ray was impersonated
James L. King III
Outfoxing The Foxes <outfoxe...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> <------The LJBF was my idea.
"You can't fire me because I QUIT!"
As I suspected, this is the day that they're not going out together. I
wonder when Ray will start posting again that they're a couple and that
no one else in this newsgroup could ever come close to his success.
*sigh*
I was at Barnes and Noble the other night and struck up a conversation
with an extremely sexy lady while I was looking for Taoist literature
and Old Time Radio shows. We had run into each other at the mall about
an hour earlier (I was getting a chi video at the Nature store), and
then we see each other at the bookstore. She was with a guy, but it
turned out they were "just friends" as she put it. All three of us went
over to the coffee shop within the store and chatted for about a half
hour or so over cafe mochas.
Funny thing ... I wasn't making a concious effort to "pattern," but
thinking about what I said, I was definitely using the English language
to my advantage. She talked about the weather (Hurricane Dennis was the
primary topic for a few weeks), and about how many people left
Charlotte for Labor Day (who wouldn't? This is a banker's town.) She
mentioned that people were probably going to the mountains instead of
the beach, and I simply asked her which she preferred, the beach or the
mountains? (I actually like both -- I'm a waterfall nut and love to go
hiking to find waterfalls all around the mountains, but the ocean is
something incredible to behold, too.) As she talked about the reason
she likes the beach more, I agreed with her reasons, and talked about
why we prefer some things more than others.
Bottom line, I got her home number in exchange for giving her my
business card! She might take piano lessons from me (she's wanted to
start again since she finished college).
I was at the mall for about 1/2 hour, I was in B&N for less than an
hour.
> Ask Michelle if you don't believe me.
Ray, many times you told us she was a liar. Why should I believe her?
> Want
> the truth? According to MICHELLE, Dominique Moceanu asked her to pump me
> for info and feed it back to her.
And you've said Michelle is a known liar. Again, why should I believe
her?
> Dominique always wants to know when
> I'm online and "panics" when I'm not. Not out of fear either (I've never
> gone within five miles of her competitions, and I say that only because
> she was in my city four times in the last four years). Dominique was at
> Michelle's house (supposedly) last Saturday. One night about four months
> ago I went online to talk to Michelle only to realize it wasn't Michelle,
> but Dominique using Michelle's account. This was after Michelle
> confessed that she had been impersonating Tasha, although she says I had
> talked to Tasha for 2-3 weeks.
> Michelle also credits me for coaching
> advice that has helped her in her work. If you don't believe me, ask
> Michelle.
Why should I believe a liar's words? How would I know she's telling the
truth?
> Better yet, could Michelle post here and clear this up?
Again, what would that prove? If she posts something you don't like,
you'll just call her a drug-using liar once again. If she posts
something you like, you hold it up as "the Gospel according to
Michelle."
Ray, once again, why should I believe Michelle?
> The
> Moceanu BRAT won't. She's a game-player. I call her the 5'2" rat. I
> love her dearly, but I also see her for what she is. That's the reason
> Dominique's biographies will never sell that many copies; I'm not telling
> and neither is she, and no we never met offline.
>
>
> > This may not be the smooth "fantasy type" seductions we read about
> here,
> > but things aren't often as sexy in the real world.
>
> Umm it isn't a seduction, ray...you just got LJBFed, you delusional twit.
>
> <----No, Michelle did a long time ago. The one last night was mostly my
> doing but partly hers; if she can't have me, she wants Chris. Did you
> figure that out yet? I cannot LJBF with Michelle because she feeds
> information about me to Dominique, and I'm sick of Dominique playing her
> games. It's one thing not to acknowledge me publicly, but if she's going
> to do that she has no business sending people into my life and then
> sneaking on their AOL accounts in order to talk to me.
This is such a wild and convoluted story. It's POSSIBLE that it's true,
but it just seems like a frantic attempt from Ray to justify all of his
actions, while posing himself to be someone superior to the rest of us
simply because someone who was once in the public eye is interested in
him.
> I doubt you've
> ever had an olympic gymnast for a "fan" so I don't think you'd understand
> this.
Ah. There's my proof. Ray desperately wants not just acceptance, but
worship from the rest of us. (And plenty of money to boot.) The fact
that he hasn't figured out how to start his own cult means that he's
settled for poorly written books, two about seduction that are little
more than "Be someone he/she wants, and the rest will follow" and
thinly veiled attacks against someone that he once claimed was not his
rival or competitor, and one about gambling. All three books have sold
poorly, based on evidence obtained from his website.
> Women like this are just a bit out of your league, and believe me,
> you don't seduce them in fifteen minutes. If you do seduce them, you go
> down in history in a way an SSer never will.
I can see the NYTimes now: "Mother of potential Olympic gymnast engaged
to 32 year old still living with parents!" or in the case of Dominique:
"Olympic gymnast finally engaged to 32 year old self publisher with
$5391 empire!"
Or perhaps you'll be written about in Encyclopedia Britannica, Ray?
"One of the greatest changes in the art of seduction happened in
October of 1998, when Gordon Roy Parker, alias Ray Gordon, publishes
his book, Outfoxing the Foxes, a stunning success with nearly 200 books
sold. Mr. Parker dumbs down to the audience what they knew all along --
namely that being as fit as possible, as rich as possible, as smart as
possible and as popular as possible will enhance your desirability. The
book is remarkably lacking in specific techniques to enhance each of
these areas (the author claims that information can be found
elsewhere), but the fact that the author republishes information
already known, claiming it for his own has created a wide following of
several dozen people on 4 Usenet newsgroups: alt.seduction.fast,
alt.hypnosis, alt.sports.gymnastics, and alt.romance. The author has a
newsgroup of his own, but rarely posts there."
Ray, even if your book *is* ever successful by traditional Western
standards, you will not achieve the fame you think you deserve. It
appears to me that you won't be satisfied with any success you have.
Like Yertle the Turtle, you'd continue to step on everyone else to
achieve more perceived control over them .. at least until someone at
the bottom burps and your empire comes crashing down around you. Then
you have someone to blame, and you've made sure that you'll have plenty
of people to blame should something go wrong.
> Striking out? Not a shock.
No, especially not for you. Mr.
I-can't-even-score-with-an-empty-net-goal.
> Being at bat in the first place? Big shock.
Nah, being at bat means making the approach. (Creating an AOL profile
is an approach, whether you want to admit it or not. Why not have an
empty profile if they're just supposed to approach you? If you HAVE to
tell them why they should approach you, doesn't that mean you're making
the first move? And I thought THEY were supposed to make the first
move.)
> Doing better than 99.8
> percent of your rivals? Priceless.
Depends on who your rivals are. If your rivals are South American
two-toed tree sloths, that's one thing. If your rivals are the general
public, that's another thing.
> Hey that reminds me, on your website
> is an ad mocking the Columbine tragedy. Talk about SICK. Did Visa give
> you permission to use their logo like that?
>
>
> > Not all relationships
> > are resolved in a half-hour or less.
>
> More evidence of your vicarious existence through television.
>
> <------Or Ross's. We always HEAR about SS, but why do we never SEE it?
> Has anyone here ever SEEN it done on another woman than the one they are
> doing it to? Or would the zombified look on the women it does work on
> give the observer the idea that some form of mind control were being
> used? Watch a stage hypnosis show and see the looks on the faces of the
> women. Better yet, go to http://www.cybersheet.com/links/hypno.html and
> click the "Hypno Video" link. Check out the pages and pages of
> hypnotized women on that site, and that's what a woman who is being SSed
> successfully would look like. I suppose Speed Seduction is a more
> appropriate name than say "Hypnotizing Women Against Their Will" (or,
> more accurately, taking advantage of their existing state). How about we
> see a demonstration of SS where no hypnosis takes place? Is it possible?
>
>
>
> > If anything that Odious, Ross & Company were accusing me of were TRUE,
> > they might have a point. Even then, my book wouldn't be much affected
> by
> > it.
>
> LOL, and you expect to sue people in this group for something you just
> said would not damage you even if the claims were true? If your book
> would not be much effected if the claims that you are a pedophile and
> stalker are true...how then can you claim damages for those same claims,
> which you allege aren't true?
>
> <-------Content, not sales.
So you have to make a choice of which you want to sue over ... fewer
sales, or a damaged reputation. You can't sue for both now that you've
claimed that a damaged reputation would not have hurt sales.
>
> In fact you've posted several times that you book is selling regardless
> of what anybody here does. So where are the real damages you are going
> to cite to justify a claim of libel? Are you going to be put in the
> position of saying, "No I lied in my post when I said that I was not
> damaged your honor. I was damaged, really...I did not sell as many books
> as I said I would, that's proof of it."
>
> <--------Fewer sales = damages. Psychological damage = damages. Libel
> Per Se = Damages. Terroristic threats = emotional distress. Either way,
> no one gets a free ride to libel anyone in this country. The laws are
> amazingly clear on this. My only recourse is a lawsuit.
>
You have to prove fewer sales. That means you're going to have to PROVE
that by marketing SOLELY to a competitor's newsgroup and a few other
Usenet groups that you would have achieved greater sales. Or you'll
have to produce people who will say that they thought about purchasing
your book but decided against it solely on the basis of what was said
about you in this group, and not on the basis of anything you've said.
>
> > Ross spits on me? The courts may JAIL him if he continues his
> behavior.
> > Like prisons, Ross? Keep harassing me. You have crossed every line of
> > civility, from insults to libel to outright threats.
>
> And if you do it just one more time, ray will sue...no one more time. OK
> the time after the next time you do it, he's gonna sue you. Just you wait
> and see....and wait...and wait.
>
> <--------You know the legal time limits.
>
And how will you explain to the court that you allowed this harassing
behavior to continue right up until the very last minute you could
file? I mean, the sooner you file, the stronger your case. If you wait,
the courts are going to ask why you waited, because by waiting, you're
showing that you have little damage being done to you (because you've
done so little to stop the damage -- simply threatening to sue isn't
enough to stop people, although it does scare them.
> > What is Mr. Jeffries going to do when he
> > realized that the people he was quoting calling me a pedophile were the
> > pedophiles themselves, that the people he quotes calling me a stalker
> > were stalkers themselves,
>
> Umm those claims are backed by citing your own posts, ray. So are you
> saying the source of those claims is really a pedophile and a
> stalker...well the source is you. So you just admitted it, ray.
>
> <-------Hardly. Once the truth comes out your jaw will drop. That's all
> I can say. USENET posts are not sufficient proof of pedophilia. By the
> way, calling someone a pedophile could trigger RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT
> charges, because it encourages vigilantism.
Yet a usenet post isn't sufficient proof, so no charges could be
triggered, according to your logic. Or is your logic convoluted enough
so that only YOU can press charges but anything you say is "free
speech?"
> See the anti-abortion
> website decision for more info.
>
>
>
> > He thinks he owns the
> > right to spam USENET through this group; I see nothing in USENET
> anywhere
> > that gives away such a proprietary right, and would love to see what a
> > judge has to say about his claim.
> >
>
> Actually moron it is called setting the charter of a group when you
> create the group. The purpose of this group is defined and it doesn't
> include spam from non-speed seduction related products.
>
> <-----Then he is responsible for ALL of its content. He can't have it
> both ways. USENET is a free speech zone, not an enterprise zone. That
> FAQ is almost self-admitted racketeering.
>
And my guess is that Ray is responsible then for all the content on
alt.seduction.outfoxing, if you read its charter. Not posting there is
no excuse (you can get the posts from Deja.com, and mail2news allows
posting to the newsgroup, so you could have been posting there if you
chose to do so.)
Not that many people have posted there, so there's not much content
there. In fact the greatest activity recently has come from a
gun-control thread originating from another newsgroup.
>
> Hence the fact that your posts can be canceled.
>
> <-----Anyone's can.
>
>
> > To the Slut Seducers out here, have fun. If trash is what you want in
> a
> > woman, enjoy yourself. Just know there is a better way. Tonight I
> > partially seduced online one of the sexiest 19 year-olds I have ever
> seen
> > in my life; I say partially because she's hooked on a guy she can't
> have.
> > I know what to do in the situation, but found it amazing that it was
> so
> > easy to make so much progress so QUICKLY with a "patient, long-term"
> > approach.
>
> So in other words you are sitting and waiting and hoping to scavenger
> somebody's left overs? It is sad the you actually look forward to being
> Mr. rebound.
>
> <-----Hardly. You think the women you SS are all pure? Get real.
He didn't say that his women were all pure. He said that you sit and
wait to be the rebound relationship with someone else. I know it's
difficult to stay with the argument, but please do.
[snip]
>
>
> > Who knows when I might be back here.
>
Did I just hear a boy cry "Wolf?"
> If your past behavior is any indication, 8-16 hours.
>
> <----not that it's any concern of yours. A bit OBSESSED with me there,
> aren't you? Jealous is more the word. Where's your book, genius?
What does writing a book have to do with your lies about leaving,
implying that you will never return, only to return within days or even
HOURS.
> I've
> written THREE. One is considered the best of its kind or best new
> release of its kind this year and is nationally acclaimed. I'm the best
> public horse handicapper in the COUNTRY the last six weeks and have up to
> 1,000 witnesses a day to prove it.
But fewer than 800 people visiting the order page of your website to
buy any of your books.
When and if my books are published, (whether it's self published or I
find a publisher) I plan on a marketing strategy that goes beyond
Usenet.
--
The days of old time radio drama come alive at http://www.shadowradio.org ...
As featured in Yahoo! Internet Life magazine August 1999.