Is Ray right about anything?

1 view
Skip to first unread message
Message has been deleted

Mirak

unread,
Apr 30, 2002, 2:14:22 AM4/30/02
to

"Derek" <derek_...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:Naoz8.47697$Il1....@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> Is Ray right about anything?

If he says that the earth is round, I guess you can believe him. (unless you
are the kind who think the earth is punt)


fluca

unread,
Apr 30, 2002, 8:29:29 AM4/30/02
to
The Returning Fox, after some minor adjustments. And I agree with him once
every three months or so. So I would say that he has been right about 15
times since I first came here.

Win At Betting

unread,
Apr 30, 2002, 6:16:02 PM4/30/02
to
>The Returning Fox, after some minor adjustments. And I agree with him once
>every three months or so. So I would say that he has been right about 15
>times since I first came here.

Don't forget the pivot, the reverse timetable, and about six other things which
are basically the CORE of these groups' methods.

My new methods blow away the old, but I keep them to myself. Maybe in five
years I'll show everyone here how wrong they were.

The men here deserve to be misled.


Ray Gordon, GENIUS
http://www.cybersheet.com

Not Here

unread,
Apr 30, 2002, 7:10:02 PM4/30/02
to

"Win At Betting" <winatb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020430181602...@mb-fk.aol.com...

But if your methods are so successful, why delay the revelation of these
ideas followed by lay reports? Why did you not put the PUA's here to shame
a long time ago?


Alex

unread,
Apr 30, 2002, 7:20:00 PM4/30/02
to
in article 20020430181602...@mb-fk.aol.com, Win At Betting at
winatb...@aol.com wrote on 4/30/02 6:16 PM:

>> The Returning Fox, after some minor adjustments. And I agree with him once
>> every three months or so. So I would say that he has been right about 15
>> times since I first came here.
>
> Don't forget the pivot, the reverse timetable, and about six other things
> which
> are basically the CORE of these groups' methods.

It was my impression that you were not the originator of those ideas; that
your contribution to ASF was only giving them new names.

>
> My new methods blow away the old, but I keep them to myself.

If only you would keep more of your ideas to yourself.


> Maybe in five years I'll show everyone here how wrong they were.

As long as that's the next time we hear from you, I, for one, would be happy
to hear it.

> The men here deserve to be misled.

Hence, your presence here.

Anyone who believes ONE word you say deserves what they get.

Mirak

unread,
Apr 30, 2002, 7:42:48 PM4/30/02
to

"Not Here" <not...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:evFz8.17287$G%3.48...@typhoon.columbus.rr.com...

Arf but Nothere, are you stupid ?
It's because it take five years to lay a chick with that method :-)


Win At Betting

unread,
Apr 30, 2002, 7:40:48 PM4/30/02
to
>>> The Returning Fox, after some minor adjustments. And I agree with him once
>>> every three months or so. So I would say that he has been right about 15
>>> times since I first came here.
>>
>> Don't forget the pivot, the reverse timetable, and about six other things
>> which
>> are basically the CORE of these groups' methods.
>
>It was my impression that you were not the originator of those ideas; that
>your contribution to ASF was only giving them new names.

You're wrong, and I have archived posts and dates and copyrights which prove
otherwise.

This is why I'm withholding my new theory for a while, so that no one can do
what they did with my old theory.


>> My new methods blow away the old, but I keep them to myself.
>
>If only you would keep more of your ideas to yourself.

Said the man who can only seduce idiot sluts who let their men fuck other
women.

You're not even a man.


>> Maybe in five years I'll show everyone here how wrong they were.
>
>As long as that's the next time we hear from you, I, for one, would be happy
>to hear it.

Said the man who can only seduce idiot sluts.

Oh yeah, and who is divorced. Why'd that happen again?


>> The men here deserve to be misled.
>
>Hence, your presence here.
>
>Anyone who believes ONE word you say deserves what they get.

Apparently they believe many of my ideas, as they use them and try to claim
others authored them.

Then again, what do you know, you only know how to seduce idiot sluts who won't
even defend you publicly.

I guess you can't be a real man in your everyday life, so you try to be one on
USENET.

Win At Betting

unread,
Apr 30, 2002, 7:41:44 PM4/30/02
to
\>> Don't forget the pivot, the reverse timetable, and about six other things

>which
>> are basically the CORE of these groups' methods.
>>
>> My new methods blow away the old, but I keep them to myself. Maybe in
>five
>> years I'll show everyone here how wrong they were.
>>
>> The men here deserve to be misled.
>>
>>
>> Ray Gordon, GENIUS
>> http://www.cybersheet.com
>
>But if your methods are so successful, why delay the revelation of these
>ideas followed by lay reports? Why did you not put the PUA's here to shame
>a long time ago?

I did. They coopted my ideas and claim them as their own.

Now I'm busy going out and USING my new methods.

Some men want more than whores and idiot sluts anyway.

Mirak

unread,
Apr 30, 2002, 7:54:46 PM4/30/02
to

"Win At Betting" <winatb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020430194144...@mb-fk.aol.com...

> \>> Don't forget the pivot, the reverse timetable, and about six other
things
> >which
> >> are basically the CORE of these groups' methods.
> >>
> >> My new methods blow away the old, but I keep them to myself. Maybe in
> >five
> >> years I'll show everyone here how wrong they were.
> >>
> >> The men here deserve to be misled.
> >>
> >>
> >> Ray Gordon, GENIUS
> >> http://www.cybersheet.com
> >
> >But if your methods are so successful, why delay the revelation of these
> >ideas followed by lay reports? Why did you not put the PUA's here to
shame
> >a long time ago?
>
> I did. They coopted my ideas and claim them as their own.
>
> Now I'm busy going out and USING my new methods.

Your field reports are welcome :-)


Alex

unread,
Apr 30, 2002, 7:48:22 PM4/30/02
to
in article 20020430194048...@mb-fk.aol.com, Win At Betting at
winatb...@aol.com wrote on 4/30/02 7:40 PM:

>>>> The Returning Fox, after some minor adjustments. And I agree with him once
>>>> every three months or so. So I would say that he has been right about 15
>>>> times since I first came here.
>>>
>>> Don't forget the pivot, the reverse timetable, and about six other things
>>> which
>>> are basically the CORE of these groups' methods.
>>
>> It was my impression that you were not the originator of those ideas; that
>> your contribution to ASF was only giving them new names.
>
> You're wrong, and I have archived posts and dates and copyrights which prove
> otherwise.
>
> This is why I'm withholding my new theory for a while, so that no one can do
> what they did with my old theory.

Feel free to withhold it forever. It's not like you're out practicing it.

>
>
>>> My new methods blow away the old, but I keep them to myself.
>>
>> If only you would keep more of your ideas to yourself.
>
> Said the man who can only seduce idiot sluts who let their men fuck other
> women.
>
> You're not even a man.

Save the tough-guy wannabe act for someone who'll believe it.

>
>
>>> Maybe in five years I'll show everyone here how wrong they were.
>>
>> As long as that's the next time we hear from you, I, for one, would be happy
>> to hear it.
>
> Said the man who can only seduce idiot sluts.
>
> Oh yeah, and who is divorced. Why'd that happen again?

As I keep telling you, that happened because my bipolar wife refused to take
responsibility for her actions and seek the medical help necessary to remain
stable.

Is there a reason you keep forgetting that? What would Freud say about that?

>
>
>>> The men here deserve to be misled.
>>
>> Hence, your presence here.
>>
>> Anyone who believes ONE word you say deserves what they get.
>
> Apparently they believe many of my ideas, as they use them and try to claim
> others authored them.

If you have this all archived, why not pull some posts out and show that you
did indeed come up with the idea-- not the name, but the idea.

>
> Then again, what do you know, you only know how to seduce idiot sluts who
> won't
> even defend you publicly.

This from the guy who thinks USENET is "publicly."

What does that tell us about your life?

>
> I guess you can't be a real man in your everyday life, so you try to be one on
> USENET.
>

What would you know of being a "real man?" You live in Mommy's apartment,
spend all day on USENET and write field reports about some cashier smiling
at you when you used your new credit card.

You are a failure at everything you've ever done.

If that's what a "real man" is, I'll pass, thank you.

petal

unread,
Apr 30, 2002, 7:48:21 PM4/30/02
to
In article <20020430181602...@mb-fk.aol.com>

winatb...@aol.com (Win At Betting) wrote:
>
> >The Returning Fox, after some minor adjustments. And I agree with him once
> >every three months or so. So I would say that he has been right about 15
> >times since I first came here.
>
> Don't forget the pivot, the reverse timetable, and about six other things which
> are basically the CORE of these groups' methods.
>
> My new methods blow away the old, but I keep them to myself. Maybe in five
> years I'll show everyone here how wrong they were.

Tell that to all the guys in the moderated forums who are finding the present
methods work great and are also FREE! Oh sorry, you can't because you're not
allowed to post there.

Ray, everyone knows that whenever you make vague and ambiguous claims and provide
no actual evidence, it's because you don't have any.

> The men here deserve to be misled.

They don't, and you can't.

petal
>
>
> Ray Gordon, GENIUS

Win At Betting

unread,
Apr 30, 2002, 8:06:51 PM4/30/02
to
>> This is why I'm withholding my new theory for a while, so that no one can
>do
>> what they did with my old theory.
>
>Feel free to withhold it forever. It's not like you're out practicing it.

Just make something up out of your ass if you can't find an argument, right?


>>>> My new methods blow away the old, but I keep them to myself.
>>>
>>> If only you would keep more of your ideas to yourself.
>>
>> Said the man who can only seduce idiot sluts who let their men fuck other
>> women.
>>
>> You're not even a man.
>
>Save the tough-guy wannabe act for someone who'll believe it.

Awww, stealing my lines? You're not a man.

Real men don't scar women emotionally by making them part of a harem.

Bring the piece of shit you fuck here to have her defend you and feel free to
prove me wrong.

>>>> Maybe in five years I'll show everyone here how wrong they were.
>>>
>>> As long as that's the next time we hear from you, I, for one, would be
>happy
>>> to hear it.
>>
>> Said the man who can only seduce idiot sluts.
>>
>> Oh yeah, and who is divorced. Why'd that happen again?
>
>As I keep telling you, that happened because my bipolar wife refused to take
>responsibility for her actions and seek the medical help necessary to remain
>stable.

Wow, you picked the cream of the crop!

Can we get HER side?


>Is there a reason you keep forgetting that? What would Freud say about that?

He'd be too busy analyzing your previous lies about me to get to it.


>>>> The men here deserve to be misled.
>>>
>>> Hence, your presence here.
>>>
>>> Anyone who believes ONE word you say deserves what they get.
>>
>> Apparently they believe many of my ideas, as they use them and try to claim
>> others authored them.
>
>If you have this all archived, why not pull some posts out and show that you
>did indeed come up with the idea-- not the name, but the idea.

I have. People ignore it when I do that.


>> Then again, what do you know, you only know how to seduce idiot sluts who
>> won't
>> even defend you publicly.
>
>This from the guy who thinks USENET is "publicly."
>
>What does that tell us about your life?

It's a PUBLIC forum, and your women are still idiot sluts.

>> I guess you can't be a real man in your everyday life, so you try to be one
>on
>> USENET.
>>
>
>What would you know of being a "real man?" You live in Mommy's apartment,

Some of us don't need to bribe women with free room and board to get laid.

I also am DOMICILED with my family, doesn't mean I always live there, but your
statement is very revealing about how you think.


>spend all day on USENET and write field reports about some cashier smiling
>at you when you used your new credit card.

I gave an example of a flirtation. Doesn't mean it's my entire love life.

Shifting attention from the fact that your women are cheap garbage? That's
understandable.


>You are a failure at everything you've ever done.

That's a lie. Then again, you've already lied about me many times before.


>If that's what a "real man" is, I'll pass, thank you.

You're just a cheap liar.

Oh wait, one of your women works in financial district offices......we all KNOW
why they hire.

What ideas have YOU contributed here again?

Alex

unread,
Apr 30, 2002, 9:14:54 PM4/30/02
to
in article 20020430200651...@mb-fk.aol.com, Win At Betting at
winatb...@aol.com wrote on 4/30/02 8:06 PM:

>>> This is why I'm withholding my new theory for a while, so that no one can
>> do
>>> what they did with my old theory.
>>
>> Feel free to withhold it forever. It's not like you're out practicing it.
>
> Just make something up out of your ass if you can't find an argument, right?

What's to make up? Unless you're simultaneously out with these women AND
posting to USENET.


>
>
>>>>> My new methods blow away the old, but I keep them to myself.
>>>>
>>>> If only you would keep more of your ideas to yourself.
>>>
>>> Said the man who can only seduce idiot sluts who let their men fuck other
>>> women.
>>>
>>> You're not even a man.
>>
>> Save the tough-guy wannabe act for someone who'll believe it.
>
> Awww, stealing my lines? You're not a man.
>
> Real men don't scar women emotionally by making them part of a harem.

Much better to wish death or paralysis on their children.

You're not fooling anyone here.

>
> Bring the piece of shit you fuck here to have her defend you and feel free to
> prove me wrong.

Feel free to look up the legal definition of "fighting words."

Until then, I'd no more subject the women I'm with and like to your
psychosis then I would subject my cats to a rabid squirrel.


>
>
>
>>>>> Maybe in five years I'll show everyone here how wrong they were.
>>>>
>>>> As long as that's the next time we hear from you, I, for one, would be
>> happy
>>>> to hear it.
>>>
>>> Said the man who can only seduce idiot sluts.
>>>
>>> Oh yeah, and who is divorced. Why'd that happen again?
>>
>> As I keep telling you, that happened because my bipolar wife refused to take
>> responsibility for her actions and seek the medical help necessary to remain
>> stable.
>
> Wow, you picked the cream of the crop!
>
> Can we get HER side?

Again, since I'm on good terms with her and wish her well, I'd no more
subject her to you than I would subject her to any other psychopath on
USENET.

On the other hand, there may be some previous exes who deserve to deal with
you. I'll have to think about that one.

>
>> Is there a reason you keep forgetting that? What would Freud say about that?
>
> He'd be too busy analyzing your previous lies about me to get to it.
>
>
>>>>> The men here deserve to be misled.
>>>>
>>>> Hence, your presence here.
>>>>
>>>> Anyone who believes ONE word you say deserves what they get.
>>>
>>> Apparently they believe many of my ideas, as they use them and try to claim
>>> others authored them.
>>
>> If you have this all archived, why not pull some posts out and show that you
>> did indeed come up with the idea-- not the name, but the idea.
>
> I have. People ignore it when I do that.

Because all you've ever posted in the coining of the name, not the idea. Gee
Ray, guess NO ONE ever thought of being seen with a woman to improve your
desirability before you came along.

You're a pathetic wannabe who is obsessed with Ross Jeffries because his
ideas have succeeded where yours have failed.

>
>
>>> Then again, what do you know, you only know how to seduce idiot sluts who
>>> won't
>>> even defend you publicly.
>>
>> This from the guy who thinks USENET is "publicly."
>>
>> What does that tell us about your life?
>
> It's a PUBLIC forum, and your women are still idiot sluts.

The very idea that USENET is public to you tells me a lot.

And look at how riled up this gets you. Do all Foxhunters have this much
trouble keeping their wits about them?


>
>
>>> I guess you can't be a real man in your everyday life, so you try to be one
>> on
>>> USENET.
>>>
>>
>> What would you know of being a "real man?" You live in Mommy's apartment,
>
> Some of us don't need to bribe women with free room and board to get laid.

And some of us actually have the BALLS to approach women. What's your point?

>
> I also am DOMICILED with my family, doesn't mean I always live there, but your
> statement is very revealing about how you think.

Sure is.... I think a 35-year-old living with mommy has NO business talking
about "real men."

>
>
>> spend all day on USENET and write field reports about some cashier smiling
>> at you when you used your new credit card.
>
> I gave an example of a flirtation. Doesn't mean it's my entire love life.

Then why post it? You were so excited about it. What do you think that tells
us here?


>
> Shifting attention from the fact that your women are cheap garbage? That's
> understandable.

This the same guy who was worried that I "scar women emotionally by making
them part of a harem?" Now she's cheap garbage?

You really need to improve your debating, troll. Personal attacks on a woman
you've never met? Welcome to Foxhunting.

>
>
>> You are a failure at everything you've ever done.
>
> That's a lie. Then again, you've already lied about me many times before.

Name one thing-- just one-- you are successful at. You don't sell books,
your sports picks are pathetic. Who's going to win the Derby tough guy?


>
>
>> If that's what a "real man" is, I'll pass, thank you.
>
> You're just a cheap liar.

Nothing cheap about me. As for the lies, name one. Calling me a liar is
actionable unless you can prove a lie.

Go for it.

>
> Oh wait, one of your women works in financial district offices......we all
> KNOW
> why they hire.

Yes... she has knowledge of COBOL. A language rarely used anymore outside
the antiquated systems used in brokerage houses. But what would you know
about that?

>
> What ideas have YOU contributed here again?
>

I never claimed to be the great seduction-expert. Nor do I claim to be a
GENIUS.

I also never take credit for other people's work that I renamed.

Not Here

unread,
Apr 30, 2002, 10:08:54 PM4/30/02
to

"Mirak" <mir...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:aan9su$25j$1...@wanadoo.fr...

It was a rhetorical question... I know full well why he never posts his
success... he doesn't have any.


Win At Betting

unread,
Apr 30, 2002, 11:14:17 PM4/30/02
to
>> Just make something up out of your ass if you can't find an argument,
>right?
>
>What's to make up? Unless you're simultaneously out with these women AND
>posting to USENET.

You seem to think it takes long to have sex, or that I have to be constantly
having sex with women to prove my method.

As you know, I have a discrimination lawsuit which is taking up my time these
days, plus I run an internet company.

That I am online MOST of the time does not mean I am online ALL of the time,
and a lot of women look for lovers online these days. While I'm online, I get
hot women to IM me, e-mail me, and send REAL pictures of themselves with a
technique you couldn't even imagine, but which any guy could duplicate.

No NLP crap either.

>> Awww, stealing my lines? You're not a man.
>>
>> Real men don't scar women emotionally by making them part of a harem.
>
>Much better to wish death or paralysis on their children.

Now now, stop relying on third-party liars. You can get sued for saying stuff
like that!


>You're not fooling anyone here.

You choose to quote liars who cover up child abuse in gymnastics. Further,
we're talking about YOU here, are we not?


>> Bring the piece of shit you fuck here to have her defend you and feel free
>to
>> prove me wrong.
>
>Feel free to look up the legal definition of "fighting words."

They don't apply here, and you'd be an AFC if you tried to pick a fight. It
wouldn't be worth it to you to start a fight and incur all those medical
expenses from my legal self-defense anyway.

The problem with your woman is that this is TRUE about her: SHE LETS HER MAN
FUCK OTHER WOMEN. You can come here on USENET and say anything you want about
that, but nothing changes. You have a CHEAP SLUT for a woman, and there's
NOTHING you can do about me saying it.

If you don't want to have your women called sluts, don't treat them as if they
were.


>Until then, I'd no more subject the women I'm with and like to your
>psychosis then I would subject my cats to a rabid squirrel.

You mean you'd not subject them to the TRUTH about what they are doing because
they are ASHAMED.

You give yourself an easy way to avoid scrutiny.

You can say whatever you want but the fact remains that you have to HIDE the
truth about these women from the world, and that invalidates your claim that
they'd defend you.

I don't have to be rude to your SLUT to point out to her how stupid she is.
The truth does that for me. In fact, doing it in a POLITE way is so much
sweeter because then my attitude can't be attacked.


>> Wow, you picked the cream of the crop!
>>
>> Can we get HER side?
>
>Again, since I'm on good terms with her and wish her well, I'd no more
>subject her to you than I would subject her to any other psychopath on
>USENET.

That's defamatory. You can get sued for that! Then again, I can dig up
divorce records if I really wanted to.

That's assuming your name is what you say it is, which I can also find out
relatively soon, and perfectly LEGALLY.


>On the other hand, there may be some previous exes who deserve to deal with
>you. I'll have to think about that one.

Yeah, dodge the real issue, while you still can.


>>> Is there a reason you keep forgetting that? What would Freud say about
>that?
>>
>> He'd be too busy analyzing your previous lies about me to get to it.

Took his breath away.


>>>> Apparently they believe many of my ideas, as they use them and try to
>claim
>>>> others authored them.
>>>
>>> If you have this all archived, why not pull some posts out and show that
>you
>>> did indeed come up with the idea-- not the name, but the idea.
>>
>> I have. People ignore it when I do that.
>
>Because all you've ever posted in the coining of the name, not the idea.

That's wrong, it's a lie, and it's defamatory.

Careful.....


>Gee
>Ray, guess NO ONE ever thought of being seen with a woman to improve your
>desirability before you came along.

They didn't build a strategy around it the way I did.

That's far from the only idea. My system as a whole is also very original.


>You're a pathetic wannabe who is obsessed with Ross Jeffries because his
>ideas have succeeded where yours have failed.

Where are his women again?

John Gray has succeeded more than even Ross. Are his ideas better?

Who said I failed anyway? Lots of men have had wonderful things to say about
my writing.

Should I start quoting the vitrol Ross has posted about me and my family? His
is the behavior of a DESPERATE man threatened by my ideas.

Want to see Ross's "government contacts" post?

You call BISHOP a success? I guess you can sweep that under the rug all you
want and put any spin you want on it, just like you can claim your women aren't
sluts and hide them away so they don't have to answer any questions about MLTR.

You're not fooling anyone.

>>> What does that tell us about your life?
>>
>> It's a PUBLIC forum, and your women are still idiot sluts.
>
>The very idea that USENET is public to you tells me a lot.

It's a PUBLIC FORUM. Slight difference.


>And look at how riled up this gets you. Do all Foxhunters have this much
>trouble keeping their wits about them?

Gee, I wonder if that applies to those who have threatened me too. I'm not
even close to riled, just defending my ideas and my work.


>>> What would you know of being a "real man?" You live in Mommy's apartment,
>>
>> Some of us don't need to bribe women with free room and board to get laid.
>
>And some of us actually have the BALLS to approach women. What's your point?

Women approach me, I don't have to approach them. I prefer being approached.

Further, I have a discrimination lawsuit pending which allows for back wages
dating back to last year if I win. When one is illegally denied a living, that
can crimp their lifestyle TEMPORARILY.

You're aware that secretarial work is very biased against men, are you not? Of
course you are, as I'm sure you know several women in that field.

Now that I'm fighting the war against discrimination properly, I can fix my
career and my finances, but justice takes time. Of course I still have my
business while that's going on, not that I should have to rely on it.


>> I also am DOMICILED with my family, doesn't mean I always live there, but
>your
>> statement is very revealing about how you think.
>
>Sure is.... I think a 35-year-old living with mommy has NO business talking
>about "real men."

Of course you can ignore the impact of employment discrimination and just
equate money with one's character, but you'd be flawed for doing so.

It's not like I can't have a sex life no matter where I live. Further, money
is something that's easy to come by and fix, but one remembers remarks like
yours as evidence of how shallow and materialistic people are.

Now in a fair employment market, where I didn't lose jobs to horny loser men
who hire eye candy, your claim would have more validity. Since I've been
discriminated against, however, that changes things a lot. I'm neither lazy
nor unskilled, just oppressed.

I also manage to pay my way through life despite this, but yes I do have to cut
corners. Women who aren't sluts, golddiggers, or office bimbos appreciate
this, but I guess that would rule out those you generally keep company with,
wouldn't it?


>> I gave an example of a flirtation. Doesn't mean it's my entire love life.
>
>Then why post it? You were so excited about it. What do you think that tells
>us here?

I wasn't EXCITED about it, it happened to be relevant. My best field and lay
reports won't see the light of this group until well after the fact.


>> Shifting attention from the fact that your women are cheap garbage? That's
>> understandable.
>
>This the same guy who was worried that I "scar women emotionally by making
>them part of a harem?" Now she's cheap garbage?

She chooses to be.


>You really need to improve your debating, troll. Personal attacks on a woman
>you've never met? Welcome to Foxhunting.

No, Foxhunting isn't about that at all. You should be careful not to
misrepresent me or my work, too.


>>> You are a failure at everything you've ever done.
>>
>> That's a lie. Then again, you've already lied about me many times before.
>
>Name one thing-- just one-- you are successful at. You don't sell books,

Sure I do. You must really want to be sued.

I can assure you that you'd get a lesson in proper behavior and your attitude
would change very quickly upon being served.


>your sports picks are pathetic.

Oh? Funny how I had a winning record with them this year.


>Who's going to win the Derby tough guy?

One race doesn't prove a thing.


>>> If that's what a "real man" is, I'll pass, thank you.
>>
>> You're just a cheap liar.
>
>Nothing cheap about me. As for the lies, name one. Calling me a liar is
>actionable unless you can prove a lie.

Don't worry, you just made the top of my list of people to sue, asswipe.

It's time to teach a punk like you a lesson so that all the other punks here
figure out why I'm not to be lied about.

See you in court VERY SOON.

Win At Betting

unread,
Apr 30, 2002, 11:45:36 PM4/30/02
to
>> >> My new methods blow away the old, but I keep them to myself. Maybe in
>> >five
>> >> years I'll show everyone here how wrong they were.
>> >>
>> >> The men here deserve to be misled.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Ray Gordon, GENIUS
>> >> http://www.cybersheet.com
>> >
>> >But if your methods are so successful, why delay the revelation of these
>> >ideas followed by lay reports? Why did you not put the PUA's here to
>shame
>> >a long time ago?
>>
>> I did. They coopted my ideas and claim them as their own.
>>
>> Now I'm busy going out and USING my new methods.
>
>Your field reports are welcome :-)

I have a PUNK to sue first.

Asshole's going to make me DROP WHAT I AM DOING, compile all the evidence I
have against him, spend $150 to file it, then subpoena a company to get his
name, THEN put his name in place of the defendant's.

Pain in the ass. That's also while I'm amending my complaint against UPenn and
subpoenaing the identity of ANOTHER punk from that school who threatened me.

It's time to show these boys they can't go around lying about people.

Win At Betting

unread,
Apr 30, 2002, 11:46:29 PM4/30/02
to
Yes, and those men have all their WOMEN over there with them too...

Sluts aren't conquests.

Win At Betting

unread,
Apr 30, 2002, 11:58:27 PM4/30/02
to
> > >The Returning Fox, after some minor adjustments. And I agree with him
>> once
>> > >every three months or so. So I would say that he has been right about
>15
>> > >times since I first came here.
>> >
>> > Don't forget the pivot, the reverse timetable, and about six other
>things
>> which
>> > are basically the CORE of these groups' methods.
>> >
>> > My new methods blow away the old, but I keep them to myself. Maybe in
>> five
>> > years I'll show everyone here how wrong they were.
>> >
>> > The men here deserve to be misled.
>> >
>> >
>> > Ray Gordon, GENIUS
>> > http://www.cybersheet.com
>>
>> But if your methods are so successful, why delay the revelation of these
>> ideas followed by lay reports? Why did you not put the PUA's here to
>shame
>> a long time ago?
>
>Arf but Nothere, are you stupid ?
>It's because it take five years to lay a chick with that method :-)

Not exactly.

Some of the Foxhunting seductions are a lot quicker than the "fast" methods.

You just have to do it right.

Win At Betting

unread,
Apr 30, 2002, 11:59:06 PM4/30/02
to
>> Arf but Nothere, are you stupid ?
>> It's because it take five years to lay a chick with that method :-)
>
>It was a rhetorical question... I know full well why he never posts his
>success... he doesn't have any.

Where is Ross Jeffries' lover?

Has he EVER gone public with anyone other than Kim?

Let's be consistent here about your standard.

Odious

unread,
May 1, 2002, 12:26:08 AM5/1/02
to

Derek wrote:
>
> Is Ray right about anything?


Yes, this:

_____________________________________________________________________
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 04:26:51 -0400
Subject: Re: Ray's Libel Case - Update - Mark your Calendars
Message-ID:
<20000518.042652.-438883.6...@juno.com>
From: The Seduction Library
<le__seductio...@juno.com>


> Oh, how are you going to prove in court that my mom's not a prostitute?
_____________________________________________________________________

Odious

unread,
May 1, 2002, 12:29:11 AM5/1/02
to

fluca wrote:
>
> The Returning Fox, after some minor adjustments.

The returning fox is not ray's idea. It is simply the name he slapped on
take aways and polarity responders. The concepts were part of SS
methodology long before ray showed up and started plagiarizing material.

The concepts were even discussed in ross first book in 94.

Odious

unread,
May 1, 2002, 12:43:36 AM5/1/02
to

Win At Betting wrote:
>
> >The Returning Fox, after some minor adjustments. And I agree with him once
> >every three months or so. So I would say that he has been right about 15
> >times since I first came here.
>
> Don't forget the pivot,

Ray, I've already proved you're LYING about introducing the concept to
this group, and you continue to run from this...


I looked for pivot and found it mentioned in 1996 to reference the party
in the middle of a three way relationship. So you didn't even coin the
term ray... it was being used in ASF before you ever showed up.

From: IAMM...@worldnet.att.net
Subject: Re: boyfriend destroyer
Date: 1996/09/12
Message-ID: <N.091296....@worldnet.worldnet.att.net>
references: <1996091008...@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us>
organization: AT&T WorldNet Services
newsgroups: alt.seduction.fast


And as for the concept...

Robert B. Cialdini was writing about social proof in 1993 in his book,
Influence : The Psychology of Persuasion.

So no ray... you didn't bring a god damned thing to ASF on the subject.
You just took something that was already here and slapped a different
name on it.

Now you are trying to take credit for ideas tat are not your own and for
introducing them to this group, when in fact you plagiarized them from
this group.


> the reverse timetable,

Again polarity responder... you do know what polar means, don't you?

These are ideas covered long before you showed up. Hell time shifting and
time frame shifting has been around in NLP before Ross. Trying to claim
you invented this or brought it to ASF shows everybody how full of shit
you are and how little you actually know about SS and NLP.

This ideas were here before you ever showed up? Ross wrote about them as
far back as 94.


> and about six other things which
> are basically the CORE of these groups' methods.

Oops, they were the core of this group before you showed up and
plagiarized the material. I've already proven you're lying about this
ray.

Have a look.

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=3CA42423.7BCDE8CE%40cox.net&rnum=2

> My new methods blow away the old, but I keep them to myself.


Gosh anybody else notice that ray suddenly stops coming up with "new"
stuff at right around the same time the major content produces in ASF
move to the moderated forum, where ray can't plagiarize their material?
Now why would that be?

Win At Betting

unread,
May 1, 2002, 1:01:41 AM5/1/02
to
>> The Returning Fox, after some minor adjustments.
>
>The returning fox is not ray's idea. It is simply the name he slapped on
>take aways and polarity responders.

Hardly. In fact, the key difference in how I do returning fox and how others
do it is still there.


>The concepts were part of SS
>methodology long before ray showed up and started plagiarizing material.

You should look up the definition of plagiarism. I don't meet it.

Those here who want to have fun should ask Odiot about DR. TRACY CABOT, who
wrote a book about how to use NLP to make men fall in love with you (for
women), before Ross wrote his book.

This is the type of comment that can get you sued and you have NO DEFENSE.


>The concepts were even discussed in ross first book in 94.

Don't confuse Odiot's belief I won't travel 3000 miles to sue him with any
legitimacy he strives for in his comments.

Win At Betting

unread,
May 1, 2002, 1:10:01 AM5/1/02
to
>> >The Returning Fox, after some minor adjustments. And I agree with him once
>> >every three months or so. So I would say that he has been right about 15
>> >times since I first came here.
>>
>> Don't forget the pivot,
>
>Ray, I've already proved you're LYING about introducing the concept to
>this group, and you continue to run from this...

Hardly.

>
>
>I looked for pivot and found it mentioned in 1996 to reference the party
>in the middle of a three way relationship.

That wasn't even close to the same application.

But hey you haven't a leg to stand on so be my guest.


>So you didn't even coin the
>term ray... it was being used in ASF before you ever showed up.
>
>From: IAMM...@worldnet.att.net
>Subject: Re: boyfriend destroyer
>Date: 1996/09/12
>Message-ID: <N.091296....@worldnet.worldnet.att.net>
>references: <1996091008...@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us>
>organization: AT&T WorldNet Services
>newsgroups: alt.seduction.fast
>
>
>And as for the concept...
>
>Robert B. Cialdini was writing about social proof in 1993 in his book,
>Influence : The Psychology of Persuasion.

Social proof is not the same as a pivot. Pivots have more than just that
function.


>So no ray... you didn't bring a god damned thing to ASF on the subject.

I highlighted its use, and in fact many here TRASHED it.

>You just took something that was already here and slapped a different
>name on it.

Wrong again.

>
>Now you are trying to take credit for ideas tat are not your own and for
>introducing them to this group, when in fact you plagiarized them from
>this group.

Look up the term "plagiarism" before you go defaming people.

I know you're desperate for arguments, but that doesn't make what you say any
truer.

How does Tracy Cabot fit into your equation again?

>
>
>> the reverse timetable,
>
>Again polarity responder... you do know what polar means, don't you?

No, a reverse-timetable.

>These are ideas covered long before you showed up. Hell time shifting and
>time frame shifting has been around in NLP before Ross.

Not the same thing. This is more precise.

>Trying to claim
>you invented this or brought it to ASF shows everybody how full of shit
>you are and how little you actually know about SS and NLP.

My methods don't require NLP.


>This ideas were here before you ever showed up? Ross wrote about them as
>far back as 94.

Got links?


>> and about six other things which
>> are basically the CORE of these groups' methods.
>
>Oops, they were the core of this group before you showed up and
>plagiarized the material. I've already proven you're lying about this
>ray.

You should be careful who you defame. Then again, I've already proven you to be
a liar about me many times over.


>> My new methods blow away the old, but I keep them to myself.
>
>
>Gosh anybody else notice that ray suddenly stops coming up with "new"
>stuff at right around the same time the major content produces in ASF
>move to the moderated forum, where ray can't plagiarize their material?
>Now why would that be?

Wow, he thinks if he says it enough times it must be true!

First off, I can surf the forums and see what's there, but more important, by
letting some time pass and letting their theory cement without my input, I can
then show the MAJOR differences now.

Like Enron, the bubble bursts when too many men try the methods and too many
women become aware of them. This HAS to happen.

Those who were sold stock in Enron FELT very rich until last fall. But it's
the FEELING that you have a six-figure 401(k) that counts, right, not the
actual 401(k) itself!

Notice the void of women to back up anything you claim here. That speaks
VOLUMES.

Then again, it's not like a bunch of cheap sluts make good debaters, and
appealing to their "intellect" is something that they treasure, finding men
willing to prop them up on pedestals since most men know them for the trash
they are.

Mekon

unread,
Apr 30, 2002, 1:54:25 PM4/30/02
to
Depends what you mean by right. If you mean do I agree with ray on anything
the answer is that I never read his posts so I can't comment, in fact this
is the first Ray post I have looked at in about a year. It seems he draws
feeble minded people into conflict and I hold to the premise - never enter a
battle of wits with an unarmed man. If you want advice on something ignore
him and anyone who responds to him. You'll avoid all the losers that way ;-)

"Derek" <derek_...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:Naoz8.47697$Il1....@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...

Win At Betting ADVISORY

unread,
May 1, 2002, 2:03:40 AM5/1/02
to
In article <20020430231417...@mb-fk.aol.com>

winatb...@aol.com (Win At Betting) wrote:
>
> >> Just make something up out of your ass if you can't find an argument,
> >right?
> >
> >What's to make up? Unless you're simultaneously out with these women AND
> >posting to USENET.
>
> You seem to think it takes long to have sex, or that I have to be constantly
> having sex with women to prove my method.
>
> As you know, I have a discrimination lawsuit which is taking up my time these
> days, plus I run an internet company.
>
> That I am online MOST of the time does not mean I am online ALL of the time,
> and a lot of women look for lovers online these days. While I'm online, I get
> hot women to IM me, e-mail me, and send REAL pictures of themselves with a
> technique you couldn't even imagine, but which any guy could duplicate.
>
> No NLP crap either.
>
>
>
> >> Awww, stealing my lines? You're not a man.
> >>
> >> Real men don't scar women emotionally by making them part of a harem.
> >
> >Much better to wish death or paralysis on their children.
>
> Now now, stop relying on third-party liars. You can get sued for saying stuff
> like that!


The previous post was made by "Ray Gordon", real name Gordon Roy Parker.

* * *

Some other quotes from "Ray Gordon":

"There was no significant loss of life in those towers... NOT A ONE"
Ray Gordon, real name: Gordon Roy Parker, September 11 2001

"A bunch of *ASSHOLE* New Yorkers died... don't grieve"
Ray Gordon, real name: Gordon Roy Parker, September 11 2001

* * *

Has Ray given you the impression that he runs a successful, profitable business? Or
that he commands expensive fees for his work? Then you may be interested to know
that he can't even afford to pay his taxes. The IRS filed a tax lien of OVER TWELVE
THOUSAND DOLLARS against him and his Mom (whom he lives with) which they STILL
haven't been able to pay off AFTER SIX YEARS. You can view the official document
HERE: (cut and paste the ENTIRE link onto a single line in your browser - will
require two separate pastes to get both lines onto single browser line)

http://dns2.phila.gov:8080/fjd/owa/zk_fjd_public_qry_03.zp_dktrpt_frames?case_id=97
0620114

* * *

New readers are encouraged to familiarize themselves with Ray's posting history and
opinions. Be sure to check out www.Ray-Gordon.com and click the "RayFaq" button on
the top left. The site contains many of his archived posts. The site is NOT
affiliated with "Ray", who's real name is Gordon Roy Parker, and he has made
numerous threats of legal action against it.

* * *

If you believe "Ray Gordon" has made inappropriate posts you may wish to contact
his ISP. For customer verification, Ray's contact information (obtained via the
public Google Usenet Archive)is:

GORDON ROY PARKER
4247 LOCUST ST #806
PHILADELPHIA PA 19104
(215)386-7366

Win At Betting

unread,
May 1, 2002, 3:22:06 AM5/1/02
to
>Depends what you mean by right. If you mean do I agree with ray on anything
>the answer is that I never read his posts so I can't comment, in fact this
>is the first Ray post I have looked at in about a year. It seems he draws
>feeble minded people into conflict and I hold to the premise - never enter a
>battle of wits with an unarmed man. If you want advice on something ignore
>him and anyone who responds to him. You'll avoid all the losers that way ;-)

Another classic misportrayal.

I don't draw others into conflict. There are people who are PAID to harass and
defame me so as to get people to listen to others instead of me.

Win At Betting ADVISORY

unread,
May 1, 2002, 2:17:20 AM5/1/02
to
In article <20020501011001...@mb-fk.aol.com>

winatb...@aol.com (Win At Betting) wrote:
>

Win At Betting

unread,
May 1, 2002, 4:28:43 AM5/1/02
to
Is there anything lamer than an internet hate group?

Say, if I brought a dozen HOTTIES here with me to say these guys were full of
shit, would the sheep then believe me?

Oh yeah, that website is a violation of my intellectual property and publicity
rights, it's also a lot of other things, and you should check into the groups
which host it and the remailers who send the mail messages from it. You'll
notice a rather consistent pattern.

Win At Betting ADVISORY

unread,
May 1, 2002, 2:23:26 AM5/1/02
to
In article <20020430194048...@mb-fk.aol.com>

winatb...@aol.com (Win At Betting) wrote:
>
> >>> The Returning Fox, after some minor adjustments. And I agree with him once
> >>> every three months or so. So I would say that he has been right about 15
> >>> times since I first came here.
> >>
> >> Don't forget the pivot, the reverse timetable, and about six other things
> >> which
> >> are basically the CORE of these groups' methods.
> >
> >It was my impression that you were not the originator of those ideas; that
> >your contribution to ASF was only giving them new names.
>
> You're wrong, and I have archived posts and dates and copyrights which prove
> otherwise.
>
> This is why I'm withholding my new theory for a while, so that no one can do
> what they did with my old theory.
>
>
> >> My new methods blow away the old, but I keep them to myself.
> >
> >If only you would keep more of your ideas to yourself.
>
> Said the man who can only seduce idiot sluts who let their men fuck other
> women.
>
> You're not even a man.

Win At Betting ADVISORY

unread,
May 1, 2002, 3:26:41 AM5/1/02
to
In article <20020501010141...@mb-fk.aol.com>

winatb...@aol.com (Win At Betting) wrote:
>

Win At Betting ADVISORY

unread,
May 1, 2002, 4:01:53 AM5/1/02
to
In article <20020501032206...@mb-fk.aol.com>

winatb...@aol.com (Win At Betting) wrote:
>

Win At Betting ADVISORY

unread,
May 1, 2002, 4:59:26 AM5/1/02
to
In article <20020430235906...@mb-fk.aol.com>

winatb...@aol.com (Win At Betting) wrote:
>

The previous post was made by "Ray Gordon", real name Gordon Roy Parker.

Ray Gordon has, for a long time, appeared to be quite obsessed and bitterly jealous
of Ross Jeffries. Ross Jeffries is an individual widely regarded as very successful
both in using and in teaching seduction techniques. Ray is discredited by serious
players.

fluca

unread,
May 1, 2002, 7:24:13 AM5/1/02
to
ROTFLMAO
"Terry Porter" <TPo...@lycos.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2qhvcusb41h8s1517...@4ax.com...
> On 01 May 2002 05:01:41 GMT, in
> alt.seduction.fast,
> (winatb...@aol.com (Win At Betting)) wrote:
>
> <snipped bullshit>


Mirak

unread,
May 1, 2002, 8:50:39 AM5/1/02
to

"Not Here" <not...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:W6Iz8.17612$G%3.50...@typhoon.columbus.rr.com...

Of course I know what was your goal, I just played the game of you
rethorical question ...
Like you I am just impatient to see is field reports ...


Mirak

unread,
May 1, 2002, 8:51:57 AM5/1/02
to

"Not Here" <not...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:W6Iz8.17612$G%3.50...@typhoon.columbus.rr.com...

Of course I know what was your goal, I just played the game of you


rethorical question ...
Like you I am just impatient to see is field reports ...

And don't believe I try to change of side or blablabla, it's really not my
interest, I am only interested by what works.


Win At Betting ADVISORY

unread,
May 1, 2002, 6:42:52 AM5/1/02
to
In article <20020430200651...@mb-fk.aol.com>

winatb...@aol.com (Win At Betting) wrote:
>
> >> This is why I'm withholding my new theory for a while, so that no one can
> >do
> >> what they did with my old theory.
> >
> >Feel free to withhold it forever. It's not like you're out practicing it.
>
> Just make something up out of your ass if you can't find an argument, right?
>
>
> >>>> My new methods blow away the old, but I keep them to myself.
> >>>
> >>> If only you would keep more of your ideas to yourself.
> >>
> >> Said the man who can only seduce idiot sluts who let their men fuck other
> >> women.
> >>
> >> You're not even a man.
> >
> >Save the tough-guy wannabe act for someone who'll believe it.

The previous post was made by "Ray Gordon", real name Gordon Roy Parker.

* * *

Win At Betting rebuttal

unread,
May 1, 2002, 2:23:11 PM5/1/02
to
In article <20020501042843...@mb-fk.aol.com>

winatb...@aol.com (Win At Betting) wrote:
>

Now now, that's a very vague statement Mr Parker. We all know you have a problem
with specifics. Care to elaborate?

>
> Ray Gordon, GENIUS

Alex

unread,
May 1, 2002, 5:05:06 PM5/1/02
to
in article 20020501032206...@mb-fk.aol.com, Win At Betting at
winatb...@aol.com wrote on 5/1/02 3:22 AM:


Don't draw others into conflict? How about this little gem?


From: "Ray Gordon, GENIUS" <r...@cybersheet.com>
Newsgroups: alt.seduction.fast
Subject: Alex, your "primary" is a SLUT
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 13:40:05 -0500
Organization: Snodgrass Publishing Group
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <a36q8s$jn4$0...@dosa.alt.net>
Reply-To: "Ray Gordon, GENIUS" <cave...@nni.com>
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400


Who can't even get all of a man to herself.

Bring her out here so she can brag about how you treat her like shit and
fuck other women.

Come on, little man, DO IT!!!

I mean, she KNOWS what she is, doesn't she?

Stupid little fuck.


http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&selm=a36q8s%24jn4%240%40dosa.
alt.net


As for the other assertion, you better be able to prove that in court.


dizzy

unread,
May 1, 2002, 6:10:50 PM5/1/02
to
On Wed, 1 May 2002 11:05:12 +0000 (UTC), Terry Porter
<TPo...@lycos.co.uk> wrote:

>There he goes with the insults again. What a
>loser...

Shut up, you idiot. No one cares what you think.

Alex

unread,
May 1, 2002, 6:54:25 PM5/1/02
to
in article 20020430234536...@mb-fk.aol.com, Win At Betting at
winatb...@aol.com wrote on 4/30/02 11:45 PM:


You are in violation of federal and commonwealth statutes regarding
harassment and intimidation by threats of legal action.

Cease and desist immediately.

The next warning will come from my attorney.

Odious

unread,
May 1, 2002, 10:06:12 PM5/1/02
to

Win At Betting wrote:
>
> >>> The Returning Fox, after some minor adjustments. And I agree with him once
> >>> every three months or so. So I would say that he has been right about 15
> >>> times since I first came here.
> >>
> >> Don't forget the pivot, the reverse timetable, and about six other things
> >> which
> >> are basically the CORE of these groups' methods.
> >

> >It was my impression that you were not the originator of those ideas; that
> >your contribution to ASF was only giving them new names.
>
> You're wrong, and I have archived posts and dates and copyrights which prove
> otherwise.
>

And I proved you wrong by showing those ideas in ross book and in other
material before your copyright dates, ray. Just because you continue to
ignore it, does nto mean I did not prove you're lying about this.

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=3CA42423.7BCDE8CE%40cox.net

Message-ID: <3CA42423...@cox.net>
From: Odious <Odi...@cox.net>
Subject: Re: Ray Gordon's Six Contributions To ASF Theory
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 08:19:13 GMT


Win At Betting wrote:
>
> Count them, folks, some people with short memories may forget to remind you. I
> also have COPYRIGHTS to prove it:
>
> Returning Fox

Is your copyright on this before 1994?

Chapter 16 of Ross Book covers this, and was later expanded on with take
aways and polarity responders... long before you showed up ray.

> Reverse Timetable to bust up a shit-test

Again polarity responder... ideas covered long before you showed up.

Hell time shifting and time frame shifting has been around in NLP before

Ross. Trying to claim you invented this or brought it to ASF shows


everybody how full of shit you are and how little you actually know about
SS and NLP.

> Pivot (first post: May 23, 1997)

That's not what google says...

Your search - pivot group:alt.seduction.fast - did not match any messages
posted between 23 May 1997 and 28 May 1997.

Can you cite the post?

I looked for pivot and found it mentioned in 1996 to reference the party

in the middle of a three way relationship. So you didn't even coin the


term ray... it was being used in ASF before you ever showed up.

From: IAMM...@worldnet.att.net
Subject: Re: boyfriend destroyer
Date: 1996/09/12
Message-ID: <N.091296....@worldnet.worldnet.att.net>
references: <1996091008...@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us>
organization: AT&T WorldNet Services
newsgroups: alt.seduction.fast

Robert B. Cialdini was writing about social proof in 1993 in his book,
Influence : The Psychology of Persuasion.

So no ray... you didn't bring a god damned thing to ASF on the subject.

You just took something that was already here and slapped a different
name on it.

> Gimmick as a seduction tool

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! THis is just stupid ray.. men have been using pick
up gimmicks for years and years... before any of use were born, or our
fathers or their fathers. You're just pitiful ray. Did you also invent
fucking so people would have something to do before smoking?


> Minddigger (identifying women with brain fetishes)

Yeah because before you called them mind diggers, we just knew them as
chicks who dug smart guys. FOr fucks sake ray... can you at least try to
take credit for something that is not quite as obviously bullshit?


> One-and-done (sets up for returning fox)

Nope, take aways were covered in Ross' material, his book, and
newsletters... all before you showed up. In fact that is also in chapter
16 of ross' 94 book.


> It's easy for people with motives to promote my rivals to forget these major
> contributions, but I like to remind people every so often.
>

Remind us of what, the fact you're a desperate little plagarist with no
clue about seduction... so you don't udnerstand why you sound so lame
trying to take credit for ideas that predate your book, your posts, and
even your own birth.


> This memory problem is also the main reason I haven't released a lot of my NEW
> theory.


If your new theory is anything like your old theory, it is just a
rehashing of ideas we saw 6 years ago... so I doubt we're missing much.


> I'd rather see the men here fuck up repeatedly and THEN share it in a
> way that shows how stupid and unoriginal most of them are.
>

Yet ray, men here are getting laid and finding success because they
ignore you and follow other advice... you're the one who is a fuck up
ray. You're the one who is all alone.