Hot women *always* get cheated on
Ray Gordon
them that they likely only have a fraction of him, and also remind them of
how many *other* women want him.
ZFORCE
"Ray Gordon" <r...@cybersheet.com> wrote in message
news:qAIDf.6822$yE4....@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
> Make no mistake. Anytime they describe the "perfect guy" you can remind
> them that they likely only have a fraction of him, and also remind them of
> how many *other* women want him.
>
>
LOL, gordo thinks that bit of "advice" is worth 10K
LOL
Ray Gordon
>> them that they likely only have a fraction of him, and also remind them
>> of how many *other* women want him.
>>
>>
>
> LOL, gordo
He thinks that makes him sound cool. I suppose I could call him a faggot or
something to look cool if I ever felt the need. He sure acts like one.
>thinks that bit of "advice" is worth >10K
Right, I'm giving away a nugget and think it's also something to be charged
for.
Figures that the cheating men wouldn't like something they can't AMOG, since
the one thing they can't do without lying is promise loyalty.
The PUA's biggest flaw is that he cheats or won't commit. It only makes
sense to remind the HB of this anytime she wants to talk about what a
perfect man she thinks she has.
ZFORCE
>>> Make no mistake. Anytime they describe the "perfect guy" you can remind
>>> them that they likely only have a fraction of him, and also remind them
>>> of how many *other* women want him.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> LOL, gordo
>
> He thinks that makes him sound cool. I suppose I could call him a faggot
> or something to look cool if I ever felt the need. He sure acts like one.
>
People get sued for shit like that. BWHHAHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHHAH
>>thinks that bit of "advice" is worth >10K
>
> Right, I'm giving away a nugget and think it's also something to be
> charged for.
>
Isn't that the reason you are suing google? LOL, your shit that you couldn't
sell, so you gave it away it got archived, now you wanna sell it again, and
now you are all pissed about it.
<Ranting of sick newsloon snipped>
Alex
ZFORCE at err@no wrote on 1/31/06 7:41 AM:
>
> "Ray Gordon" <r...@cybersheet.com> wrote in message
> news:ERIDf.6823$yE4....@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
>>> thinks that bit of "advice" is worth >10K
>>
>> Right, I'm giving away a nugget and think it's also something to be
>> charged for.
>>
>
> Isn't that the reason you are suing google? LOL, your shit that you couldn't
> sell, so you gave it away it got archived, now you wanna sell it again, and
> now you are all pissed about it.
>
>
Of course not.
Gordon is suing Google and Penn, hoping to get settlement offers from
deep-pocketed defendants.
It's no coincidence that Gordon's Google suit was filed in the same
timeframe as Google's IPO.
Ray Gordon
>>> charged for.
>>>
>>
>> Isn't that the reason you are suing google? LOL, your shit that you
>> couldn't
>> sell, so you gave it away it got archived, now you wanna sell it again,
>> and
>> now you are all pissed about it.
>>
>>
>
> Of course not.
>
> Gordon is suing Google and Penn, hoping to get settlement offers from
> deep-pocketed defendants.
Alex now thinks he's a mindreader.
>
> It's no coincidence that Gordon's Google suit was filed in the same
> timeframe as Google's IPO.
Actually, that was a coincidence.
Ray Gordon
johnebravo836
Alex wrote:
[snip]
> Gordon is suing Google and Penn, hoping to get settlement offers from
> deep-pocketed defendants.
The chances that they're going to throw a little nuisance money at a pro
se plaintiff like Mr. Parker are nil. Their attorneys would be too
ashamed of themselves if they even considered such a thing. ;)
HeeroYuy
>>>> Right, I'm giving away a nugget and think it's also something to be
>>>> charged for.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Isn't that the reason you are suing google? LOL, your shit that you
>>> couldn't
>>> sell, so you gave it away it got archived, now you wanna sell it again,
>>> and
>>> now you are all pissed about it.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Of course not.
>>
>> Gordon is suing Google and Penn, hoping to get settlement offers from
>> deep-pocketed defendants.
>
> Alex now thinks he's a mindreader.
One doesn't need to read the mind of someone whose actions are blatantly
obvious.
>
>
>>
>> It's no coincidence that Gordon's Google suit was filed in the same
>> timeframe as Google's IPO.
>
> Actually, that was a coincidence.
Sure it was. Gordon should just keep telling himself that.
HeeroYuy
> Alex is also off-topic.
Says the one to consistently goes off-topic just to ruin a thread because
he's not getting enough attention.
ashenthorn
What's behind the success of social proof (what you call a "pivot") is
that competing with other women and beating them is the hot woman's
"raison d'etre". The perception that other women want him is something
attracts her to him.
Your "nuclear neg" actually makes the other guy(s) seem more attractive
and you less attractive. You "remind" the woman that *other women*
want HIM, while presenting yourself as the alternative/opposite - they
don't want you.
That you promote social proof, and also promote this "neg" (the
antithesis of social proof - social proofing the other guy!) just shows
that you're all over the board with this stuff.
Ray Gordon
>> them that they likely only have a fraction of him, and also remind them
>> of
>> how many *other* women want him.
>
> What's behind the success of social proof (what you call a "pivot")
Social proof is a general concept; the pivot is a specific tactic.
>is
> that competing with other women and beating them is the hot woman's
> "raison d'etre".
Only if she believes there is something worth competing for. The woman who
lands the good-catch guy isn't doing it to game other women, but to get the
guy for herself.
>The perception that other women want him is something
> attracts her to him.
Only because she figures he's been prescreened.
> Your "nuclear neg" actually makes the other guy(s) seem more attractive
> and you less attractive. You "remind" the woman that *other women*
> want HIM, while presenting yourself as the alternative/opposite - they
> don't want you.
Not at all, since this doesn't have to be done directly. The guy can frame
it as his not being willing to commit to relationships because of this
factor, so rather than undesirable, he can be seen as just smarter and more
honest.
> That you promote social proof, and also promote this "neg" (the
> antithesis of social proof - social proofing the other guy!) just shows
> that you're all over the board with this stuff.
Or it shows that you don't read frames very well. Update your social web
browser.
Zenin
>>> Make no mistake. Anytime they describe the "perfect guy" you can remind
>>> them that they likely only have a fraction of him, and also remind them
>>> of how many *other* women want him.
>>
>> What's behind the success of social proof (what you call a "pivot")
>
> Social proof is a general concept; the pivot is a specific tactic.
The pivot is a reliable, portable social proof. It's also a "tactic"
that's as hold as human speech.
>> is that competing with other women and beating them is the hot woman's
>> "raison d'etre".
>
> Only if she believes there is something worth competing for. The woman
> who lands the good-catch guy isn't doing it to game other women, but to
> get the guy for herself.
There's more to it then this. In particular she's doing it also to feel
"special", basically for the ego trip. Landing that guy that others
want says, "If I got this guy that those other woman couldn't land, it
follows that I am hotter then them".
In many ways it's "social proof" of *her* hotness.
It's what motivates the old joke:
Q: What's the first thing a guy does when he enters a room?
A: Checks out all the hot chicks.
Q: What's the first thing a woman does when she enters a room?
A: Checks out all the hot chicks.
>>The perception that other women want him is something
>> attracts her to him.
>
> Only because she figures he's been prescreened.
Again, it's not that simple. She's not just looking for a "good guy"
(or nice guys that she gets to know well would be a sure thing), it's
that this dynamic makes her feel special, it plays to her ego.
There are other factors at play as well...but you're not ready for those
young jedi. :-)
>> Your "nuclear neg" actually makes the other guy(s) seem more attractive
>> and you less attractive. You "remind" the woman that *other women* want
>> HIM, while presenting yourself as the alternative/opposite - they don't
>> want you.
>
> Not at all, since this doesn't have to be done directly. The guy can
> frame it as his not being willing to commit to relationships because of
> this factor, so rather than undesirable, he can be seen as just smarter
> and more honest.
Perhaps...but IMHO you're really starting to break away from the real
mating dance at this point. It's going to be pretty random how this is
taken...and there's nothing random about the mating dance of the human.
-Zenin
Ray Gordon
>>>> remind
>>>> them that they likely only have a fraction of him, and also remind them
>>>> of how many *other* women want him.
>>>
>>> What's behind the success of social proof (what you call a "pivot")
>>
>> Social proof is a general concept; the pivot is a specific tactic.
>
> The pivot is a reliable, portable social proof. It's also a "tactic"
> that's as hold as human speech.
I designed the pivot years ago and published it in 1999. It's at least in
part responsible for about 40 percent of the lays in this community.
>>> is that competing with other women and beating them is the hot woman's
>>> "raison d'etre".
>>
>> Only if she believes there is something worth competing for. The woman
>> who lands the good-catch guy isn't doing it to game other women, but to
>> get the guy for herself.
>
> There's more to it then this. In particular she's doing it also to
> feel
> "special", basically for the ego trip.
Which means she is not worth having.
>Landing that guy that others
> want says, "If I got this guy that those other woman couldn't land, it
> follows that I am hotter then them".
To some LSE chicks. Others just screen for quality.
> In many ways it's "social proof" of *her* hotness.
Trophy guys do exist.
>
> It's what motivates the old joke:
>
> Q: What's the first thing a guy does when he enters a room?
> A: Checks out all the hot chicks.
>
> Q: What's the first thing a woman does when she enters a room?
> A: Checks out all the hot chicks.
And who is with them.
>>>The perception that other women want him is something
>>> attracts her to him.
>>
>> Only because she figures he's been prescreened.
>
> Again, it's not that simple. She's not just looking for a "good guy"
> (or nice guys that she gets to know well would be a sure thing), it's
> that this dynamic makes her feel special, it plays to her ego.
>
> There are other factors at play as well...but you're not ready for
> those
> young jedi. :-)
I'm the originator of the pivot concept. I believe I understand it quite
well.
>>> Your "nuclear neg" actually makes the other guy(s) seem more attractive
>>> and you less attractive. You "remind" the woman that *other women* want
>>> HIM, while presenting yourself as the alternative/opposite - they don't
>>> want you.
>>
>> Not at all, since this doesn't have to be done directly. The guy can
>> frame it as his not being willing to commit to relationships because of
>> this factor, so rather than undesirable, he can be seen as just smarter
>> and more honest.
>
> Perhaps...but IMHO you're really starting to break away from the real
> mating dance at this point.
If she's bragging about her perfect boyfriend, it doesn't matter if I lay
her.
>It's going to be pretty random how this is
> taken...and there's nothing random about the mating dance of the human.
Random results with one chick don't mean the overall pattern is random.
Of 100 women you use this neg on ("he'll cheat"), about 90 percent of them
will actually be cheated on, and I don't have to do anything to wind up
looking like a genius to her.
One reason I always gave away "Why Hotties Choose Losers" is to publicize it
as much as possible among women. Several women use that book all the time
to spot the liars and cheaters, though it seems they do also fuck those
types of men all too often.
Alex
r...@cybersheet.com wrote on 1/31/06 9:11 AM:
>>>> Right, I'm giving away a nugget and think it's also something to be
>>>> charged for.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Isn't that the reason you are suing google? LOL, your shit that you
>>> couldn't
>>> sell, so you gave it away it got archived, now you wanna sell it again,
>>> and
>>> now you are all pissed about it.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Of course not.
>>
>> Gordon is suing Google and Penn, hoping to get settlement offers from
>> deep-pocketed defendants.
>
> Alex now thinks he's a mindreader.
Gordon is consistently going on about how if he had the resources he'd sue
everybody.
It doesn't take a mindreader to grasp the idea that he would go after
resources in a way that doesn't involve him having to get a job.
>
>
>>
>> It's no coincidence that Gordon's Google suit was filed in the same
>> timeframe as Google's IPO.
>
> Actually, that was a coincidence.
>
OK.
Alex
r...@cybersheet.com wrote on 1/31/06 9:11 AM:
> Alex is also off-topic.
>
>
>
::yawn::
Pot, kettle, black.
Alex
johneb...@yahoo.com wrote on 1/31/06 9:46 AM:
I didn't say he was likely to succeed.
Alex
r...@cybersheet.com wrote on 1/31/06 8:22 PM:
> One reason I always gave away "Why Hotties Choose Losers" is to publicize it
> as much as possible among women. Several women use that book all the time
> to spot the liars and cheaters, though it seems they do also fuck those
> types of men all too often.
Even if we were to take Gordon at his word for all of this, it proves that
he's wrong regarding his alleged "neg."
If women who have supposedly been "warned" about liars and cheats still fuck
them "all too often," then Gordon is a failure as a cockblock as well.
johnebravo836
Oh, I know that *you* know better -- unfortunately, Mr. Parker doesn't
appear to know better. ;)
johnebravo836
[snip]
> I designed the pivot years ago and published it in 1999. It's at least in
> part responsible for about 40 percent of the lays in this community.
I'd just love to hear how Mr. Parker arrived at that figure. I hope he
will see fit to enlighten us, strike or no strike.
>
>>>>is that competing with other women and beating them is the hot woman's
>>>>"raison d'etre".
>>>
>>>Only if she believes there is something worth competing for. The woman
>>>who lands the good-catch guy isn't doing it to game other women, but to
>>>get the guy for herself.
>>
>> There's more to it then this. In particular she's doing it also to
>>feel
>> "special", basically for the ego trip.
>
>
> Which means she is not worth having.
Oh, that is rich. Mr. Parker's narcissism consumes him with a compulsion
to convince himself and everyone else that *he's* incredibly special.
But no woman should ever dare to think such a thing, or "she's not worth
having." Gems like this are why I read Mr. Parker.
Aardvark
Ray Gordon wrote:
> >> Make no mistake. Anytime they describe the "perfect guy" you can remind
> >> them that they likely only have a fraction of him, and also remind them
> >> of how many *other* women want him.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > LOL, gordo
>
> He thinks that makes him sound cool. I suppose I could call him a faggot or
> something to look cool if I ever felt the need. He sure acts like one.
>
> >thinks that bit of "advice" is worth >10K
>
> Right, I'm giving away a nugget and think it's also something to be charged
> for.
it doesn't become a "nugget" that anyone could use. sorry, ray, but
it's value is not to be determined by you. it's value (if it had any -
and it obviously doesn't) is to be determined by those who could make
use of it in chyckworld.
> Figures that the cheating men wouldn't like something they can't AMOG, since
> the one thing they can't do without lying is promise loyalty.
>
> The PUA's biggest flaw is that he cheats or won't commit.
you don't have the ability or desire to set your own miserable life on
track, why do you think that you can define what is a flaw and what
isn't? i'm sure you'll dodge that question because you lack the guts to
answer it.
you claim to be able to run (and win) the 100 meter dash when you can't
even find the strength to get up and *crawl* more than a foot or two.
you still have to prove that you have one thing that you have invented
that is of use to a man who wants to get what he wants from women. you
can't prove it.
your rusty old broken down moped with 2 flat tires is not a harley. you
are still trying to con people who are way smarter than you are, that's
where you fail. being sneaky, repetetive, and repulsive is not
intelligence. everyone can see through that.
It only makes
> sense to remind the HB of this anytime she wants to talk about what a
> perfect man she thinks she has.
you're making the wrong assumptions if you want people to believe that
you have anything even slightly marketable to see to them. the above
you spouted is moot.
how can you convince anyone of your imaginary "genius" when you can't
even recognize that this is the same foul puff of smoke you've blown
before? you have nothing new to offer and yes, everyone can see through
that too.
if you want to win this game you need to really try to learn what
works. that means that you need to stop begging for attention here in
the newsgroup like some filthy bum rattling his rusty cup hoping to
mooch a handout. get out in the street and work for the women's hearts,
minds, and bodies.
aardvark
Odious
> Make no mistake. Anytime they describe the "perfect guy" you can remind
> them that they likely only have a fraction of him, and also remind them of
> how many *other* women want him.
Again take note that ray's idea of success is simply trying to cockblock
some other dude.
Odious
"HeeroYuy" <h@h.h> wrote in message
news:FqMDf.86523$PY6....@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
So clearly ray is just a golddigger.
Odious
>>> Make no mistake. Anytime they describe the "perfect guy" you can remind
>>> them that they likely only have a fraction of him, and also remind them
>>> of
>>> how many *other* women want him.
>>
>> What's behind the success of social proof (what you call a "pivot")
>
> Social proof is a general concept; the pivot is a specific tactic.
>
A tactic that is addressed in Calidini's work which predates your shit by
several years.
Odious
>>>>> Make no mistake. Anytime they describe the "perfect guy" you can
>>>>> remind
>>>>> them that they likely only have a fraction of him, and also remind
>>>>> them
>>>>> of how many *other* women want him.
>>>>
>>>> What's behind the success of social proof (what you call a "pivot")
>>>
>>> Social proof is a general concept; the pivot is a specific tactic.
>>
>> The pivot is a reliable, portable social proof. It's also a "tactic"
>> that's as hold as human speech.
>
> I designed the pivot years ago and published it in 1999. It's at least in
> part responsible for about 40 percent of the lays in this community.
>
LOL! I've shown not only the concept but the term pivot used in ASF back as
far as 1996.
Your lies on this subject have already been exposed.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.seduction.fast/browse_frm/thread/4...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.seduction.fast/browse_frm/thread/b...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.seduction.fast/msg/6075d9dce2d0cd6...
Zenin
>snip<
>>> Only if she believes there is something worth competing for. The woman
>>> who lands the good-catch guy isn't doing it to game other women, but to
>>> get the guy for herself.
>>
>> There's more to it then this. In particular she's doing it also to
>> feel "special", basically for the ego trip.
>
> Which means she is not worth having.
If you believe ego = evil, then sure.
If on the other hand you understand that the ego is not at all evil,
that it is a fundamental, powerful, and large part of being human,
responsible for nearly all motivation, you'd realize that she's
absolutely worth having.
> I'm the originator of the pivot concept. I believe I understand it quite
> well.
A) You're not.
B) You don't.
C) Sorry to have to be the one to break this truth to you, really I am.
-Zenin
Ray Gordon
>>>> who lands the good-catch guy isn't doing it to game other women, but to
>>>> get the guy for herself.
>>>
>>> There's more to it then this. In particular she's doing it also to
>>> feel "special", basically for the ego trip.
>>
>> Which means she is not worth having.
>
> If you believe ego = evil, then sure.
If you believe a woman who thinks that way will CHANGE if you get her for a
girlfriend, then go for it.
> If on the other hand you understand that the ego is not at all evil,
> that it is a fundamental, powerful, and large part of being human,
> responsible for nearly all motivation, you'd realize that she's
> absolutely worth having.
If one wants her to keep playing the same games in the relationship, I'm
sure he won't mind having her.
>> I'm the originator of the pivot concept. I believe I understand it quite
>> well.
>
> A) You're not.
I am, and I have the copyright to prove it.
> B) You don't.
I do.
> C) Sorry to have to be the one to break this truth to you, really I am.
You're a cockroach and workplace predator.
Thrasher Remailer
and youre an unemployable LAW$00T happy new$$$l00n $o your point i$ what?
go get $ome $leep raybie$
the voice$ in your head are lying to you again
do cockroache$ drink pep$i?
johnebravo836
CokeZero wrote:
[snip]
> Mr. Parker, I'm sure you've been told before that filing for PATENT
> protection protects the concept. Copyright law cannot protect ideas,
> only that one particular expression of that idea.
>
> Your attempt to intimidate others by falsely claiming that a copyright
> protects the concept says a lot about your business integrity.
In Mr. Parker's defense (I can hardly believe I'm saying this . . .), it
may be that he genuinely does not appreciate the distinction -- legal
subtleties are not exactly his strong suit. ;)
Odious
The archives prove that these ideas were in circulation in ASF before gordo
ever showed up...
"Odious" <Odi...@cox.net.nospam> wrote in message
news:2QXDf.81030$0G.42484@dukeread10...