Questions and Comments for Ray (was Re: Ross's Illegal Behavior)
James L. King III
Outfoxing The Foxes <outfoxxing...@juno.com> wrote:
> Some Guy Writes:
>
>
> > <-------One could argue that Dawn makes a perfect straw man for Ross.
> We
> > don't know much about the people who post here, beyond their internet
> > handles. Why is it that discussions like this take place ONLY on
> USENET?
> > Is this really conclusive?
>
> Dawn exists. Her existance has been verified by detractors of
> Ross through soc.single boink parties.
>
> <-----Who is she? Who are YOU? Who is ANYONE?
Exactly. Who are you? It's easy to find out stuff about me. My
information has been made public several times. Also, an internic WHOIS
on my website gives you all the information you need to locate and
contact me.
>
>
> > <-------Yes. Logical fallacy: you are saying that IF someone blames
> > their problem on another, THEN they lack options. I blame Ross for
> > initiating a campaign of lies, harassment, and LSD
> > (libel/slander/defamation) against me, and using a reputation HE and
> > others like him FRAUDULENTLY created as justification.
>
> Keep crying.
>
> <----Oh no, no need to cry. People kick you when you're down. They are
> kind out of FEAR, not compassion. The correct answer is to sue him.
> That's the only thing that shuts up a bully like Ross. I do think it's
> relevant when he uses illegal tactics to market his program.
>
But why do you insist on feeling like a victim, then? It's like the
picture incident: you never have posted a picture of yourself, yet
continue to claim that the picture is fake and that you'll sue. A judge
seeing that you had the opportunity to settle this issue by simply
posting a current photo of yourself will not likely take any "victim"
arguments you have seriously. You are choosing to be a victim here.
I personally believe that you really do not want to sue anyone, but
rather you simply want to see these people embarassed. It makes sense,
too. After all, your goal isn't to simply be as good as you can -- your
goal is to have masses of people worshipping you and deifying you.
Such fantasies *do* allow you an escape from your everyday life, so I
understand why you indulge in them.
>
> > That he was LYING
> > had nothing to do with it. I know that if the details of my love life
> > were made public, I would have sold 50 million books by now.
>
> What's stopping you from revealing those details.
>
> <------Respect for the privacy of the women involved. ANYONE who had
> top-quality lovers would never even HINT at details the way you guys
> have. I mean REAL top-quality. Maybe one day the tabloids will fill you
> in....
Speaking of which, how's Madonna doing? I know you asked her out (on
Usenet, even!), and then you told us when we pressed for details that
you don't kiss and tell. So it would appear that you're claiming that
you dated Madonna. Certainly that's the implication you would like us
to have. So how was it?
>
> > It is not
> > my fault that the internet is so new, that Internet Providers are not
> > equal, that some know the terrain better than others, or that the time
> > limit to file a libel suit in PA is one year. Through sheer harassment
> > and intimidation, it becomes difficult for one to have any kind of the
> > debate you talk about. Complaining about this behavior is certainly
> not
> > a worse crime than the behavior. This applies to Ross and Steele as
> well:
> > If Donny Boy didn't play by the rules, Ross has the right to sue. The
> > idea that the internet is not reality is being challenged by the courts
> > more and more.
>
> And this concerns me how?
>
> <--------You were defending Ross. I was pointing out that Ross broke the
> law.
>
If you believe Ross broke the law, and specifically broke the law
against you, then file the suit. you've only threatened lawsuits so
much you're like the boy who cried "wolf." Your threats to sue have
absolutely no credibility whatsoever, and nothing ... nothing .. no
thing that you can say to try to deflect that truth will ever remove
the truth about you.
>
>
> > <------SS is a good way to lock a woman into her existing attraction to
> > you. Other methods have been used before, but this is more precise.
> > However, it's becoming PUBLIC and thus less effective as more women
> > encounter it and more men become aware of it.
>
> Bullshit. Smooth talk has existed forever, and yet, there is still no
> defense. In fact, smooth talkers enbody excitement because of the danger
> elements.
>
> <-------There's a defense. However, assuming you are correct, why spend
> $300 on Ross to learn it? His talk is devalued by its exposure, and its
> electronic paper trail.
>
You keep making the same arguments: It's illegal, everyone knows about
it, what about gays, my material's better at less cost, it's dishonest,
just wait until Oprah hears about this, I go out with 10 times as many
women, and they're all centerfold nymphs (that is, when they're not out
going for the olympic gold on the parallel bars.)
>
> > Considering how many women
> > each of Ross's students is hitting on (40,000 students times how many
> > women?), and considering that these are the sexiest women, word can be
> > expected to travel.
Yet, amazingly, in over ten years, it has barely gotten past Usenet.
>
> They already know about smooth talkers. This phenomon has existed for
> thousands of years.
>
> <------And they are easier to catch now. Thanks in part to men like
> Ross.
Always got to be superior, huh?
[snip]
> > <----I could fill a website with ad-hominem attacks which have come
> > against me from Ross, attacks which have ME accused of fighting, when
> all
> > I did originally was post here. The abuse is then justified by the
> "you
> > deserved it" defense, which is another fallacy. And now he wants to
> > argue logically? I say lead by example.
>
> Hypocrit. I've seen you attack through presupposition and
> ad-homimem many times. People have memories, you know.
> Just because you stop doesn't mean they lose their memories
> for the past.
>
> <-----When I attack a person it's not to attack their logic. If they
> post logically, I respond logically. As for the past, I didn't break the
> law; Ross did.
>
Um. Isn't harrassment of underage girls illegal?
>
> > Translation: "I have no logical response."
> >
> > <-----I could say the same thing to Ross and Co. They seem to think
> even
> > federal law is something to laugh at. I do not. What they did won't
> go
> > away; when confronted with it, they lash out like rabid dogs. This is
> > obvious to anyone observing. Ross is bullying his product on people,
> and
> > harassing and threatening and lying about anyone who dares to cut into
> > his market share. I believe they call that RACKETEERING......does he
> > really think he's above the law? I don't.
>
> *yawn*
>
> <------Well if Ross yawns at a judge that won't go far. He'll need
> another strategy.
>
Why do you assume that Ross will do what Odious or I or anyone else
says to you?
[snip]
> Ray, does it make sense that everyone picks on you
> because you communicate in a way that invites people
> to do exactly that? If you buy into NLP, buy into the
> notion that the meanin gof communication is the response
> you receive.
>
> <---Everyone does not pick on me. A few people who are compensated in
> various ways or who have something to hide pick on me. Get your facts
> straight. Also note that the "you deserve it" defense doesn't fly.
> Under that logic those who attack me and who have broken the law will
> deserve what they get.
>
I'm not compensated by Ross. Should I be?
I don't have anything to hide.
>
> I notice when you write, even when you are trying to
> be civil, while the surface structure of your message
> might contain zero inciteful comments, the deep
> structure reeks of arrogance, foolishness, victim
> mentality and immaturity. If that's not you, you
> might wanna consider how these things manifest
> themselves.
>
> <----------I am not responsible for your feelings.
But you are responsible for your communications. And you have shown
over and over again that you are utterly untrustworthy, full of hatred
for the world, and consider women useless except for fulfilling your
carnal pleasure.
Oh, yeah, and that you're ready to be married.
> If it manifests
> itself in illegal behavior, the person who is foolish enough to think
> they have a license to abuse me will get a strong lesson not to. Force
> works a lot better than appeals to conscience. All I have to do to shut
> Ross up is ask a federal judge to make him do that. Because I do not
> break the law, you don't have that option, so you resort to attacks, and
> then maybe more, because you are checkmated.
So does this mean that you're *not* going to file because you think
you've won?
>
> None of this has any bearing on my method, which really does work. Posts
> like yours are a major distraction from the reality that my method works
> ten times better than Ross's at one-tenth the price.
Bullshit. If your website and your "advice" posts here are any
indication of the quality of your book (which still isn't listed at the
Library of Congress, by the way), a man would be better off celibate
than following your advice.
Besides, even if someone follows your advice, you'll tell him it
"doesn't count."
Why?
Because you tell people to wait for "sure shots" and "open threes". Yet
you've later said that easy goals don't mean anything -- they "don't
count."
Besides, Ross' free stuff was all I needed. (along with 4 other
sources, all of which in total cost LESS than your book.)
> No amount of
> persuasion engineering will alter the reality, though I suspect you will
> fool a few more customers Ross's way with your efforts.
>
> Doesn't bother me in the slightest. If you don't like me, too bad. If
> you try to DO something about not liking me, watch your back. I don't
> like many people. To quote Bandler, or was it Erickson, I wasn't put
> here to justify myself to you. If you abuse me, you are attacking me
> without provocation and take all associated risks.
Yet you continually justify yourself and your actions. Sometimes you'll
even make extremely long winded posts to justify your behavior to
others. Sometimes you'll just say that you're going away never to come
back and that you'll see us in Hell. Sometimes you simply threaten to
sue.
James King