You Can't Beat The System, Ray
James L. King III
<19990723.161803.-202501....@juno.com>, Outfoxing
The Foxes <dominique_p...@juno.com> wrote:
> Someone Writes:
>
> > The problem with SS is that the SS practitioner
> > does not mean a word of what he says. This makes
>
> Ray demonstrates, yet again, that he doesn't really
> understand SS and the principles of NLP. He doesn't
> realize that it is a system, not a series of scripts
> like some corny pickup lines a bartender collected.
>
> <------Whether scripted or not, SS practitioners do not mean a word of
> what they say to women. Not one word. They are LYING. This puts them
> in the category of LYING MEN. There's an entire wing of country music
> devoted to LYING MEN and what women want to do them after they find out
> they have been LIED to. My current girlfriend approached me, and did so
> because ANOTHER female -- one I doubt would ever talk to you -- asked her
> to SPY on me. I made NO EFFORT to meet her. The league these women are
> in is so far above the ones discussed here that it's pointless to
> discuss.
Then you should be happy that you're getting that high caliber of
women. Successful SS practitioners seem to be happy with the caliber of
women they have as well. So there's absolutely no reason for you to try
to induce jealousy. Unless you're the one who's jealous and you feel
like you have to make those accusations in order to make yourself feel
better.
> I know SS is a system: a LOUSY system if you want the cream of
> the crop, a good system if you want stupid sluts with low self-esteem or
> who are lonely. Ask the women yourself if you don't believe me who would
> fall for these "lines." Ross's technology is nothing earth-shattering;
> it's just a more precise version of smooth talk. But it's still smooth
> talk and recognized as such.
>
Some SS practitioners mean 100% of what they say. Others mean varying
amounts. Your hypothesis that if you are not 100% truthful than you are
lying 100% is flawed.
According to your logic, if someone who practises SS tells a woman that
2+2=4, naturally he's lying, since they never ever ever tell factual
truths to women.
>
>
> > Now if you will excuse me, I have a lady to tend
> > to who has been feeling a bit neglected the last
> > few days and is tired of fending off liars and
> > losers. Cya.
>
> So, you finally broke down her resistance, Ray?
> Well, then I suggest using a condom to C-Y-Dick.
>
> <-----More like she broke down mine. Not that it's any of your business.
> I invested a good six months in this person, which for me is rare. The
> story hasn't ended yet, so it's really not worth commenting on beyond
> certain dynamics. Maybe if you talked to 50 or 100 gorgeous women who
> were seduced over the internet and who had sex on the first date your
> view would change.
>
> I know my system works because in three short years it transformed me
> from a guy who could rarely get a date to one who could ALWAYS get one,
> and get laid if that were my sole objective.
Which it is, according to your book. You wrote that your #1 goal is
having sex with a Fox. And you said your book would never be in need of
changing, so this belief of yours must obviously still be there.
> It just happens here that
> one of my love interests is being pursued by an SS student and you have a
> direct opposition of the systems. Who even says I'll win? Game's not in
> the ninth inning yet.
>
> One advantage I have over SS students is that I am not out to score the
> way they are.
Yes you are. You wrote in your book that your #1 priority in life is
having sex with a Fox.
> I really do want one good woman, and that is something
> that cannot be faked.
Does this mean you were lying in your book in order to achieve your
objective? Shouldn't you be criticizing yourself for being so
dishonest?
> Your words may hint at it, but your actions most
> certainly do not. Marriage-minded or relationship-minded women (i.e.,
> not sluts) who are intelligent (some men screen for this, so their
> responses are the only ones we count) are not going to be fooled by SS
> but instead check your behavior over time. An SS practitioner cannot
> survive this test, especially if pitted against a relationship-minded
> Foxhunter.
I thought the goal was simply to get women to serve you sexually. You
have posted at other times that the only reason women exist is to serve
you sexually.
>
> Where I will concede an advantage to SS is for the man who will take ANY
> woman with a nice body and wants to get laid THAT NIGHT. He can take the
> gambit and hit it a fixed percentage of the time, but the prize won't be
> worth keeping, and this is evidenced by the rapid turnover of women in
> the lives of SS practitioners. Foxhunters are often men who truly want
> relationships but want to learn enough "player" tools so that they can
> neutralize what you do. SS is not GENUINE; the entire system is based on
> ROMANTIC FRAUD.
So is Foxhunting. You are to discover gimmicks that women find
attractive and use them to attract her. If you have to use a gimmick
that you do not already like, then you are being fradulent, pretending
to be interested in something she likes only to get in bed with her.
Of course, Ray will say it doesn't matter since this works, but he
personally doesn't use these gimmicks. Since we have no way of proving
whether he really *is* interested in learning how to be a psychic or
whether he's just pretending,
>
> What does an SS student do when a woman demands a long-term commitment
> before she has sex? The Reverse Timetable will usually break this down
> if she's not serious, but what if she's immune to that? At that point,
> you have to either put up or shut up, and all the patterns in the world
> aren't going to help you.
Perhaps the SS'er would leave her and find other women if her
resistance is truly that strong.
> Perhaps men who use SS have a fear of
> commitment? If so, they are actually very undesirable once the novelty
> of the challenge wears off. Just about every premise of an SS
> relationship is dysfunctional.
Please explain this in detail ... what are the premises of an "SS
relationship" and how exactly are they dysfunctional? Since you say
just about, you are obviously aware of at least one premise that is not
dysfunctional. I certainly would like you to elaborate on this point,
since you obviously show a great deal of intimate knowledge of the
subject matter.
> Foxhunters, on the other hand, demand
> only that women treat them as legitimate lover material, or please do not
> talk to them.
>
> I saw Ross Jeffries on "Philly After Midnight" a few months ago (a local
> reporter FRIED him on that one), and he said at the time he was "seeking
> a long-term relationship." How's the search going, Ross? When I think
> of the number of quality options I have for LTRs, I know I'm way ahead of
> most SSers. This is another characteristic of Foxhunting in that your
> overall results won't be spectacular but you will find a sufficient
> number of beautiful women to keep you happy long-term. Men who are not
> good players usually have to rely on relationships for regular sex, and
> many of those men actually want to get married and have children.
> Foxhunting is more geared to finding a woman who is built to last rather
> than one who will sleep with anything she meets at a club.
>
> Should I go on? Pit an SS person in a debate against me (or in one case,
> a romantic/sexual situation), and I will hold my own. Pick a major
> medium and let's both have time to make our cases in a neutral
> environment moderated by WOMEN.
Why do you insist that the Speed Seducers pick the medium? Why don't
you take the initiative and get on a talk show and then invite Ross to
debate you?
> You claim to be so great at relating to
> women, yet you fear a setting like this?
If you get on a talk show and then invite Ross and then he refuses, you
can certainly use his refusal as an implication of something.
> If what you said were true, I
> would be the one ducking the forum and not you.
You are ducking the forum by not taking the initiative to get on a talk
show, TV or radio, and then invite Ross to debate you.
> SS cannot survive
> exposure because women don't want it to, and offending women doesn't
> carry in this society.
>
> The ads speak for themselves. Women's opinions of men who have this goal
> also speak for themselves. Ross is no more likely to change female
> thinking and behavior against their own interests any more than he will
> stop hurricanes or tornadoes.
Yet he has changed female thinking and behavior several times. I can
think of a few examples.
> Where a Foxhunter is able to change a
> woman's thinking, it's with LOGIC, something she badly needs. With all
> the focus you put on telling women what they want to hear, often it is
> the man who tells her what she NEEDS to here that wins her over, because
> her instincts begin telling her that she has a true PROTECTOR.
>
> Since Ross has declared to the world that he has conquered its female
> half, he should not be surprised if others check in to disagree with his
> conclusions. I am far from the only one who has said this.
No, others have said that too. Steele, for one. Jet and Dawn, for
others. Why do you resort to deliberate lying and distortion to try to
make your points?
James King
--
The days of old time radio drama come alive at http://www.shadowradio.org ...
As featured in Yahoo! Internet Life magazine August 1999.
James L. King III
Outfoxing The Foxes <outfox___r...@juno.com> wrote:
> Some Guy Writes:
>
> > <------Whether scripted or not, SS practitioners do not mean a word of
> > what they say to women. Not one word. They are LYING. This puts them
> > in the category of LYING MEN. There's an entire wing of country music
> > devoted to LYING MEN and what women want to do them after they find out
> > they have been LIED to. My current girlfriend approached me, and did
> so
> > because ANOTHER female -- one I doubt would ever talk to you -- asked
> her
> > to SPY on me. I made NO EFFORT to meet her. The league these women
> are
> > in is so far above the ones discussed here that it's pointless to
> > discuss.
>
> Then you should be happy that you're getting that high caliber of
> women. Successful SS practitioners seem to be happy with the caliber of
> women they have as well. So there's absolutely no reason for you to try
> to induce jealousy. Unless you're the one who's jealous and you feel
> like you have to make those accusations in order to make yourself feel
> better.
>
> <-------SS has major long-term problems. Men who want long-term
> relationships need a lot more than SS. This is self-evident. Ross and
> his followers are glossing over many holes in the system. I believe the
> men who follow his advice will face these problems, and I also believe I
> can help them avoid them.
>
This has nothing to do with the "league" of women you are capable of
attracting. My comment was directed at your attempt to induce jealousy
in others when there is absolutely no reason to do so. Successful SS
practitioners seem to be happy with the women they have. You seem to be
happy with the women you have. Or perhaps you're not, which would
explain why you have to resort to jealous accusations about the
"quality" or "caliber" of women in order to make yourself feel better.
I remember when people commented on photos of your "girlfriend." And
when it became clear that she wasn't the Playboy centerfold you've
often said you were able to attract, you then do a classic backpedal
and say that there's more than appearance involved. So then you comment
on her "quality" or "caliber" when in fact you're just trying to make
justifications for the fact that more than a few here didn't consider
her attractive.
Please do try to stay on topic in the future.
>
>
> > I know SS is a system: a LOUSY system if you want the cream of
> > the crop, a good system if you want stupid sluts with low self-esteem
> or
> > who are lonely. Ask the women yourself if you don't believe me who
> would
> > fall for these "lines." Ross's technology is nothing earth-shattering;
> > it's just a more precise version of smooth talk. But it's still smooth
> > talk and recognized as such.
> >
>
> Some SS practitioners mean 100% of what they say. Others mean varying
> amounts. Your hypothesis that if you are not 100% truthful than you are
> lying 100% is flawed.
>
> <----------If you omit critical information which would cause a woman not
> to give you the time of day, that's a material lie. For instance, I
> asked Odious what he does when he's done conquering a woman and moves
> onto the next. His reply was that he uses NLP to make her not want him
> anymore. He didn't have this problem with Michelle because she didn't
> want him in the first place.
Ok, one day Michelle's your girlfriend, one day she's not, one day she
is, one day she isn't. Apparantly "outfoxing" isn't able to maintain a
long term relationship, especially in your case. Your relationship with
Michelle is way too volatile to support any case you make for Outfoxing
being able to maintain a long term relationship.
In any case, what does Michelle have to do with using NLP to help
reduce strong feelings towards someone? And what makes you think that
Odious considers each woman a "conquest?" That is your wording, not his
.. carefully chosen, of course. I certainly don't consider each woman
I'm with to be a "conquest." Perhaps you use that word because you
yourself consider women to be simply mere items you have to "conquest."
Your attitude concerning women's role in society seem to support that
conclusion.
>
> According to your logic, if someone who practises SS tells a woman that
> 2+2=4, naturally he's lying, since they never ever ever tell factual
> truths to women.
>
> <---------Not at all. SS practitioners here freely admit to deception in
> their seduction. Most admit to deception as the foundation of their
> seduction. A math problem and a man's sexual intentions aren't exactly
> the same thing. Most men who lie do so for a purpose. Lying about the
> result of an addition problem hardly qualifies.
>
So then you admit that SS'ers do tell the truth, therefore they cannot
be lying at all times.
>
> > > Now if you will excuse me, I have a lady to tend
> > > to who has been feeling a bit neglected the last
> > > few days and is tired of fending off liars and
> > > losers. Cya.
> >
> > So, you finally broke down her resistance, Ray?
> > Well, then I suggest using a condom to C-Y-Dick.
> >
> > <-----More like she broke down mine. Not that it's any of your
> business.
> > I invested a good six months in this person, which for me is rare.
> The
> > story hasn't ended yet, so it's really not worth commenting on beyond
> > certain dynamics. Maybe if you talked to 50 or 100 gorgeous women who
> > were seduced over the internet and who had sex on the first date your
> > view would change.
> >
> > I know my system works because in three short years it transformed me
> > from a guy who could rarely get a date to one who could ALWAYS get one,
> > and get laid if that were my sole objective.
>
> Which it is, according to your book. You wrote that your #1 goal is
> having sex with a Fox. And you said your book would never be in need of
> changing, so this belief of yours must obviously still be there.
>
> <---------Correct. And it IS possible to achieve that goal if a man is
> singleminded. Even an SS practitioner will get these women, but they
> will have to work harder, lie a lot, and they will face tremendous
> problems keeping these women. Unless you are talking about sluts who are
> lonely, stupid, and have low self-esteem. Ask the women about this if
> you don't believe me. Most are in universal agreement about who SS works
> on, and why. Shouldn't that tell you something?
>
I believe that when I asked women about Outfoxing, you said that you
didn't aim the book at them, therefore their opinion of the book is
irrelevant to its content ... in fact, you said before that women would
definitely not like your book's contents and that should be overlooked.
It seems you hold Speed Seduction to a much different standard: Your
book can and should be overlooked and disapproved of by women, yet you
feel women *must* approve of Speed Seduction otherwise it must be
flawed.
Shouldn't THAT tell you something?
>
> > It just happens here that
> > one of my love interests is being pursued by an SS student and you have
> a
> > direct opposition of the systems. Who even says I'll win? Game's not
> in
> > the ninth inning yet.
> >
> > One advantage I have over SS students is that I am not out to score the
> > way they are.
>
> Yes you are. You wrote in your book that your #1 priority in life is
> having sex with a Fox.
>
> <-------A Fox, not a world of Foxes. Ross's advertising is
> self-evident, once again.
>
What happened to the Fox Harem concept? You conveniently discard it
now. Granted, that's not a #1 priority, but it seems to me that the
Harem concept was pretty high up on that priority list.
>
> > I really do want one good woman, and that is something
> > that cannot be faked.
>
> Does this mean you were lying in your book in order to achieve your
> objective? Shouldn't you be criticizing yourself for being so
> dishonest?
>
> <--------Hardly. I have even mentioned "cashing out" in my book.
> Foxhunting allows a man to do this from a position of strength.
>
You said you weren't out to score. Your book says you are out to score.
you were lying either now or in your book to obtain your objective of
"cashing out" (which is also a form of "scoring"). Shouldn't you be
criticizing yourself for being so dishonest? Or is this dishonesty
sanctioned because you yourself do it, therefore it can be explained
away?
>
> > Your words may hint at it, but your actions most
> > certainly do not. Marriage-minded or relationship-minded women (i.e.,
> > not sluts) who are intelligent (some men screen for this, so their
> > responses are the only ones we count) are not going to be fooled by SS
> > but instead check your behavior over time. An SS practitioner cannot
> > survive this test, especially if pitted against a relationship-minded
> > Foxhunter.
>
> I thought the goal was simply to get women to serve you sexually. You
> have posted at other times that the only reason women exist is to serve
> you sexually.
>
> <--------That can't be done in the context of a relationship?
Only if the relationship is that of "master/slave." You claim you want
an intelligent woman, yet you want someone so submissive as to
literally be your slave and do your bidding.
> Logically,
> if a woman is better than what I can get on a regular basis, especially
> given my STD, I'd be a fool not to look for that. I do have to make
> concessions that many of my readers do not. Buying my book will not give
> any man herpes, btw.
>
Never said it would ... unless it gets you in bed with someone with
herpes, but your book isn't likely to get anyone laid, so you're pretty
safe with that statement.
>
> > Where I will concede an advantage to SS is for the man who will take
> ANY
> > woman with a nice body and wants to get laid THAT NIGHT. He can take
> the
> > gambit and hit it a fixed percentage of the time, but the prize won't
> be
> > worth keeping, and this is evidenced by the rapid turnover of women in
> > the lives of SS practitioners. Foxhunters are often men who truly want
> > relationships but want to learn enough "player" tools so that they can
> > neutralize what you do. SS is not GENUINE; the entire system is based
> on
> > ROMANTIC FRAUD.
>
> So is Foxhunting. You are to discover gimmicks that women find
> attractive and use them to attract her. If you have to use a gimmick
> that you do not already like, then you are being fradulent, pretending
> to be interested in something she likes only to get in bed with her.
>
> <-------More like showing an interest you already have (gimmicks don't
> have to be fake) to get her to approach you and talk to you, not to have
> sex with you. Foxhunters definitely make adjustments, but in most cases
> they are minor, natural adjustments, except for strong improvements in
> CUPID. Is a man lying to women if he moves into a certain area because
> lots of Foxes are there? Is he lying if he learns to read Tarot because
> he knows lots of women are into it?
According to your earlier logic, yes. You're deliberately getting
involved in something for which you have little interest for the SOLE
reason of getting laid. And you heaped REAMS of criticism on this group
when SS'ers talked about doing this. Yet it is perfectly okay for a
Foxhunter to get involved in something for which he has little interest
for the SOLE reason of getting laid. That's hypocritical, and I'm just
pointing that fact out.
> I often freely admit to using my
> gimmicks, and women find them cute.
So you're telling me that you tell the women that you give psychic
readings so that you can sleep with them?
> Do women find it cute to be talked
> out of their clothes in an hour by a man who intended to be with them no
> longer than a week? Again I would not equate the two.
>
>
>
> Of course, Ray will say it doesn't matter since this works, but he
> personally doesn't use these gimmicks. Since we have no way of proving
> whether he really *is* interested in learning how to be a psychic or
> whether he's just pretending,
>
> <------Of course I use gimmicks. I gave psychic readings long before I
> called it a gimmick. I know several young men in the gymnastics
> newsgroups who are obvious groupies and now have gymnast girlfriends
> because they took a genuine interest in the sport. Is that deception?
> Perhaps. It's the nature of the SS deception which is so chilling. If
> you don't believe me, debate me in a public forum with a female panel
> moderating for one hour and see which one of us escapes without claw
> marks all over his back.
>
Sure ... you set up the forum and invite Ross or one of his students.
>
> > What does an SS student do when a woman demands a long-term commitment
> > before she has sex? The Reverse Timetable will usually break this down
> > if she's not serious, but what if she's immune to that? At that point,
> > you have to either put up or shut up, and all the patterns in the world
> > aren't going to help you.
>
> Perhaps the SS'er would leave her and find other women if her resistance
> is truly that strong.
>
> <---------Exactly. A Foxhunter would just wait her out without investing
> himself, and if she was his best option when the opportunity ripened,
> he'd cash in.
>
In the meantime, the SS'er has gotten more relationship experience by
going out and obtaining more relationships.
>
> > Perhaps men who use SS have a fear of
> > commitment? If so, they are actually very undesirable once the novelty
> > of the challenge wears off. Just about every premise of an SS
> > relationship is dysfunctional.
>
> Please explain this in detail ... what are the premises of an "SS
> relationship" and how exactly are they dysfunctional? Since you say
> just about, you are obviously aware of at least one premise that is not
> dysfunctional. I certainly would like you to elaborate on this point,
> since you obviously show a great deal of intimate knowledge of the
> subject matter.
>
> <------An SS relationship is one where a woman does what she otherwise
> wouldn't have done because of SS (otherwise Ross's product is worthless).
> Logically, she will regret this decision over time, if you assume her
> basic moral values haven't changed. Many times, when an SSer dumps a
> woman, she may take it well on the surface and then be very depressed
> when alone. Again, I say ask the women. The men who try to use SS on
> the women I deal with get stopped cold. When women are aware of SS and
> call the men on it, if the women are smart the men have nowhere to hide.
> I'll say it again: SS works on idiot sluts with low self-esteem who are
> lonely.
>
It's funny, for a long time you claimed SS didn't work at all. Now you
have to resort to insulting the successes of SS. According to you, the
only reason that she'd be an "idiot slut" is because she's dating
someone who uses Ross' techniques.
> <----------He already said he wouldn't. I might be able to arrange
> something. Who knows. Point is, he wouldn't have a prayer in that
> environment and he knows it.
>
Translation: I'm not going to do anything. It's easier to accuse.
>
> > You claim to be so great at relating to
> > women, yet you fear a setting like this?
>
> If you get on a talk show and then invite Ross and then he refuses, you
> can certainly use his refusal as an implication of something.
>
> <---------Let's get ready to RUMBLLLLLLE!!!!!
>
> > If what you said were true, I
> > would be the one ducking the forum and not you.
>
> You are ducking the forum by not taking the initiative to get on a talk
> show, TV or radio, and then invite Ross to debate you.
>
> <-------In due time....
>
You just said that you wouldn't because Ross would refuse to debate you.
[snip]