Picture of a loser.
James L. King III
Outfoxing T Foxes <women_pu...@juno.com> wrote:
> Some Guy Writes:
>
> ><-----Many men do not. I do but I don't like approaching women. Women
> >tend to approach me. The reason I prefer to be approached is that I'm
> >four times as likely to be successful with women who approach me than I
> >am with women I approach.
>
> BHAAHAHAHAHAHAH. Ray, Is this how you outfox the foxes? By waiting
> around for THEM to approach you?
>
> <----Yes. Most women will approach you if they have a reason. Perhaps
> none approach you, but almost every woman I wind up involved with
> approached me first. This is one reason I love the internet for
> Foxhunting; if you create the right profile, women are all over you.
>
> Any man who wants to prove this can just put in his profile that he is a
> professional psychic, and set up a psychic reading chatroom on AOL. Do
> this and you will have women IMing you all over the place. Not all will
> want you, not all will be desirable, but it's an easy way to break the
> ice. It is also not the ONLY way.
>
Why do you continue to advocate dishonest methods? Is it so that when this
person puts this method into use that you can criticize him for being
dishonest?
Your book doesn't train people to be professional psychics, as far as I
could read from the free materials. If it doesn't do this, then to use
this techinique is dishonest for most.
James King
--
Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? http://www.shadowradio.org
Markku Jantunen
to Ray:
>Why do you continue to advocate dishonest methods? Is it so that when this
>person puts this method into use that you can criticize him for being
>dishonest?
Ray did not suggest that anyone try to pick up anyone by pretending
to be a professional psychic.
>Your book doesn't train people to be professional psychics, as far as I
>could read from the free materials. If it doesn't do this, then to use
>this techinique is dishonest for most.
The question was not about using a technique to pick up anybody. The
idea was only that any man could prove that it is easy get women
approach by doing certain things (by setting up a profile where one
mentions that one is a professional psychic, FOR INSTANCE).
- mj
--
Markku Jantunen, m...@cs.tut.fi, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~msj/
Thomas David Kehoe
James L. King III <jlk...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <19990418.172528.-1104...@juno.com>,
>Outfoxing T Foxes <women_pu...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>> Some Guy Writes:
>>
>> ><-----Many men do not. I do but I don't like approaching women. Women
>> >tend to approach me. The reason I prefer to be approached is that I'm
>> >four times as likely to be successful with women who approach me than I
>> >am with women I approach.
>>
>> BHAAHAHAHAHAHAH. Ray, Is this how you outfox the foxes? By waiting
>> around for THEM to approach you?
>>
>> <----Yes. Most women will approach you if they have a reason. Perhaps
>> none approach you, but almost every woman I wind up involved with
>> approached me first. This is one reason I love the internet for
>> Foxhunting; if you create the right profile, women are all over you.
>>
>> Any man who wants to prove this can just put in his profile that he is a
>> professional psychic, and set up a psychic reading chatroom on AOL. Do
>> this and you will have women IMing you all over the place. Not all will
>> want you, not all will be desirable, but it's an easy way to break the
>> ice. It is also not the ONLY way.
>>
>
>person puts this method into use that you can criticize him for being
>dishonest?
>
>could read from the free materials. If it doesn't do this, then to use
>this techinique is dishonest for most.
>
--
Please use my NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS: ke...@casafuturatech.com
Stuttering Science & Therapy Website: http://www.casafuturatech.com
Thomas David Kehoe Casa Futura Technologies
James L. King III
Jantunen) wrote:
> jlk...@ix.netcom.com (James L. King III) wrote in response
> to Ray:
>
> >Why do you continue to advocate dishonest methods? Is it so that when this
> >person puts this method into use that you can criticize him for being
> >dishonest?
>
> Ray did not suggest that anyone try to pick up anyone by pretending
> to be a professional psychic.
>
> >Your book doesn't train people to be professional psychics, as far as I
> >could read from the free materials. If it doesn't do this, then to use
> >this techinique is dishonest for most.
>
> The question was not about using a technique to pick up anybody. The
> idea was only that any man could prove that it is easy get women
> approach by doing certain things (by setting up a profile where one
> mentions that one is a professional psychic, FOR INSTANCE).
>
> - mj
Ray was responding to a post where he talked about being successful with
women. Then he responded that he is successful with women who approach
him. Then he says that with the right profile, you can have many women
approaching you. Then he suggests that you put "professional psychic" in
your profile to prove how many women approach you.
The implication is that you can be successful with women by putting
"professional psychic" in your profile.
He does say it's not the only way, though, so I am interested in other
"occupations" or hobbies that get the same kinds of responses as
"professional psychic" does.
I still believe that in the context of being successful with women, saying
that you're a professional psychic when you're not (Ray may be, but not
everyone is, and Ray's suggestion here invites a dishonest approach) is
dishonest, and Ray has criticized others before for their dishonesty in
seduction.
I'm just wanting some clarification.
Markku Jantunen
>Ray was responding to a post where he talked about being successful with
>women. Then he responded that he is successful with women who approach
>him. Then he says that with the right profile, you can have many women
>approaching you. Then he suggests that you put "professional psychic" in
>your profile to prove how many women approach you.
He used that as an EXAMPLE of how to get women approach oneself
online.
>The implication is that you can be successful with women by putting
>"professional psychic" in your profile.
The impication is in your mind.
>He does say it's not the only way, though, so I am interested in other
>"occupations" or hobbies that get the same kinds of responses as
>"professional psychic" does.
>I still believe that in the context of being successful with women, saying
>that you're a professional psychic when you're not (Ray may be, but not
>everyone is, and Ray's suggestion here invites a dishonest approach) is
>dishonest, and Ray has criticized others before for their dishonesty in
>seduction.
Ray is not telling anyone to do anything.
>I'm just wanting some clarification.
If you need clarification on something, you'd better not accuse
anyone of anything without getting clarification first.
James L. King III
Jantunen) wrote:
> jlk...@ix.netcom.com (James L. King III) writes:
>
> >Ray was responding to a post where he talked about being successful with
> >women. Then he responded that he is successful with women who approach
> >him. Then he says that with the right profile, you can have many women
> >approaching you. Then he suggests that you put "professional psychic" in
> >your profile to prove how many women approach you.
>
> He used that as an EXAMPLE of how to get women approach oneself
> online.
No, he said for you to do that to prove how many women approach you. He
suggested that you do it as you would an experiment, to prove his
hypothesis that women approach men with interesting profiles. He never
said "For example, you could ..." or even words to that effect.
>
> >The implication is that you can be successful with women by putting
> >"professional psychic" in your profile.
>
> The impication is in your mind.
Well, if he offers it as an example, I sure hope that following the
example would help you be successful with women. I think you're making the
implication that it's an example. Ray never says it's an example.
>
> >He does say it's not the only way, though, so I am interested in other
> >"occupations" or hobbies that get the same kinds of responses as
> >"professional psychic" does.
>
> >I still believe that in the context of being successful with women, saying
> >that you're a professional psychic when you're not (Ray may be, but not
> >everyone is, and Ray's suggestion here invites a dishonest approach) is
> >dishonest, and Ray has criticized others before for their dishonesty in
> >seduction.
>
> Ray is not telling anyone to do anything.
Sure, he is. He's trying to convince people to buy his book. And he never
says that the exercise we're debating right now is an example. He just
says to do it to prove to yourself that the right profile brings women to
you. You're the one making the implication that it's an example. And that
implication is in your mind.
>
> >I'm just wanting some clarification.
>
> If you need clarification on something, you'd better not accuse
> anyone of anything without getting clarification first.
It appears to me that suggesting to do something dishonest is incongruent
with earlier claims that dishonesty isn't the correct approach. That's the
topic for which I'm asking clarification.