Is the "Nice Guy" really nice?

nfm

unread,

Sep 8, 2008, 10:15:22 PM9/8/08

to

Someone wrote:

"... I find that women outside of the USA tend to like the same
qualities in men that American women dislike. In general, american
women will denigrate, oppress, and discriminate against any man that
has any self respect or character. They tend to only tolerate men who
are base or weak. Good guys, in American culture, are losers while
base and weak men are supported by American women.

I traveled to the UK in the late 50's or early 60's as a child.
Feminism was not prominent in the UK at that time. Men of good
character were still in fashion then. When I returned to the UK for a
vacation about 10 years ago, feminism had transformed the society to
such an extent that good men had been rejected and had been replaced
by the feminist ideal of the weak and base male.

Good men should leave the USA. It has become an Orwellian world in
which men that are virtuous and have character are persecuted by the
feminist society that the USA has become. "
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, the major obstacle to the "nice guy" is Feminism.

But there are a few more problems confusing the issue that need to be
addressed.

Women do not communicate according to accuracy or accountability.
Instead they communicate according to FEELING. Anyone who adopts this
type of childish communication antic will invariably start
communicating nonsense.

When women speak about being 'nice,' they can mean a million different
things depending on how they FEEL. But let's just cover the context of
the sentiment: "nice guy."

A Nice Guy(tm) usually refers to a guy with no spine. It refers to a
'YES' man-- a man who will disrespect himself by saying 'YES' to
whatever a woman says, regardless of how little respect she offers
him.

There's a difference between being "nice" and being a "pussy." They
are NOT the same thing.. You can be nice AND have a backbone. It's
just that most guys often equate being 'nice' with being a pushover..

E.g. I can be 'nice' by returning the respect you show me; If you say,
"Hello," I might say, "Hello," back. This would cause me to be
perceived as 'nice.' But guys often confuse this with being a pussy.

E.g. If you say, "Hey fuckface," and I simply say, "Hello," back, I am
DISRESPECTING myself by not addressing the disrespect you have
initially shown me.. In female communication shorthand, I would become
the equivalent of a "nice guy," or what we would call a PASSIVE guy
with NO SELF-RESPECT.

'Nice' people can still have self-respect, but most guys who consider
themselves to be "nice" are ignorant of the fact that they possess
VERY LITTLE SELF-RESPECT. This is blatantly apparent in the lack of
reciprocation they experience.

E.g. A 'nice guy' will bring flowers to a girl even though she does
NOTHING to reciprocate such a gesture. The typical 'nice guy' will
then further DISRESPECT himself by continuing to bring flowers and
showering said girl with attention.. He shows respect to this girl,
yet receives nothing in return-- no blowjobs, no kisses, nada.

A 'nice guy' will DISRESPECT himself by continuing to provide
unreciprocated attention/words of affection/gestures. Ironically,
however, so-called 'nice guys' are DISHONEST at the core because they
EXPECT something just like everyone else. The difference is they are
too 'nice' to claim it. So they don't get it. If they were truly being
'nice' as they claim to be, they wouldn't expect ANYTHING in return.

Helping an old lady across the street would be considered a 'nice'
thing to do. But if you expect a $5 dollar tip, that wouldn't be so
'nice.' A truly 'nice' gesture has no obligation attached to it.

But most 'nice guys' DO EXPECT SOMETHING IN RETURN.. They DO expect to
have their attention reciprocated. They DO expect to eventually get
somewhere by showering a girl with attention and words of affection.

So they are being DISHONEST when they proclaim themselves to be
'nice' .. These men are actually PUSSIFIED by Feminism to the extent
that they'll bend over backwards to meet the childish whims of the
women in their lives and assume, like spoiled children, that any
gesture should automatically be reciprocated regardless of whether the
person on the receiving end actually values it or not. This is akin to
children giving their father an ugly tie and expecting him to wear it
simply because THEY BOUGHT IT. They don't take into account that Dad
might not want to wear an ugly tie. When giving something, they only
take into consideration what THEY VALUE, not what the RECEIVER
actually values..

'Nice guys' are in denial about their own childish approach to women.
They EXPECT reciprocation, yet do not know what the receiver (the
woman in this case) values. They merely assume that whatever they give
will automatically be valued by the receiver. However, these men do
not receive or demand the SAME VALUE in return. They only hope it will
spontaneously happen of its own accord.

E.g. A 'nice guy' will give a girl a gold ring in exchange for a kiss.
This would be like trading a car for a sandwich-- there is a definite
value disparity because the "nice guy" doesn't VALUE himself. And at
the same time he OVERVALUES the woman.

Or he may give a girl a gold ring and get NOTHING in return, maybe
just a cursory thank you.

The 'nice guy' gives away free value and receives no value in return.
Yet he always secretly EXPECTS a return on his value investment. This
secret expectation he habors then becomes the source of his resentment
and the impetus for his self-pitying phrase, "nice guys finish last."

If a woman doesn't respect a man, she will never be attracted to that
man.. By overvaluing a woman, a 'nice guy' shows that he doesn't
respect himself enough to demand the same reciprocation of his own
value.

Without respect, a man is FINISHED. There is no basis for lasting
attraction.

I, on the other hand, am not considered a 'nice guy.'

Am I courteous?... Perhaps. But in female terms, would I be considered
a 'nice guy?' Fuck no...

Yes, I might give a quarter to a bum on the street. BUT I don't expect
anything from him in return-- this would make me 'nice' as I am not
attaching obligation to my giving.

But when I give something to a woman, I ALWAYS EXPECT and ALWAYS
DEMAND something in return. This would make me HONEST. Which in a
woman's eyes would make me, "MEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAN" (aka 'not nice.') And
this is why girls are attracted to me, because I am 'mean' (in female
communication shorthand)... essentially, i don't give my value away
for free as other guys do.

women grow accustomed to receiving free value from guys. a notorious
example of this would be the free drink phenomenon. girls EXPECT guys
to buy them drinks for NOTHING. this makes them 'nice'.. guys who
don't provide free drinks are considered 'mean' because they are not
offering up free value.

In reality, I am simply a guy who expects a return on his value; if I
offer a girl value, I expect and demand, AT THE VERY LEAST, the same
value in return.

I do not buy a girl a drink unless I get a blowjob before she gets her
drink-- C.O.D.

If i give something, i am HONEST enough to let her know that I EXPECT
something in return.

Pussified men, aka 'nice guys', under the oppression of a Feminist
society, are taught to respect women who exhibit the classic 'have
your cake and eat it too' entitlement mentality. These women expect
something for nothing which means they are passively DISRESPECTING MEN
even before engaging them.

E.g. Women EXPECT to have equal pay, yet women don't want to work
equal hours.

Women EXPECT the rights and privileges of men, yet women don't want to
BEAR THE SAME RESPONSIBILITY as men (fight in wars, lift heavy
objects, etc.)

Women EXPECT to be treated like "ladies" and EXPECT "gentlemen" to pay
for their dates. Yet women want to be considered INDEPENDENT and have
the same status as men.

If men are paying for all the dates, then women are DEPENDING UPON
MEN. This means these women are lying about their so-called
independence and are simply trying to HAVE THEIR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO..

And this is why "nice guys finish last." They SHOULD finish last
because any nice guy who kowtows to a woman is like an untrained
parent kowtowing to a spoiled child. Instead of FIRST making the child
show RESPECT to parental authority, the parent vainly attempts to
answer all the demands and expectations of the child.. The parent is
in effect held hostage by the whims of a spoiled brat. The parent
thinks that if it doesn't answer the child's demands, the child will
no longer love it.. But just the opposite is true; if the child
doesn't respect the parent, the bond of love doesn't have a strong
basis..

However, if that parent turns around and disciplines that child
(spanks it), then that child learns to respect the parent. This in
turn makes the bond of love STRONGER because the basis of RESPECT is
there.

In like manner, if a 'nice guy' never learns to DEMAND RESPECT for the
attention he's showing a woman, he will not provide a solid basis for
the woman to be attracted to him. He will forever be dealing with a
spoiled brat who will demand that her needs/expectations be met before
she even budges.

This is why 'nice guys' fall into the self-pity trap. They pity
themselves for being "too nice" and getting nothing in return when in
reality, they should be kicking themselves for being dishonest about
their intentions and not having any self-respect to demand
reciprocation. Instead of complaining that nice guys finish last, they
should really be complaining that dishonest guys who have zero self-
respect SHOULD finish last. Instead of valuing a woman above
themselves, they should have enough self-respect to know that THEY
have just as much, if not more, value than women.

But Feminism has taught 'nice guys' that women are more valuable than
them. Feminism has threatened men with legal consequences for not
believing his fallacy. Hence, pussified men are really a product of
Feminism, and the 'nice guy' is the resulting Frankenstein monster.
Women wanted so badly to have the authority of men, the status of men,
not realizing that they were attempting to BECOME MEN in the process.
And as a result of foolishly attempting to replace the function of
men, they've produced effeminate 'nice guys' in their place.

What do they expect the men to do in the meantime?.. The men have
become FEMALE in their function, deferring and kowtowing to women,
hidden under the ruse of just being 'nice guys.'

When women complain about not being able to find any "good men
around", they're really complaining about not being able to find any
MANHOOD around..

The amazing part of this phenomenon is that pussified men will
actually FIGHT against real men trying to help them regain their
manhood.. This is similar to slaves fighting against fellow slaves who
are trying to educate them about the importance of freedom.. Once the
slave mentality is indoctrinated deeply into a slave, he begins to not
only accept his position, but he will go the further step of actually
trying to JUSTIFY his position. This is exactly what pussified men
attempt to do when confronted with the truth. Instead of wanting to
regain their manhood, they will try to justify their pussification and
then belittle the men who aren't pussies like them.. Such irony would
be comical if it weren't so pitiful.

The poster above refers to "men of character" being shunned by this
feminist society.. and he does have a point. While being a man (ie.
exhibiting MANHOOD) is INHERENTLY attractive to women, outwardly it is
offensive to Feminists today. And most women are feminists because
this society is dominated by Feminism-- you cannot escape it.. On the
tv we are taught that men are incompetent, bumbling, dead beat dads,
or idiots who can't get along without the help of a woman.. And we are
taught that women are stronger, smarter and more capable than men.
Even though this is a delusional viewpoint, it is the DOMINANT
viewpoint forcefed to boys and girls alike. Men in this culture grow
up believing that being an emasculated pussy (aka 'nice guy') is good,
and girls grow up believing that usurping male authority and becoming
a man (aka a 'bitch') is good.

Although women will INNATELY respond to real men, their constant
feminist training from the media, peer groups, friends, family, etc.
continually reinforces the negative feelings they assume they SHOULD
harbor against real men. Hence with their mouths, they may denounce
real men, but with their actions, they show they actually WANT and
NEED real men.. This is why women constantly complain about the
"asshole" they end up dating.. But the irony is it's the ASSHOLES that
attracted them in the first place. These 'assholes' have the spines to
tell women, "NO."

The 'Assholes' (aka 'bad boys') do it out of frustration. They have
been hurt by women to the point where they stop caring what women
think of them. Their spine is based on callousness. So they exhibit
some significant traits of manhood, minus the essential caring part.
This is why women are attracted to them, but also why women eventually
break up with them. While assholes are attractive, they don't meet the
emotional needs of women.

Real "men of character", on the other hand, also tell women "NO". But
they do it out of necessity because they realize that women without
men are like immature children who operate according to their whims.
they tell women "NO" because they realize they are in the authority
position and need to maintain that position..

A man's needs and expectations need to be met just as much as a
woman's needs.. A man of character will make sure his needs are being
met.. A man of character will never kowtow to women who demand their
way, who demand he pay for dinner and drinks or forfeit his
"gentleman" status.. A man of character will never be held hostage to
such childish female antics. and this is what feminists resent about
real men.. They resent the fact that real men expose the hypocrisy and
CHILDISHNESS behind the feminist agenda.

If feminists want to remain in denial about men being smarter,
stronger, more capable than women, etc. fine.. then that means they
want the same status as men-- they want to BE men. so they must
SHOULDER THE SAME RESPONSIBILITY AS MEN.. that means PAYING THEIR OWN
WAY. buying their own dinners and drinks. lifting their own heavy
objects. they must now do ALL the things (not just pick and choose)
that women traditionally expect men to do like fight in the army, kill
spiders, protect other women, provide for women, etc...

but we know most women would never survive this way.. we know most
women could never hack the fire dept., police dept. etc.. we know that
standards have been lowered for women just to get them into these work
areas which dillutes the integrity of those professions..

eg. fire fighters used to have to lift a certain amount of weight to
simulate removing an injured person from a burning building.. but
under the idiocy of Feminism, a woman is assigned the same job simply
to fill a gender quota, REGARDLESS of whether she is qualified to do
the job or not.

the next time someone burns in a building because some dumb bitch
couldn't carry them out, you can thank Feminism for that mockery of
equality.

then we have the second option--DEPENDENCE; women need to ADMIT that
they NEED men, that they cannot do the things that men can do, nor was
this ever in their design..

with dependence comes submission to authority..and this is what women
hate the most. they hate admitting wrongdoing because it wounds their
vanity. they hate admitting submission to male authority actually
makes them happy..

but this is really no different than US citizens submitting to the
governing authority of the USA because the US govt. is RESONSIBLE for
their protection. US citizens reap the benefit of submitting to that
governing authority, just as women reap the benefit of submitting to
male authority..

the poster above is correct in noting that "men of character" are
being persecuted by Feminism. but take heart-- MANHOOD is attractive
to women.. and as much as their Feminist training will protest against
what they consider "controlling" and "abusive" behavior (both cliched
catchwords of the professional victim mentality perpetuated by
Feminism), their ACTIONS will say otherwise..

it's true, a lot of women are damaged goods as a result of feminist
training... but there are women out there who DO respond to real men
and who DO need to be rescued from Feminism..

there are 4 types of women under feminism:

1. a woman who realizes and acknowleges the dangers of Feminism: she
may not be attracted to you if you do not exhibit the principles of
manhood (which overlap the principles of attraction.) BUT she will
respect your authority as a man because she is properly trained to do
so.. and will be highly valuable to any man who enters into a
relationship with her in that regard.

2. a woman who hasn't absorbed much Feminist dogma: she may assume
certain Feminist fallacies, but her naturally submissive nature will
respond to you like a female naturally responding to male authority.

she is not likely to challenge your authority. she will submit to it
without contest in most cases. however, if you do not address the poor
training she harbors as a result of Feminism, she may resent your
MANHOOD, mistaking it for tyranny, as a child who is spanked may
assume the parent is doing it out of hate if the reason for the
spanking isn't addressed.

3. a woman who is damaged by feminist training and doesn't realize it:
she will spout feminist theories and typical chick logic (eg.
"gentlemen pay for everything" even though she declares herself to be
"an independent woman!") BUT she is not so ruined by feminism that she
won't respond to your MANHOOD. she can be retrained by a man who knows
what he's doing, by a man who understands the principles of manhood.

lesser pussified men who exhibit minimal self-respect and who do not
understand the principles of manhood will be waved off like flies. a
large portion of women fall into this category.

4. a woman who is beyond help without the benefit of some extreme
traumatic circumstance/intervention: think Rosie O'Donnel, Oprah,
anyone on The View, etc. women like this are raised to think they ARE
MEN; they will constantly challenge your authority and compete with
you.. these women operate via peer pressure not common sense..

their value will only be salvaged as a result of massive shifts in
ideologies that affect GROUPS of women rather than just individual
women.. their idiocy is reinforced by peer consensus (think Oprah's
audience) and therefore will ultimately require peer consensus to
correct.. the majority of women fall into this category.

thankfully Manhood 101 is dedicated to answering this nonsense..

manhood101.com

Krus T. Olfard

unread,

Sep 8, 2008, 10:59:29 PM9/8/08

to

nfm <ninjam...@gmail.com> wrote in news:05d39669-d6a4-4198-b66a-
92e651...@b30g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

> but we know most women would never

Damn, you carry a lot of baggage.

How many bellmen does it take to carry it to the curb?

--
I'm an opinionated bastard. Everything I post is my opinion. If you do
not like my opinions then killfile me - if you like my opinions then send
me money.

The KTO Dictionary of Subjective Language

Tard: n Someone whose actions/words make her/him look like an idiot in
public but s/he is too disconnected to reality to realize it.

|---------------------------------|
| At my age a woman's mind should |
| be more important than her body.|
|---------------------------------|

nfm

unread,

Sep 8, 2008, 11:07:28 PM9/8/08

to

Just like a little girl trying to create drama.

How about trying to be a real man for once in your life and actually
address an issue.

I know..it's a lot more difficult than playing with your dolls... but
don't you get bored of being irrelevant?

On Sep 8, 7:59 pm, "Krus T. Olfard" <bra...@odor.com> wrote:
> nfm <ninjamaste...@gmail.com> wrote in news:05d39669-d6a4-4198-b66a-
> 92e651b38...@b30g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

Krus T. Olfard

unread,

Sep 9, 2008, 12:43:44 AM9/9/08

to

nfm <ninjam...@gmail.com> wrote in news:2851b561-1c57-4ef6-9477-
fa7b38...@i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

> Just like a little girl trying to create drama.
>
> How about trying to be a real man for once in your life and actually
> address an issue.
>
> I know..it's a lot more difficult than playing with your dolls... but
> don't you get bored of being irrelevant?

Just like an agenda pushing spammer.
How about trying to respond to what I posted instead of posting personal
insults? Nah, you would just repeat your spam. Don't bother.

Odious

unread,

Sep 9, 2008, 3:07:00 AM9/9/08

to

Good god, did your mother make you wear dresses or something?

You seem to view women in such a negative light, that otherwise salient and
valid points are lost in the haze of bile and bitterness.

It's clear in your attempts to attack... that you see being identified as
female is the worst thing you can imagine... you think of the state of being
female as such a negative, that it's your go-to insult.

Pretty much every man has been fucked over at least once in their lives by a
woman... certainly most of the men who go looking for help in dating and
relationships. Yet it is rare to see the level of gnawing bitterness your
words display, and isn't normal or healthy. That's the kind of thing
that's the product of serious issues.

It's one thing to express anger and to vent frustrations, but for someone
harboring that kind of resentment, it will never be about seduction. It
will be always be about punishment and revenge.

>"nfm" <ninjam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:2851b561-1c57-4ef6...@i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

Vance

unread,

Sep 9, 2008, 3:46:23 AM9/9/08

to

Odious, you forgot to mention that it is pretentious, pendantic and
poorly written.

On Sep 9, 12:07 am, "Odious" <Odi...@cox.net.nospam> wrote:
> Good god, did your mother make you wear dresses or something?
>
> You seem to view women in such a negative light, that otherwise salient and
> valid points are lost in the haze of bile and bitterness.
>
> It's clear in your attempts to attack... that you see being identified as
> female is the worst thing you can imagine... you think of the state of being
> female as such a negative, that it's your go-to insult.
>
> Pretty much every man has been fucked over at least once in their lives by a
> woman... certainly most of the men who go looking for help in dating and
> relationships. Yet it is rare to see the level of gnawing bitterness your
> words display, and isn't normal or healthy. That's the kind of thing
> that's the product of serious issues.
>
> It's one thing to express anger and to vent frustrations, but for someone
> harboring that kind of resentment, it will never be about seduction. It
> will be always be about punishment and revenge.
>

> >"nfm" <ninjamaste...@gmail.com> wrote in message

asandif

unread,

Sep 9, 2008, 12:37:35 PM9/9/08

to

> believing his fallacy. Hence, pussified men are really a product ...
>
> read more »

well.i believe you havent tried sarging in india.otherwise u wouldnt
think so. my experience says that women all over the world like jerks

Krus T. Olfard

unread,

Sep 9, 2008, 6:47:19 PM9/9/08

to

Vance <Vance...@gmail.com> wrote in news:c067a0ca-3bb3-43f1-a680-
d77a85...@s1g2000pra.googlegroups.com:

>
> Odious, you forgot to mention that it is pretentious, pendantic and
> poorly written.
>
>

And those are the good points.

nfm

unread,

Sep 9, 2008, 10:44:28 PM9/9/08

to

So your definition of a "spammer" is someone who posts something
valid?.. What kind of fucking moron are you?

And how exactly am I supposed to respond to your fucking moron
comments?

How about you stop acting like a little bitch and try acting like a
real man for once in your life and maybe address the issue presented.
If you can't handle that, don't bother.

On Sep 8, 9:43 pm, "Krus T. Olfard" <bra...@odor.com> wrote:
> nfm <ninjamaste...@gmail.com> wrote in news:2851b561-1c57-4ef6-9477-
> fa7b38d76...@i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

nfm

unread,

Sep 9, 2008, 10:53:21 PM9/9/08

to

Good god, are you fingerbanging your vagina while reading this post or
something?

I'm viewing women according to their training via Feminism. Women
aren't inherently bitches. But Feminism teaches women to RESPOND like
bitches. And When I refer to a "bitch", I'm using it in a specific
context ( http://manhood101.com/fem1.html )

What you consider to be a "negative" light is the TRUTH. But like men
who fall victim to Feminism, you react defensively as a pussified,
emasculated male would. Instead of being a real man and addressing the
issue in a SPECIFIC way, you lob blanket insults. Why not stop acting
like a little BITCH, and start acting like a MAN-- address the
SPECIFIC points you have problems with. Don't just throw your
emotional tantrum. It's such a silly, reflexive, childish approach.

And again, you keep pointing to "bitterness" without citing specific
examples like a REAL MAN. Instead you throw an emotional BITCH
tantrum. You want to talk about "serious issues", you are a PUSSIFIED,
EMASCULATED little girly boy. You use the same arguments that idiotic
feminists use to try and shame men. Put your balls back on you
screaming little girl and ADDRESS THE ISSUES PRESENTED.

Obviously you are engaging in PROJECTION, where you project your
feelings of rage and bitterness onto my post. Just because you feel
like you want to stab women, doesn't mean that every man who presents
the truth suddenly wants to stab them all as well. Get a grip, junior.

Next time, try responding like a REAL MAN. Be SPECIFIC. I can't
believe I have to keep teaching you fucking idiots how to debate
properly.

On Sep 9, 12:07 am, "Odious" <Odi...@cox.net.nospam> wrote:

> Good god, did your mother make you wear dresses or something?
>
> You seem to view women in such a negative light, that otherwise salient and
> valid points are lost in the haze of bile and bitterness.
>
> It's clear in your attempts to attack... that you see being identified as
> female is the worst thing you can imagine... you think of the state of being
> female as such a negative, that it's your go-to insult.
>
> Pretty much every man has been fucked over at least once in their lives by a
> woman... certainly most of the men who go looking for help in dating and
> relationships. Yet it is rare to see the level of gnawing bitterness your
> words display, and isn't normal or healthy. That's the kind of thing
> that's the product of serious issues.
>
> It's one thing to express anger and to vent frustrations, but for someone
> harboring that kind of resentment, it will never be about seduction. It
> will be always be about punishment and revenge.
>

> >"nfm" <ninjamaste...@gmail.com> wrote in message

nfm

unread,

Sep 9, 2008, 10:54:11 PM9/9/08

to

Little girl, you forgot to go play with your dolls. This is a post for
REAL MEN. Either address the issues in a SPECIFIC WAY, or keep your
bitch mouth shut.

xoxo

nfm

unread,

Sep 9, 2008, 10:56:42 PM9/9/08

to

On Sep 9, 9:37 am, asandif <ansariasi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> well.i believe you havent tried sarging in india.otherwise u wouldnt
> think so. my experience says that women all over the world like jerks

Different cultures adopt Feminism to different degrees.

And women the world over do not like jerks. The region is irrelevant.
What IS relevant is your application of the principles of manhood--
i.e. Do you know how to express your authority or not. Most men do
not, that's why they suffer under their poor training and are unable
to get their expectations met.

nfm
manhood101.com

nfm

unread,

Sep 9, 2008, 10:57:30 PM9/9/08

to

On Sep 9, 3:47 pm, "Krus T. Olfard" <bra...@odor.com> wrote:
> Vance <Vance.L...@gmail.com> wrote in news:c067a0ca-3bb3-43f1-a680-
> d77a8570e...@s1g2000pra.googlegroups.com:

>
>
>
> > Odious, you forgot to mention that it is pretentious, pendantic and
> > poorly written.
>
> And those are the good points.

Little girl, let me know when you are done fingerbanging to my post,
so the men can discuss this issue rationally. thanks.

Krus T. Olfard

unread,

Sep 9, 2008, 10:59:20 PM9/9/08

to

nfm <ninjam...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:585cd55e-a25f-44ca...@v16g2000prc.googlegroups.com:

> So your definition of a "spammer" is someone who posts something
> valid?.. What kind of fucking moron are you?
>
> And how exactly am I supposed to respond to your fucking moron
> comments?
>
> How about you stop acting like a little bitch and try acting like a
> real man for once in your life and maybe address the issue presented.
> If you can't handle that, don't bother.
>

What else can anyone expect from a top-posting oddity who has serious
problems with women.

I do understand why every woman you have ever met has run from you but I
fail to understand why you do not realize that this happens because of you,
not because of women.

I do notice that you only respond to me and not to all of the others who
have responded to your post in the manner you claim that you want. That, of
course, is simply a sign of a fool who cannot defend his ideas with logic
and rationality but that is not surprising seeing as your ideas are NOT
based on logic and rationality. Why should I repeat what others have
already posted?

Go away, little girl...

(That last line is just because you seem to see implications of femininity
to be terribly insulting and I want you to feel insulted)

unread,

Sep 9, 2008, 11:35:17 PM9/9/08

to

nfm

unread,

Sep 9, 2008, 11:35:30 PM9/9/08

to

nfm

unread,

Sep 9, 2008, 11:35:50 PM9/9/08

to

thunderhox

unread,

Sep 10, 2008, 12:20:12 AM9/10/08

to

On Sep 9, 7:53 pm, nfm <ninjamaste...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Good god, are you fingerbanging your vagina while reading this post or
> something?
>
> I'm viewing women according to their training via Feminism. Women
> aren't inherently bitches. But Feminism teaches women to RESPOND like
> bitches. And When I refer to a "bitch", I'm using it in a specific
> context (http://manhood101.com/fem1.html)
>
> What you consider to be a "negative" light is the TRUTH. But like men
> who fall victim to Feminism, you react defensively as a pussified,
> emasculated male would. Instead of being a real man and addressing the
> issue in a SPECIFIC way, you lob blanket insults.

That's exactly what they did in the thread about racialism - you
mention race and they start throwing out "KKK", "redneck", "hater" and
shit like that. Exactly as described, they know what the peer
consensus is and all react in lock-step with their rehearsed,
identical responses scripted by feminist social engineers. They *are*
women, for all practical purposes.

Why not stop acting
> like a little BITCH, and start acting like a MAN-- address the
> SPECIFIC points you have problems with. Don't just throw your
> emotional tantrum. It's such a silly, reflexive, childish approach.

And very epicene.

>
> And again, you keep pointing to "bitterness" without citing specific
> examples like a REAL MAN.

Exactly. They are all just hens who cluck their pc, peer-consensus-
approved insults and scripted generalizations. They can'ty give
specific examples because, like women, they behave and react
irrationally and emotionally instead of addressing the challenge.

Instead you throw an emotional BITCH
> tantrum. You want to talk about "serious issues", you are a PUSSIFIED,
> EMASCULATED little girly boy. You use the same arguments that idiotic
> feminists use to try and shame men. Put your balls back on you
> screaming little girl and ADDRESS THE ISSUES PRESENTED.
>
> Obviously you are engaging in PROJECTION, where you project your
> feelings of rage and bitterness onto my post.

Good call. It's funny, too, because the odious dude likes to accuse
others of projecting quite a lot, it looks like.

Just because you feel
> like you want to stab women, doesn't mean that every man who presents
> the truth suddenly wants to stab them all as well.

That's probably dead-on. I never thought of that. It's highly likely
that when they hurl their "racist" drivel-responses, they're
projecting their own insecurities and hatred towards people of color,
but they're too feminized to ever admit it or have a frank discussion
about their fears or ignorance: just like a woman.

Get a grip, junior.
>
> Next time, try responding like a REAL MAN. Be SPECIFIC. I can't
> believe I have to keep teaching you fucking idiots how to debate
> properly.
>
> On Sep 9, 12:07 am, "Odious" <Odi...@cox.net.nospam> wrote:
>
> > Good god, did your mother make you wear dresses or something?

LOL. For real, where did *that* come from? Now it makes sense.
Obviously odious was made to wear dresses as a child because that's a
really weird thing to pop in one's mind- LOL.

>
> > You seem to view women in such a negative light, that otherwise salient and
> > valid points are lost in the haze of bile and bitterness.

Yep, dude is very perceptive. he's obviously projecting. Good job,
dude.

>
> > It's clear in your attempts to attack... that you see being identified as
> > female is the worst thing you can imagine... you think of the state of being
> > female as such a negative, that it's your go-to insult.

LMAO- there he goes again. Dude was merely stating fact, yet odious
here thinks it can only be an insult. Thinking and acting "like a
woman" is just one of those things you shake your head about and
accept about women. Odious is clearly offended that he has been
correctly characterized as such.

thunderhox

unread,

Sep 10, 2008, 12:23:10 AM9/10/08

to

On Sep 9, 8:28 pm, "Krus T. Olfard" <bra...@odor.com> wrote:
> nfm <ninjamaste...@gmail.com> wrote in news:39ca3c01-98b8-4efa-8e4a-
> 203c7d356...@c22g2000prc.googlegroups.com:

>
> > Just because you feel
> > like you want to stab women,
>
> Talk about PROJECTION!

Yes, that's what the adults are talking about. You're too far gone
into feminine denial to see it in yourself.

> And I had not thought that he way quite this bad off.
>
> Call for the white coats!
>

Yep. They're all hens. Last thread they saw the opportunity to "cluck
up" on someone saying something politically incorrect it was "put on
your white sheets" or some "KKK" shit.

What an asshole.

HC

unread,

Sep 10, 2008, 12:34:17 AM9/10/08

to

On Sep 8, 10:15�pm, nfm <ninjamaste...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, I might give a quarter to a bum on the street. BUT I don't expect
> anything from him in return-- this would make me 'nice' as I am not
> attaching obligation to my giving.
>
> But when I give something to a woman, I ALWAYS EXPECT and ALWAYS
> DEMAND something in return.

When I give a quarter to a bum on the street I expect and demand a
shave and a haircut.

I carry my own kit.

> This would make me HONEST.

Well, I may not be as honest as you but at least I'm well groomed.

HC

unread,

Sep 10, 2008, 12:38:29 AM9/10/08

to

On Sep 8, 10:15�pm, nfm <ninjamaste...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> I do not buy a girl a drink unless I get a blowjob before she gets her
> drink-- C.O.D.
>

Uhhh, yeah, OK Fonzie.

> If i give something, i am HONEST enough to let her know that I EXPECT
> something in return.
>

Be HONEST with US . . . not too many blowjobs, eh Potsy?

HC

unread,

Sep 10, 2008, 12:44:45 AM9/10/08

to

On Sep 8, 10:15�pm, nfm <ninjamaste...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> E.g. Women EXPECT to have equal pay, yet women don't want to work
> equal hours.
>

Where'd you get that one from? The only thing you can possibly be
talking about is maternity leave . . . hey buddy, somebody's gotta
have the kids, ya know?

> Women EXPECT the rights and privileges of men, yet women don't want to
> BEAR THE SAME RESPONSIBILITY as men (fight in wars, lift heavy
> objects, etc.)
>

Women are actually fighting for the RIGHT to fight in wars. What
planet did you beam down from?

> Women EXPECT to be treated like "ladies" and EXPECT "gentlemen" to pay
> for their dates.

Get back in the Delorean and reset the time machine from 1960 to 2008.

> Yet women want to be considered INDEPENDENT and have
> the same status as men.
>

Women DO have the same status as men. If there wasn't discrimination
in the work place (cue fr00t l00p) they'd have the same pay as men
too.

HC

unread,

Sep 10, 2008, 12:50:20 AM9/10/08

to

On Sep 8, 10:15�pm, nfm <ninjamaste...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> then we have the second option--DEPENDENCE; women need to ADMIT that
> they NEED men, that they cannot do the things that men can do, nor was
> this ever in their design..
>

Einstein, men need women too.

Remember the last time you fucked a goat? Did you like it?

HC

unread,

Sep 10, 2008, 12:55:01 AM9/10/08

to

On Sep 8, 10:15�pm, nfm <ninjamaste...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> with dependence comes submission to authority..and this is what women
> hate the most. they hate admitting wrongdoing because it wounds their
> vanity. they hate admitting submission to male authority actually
> makes them happy..
>
> but this is really no different than US citizens submitting to the
> governing authority of the USA because the US govt. is RESONSIBLE for
> their protection. US citizens reap the benefit of submitting to that
> governing authority, just as women reap the benefit of submitting to
> male authority..
>

Hard to imagine the benefit of submitting to you or somebody like you.

Although I suppose you might appeal to a hardcore D/S submissive. If
she had lots and lots of emotional issues and maybe a little child
abuse in her past.

HC

unread,

Sep 10, 2008, 1:00:32 AM9/10/08

to

On Sep 8, 10:15�pm, nfm <ninjamaste...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> it's true, a lot of women are damaged goods as a result of feminist
> training...

It's a good thing for them that you're around to repair them.

> but there are women out there who DO respond to real men

He's right. Therapist's offices across the country are filled with
them.

>
> thankfully Manhood 101 is dedicated to answering this nonsense..
>

Thankfully you and I have found some common ground. We both agree
aparently that what I just read was nonsense.

HC

unread,

Sep 10, 2008, 1:02:45 AM9/10/08

to

On Sep 9, 10:44�pm, nfm <ninjamaste...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So your definition of a "spammer" is someone who posts something
> valid?.. What kind of fucking moron are you?
>
> And how exactly am I supposed to respond to your fucking moron
> comments?
>

With dignity and class? Stick around, we'll teach you how to get
laid.

> How about you stop acting like a little bitch and try acting like a
> real man for once in your life and maybe address the issue presented.

Or what? You gonna spank him?

HC

unread,

Sep 10, 2008, 1:05:55 AM9/10/08

to

On Sep 9, 10:53�pm, nfm <ninjamaste...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Next time, try responding like a REAL MAN.

You remind me of Mr. T in Rocky III.

HC

unread,

Sep 10, 2008, 1:08:41 AM9/10/08

to

On Sep 9, 11:12�pm, nfm <ninjamaste...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Obviously you're too fucking stupid to follow directions

Obviously you miss the concept that you're a nobody, that doesn't
warrent paying heed to.

Not following your directions might be the single smartest thing a guy
could do.

Vance

unread,

Sep 10, 2008, 1:24:37 AM9/10/08

to

Just because your mother says you don't have to ride in the car seat
anymore and your older sister doesn't have to take you to the school
bus stop and wait with you and your mother has promised you long pants
the next time she buys clothes for you (though I'm sure your very cute
in your shorts), it doesn't mean that you have anything to say to the
grown-ups.

There are two things about real men that seem to be true: 1) They
aren't worried about whether they are real men, nor are they
particularly worried about someone who has to use 'realmen101.html' as
a kind of manual for being a man. They aren't cartoon characters
acting out like is says on p. 45 of the 'Manual for Being a Real Man'
like you seem to be; 2) they are generally considered nice guys by
both women and men and are extremely comfortable with themselves and,
as a result, comfortable with nearly everyone else. They don't
declare themselves 'manly men' because they don't have to and women
respond to that and men respond to it, though for different reasons
(obviously).

You, on the other hand, have the one characteristic of all false men:
you have to declare your manhood. Little boy and what else can you be
when you think that schoolyard gender insinuations and insults are
something important, you haven't brought any revelations to enlighten
anyone on this NG and that includes the most clueless newbies.
Everybody here, newbies included, has pretty much grown up past the
need for a handbook on manhood and is ready to tackle the existential
problem of how do I get laid. No ism this, or ism that to blame
things on.

What I find hilarious is that people who function from your space are
the absolute easiest to eliminate in any kind of seduction scenario.
Just push their little 'manly man' buttons and watch them act the
fool. It's not necessary, of course, you're not competitive, but it
can be entertaining for the crowd and always gets the lady.

Vance

HC

unread,

Sep 10, 2008, 1:35:39 AM9/10/08

to

You're just dying to fit in anyway or anywhere you can, eh thunderbox?

Krus T. Olfard

unread,

Sep 10, 2008, 2:48:43 AM9/10/08

to

nfm <ninjam...@gmail.com> wrote in news:46087a9c-5a27-410b-be3e-
2fdb50...@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com:

Yeah, I KNOW a manly man like you wants to give me a blow job but you
can't.
After all, everyone regular in a.s.f. understands what someone calling
themself a manly man really means.

Maybe you should contact gordy roy and see if he is in need of a roommate
now.

Krus T. Olfard

unread,

Sep 10, 2008, 2:52:24 AM9/10/08

to

HC <thehc...@aol.com> wrote in news:799cb8d4-46fe-458d-ad66-
016b71...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:

I'm just wondering if he's only good for plonking or if he's good for a
few laffs first.

> > E.g. Women EXPECT to have equal pay, yet women don't want to work
> > equal hours.
>
> Where'd you get that one from? The only thing you can possibly be
> talking about is maternity leave . . . hey buddy, somebody's gotta
> have the kids, ya know?

hey einstein, i'm not sure if you've ever stepped outside of your
mom's basement into the real world, but women actually DON'T work
equal hours. there was a PhD study done on this. oh that's right.
you're too fucking stupid to read.

men also do all of the hazardous and life threatening jobs or the ones
that are physically demanding.. but i'm sure you didn't read that
either.. i hope you kept the receipt to your education, so you can get
a refund later.

> > Women EXPECT the rights and privileges of men, yet women don't want to
> > BEAR THE SAME RESPONSIBILITY as men (fight in wars, lift heavy
> > objects, etc.)
>
> Women are actually fighting for the RIGHT to fight in wars. What
> planet did you beam down from?

Umm stupidfuck, i'm not sure if you know this, but most women AREN'T
fighting to get into the draft. are you fucking retarded or
something?.. you seriously think women are protesting not being
drafted?.. how fucking stupid are you?.. seriously....

you can't equate the handful of VOCAL feminist leaders (who have more
testosterone than most horses) with the average woman. there will
always be exceptions to the rule. we're talking about the RULE here,
dumbfuck. pay attention.

>
> > Women EXPECT to be treated like "ladies" and EXPECT "gentlemen" to pay
> > for their dates.
>
> Get back in the Delorean and reset the time machine from 1960 to 2008.

again stupidfuck, this isn't that difficult to understand unless
you've only been dating your hand. i have much more dating experience
than you with women in a feminist society. i know all about what women
feel entitled to on a date... and women always notoriously chant the
mantra, "look, just because he takes you out to dinner and pays for
you doesn't mean you have to put out.." so even women themselves
acknowledge this point.

also women commonly ask men to buy them drinks. the waiter usually
hands the bill to the man.

also women commonly use the poorly constructed pseudo-logic sentiment:
whoever asks, pays. this of course is designed to take advantage of
their natural biological advantage as we all know, in general, men
pursue women. not vise versa... men generally do the asking as this is
a biological construct for men to pursue women. women of course are
hypocritical in this regard because if they wanted to truly play that
role fairly, they would support the most qualified person for any job.
but we all know there are feminist quotas designed to unfairly give
women jobs in the name of 'equality'.. but this hypocritically goes
against dating stance.. which just goes to show you that female
'equality' is all about CONVENIENCE, not fair play.

essentially, they want to have their cake and eat it too.

> > Yet women want to be considered INDEPENDENT and have
> > the same status as men.
>
> Women DO have the same status as men. If there wasn't discrimination
> in the work place (cue fr00t l00p) they'd have the same pay as men
> too.

no actually they don't have the same status for the very reason stated
above. women like to have equality ONLY WHEN IT'S CONVENIENT for them.
there isn't discrimination in the work place, there's PUSSIFICATION in
your head-- you're a victim of feminism. you haven't done the research
which shows men doing more work than women. you are just spouting
feminist rhetoric designed to portray women as professional victims.
again, this all comes down to doing your homework, which you obviously
haven't. how about you pick up a book once in a while?

> > then we have the second option--DEPENDENCE; women need to ADMIT that
> > they NEED men, that they cannot do the things that men can do, nor was
> > this ever in their design..
>
> Einstein, men need women too.

yeah stupidfuck, i know that. and i actually address that point in
another article. but we're talking about the problem of feminism, NOT
complementary gender roles. again, READING COMPREHENSION, DUMBFUCK. it
helps!

>
> Remember the last time you fucked a goat? Did you like it?

yeah, fucking you isn't that enjoyable. you talk too much.. and the
amount of nonsense coming out of your mouth isnt' helping..

:(

> > with dependence comes submission to authority..and this is what women
> > hate the most. they hate admitting wrongdoing because it wounds their
> > vanity. they hate admitting submission to male authority actually
> > makes them happy..
>
> > but this is really no different than US citizens submitting to the
> > governing authority of the USA because the US govt. is RESONSIBLE for
> > their protection. US citizens reap the benefit of submitting to that
> > governing authority, just as women reap the benefit of submitting to
> > male authority..
>
> Hard to imagine the benefit of submitting to you or somebody like you.
>

That's because you're a pussified little bitch who is used to haivng
emotional knee-jerk reactions to common sense and reason, as most
women do. Instead of crying like a bitch, why not address in a
specific way, what you have problems with, so i can address each of
them one by one as i am doing now.. you throwing out your general
blanket bitch insults makes you look like.... a BITCH.

you can make all the snide little bitch remarks that you want. that
still won't make the truth go away. how about you act like a real man
and actually address the issues instead of having emotionally
meaningless conversation. you're making me nauseous.

> Although I suppose you might appeal to a hardcore D/S submissive. If
> she had lots and lots of emotional issues and maybe a little child
> abuse in her past.

so basically, you're a little punk bitch who is the welcome mat for
women...

it's a wonder a dumbfuck like you doesn't comprehend that the divorce
rate is the highest in history .. for the first time, there are more
single people than married in america. this is no accident. we see the
feminist influence undermine the very institution they wish to
perpetuate.

and like a typical dumb bitch, you give exaggerated knee-jerk
arguments to authority..

hey stupidfuck, i have an idea, next time a police man pulls you over,
why don't you give him some snide commentary about how he should be in
a D/S submissive relationship just because he made you obey the law..
let's see how well your thick skull stands up to a baton.

little bitches like you complain about authority until authority is
removed and then you cry like a bitch about losing all your security.

let's say we removed ALL governing authority today. then what?.. can
we both agree to let everybody have a gun to defend themselves?.. you
think people are just going to be nice to each other w/o authority?
you will be in fear of your life if there were no authority over you..
the streets would not be safe to walk down without a weapon for
protection..

> > it's true, a lot of women are damaged goods as a result of feminist
> > training...
>
> It's a good thing for them that you're around to repair them.

well it's either that or let men rely on pussified little bitches like
you that think snide commentary is a substitute for using your brain.

real men would be embarrassed to hang out with a goofy little bitch
like you engaging in these sarcastic little bitch attacks..

> > but there are women out there who DO respond to real men
>
> He's right. Therapist's offices across the country are filled with
> them.

keep your day job. your comedy routine is drawing crickets. what a
goofy bitch.

> > thankfully Manhood 101 is dedicated to answering this nonsense..
>
> Thankfully you and I have found some common ground. We both agree
> aparently that what I just read was nonsense.

well of course it was nonsense to you. i told you already, dumbfuck,
you need a reading comprehension above 3rd grade level to understand
my posts.

now run along and find a nice jar of paste to snack on, junior.

> > So your definition of a "spammer" is someone who posts something
> > valid?.. What kind of fucking moron are you?
>
> > And how exactly am I supposed to respond to your fucking moron
> > comments?
>
> With dignity and class? Stick around, we'll teach you how to get
> laid.

yeah i'm pretty sure we don't need your handjob lessons. and 'dignity
and class' don't sound like a little bitch engaging in grade school
sarcasm. try again little girl.

and we can note how fucking retarded you sound by your obvious
feminist conclusion-- getting laid = being manly.

by your dumbfuck female logic, johns who pay for hookers are the
manliest of all.. real bright there, dumbfuck!

> > How about you stop acting like a little bitch and try acting like a
> > real man for once in your life and maybe address the issue presented.
>
> Or what? You gonna spank him?

no i'm going to treat him like an incoherent little bitch seeking
attention and just put him to bed.

and don't put your pants down around your ankles. no spanking
fantasies are going to take place you sick bastard.

there's a rule of thumb fucking morons like you never quite learn--
you get the respect you give. obviously you know nothing about respect
which is why nobody respects little incoherent bitches like you.

> > Next time, try responding like a REAL MAN.
>

> You remind me of Mr. T in Rocky III.

you remind me of an unshaved vagina-- you'd appeal to more people with
a few changes.

> > Obviously you're too fucking stupid to follow directions
>
> Obviously you miss the concept that you're a nobody, that doesn't
> warrent paying heed to.

yeah stupidfuck, that's why you've been paying attention to me for the
last hundred posts. just like an incoherent fucking moron, you make
perfect sense. lol

> Not following your directions might be the single smartest thing a guy
> could do.

i'm not sure fingerbanging your vagina in a dismal attempt to pat
yourself on the back is the direction guys are hoping to go.. but you
keep telling yourself that, little girl.. but then again, you were
never too fucking bright to begin with.

nfm

unread,

Sep 11, 2008, 12:00:39 AM9/11/08

to

On Sep 9, 10:24 pm, Vance <Vance.L...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [standup clown routine, complete with juggling]

how long are you planning on sounding like an incoherent fucking idiot
tryin to performed a failed standup routine before you get to the
point. hold on little girl, here's a cursory clap.. ok you happy now?

>
> There are two things about real men that seem to be true: 1) They
> aren't worried about whether they are real men, nor are they
> particularly worried about someone who has to use 'realmen101.html' as
> a kind of manual for being a man.

oops, stupidfuck, let's help out your OBVIOUS, FAILED LOGIC here; you
dumbfucks are on a forum DEDICATED to teaching men how to be men..
sure you might not say it in so many words, but guys are spouting
things like mystery method, RSD, NLP, etc. these were not things they
gleaned from the womb, you fucking idiot. they LEARNED THEM. guys
TAUGHT them how to act like men, so to speak. this is all one big
"MANUAL" for how to behave/act/function like a "man". so don't kid
yourself, pumpkin. you are engaged in exactly the same endeavor. just
because you're too fucking stupid to codify anything into a
comprehensive format doesn't automatically negate my work.

we speak about the 'PRINCIPLES' of manhood on manhood101.com ...

unlike you, we don't jack off to pet theories and pet methods .. we
speak about the PRINCIPLES that apply to ALL MEN.

gravity is a LAW. it's a CONSTANT. it is a 'manual' for how objects
relate to one another. anybody with a brain who studies physics would
understand that it's paramount to grasp the concept of gravity. this
understanding doesn't fluctate because the principle itself doesn't
fluctuate. it's a constant principle. that's why we refer to it as the
'LAW' of gravity.

in a similar fashion, we are concerned with the LAWS/PRINCIPLES of
social interaction. and we are specifically addressing MEN. this is
why we are referring to the principles of 'MANHOOD'.. as we already
explain in other articles which i will post, this has nothing to do
with the concept of machismo but has everything to do with how men
PRACTICALLY FUNCTION as men. this is not about preference. this is not
about pet theories. this is about understanding social interaction
PRINCIPLES. if you got off your personal high horse long enough to
understand that, you might actually learn something valuable. you
already know how to behave like a bitch, now try acting like a man.
you might enjoy it.

>They aren't cartoon characters
> acting out like is says on p. 45 of the 'Manual for Being a Real Man'
> like you seem to be;

no stupidfuck. this is you projecting your tiny brained understanding
of manhood onto our work. again, you are referencing the failed notion
of machismo which we already debunk in our articles. but this would
require an education to grasp. do any of you children ever crack open
a book?.. holy fuck. i feel like i'm talking to a bunch of retards..
this isn't that hard to grasp if you just pay attention.

>2) they are generally considered nice guys by
> both women and men and are extremely comfortable with themselves and,
> as a result, comfortable with nearly everyone else.

this is actually untrue. real men are NOT considered 'nice guys' by
today's feminist's standards. that's your wishful thinking. real men
are able to tell women "NO".. which means they are not ALWAYS
considered "nice".. and this is seen in their interactions with men
when they become attracted. i can't tell you how many times i've had a
woman refer to me as an "asshole", "jerk", "mean", etc... not because
i did anything particularly terrible when meeting them. mostly this
stemmed from my unwillingness to give them their way, to meet their
feminist expectations...

i have been called "mean" for refusing to buy women drinks. i have
been called an "asshole" for being honest about my opinion of
something. i have been called a jerk for splitting the dinner bill
with a woman, etc. these are not ethical violations. these are simply
examples of a man not catering to the childish expectations of a
feminist-bred woman. in today's society, we see women exhibiting the
entitlement mentality that poisons social interaction.

and yet, even though they say one thing with their mouth, their
actions betray another attitude entirely-- they are TURNED ON. they
are ATTRACTED.

now let's cover males. people will take advantage of other people if
given the opportunity. as a young guy growing up in the workforce, i
have had a couple supervisors try to make me work extra hours without
pay. i didn't know how to speak up for myself at that point.. but when
i finally did, i was considered "difficult" and "demanding". but they
were trying to take advantage of me. they were trying to make me work
for free.

as a real man, i stood up for myself. i wasn't considered "nice" at
that point. but my supervisors learned to respect me. as a result, i
ended up having a great working relationship with them after the
situation was handled. but initially, i was not considered a "nice"
guy.

so to make the blanket statement that 'real men' are considered as
'nice guys' by both men and women is not accurate at all..

> They don't
> declare themselves 'manly men' because they don't have to

yeah but nobody said anything about declaring themselves 'manly men'
so this point is really irrelevant.

> and women
> respond to that and men respond to it, though for different reasons
> (obviously).

they don't respond to men neglecting to call themselves 'manly men'..
they respond to male authority.. which again, makes this point
completely IRRELEVANT.

> You, on the other hand, have the one characteristic of all false men:
> you have to declare your manhood.

wow, how fucking stupid are you?

so if i declare that i'm a guy, i am not a guy?

and if i declare it's sunday, it's really not sunday?....

and if i declare i'm hungry, i'm not really hungry?...

are you a fucking moron?....

just like a little BITCH, you read things EMOTIONALLY. a real man uses
LOGIC & COMMON SENSE. men read for CONTENT. bitches like you read for
emotional meaning and indignant self-righteousness..

> Little boy and what else can you be
> when you think that schoolyard gender insinuations and insults are
> something important,

little incoherent bitch, what else can you be when you support fucking
morons lobbing insults at me?..and you yourself are guilty of
insulting me instead of showing respect and answering my post in a
respectful way.. who the fuck are you to lecture anyone on manhood
when you're too fucking stupid to gage your own hypocrisy? little
girl, you need help.

> you haven't brought any revelations to enlighten
> anyone on this NG and that includes the most clueless newbies.

haha.. just like a LITTLE BITCH, you try to use the classic "we"
social frame. yeah you speak for EVERYONE on planet earth, i forgot.

how fucking presumptuous of you to speak for everyone else.. you are a
classic little bitch. real men can speak for themselves and are able
to make a point without referring to consensus.. notice, when i
address your points, i don't need to reference the number of friends
on myspace who agree with me or disagree with you.. as a real man, i
appeal to reason and common sense. as a punk ass bitch, you make
emotional appeals and rest your argument on consensus.

pathetic. sad and pathetic.

> Everybody here, newbies included, has pretty much grown up past the
> need for a handbook on manhood

wow, i can see i'm talking to a fucking idiot.

obviously you don't grasp the point above that this IS one gigantic
'manual' on manhood.. just because you haven't labeled it as such,
doesn't remove the fact that it functions that way..

and no, stupidfuck, men haven't grown up, otherwise this group
wouldn't exist in the first place.. i can't believe you're so fucking
stupid you can't even grasp the inconsistencies in your failed attempt
at reasoning.. manhood is not simply about peeing while standing up,
you fucking idiot. it is much more involved and complex.. but you
yourself should know that as MASF is chalk full of 'teachings'
designed to teach men how to act with women.. they are ineffective
however, just as you are ineffective, because you fail the test of
reason.. you fail the test of critical scrutiny.

>and is ready to tackle the existential
> problem of how do I get laid. No ism this, or ism that to blame
> things on.

oh so that's the major problem plaguing men: how to get laid?

see, it's simplistic morons like you that make the rest of mankind
suffer when you presume to take the role of teacher and damage the
other guys who come here looking for advice with your utter
pussification.

1. you're too fucking stupid to even grasp this concept. you need to
work on your education before you try to tackle me, junior.

2. you have poor and inaccurate information.

3. you debate like a little bitch throwing a tantrum, unable to answer
anything with reason & common sense, instead resorting to emotional
appeals and group consensus.

did i miss anything?

> What I find hilarious is that people who function from your space are
> the absolute easiest to eliminate in any kind of seduction scenario.

hahahahahahahah.. i would love to have a good laugh watching you try
to "eliminate" me..

oh no! a little girl is going to try and run the show around here! let
me start shaking, pronto.

lol :)

> Just push their little 'manly man' buttons and watch them act the
> fool.

there's really not many 'buttons' i have to push on you.. let's see..

1. clit? check.

2. purse? check.

3. wishful thinking? check.

you're too fucking dumb to compete with me, junior :)

>It's not necessary, of course, you're not competitive, but it
> can be entertaining for the crowd and always gets the lady.

yeah it's always entertaining to watch a monkey dance... should i play
organ grinder music while you jump around, or do you have enough
practice working your own organ?

nfm

unread,

Sep 11, 2008, 12:02:23 AM9/11/08

to

nfm

unread,

Sep 11, 2008, 12:02:58 AM9/11/08

to

On Sep 10, 9:42 am, The Evil Tessmacher <tessmacher...@ya.hoo.com>
wrote:

> nfm writes...
>
> > Little girl, you forgot to go play with your
> > dolls. This is a post for REAL MEN. Either
> > address the issues in a SPECIFIC WAY, or keep
> > your bitch mouth shut.
>
> You're far too antagonistic for me to pay
> any attention to you... Regardless of what
> you have to say.

i guess that means you're ignoring the entire forum since that's all
anyone is doing-- being antagonistic.

and i'm not sure i care whether your self-righteous indignation
manifests in "not paying attention" or saying your not paying
attention.. you sound like a little princess trying to bestow favor
upon people.. how fucking arrogant are you to assume that your
attention is even worth something to me?

if you really didn't want to pay attention, you wouldn't even mention
it. you would just STOP paying attention, PERIOD.

but the fact that you need to mention it really means you're acting
just like a BITCH would act-- you're trying to draw a group
consensus.. you're trying to imply that your opinion is important
enough that EVERYONE will follow suit. those are little girl tactics
on a playground.

i give men the respect they give me. period.

if you show respect, you will be treated with respect.

if you act like a bitch and insult me, you will be put in check.
simple as that.

the fact that you only hypocritically refer to my post and neglect to
mention any of the other 'antagonistic' posts shows me you are already
a little BITCH who is not concerned with fair play, but rather mob
mentality.

so you can take your little bitch attitude and continue to 'not pay
attention,' and i will continue to not care about you.. whoever you
are.

nfm

unread,

Sep 11, 2008, 12:03:33 AM9/11/08

to

On Sep 10, 6:14 am, HC <thehcapp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> His original post was a gem, although most of his follow ups have been
> pretty lame.

you've had your dick in your mouth the whole time and you want to
bring up the topic of 'lame'? you're kidding me right?.. the more you
speak, the stupider you make yourself look.

> But ya know . . . there is something funny about a grown man trying to
> teach other men how to get women, that responds to replies to his
> diatribe by calling the repliers "girls."

haha just like a LITTLE GIRL, you conveniently forget about your own
ridiculous, childish response to my post. this is what we've been
talking about all along-- Feminism's have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too
mentality. We can see it from this dipshit right here who can't be
bothered to address his own incoherent moron yappings. Instead, he
feels self-righteous enough to lecture us on response etiquette.

hey stupidfuck, here's a rule of thumb: you get the respect that you
GIVE.

comprende, fucking moron?

> One has to wonder why the
> ninja master doesn't just bend Sgt Pain (that's his sidekick on his
> website who incidentaly has the same email address as ninja master
> himself)

like no wayyyy.. you mean we both have the manhood101.com email
address? ..oh that must be because we are taking care of the
manhood101.com site. you are pretty fucking bright for a door knob.

>over a table instead of trying to get women, considering how
> obvious it is that the guy HATES women!

and here we see this PUSSIFIED HE-BITCH spout the same feminist drool
rhetoric.

in this little bitch's mind, speaking the truth about feminism =
hating women. no wonder this fucking moron needs reading comprehension
help.

> I find it very disheartening that there are people like this walking
> around . . .

i find it disheartening that little BITCHES like you are trying to
influence other men on how to act. maybe you should reattach your
balls before you attempt to speak for other men. i doubt anyone would
mistake you for a man.

>bad enough the damage this guy must do to the women (if
> any) in *his* life,

here's another bit of comical irony from this fucking moron.

...because "fast seduction" is supposed to be HELPING WOMEN! LOL! what
a fucking moron. he can't even be honest about his own hypocritical
approach to women. his bottom line, by his own admission is: GETTING
LAID. and yet now he somehow tries to scold me as if his self-
righteous goal is somehow lofty?

yeah why don't you try telling that to the next woman you meet, you
fucking coward. see how far you get.

your utter intellectual dishonesty is a joke.. have you hit puberty
yet?.. are you even over 18 yet?...

>but now he's got a website trying to get other men
> to follow him and destroy women and relationships too.

yes, i'm trying to destroy 'relationships' even though i ADVOCATE and
teach men to get INTO relationships.. and you are somehow helping
relationships by advocating "GETTING LAID"..... ?

your utter stupidity would be comical if it weren't so tragic. how do
you even remember to breathe, being that fucking stupid?

> Vance is right(as usual), this guy isn't about seduction.

hahah, you're ABSOLUTELY RIGHT for a change! shocking!

i'm not about seduction. in fact, i mention that in my articles
already as i completely debunk the seduction community for what it
really is.. but of course, you're too fucking stupid to even realize
this as that would require basic reading comprehension.

stick to your comic books, jr.

> He's about
> trying to overpower weaker people.

well if you mean overpowering kids like you, that's not really a
stretch.. in fact, i'm pretty sure plants, rocks and chairs could
overpower your limited reasoning capacity.

>Does that work? Of course it does,
> if you are strong and the other is weak, you will overpower them. But
> what does that get you in the long run? Some low self esteem woman
> that was stupid enough to fall for you in the first place whom if she
> never wises up won't be worth your time and if she does wise up will
> likley leave . . and possibly seek revenge.

as a dramatic incoherent bitch, you should seek out a career in sitcom
development. why aren't there any real men here who can speak in plain
coherent english?... why are we stuck with fucking morons like you
with 2 brain cells left who can't even put together a coherent
thought?

> The whole picture this guy paints as to his little slice of the world
> is very dark. Who would want to have to be so angry all the time and
> live like that, just to get laid, if that would even get you laid.
> Might be better off with the goat.

yes, men getting their expectations met is "dark"..and you trying to
lead men to become pussified little bitches like you is somehow
"light"?

females and logic are like oil and water.. are you sure you're in the
right gender?

put your panties back on and try again, jr.

nfm

unread,

Sep 11, 2008, 12:06:32 AM9/11/08

to

thanks sir!

be sure to check out our other articles at manhood101.com

unlike every seduction scam out there designed to capitalize on the
weaknesses of guys raised under feminism, we don't charge a penny for
our information. we believe in helping ALL MEN succeed in their social
interactions. and we leave all our content open to critical scrutiny
unlike these cowardly fucks.

xoxo,

nfm

Krus T. Olfard

unread,

Sep 11, 2008, 12:08:55 AM9/11/08

to

nfm <ninjam...@gmail.com> wrote in news:743dcb1a-6086-4156-bc68-
5f4590...@c22g2000prc.googlegroups.com:

> you
> dumbfucks are on a forum DEDICATED to teaching men how to be men

And that bit of stupidity shows just what a lack of understanding you
really have.

Where does anything in this 'forum' (it's a newsgroup, tard) claim to be
"DEDICATED to teaching men how to be men"?

I can picture it now. you use your brilliant verbal skills on the nearest
woman and then wonder why she suddenly becomes the farthest away woman.

I imagine that a large number of women have left marks on the floor trying
to get away from you as fast as they can.

Yeah, plonk time for this loser. he truly does argue from the speedy school
of debate.

Click! your pathetic ass is plonked for 100 days.

Krus T. Olfard

unread,

Sep 11, 2008, 12:12:33 AM9/11/08

to

nfm <ninjam...@gmail.com> wrote in news:743dcb1a-6086-4156-bc68-
5f4590...@c22g2000prc.googlegroups.com:

> they don't respond to men neglecting to call themselves 'manly men'..

> they respond to male authority.. which again, makes this point
> completely IRRELEVANT.

Really? Then you will have absolutely no difficulty in posting links to
photos of you with your arm around non-blood-relative young women.

Come on. Show that you actually can do what you spew, you manly man.

Krus T. Olfard

unread,

Sep 11, 2008, 12:14:30 AM9/11/08

to

nfm <ninjam...@gmail.com> wrote in news:75e15e06-3fad-44d2-9182-
c34cc7...@a18g2000pra.googlegroups.com:

> i guess that means you're ignoring the entire forum

Once again, fool, this is a newsgroup, not a 'forum'.
Obviously your 'manly man' bullshit is also built on this close attention
to detail.

Then again, I have plonked you so the next time I access this NEWSGROUP I
will not see any new posts from you.

Gosh, what a loss.

Krus T. Olfard

unread,

Sep 11, 2008, 12:16:04 AM9/11/08

to

nfm <ninjam...@gmail.com> wrote in news:d925dbf2-ec5a-4bd7-a0b3-
48bbf6...@a2g2000prm.googlegroups.com:

> But you STILL come at me like a little BITCH, showing no respect.

Sorry, baybee, your attitude in here has precluded anyone from giving you
'respect'. you get what you ask for. you got what you asked for.

Krus T. Olfard

unread,

Sep 11, 2008, 12:17:08 AM9/11/08

to

> Ok stupidfuck, for the interest of brevity,

. . .and then proceeded to type for 23 minutes.

That's called having no self control.

nfm

unread,

Sep 11, 2008, 12:55:52 AM9/11/08

to

On Sep 10, 9:49 pm, HC <thehcapp...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Sep 10, 11:59 pm, nfm <ninjamaste...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Ok stupidfuck, for the interest of brevity, i'm <snip>
>

> My tiny dinosaur brain is having trouble keeping up.

yeah.

we noticed that already.

stupidfuck.

xoxo,

NFM

HC

unread,

Sep 11, 2008, 12:56:44 AM9/11/08

to

On Sep 11, 12:00�am, nfm <ninjamaste...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 9, 10:24 pm, Vance <Vance.L...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > There are two things about real men that seem to be true: �1) �They
> > aren't worried about whether they are real men, nor are they
> > particularly worried about someone who has to use 'realmen101.html' as
> > a kind of manual for being a man.
>
> oops, stupidfuck, let's help out your OBVIOUS, FAILED LOGIC here; you
> dumbfucks are on a forum DEDICATED to teaching men how to be men..

Not your definition of men. Maybe some elements of it, but you're a
whacked out nut job.

nfm

unread,

Sep 11, 2008, 12:57:48 AM9/11/08

to

On Sep 10, 9:54 pm, HC <thehcapp...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Sep 10, 11:59 pm, nfm <ninjamaste...@gmail.com> wrote . . .
>
> > Ok stupidfuck, for the interest of brevity,
>
> . . .and then proceeded to type for 23 minutes.

hey stupidfuck, did you get a refund on your 3rd grade education
yet?.. you sure having trouble with simple concepts like CONTEXT.

now run along little girl and go eat some more past.

> That's called having no self control.

as opposed to a fucking idiot like you controlling.....? my laughter?

let me know when you need it upside your head again, junior :)

xoxo,

NFM

HC

unread,

Sep 11, 2008, 1:03:23 AM9/11/08

to

On Sep 11, 12:00�am, nfm <ninjamaste...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> unlike you, we don't jack off to pet theories and pet methods .. we
> speak about the PRINCIPLES that apply to ALL MEN.
>

Says who? Who says they apply to all men, besides YOU? And who the
fuck are you anyway, what is your pedigree? I swear to God you sound
ansolutely crazy out of your mind, more than 9 out of 10 readers see
it and know it, yet you yourself have no idea.

Once one gets past your LOUDNESS, it's actually kinda sad. Like first
I hate you, then I kinda just feel sorry for you.

> gravity is a LAW. it's a CONSTANT.

> in a similar fashion, we are concerned with the LAWS/PRINCIPLES of
> social interaction.

Wrong, not in a similar fashion. GRAVITY is a CONSTANT. Social
interaction is not. It's different for everybody. Gravity however is a
CONSTANT. As in the SAME for everybody. NOT in similar fashion. You
are a dope.

HC

unread,

Sep 11, 2008, 1:11:17 AM9/11/08

to

On Sep 11, 12:02�am, nfm <ninjamaste...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 10, 8:30 pm, "Krus T. Olfard" <bra...@odor.com> wrote:
>
> > i'm an angry little girl throwing a tantrum! please pay attention to me!
>

You're quoting him as saying "i'm an angry little girl throwing a
tantrum! please pay attention to me!" but he didn't say it, you did.

You're a liar.

> what a silly bitch

I wish that for just one time you could stand inside my shoes. You'd
know what a drag it is to see you.

Women don't dig that, dude. If I was a chick, I'd be afraid you'd
backhand slap me across the face for "NOT FOLLOWING DIRECTIONS BITCH!"
Serious . . . unless your dick is 17" you have absolutely nothing to
offer any reasonably normal woman.

What are you doing, niching the psycho bitch demographic?

HC

unread,

Sep 11, 2008, 1:16:10 AM9/11/08

to

On Sep 11, 12:03�am, nfm <ninjamaste...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 10, 6:14 am, HC <thehcapp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > His original post was a gem, although most of his follow ups have been
> > pretty lame.
>
> you've had your dick in your mouth the whole time

Does that make me gay?

HC

unread,

Sep 11, 2008, 1:21:26 AM9/11/08

to

On Sep 11, 12:02�am, nfm <ninjamaste...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sep 10, 9:42 am, The Evil Tessmacher <tessmacher...@ya.hoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > �nfm writes...
>
> > > Little girl, you forgot to go play with your
> > > dolls. This is a post for REAL MEN. Either
> > > address the issues in a SPECIFIC WAY, or keep
> > > your bitch mouth shut.
>
> > You're far too antagonistic for me to pay
> > any attention to you... Regardless of what
> > you have to say.
>
> i guess that means you're ignoring the entire forum

Gee, thats funny, me and the rest of the world thought that meant he
was ignoring you.

His point is that regardless of what you have to say nobody will
listen to you because you're a raving lunatic.

Might want to look into that . . .

nfm

unread,

Sep 11, 2008, 1:27:56 AM9/11/08

to

yeah stupidfuck, you keep working on teaching men how to beg for
attention and crawl on their bellies..

> > unlike you, we don't jack off to pet theories and pet methods .. we
> > speak about the PRINCIPLES that apply to ALL MEN.
>

> Says who? Who says they apply to all men, besides YOU?

hey stupidfuck, i know your tiny brain has trouble comprehending
simple reason here, but this would be accomplished the same way people
found out that gravity applies to all men. it's called TESTING, you
fucking moron... wow, you're pretty bright!

> And who the
> fuck are you anyway, what is your pedigree?

dipshit, i'm obviously much smarter than you (which isn't really
saying much considering you have the IQ of a carrot stick)... you need
to worry about your diaper before you can worry about my pedigree.
you're too fucking dumb to even comprehend fundamental concepts and
already you're worried about credentials?.. hahah how are you even
gonna be able to read them with your silly excuse for an education?

> I swear to God you sound
> ansolutely crazy out of your mind, more than 9 out of 10 readers see
> it and know it, yet you yourself have no idea.

you can swear to god all you want. that STILL doesn't prevent you from
sounding like a total fucking idiot without a point. look at you.. you
are a fucking embarrassment.. you act like a complete BITCH, relying
heavily on group consensus.. what's the matter little girl?.. daddy
never taught you to think on your own?..

frankly, i don't think i've talked to many people quite as dumb as
you.

> Once one gets past your LOUDNESS, it's actually kinda sad. Like first
> I hate you, then I kinda just feel sorry for you.

of course you hate me. most fucking retards have emotional responses
to anything that read which disagrees with their delusional view of
the world.. this proves my point-- you're too fucking stupid to be
reading my articles.. you should be concerned with coloring in the
lines, and let the adults worry about the difficult topics..

> > gravity is a LAW. it's a CONSTANT.
>

> <snippage>

>
> > in a similar fashion, we are concerned with the LAWS/PRINCIPLES of
> > social interaction.
>

> Wrong, not in a similar fashion. GRAVITY is a CONSTANT. Social
> interaction is not. It's different for everybody. Gravity however is a
> CONSTANT. As in the SAME for everybody. NOT in similar fashion. You
> are a dope.

WRONG AGAIN STUPID FUCK.

see, this is why you're a complete fucking moron. you can't even
possibly fathom how many ways you're wrong.. no matter how in depth i
try to explain things to you, you're such a little bitch that you
can't HELP but have a knee-jerk reaction to the truth.. notice how,
just like a BITCH, you are stumped by logic and reason. you can't even
begin to address the issues presented. but instead, you yapping like
an incoherent fucking moron about emotional trauma you suffered..

look stupidfuck, you're obviously not educated enough to even
construct a valid point on your own, let alone understand these
articles.. what you're gonna need to do is find a real man and have
him read the posts to you and help you through the difficult parts..

i've already held your hand and told you how to debate a point
properly.. but you're too fucking stupid to even accomplish that..
seriously, how do you remember to breathe, being that fucking
stupid?... you are amazing.

> > > i'm an angry little girl throwing a tantrum! please pay attention to me!
>
> You're quoting him as saying "i'm an angry little girl throwing a
> tantrum! please pay attention to me!" but he didn't say it, you did.
>
> You're a liar.

hahah leave it to capt. stupidfuck to completely miss the point..
don't you have more paste to eat, little girl? :)

> > what a silly bitch
>
> I wish that for just one time you could stand inside my shoes. You'd
> know what a drag it is to see you.

yeah as enticing as that sounds, i really don't know how to walk in
pink pumps..

i'm a man. as a man, it's hard for me to relate to a complete BITCH
like you... but thanks for the offer ! :)

> Women don't dig that, dude. If I was a chick, I'd be afraid you'd
> backhand slap me across the face for "NOT FOLLOWING DIRECTIONS BITCH!"

and women 'dig' faggots like you without a spine?.. what do you do for
them grandpa... show them your dentures and make them give you pity
fucks?

the only reason women talk to you is because they consider you a
BITCH.. you are like a little girl to them.. and when they're done
making fun of you, they come get down to business with me :)

> Serious . . . unless your dick is 17" you have absolutely nothing to
> offer any reasonably normal woman.

well you've enjoyed my 17".. and you've been such a good bitch to me..
i don't want to trade you in for the world!

i know you get down on all 4's and bark like a dog for women.. but
unlike you, i'm a real man. i don't need to crawl on my belly like you
do in order to get validation from women.. you are a sad pathetic
little girl..

> What are you doing, niching the psycho bitch demographic?

i admit, you are a bit of a psychotic bitch, but it's not like i have
to date you.. and i definitely don't take you seriously. you're an
incoherent fucking moron and nobody can understand you..

> > you've had your dick in your mouth the whole time
>
> Does that make me gay?

i'm pretty sure it makes you a decent candidate for the gay platform
at the very least..

you're too fucking dumb to be teaching men anything. now run along
little girl and try to sound relevant lol :)

xoxo,

NFM

HC

unread,

Sep 11, 2008, 1:29:29 AM9/11/08

to

On Sep 11, 12:03�am, nfm <ninjamaste...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> hey stupidfuck, here's a rule of thumb: you get the respect that you
> GIVE.
>

We agree on something!

>
> > �One has to wonder why the

> > ninja master doesn't just bend Sgt Pain (that's his sidekick on his
> > website who incidentaly has the same email address as ninja master
> > himself)
>
> like no wayyyy.. you mean we both have the manhood101.com email
> address?

No, I mean you both have the same email address, as in the part after
AND before the @. Well you did anyway, you probably changed that when
you realized somebody was on to you and your imaginary friend.

Comprende, chica?

> in this little bitch's mind, speaking the truth about feminism =
> hating women.

The problem here, Hemmingway, is that by your accounting (and poor
writing) you rank asignificantly higher number of females as feminists
than actually are. Also, you draw no line between your average
harmless feminist and your feminazis.

Faulty math = faulty argument = baseless theory.

I respect and admire strog independent women. You're scard shitless of
them.

And that's what hate is, fear out of control.

And what do you know, there's that word again, control, and you're out
of it, and it's obvious.

nfm

unread,

Sep 11, 2008, 1:29:57 AM9/11/08

to

hey stupidfuck, i'm pretty sure i'm not really concerned over some
silly little girl ignoring me.. let alone a fucking 2 brain celled
moron like you..

and i know you're angry and throwing a little tantrum because men love
my articles and they laugh at you to your face..

might want to look into that, fucking moron :) lol

xoxo,

NFM

HC

unread,

Sep 11, 2008, 1:31:48 AM9/11/08

to

On Sep 11, 12:14�am, "Krus T. Olfard" <bra...@odor.com> wrote:
> nfm <ninjamaste...@gmail.com> wrote in news:75e15e06-3fad-44d2-9182-
> c34cc7ee8...@a18g2000pra.googlegroups.com:

>
> > i guess that means you're ignoring the entire forum
>
> Once again, fool, this is a newsgroup, not a 'forum'.
> Obviously your 'manly man' bullshit

When I was in school we had a term for "manly men." Fags.

HC

unread,

Sep 11, 2008, 1:35:41 AM9/11/08

to

On Sep 11, 1:27�am, nfm <ninjamaste...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 10, 9:56�pm, HC <thehcapp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 11, 12:00 am, nfm <ninjamaste...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 9, 10:24 pm, Vance <Vance.L...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > There are two things about real men that seem to be true: 1) They
> > > > aren't worried about whether they are real men, nor are they
> > > > particularly worried about someone who has to use 'realmen101.html' as
> > > > a kind of manual for being a man.
>
> > > oops, stupidfuck, let's help out your OBVIOUS, FAILED LOGIC here; you
> > > dumbfucks are on a forum DEDICATED to teaching men how to be men..
>
> > Not your definition of men. Maybe some elements of it, but you're a
> > whacked out nut job.
>
> yeah stupidfuck, you keep working on teaching men how to beg for
> attention and crawl on their bellies..
>

I teach no such thing.

HC

unread,

good, bitch! :) lol

you're too fucking stupid to even begin to compete with me.. when you
learn some respect, little girl, you can try again..

until then, take your little incoherent bitch ass back to the curb
where you belong.

upside your head,

NFM
manhood101.com

Alfred E. Neumann

unread,

Sep 11, 2008, 3:52:52 AM9/11/08

to

nfm <ninjam...@gmail.com> wrote in news:a4ed1008-b6a7-47cc-9ec2-
c96c20...@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com:

how old are you?
13 or 12?

grow up and get back in 10 years
or stay away

unread,

Sep 11, 2008, 8:34:10 PM9/11/08

to

On Sep 10, 9:00 pm, nfm <ninjamaste...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 9, 10:24 pm, Vance <Vance.L...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> > [standup clown routine, complete with juggling]
>
> how long are you planning on sounding like an incoherent fucking idiot
> tryin to performed a failed standup routine before you get to the
> point. hold on little girl, here's a cursory clap.. ok you happy now?
>

Yes. In fact I am quite happy with your whole post. We'll get to
that later.

>
> > There are two things about real men that seem to be true: 1) They
> > aren't worried about whether they are real men, nor are they
> > particularly worried about someone who has to use 'realmen101.html' as
> > a kind of manual for being a man.
>
> oops, stupidfuck, let's help out your OBVIOUS, FAILED LOGIC here; you
> dumbfucks are on a forum DEDICATED to teaching men how to be men..

> sure you might not say it in so many words, but guys are spouting
> things like mystery method, RSD, NLP, etc. these were not things they
> gleaned from the womb, you fucking idiot. they LEARNED THEM. guys
> TAUGHT them how to act like men, so to speak. this is all one big
> "MANUAL" for how to behave/act/function like a "man". so don't kid
> yourself, pumpkin. you are engaged in exactly the same endeavor. just
> because you're too fucking stupid to codify anything into a
> comprehensive format doesn't automatically negate my work.
>

I love it when people who haven't a clue, but do know an impressive
sounding cliche, like 'failed logic', and try and sound so impressive
and intimidating by using it. However, you have a credibility problem
given all the logical flaws and fallacies in your 'work.' I can
understand that. You must get dizzy from the circular logic, lost in
begging the question and tired from jumping to conclusions.

By the way, I am not engaged in 'exactly the same behavior', meaning
teaching men how to be men. The only time I had that responsibility,
or even interest in whether someone behaved like a man or not, was
when I raised my son. Everyone else is on their own. As far as
codifying anything, that doesn't take any great intelligence and
anything can be codified, including total BS, like astrology and your
so called work.

> we speak about the 'PRINCIPLES' of manhood on manhood101.com ...

>
> unlike you, we don't jack off to pet theories and pet methods .. we
> speak about the PRINCIPLES that apply to ALL MEN.
>

> gravity is a LAW. it's a CONSTANT. it is a 'manual' for how objects
> relate to one another. anybody with a brain who studies physics would
> understand that it's paramount to grasp the concept of gravity. this
> understanding doesn't fluctate because the principle itself doesn't
> fluctuate. it's a constant principle. that's why we refer to it as the
> 'LAW' of gravity.

>
> in a similar fashion, we are concerned with the LAWS/PRINCIPLES of

> social interaction. and we are specifically addressing MEN. this is
> why we are referring to the principles of 'MANHOOD'.. as we already
> explain in other articles which i will post, this has nothing to do
> with the concept of machismo but has everything to do with how men
> PRACTICALLY FUNCTION as men. this is not about preference. this is not
> about pet theories. this is about understanding social interaction
> PRINCIPLES. if you got off your personal high horse long enough to
> understand that, you might actually learn something valuable. you
> already know how to behave like a bitch, now try acting like a man.
> you might enjoy it.
>

You seem to be a little confused about what constitutes a law of
nature and seem totally confused about gravity. I refer you to
Einstein's general theory so you can brush up a bit. I suggest one of
the popular general consumer books or maybe something along the lines
of this link:

http://sigfpe.blogspot.com/2006/01/general-relativity-for-dummies.html

Think of it as intellectual baby food for toddlers.

Now, about this law crap as it applies to social interaction. In
order for something to be a law in the sense you are trying to use it,
something must be true under all possible conditions. There can be
philosophical arguments about whether that can be known, but it's not
necessary here. We can call it a law if it has the same regularity
that say the speed of light has, or the property of pure copper to
always conduct electricity. In other words, there is only one
possible behavior. Manhood, apart from the concept of maleness, is a
sociocultural construct and because of that, is not lawful in the
sense you want. If it were lawful in the way you assert, lawful like
gravity is lawful, there wouldn't be any 'need' for your work, would
there? No other behavior would be possible. Simple, huh?

> >They aren't cartoon characters
> > acting out like is says on p. 45 of the 'Manual for Being a Real Man'
> > like you seem to be;
>
> no stupidfuck. this is you projecting your tiny brained understanding
> of manhood onto our work. again, you are referencing the failed notion
> of machismo which we already debunk in our articles. but this would
> require an education to grasp. do any of you children ever crack open
> a book?.. holy fuck. i feel like i'm talking to a bunch of retards..
> this isn't that hard to grasp if you just pay attention.
>

Actually, you are simply suffering the frustration that comes from
presenting a dogmatic and merely assertive series of propostions to an
audience that has pretty good BS detectors. But, hey, pearls before
swine, yes?

> >2) they are generally considered nice guys by
> > both women and men and are extremely comfortable with themselves and,
> > as a result, comfortable with nearly everyone else.
>
> this is actually untrue. real men are NOT considered 'nice guys' by
> today's feminist's standards. that's your wishful thinking. real men
> are able to tell women "NO".. which means they are not ALWAYS
> considered "nice".. and this is seen in their interactions with men
> when they become attracted. i can't tell you how many times i've had a
> woman refer to me as an "asshole", "jerk", "mean", etc... not because
> i did anything particularly terrible when meeting them. mostly this
> stemmed from my unwillingness to give them their way, to meet their
> feminist expectations...
>

Dude, that's known as slipping a reference and leads to the formal
fallacy of ambiguity. You are also, and this is a big error in logic,
too, trying to go from the general to the specific. I said women. Do
you know how to construct a Venn Diagram? Sure you do, being all
about intelligence and education and how stupid everyone is but you
and stuff. Start with the set of all possible women as the enclosing
circle since you are trying to use the Universal Qualifier and then
draw your circle of feminists. Unless feminists is a linguistic tag
for all women, you have a problem. Since you referred specifically to
feminists and not all women, well, you can see the problem. Now, this
can give rise to behavioral problems where your behavior is predicated
on women being feminists and you run into women who are not
feminists. This situation would be covered under various
configurations of frame theory in either artificial intelligence or
cognitive psychology. It's called the frame problem and you can look
it up, being all educated and such.

[tragic tail of being taken advantage of in the work place and how
that formed a philosophical orientation towards life snipped]

>
> just like a little BITCH, you read things EMOTIONALLY. a real man uses
> LOGIC & COMMON SENSE. men read for CONTENT. bitches like you read for
> emotional meaning and indignant self-righteousness..
>

Sparky, your in my backyard now and there is now way you can win this
game. You're wrong, simply as a matter of neuropsychological fact. I
think you really, really should look up the role of emotion in
cognitive processes in human beings.

> > Little boy and what else can you be
> > when you think that schoolyard gender insinuations and insults are
> > something important,
>
> little incoherent bitch, what else can you be when you support fucking
> morons lobbing insults at me?..and you yourself are guilty of
> insulting me instead of showing respect and answering my post in a
> respectful way.. who the fuck are you to lecture anyone on manhood
> when you're too fucking stupid to gage your own hypocrisy? little
> girl, you need help.
>

Okay, everything I have posted is available, point out where it is
incoherent. Also, look up what the word hypocrisy means before you
use it. It's so much more impressive when you can use a work properly
in context. Get's the girls all wet, you know. Now, you're the one
who came on to an NG that is patently sterile as far as your being
able to achieve any agenda regarding your truly insignifican work.
I'm sure that you started off believing, or at least being optomistic,
that you would find some adherents here, but that doesn't seem to be
the case. Everything you may have wanted to accomplish seems to be
pretty futile on this venue, but you persist. That, my friend is
stupid.

> > you haven't brought any revelations to enlighten
> > anyone on this NG and that includes the most clueless newbies.
>
> haha.. just like a LITTLE BITCH, you try to use the classic "we"
> social frame. yeah you speak for EVERYONE on planet earth, i forgot.
>
> how fucking presumptuous of you to speak for everyone else.. you are a
> classic little bitch. real men can speak for themselves and are able
> to make a point without referring to consensus.. notice, when i
> address your points, i don't need to reference the number of friends
> on myspace who agree with me or disagree with you.. as a real man, i
> appeal to reason and common sense. as a punk ass bitch, you make
> emotional appeals and rest your argument on consensus.
>
> pathetic. sad and pathetic.
>

Now, it's back to your logic problems, again. My friend, I said you
haven't brought any revelations to this NG and you haven't. It's been
seen before, all of it. I never said anything about everyone on the
planet, now did I? I've already touched on the problems you have with
Universal Qualifiers. By the way, what you consider addressing my
points has been mostly an emotional, irrational tantrum. Yep, just
dripping with manly emotions. By the way, has anyone told you how
cute you are when your mad?

> > Everybody here, newbies included, has pretty much grown up past the
> > need for a handbook on manhood
>
> wow, i can see i'm talking to a fucking idiot.
>
> obviously you don't grasp the point above that this IS one gigantic
> 'manual' on manhood.. just because you haven't labeled it as such,
> doesn't remove the fact that it functions that way..
>
> and no, stupidfuck, men haven't grown up, otherwise this group
> wouldn't exist in the first place.. i can't believe you're so fucking
> stupid you can't even grasp the inconsistencies in your failed attempt
> at reasoning.. manhood is not simply about peeing while standing up,
> you fucking idiot. it is much more involved and complex.. but you
> yourself should know that as MASF is chalk full of 'teachings'
> designed to teach men how to act with women.. they are ineffective
> however, just as you are ineffective, because you fail the test of
> reason.. you fail the test of critical scrutiny.
>

Somehow, failing your critical scrutiny, based on hardcore and manly
reasoning, of course, none of that emotional stuff, doesn't seem to me
a low point in my life. I'm sure that it's simple because I fail to
see the subtleties.

> >and is ready to tackle the existential
> > problem of how do I get laid. No ism this, or ism that to blame
> > things on.
>
> oh so that's the major problem plaguing men: how to get laid?
>

If you went to public school, I can see that the money wasn't well
spent wherever it was. You know the KISS principle = 'Keep It Simple
Stupid.' So, just for you, KISSY, KISSY:

You are on an NG with a self selected audience and participants. Not
all men, as your statement implies. Again with that Universal
Quatifier problem. They are here because, in the broad sense, they
have a problem with seduction. That problem may only be they just
aren't as good at it as they would like to be. People get to define
their own problems, but that's often the case with problems. Notice
that covers the nominal range of interests (or problems) of this NG.
Whether you want to characterize it as a problem, or an abiding
interest, yes, the subject is how to get laid. Along with that often
comes pretty good info on how how a man handles things.

> see, it's simplistic morons like you that make the rest of mankind
> suffer when you presume to take the role of teacher and damage the
> other guys who come here looking for advice with your utter
> pussification.
>

You speak for all of mankind? A little presumptious, don't you
think?

> 1. you're too fucking stupid to even grasp this concept. you need to
> work on your education before you try to tackle me, junior.

Would you like to talk about how genetic influences help shape, but do
not determine, cultural and social constructs. Maybe the differences
between how male brains function versus female brains (yes, including
emotions). I'm pretty conversant in that subject. Since your into
social interaction, a discussion on how seduction lines as speech acts
can help get the women wet would be cool. The problem is this, I've
been to your site. You don't have anything interesting to say.

> 2. you have poor and inaccurate information.
>
> 3. you debate like a little bitch throwing a tantrum, unable to answer
> anything with reason & common sense, instead resorting to emotional
> appeals and group consensus.
>
> did i miss anything?
>
> > What I find hilarious is that people who function from your space are
> > the absolute easiest to eliminate in any kind of seduction scenario.
>
> hahahahahahahah.. i would love to have a good laugh watching you try
> to "eliminate" me..
>
> oh no! a little girl is going to try and run the show around here! let
> me start shaking, pronto.
>
> lol :)
>
> > Just push their little 'manly man' buttons and watch them act the
> > fool.
>
> there's really not many 'buttons' i have to push on you.. let's see..
>
> 1. clit? check.
>
> 2. purse? check.
>
> 3. wishful thinking? check.
>
> you're too fucking dumb to compete with me, junior :)
>
> >It's not necessary, of course, you're not competitive, but it
> > can be entertaining for the crowd and always gets the lady.
>
> yeah it's always entertaining to watch a monkey dance... should i play
> organ grinder music while you jump around, or do you have enough
> practice working your own organ?

Now, my original post was designed to pretty much push your little
manly man buttons and get you to act the fool. You've done pretty
much that, and your frantic posting of garbage from your website was
just icing on the cake.

Your response has been highly emotional and irrational, sorta girly
and pretty predictable. It's time to plonk you now. I can only take
so much boredom.

Vance

nfm

unread,

Sep 11, 2008, 9:08:35 PM9/11/08

to

On Sep 11, 12:52 am, "Alfred E. Neumann" <ANeum...@mad.com> wrote:
> nfm <ninjamaste...@gmail.com> wrote in news:a4ed1008-b6a7-47cc-9ec2-
> c96c2074c...@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com:

>
>
>
> > On Sep 10, 10:38 pm, HC <thehcapp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> [incoherent bitch yapping]
>
> > sit, bitch!
>
> > stay, bitch!
>
> > good, bitch! :) lol
>
> > you're too fucking stupid to even begin to compete with me.. when you
> > learn some respect, little girl, you can try again..
>
> > until then, take your little incoherent bitch ass back to the curb
> > where you belong.
>
> > upside your head,
>
> how old are you?
> 13 or 12?
>
> grow up and get back in 10 years
> or stay away

how fucking DUMB are you?... 1 brain cell... 2 brain cells?

go back to school and get back to us in 10 years or stay away,
dumbfuck

nfm

unread,

Sep 11, 2008, 9:08:52 PM9/11/08

to

On Sep 11, 8:26 pm, "Krus T. Olfard" <bra...@odor.com> wrote:

> i'm an angry little girl throwing a tantrum! please pay attention to me!

what a silly bitch :) LOL

xoxo,

NFM

HC

unread,

Sep 11, 2008, 9:15:26 PM9/11/08

to

And this guy fancies himself a leader of men.

HA!

nfm

unread,

Sep 11, 2008, 9:20:12 PM9/11/08

to

On Sep 11, 10:38 pm, HC <thehcapp...@aol.com> wrote:

> [incoherent bitch yapping]

sit, bitch!

stay, bitch!

good, bitch! :) lol

you're too fucking stupid to even begin to compete with me.. when you
learn some respect, little girl, you can try again..

until then, take your little incoherent bitch ass back to the curb
where you belong.

upside your head,

unread,

Sep 12, 2008, 1:30:23 AM9/12/08

to

"HC" <thehc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:103fc279-3e7b-4dd6...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

On Sep 11, 12:00?am, nfm <ninjamaste...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 9, 10:24 pm, Vance <Vance.L...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>

> > There are two things about real men that seem to be true: ?1) ?They

> > aren't worried about whether they are real men, nor are they
> > particularly worried about someone who has to use 'realmen101.html' as
> > a kind of manual for being a man.
>
>> oops, stupidfuck, let's help out your OBVIOUS, FAILED LOGIC here; you
>> dumbfucks are on a forum DEDICATED to teaching men how to be men..
>

>Not your definition of men. Maybe some elements of it, but you're a
>whacked out nut job.

Nah, he's just your run of the mill troll trying to drive traffic to his
site.

Odious

unread,

Sep 12, 2008, 1:45:38 AM9/12/08

to

"nfm" <ninjam...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:444c3ebc-c6b0-432d...@1g2000pre.googlegroups.com...

On Sep 10, 10:21 pm, HC <thehcapp...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Sep 11, 12:02 am, nfm <ninjamaste...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>hey stupidfuck, i'm pretty sure i'm not really concerned over some
>silly little girl ignoring me.. let alone a fucking 2 brain celled
>moron like you..

And yet...you continue to beg for attention.

Vance

unread,

Sep 12, 2008, 1:57:28 AM9/12/08

to

On Sep 11, 6:39 pm, "Krus T. Olfard" <bra...@odor.com> wrote:
> Vance <Vance.L...@gmail.com> wrote in news:c3924623-c15e-4caa-9201-
> 1fab3d96a...@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

I know. My Space/You Tube messiahs, out to deliver the received word
on whatever the subject, prepared to cleanse the unwashed and lead the
lost along some righteous path to redemption according to their
Gospel. You don't need to be a forensic psychologist to pick out the
personal issues they are dealing with, it's reflected in the analogies
they use, the examples they give, the rationalizations they hold on to
like they were life preserving facts that will keep them from drowning
and, of course, who they choose as the enemy.

The really irksome thing is they never look before they leap. A
little time spent going through the archive for this NG and filtering
for the seduction advice would have shown him that this isn't an
environment for his ideology. It probably wouldn't matter if he did.
A Zealot's work is never done.

Vance

Odious

unread,

Sep 12, 2008, 1:57:38 AM9/12/08

to

"nfm" <ninjam...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:39ca3c01-98b8-4efa...@c22g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
>Good god, are you fingerbanging your vagina while reading this post or
>something?
>
>I'm viewing women according to their training via Feminism.

Try to keep up... I'm not talking about the opinion you're expressing. I'm
talking about the imagery you use in your insults and attacks, and what it
reveals about your state.

"What you consider to be a "negative" light is the TRUTH. But like men
who fall victim to Feminism, you react defensively as a pussified,
emasculated male would."

LOL I wonder if you are aware how transparent you are.
All you do it proclaim your conclusions are truth, and call anybody who
disagrees with you a girl.

"Instead of being a real man and addressing the
issue in a SPECIFIC way, you lob blanket insults."

What issue?

cookie for me!

> > > There are two things about real men that seem to be true: 1) They
> > > aren't worried about whether they are real men, nor are they
> > > particularly worried about someone who has to use 'realmen101.html' as
> > > a kind of manual for being a man.
>
> > oops, stupidfuck, let's help out your OBVIOUS, FAILED LOGIC here; you
> > dumbfucks are on a forum DEDICATED to teaching men how to be men..
> > sure you might not say it in so many words, but guys are spouting
> > things like mystery method, RSD, NLP, etc. these were not things they
> > gleaned from the womb, you fucking idiot. they LEARNED THEM. guys
> > TAUGHT them how to act like men, so to speak. this is all one big
> > "MANUAL" for how to behave/act/function like a "man". so don't kid
> > yourself, pumpkin. you are engaged in exactly the same endeavor. just
> > because you're too fucking stupid to codify anything into a
> > comprehensive format doesn't automatically negate my work.
>
> I love it when people who haven't a clue, but do know an impressive
> sounding cliche, like 'failed logic', and try and sound so impressive
> and intimidating by using it.

i equally 'love' it when fucking morons try to sound intelligent by
regurgitating what they've read in comic books and allowing other
pseudo-academic pursuits to speak for them.. and it's even more
comical when said morons fulfill the poignant sentiment that Mark
Twain's pithy axiom warns children about:

"i never let my schooling get in the way of my education.."

i.e. beware of institutionalized intellectuals who are made from 2
parts library card, 10 parts pride and ZERO parts common sense.

>However, you have a credibility problem
> given all the logical flaws and fallacies in your 'work.'

no i don't really have a credibility problem. the issue is really more
simple than that-- you have a severe DUMBFUCK problem. i.e. your
ability to reason effectively is hindered by your head up your
assumption.

>I can
> understand that.

actually you can't.. you're too fucking DUMB, remember?

>You must get dizzy from the circular logic, lost in
> begging the question and tired from jumping to conclusions.

You must get dizzy from sounding like a complete fucking moron.. but
then again, you're too fucking DUMB to even realize you're a moron
which is often the case with morons.. which is, not coincidentally,
how you became a moron in the first place.

> By the way, I am not engaged in 'exactly the same behavior', meaning
> teaching men how to be men.

actually you ARE, you're just too fucking stupid to realize it. you
have no idea WHAT you're doing. unless i spell it out for you, word
for word, you're too stupid to connect the dots or reason your way
towards a valid conclusion. what a shocker.

> The only time I had that responsibility,
> or even interest in whether someone behaved like a man or not, was
> when I raised my son.

hey stupidfuck, i know this is over your head but, whenever you make a
post on here, you ARE attempting to teach someone something. now at
this point in your life, you're too fucking DUMB to comprehend how
that works.... so for now, just ponder it.. slowly.. don't hurt
yourself..

>Everyone else is on their own.

again, dumbfuck, WRONG. but then again, you haven't been right yet. so
at least you're consistent.

"no man is an island unto himself..." ..again, you're too fucking
stupid to grasp that. so just ponder it.. even, forget it.. it really
doesn't matter. the explanation is for the sake of accuracy. it's
obviously not for your education as that's already proven to be quite
a failure.

>As far as
> codifying anything, that doesn't take any great intelligence

no stupidfuck, it actually DOES take great intelligence to codify
something. that's why you CAN'T do it, DUMBFUCK, and i CAN.

> and
> anything can be codified, including total BS, like astrology and your
> so called work.
>

well sure. stupidfucks like you can codify all kinds of things.. you
can codify your car with a bologna sandwich. you can codify your cock
with a keyhole. you can codify your toothbrush with a lawn mower..

codifying in and of itself means nothing.. it's PROPER condification
that matters, stupidfuck.

> > we speak about the 'PRINCIPLES' of manhood on manhood101.com ...
>
> > unlike you, we don't jack off to pet theories and pet methods .. we
> > speak about the PRINCIPLES that apply to ALL MEN.
>
> > gravity is a LAW. it's a CONSTANT. it is a 'manual' for how objects
> > relate to one another. anybody with a brain who studies physics would
> > understand that it's paramount to grasp the concept of gravity. this
> > understanding doesn't fluctate because the principle itself doesn't
> > fluctuate. it's a constant principle. that's why we refer to it as the
> > 'LAW' of gravity.
>
> > in a similar fashion, we are concerned with the LAWS/PRINCIPLES of
> > social interaction. and we are specifically addressing MEN. this is
> > why we are referring to the principles of 'MANHOOD'.. as we already
> > explain in other articles which i will post, this has nothing to do
> > with the concept of machismo but has everything to do with how men
> > PRACTICALLY FUNCTION as men. this is not about preference. this is not
> > about pet theories. this is about understanding social interaction
> > PRINCIPLES. if you got off your personal high horse long enough to
> > understand that, you might actually learn something valuable. you
> > already know how to behave like a bitch, now try acting like a man.
> > you might enjoy it.
>
> You seem to be a little confused about what constitutes a law of
> nature and seem totally confused about gravity.

you seem to be confused as to how a simple analogy works..

let me state this without an analogy:

you
are
a
fucking
moron.

simple.

>I refer you to
> Einstein's general theory so you can brush up a bit.

let me refer you to brain cell number 3 and 4.. so you can add them to
brain cell 1 and 2... now you're almost a genius.. just a trillion or
so more to go....

> I suggest one of
> the popular general consumer books or maybe something along the lines
> of this link:
>
> http://sigfpe.blogspot.com/2006/01/general-relativity-for-dummies.html
>
> Think of it as intellectual baby food for toddlers.

think of ABC blocks as a milestone in logic for you.. perhaps after
you're done drooling on yourself, you'll be able to understand how
concepts relate to one another in a simple fashion.

you go, girl!

> Now, about this law crap as it applies to social interaction. In
> order for something to be a law in the sense you are trying to use it,
> something must be true under all possible conditions. There can be
> philosophical arguments about whether that can be known, but it's not
> necessary here. We can call it a law if it has the same regularity
> that say the speed of light has, or the property of pure copper to
> always conduct electricity. In other words, there is only one
> possible behavior.

well at least you started off on a good foot.. let's see where this
goes..

>Manhood, apart from the concept of maleness, is a
> sociocultural construct and because of that, is not lawful in the
> sense you want.

uh, wrong again..

see, there's always a little something that fucks up your entire
point.. it's this tiny little thing called CONTEXT.

when i use a term like "manhood", i need to DEFINE IT properly before
i throw it around.. which is why i've done so on the manhood101.com
site. you obviously (no shock) have FAILED once again to consider the
all-important CONTEXT surrounding the term, defining the term, making
the term applicable to the laws that constitute and govern it.

> If it were lawful in the way you assert, lawful like
> gravity is lawful, there wouldn't be any 'need' for your work, would
> there? No other behavior would be possible. Simple, huh?

the only thing 'simple' around here at this point is your mind-- you
are a complete SIMPLETON.

if you knew how to properly debate, you wouldn't make yourself look
like such a fucking moron in the first place because as any good
scientist always knows, everything lives and dies by critical
scrutiny, NOT by failed attempts to control the frame of the
discussion with grade school sarcasm and silly bitch remarks .. that
just makes you look like a fucking moron.. especially when you're
talking to someone more competent like me.

the problem with your FAILED analogy is that you've ABUSED the
analogy .. you've put it into a different CONTEXT (remember that new
term you're just now learning?...)... so now i have to answer you
according to this new dipshit context you've just created. in which
case, we'd have to make the situation analogous to today's situation..
we'd have to posit that society removed guard rails from particularly
treacherous mountainside roads... that warning labels were removed
from the top steps of ladders... that road signs indicating steep
cliffs associated with danger were removed... basically, that any
negative social association with gravity was non-existent by design...
then this would definitely constitute a problem... and if we continued
along the lines of this analogy, we'd also have to start teaching kids
to voluntarily walk along the edges of high buildings. we'd have to
make it socially acceptable to fool around on tall playground
structures.. all safety equipment would have to go.. now we have a
situation analogous to feminism...

gravity STILL WORKS-- LAW remember?

but now what's the problem?...ahhh see tiny brain.. hopefully you're
catching on here... we're teaching people to VIOLATE the law of
gravity without informing them of the violent ramifications of such
actions. ok now your dipshit analogy makes sense because now it IS
necessary for me to come along and teach people that violating gravity
IS wrong.

> > >They aren't cartoon characters
> > > acting out like is says on p. 45 of the 'Manual for Being a Real Man'
> > > like you seem to be;
>
> > no stupidfuck. this is you projecting your tiny brained understanding
> > of manhood onto our work. again, you are referencing the failed notion
> > of machismo which we already debunk in our articles. but this would
> > require an education to grasp. do any of you children ever crack open
> > a book?.. holy fuck. i feel like i'm talking to a bunch of retards..
> > this isn't that hard to grasp if you just pay attention.
>
> Actually, you are simply suffering the frustration that comes from
> presenting a dogmatic and merely assertive series of propostions to an
> audience that has pretty good BS detectors. But, hey, pearls before
> swine, yes?

no actually, it's more like pride before dumbfucks..

you're simply suffering from the DELUSION that comes from retarded
children patting themselves on their collective backs for too long
without any adults around to invalidate their stupidity with something
called: REASON.

you don't have good BS detectors. you have a tight knit group of
fucking morons and immature little kids who are COWARDS-- afraid of
critical scrutiny.. if they don't agree with you, they don't debate
you any rational scientist would.. no, instead they simply ban you
from the playground because it's an easier solution for irresponsible
children like you who hate doing the grunt work of actually verifying
your bullshit.

but hey.. pride before dumbfucks...

> > >2) they are generally considered nice guys by
> > > both women and men and are extremely comfortable with themselves and,
> > > as a result, comfortable with nearly everyone else.
>
> > this is actually untrue. real men are NOT considered 'nice guys' by
> > today's feminist's standards. that's your wishful thinking. real men
> > are able to tell women "NO".. which means they are not ALWAYS
> > considered "nice".. and this is seen in their interactions with men
> > when they become attracted. i can't tell you how many times i've had a
> > woman refer to me as an "asshole", "jerk", "mean", etc... not because
> > i did anything particularly terrible when meeting them. mostly this
> > stemmed from my unwillingness to give them their way, to meet their
> > feminist expectations...
>
> Dude, that's known as slipping a reference and leads to the formal
> fallacy of ambiguity.

no that's actually known as you being too fucking stupid to connect
the dots.. maybe if you use more pseudo-scientific terminology, it
will suddenly unfuck your nonsense... yeah, try that..

> You are also, and this is a big error in logic,
> too, trying to go from the general to the specific.

no actually the error in logic occurs when you're too fucking dumb to
comprehend the point and instead point to your mental masturbation
material in aisle 4 of the public library to explain yourself for
you... you are the epitome of the institutionalized idiot-- unable to
examine your own conclusions for fallacies..

> I said women. Do
> you know how to construct a Venn Diagram?

hey stupidfuck, what does that have to do with the price of tea in
china?... your irrelevant point is supposed to do what... distract me
from your other stupid points?

> Sure you do, being all
> about intelligence and education and how stupid everyone is

no stupidfuck, let me explain this point to you as well.. see
dumbfucks like you love to play the COLLECTIVE victim..

the people who posted their moronic yappings are "stupid"... everyone
is either intelligent or stupid to varying degrees.. so you don't need
to put words into my mouth.. it's enough for you to realize that
YOU'RE STUPID all by yourself.. you don't need to worry about the
intelligence (or lack thereof) of other until you can at least start
to reason on your own without making yourself look like a complete
idiot.

>but you
> and stuff. Start with the set of all possible women as the enclosing
> circle since you are trying to use the Universal Qualifier and then
> draw your circle of feminists. Unless feminists is a linguistic tag
> for all women, you have a problem. Since you referred specifically to
> feminists and not all women, well, you can see the problem.

wtf are you talking about, moron?... wow you are DUMB.

obviously not ALL people are anything-- men or women. not all men are
pussified. not all women are feminists... but the problem is pervasive
enough that i can safely speak in general terms about the CLIMATE of
feminism which applies to a MAJORITY of women in the CONTEXT of the
usage (in our region, the US of A)..

i'm sure using Venn diagrams are gonna help you when you obviously
don't even have the ability to reason effectively.

> Now, this
> can give rise to behavioral problems where your behavior is predicated
> on women being feminists and you run into women who are not
> feminists.

i know you're not bright enough to grasp this point, but we actually
LIVE in a FEMINIST society.. and i've given many examples of this in
my articles..which is why i teach guys about the problem first and i
cover it in depth... you obviously missed that lecture. maybe you
should go back and read those articles first so you don't sound so
incoherent.

>This situation would be covered under various
> configurations of frame theory in either artificial intelligence or
> cognitive psychology. It's called the frame problem and you can look
> it up, being all educated and such.

stupidfuck, now you're talking apples and oranges.. what kind of
ronald mcdonald school did you attend where they make you sound this
fucking stupid on purpose?... you need a refund on that
education...seriously.

>
> [tragic tail of being taken advantage of in the work place and how
> that formed a philosophical orientation towards life snipped]
>
>
>
> > just like a little BITCH, you read things EMOTIONALLY. a real man uses
> > LOGIC & COMMON SENSE. men read for CONTENT. bitches like you read for
> > emotional meaning and indignant self-righteousness..
>
> Sparky, your in my backyard now

hey sparkles, you're in MY backyard now.. your = possession. you're =
contraction. keep going..

>and there is now way you can win this
> game.

hey dumbfuck, i hate to tell you this, but your
backyard...yeah....it's in the middle of a freeway.. and i'm the semi
rolling down on your slip 'n' slide.

game. set. match. bitch.

>You're wrong, simply as a matter of neuropsychological fact.

no stupidfuck, you're wrong simply as a matter of me laughing over
your abuse of factual knowledge.

>I think you really, really should look up the role of emotion in
> cognitive processes in human beings.

i REALLY, REALLY think you should take my course because you're
OBVIOUSLY deficient in your understanding of social interaction. i.e.
TYPICAL PUSSIFIED MALE.

> > > Little boy and what else can you be
> > > when you think that schoolyard gender insinuations and insults are
> > > something important,
>
> > little incoherent bitch, what else can you be when you support fucking
> > morons lobbing insults at me?..and you yourself are guilty of
> > insulting me instead of showing respect and answering my post in a
> > respectful way.. who the fuck are you to lecture anyone on manhood
> > when you're too fucking stupid to gage your own hypocrisy? little
> > girl, you need help.
>
> Okay, everything I have posted is available, point out where it is
> incoherent.

hey dumbfuck. have you been paying attention?.. (i think we know the
answer)... what the fuck do you think i've BEEN doing?...

i think the better question is: when HAVEN'T you been incoherent?

> Also, look up what the word hypocrisy means before you
> use it.

stupidfuck, look up the idiom about the pot calling the kettle, black.

> It's so much more impressive when you can use a work properly
> in context.

at this point, i'd just be impressed if you could tell me 2 + 2 =
anything in the vicinity of 4, give or take 2

>Get's the girls all wet, you know.

yeah you're pretty wet from reading my posts, i can tell.. that's HOT!

you are one sexy mamasan.

>Now, you're the one
> who came on to an NG that is patently sterile as far as your being
> able to achieve any agenda regarding your truly insignifican work.

this significant work is for education people. not fucking morons like
you... you're better off studying something at your intellectual
level.. like a coloring book...

> I'm sure that you started off believing, or at least being optomistic,
> that you would find some adherents here, but that doesn't seem to be
> the case.

haha, that's cute.. you're an angry little girl, jealous that people
respond to common sense over your patently ridiculous chick logic.
keep trying, little girl.. i'm sure someone will pay attention to your
validation seeking eventually. :)

> Everything you may have wanted to accomplish seems to be
> pretty futile on this venue, but you persist. That, my friend is
> stupid.

hahaha.. after reading your posts, i'm pretty sure you have a solid
monopoly on the definition of stupid...

you put the I in IRONY :) LOL!

> > > you haven't brought any revelations to enlighten
> > > anyone on this NG and that includes the most clueless newbies.
>
> > haha.. just like a LITTLE BITCH, you try to use the classic "we"
> > social frame. yeah you speak for EVERYONE on planet earth, i forgot.
>
> > how fucking presumptuous of you to speak for everyone else.. you are a
> > classic little bitch. real men can speak for themselves and are able
> > to make a point without referring to consensus.. notice, when i
> > address your points, i don't need to reference the number of friends
> > on myspace who agree with me or disagree with you.. as a real man, i
> > appeal to reason and common sense. as a punk ass bitch, you make
> > emotional appeals and rest your argument on consensus.
>
> > pathetic. sad and pathetic.
>
> Now, it's back to your logic problems, again. My friend, I said you

> haven't brought any revelations to ...

i thought we covered that already, remember?

water, wet.

fire, hot.

you, dumbfuck.

(i tried to simplify it so your tiny brain could keep up.. i hope it
helped!)

xoxo,

NFM
manhood101.com

Odious

unread,

Sep 13, 2008, 1:04:21 PM9/13/08

to

"nfm" <ninjam...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:e469c4e8-1db1-4c51...@a18g2000pra.googlegroups.com...

On Sep 11, 5:34 pm, Vance <Vance.L...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 10, 9:00 pm, nfm <ninjamaste...@gmail.com> wrote:

"i.e. beware of institutionalized intellectuals who are made from 2
parts library card, 10 parts pride and ZERO parts common sense."

So are you going to point out a specific logical falicy, or continue to
whine like a cranky bitch?

Odious

unread,

Sep 13, 2008, 1:05:36 PM9/13/08

to

"Crow" <krow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7d28c3ff-7c6c-43ac...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Loved it! It explains so much about people like me.
> I don't see you demeening any women here. You're only making a point
> that relates to the behaviors of many men nowadays.
>
> Great read! Thanks a million :)
>

LOL!!! What a pitiful little cunt.... he has to make sock puppets to agree
with himself.

How sad and desperate.

Odious

unread,

Sep 13, 2008, 1:07:36 PM9/13/08

to

"nfm" <ninjam...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:18bbeed5-b451-4449...@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com...

On Sep 10, 1:11 am, Crow <krows...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Loved it! It explains so much about people like me.
> I don't see you demeening any women here. You're only making a point
> that relates to the behaviors of many men nowadays.
>
> Great read! Thanks a million :)

>thanks sir!
>
>be sure to check out our other articles at manhood101.com
>
>unlike every seduction scam out there designed to capitalize on the
>weaknesses of guys raised under feminism, we don't charge a penny for
>our information.

LOL!!! What "information"?

You site is nothing but you ranting and bitching and trying to rationalize
your fear, frustration, and insecurities.