate to what
> you are talking about.
..not that you've ever offered any evidence of that, mind you.
-jcr
John C. Randolph
>
> > > > Only a whore cares about a man's finances.
> > >
> > > Or a woman who cares about the welfare of her future children.
> >
> > Good point.
>
> Women who care that much about it shouldn't be waiting for some rich man to
> come along and foot the bill.
Not a rich man, grp. Just one who isn't an inexecusable failure.
-jcr
Ray Gordon
> > Imagine being an adult woman who had to get her daddy's approval for the
men
> > she dated.
>
> If any woman were considering getting involved with you, her father, her
> friends, her siblings, her priest or rabbi, and for that matter, any
> person who had any inkling of what kind of a cretin you are should
intervene.
How sad you view women that way.
It must suck to know that they want me, but you'll just have to deal with
that.
Alex
r...@cybersheet.com wrote on 4/4/04 9:51 AM:
People can say ANYTHING on USENET.