It's all about not getting USED

[Mix]

gun...@crl.crl.com (Augustus Gloop) whined:
>In article <1998021210...@sirius.infonex.com>, Self-Admitted Drug
>Addict
>ed Uneducated Misogynists Anonymous <mixm...@remail.obscura.com> wrote:
>>
>>> He never approached me again about the Toni
>>>Anaya issue because I proved that she was an email harasser, and thus
>>>guilty of at least one of two things she accused me of.
>>
>>You proved nothing. If I dropped the issue it is only because I, unlike
>>you, have better things to do than obsess over the insignificant details of
>>these flame wars.
>
>Translation: You've been dragged across the ashpalt tied to a galloping
>horse every time you say something negative about me.

You're a loser. Most everyone thinks you're a loser. You lived with your
momma til you were 25 years old. You are terrified to approach women. You
are morbidly obese. Your few relationships have been with morbidly obese
women. You have every loser-nerd hobby in the book. You're the guy Shatner
told to get a life.
I have never seen you refute any of the above except to claim that there's
nothing wrong with being an immature, gutless, obese tunastankboy.
But of course there is something wrong with it...

> If one person died
>for every time you lied, our population would be a negative number right
>now.

Opinions are not lies.
Repeat after me stinkass:
Opinions are not lies.
For anyone looking for evidence of shitboy's reading comprehension problem
here it is. He will refuse to understand that a JUDGEMENT that he is a
filthy pile of human garbage is not a lie, it is an opinion that he
disagrees with.
Which is not the same as a lie.

>I still laugh every time I recall you saying that seduction and courtship
>are the same thing

Seduction is a necessary component of any courtship that is to lead to the
participants making love. Courtship is not just about seduction, but if it
lacks seduction it is incomplete.

> when you tried to claim I called myself a master of
>seduction... everyone knew right then that you'd lost it completely.

Please repost all those messages from your legion of supporters. For some
reason they never reached my server......

> That
>was, of course, until you went on that weight crusade and jumped on the
>doomed KOATS bandwagon. Talk about an EXPLOSION of unpopularity among
>women...

The truth hurts. That's why I use a remailer.
Jackie the Tokeman

[Mix]

gun...@crl.crl.com (Augustus Gloop) whined:
>In article <34dd3030...@news.newsguy.com>, Mike <m...@oz.net> wrote:
>>On 6 Feb 1998 23:19:35 -0800, gun...@crl.crl.com
>>(Steve Chaney) wrote:
>>
>>>If I wasn't interested in her I wouldn't be buying her a drink. Imagine
>>>that. And if I was, I still wouldn't be, because I don't give jack squat
>>>to strangers unless it's for charity. You're a fool, John. Go ahead and
>>>get used; I don't have to stoop that low to meet someone.
>>
>>No, instead you enroll in a cooking class and tell
>>people that you make top ramen but are trying to
>>cook so when you get married you can cook for your
>>wife. You posted this advice. Do you deny this?
>
>I deny that I ever said "when you get married you can cook for your wife".

No, you just had your prototype loserguy 'casually' mention his desire to
get married while blathering about learning to cook. Classic niceguy
grovelling.

>The rest was related to me by someone who succeeded in meeting someone.

Hey, even you allegedly met someone. But without any data on the QUALITY of
the person they got we cannot evaluate the advice. Almost anyone can get
SOMEONE if they lower their standards enough. If I had a nickel for every
obese woman who's hit on me over the years...

>Oh, and I forgot. One of the most common advice from women, is to get into
>a cooking class, if you want to meet women.

Women are lousy at giving advice because, first off, they are not very
rational, and second, most do not know what really works.
Keep in mind that the supply of master seducers falls far short of the
latent demand and that many women haven't even experienced what would
really turn her on directly. Just read the sex surveys showing the millions
of women who've been in relationships for YEARS and yet who have never
experienced an orgasm!

> That aside, that was the only
>instance in my entire post in which a gimmick was suggested - I had several
>OTHER pieces of advice which you found to be error-free and above
>reproach... in fact, that post was one of THREE advice files I posted, two
>of which you found to be free of errors (hence you made no case against
>them). You seem to forget this historical fact.

Lack of response does not constitute an endorsement. Street lunatics often
write flyers about CIA mind control. The lack of a press release from the
CIA containing a point by point refutation of the loony's claims is not
sufficient reason to line one's hat with aluminum foil.
An alternative hypotheses is that, having read your piss-poor messages
before, people did not read your advice at all.
Jackie the Tokeman

[Steve Chaney]

In article <1998021807...@sirius.infonex.com>, Self-Admitted Liars, High School Dropouts, Drug Addicts and Misogynists Anonymous <mixm...@remail.obscura.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>No, instead you enroll in a cooking class and tell
>>>people that you make top ramen but are trying to
>>>cook so when you get married you can cook for your
>>>wife. You posted this advice. Do you deny this?
>>
>>I deny that I ever said "when you get married you can cook for your wife".
>
>No, you just had your prototype loserguy 'casually' mention his desire to
>get married while blathering about learning to cook. Classic niceguy
>grovelling.

Okay Jackie, this is the first revision of your claim. How many more are
we going to see before it's all over? Your first claim I denied, and since
you have no post by me in which I ever said that, now you are coming up
with a NEW claim. Nice move, Jackie, but it doesn't change the fact that
you're talking out of your ass.

1) In the REAL world, women almost universally advise going to a cooking
class if you're a guy trying to meet someone. It's the first choice in a
long list of non-threatening, "vanilla" type options.
2) The situation which you are referring to, and the details that I
mentioned, were relayed to me by someone who found someone by using it. Do
you argue with what works?

>>The rest was related to me by someone who succeeded in meeting someone.
>
>Hey, even you allegedly met someone. But without any data on the QUALITY of
>the person they got we cannot evaluate the advice.

Come to LA and see for yourself, bitch.

>Almost anyone can get
>SOMEONE if they lower their standards enough. If I had a nickel for every
>obese woman who's hit on me over the years...

You'd be owing money.

>>Oh, and I forgot. One of the most common advice from women, is to get into
>>a cooking class, if you want to meet women.
>
>Women are lousy at giving advice

Ah yes, women don't know any better. They are ALL clueless, uh huh,
whatever you say, Jackie.

>because, first off, they are not very
>rational, and second, most do not know what really works.

Women are not very rational. I couldn't make up shit this good! You're a
born natural at misogyny, Jackass.

>Keep in mind that the supply of master seducers falls far short of the
>latent demand and that many women haven't even experienced what would
>really turn her on directly. Just read the sex surveys showing the millions
>of women who've been in relationships for YEARS and yet who have never
>experienced an orgasm!

Gee I've been with a number of women now and none of them have had any
problem experiencing an orgasm with me. (Hello kiddies, how will Jackass
the tokeboy twist THIS around?) And I do not at all claim to be a master
seducer. It is very easy to give a woman an orgasm if you're not a selfish
mate. I mastered that on my first time around. How about you?

>> That aside, that was the only
>>instance in my entire post in which a gimmick was suggested - I had several
>>OTHER pieces of advice which you found to be error-free and above
>>reproach... in fact, that post was one of THREE advice files I posted, two
>>of which you found to be free of errors (hence you made no case against
>>them). You seem to forget this historical fact.
>
>Lack of response does not constitute an endorsement.

It constitutes a lack of a case. As often as I have challenged you to find
error with anything BESIDES that one paragraph, and as often as you have
weaseled out, it is plain obvious that you have failed to find error with
anything else I said in those files. I don't expect you to ever praise
what I say, even if I am 100% right and 100% error free, which no one can
ever be. But I do find it EXTREMELY fun to rub your face in the asphalt
when you fire your pea shooter arguments against titanium walls of logic
and reasoning which protect most of my posts.

That's why you 1) Challenge me only to find that I never fail to meet said
challenges; and 2) Accuse me of saying things that you never succeed in
proving (and, as in your current post, you wind up altering what you
said). You wanna step up again for another beating, Jackie? Oh wait, with
your "women are not very rational", it is obvious that you're gonna beat
yourself down.

Be my guest.

-- Steve

[Steve Chaney]

In article <1998021700...@sirius.infonex.com>, Self-Admitted Uneducated, Misogynistic, Drug Addicted Liars Anonymous <mixm...@remail.obscura.com> wrote:
>
>You're a loser. Most everyone thinks you're a loser. You lived with your
>momma til you were 25 years old. You are terrified to approach women. You
>are morbidly obese. Your few relationships have been with morbidly obese
>women. You have every loser-nerd hobby in the book. You're the guy Shatner
>told to get a life.
>
>I have never seen you refute any of the above except to claim that there's
>nothing wrong with being an immature, gutless, obese tunastankboy.

Most everyone envies me because they spend endless time trying to tear me
down when they are too busy to look at the failures which are their own
lives. You dropped out of high school which all of society regards as
being much more of a loser trait than staying at home. Do you wish to
argue this? Then let an impartial person put up a website and we'll do a
poll. Do you wish to substantiate your claim with a poll, or would you
rather just shut up? Oh yes, and I also have refuted, many times, the
claim that I am terrified to approach women. I did it all the time until I
met my current girlfriend. I also refute the idea that I am morbidly obese
and also gave you my pants size which is currently 39. I don't even have
to shop in the Mr. Big And Tall anymore. THAT is morbidly obese, and I am
well below that level. Shatner never told me to get a life, and you have
no documentation that he ever did. None of my hobbies are loser hobbies,
and in fact they are more popular now than any of YOURS. The last poll
that was taken, in fact, showed more AOL users than watchers of ML
Baseball. I'm the norm - you are not. You're the nerd by virtue of not
being the norm. Furthermore, you're a self-admitted misogynist who has
obviously been burned all your life by women, and are now seeking to
promote among other men the ideology of exploiting women and downplaying
their mental capacities. (By deeming them as "not very rational.")

You're also a self admitted "recreational drug" user, and a high school
dropout. People have seen you getting kicked out of internet cafe's for
busting quarters out of the kiosks; that's why your anonymous remailer
provider changes so much.

>Opinions are not lies.

You made one opinion and a bunch of remarks which can be verified as right
or wrong (in this case, grossly wrong).

>He will refuse to understand that a JUDGEMENT that he is a
>filthy pile of human garbage is not a lie, it is an opinion that he
>disagrees with.

Because if you come to Anaheim in April of 1998 I will show you dozens of
WOMEN who not only outnumber the snigglers in soc.singles and
soc.singles.moderated combined, but who also disagree with you that I am
anything but 100% cool. I'm not talking about email support, I am talking
about real life, in your face, "Shut the fuck up, Jackie" from more people
than you can fire an uzi at.

Are you game, or are you a chickenshit whom I should just outright
disregard because you're nothing but a homeless bum sent to make me look
good?

>>I still laugh every time I recall you saying that seduction and courtship
>>are the same thing
>
>Seduction is a necessary component of any courtship

Seduction is about deception (as per the dictionary definition), and thus
severely diverges from what courtship is all about. Sorry, but you lose.
Try arguing with me in Oceania and maybe you'll have a better chance.

>> That
>>was, of course, until you went on that weight crusade and jumped on the
>>doomed KOATS bandwagon. Talk about an EXPLOSION of unpopularity among
>>women...
>
>The truth hurts. That's why I use a remailer.

So you can't get all the hate mail from women that you want us to believe
are "not very rational." Yup. I would stalk you if that meant I would
have a chance at telling your "girlfriend" that she, as a woman, is not
very rational. I'd do it just to see her punch you into next week. But
since you don't have a girlfriend (or a job, a roof over your head, or a
high school education for that matter), there's no possibility of that, now
is there?

-- Steve

[Mix]

Hey tubby, what's the matter? Didn't you want your feminist 'allies' to see
this one? After all this is the same thread.

In article <6cm00b$p...@crl.crl.com>, gun...@crl.crl.com (Cartman) whined:
>In article <1998021700...@sirius.infonex.com>, the Tokemaster

>General <mixm...@remail.obscura.com> wrote:
>>
>>You're a loser. Most everyone thinks you're a loser. You lived with your
>>momma til you were 25 years old. You are terrified to approach women. You
>>are morbidly obese. Your few relationships have been with morbidly obese
>>women. You have every loser-nerd hobby in the book. You're the guy Shatner
>>told to get a life.
>>
>>I have never seen you refute any of the above except to claim that there's
>>nothing wrong with being an immature, gutless, obese tunastankboy.
>
>Most everyone envies me because they spend endless time trying to tear me
>down when they are too busy to look at the failures which are their own
>lives.

Perhaps people tear you down because you post stupid messages on public
forums and they do not like to see falsehoods presented without refutation.
Has that possibility ever crossed your deluded mind?

> You dropped out of high school which all of society regards as
>being much more of a loser trait than staying at home.

Have any polling data on that?

> Do you wish to
>argue this?

You're the one making a positive claim. It's up to you to defend it.

> Then let an impartial person put up a website and we'll do a
>poll.

Website polls do not take a scientific sample of the population.

> Do you wish to substantiate your claim with a poll, or would you
>rather just shut up?

I would rather see you present proof of your claim that 'all of society'
regards dropping out of high school as more of a loser trait than living at
home. Of course your statement allows far too much wiggle room. To compare
yourself with me as far as alleged loser traits is concerned you must
specify the age at which you were still living at home.
So if you're game I suggest you hire a reputable firm to conduct a poll of
at least 1,000 persons nationwide selected using the best current
methodology to represent the population as a whole to ask the question:
"Which is a worse loser trait: Dropping out of high school or living with
your mother until you're twenty five years old?'

> Oh yes, and I also have refuted, many times, the
>claim that I am terrified to approach women.

You claim that men should not approach women. You claim that they will be
brutally rejected. I dispute this claim. Your messages on this subject show
a deep fear of approaching women.

> I did it all the time until I
>met my current girlfriend. I also refute the idea that I am morbidly obese
>and also gave you my pants size which is currently 39. I don't even have
>to shop in the Mr. Big And Tall anymore. THAT is morbidly obese, and I am
>well below that level.

What is your current weight? By the way, size 39 is not exactly svelte.

> Shatner never told me to get a life, and you have
>no documentation that he ever did.

Obviously humor is wasted on you.

> None of my hobbies are loser hobbies,
>and in fact they are more popular now than any of YOURS.

The popularity of a hobby is no sign that it is not for losers.
Do not assume that the majority of people are winners.

> The last poll
>that was taken, in fact, showed more AOL users than watchers of ML
>Baseball. I'm the norm - you are not.

Why do you assume that being normal makes you a winner?

> You're the nerd by virtue of not
>being the norm.

This must be some strange new definition of nerd I was not previously aware of.

> Furthermore, you're a self-admitted misogynist who has
>obviously been burned all your life by women,

I believe there are psychological differences between the sexes. Perhaps I
am a sexist. Most feminists would probably see me as one. But misogyny is
hatred of women. It is not a synonym for sexist. And I am not a misogynist.
I love women.

> and are now seeking to
>promote among other men the ideology of exploiting women and downplaying
>their mental capacities. (By deeming them as "not very rational.")

Rationality has little to do with capacity and everything to do with
motivation.

>You're also a self admitted "recreational drug" user, and a high school
>dropout.

And your point is?

> People have seen you getting kicked out of internet cafe's for
>busting quarters out of the kiosks; that's why your anonymous remailer
>provider changes so much.

Present your evidence that I have been kicked out of internet cafe's.
As for the 'charges' of my 'anonymous remailer provider' - you lose again
clueless boy.
You clearly have no idea what an anonymous remailer is.

>>Opinions are not lies.
>
>You made one opinion and a bunch of remarks which can be verified as right
>or wrong (in this case, grossly wrong).

I claim you are a loser. This statement is based on my analysis of every
one of your messages I have read to date. You can disagree with this but
you cannot call it a lie. It is my honest opinion.

>>He will refuse to understand that a JUDGEMENT that he is a
>>filthy pile of human garbage is not a lie, it is an opinion that he
>>disagrees with.
>
>Because if you come to Anaheim in April of 1998 I will show you dozens of
>WOMEN who not only outnumber the snigglers in soc.singles and
>soc.singles.moderated combined, but who also disagree with you that I am
>anything but 100% cool.

Are these your fellow Highlander and cartoon fans?
Losers of a feather fail together.

> I'm not talking about email support, I am talking
>about real life, in your face, "Shut the fuck up, Jackie" from more people
>than you can fire an uzi at.

David Koresh had a lot of followers. Did that make him right?

>Are you game, or are you a chickenshit whom I should just outright
>disregard because you're nothing but a homeless bum sent to make me look
>good?

Please present your evidence that I am a homeless bum.

>>>I still laugh every time I recall you saying that seduction and courtship
>>>are the same thing
>>
>>Seduction is a necessary component of any courtship
>
>Seduction is about deception (as per the dictionary definition), and thus
>severely diverges from what courtship is all about. Sorry, but you lose.
>Try arguing with me in Oceania and maybe you'll have a better chance.

One of the definitions of seduction was simply to make someone desire you.
Words do occasionally have more than one definition you know.
And I repeat that if you cannot generate sexual interest in a person you
are not going to be able to complete the courtship. Unless we're talking
about courtship with the goal of setting up a marriage of convenience where
sexual attraction is irrelevant.

>>> That
>>>was, of course, until you went on that weight crusade and jumped on the
>>>doomed KOATS bandwagon. Talk about an EXPLOSION of unpopularity among
>>>women...
>>
>>The truth hurts. That's why I use a remailer.
>
>So you can't get all the hate mail from women that you want us to believe
>are "not very rational."

Hate mail would certainly go a long way towards establishing the
rationality of women. ;)

> Yup. I would stalk you if that meant I would
>have a chance at telling your "girlfriend" that she, as a woman, is not
>very rational.

She is quite capable of reading my messages for herself.

> I'd do it just to see her punch you into next week.

Is that your idea of rationality?

> But
>since you don't have a girlfriend

I like the way you flip-flop about whether I have a girlfriend or not.
Is she gonna be pissed about my messages or is she nonexistant? You can't
have it both ways fatboy.

> (or a job, a roof over your head, or a
>high school education for that matter), there's no possibility of that, now
>is there?

If I don't have a job or a roof over my head how am I posting these messages?
Jackie the Tokeman

[Mix]

In article <6cluo6$p...@crl.crl.com>, gun...@crl.crl.com (Cartman) whined:
>In article <1998021807...@sirius.infonex.com>, the Mighty Tokeman

><mixm...@remail.obscura.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>No, instead you enroll in a cooking class and tell
>>>>people that you make top ramen but are trying to
>>>>cook so when you get married you can cook for your
>>>>wife. You posted this advice. Do you deny this?
>>>
>>>I deny that I ever said "when you get married you can cook for your wife".
>>
>>No, you just had your prototype loserguy 'casually' mention his desire to
>>get married while blathering about learning to cook. Classic niceguy
>>grovelling.
>
>Okay Jackie, this is the first revision of your claim.

You had the loserguy bowing and scraping and talking about cooking for his
wife. Do you deny this? Claiming that you did not use the exact words is
not sufficient. Your dating advice sucked. No one replied to it. Everyone
ignored it. It only got some attention when I quoted from it in order to
make mock of it.

> How many more are
>we going to see before it's all over? Your first claim I denied, and since
>you have no post by me in which I ever said that, now you are coming up
>with a NEW claim. Nice move, Jackie, but it doesn't change the fact that
>you're talking out of your ass.

You are a loserguy. Your advice reeks of it. Do you deny this?

>1) In the REAL world, women almost universally advise going to a cooking
>class if you're a guy trying to meet someone. It's the first choice in a
>long list of non-threatening, "vanilla" type options.

Notice your emphasis - 'non threatening' 'vanilla'
Why do you prefer such situations? Because you are a cowardly little worm,
that's why!

>2) The situation which you are referring to, and the details that I
>mentioned, were relayed to me by someone who found someone by using it. Do
>you argue with what works?

I argue with unsourced claims about unidentified persons giving advice
which contradicts experience and which is presented by someone who has
demonstrated no clue himself.

>>>The rest was related to me by someone who succeeded in meeting someone.
>>
>>Hey, even you allegedly met someone. But without any data on the QUALITY of
>>the person they got we cannot evaluate the advice.
>
>Come to LA and see for yourself, bitch.

Or you could post a jpg of the happy couple.

>>Almost anyone can get
>>SOMEONE if they lower their standards enough. If I had a nickel for every
>>obese woman who's hit on me over the years...
>
>You'd be owing money.

Why don't you address my point about people willing to lower their
standards? After all that's part of your stupid advice.

>>>Oh, and I forgot. One of the most common advice from women, is to get into
>>>a cooking class, if you want to meet women.
>>
>>Women are lousy at giving advice
>
>Ah yes, women don't know any better. They are ALL clueless, uh huh,
>whatever you say, Jackie.

Women don't know themselves. That's why they often puzzle over their
choices in relationships. 'What did I see in that jerk?' they ask.
Deep insights into human nature are rare. Don't expect to gain such insight
by polling a random sample of women and asking them what they think other
people should do. Instead observe what they actually respond to and try
doing that.

>>because, first off, they are not very
>>rational, and second, most do not know what really works.
>
>Women are not very rational. I couldn't make up shit this good! You're a
>born natural at misogyny, Jackass.

If you dispute my point it certainly validates my theory that you have had
very little experience with women.
Incidentally men are also driven by irrational feelings, but these feelings
tend to impel them to work at improving their skills at dealing with
reality, which includes improving their critical thinking abilities.
I can elaborate on this if you'd like.

>>Keep in mind that the supply of master seducers falls far short of the
>>latent demand and that many women haven't even experienced what would
>>really turn her on directly. Just read the sex surveys showing the millions
>>of women who've been in relationships for YEARS and yet who have never
>>experienced an orgasm!
>
>Gee I've been with a number of women now and none of them have had any
>problem experiencing an orgasm with me. (Hello kiddies, how will Jackass
>the tokeboy twist THIS around?)

Beggars can't be choosers.

> And I do not at all claim to be a master
>seducer. It is very easy to give a woman an orgasm if you're not a selfish
>mate. I mastered that on my first time around. How about you?

Perhaps it is easy for you. Yet there are millions of women having trouble
reaching orgasm.
And no, I don't have trouble in this area.

>>> That aside, that was the only
>>>instance in my entire post in which a gimmick was suggested - I had several
>>>OTHER pieces of advice which you found to be error-free and above
>>>reproach... in fact, that post was one of THREE advice files I posted, two
>>>of which you found to be free of errors (hence you made no case against
>>>them). You seem to forget this historical fact.
>>
>>Lack of response does not constitute an endorsement.
>
>It constitutes a lack of a case.

Not at all. It might mean that you were killfiled so no one even knew you
had said anything worth making a case against.
And once I posted some quotes people DID make a case against it.

> As often as I have challenged you to find
>error with anything BESIDES that one paragraph, and as often as you have
>weaseled out, it is plain obvious that you have failed to find error with
>anything else I said in those files.

Perhaps I have better things to do than dig up your old messages?
I think the fact that your 100k file inspired NO replies says a lot more
than any detailed reply I'd want to write ever could.

> I don't expect you to ever praise
>what I say, even if I am 100% right and 100% error free, which no one can
>ever be.

Actually I do agree with a few things you say but the trouble is that any
knowledge you have is twisted through the filter of your loser mentality.

> But I do find it EXTREMELY fun to rub your face in the asphalt
>when you fire your pea shooter arguments against titanium walls of logic
>and reasoning which protect most of my posts.

I don't see a whole lot of reasoning here. Mostly it's just bluster about
how logical and rational you are.

>That's why you 1) Challenge me only to find that I never fail to meet said
>challenges;

I challenge you to post your current weight and body fat percentage.

> and 2) Accuse me of saying things that you never succeed in
>proving (and, as in your current post, you wind up altering what you
>said). You wanna step up again for another beating, Jackie? Oh wait, with
>your "women are not very rational", it is obvious that you're gonna beat
>yourself down.

No matter how many feminist newsgroups you post to my claim stands.
Jackie the Tokeman

[Jim Dutton]

In article <6cm00b$p...@crl.crl.com>, Steve Chaney <gun...@crl.crl.com> wrote:
>>You're a loser. Most everyone thinks you're a loser. You lived with your
>>momma til you were 25 years old. You are terrified to approach women. You
>>are morbidly obese. Your few relationships have been with morbidly obese
>>women. You have every loser-nerd hobby in the book. You're the guy Shatner
>>told to get a life.
>

>Most everyone envies me because they spend endless time trying to tear me
>down when they are too busy to look at the failures which are their own
>lives.

Yea we all want to be morbidly obese and have the opposite sex run
away screaming whenever we are spotted. You got it Steve.

You dropped out of high school which all of society regards as

>being much more of a loser trait than staying at home. Do you wish to

Once again we see Steve the Brain Surgeon at work. Literally kicked out of
school, attempting to take someone to task for school performance.
Nice work Einstein.

>argue this? Then let an impartial person put up a website and we'll do a
>poll. Do you wish to substantiate your claim with a poll, or would you
>rather just shut up?

Well up to this point it's been unanimous. Your web sites are pathetic
Chaney. But considered the brain power behind them...that is all they
ever will be.

Oh yes, and I also have refuted, many times, the

>claim that I am terrified to approach women. I did it all the time until I
>met my current girlfriend.

Rescucitator Annie?

I also refute the idea that I am morbidly obese
>and also gave you my pants size which is currently 39. I don't even have
>to shop in the Mr. Big And Tall anymore.

Thanks for the .sig material

THAT is morbidly obese, and I am

>well below that level. Shatner never told me to get a life, and you have
>no documentation that he ever did. None of my hobbies are loser hobbies,
>and in fact they are more popular now than any of YOURS. The last poll

>that was taken, in fact, showed more AOL users than watchers of ML

>Baseball. I'm the norm - you are not. You're the nerd by virtue of not
>being the norm. Furthermore, you're a self-admitted misogynist who has
>obviously been burned all your life by women, and are now seeking to

>promote among other men the ideology of exploiting women and downplaying
>their mental capacities. (By deeming them as "not very rational.")

I think you just beat Jackie in putting you down. Nice work Uncle Tom.

>Because if you come to Anaheim in April of 1998 I will show you dozens of
>WOMEN who not only outnumber the snigglers in soc.singles and
>soc.singles.moderated combined, but who also disagree with you that I am

>anything but 100% cool. I'm not talking about email support, I am talking

>about real life, in your face, "Shut the fuck up, Jackie" from more people
>than you can fire an uzi at.

HAhAhAHaHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA. YEa Right. Steve will even bet
you on this. HAHAHAHAHHAHAhaHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAhAHahahahahahhahaha. OH JESUS H CHRIST SOMEBODY GET ME A KLEENEX HAHAHAHHAHAH

>Are you game, or are you a chickenshit whom I should just outright
>disregard because you're nothing but a homeless bum sent to make me look
>good?

BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. Earth to Tunastank. Whats the use. Phasers detect
no discernable intelligence.

-Jeem, Steve is very rich and lives in a mansion.

========================================================================
http://www.mcs.net/~jjd
Steatopygias's 'R' Us. doh#0000000005 That ain't no Hottentot.
Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. tbtw#6. s.s.m#8. There ain't no more
"Do not fear death so much but rather the inadequate life." ---Bertolt
Brecht
========================================================================

[Steve Chaney]

In article <1998022201...@sirius.infonex.com>, Self-Admitted Losers Anonymous <mixm...@remail.obscura.com> wrote:
>
>Has that possibility ever crossed your deluded mind?

My posts aren't stupid - and they're rarely refuted anymore. Mike failed
to find any but one error in what I've said, and he won't argue anymore
because I've pinpointed and hammered away at SEVERAL of his. You've made
so many logical errors in your futile attempts to debate with me, that they
haven't yet made a hard drive that's big enough to store it all.

>> You dropped out of high school which all of society regards as
>>being much more of a loser trait than staying at home.
>
>Have any polling data on that?

Have any polling data that says that staying home until 25 is a loser
trait? No you don't and no there is no such concensus.

>> Do you wish to
>>argue this?
>
>You're the one making a positive claim. It's up to you to defend it.

It is you who started this - you have the obligation to substantiate that
there is any concensus beyond your own that staying home until 25 is any
worse than dropping out of high school. I challenge you to a real life
poll among people on the street. You'd never accept that, because in the
real world I'll fucking RULE your ass. There is not one argument you've
ever put up that you could ever win with me if people on the street would
be the judges. There is no argument you can win with me here whenever hard
facts are concerned. You have never had any hard facts on anything.

I still get a laugh out of your claim that women are at a low risk of
catching HIV.

>> Then let an impartial person put up a website and we'll do a
>>poll.
>
>Website polls do not take a scientific sample of the population.

It's far more scientific than accepting your pathetic excuse for an
opinion. And it's a way for you to save face, since your opinions wouldn't
last 5 seconds with people in the real world, which is why you hide your
face. In the real world, you would be laughed out of town by the time the
first sentence blew forth out of your face.

>So if you're game I suggest you hire a reputable firm to conduct a poll of
>at least 1,000 persons nationwide selected using the best current
>methodology to represent the population as a whole to ask the question:
>"Which is a worse loser trait: Dropping out of high school or living with
>your mother until you're twenty five years old?'

I'm sure there are studies like that already.

>> Oh yes, and I also have refuted, many times, the
>>claim that I am terrified to approach women.
>
>You claim that men should not approach women. You claim that they will be
>brutally rejected. I dispute this claim.

You dispute a claim I never made, or that I have outgrown and contradicted
YEARS ago. I said that men should practice less rabid aggression, and
should make an effort towards making themselves more likely to be
approached. That, Jackie, was in my advice post that you so erroneously
tried to slam. That clearly contradicts your claim that I said that men
shouldn't approach women, or that they will be brutally rejected.

Now, Jackie, that is not an opinion you just stated - that is a true/false
statement which has been proven totally false. Find where I ever said men
shouldn't approach women or that they will be (without exception, as you
have implied) brutally rejected, or take that claim back.

(Jackie will now snip this, or launch another round of insults. Gee folks,
how hard is it to predict that second-rate moron?)

>Your messages on this subject show
>a deep fear of approaching women.

Another clear true/false statement that is totally false. My posts show a
desire to obtain a clear advantage before you approach a woman. When I
first came in here, I did speak very heavily of the dangers of approaching
a woman; however, as time went on, I learned how to get by these dangers,
and to beat the rejection odds, and my posts moved far away from the
attitude of "fear of approaching women". Get over it, Jackie. You weren't
even HERE when I last posted anything that reflected this "fear".

>> Shatner never told me to get a life, and you have
>>no documentation that he ever did.
>
>Obviously humor is wasted on you.

Translation: You backpedal very fast when I turn and fight.

>> None of my hobbies are loser hobbies,
>>and in fact they are more popular now than any of YOURS.
>
>The popularity of a hobby is no sign that it is not for losers.

Yes it is. A loser is someone who is not accepted. Drop in on the Clan
Denial website some time and do a head count. In just an Internet sense
I've got up to 5 times as many friends as enemies. In real life, I have NO
enemies, and many friends. I post less now because at least 7 times as
many friends have plans for my free time, as enemies have ever had time to
try to flame at me. You see, Jackie, the reason you hide your face, the
reason you post anonymously, is because in the real world, and beyond this
limited realm, you won't last a minute. Not intellectually, and not in an
argument. Nobody but these snigglers are going to agree with you about
anything you've argued with me about - well, there is one nutcase whose
advice about AIDS is getting people killed, of course. Your views about
women regularly get more boos and hisses than mine, and your partner in
crime (for about a half dozen posts) KOATS was practically obliterated on
sight. I barely got a glimpse at the poor chap before the terrible
witpower of countless women, laid into his ass. But it wasn't that that
got him. It was that whole bit about the Notorious B.I.G.... Jackie, that
is the caliber of mindset that you hang with. He actually is smarter than
you.

>> Furthermore, you're a self-admitted misogynist who has
>>obviously been burned all your life by women,
>
>I believe there are psychological differences between the sexes. Perhaps I
>am a sexist. Most feminists would probably see me as one. But misogyny is
>hatred of women.

Oh yes, you also claim I hate women (without any basis for such a claim, of
course), and that I hate people in general. Another factual booboo on your
part. Your claim that women "aren't very rational" is as hateful and
predatory an insult as there ever could be - albeit it is a very subtle
one.

>It is not a synonym for sexist. And I am not a misogynist.
>I love women.

As long as you can use them and make them look like dolls, that is.

>>You're also a self admitted "recreational drug" user, and a high school
>>dropout.
>
>And your point is?

Oh, for one, the most effective anti-drug message has been to round up
people like you and put them on film. That would just about scare anyone
straight. Nobody would want to think that one day in the future, they
would be spouting off the kind of braindead bullshit you're coming up with
nowadays.

>> People have seen you getting kicked out of internet cafe's for
>>busting quarters out of the kiosks; that's why your anonymous remailer
>>provider changes so much.

>>You made one opinion and a bunch of remarks which can be verified as right

>>or wrong (in this case, grossly wrong).
>
>I claim you are a loser. This statement is based on my analysis of every
>one of your messages I have read to date.

..while you were using recreational drugs.

>>Because if you come to Anaheim in April of 1998 I will show you dozens of
>>WOMEN who not only outnumber the snigglers in soc.singles and
>>soc.singles.moderated combined, but who also disagree with you that I am
>>anything but 100% cool.
>
>Are these your fellow Highlander and cartoon fans?
>Losers of a feather fail together.

To be a loser implies that one lacks a job, a relationship and friends.
That would apply to you, and not us.

>> I'm not talking about email support, I am talking
>>about real life, in your face, "Shut the fuck up, Jackie" from more people
>>than you can fire an uzi at.
>
>David Koresh had a lot of followers. Did that make him right?

I have no followers. Friends, yes, followers, no. Sorry, you lose again.

>>Are you game, or are you a chickenshit whom I should just outright
>>disregard because you're nothing but a homeless bum sent to make me look
>>good?

>>Seduction is about deception (as per the dictionary definition), and thus

>>severely diverges from what courtship is all about. Sorry, but you lose.
>>Try arguing with me in Oceania and maybe you'll have a better chance.
>
>One of the definitions of seduction was simply to make someone desire you.
>Words do occasionally have more than one definition you know.

And as I argued, that is the least definition of all. It has no regard to
a relationship, which courtship regards as the most primary goal.
Seduction and courtship have very different goals and where they overlap
they have opposing routes. As I said before, it severely diverges from
what seduction is about.

>And I repeat that if you cannot generate sexual interest in a person you
>are not going to be able to complete the courtship. Unless we're talking
>about courtship with the goal of setting up a marriage of convenience where
>sexual attraction is irrelevant.

Seduction is about sex first, relationship MAYBE. Courtship is about a
relationship first, then sex. They certainly are not the same thing at
ALL.

>>>The truth hurts. That's why I use a remailer.
>>
>>So you can't get all the hate mail from women that you want us to believe
>>are "not very rational."
>
>Hate mail would certainly go a long way towards establishing the
>rationality of women. ;)

If that's the way you get attention, then by all means go right ahead. As
much as you rant about my unpopularity, I'm turning blue in the face
holding my breath for when a woman is ever going to agree with you. On the
contrary, many have smacked you up for what you've said.

>> I'd do it just to see her punch you into next week.
>
>Is that your idea of rationality?

No, it's my idea of a good laugh. You desperately need some sense knocked
into you, and making that statement you made - in public, and not behind
the protection of a keyboard - will bring ya just that.

>> But
>>since you don't have a girlfriend
>
>I like the way you flip-flop about whether I have a girlfriend or not.

Your reading comprehension suits one who dropped out of high school. I
said "would" as in a conditional statement, assuming that you HAVE a
girlfriend. Which would be an erroneous assumption.

>> (or a job, a roof over your head, or a
>>high school education for that matter), there's no possibility of that, now
>>is there?
>
>If I don't have a job or a roof over my head how am I posting these messages?

Well, they say panhandling is big money. And Internet cafe's are becoming
commonplace in big cities. Mix into this a high school dropout addicted to
trolling, and you have the life and times of Jackie the Tokeman.

-- Steve

[Steve Chaney]

In article <1998022201...@sirius.infonex.com>, Habitual Losers Anonymous <mixm...@remail.obscura.com> wrote:
>
>You had the loserguy bowing and scraping and talking about cooking for his
>wife.

Wrong. Try cooking for himself. That's what I said. You're talking out
of your ass as usual.

>>1) In the REAL world, women almost universally advise going to a cooking
>>class if you're a guy trying to meet someone. It's the first choice in a
>>long list of non-threatening, "vanilla" type options.
>
>Notice your emphasis - 'non threatening' 'vanilla'
>Why do you prefer such situations? Because you are a cowardly little worm,
>that's why!

And nobody supports YOUR methods now, do they? Ain't no women around here
standing by you, are there? Most people pick venues in which they are
comfortable, or work their way to others - and eventually are successful.
Any venue YOU come up with, inevitably leads to disaster. You didn't care
to comment about what I said about dancing, which is the next, better venue
in which to meet women. I've seen line dancing and it is hardly non
threatening.

But you left that alone because it sinks your argument with all hands on
board.

>>>Hey, even you allegedly met someone. But without any data on the QUALITY of
>>>the person they got we cannot evaluate the advice.
>>
>>Come to LA and see for yourself, bitch.
>
>Or you could post a jpg of the happy couple.

You could, too, but you don't. You're too busy begging other women (who
hate your guts) for their pictures.

>>>Almost anyone can get
>>>SOMEONE if they lower their standards enough. If I had a nickel for every
>>>obese woman who's hit on me over the years...
>>
>>You'd be owing money.
>
>Why don't you address my point about people willing to lower their
>standards? After all that's part of your stupid advice.

Ah yes, in your universe, raising one's intelligence and compatibility
standards above that of looks, means lowering one's standards.
Fortunately nobody here has ever sided against me in favor of you on that
issue.

>>Ah yes, women don't know any better. They are ALL clueless, uh huh,
>>whatever you say, Jackie.
>
>Women don't know themselves. That's why they often puzzle over their
>choices in relationships. 'What did I see in that jerk?' they ask.

That is hardly a trait monopolized by women.

>If you dispute my point it certainly validates my theory that you have had
>very little experience with women.

Maybe because the women I've been with, are very rational people? I've not
yet been to Mars so you're right, I don't have experience with women from
your world.

>Incidentally men are also driven by irrational feelings, but these feelings
>tend to impel them to work at improving their skills at dealing with
>reality, which includes improving their critical thinking abilities.

And women do not work at this? I just want clarification before I hammer
the final nail in the coffin of your credibility and leave you forever to
rant in the dark corner.

>>>Keep in mind that the supply of master seducers falls far short of the
>>>latent demand and that many women haven't even experienced what would
>>>really turn her on directly. Just read the sex surveys showing the millions
>>>of women who've been in relationships for YEARS and yet who have never
>>>experienced an orgasm!
>>
>>Gee I've been with a number of women now and none of them have had any
>>problem experiencing an orgasm with me. (Hello kiddies, how will Jackass
>>the tokeboy twist THIS around?)
>
>Beggars can't be choosers.

It doesn't matter if she's Sandra Bullock. If it took 5 minutes for me to
give a woman an orgasm, it would be one of my bad days.

>> And I do not at all claim to be a master
>>seducer. It is very easy to give a woman an orgasm if you're not a selfish
>>mate. I mastered that on my first time around. How about you?
>
>Perhaps it is easy for you. Yet there are millions of women having trouble
>reaching orgasm.

Because their partners aren't doing it right.

>>>Lack of response does not constitute an endorsement.
>>
>>It constitutes a lack of a case.
>
>Not at all. It might mean that you were killfiled so no one even knew you
>had said anything worth making a case against.
>And once I posted some quotes people DID make a case against it.

None based on any facts. I must have caught half a dozen people misquoting
my post, and even got some RETRACTIONS, too. But you didn't post that
part. Criticisms all focused around one paragraph.. guess which one?
Everything else they accused me of "plagiarizing" which is an admission
that the advice is damned good. Too bad nobody ever wrote any of that
advice previously, or else the accusation might actually have merit.

You see, Jackie, I've posted advice since then, and I am not criticized
anymore. I am accused of plagiarizing, but nobody has ever shown any
examples of what I have ever plagiarized. Why? Because that never
happened. If I step into a discussion and provide insight now, you won't
be seeing anymore "that advice sucks", but you may see someone else trying
to take credit for it.

Jealous fucks. It is to laugh.

>> As often as I have challenged you to find
>>error with anything BESIDES that one paragraph, and as often as you have
>>weaseled out, it is plain obvious that you have failed to find error with
>>anything else I said in those files.
>
>Perhaps I have better things to do than dig up your old messages?

You do it quite often already.

>>That's why you 1) Challenge me only to find that I never fail to meet said
>>challenges;
>
>I challenge you to post your current weight and body fat percentage.

230lbs; I haven't got a bodyfat percentage figure yet.

>> and 2) Accuse me of saying things that you never succeed in
>>proving (and, as in your current post, you wind up altering what you
>>said). You wanna step up again for another beating, Jackie? Oh wait, with
>>your "women are not very rational", it is obvious that you're gonna beat
>>yourself down.
>
>No matter how many feminist newsgroups you post to my claim stands.

...on its head.

-- Steve, in a septic tank.

[Mix]

In article <6cu4od$o...@crl.crl.com>, gun...@crl.crl.com (Eric Cartman) wrote:
>In article <1998022201...@sirius.infonex.com>, Da Man

><mixm...@remail.obscura.com> wrote:
>>
>>Has that possibility ever crossed your deluded mind?
>
>My posts aren't stupid -

It's pretty stupid to quote the last sentence of a paragraph which omits
any reference to the possibility I am referring to.

> and they're rarely refuted anymore. Mike failed
>to find any but one error in what I've said, and he won't argue anymore
>because I've pinpointed and hammered away at SEVERAL of his.

Actually he presented his case and then when you proved too dense to
understand it he gave up trying.
Teaching pigs to sing and all that.

> You've made
>so many logical errors in your futile attempts to debate with me, that they
>haven't yet made a hard drive that's big enough to store it all.

Then surely you can present at least one example of this?

>>> You dropped out of high school which all of society regards as
>>>being much more of a loser trait than staying at home.
>>
>>Have any polling data on that?
>
>Have any polling data that says that staying home until 25 is a loser
>trait? No you don't and no there is no such concensus.

It is my opinion that staying home until the age of twenty five is a loser
trait. Remember that we are discussing judgements and opinions here. I also
know from personal experience that it is not an uncommon opinion to hold.
But I have not claimed to have any polling data. You are claiming that ALL
of society considers dropping out of high school to be a loser trait. With
such a universal consensus there should be some data. Perhaps a poll here
would be enough since a universal consensus would guarantee that not one
person would say that dropping out of high school was not a loser trait.
Oh wait, I've already said just that!
There goes the consensus.

>>> Do you wish to
>>>argue this?
>>
>>You're the one making a positive claim. It's up to you to defend it.
>
>It is you who started this - you have the obligation to substantiate that
>there is any concensus beyond your own that staying home until 25 is any
>worse than dropping out of high school.

I don't claim that ALL OF SOCIETY agrees with me. I just state my
judgement. I also note that I am not alone in this judgement here on
soc.singles.
I can also present my arguments why staying home that long is a loser trait.
It's quite simple. Being a winner means taking responsibility for your own
life. It means being independent. Emotionally AND financially. Being able
to have your own home where you set your own rules and where you are the
master. None of that is possible living with your mommy.

> I challenge you to a real life
>poll among people on the street. You'd never accept that, because in the
>real world I'll fucking RULE your ass.

Is this like the challenge you made to all takers to battle you in a pick
up girls contest?

> There is not one argument you've
>ever put up that you could ever win with me if people on the street would
>be the judges.

Since most people are idiots you may have a point there.

> There is no argument you can win with me here whenever hard
>facts are concerned. You have never had any hard facts on anything.

Where are your legions of supporters acknowledging your many victories?

>I still get a laugh out of your claim that women are at a low risk of
>catching HIV.

What percentage of women are infected with HIV?

>>> Then let an impartial person put up a website and we'll do a
>>>poll.
>>
>>Website polls do not take a scientific sample of the population.
>
>It's far more scientific than accepting your pathetic excuse for an
>opinion.

An informed opinion is worth more than an ignorant consensus.

> And it's a way for you to save face, since your opinions wouldn't
>last 5 seconds with people in the real world, which is why you hide your
>face. In the real world, you would be laughed out of town by the time the
>first sentence blew forth out of your face.

Why do you keep playing to the nonexistant crowd? This isn't the ordinary
world where your Dr. 'Cuntbitch' Laura and Rush 'Morbid Obesity Poster Boy'
Limpdick's puling idiot morality and conventional wisdom rules. This is the
hunting ground of the cognitive elite. Your vapid memeset isn't worth the
coagulated neurons it's encoded in here.
Yeah, it wouldn't surprise me if the Jesus-worshipping pawns and sheep and
epsilon minus semi morons you circle jerk with would gibber their worthless
agreement with your negative views of the Tokeman.
But let me ask you a question fatass:
Do I seem like the sort of person who cares about the opinions of fools?

>>So if you're game I suggest you hire a reputable firm to conduct a poll of
>>at least 1,000 persons nationwide selected using the best current
>>methodology to represent the population as a whole to ask the question:
>>"Which is a worse loser trait: Dropping out of high school or living with
>>your mother until you're twenty five years old?'
>
>I'm sure there are studies like that already.

Then I'm sure you'll have no problem looking them up and posting them.
Jackie the Tokeman

[Mix]

In article <6cu4od$o...@crl.crl.com>, gun...@crl.crl.com (Eric Cartman) wrote:

>In article <1998022201...@sirius.infonex.com>, Chaney's Hero
><mixm...@remail.obscura.com> wrote:
(snip)

>>> Furthermore, you're a self-admitted misogynist who has
>>>obviously been burned all your life by women,
>>
>>I believe there are psychological differences between the sexes. Perhaps I
>>am a sexist. Most feminists would probably see me as one. But misogyny is
>>hatred of women.
>
>Oh yes, you also claim I hate women (without any basis for such a claim, of
>course),

Doge reposted a rather enlightening message of yours that rather clearly
reveals your stark hatred of women. Plus there was that fascinating message
by your ex girlfriend where she describes how you threatened to come after
her with a shotgun. Add to this your incredibly hostile attitude towards
the actual women you have discussions with online to this day and the
prosecution rests.

> and that I hate people in general. Another factual booboo on your
>part. Your claim that women "aren't very rational" is as hateful and
>predatory an insult as there ever could be - albeit it is a very subtle
>one.

Do you believe that the majority of women are highly rational? Or even
moderately rational?

>>It is not a synonym for sexist. And I am not a misogynist.
>>I love women.
>
>As long as you can use them and make them look like dolls, that is.

I like to think of it as an exchange.
Sex is not a zero sum game.

>>>You're also a self admitted "recreational drug" user, and a high school
>>>dropout.
>>
>>And your point is?
>
>Oh, for one, the most effective anti-drug message has been to round up
>people like you and put them on film. That would just about scare anyone
>straight. Nobody would want to think that one day in the future, they
>would be spouting off the kind of braindead bullshit you're coming up with
>nowadays.

If I were willing to allow a picture of myself and my two girls to be used
for this purpose drug use would skyrocket.
Of course this explosion of toking would be an erroroneous reaction to my
greatness since I am not great because I smoke the occasional joint, rather
I am great person who happens to smoke.

>>> People have seen you getting kicked out of internet cafe's for
>>>busting quarters out of the kiosks; that's why your anonymous remailer
>>>provider changes so much.
>
>>>You made one opinion and a bunch of remarks which can be verified as right
>>>or wrong (in this case, grossly wrong).
>>
>>I claim you are a loser. This statement is based on my analysis of every
>>one of your messages I have read to date.
>
>..while you were using recreational drugs.

I haven't posted to the net while high in a long time.

>>>Because if you come to Anaheim in April of 1998 I will show you dozens of
>>>WOMEN who not only outnumber the snigglers in soc.singles and
>>>soc.singles.moderated combined, but who also disagree with you that I am
>>>anything but 100% cool.
>>
>>Are these your fellow Highlander and cartoon fans?
>>Losers of a feather fail together.
>
>To be a loser implies that one lacks a job, a relationship and friends.
>That would apply to you, and not us.

No, to be a loser means you have a shitty job, a relationship with another
ugly loser and loser friends.

>>> I'm not talking about email support, I am talking
>>>about real life, in your face, "Shut the fuck up, Jackie" from more people
>>>than you can fire an uzi at.
>>
>>David Koresh had a lot of followers. Did that make him right?
>
>I have no followers. Friends, yes, followers, no. Sorry, you lose again.

Charles Manson had a lot of friends. Did that make him right?
Hell, Bill Clinton has tons of friends. Does that mean he's a great man?

>>>Are you game, or are you a chickenshit whom I should just outright
>>>disregard because you're nothing but a homeless bum sent to make me look
>>>good?
>
>>>Seduction is about deception (as per the dictionary definition), and thus
>>>severely diverges from what courtship is all about. Sorry, but you lose.
>>>Try arguing with me in Oceania and maybe you'll have a better chance.
>>
>>One of the definitions of seduction was simply to make someone desire you.
>>Words do occasionally have more than one definition you know.
>
>And as I argued, that is the least definition of all.

It was, as I recall, the third listed. There were others after it.
And my point requires that seduction have AS ONE OF IT'S MEANINGS to make
someone desire you. It does NOT require that to be the ONLY possible
definition.

> It has no regard to
>a relationship, which courtship regards as the most primary goal.

Seduction is a technique that can lead to a relationship. Courtship without
seduction leads to 'let's just be friends.'

>Seduction and courtship have very different goals and where they overlap
>they have opposing routes. As I said before, it severely diverges from
>what seduction is about.

A successful seduction and a successful courtship do share one thing in
common: You end up in bed with the person you were seducing or courting.
And they do not have totally opposing routes. Courtship just takes a more
roundabout path before joining the seduction superhighway.

>>And I repeat that if you cannot generate sexual interest in a person you
>>are not going to be able to complete the courtship. Unless we're talking
>>about courtship with the goal of setting up a marriage of convenience where
>>sexual attraction is irrelevant.
>
>Seduction is about sex first, relationship MAYBE. Courtship is about a
>relationship first, then sex. They certainly are not the same thing at
>ALL.

If you cannot generate sexual attraction you will not end up in a
relationship, you'll end up in a friendship. Now that's fine if you have
all the girls you want already. But people reading COURTING ADVICE don't
want to know how to get more friends, they want to know how to find ROMANCE.
And for that your file was singularly AWFUL.

>>>>The truth hurts. That's why I use a remailer.
>>>
>>>So you can't get all the hate mail from women that you want us to believe
>>>are "not very rational."
>>
>>Hate mail would certainly go a long way towards establishing the
>>rationality of women. ;)
>
>If that's the way you get attention, then by all means go right ahead. As
>much as you rant about my unpopularity, I'm turning blue in the face
>holding my breath for when a woman is ever going to agree with you. On the
>contrary, many have smacked you up for what you've said.

So you can stop holding your breath now. You aren't reading closely enough.
Women do sometimes post that they agree with this or that point I've made.

>>> I'd do it just to see her punch you into next week.
>>
>>Is that your idea of rationality?
>
>No, it's my idea of a good laugh.

So you believe that women are likely to lash out with irrational violence
if they hear me express my opinions?

> You desperately need some sense knocked
>into you, and making that statement you made - in public, and not behind
>the protection of a keyboard - will bring ya just that.

Yes Steve, you've changed. You never resort to violence anymore. And you'd
never dream of threatening to shotgun your current girlfriend. You've grown
up plenty since those dark days.
You're the very model of a Christian Steve. Every message dripping with the
milk of human kindness.

>>> But
>>>since you don't have a girlfriend
>>
>>I like the way you flip-flop about whether I have a girlfriend or not.
>
>Your reading comprehension suits one who dropped out of high school. I
>said "would" as in a conditional statement, assuming that you HAVE a
>girlfriend. Which would be an erroneous assumption.

Egads, what babble!
I do have a girlfriend. Stick to that and at least your blather will bear
some relation to my actual situation.

>>> (or a job, a roof over your head, or a
>>>high school education for that matter), there's no possibility of that, now
>>>is there?
>>
>>If I don't have a job or a roof over my head how am I posting these messages?
>
>Well, they say panhandling is big money. And Internet cafe's are becoming
>commonplace in big cities. Mix into this a high school dropout addicted to
>trolling, and you have the life and times of Jackie the Tokeman.

It's sad that you can't find anything real to say against me while I have
such a rich mine of material to use against you. Perhaps I should give you
a little more ammo. Here's a nice blunder I made - I failed to recognize
the name of a figure skater and put my foot in it real good in one of the
other threads (The Message (Part 3)). Go in and share in the gloating!
Consider this my special gift just for you.

Jackie the Tokeman

[Mix]

In article <6cu4od$o...@crl.crl.com>, gun...@crl.crl.com (Eric Cartman) wrote:
>In article <1998022201...@sirius.infonex.com>, Chaney's Hero
><mixm...@remail.obscura.com> wrote:
(snip)

>>> Oh yes, and I also have refuted, many times, the
>>>claim that I am terrified to approach women.
>>
>>You claim that men should not approach women. You claim that they will be
>>brutally rejected. I dispute this claim.
>
>You dispute a claim I never made, or that I have outgrown and contradicted
>YEARS ago.

So which is it? Did you never make it or have you outgrown it?

> I said that men should practice less rabid aggression, and
>should make an effort towards making themselves more likely to be
>approached.

First off I am not advocating RABID aggression, I am advocating making the
first move. Second, if a man does everything possible to make it more
likely that he will be approached he will still be at an immense
disadvantage if he doesn't have the balls to approach women.

> That, Jackie, was in my advice post that you so erroneously
>tried to slam. That clearly contradicts your claim that I said that men
>shouldn't approach women, or that they will be brutally rejected.

You are REPEATING your errors here! Men MUST approach women. It is a WASTE
OF TIME for men to focus on 'making themselves more likely to be approached'
Instead you must work on making yourself more likely to score when you do
the approaching.

>Now, Jackie, that is not an opinion you just stated - that is a true/false
>statement which has been proven totally false. Find where I ever said men
>shouldn't approach women or that they will be (without exception, as you
>have implied) brutally rejected, or take that claim back.

You don't need to spell it out. Your entire way of life, your endless
messages defending loserguys, all are part of your project to rationalize
your own weakness.
I've seen you write AGAIN AND AGAIN how poor guys just CAN'T approach
women, that they will be slammed down if they try.

>(Jackie will now snip this, or launch another round of insults. Gee folks,
>how hard is it to predict that second-rate moron?)

Stating the truth about you is bound to be insulting.

>>Your messages on this subject show
>>a deep fear of approaching women.
>
>Another clear true/false statement that is totally false. My posts show a
>desire to obtain a clear advantage before you approach a woman.

Why, if that is the case, have you personally FAILED to do the ONE THING
that would set you far above the average man in terms of first VISUAL
impressions?
Why haven't you got rid of your pot belly?

> When I
>first came in here, I did speak very heavily of the dangers of approaching
>a woman; however, as time went on, I learned how to get by these dangers,
>and to beat the rejection odds, and my posts moved far away from the
>attitude of "fear of approaching women". Get over it, Jackie. You weren't
>even HERE when I last posted anything that reflected this "fear".

Yes I was. Your whole 'courtship advice' file reeked of it.

>>> Shatner never told me to get a life, and you have
>>>no documentation that he ever did.
>>
>>Obviously humor is wasted on you.
>
>Translation: You backpedal very fast when I turn and fight.

Since you love polls how about this:
How many people thought that when I said that Bill Shatner told Chaney to
get a life that I meant that William Shatner HAD IN FACT ACTUALLY TOLD
CHANEY TO GET A LIFE?

>>> None of my hobbies are loser hobbies,
>>>and in fact they are more popular now than any of YOURS.
>>
>>The popularity of a hobby is no sign that it is not for losers.
>
>Yes it is. A loser is someone who is not accepted.

What? Where the hell does that definition come from?
Of course we are discussing judgements and those are subjective but still,
that is a rather narrow definition. By that standard you could say that a
gang of carnival geeks who were accepted by EACH OTHER were thus not
losers.

> Drop in on the Clan
>Denial website some time and do a head count.

Well now, if you're accepted by Highlander fans I guess you couldn't
possibly be a loser!
ROTFLOL!

> In just an Internet sense
>I've got up to 5 times as many friends as enemies. In real life, I have NO
>enemies, and many friends.

In real life if you pulled shit like you pull here on anyone they would
either beat the shit out of you or file for a restraining order.

> I post less now because at least 7 times as
>many friends have plans for my free time, as enemies have ever had time to
>try to flame at me. You see, Jackie, the reason you hide your face, the
>reason you post anonymously, is because in the real world, and beyond this
>limited realm, you won't last a minute.

I'm afraid you're wrong about that. I am quite a charming and clever person
in real life. And even those on the net with the minds to see can tell I am
a rather formidable intellectual opponent. Unfortunately you are blind when
it comes to the finer things. If anyone doubts this they need only look in
my FAQ to see what you said about Shakespeare.

> Not intellectually, and not in an
>argument. Nobody but these snigglers are going to agree with you about
>anything you've argued with me about - well, there is one nutcase whose
>advice about AIDS is getting people killed, of course.

Interesting that you say 'no one but these snigglers' when the audience for
our little debates consists ENTIRELY of 'snigglers.' It's not like anyone
else is going to bother taking the time to read these exchanges.
And in other newsgroups where I discuss other topics I find that some agree
and some don't.
Heck, I seem to remember a certain Steve Chaney who, before I told him what
I thought of HIM, agreed with just about everything I posted...

> Your views about
>women regularly get more boos and hisses than mine,

I have a rather complex view of women. The desire to be dominated is part
of feminine nature but it is not the whole story. If you'd read what I
write instead of trying to score a few points with feminists (who will
never stop hating a Limbaugh lacky like yourself so give it up already) you
just might learn something about human nature.

> and your partner in
>crime (for about a half dozen posts) KOATS was practically obliterated on
>sight.

KOATS was obliterated because he had only one good point to make and he
wasn't very good at making it. I am still here because I'm good at this and
I like playing this game.

> I barely got a glimpse at the poor chap before the terrible
>witpower of countless women, laid into his ass. But it wasn't that that
>got him. It was that whole bit about the Notorious B.I.G.... Jackie, that
>is the caliber of mindset that you hang with. He actually is smarter than
>you.

Oh please.
I challenge you to present your evidence that KOATS is smarter than me.
This should be worth a few laughs.
Jackie the Tokeman

[John Fereira]

In article <1998022506...@sirius.infonex.com>, Mix <mixm...@remail.obscura.com> wrote:

>a little more ammo. Here's a nice blunder I made - I failed to recognize
>the name of a figure skater and put my foot in it real good in one of the
>other threads (The Message (Part 3)). Go in and share in the gloating!
>Consider this my special gift just for you.

You did it again, Jackie. Bonnie Blair was a *speed* skater.

John Fereira
ja...@cornell.edu

[Stephanie Dobler]

Mix wrote:
> In article <6cu4od$o...@crl.crl.com>, gun...@crl.crl.com (Eric Cartman) wrote:
> >If that's the way you get attention, then by all means go right ahead. As
> >much as you rant about my unpopularity, I'm turning blue in the face
> >holding my breath for when a woman is ever going to agree with you. On the
> >contrary, many have smacked you up for what you've said.
>
> So you can stop holding your breath now. You aren't reading closely enough.
> Women do sometimes post that they agree with this or that point I've made.

As a fat woman, I have ample reason to dislike Jackie based on his
frequent statements about fat slobs. Now, I have a wonderful boyfriend
who adores me, so I'm not spending any time worrying about what the
Tokeman's opinion of me, but you can see why I might tend to have a
bias. And yet I respect Jackie more than I do Steve. Here's a good
example of why:

> It's sad that you can't find anything real to say against me while I have
> such a rich mine of material to use against you. Perhaps I should give you
> a little more ammo. Here's a nice blunder I made - I failed to recognize
> the name of a figure skater and put my foot in it real good in one of the
> other threads (The Message (Part 3)). Go in and share in the gloating!
> Consider this my special gift just for you.
>
> Jackie the Tokeman

I don't always read this newsgroup, but I've noticed several occasions
where Jackie cheerfully admits to having made a mistake. In the same
circumstances, Chaney twists around in agony trying to somehow deny that
he could possibly have been wrong. It's been extremely amusing watching
him try to weasel out of the implications of his oft-repeated statement
"it's all in the numbers." Despite Jackie's proud claims of amorality,
and Chaney's putting himself in the moralistic camp of such as Dr.
Laura, it's clear who has more integrity, at least on this newsgroup. I
won't be at all surprised if Chaney actually debases himself enough to
take Jackie up on his offer.

I recently re-read Dickens's "Our Mutual Friend." Jackie and Steve
remind me a lot of Eugene Wrayburn and Bradley Headstone. The first is
careless and pleasure-loving, and a rival to the earnest self-improving
schoolmaster Headstone. Wrayburn delights in baiting and torturing
Headstone. You'd think our sympathies ought to be with the schoolmaster,
who is exactly the hard-working earnest type that Dickens usually holds
out for admiration. But his big flaw is hypocrisy. If he only could,
he'd be just as lustful and passionate as Wrayburn. In fact, repressed
passion drives him mad. Wrayburn, who comes close to ruining an innocent
girl, and mercilessly torments Headstone, still has our sympathy even
though he has few good qualities besides superficial charm. Of course,
this is Dickens and in the end Wrayburn is tamed. But Headstone is dead,
the victim of his own rage.

--
Stephanie Dobler

[Daniel Mocsny]

John Fereira wrote:
>
> In article <1998022506...@sirius.infonex.com>, Mix <mixm...@remail.obscura.com> wrote:
>

> >a little more ammo. Here's a nice blunder I made - I failed to recognize
> >the name of a figure skater and put my foot in it real good in one of the
> >other threads (The Message (Part 3)). Go in and share in the gloating!
> >Consider this my special gift just for you.
>

> You did it again, Jackie. Bonnie Blair was a *speed* skater.

It only takes about a minute to go to Alta Vista and
look up "bonnie blair":

http://www.altavista.digital.com/cgi-bin/query?pg=q&what=web&kl=XX&q=%22bonnie+blair%22

The very first hit when I ran this search makes it clear that
Bonnie Blair is/was a speed skater.

It's easy to forgive Jackie for not knowing who Bonnie Blair is;
after all, speed skating is a minor sport, and aside from
the Olympic coverage only a tiny group of people would give a shit
about it.

However, the first time "Bonnie Blair" came up in a thread, all
Jackie had to do was look her up on Alta Vista. The name "Bonnie
Blair" seems uncommon enough that it should be a fairly unambiguous
search phrase, and Jackie would only have needed a minute or two
to find out who the original poster was probably referring to as
"Bonnie Blair."

In any case, is Bonnie Blair a good example of an overweight athlete?
Let's look for her vital stats:

http://www.altavista.digital.com/cgi-bin/query?pg=q&stq=20&what=web&kl=XX&q=%2B%22bonnie+blair%22+%2Bweight

The first hit:

http://pages.prodigy.com/JCBlair/bblair.htm

says:

Bonnie Blair.
Born March 18, 1964.
Birthplace: Champaign, Illinois
Height: 5' 4"
Competing Weight: 130 lbs.

130 pounds at 5'4" would be somewhat overfat for all but the
largest-framed sedentary women. However, for a woman to hit 30 MPH
on skates she must have the bulging quadriceps that are clearly
apparent in the picture on the above page.

Bonnie Blair is not going to put Kate Moss out of a job, and she might
not have the most attractive female physique one could imagine, but
anybody who thinks she is "fat" needs to read an exercise physiology
book. No seriously fat person is going to set world records in an event
which consists of accelerating one's body mass from rest to 30 MPH
over short distances. You could calculate the time penalty Bonnie
would pay for every additional pound of non-functional weight.

Also, when it comes to a woman's athletic capacity in bed, 15 pounds
of extra muscle will prove to be a lot more useful than 15 pounds of
extra fat.

--
--- Daniel J. Mocsny, trust me.

[kimvy]

On Wed, 25 Feb 1998 11:00:46 -0500, Stephanie Dobler <dob...@psc.edu>
wrote:

>Mix wrote:
>> In article <6cu4od$o...@crl.crl.com>, gun...@crl.crl.com (Eric Cartman) wrote:
>> >If that's the way you get attention, then by all means go right ahead. As
>> >much as you rant about my unpopularity, I'm turning blue in the face
>> >holding my breath for when a woman is ever going to agree with you. On the
>> >contrary, many have smacked you up for what you've said.
>>
>> So you can stop holding your breath now. You aren't reading closely enough.
>> Women do sometimes post that they agree with this or that point I've made.
>

>As a fat woman, I have ample reason to dislike Jackie based on his
>frequent statements about fat slobs. Now, I have a wonderful boyfriend
>who adores me, so I'm not spending any time worrying about what the
>Tokeman's opinion of me, but you can see why I might tend to have a
>bias. And yet I respect Jackie more than I do Steve. Here's a good
>example of why:
>

(snipped reasons)

Hi,

A few points:

- why would Jackie's opinion matter to you
- why would having a bf change that
- as Jackie him/herself rightly pointed out, we have no idea who
he/she is. Could be a woman (and a fat one for that matter :D), a 17
year old out trolling, a 50 year old *happily* married man with
children having fun or anything in between.

I tend to think that Jackie is a 350 lb woman. :)

Kim

[Daniel Mocsny]

kimvy wrote:
> - why would Jackie's opinion matter to you

Whether person A finds person B offensive and proceeds to
evaluate person B's unrelated ideas with reference to those
negative emotions depends on person A's tendency to
think emotionally rather than logically.

> - why would having a bf change that

Sex on a regular basis changes everything. For one thing,
if you have someone you find attractive who is willing to
bang you and only you, then you have an objective reason
to believe you have worth to that person. For some people,
that would slightly reduce their tendency to look to
Jackie the Tokeman to affirm their worth.

Although I hope I don't need to mention that staking one's
self-worth on Jackie's writings is probably a high-risk
gamble for anybody who already has enough objective defects
to have questioned his/her worth in the first place.

Also, most normal people derive emotional rewards from
romantic/sexual relationships. Otherwise, pleasure-seekers
that we are, we wouldn't bother with them. A person who is
getting emotional rewards tends to be less cranky all
around, and thus less likely to respond to Jackie's
trigger words like "fat slobs."

> - as Jackie him/herself rightly pointed out, we have no idea who
> he/she is. Could be a woman (and a fat one for that matter :D), a 17
> year old out trolling, a 50 year old *happily* married man with
> children having fun or anything in between.

We know Jackie is a smart person.

But it doesn't matter who Jackie is, because we are almost
all genetically programmed to care to some degree about the
opinions of other people...even people we dislike.

Jackie understands this nearly universal human weakness and
he relentlessly exploits it in his entertaining experiment
in human psychopathology.

> I tend to think that Jackie is a 350 lb woman. :)

Possible, but only if she is smarter than "he" is. That is,
for a woman to portray a smart man convincingly, she has
to be a much smarter woman (to detect and overcome all
her telltale female bias as she works out elaborate
arguments from the male point of view).

Consider how difficult it is for the smart men on soc.singles
just to get their ideas across to the smart women here. How
much more difficult would it be for those smart women to
present such ideas as though they had internalized them
fully?

> Kim

--
--- Daniel J. Mocsny

[Mix]

In article <34F4402E...@psc.edu>, dob...@psc.edu wrote:
>Mix wrote:
>> In article <6cu4od$o...@crl.crl.com>, gun...@crl.crl.com (Eric Cartman)
>>wrote:
>> >If that's the way you get attention, then by all means go right ahead. As
>> >much as you rant about my unpopularity, I'm turning blue in the face
>> >holding my breath for when a woman is ever going to agree with you. On the
>> >contrary, many have smacked you up for what you've said.
>>
>> So you can stop holding your breath now. You aren't reading closely enough.
>> Women do sometimes post that they agree with this or that point I've made.
>
>As a fat woman, I have ample reason to dislike Jackie based on his
>frequent statements about fat slobs. Now, I have a wonderful boyfriend
>who adores me,

Hey Stephanie, good to hear you found what you were looking for!

> so I'm not spending any time worrying about what the
>Tokeman's opinion of me, but you can see why I might tend to have a
>bias. And yet I respect Jackie more than I do Steve. Here's a good
>example of why:
>

>> It's sad that you can't find anything real to say against me while I have
>> such a rich mine of material to use against you. Perhaps I should give you

>> a little more ammo. Here's a nice blunder I made - I failed to recognize
>> the name of a figure skater and put my foot in it real good in one of the
>> other threads (The Message (Part 3)). Go in and share in the gloating!
>> Consider this my special gift just for you.
>>

>> Jackie the Tokeman
>
>I don't always read this newsgroup, but I've noticed several occasions
>where Jackie cheerfully admits to having made a mistake.

I have found that if someone presents a good argument or incontrovertable
evidence that I am wrong the wise thing to do is accept it graciously and
move on. This assures that my information about reality will steadily
improve.

> In the same
>circumstances, Chaney twists around in agony trying to somehow deny that
>he could possibly have been wrong.

It astonishes me to see him still beating on dead horses which have long
since been shipped to the glue factory and rendered into soap.
I mean we're talking some four year old horse corpses here! Jeezus!

> It's been extremely amusing watching
>him try to weasel out of the implications of his oft-repeated statement
>"it's all in the numbers."

What makes that one especially amusing is the context in which he
originally used it. He was discussing Highlander and claimed that his
fellow hardcore fans all agreed with him about some trivial point. But I
was talking about the opinion TOTAL VIEWING AUDIENCE as expressed by their
watching the show! Which means that even if you accept the theory that the
'numbers' are the standard by which truth is judged I am still right and he
is still wrong!

> Despite Jackie's proud claims of amorality,
>and Chaney's putting himself in the moralistic camp of such as Dr.
>Laura, it's clear who has more integrity, at least on this newsgroup. I
>won't be at all surprised if Chaney actually debases himself enough to
>take Jackie up on his offer.

Is that the offer to post his current height and weight? Of course my
theory is that of his problems the MAJOR one is not with his weight but
with his personality. If he fixed his loser mentality he could then apply
his newfound winner skills to losing weight if he wished. But without
getting rid of the loser mentality no amount of aerobic exercise or lowfat
food will make him happy.

>I recently re-read Dickens's "Our Mutual Friend." Jackie and Steve
>remind me a lot of Eugene Wrayburn and Bradley Headstone. The first is
>careless and pleasure-loving, and a rival to the earnest self-improving
>schoolmaster Headstone. Wrayburn delights in baiting and torturing
>Headstone. You'd think our sympathies ought to be with the schoolmaster,
>who is exactly the hard-working earnest type that Dickens usually holds
>out for admiration. But his big flaw is hypocrisy. If he only could,
>he'd be just as lustful and passionate as Wrayburn. In fact, repressed
>passion drives him mad. Wrayburn, who comes close to ruining an innocent
>girl,

Close but no cigar!

> and mercilessly torments Headstone, still has our sympathy even
>though he has few good qualities besides superficial charm. Of course,
>this is Dickens and in the end Wrayburn is tamed.

D'oh!

> But Headstone is dead,
>the victim of his own rage.

Now I'm gonna have to read that. Is it a novel or a short story?
Jackie the Tokeman

P.S. Hey Steve, what was that about no one agreeing with anything I say?

[Steve Chaney]

In article <1998022505...@sirius.infonex.com>, Kenny <mixm...@remail.obscura.com> wrote:
>
>Actually he presented his case and then when you proved too dense to
>understand it he gave up trying.

That's funny...everything I said, directly addressed his points without
missing a beat. He made accusations he was unable to back up, and tried to
lure me into arguing on a federal level an issue that was purely
state-based. He couldn't get me to go there, so he shut up. And forever
will I torture him for it. :)

>Then surely you can present at least one example of this?

Oh, claiming that I said I'm a "master of seduction", was one error you
made. The other one was your continued gross underestimation of the risk
heterosexual women run as far as catching HIV from promiscuous men. Let's
see...you got your ass handed to you, well done, about the issue of women's
attractiveness and weight...

>It is my opinion

that your opinions aren't worth shit. Have a nice day, chap.

-- Steve

[Steve Chaney]

In article <1998022506...@sirius.infonex.com>, Kenny <mixm...@remail.obscura.com> wrote:
>>
>>Oh yes, you also claim I hate women (without any basis for such a claim, of
>>course),
>
>Doge reposted a rather enlightening message of yours that rather clearly
>reveals your stark hatred of

Riot grrls, Jackie. My message clearly revealed my stark hatred of the
"riotgrrl" movement - the manhating, "I want everyone to coddle me" crowd
whose sole mission in life is to use and abuse the legal system and the
unspoken rules system, as much as they can. Most of these "young punk
feminists" have no problem with stepping on other people - especially men -
to serve their social and political ends. Do a yahoo search on riotgrrl
and follow their web sites, then read their views and attitudes...and carry
a barf bag.

And while you're at it, tell us all how it is that they represent ALL
women. Clue: they don't. Sorry, you lose AGAIN.

-- Steve

[Steve Chaney]

In article <1998022506...@sirius.infonex.com>, Kenny <mixm...@remail.obscura.com> wrote:
>>

>> I said that men should practice less rabid aggression, and
>>should make an effort towards making themselves more likely to be
>>approached.
>
>First off I am not advocating RABID aggression, I am advocating making the
>first move. Second, if a man does everything possible to make it more
>likely that he will be approached he will still be at an immense
>disadvantage if he doesn't have the balls to approach women.

Making the first move is not something I've ever opposed. Find any post
where I have. I have, however, said that if a man is to do so, they
shouldn't just walk blindly up to a woman (as many do) and start making
their self-pitch. I have said that guys make the first tangible move TOO
OFTEN, and that the typical woman's "first move" - smiling, looking, or
body language - is infinitely less risky. They aren't humiliated if he
doesn't respond, they aren't the ones who get the overt blowoffs, and sorry
crowd but in the dating scene, when you make the overt move, it sucks a lot
worse to be rejected than when you're being rejected or not noticed by
someone when you're using body language. If a woman gets the "you're too
nice" line when she is physically TALKING to a guy, yeah it sucks just as
bad - but when a guy doesn't notice you're smiling, or looks away, or all
that, that is nothing. My position has CONSTANTLY been that a man should
both approach women *AND* work at being approached more often. Not one or
the other, Jackie. No post of mine ever said that men shouldn't approach
women.

Making the first move with someone is not unlike crossing a minefield. You
need to know where the mines are, and not blindly run over them. Your
technique discovers them by means of stepping on them. I do not say just
give up and walk away. I do, however, say that the use of metal detectors
while crossing, is most prudent, and that sometimes SHE ought to cross
instead.

Now, Jackie...find the post where I said men shouldn't approach women.

-- Steve

[Steve Chaney]

In article <34f47a7a...@enews.newsguy.com>, kimvy <ki...@akamail.com> wrote:
>A few points:

>
>- why would Jackie's opinion matter to you

>- why would having a bf change that

>- as Jackie him/herself rightly pointed out, we have no idea who
>he/she is. Could be a woman (and a fat one for that matter :D), a 17
>year old out trolling, a 50 year old *happily* married man with
>children having fun or anything in between.
>

>I tend to think that Jackie is a 350 lb woman. :)

I fear the concept that the X chromosome could ever have the capacity to
carry the birth defect that made Jackie what s/he/it is today. The current
theory is that Jackie the Tokeman is a computer virus, perhaps a variant of
the Troll virus.

-- Steve

[Mix]

In article <34f47a7a...@enews.newsguy.com>, ki...@akamail.com (kimvy)
wrote:
>On Wed, 25 Feb 1998 11:00:46 -0500, Stephanie Dobler <dob...@psc.edu>

>wrote:
>
>>Mix wrote:
>>> In article <6cu4od$o...@crl.crl.com>, gun...@crl.crl.com (Eric Cartman)
>>>wrote:
>>> >If that's the way you get attention, then by all means go right ahead. As
>>> >much as you rant about my unpopularity, I'm turning blue in the face
>>> >holding my breath for when a woman is ever going to agree with you.
>>>On the
>>> >contrary, many have smacked you up for what you've said.
>>>
>>> So you can stop holding your breath now. You aren't reading closely enough.
>>> Women do sometimes post that they agree with this or that point I've made.
>>
>>As a fat woman, I have ample reason to dislike Jackie based on his
>>frequent statements about fat slobs. Now, I have a wonderful boyfriend

>>who adores me, so I'm not spending any time worrying about what the

>>Tokeman's opinion of me, but you can see why I might tend to have a
>>bias. And yet I respect Jackie more than I do Steve. Here's a good
>>example of why:
>>

>(snipped reasons)
>
>Hi,

>
>A few points:
>
>- why would Jackie's opinion matter to you
>- why would having a bf change that

I'll let Stephanie answer those.

>- as Jackie him/herself rightly pointed out, we have no idea who
>he/she is. Could be a woman (and a fat one for that matter :D), a 17
>year old out trolling, a 50 year old *happily* married man with
>children having fun or anything in between.
>
>I tend to think that Jackie is a 350 lb woman. :)

Do you find that 350 pound women spend a lot of time criticizing obesity
and constructing elaborate personas online?
I think the one and only thing that gives me some small measure of
credibility is that I am consistent and I've been here for a while. I mean
really, it would be rather time consuming to construct the Virtual Tokeman
(tm) just as a prank.
Jackie the Tokeman

[Mix]

In article <6d5h7f$c...@crl.crl.com>, gun...@crl.crl.com (Cartman) wrote:
>In article <1998022506...@sirius.infonex.com>, Kenny
><mixm...@remail.obscura.com> wrote:
>>>

>>>Oh yes, you also claim I hate women (without any basis for such a claim, of
>>>course),
>>
>>Doge reposted a rather enlightening message of yours that rather clearly
>>reveals your stark hatred of
>
>Riot grrls, Jackie. My message clearly revealed my stark hatred of the
>"riotgrrl" movement - the manhating, "I want everyone to coddle me" crowd
>whose sole mission in life is to use and abuse the legal system and the
>unspoken rules system, as much as they can.

Yeah, they're a real serious threat. I'm shakin' in my boots.

> Most of these "young punk
>feminists" have no problem with stepping on other people - especially men -
>to serve their social and political ends. Do a yahoo search on riotgrrl
>and follow their web sites, then read their views and attitudes...and carry
>a barf bag.

Your message dripped with your fear and hatred of women. So does a recent
message I saw. I shall be dissecting that one shortly. You haven't changed
a bit.

>And while you're at it, tell us all how it is that they represent ALL
>women. Clue: they don't. Sorry, you lose AGAIN.

Why did you snip the part where I discussed your threat to murder your
ex-girlfriend with a shotgun?
It's funny how that part almost always gets snipped...
Jackie the Tokeman

[Mix]

In article <6d5gsb$c...@crl.crl.com>, gun...@crl.crl.com (Eric Cartman) wrote:
>In article <1998022505...@sirius.infonex.com>, Kenny
><mixm...@remail.obscura.com> wrote:
>>
>>Actually he presented his case and then when you proved too dense to
>>understand it he gave up trying.
>
>That's funny...everything I said, directly addressed his points without
>missing a beat.

You were alone in that conclusion.

> He made accusations he was unable to back up, and tried to
>lure me into arguing on a federal level an issue that was purely
>state-based. He couldn't get me to go there, so he shut up. And forever
>will I torture him for it. :)

To torture him your opinion would have to have some credibility.

>>Then surely you can present at least one example of this?
>
>Oh, claiming that I said I'm a "master of seduction", was one error you
>made.

People who post 100k text files on how to get girls are making a tacit
claim that they know what they're talking about.
People who claim to have better advice than the self proclaimed master of
seduction Ross Jeffries are clearly vying for the title.
Backpedal some more Cartman.

> The other one was your continued gross underestimation of the risk
>heterosexual women run as far as catching HIV from promiscuous men.

You're backpedaling again. I was talking about women having sex with
heterosexual men. You are now trying to shift to a new argument since you
lost the original rather conclusively when you failed to produce the
statistics showing the precise risk faced by a woman having heterosexual
intercourse.

> Let's
>see...you got your ass handed to you, well done, about the issue of women's
>attractiveness and weight...

I haven't seen anything that refutes my observations that men usually find
slender women more attractive than obese women.

>>It is my opinion
>
>that your opinions aren't worth shit. Have a nice day, chap.

And your basis for this opinion is....?
Jackie the Tokeman

[Mix]

In article <6d5icp$c...@crl.crl.com>, gun...@crl.crl.com (Cartman) wrote:
>In article <1998022506...@sirius.infonex.com>, Kenny
><mixm...@remail.obscura.com> wrote:
>>>

>>> I said that men should practice less rabid aggression, and
>>>should make an effort towards making themselves more likely to be
>>>approached.
>>
>>First off I am not advocating RABID aggression, I am advocating making the
>>first move. Second, if a man does everything possible to make it more
>>likely that he will be approached he will still be at an immense
>>disadvantage if he doesn't have the balls to approach women.
>
>Making the first move is not something I've ever opposed.

Read on and watch Cartman proceed to bitch and moan and whine about the
horrors of making the first move and you'll see why I have concluded that
he is terrified of women.

> Find any post
>where I have.

Here it is:

> I have, however, said that if a man is to do so, they
>shouldn't just walk blindly up to a woman (as many do) and start making
>their self-pitch. I have said that guys make the first tangible move TOO
>OFTEN, and that the typical woman's "first move" - smiling, looking, or
>body language - is infinitely less risky.

Waaaah! It's not fair! Boo hoo hoo!
RISKY? Who are you to talk about risk? Wassamatta tubs, afraid that some
hot chick is gonna LAUGH IN YOUR FACE when you, a STINKING OBESE SLOB, dare
to approach her? Well guess what, IF, and I say IF, you had some CHARM,
some CLUE, you COULD approach a HOT CHICK and sweet talk her and even in
your wretched physical condition there is a CHANCE that you could score.
And even if you don't what's the dilly with this 'RISK' crap? Show a little
backbone why dontcha?
Risk is walking through a minefield. Hitting on a girl is fun.

> They aren't humiliated if he
>doesn't respond, they aren't the ones who get the overt blowoffs, and sorry
>crowd but in the dating scene, when you make the overt move, it sucks a lot
>worse to be rejected than when you're being rejected or not noticed by
>someone when you're using body language.

Only if your self esteem depends on the result of any particular attempt.

> If a woman gets the "you're too
>nice" line when she is physically TALKING to a guy, yeah it sucks just as
>bad - but when a guy doesn't notice you're smiling, or looks away, or all
>that, that is nothing. My position has CONSTANTLY been that a man should
>both approach women *AND* work at being approached more often. Not one or
>the other, Jackie. No post of mine ever said that men shouldn't approach
>women.

No, you just WHINE about it and talk about how friggin unfair it all is.
Oh, the humanity!

>Making the first move with someone is not unlike crossing a minefield.

Gah! I can't believe it!
CROSSING A MINEFIELD IS LIKE CROSSING A MINEFIELD. MAKING THE FIRST MOVE IS
LIKE PLAYING A GAME!
Jesus H. Christ on a pretzel stick! You are a friggin' retard!

> You
>need to know where the mines are, and not blindly run over them. Your
>technique discovers them by means of stepping on them. I do not say just
>give up and walk away. I do, however, say that the use of metal detectors
>while crossing, is most prudent, and that sometimes SHE ought to cross
>instead.

Man is the hunter.
Fortune favors the bold.

>Now, Jackie...find the post where I said men shouldn't approach women.

Thank you for making my point for me.
Jackie the Tokeman

[Mix]

In article <6cu62m$o...@crl.crl.com>, gun...@crl.crl.com (Eric Cartman) whined:
>In article <1998022201...@sirius.infonex.com>, Jesus' Master

><mixm...@remail.obscura.com> wrote:
>>
>>You had the loserguy bowing and scraping and talking about cooking for his
>>wife.
>
>Wrong. Try cooking for himself. That's what I said. You're talking out
>of your ass as usual.

You posted a little anecdote about some fucking feeb going to cooking class
and wearing his pussy-whipped girly-man identity on his sleeve in order to
show how fucking enlightened he was. Forgetting completely that if you
PANDER to someone they will never RESPECT you.

>>>1) In the REAL world, women almost universally advise going to a cooking
>>>class if you're a guy trying to meet someone. It's the first choice in a
>>>long list of non-threatening, "vanilla" type options.
>>
>>Notice your emphasis - 'non threatening' 'vanilla'
>>Why do you prefer such situations? Because you are a cowardly little worm,
>>that's why!
>
>And nobody supports YOUR methods now, do they?

Since I began posting quite a few people have written PUBLICLY to say that
my ideas were sound. How many endorsements did your file get?
(cue sound of crickets...)

> Ain't no women around here
>standing by you, are there?

Some women agree with me on some issues.
And in the real world women DO stand by their Tokeman. And that's where it
counts.

> Most people pick venues in which they are
>comfortable, or work their way to others - and eventually are successful.

I am comfortable here and I am quite successful. I certainly get a lot more
positive replies than you do.

>Any venue YOU come up with, inevitably leads to disaster.

And your evidence of this is?

> You didn't care
>to comment about what I said about dancing, which is the next, better venue
>in which to meet women. I've seen line dancing and it is hardly non
>threatening.

I said that the few trivial and banal truths in your file were buried in
the immense load of fallacious sewage which comprised the majority of the
text.

>But you left that alone because it sinks your argument with all hands on
>board.

If a microencephalic looks up from his drool bucket and comments that the
sun is out and it is indeed a sunny day that does not demonstrate his
reliability when it comes to more sophisticated observational tasks.

>>>>Hey, even you allegedly met someone. But without any data on the QUALITY of
>>>>the person they got we cannot evaluate the advice.
>>>
>>>Come to LA and see for yourself, bitch.
>>
>>Or you could post a jpg of the happy couple.
>
>You could, too, but you don't. You're too busy begging other women (who
>hate your guts) for their pictures.

I have no need to prove anything.

>>Why don't you address my point about people willing to lower their
>>standards? After all that's part of your stupid advice.
>
>Ah yes, in your universe, raising one's intelligence and compatibility
>standards above that of looks, means lowering one's standards.

How about maintaining high standards for intelligence while keeping one's
standards of physical attractiveness?
That is what a winner does.

>Fortunately nobody here has ever sided against me in favor of you on that
>issue.

What about Daniel? I think a few others have commented that lowering your
standards exemplifies the loser mentality.

>>>Ah yes, women don't know any better. They are ALL clueless, uh huh,
>>>whatever you say, Jackie.
>>
>>Women don't know themselves. That's why they often puzzle over their
>>choices in relationships. 'What did I see in that jerk?' they ask.
>
>That is hardly a trait monopolized by women.

There are different forms of irrationality in men and women. For example
men tend to be more irrationally violent. But when it comes to linear,
rational planning and working towards extremely complex long term goals men
are clearly superior. That's the real explanation for the glass ceiling.
And the reason for it is not any lack of brains in women, the reason is
that, on average, women are not highly motivated to win in competitive
fields the way men are. This can be seen in the underutilization of any
education a woman gets. Equally qualified men ususally put in a lot more
hours of work than women. To which women will reply - 'but we have to raise
kids!' to which I answer 'Then guess what sweetie, you aren't gonna get as
far as a man without that problem.'

>>If you dispute my point it certainly validates my theory that you have had
>>very little experience with women.
>
>Maybe because the women I've been with, are very rational people?

Impossible.
After all, they dated you.

> I've not
>yet been to Mars so you're right, I don't have experience with women from
>your world.

Yawn.

>>Incidentally men are also driven by irrational feelings, but these feelings
>>tend to impel them to work at improving their skills at dealing with
>>reality, which includes improving their critical thinking abilities.
>
>And women do not work at this?

Not as hard as men do.

> I just want clarification before I hammer
>the final nail in the coffin of your credibility and leave you forever to
>rant in the dark corner.

My true audience does not care that you 'expose' me as a sexist. Of course
I'm a sexist. I've been saying sexist things since day one. I am proud to
be a sexist.
You can't disgrace someone who feels no shame for what they truly are.

>>>>Keep in mind that the supply of master seducers falls far short of the
>>>>latent demand and that many women haven't even experienced what would
>>>>really turn her on directly. Just read the sex surveys showing the millions
>>>>of women who've been in relationships for YEARS and yet who have never
>>>>experienced an orgasm!
>>>
>>>Gee I've been with a number of women now and none of them have had any
>>>problem experiencing an orgasm with me. (Hello kiddies, how will Jackass
>>>the tokeboy twist THIS around?)
>>
>>Beggars can't be choosers.
>
>It doesn't matter if she's Sandra Bullock. If it took 5 minutes for me to
>give a woman an orgasm, it would be one of my bad days.

Get back to me on this after you've given Sandra Bullock (or some woman of
similar attractiveness) an orgasm.

>>> And I do not at all claim to be a master
>>>seducer. It is very easy to give a woman an orgasm if you're not a selfish
>>>mate. I mastered that on my first time around. How about you?
>>
>>Perhaps it is easy for you. Yet there are millions of women having trouble
>>reaching orgasm.
>
>Because their partners aren't doing it right.

This is true.

>>>>Lack of response does not constitute an endorsement.
>>>
>>>It constitutes a lack of a case.
>>
>>Not at all. It might mean that you were killfiled so no one even knew you
>>had said anything worth making a case against.
>>And once I posted some quotes people DID make a case against it.
>
>None based on any facts.

In other words you refused to acknowledge the validity of any criticisms so
therefore they were all wrong.
Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure they were Steebie. Sure they were.

> I must have caught half a dozen people misquoting
>my post, and even got some RETRACTIONS, too. But you didn't post that
>part. Criticisms all focused around one paragraph.. guess which one?

It was one I quoted. After all, no one responded to ANY of it when you
posted the whole thing.

>Everything else they accused me of "plagiarizing" which is an admission
>that the advice is damned good. Too bad nobody ever wrote any of that
>advice previously, or else the accusation might actually have merit.

Yes Steebie, no one ever in the entire history of the world thought to
suggest dancing as a way to meet girls.
More on this breaking story when we return...

>You see, Jackie, I've posted advice since then, and I am not criticized
>anymore.

Most of your remaining critics learned to use killfiles.
And I believe I still criticize you so you aren't out of the woods yet.

> I am accused of plagiarizing, but nobody has ever shown any
>examples of what I have ever plagiarized. Why? Because that never
>happened. If I step into a discussion and provide insight now, you won't
>be seeing anymore "that advice sucks", but you may see someone else trying
>to take credit for it.
>
>Jealous fucks. It is to laugh.

Your advice, plagarized or not, is still trivial and vapid. It is standard
loserguy thinking. It assures mediocrity in your relationships.

>>Perhaps I have better things to do than dig up your old messages?
>
>You do it quite often already.

Nah, I just quote from memory. I have just a few things I keep on hand to
repost. One is my original flame of your loser mentality. Another is my
Chaney FAQ. And the last is the message from your ex girlfriend describing

how you threatened to come after her with a shotgun.

>>>That's why you 1) Challenge me only to find that I never fail to meet said

>>>challenges;
>>
>>I challenge you to post your current weight and body fat percentage.
>
>230lbs; I haven't got a bodyfat percentage figure yet.

Wow, you managed to lose a whole ten pounds in, what, about six months?
Be sure to let me know that bodyfat percentage. After all, that 230 pounds
COULD be rock hard muscle. (yeah right...)
(Hey Stephanie, he actually posted it! ROTFLOL!)
Jackie the Tokeman

[Steve Chaney]

In article <34f75426...@news.oz.net>, Mike <m...@oz.net> wrote:
>
>I hate to break it to you,

...but your comments prove you to be a fucking moron as usual. To count
all the lies and errors you made in that post, we'd have to write it in
base-100 notation to fit it on one page.

BTW I noticed you checking out the Clan Denial page. Whatcha got to say
NOW, fool? So much for the "mediocre" claim, eh? I'm still waiting to see
you come up with something better.

-- Steve

[Steve Chaney]

In article <1998022721...@sirius.infonex.com>, Kenny <mixm...@remail.obscura.com> wrote:
>>
>>Riot grrls, Jackie. My message clearly revealed my stark hatred of the
>>"riotgrrl" movement - the manhating, "I want everyone to coddle me" crowd
>>whose sole mission in life is to use and abuse the legal system and the
>>unspoken rules system, as much as they can.
>
>Yeah, they're a real serious threat. I'm shakin' in my boots.

You ought to be. Their every whine and complaint gets the immediate ear of
media scaremongers and Congressional lawmakers. The riotgrrl mentality is
why a woman can hit a man and even if he DOES report it, the law will turn
a deaf ear or give her just a slap on the wrist. If the opposite were
true, however, the guy would be running to Mars to escape the lynch mobs.
Hell if he hits her out of self-defense, most courts will put him away.
The law is of no relevance here; the riotgrrl whines in court and the judge
and jury happily disregard equal protection under the law, and the guy sees
sunlight again in maybe 20 years.

I happen have access to legal resources such that if ever a woman DOES hit
me, I can strike back and walk out of court a free man. But that is only
because I am aware of the legal prejudices and of the attorneys who have
experience in beating them. So by Murphy's Law it'll never, ever happen to
me. Oh well. Prevention is always the best cure. Life is so much more
fun when you know how to protect your rights no matter what comes along.
Call it paranoia - I call it a deterrence against anyone who would try to
take advantage of me. I will never be taken advantage of, nobody will ever
pull a double standard on me in the real world - not as far as the law is
concerned.

Meanwhile, male sellouts like you tell guys to shut up whenever we point
out these abuses of the law. So tell us, Jackie, how far will you sell out
when you respond to this? Tell us how men ought to just shut up and just
take it. How lightly do those chains rest upon you?

-- Steve

[Steve Chaney]

In article <1998022721...@sirius.infonex.com>, Kenny <mixm...@remail.obscura.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>You had the loserguy bowing and scraping and talking about cooking for his
>>>wife.
>>
>>Wrong. Try cooking for himself. That's what I said. You're talking out
>>of your ass as usual.
>
>You posted a little anecdote about some fucking feeb going to cooking class
>and wearing his pussy-whipped girly-man identity on his sleeve in order to

Gee, that's the fourth revision of your story so far, Jackie. I suspect
that your next try will actually be right. Don't worry, you're getting
warmer. You're almost above freezing!

>>And nobody supports YOUR methods now, do they?
>
>Since I began posting quite a few people have written PUBLICLY to say that
>my ideas were sound.

>(cue sound of crickets...)

Uh, okay.

>> Ain't no women around here
>>standing by you, are there?
>
>Some women agree with me on some issues.

Yes, such as when you said that KOATs really put his foot in it...

>And in the real world women DO stand by their Tokeman. And that's where it
>counts.

Yes, all five of them and their big sister Rosey Palm.

>>Any venue YOU come up with, inevitably leads to disaster.
>
>And your evidence of this is?

Every time you open your mouth?

>I said that the few trivial and banal truths in your file were buried in
>the immense load of fallacious sewage which comprised the majority of the
>text.

Only under the warped light of your misrepresentations. Why don't you
repost what I said and substantiate your bullshit claim? Everything you've
said so far has been in error and that is why you won't provide any
examples. You're getting called out AGAIN for yet another tokeman loss,
dumbfuck. Just walk away if you want to save face. Word to the wise.

>>But you left that alone because it sinks your argument with all hands on
>>board.
>
>If a microencephalic looks up from his drool bucket and comments that the
>sun is out and it is indeed a sunny day that does not demonstrate his
>reliability when it comes to more sophisticated observational tasks.

And to think, you can't even recognize a sunny day because you spend your
whole life hiding under a rock.

>>You could, too, but you don't. You're too busy begging other women (who
>>hate your guts) for their pictures.
>
>I have no need to prove anything.

Then nor do I.

>>Ah yes, in your universe, raising one's intelligence and compatibility
>>standards above that of looks, means lowering one's standards.
>
>How about maintaining high standards for intelligence while keeping one's
>standards of physical attractiveness?
>That is what a winner does.

I have realistic expectations about both. Find me one woman who disagrees
with that concept - oh, and find one who agrees with you. You've been
batting .000 on both, so far. Well, 1.000 if we count how many times
you've hit your own head out the park.

>>Fortunately nobody here has ever sided against me in favor of you on that
>>issue.
>
>What about Daniel? I think a few others have commented that lowering your
>standards exemplifies the loser mentality.

In your universe, considering intelligence and emotional compatibility to
be above that of looks, means lowering one's standards. I never lowered my
standars as far as looks; I only raised the prioriy of compatibility and
long-term desirability. And it worked. It usually does. Even snigglers
won't argue that; it's a universally accepted and successfully practiced
gem of wisdom. Be smart and learn to appreciate it.

>>>>Ah yes, women don't know any better. They are ALL clueless, uh huh,
>>>>whatever you say, Jackie.
>>>
>>>Women don't know themselves. That's why they often puzzle over their
>>>choices in relationships. 'What did I see in that jerk?' they ask.
>>
>>That is hardly a trait monopolized by women.
>
>There are different forms of irrationality in men and women. For example
>men tend to be more irrationally violent. But when it comes to linear,
>rational planning and working towards extremely complex long term goals men
>are clearly superior. That's the real explanation for the glass ceiling.

Superior if the woman is not trained to do the same thing. A lot of guys
nowadays fail in the area of planning and long-term goals, and a lot more
women are doing just fine there. That is something that is dependent upon
environment and not gender. The glass ceiling is the result of gender and
racial territorialism; those corporate big wigs are mostly comfortable with
those of their gender and race. Women-owned businesses will probably be
proven to have THEIR glass ceilings against men. Mark my words. It
explains many things - like, for instance, why some of the best actresses
are paid a mere fraction of what their only equally talented male co-stars
(X-Files, anyone?) are paid, in a given movie or TV series. The guys get
in on the sweet deals because there's male to male fellowship. If more
women are producers and all that, you'll see the situation reverse in many
individual cases.

It has NOTHING to do with male or female proficiency levels, and it
CERTAINLY has nothing to do with one's gender.

>To which women will reply - 'but we have to raise
>kids!' to which I answer 'Then guess what sweetie, you aren't gonna get as
>far as a man without that problem.'

Gee I see people lining up right now, with their Louisville Sluggers in
hand. You'll need a helmet.

>You can't disgrace someone who feels no shame for what they truly are.

Shame cannot each a man who is calloused.

>And I believe I still criticize you so you aren't out of the woods yet.

You criticizing me, is proof that I'm doing things right. If you were to
suddenly agree with me, the men with white jackets would not be far behind.

>>>Perhaps I have better things to do than dig up your old messages?
>>
>>You do it quite often already.
>
>Nah, I just quote from memory.

No wonder you're in error so much. That explains everything. Why didn't
you say this before? I could have spared myself megabytes of arguments
with you. I've been to the farthest corners of the world to ask the great
philosophers how it is that you can err so rapidly for so long, and lo and
behold the answer was right under my nose...you quote from memory.

You have ceased to be even a wisp of a challenge.

-- Steve

[rosmaderos]

Steve Chaney wrote:
>
> Riot grrls, Jackie.

Wait a minute. This riot grrl obsession is a s-s-sexual thing,
isn't it Steve.

Rosmaderos
--
http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Lights/9877/socsin.html
-022298- Cheesecakes and Tortes (w/ two new recipes ...)

[Mix]

gun...@crl.crl.com (fatfuck) whined:

>In article <1998022721...@sirius.infonex.com>, Kenny
><mixm...@remail.obscura.com> wrote:
>>>

>>>Riot grrls, Jackie. My message clearly revealed my stark hatred of the
>>>"riotgrrl" movement - the manhating, "I want everyone to coddle me" crowd
>>>whose sole mission in life is to use and abuse the legal system and the
>>>unspoken rules system, as much as they can.
>>
>>Yeah, they're a real serious threat. I'm shakin' in my boots.
>
>You ought to be. Their every whine and complaint gets the immediate ear of
>media scaremongers and Congressional lawmakers. The riotgrrl mentality is
>why a woman can hit a man and even if he DOES report it, the law will turn
>a deaf ear or give her just a slap on the wrist.

What's the matter tubby, can't take a slap from a girl?

> If the opposite were
>true, however, the guy would be running to Mars to escape the lynch mobs.
>Hell if he hits her out of self-defense, most courts will put him away.
>The law is of no relevance here; the riotgrrl whines in court and the judge
>and jury happily disregard equal protection under the law, and the guy sees
>sunlight again in maybe 20 years.

The reason for this is practical: Most women are weak and most men are
stronger than women. A man is much more dangerous to a woman than a woman
is to a man.

>I happen have access to legal resources such that if ever a woman DOES hit
>me, I can strike back and walk out of court a free man.

You have clearly given hitting women a lot of thought.

> But that is only
>because I am aware of the legal prejudices and of the attorneys who have
>experience in beating them. So by Murphy's Law it'll never, ever happen to
>me. Oh well. Prevention is always the best cure. Life is so much more
>fun when you know how to protect your rights no matter what comes along.
>Call it paranoia - I call it a deterrence against anyone who would try to
>take advantage of me. I will never be taken advantage of, nobody will ever
>pull a double standard on me in the real world - not as far as the law is
>concerned.

People pull double standards on you all the time. For example I wouldn't be
at all surprised if you make more money than women with exactly the same
credentials doing exactly the same job.

>Meanwhile, male sellouts like you tell guys to shut up whenever we point
>out these abuses of the law.

I tell you that you're whining won't make a difference.

> So tell us, Jackie, how far will you sell out
>when you respond to this? Tell us how men ought to just shut up and just
>take it. How lightly do those chains rest upon you?

Men ought to take EFFECTIVE steps to protect themselves from the law.
For example they shouldn't get married.
Jackie the Tokeman

[Mix]

m...@oz.net (Mike) wrote:
>Newsgroups trimmed

Party pooper!

>On 26 Feb 1998 20:53:31 -0800, gun...@crl.crl.com (Enialle) wrote:
>
>>In article <1998022505...@sirius.infonex.com>, Kenny
>><mixm...@remail.obscura.com> wrote:
>

>>>Actually he [meaning the undersigned [me]] presented his case and then

>>>when you proved too dense to
>>>understand it he gave up trying.
>
>>That's funny...everything I said, directly addressed his points without

>>missing a beat. He made accusations he was unable to back up, and tried to

>>lure me into arguing on a federal level an issue that was purely
>>state-based. He couldn't get me to go there, so he shut up. And forever
>>will I torture him for it. :)
>

>I hate to break it to you, since you seem once again to be deluded
>about a victory, but (1) Jackie was right--I acquiesced to your
>reading incomprehension; (2) your rantings hardly constitute torture;
>(3) Bill Clinton's popularity proves he's a great man; (4) Seth's
>place is better than yours; (5) Richie Ryan sucks and Duncan was wise
>to kill him; (6) Shakespeare is better than anime; (7) 5'9", 240 lbs
>is morbidly obese, whether you float or not, unless you have a
>bodybuilder's physique (heh); (10) nobody responded to your ramen
>dating advice; (11) Brad Pitt is a great actor (it's the numbers,
>right?); (12) people run from you for good reason; (13) Jeem is
>smarter, wittier and more clever than you, on your best day and his
>worst; (14) same for Jackie; (15) same for Charlotte; (16) same for
>Dawn; (18) same for the rest of your enemies here (and probably
>elsewhere, too); (19) you called Toni a spic; (20) you stalked Trish
>and Angela; (21) you've never won a single argument in soc.singles,
>ever; (22) you flunked out of college; (23) you know nothing about how
>the equal protection doctrine works; (24) it's okay for hair stylists
>to charge women more than men; (25) Tersian is smarter than you; (26)
>Bustrbunny is smarter than you; (27) Cindy Crawford is smarter than
>you; (28) Bill Clinton is smarter than you.
>
>That's for starters. Monkeylover.

I just wanted to see that again.
Jackie the Tokeman

[Mix]

gun...@crl.crl.com (Eric Cartman) wrote:
>In article <1998022721...@sirius.infonex.com>, Kenny
><mixm...@remail.obscura.com> wrote:

(snip)

>>>>>Ah yes, women don't know any better. They are ALL clueless, uh huh,
>>>>>whatever you say, Jackie.
>>>>
>>>>Women don't know themselves. That's why they often puzzle over their
>>>>choices in relationships. 'What did I see in that jerk?' they ask.
>>>
>>>That is hardly a trait monopolized by women.
>>
>>There are different forms of irrationality in men and women. For example
>>men tend to be more irrationally violent. But when it comes to linear,
>>rational planning and working towards extremely complex long term goals men
>>are clearly superior. That's the real explanation for the glass ceiling.
>
>Superior if the woman is not trained to do the same thing.

No, superior even when the woman is trained to do the same thing.
Dig out some of those conservative books you've allegedly read and see if
you can find some of the data on women's utilization of their skills
compared to men. Men work much harder and longer hours than women with the
same credentials. Women place a higher priority on family. Men place a
higher priority on making money.
It isn't about intelligence or talent. It's about emotional drives.

> A lot of guys
>nowadays fail in the area of planning and long-term goals, and a lot more
>women are doing just fine there.

This is true. People on the far ends of the curves are slipping into the
roles of the other gender.
But for the vast majority of people it is still true that men are more
ambitious and hardworking in their careers and women are more interested
in, and willing to put hard work into, family and children.

> That is something that is dependent upon
>environment and not gender.

Spoken like a true liberal.

> The glass ceiling is the result of gender and
>racial territorialism; those corporate big wigs are mostly comfortable with
>those of their gender and race.

Corporate bigwigs are comfortable with big profits. They will get those
profits anyway they can. Homosexuals face plenty of discrimination and
faced worse in the past yet all the stats I've seen indicate that they have
always been financially BETTER OFF than their fellow men! And if that was
because they were once in the closet, well since they started coming out
they are doing very well indeed. A 'family' oriented company like Disney
found that gay men were so good for the bottom line that they started
giving same-sex partners of their employees health insurance coverage.
My point is that if someone has the ambition and skills to make it THEY
WILL. Businesses couldn't care less about the patriarchy, they want money
and lots of it.
Most women fail to penetrate the 'ceiling' because they simply aren't as
interested in the world of work as men are.

> Women-owned businesses will probably be
>proven to have THEIR glass ceilings against men.

Suuuuuure they will Steve.

> Mark my words. It
>explains many things - like, for instance, why some of the best actresses
>are paid a mere fraction of what their only equally talented male co-stars
>(X-Files, anyone?) are paid, in a given movie or TV series.

Perhaps because actors have been found again and again to contribute more
to the bottom line than actresses?
A guy like Stallone who makes one piece of crap after another was still
able to assure big worldwide grosses. Name a woman who can do the same.
Sandra Bullock was supposed to be a real superstar but she hasn't exactly
set the world on fire. Turns out that the real star of Speed was the script
and she was just a nice decoration.
Also there are plenty of pretty girls in Hollywood, but men with that 'star
quality' are in much shorter supply.
I think this actually relates to the different sexual attractiveness
criteria of men and women but I won't get into that right now.

> The guys get
>in on the sweet deals because there's male to male fellowship. If more
>women are producers and all that, you'll see the situation reverse in many
>individual cases.

Actually there are already women producers and they haven't changed anything.

>It has NOTHING to do with male or female proficiency levels, and it
>CERTAINLY has nothing to do with one's gender.

Proficiency in the case of actors and actresses is judged at the boxoffice.
And there it is clear that actors are considerably more proficient.

>>To which women will reply - 'but we have to raise
>>kids!' to which I answer 'Then guess what sweetie, you aren't gonna get as
>>far as a man without that problem.'
>
>Gee I see people lining up right now, with their Louisville Sluggers in
>hand. You'll need a helmet.

If a woman expects to get as far as a man of similar credentials, talent
and intelligence while squeezing out puppies she is sadly mistaken.
A serious, ambitious career is an all consuming project that must take TOP
PRIORITY. If a mother let career take top priority over raising kids she
might end up with dead kids. I am not exaggerating. Neglecting children can
lead to their deaths. If a woman has a vitally important conference to
attend and her kid gets the flu what is she going to HAVE to deal with
first?
The answer is obvious.
Now there are some options. If the woman takes the time to become wealthy
before having children she can hire servants to raise them. Or she can get
a man willing to be a househusband. But women willing to take those steps
are the rare exceptions.
And exceptions do not make the rules.

>>You can't disgrace someone who feels no shame for what they truly are.
>
>Shame cannot each a man who is calloused.

So why do you keep trying to shame me with your moralistic nonsense?

>>And I believe I still criticize you so you aren't out of the woods yet.
>
>You criticizing me, is proof that I'm doing things right. If you were to
>suddenly agree with me, the men with white jackets would not be far behind.

No matter how many people believe I'm a bad person you will still be wrong
on the issues.

>>>>Perhaps I have better things to do than dig up your old messages?
>>>
>>>You do it quite often already.
>>
>>Nah, I just quote from memory.
>
>No wonder you're in error so much. That explains everything. Why didn't
>you say this before?

I did say this before.

> I could have spared myself megabytes of arguments
>with you. I've been to the farthest corners of the world to ask the great
>philosophers how it is that you can err so rapidly for so long, and lo and
>behold the answer was right under my nose...you quote from memory.

If I said I had extensive files with your messages you'd claim I was
'obsessed' with you.
Your declarations of victory are as predictable and premature as ever.
Where are all your supporters claiming you are not a loser tubbo? Where are
all the feminists you had hoped to bait by crossposting this thread to
their newsgroups?
Why, if I'm so bad and you're so good, are you the one with an
alt.bonehead* group?

>You have ceased to be even a wisp of a challenge.

You're not qualified to make that judgement.
Jackie the Tokeman

[Mix]

gun...@crl.crl.com (Eric Cartman) wrote:
>In article <1998022721...@sirius.infonex.com>, Kenny
><mixm...@remail.obscura.com> wrote:
>>>>

>>>>You had the loserguy bowing and scraping and talking about cooking for his
>>>>wife.
>>>
>>>Wrong. Try cooking for himself. That's what I said. You're talking out
>>>of your ass as usual.
>>
>>You posted a little anecdote about some fucking feeb going to cooking class
>>and wearing his pussy-whipped girly-man identity on his sleeve in order to
>
>Gee, that's the fourth revision of your story so far, Jackie. I suspect
>that your next try will actually be right. Don't worry, you're getting
>warmer. You're almost above freezing!

Do you really want me to repost your 'dating advice'?
You really are a glutton for punishment.

>>>And nobody supports YOUR methods now, do they?
>>
>>Since I began posting quite a few people have written PUBLICLY to say that
>>my ideas were sound.
>>(cue sound of crickets...)
>
>Uh, okay.

Here is what I ACTUALLY WROTE:

Since I began posting quite a few people have written PUBLICLY to say that

my ideas were sound. How many endorsements did your file get?
(cue sound of crickets...)

When you alter the meaning of what I said with selective editing no real
discussion is possible.
Which is why people mostly just flame the shit out of you.

>>> Ain't no women around here
>>>standing by you, are there?
>>
>>Some women agree with me on some issues.
>
>Yes, such as when you said that KOATs really put his foot in it...

Or when I said that women don't like obese tunastankboys.

>>And in the real world women DO stand by their Tokeman. And that's where it
>>counts.
>
>Yes, all five of them and their big sister Rosey Palm.

You continuously assert that I don't have a girlfriend. Yet you are the
only regular poster here who claims that AND I have repeatedly stated
otherwise. I have also never said anything that would contradict having a
girlfriend.
The absolute truth is that there has never been one moment when I have been
posting here that I have not had at least one girlfriend.

>>>Any venue YOU come up with, inevitably leads to disaster.
>>
>>And your evidence of this is?
>
>Every time you open your mouth?

Where is this disaster? I am basically accepted here. At least as much as
anyone is accepted in this hornet's nest.

>>I said that the few trivial and banal truths in your file were buried in
>>the immense load of fallacious sewage which comprised the majority of the
>>text.
>
>Only under the warped light of your misrepresentations. Why don't you
>repost what I said and substantiate your bullshit claim? Everything you've
>said so far has been in error and that is why you won't provide any
>examples. You're getting called out AGAIN for yet another tokeman loss,
>dumbfuck. Just walk away if you want to save face. Word to the wise.

As Jeem once said, look at him rant!
Perhaps I will find that text file.

>>>But you left that alone because it sinks your argument with all hands on
>>>board.
>>
>>If a microencephalic looks up from his drool bucket and comments that the
>>sun is out and it is indeed a sunny day that does not demonstrate his
>>reliability when it comes to more sophisticated observational tasks.
>
>And to think, you can't even recognize a sunny day because you spend your
>whole life hiding under a rock.

You fail to address my point. As usual.
My point is that it is not sufficient to point to some minor and obvious
point you made to establish your credibility.
Saying 'First you take it out of the box' would not establish my expertise
in setting up computers. Saying 'girls like to dance' does not establish
your expertise in dating and courtship.

>>>You could, too, but you don't. You're too busy begging other women (who
>>>hate your guts) for their pictures.
>>
>>I have no need to prove anything.
>
>Then nor do I.

I don't need to prove anything because I have credibility in the only way
that counts on usenet: The truth of my words.
You have no credibility because your messages contain, for the most part,
bad advice and other manifestations of your loser mentality.
So you have something to prove before you can even begin participating. In
fact I'd suggest that if you ever do manage to improve yourself you get a
new account and create a new identity rather than having to do damage
control to counter all the bullshit you've spewed for all these years.

>>>Ah yes, in your universe, raising one's intelligence and compatibility
>>>standards above that of looks, means lowering one's standards.
>>
>>How about maintaining high standards for intelligence while keeping one's
>>standards of physical attractiveness?
>>That is what a winner does.
>
>I have realistic expectations about both.

A loser has different realistic expectations than a winner.
And usually a loser says 'realistic' when what he means is 'limited because
I know I can't do any better.'

> Find me one woman who disagrees
>with that concept - oh, and find one who agrees with you. You've been
>batting .000 on both, so far. Well, 1.000 if we count how many times
>you've hit your own head out the park.

Agrees with what? Your statement about 'realistic' expectations means
different things depending on whether you are thinking like a winner or
thinking like a loser. Taken in the context of your previous messages many
women might disagree with it.
But kept nice and vague it is basically meaningless.

>>>Fortunately nobody here has ever sided against me in favor of you on that
>>>issue.
>>
>>What about Daniel? I think a few others have commented that lowering your
>>standards exemplifies the loser mentality.
>
>In your universe, considering intelligence and emotional compatibility to
>be above that of looks, means lowering one's standards.

You don't understand my selection method.
Sufficiently bad looks mean the girl is out of the running.
But good looks alone are only enough for a roll in the hay.
For a relationship a girl must have intelligence and a nice personality.
So I have VERY high standards.

> I never lowered my
>standars as far as looks; I only raised the prioriy of compatibility and
>long-term desirability.

From the pictures I've seen of your girlfriends your standards for looks
were in the subbasement to begin with.

> And it worked. It usually does. Even snigglers
>won't argue that; it's a universally accepted and successfully practiced
>gem of wisdom. Be smart and learn to appreciate it.

You are practicing revisionism here. You always attack men who judge women
on appearance.
Jackie the Tokeman

[Mix]

og...@iglou1.iglou.com (Ogre) wrote:
>In article <1998022721...@sirius.infonex.com>,

>Mix <mixm...@remail.obscura.com> wrote:
>>In article <Eozp6...@iglou.com>, og...@iglou2.iglou.com (Ogre) wrote:
>>>
>>>Presumably, if she's in bed with you, she finds you desirable, yes.
>>>Without speed seduction, though, she'd have gotten into bed with you
>>>even if she didn't find you desirable?
>>
>>Without speed seduction techniques she might not have gone to bed with me
>>because I would not have been as desirable to her.
>
>and
>
>>>I'm wondering why you want to have
>>>sex with someone who doesn't want you.
>>
>>I don't.
>
>So, you don't want to have sex with someone who doesn't want you, but
>you're willing to use speed seduction to make her want you, so you can
>have sex with her.

Yes.

> Doesn't that seem just a bit contradictory to you?

No. You probably don't understand WHY I want her to want me. What started
this was my comment on why I, and probably most speed seducers, prefer
seduction to going to prostitutes. The reason it is preferable to be with a
girl you seduce is that it is in accordance with man's nature as a hunter.
Part of the thrill is that she COULD have said no but you got her to say
yes. A hooker is gonna absolutely say yes for the right price. If you go to
a hooker BECAUSE you can't score otherwise you are going to know deep down
that you are a LOSER. You know that even as you're banging her she is
ACTING. She doesn't even like you.
Whereas in a seduction the girl is willing and eager.

>>> If you're going to change
>>>someone's initial reaction, why not take a bit of time and do it
>>>gradually, without leaving people feeling manipulated in the morning?
>>>Instant gratification isn't always best.
>>
>>Because time's a wastin'.
>
>Oh, yeah, I forgot. The goal of life is to get laid as many times as
>you can. Silly me.

No, the goal is to have fun. Wasting time with cockteasers and rules girls
is not fun so I don't do it.

>>By the way, why is it OK to change someone's view of you slowly but not OK
>>to do it quickly?
>
>Because, it seems to me, that changing someone's view of you over time
>is more likely to be done honestly, while doing it quickly is more likely
>to be seen as "putting up a front", or pretending to be what that person
>wants in order to get something from them.

Most men pretend to be something they're not for their entire lives to get
things from women.

>>Also keep in mind that speed seduction, which is a subset of NLP, changes
>>who you are so you become more desirable overall even as you learn to
>>understand and elicit emotional states in others.
>
>I'm confused again. If speed seduction changes who _you_ are, why do
>you need to use it on the people you want to have sex with? I was
>under the impression that the purpose of speed seduction was to change
>what your target thought of you, not to change you.

It does both. It increases your powers and it alters perceptions favorably.
Jackie the Tokeman

[Jim Dutton]

In article <6d8g55$h...@crl.crl.com>, Steve Chaney <gun...@crl.crl.com> wrote:
>In article <34f75426...@news.oz.net>, Mike <m...@oz.net> wrote:
>>

>>I hate to break it to you,
>

>...but your comments prove you to be a fucking moron as usual. To count
>all the lies and errors you made in that post, we'd have to write it in
>base-100 notation to fit it on one page.

Naturally Steve comments on how stupid a post is....but edits it all out
as he is completely wrong. This is an example of Chaney Proof.

>BTW I noticed you checking out the Clan Denial page. Whatcha got to say

Mike's got a stalker that isn't very stealthy.

>NOW, fool? So much for the "mediocre" claim, eh? I'm still waiting to see
>you come up with something better.
>-- Steve

Something better then the clan denial page????

-Jeem, could such a "thing" actually exist? How about a dog turd.

========================================================================
http://www.mcs.net/~jjd
Steatopygias's 'R' Us. doh#0000000005 That ain't no Hottentot.
Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. tbtw#6. s.s.m#8. There ain't no more
"For why should my freedom be judged by another's conscience?" --
Paul 1 Corinthians 10:29
========================================================================

[Stephanie Dobler]

Hmmm, I never got kimvy's original post on my server, so I don't know if
this is all of it, but I'll reply to this much, quoted in Jackie's post:

> In article <34f47a7a...@enews.newsguy.com>, ki...@akamail.com (kimvy)

> >- why would Jackie's opinion matter to you
> >- why would having a bf change that

The point wasn't Jackie's opinion of me, but mine of Jackie. Chaney has
been trying to frame the debate between them as a popularity contest. I
was trying to explain (without overstating the matter; thus the bf
comment), why I might have reason to dislike Jackie's posts. I think
it's natural to to dislike someone who calls you names, even if that
opinion doesn't "matter" in the sense of actually making you feel bad.
Clear now?

--
Stephanie Dobler

[Ogre]

In article <1998030206...@sirius.infonex.com>,
Mix <mixm...@remail.obscura.com> wrote:

>No. You probably don't understand WHY I want her to want me. What started
>this was my comment on why I, and probably most speed seducers, prefer
>seduction to going to prostitutes. The reason it is preferable to be with a
>girl you seduce is that it is in accordance with man's nature as a hunter.

You're right, I don't understand that. Women aren't prey to be hunted,
bagged, and bragged about, in my view. But I think that attitude clears
up some things I'd been having difficulty articulating. Seems to
me, then, that the most objectionable aspect of speed seduction isn't
that it's manipulative, it's this view of women as "prey" - something
inferior, whose only use is as something for the speed seducer to
stick his dick into.

Sickening, if you ask me. But now that I'm thinking about it, I seem
to recall that that was the primary objection to speed seduction when it
first reared it's ugly head on soc.singles, three and a half years ago.

Thanks for helping me clear that up.

--
"Most people learn from their past mistakes and in future lives go on
to grow into better people. Others, who don't, become ogres."
- E. A. Scarborough, _The Godmother_
Eliminate Unsolicited Commercial Email: http://www.cauce.org

[Blister]

On Mon, 2 Mar 1998 16:18:28 GMT, og...@iglou1.iglou.com (Ogre) wrote:

>In article <1998030206...@sirius.infonex.com>,
>Mix <mixm...@remail.obscura.com> wrote:

>>No. You probably don't understand WHY I want her to want me. What started
>>this was my comment on why I, and probably most speed seducers, prefer
>>seduction to going to prostitutes. The reason it is preferable to be with a
>>girl you seduce is that it is in accordance with man's nature as a hunter.

Is it also man's nature to be a rapist?

>You're right, I don't understand that. Women aren't prey to be hunted,
>bagged, and bragged about, in my view. But I think that attitude clears
>up some things I'd been having difficulty articulating. Seems to
>me, then, that the most objectionable aspect of speed seduction isn't
>that it's manipulative, it's this view of women as "prey" - something
>inferior, whose only use is as something for the speed seducer to
>stick his dick into.

Jackie, and perhaps Dan, would argue that this use of women is
genetically ordained, thus implying its value neutrality at minimum.
Even if the premise is true, the conclusion does not follow.

>Sickening, if you ask me. But now that I'm thinking about it, I seem
>to recall that that was the primary objection to speed seduction when it
>first reared it's ugly head on soc.singles, three and a half years ago.

It is easy to see its attraction to people desperate to have sex.
It's also easy to see its attraction to those who may not be desperate
to have sex, but value it highly. What is funny to me is the
contortions its supporters (at least those less forthright than JT)
will embrace to characterize it as a relationship tool rather than
what it really is.

Mike

[Steve Chaney]

In article <1998030206...@sirius.infonex.com>, Kenny <mixm...@remail.obscura.com> wrote:
>
>> But that is only
>>because I am aware of the legal prejudices and of the attorneys who have
>>experience in beating them. So by Murphy's Law it'll never, ever happen to
>>me. Oh well. Prevention is always the best cure. Life is so much more
>>fun when you know how to protect your rights no matter what comes along.
>>Call it paranoia - I call it a deterrence against anyone who would try to
>>take advantage of me. I will never be taken advantage of, nobody will ever
>>pull a double standard on me in the real world - not as far as the law is
>>concerned.
>
>People pull double standards on you all the time. For example I wouldn't be
>at all surprised if you make more money than women with exactly the same
>credentials doing exactly the same job.

I am quite sure you have heard my opinion about this before, but I will
reiterate it once again. One, it is both logically wrong and it is bad
karma to have that kind of system where (in this particular case) women get
paid less for the same job and the same qualifications. It's discrimination
and thus it's wrong. As for the karma part - well, if women are
shortchanged in one way, men are going to get shortchanged elsewhere. It's
gonna come back to you in some way that maybe, just maybe, you don't like.
The discrimination argument might not fly very far with you, but I'm quite
sure that the karma bit might be of concern. That is, if you actually give
a shit about the world around you.

Oh, and by the way...aren't there laws ... Federal laws...barring sexual
discrimination with regards to hiring employees and deciding their salary?

Jackie, you never cease to amaze me with your ability to provide me with
opportunities to make ME look good. Please tell me...what did you think
you would gain by making this argument, when everyone knows damned well I
do not hold inconsistent views on this issue?

>>Meanwhile, male sellouts like you tell guys to shut up whenever we point
>>out these abuses of the law.
>
>I tell you that you're whining won't make a difference.

I vote. That makes a difference. I disseminate information on how to beat
the system. That makes an even bigger difference. If all I did was sit
around and complain, that wouldn't make a difference. But that is not
true.

>> So tell us, Jackie, how far will you sell out
>>when you respond to this? Tell us how men ought to just shut up and just
>>take it. How lightly do those chains rest upon you?
>
>Men ought to take EFFECTIVE steps to protect themselves from the law.

You're plagiarizing me. I said that ages ago.

>For example they shouldn't get married.

How drastic.

-- Steve, at least Tokeman isn't having any kids...Nature rejoices!

[kim vawryk]

On Mon, 02 Mar 1998 10:35:30 -0500, Stephanie Dobler <dob...@psc.edu>
wrote:

>Hmmm, I never got kimvy's original post on my server, so I don't know if

>this is all of it, but I'll reply to this much, quoted in Jackie's post:

Nothing too exciting :)

>> In article <34f47a7a...@enews.newsguy.com>, ki...@akamail.com (kimvy)
>> >- why would Jackie's opinion matter to you
>> >- why would having a bf change that
>
>The point wasn't Jackie's opinion of me, but mine of Jackie. Chaney has
>been trying to frame the debate between them as a popularity contest. I
>was trying to explain (without overstating the matter; thus the bf
>comment), why I might have reason to dislike Jackie's posts. I think
>it's natural to to dislike someone who calls you names, even if that
>opinion doesn't "matter" in the sense of actually making you feel bad.
>Clear now?

Forgive me, I usually kill the Jackie/Chaney threads - nothing new
there.

The point I was trying to make (and probably not that well), was that
Jackie's opinions/posts should not matter regardless of a bf or not.
I got the impression that if you did not have the bf, then perhaps the
opinions/posts would matter.

Kim

[kim vawryk]

On Fri, 27 Feb 1998 13:22:42 -0800 (PST), Mix
<mixm...@remail.obscura.com> wrote:

>In article <34f47a7a...@enews.newsguy.com>, ki...@akamail.com (kimvy)

>wrote:

>>- as Jackie him/herself rightly pointed out, we have no idea who
>>he/she is. Could be a woman (and a fat one for that matter :D), a 17
>>year old out trolling, a 50 year old *happily* married man with
>>children having fun or anything in between.
>>
>>I tend to think that Jackie is a 350 lb woman. :)
>
>Do you find that 350 pound women spend a lot of time criticizing obesity
>and constructing elaborate personas online?

If you were one who had a lot of self loathing, why not?

>I think the one and only thing that gives me some small measure of
>credibility is that I am consistent and I've been here for a while. I mean
>really, it would be rather time consuming to construct the Virtual Tokeman
>(tm) just as a prank.
> Jackie the Tokeman

Hence you could be the 17 yo trolling. Who knows, you may not have a
life and this is what you do instead. You *have* said that you don't
watch a lot of TV :)

Kim

[Daniel Mocsny]

I've never met a 17 year-old who could compose articles like
Jackie the Tokeman. That doesn't mean no such 17 year-olds exist,
but they are probably very rare compared to men who fit
Jackie's purported demographic. (It's rare enough to meet any
17 year-olds who know anything about sociobiology, to pick just
one example, let alone everything else that Jackie is able to
converse about cogently.)

It's possible that a consortium of 17 year-olds could write
such articles, but they'd have a hard time remaining consistent
with time. There is also the problem of turning out articles as
quickly as Jackie does. To misrepresent oneself greatly gets
harder as the available response time drops.

I think I understand Jackie's views on a lot of things fairly
well by now, but I doubt I could write the articles he writes
even though we are not nearly as far apart on most issues as
the average 350 pound woman or 17 year-old would be.

Indeed, it seems that most of the women who post on soc.singles
have difficulty even grasping the positions that Jackie takes
on some issues. It is very difficult to imagine a woman being
smart enough not only to comprehend a point of view so at odds
with her genetic bias but to model it so accurately as to be
able to compose the stunning expressions of it that Jackie regularly
produces. If a 350 pound woman is writing Jackie's articles, then
I am impressed beyond description. That is, until I realize that
anybody that smart could be making billions in any worthwhile
activity and would be wasting her talents here.

--
--- Daniel J. Mocsny

[kim vawryk]

On Thu, 05 Mar 1998 04:26:12 -0500, Daniel Mocsny <dmo...@mfm.com>
wrote:

>kim vawryk wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Feb 1998 13:22:42 -0800 (PST), Mix
>> <mixm...@remail.obscura.com> wrote:
>> >I think the one and only thing that gives me some small measure of
>> >credibility is that I am consistent and I've been here for a while. I mean
>> >really, it would be rather time consuming to construct the Virtual Tokeman
>> >(tm) just as a prank.
>> > Jackie the Tokeman
>>
>> Hence you could be the 17 yo trolling. Who knows, you may not have a
>> life and this is what you do instead. You *have* said that you don't
>> watch a lot of TV :)
>>
>> Kim
>
>I've never met a 17 year-old who could compose articles like
>Jackie the Tokeman. That doesn't mean no such 17 year-olds exist,
>but they are probably very rare compared to men who fit
>Jackie's purported demographic. (It's rare enough to meet any
>17 year-olds who know anything about sociobiology, to pick just
>one example, let alone everything else that Jackie is able to
>converse about cogently.)

There is a young man who claims to be 17 who posts in the Star Trek
newsgroups who could give Jackie a run for his money. This fellow
does not limit his discussions only to Star Trek and is quite an
effective troll. :)

>It's possible that a consortium of 17 year-olds could write
>such articles, but they'd have a hard time remaining consistent
>with time. There is also the problem of turning out articles as
>quickly as Jackie does. To misrepresent oneself greatly gets
>harder as the available response time drops.

Could say this about Cronan as well.

>I think I understand Jackie's views on a lot of things fairly
>well by now, but I doubt I could write the articles he writes
>even though we are not nearly as far apart on most issues as
>the average 350 pound woman or 17 year-old would be.

Those were examples of what he *could* be.

>Indeed, it seems that most of the women who post on soc.singles
>have difficulty even grasping the positions that Jackie takes
>on some issues. It is very difficult to imagine a woman being
>smart enough not only to comprehend a point of view so at odds
>with her genetic bias but to model it so accurately as to be
>able to compose the stunning expressions of it that Jackie regularly
>produces.

I believe that most of the women who frequent this newsgroup
understand what Jackie has to say, but disagree. As far as I can
tell, Jackie believes that the only valid women are ones who are thin
and put out. Jackie also believes that there is nothing wrong in
using any method to encourage these women to put out. Jackie does
not see any value in any other contributions that women can/could
make. I believe that the women who post are attempting to explain
that there is more to being with women. (very generic comments here)

I disagree that Jackie's posts could not be written by a woman. If
Jackie was indeed a woman, then we have no idea what his/her agenda
could be and the lengths that Jackie would go to give the illusion of
being male. You insult the women on this newsgroup by stating that
they are not smart enough to conprehend his POV. They may not agree,
but that does not mean that they do not understand. Any woman with
an agenda/obsession could coherently play this game.

> If a 350 pound woman is writing Jackie's articles, then
>I am impressed beyond description. That is, until I realize that
>anybody that smart could be making billions in any worthwhile
>activity and would be wasting her talents here.

The world is full of highly intelligent people not living up to their
full potential. *shrug*

You have not convinced me :)

Kim

[Charlotte L. Blackmer]

followups reset

In article <34FAD1C2...@psc.edu>,

Stephanie Dobler <dob...@psc.edu> wrote:
>Hmmm, I never got kimvy's original post on my server, so I don't know if
>this is all of it, but I'll reply to this much, quoted in Jackie's post:
>

>> In article <34f47a7a...@enews.newsguy.com>, ki...@akamail.com (kimvy)

>> >- why would Jackie's opinion matter to you
>> >- why would having a bf change that
>
>The point wasn't Jackie's opinion of me, but mine of Jackie. Chaney has
>been trying to frame the debate between them as a popularity contest.

Yeah, well, he does that a lot, conveniently ignoring 1) that most of us
have moved beyond junior high school and 2) where it would show him up. I
suspect that Steve is in more soc.singles killfiles than Jackie is (mine
for one). While I certainly agree to disagree with Jackie on some things,
and think he is seriously out to lunch on others, there are a number
of times when I think he is right freakin' on the money.

>I was trying to explain (without overstating the matter; thus the bf
>comment), why I might have reason to dislike Jackie's posts. I think
>it's natural to to dislike someone who calls you names, even if that
>opinion doesn't "matter" in the sense of actually making you feel bad.
>Clear now?

Thanks, I was wondering myself.

I don't suspect a Tokeman troll myself; he's too complex to make up :-)

C(who is usually amused when Usenet strangers try the name-calling
thang on her, because such people are as a rule so wrong it's funny)LB
------------------------------------------------------
Charlotte L. Blackmer http://www.rahul.net/clb
Berkeley Farm and Pleasure Palace (under construction)
Junk (esp. commercial) email review rates: $250 US ea

[Daniel Mocsny]

Charlotte L. Blackmer wrote:
> While I certainly agree to disagree with Jackie on some things,
> and think he is seriously out to lunch on others, there are a number
> of times when I think he is right freakin' on the money.

Please explain where you believe Jackie is out to lunch. If you
do not do this, your sentence is very nearly meaningless. And
also, I would say, consistent with the hypothesis that you are
afraid to take Jackie on. If that hypothesis is correct, it
would be consistent with the additional hypothesis that you
harbor beliefs for which you are unable to articulate
objective evidence. While the vast majority of people harbor such
beliefs, a discussion group depends on people having discussions.
One of the more interesting topics to discuss is why you believe
what you believe.

As far as I can tell, Jackie is one of the most rational persons
currently posting to soc.singles. I believe that if you can
argue your views starting from evidence Jackie can observe
and lead him through a chain of unavoidable conclusions,
he will adopt your views if he does not already hold them.

If you had said "There are some things Jackie writes that cause
me to experience disturbing emotions" then you would not need
to explain anything, because you would be describing your own
subjective state rather than claiming to have a better take on
objective reality than Jackie does.

[Steve Chaney]

In article <1998030206...@sirius.infonex.com>, Kenny <mixm...@remail.obscura.com> wrote:
>

>Here is what I ACTUALLY WROTE:
>
>Since I began posting quite a few people have written PUBLICLY to say that
>my ideas were sound. How many endorsements did your file get?

Oh, I recall a certain SNIGGLER calling you a Tokeboy and pointing out that
my attitudes about women's bodies, are much healthier than yours.

When was the last time your views were even endorsed over mine? It
certainly wasn't during our short-lived fight over "The Message", that's
for sure. Even Charlotte had to backhandedly admit I was in the right.
Heh, her blind dog and the acorn comment utterly DRIPPED with bgrudgement,
didn't it? Oh, the sound of pulling teeth from a tiger...

>When you alter the meaning of what I said with selective editing no real
>discussion is possible.

That's your way of saying that I wasn't actually WRONG, and that you have
no argument to present.

-- Steve

[Morgan Sheridan]

Daniel Mocsny wrote in message <3501C493...@mfm.com>...

>Charlotte L. Blackmer wrote:
>> While I certainly agree to disagree with Jackie on some things,
>> and think he is seriously out to lunch on others, there are a number
>> of times when I think he is right freakin' on the money.

Oh, c'mon on Dan... it isn't that hard to break down to three points:

Sometimes Charlotte: 1.) disagrees with Jackie; 2.) thinks some of his ideas
(presumably, in her opinion/based on her experience/knowledge) are so off
base that he's "out to lunch"; and 3.) "thinks he is right freakin' on the
money."

It can't be that hard for you to discern her meaning, now can it?

>
>Please explain where you believe Jackie is out to lunch. If you
>do not do this, your sentence is very nearly meaningless.

<snip>

Morgan

[Charlotte L. Blackmer]

In article <3501C493...@mfm.com>, Daniel Mocsny <dmo...@mfm.com> wrote:
>Charlotte L. Blackmer wrote:
>> While I certainly agree to disagree with Jackie on some things,
>> and think he is seriously out to lunch on others, there are a number
>> of times when I think he is right freakin' on the money.
>

>Please explain where you believe Jackie is out to lunch.

Are you paying me my "posting what someone else wants me to post, not what
I care to post" rates for this, Dan? Fair warning, you could save the
money for your date fund instead since all the women you know seem content
to have you pay (and given my rates - $250/hr -, this could even include,
say, airfare to NYC or Paris).

>If you do not do this, your sentence is very nearly meaningless.

Actually, if you aren't asking for "mild disagreement" and "strong
agreement" as well, your request doesn't make much sense.

Actually, in the context (which I noticed you have snipped), it does make
a lot of sense - basically I was explaining why he is not in my killfile
:-)

>And also, I would say, consistent with the hypothesis that you are
>afraid to take Jackie on. If that hypothesis is correct,

<sound effects: latte hitting monitor>

Oh, yeah, I'm quaking in my boots, I am. I'm sooooo scared of him and all
the other men who participate in this newsgroup.

<pause while I find a screenwipe>

Do have your public health department check your water supply, Dan. I
think there's something going on here. I don't take Jackie on head to
head on a regular basis (although I have posted disagreements with some of
the things he's said IIRC) because I don't particularly have the time or
the energy. Frequently, if I'm thinking about doing something,
someone else picks up the thread, so I just nod and go on to something
else. I have limited time to spend on Usenet, so I try to choose
carefully what I respond to. Plus I'm amused and entertained by many of
the things he says, and as I said, there are things we agree on
*strongly*, so I am far more inclined to cut him some slack.

Not to mention that what goes on Usenet is not necessarily *all* the
interaction we've had (*sweet smile*).

Dan, why assume I'm scared? Why assume something negative? Why not apply
Occam's Razor and assume that I just didn't feel like doing it? I'm not
exactly a shrinking violet here. Does this have *anything* to do with the
specific example I brought up of your avoiding an issue? I know nobody
likes having the cloths pulled off their cage, but *really*, now.

>it would be consistent with the additional hypothesis that you
>harbor beliefs for which you are unable to articulate
>objective evidence.

Duh. I'm human, after all. And I've made no secret about my religious
affiliation. Do I have objective evidence that Christ was raised from the
dead on the third day and ascended into heaven? Nope, I wasn't anywhere
near what happened nearly 2,000 years before I was born and I'm not a
past-lifer, either. Do I believe the story of the Resurrection to be true?
Yes, yes, yes.

So that one's a no-brainer. I mean, sheesh, Dan, *you* have zero
objective evidence for a lot of the things you've said about snigglers.

>While the vast majority of people harbor such
>beliefs, a discussion group depends on people having discussions.
>One of the more interesting topics to discuss is why you believe
>what you believe.

You're welcome to show where I've never done that sort of thing on Usenet.
(*mo grin* -geez, ya just can't please some people)

Of course, you're also welcome to show where taking other posters to task
for *not* choosing to participate in particular threads is appropriate.

>As far as I can tell, Jackie is one of the most rational persons
>currently posting to soc.singles. I believe that if you can
>argue your views starting from evidence Jackie can observe
>and lead him through a chain of unavoidable conclusions,
>he will adopt your views if he does not already hold them.

Oh, sure, I wouldn't doubt that, he is quite intelligent (and also
*sensible*, a trait which does not always follow from the intelligence).

>If you had said "There are some things Jackie writes that cause
>me to experience disturbing emotions" then you would not need
>to explain anything,

1. I don't *have* to explain anything, bubbeleh, it seems to be clear to
everyone *but* you.

2. I wouldn't say that anyway because it's not true.

>because you would be describing your own
>subjective state rather than claiming to have a better take on
>objective reality than Jackie does.

Please either show where I claim that my thoughts and opinions are
objective reality (THE TRVTH, as it were) for anyone but me (and
sometime people I know well) or issue an apology for misreading what I
wrote.

C(Predicting that Dan will either ignore that last paragraph or bend the
English language like silly putty in response)LB

[Ocean Gypsy]

In article <3501C493...@mfm.com>,
Daniel Mocsny <dmo...@mfm.com> wrote:
>Charlotte L. Blackmer wrote:
>> While I certainly agree to disagree with Jackie on some things,
>> and think he is seriously out to lunch on others, there are a number
>> of times when I think he is right freakin' on the money.
>

>Please explain where you believe Jackie is out to lunch. If you

>do not do this, your sentence is very nearly meaningless.

Do I detect the appearance of a very petulant child who, failing in
the past to successfully apply his loopy theories to Miz Charlotte's
postings, resorts to meaningless ultimatums and judgements?

Ayup, I thought I did.

<rest o' whining snipped>

[Daniel Mocsny]

Ocean Gypsy wrote:
> In article <3501C493...@mfm.com>,
> Daniel Mocsny <dmo...@mfm.com> wrote:
> >Charlotte L. Blackmer wrote:
> >> While I certainly agree to disagree with Jackie on some things,
> >> and think he is seriously out to lunch on others, there are a number
> >> of times when I think he is right freakin' on the money.
> >
> >Please explain where you believe Jackie is out to lunch. If you
> >do not do this, your sentence is very nearly meaningless.
>
> Do I detect the appearance of a very petulant child who, failing in
> the past to successfully apply his loopy theories

Tell me which of "my theories" you consider loopy. If you do not,
then you are indulging in the same meaningless sniping that seems
to be the best Charlotte can produce.

I had to put quotes around "my theories" because it is likely that
a person who is as confused as you are about what the word
"meaningless" means probably would be unable to articulate any
of my theories to my satisfaction.

> to Miz Charlotte's
> postings, resorts to meaningless ultimatums and judgements?

It seems that we disagree on what constitutes "meaningless."

What part of my challenge to Charlotte are you unable to understand?
Even the petulant child of your fertile imagination could understand
what I am asking Charlotte to do.

On the other hand, there probably aren't too many people besides
Charlotte who could accurately list all the areas where Charlotte
believes Jackie is out to lunch. I know *I* wouldn't want to take
a stab at it. I can think of a few things Jackie has said that
would probably bother Charlotte, but I am not entirely sure which
of them Charlotte would regard as being "out to lunch" or on
what levels. I am sure that whatever list Charlotte came up with
would differ in some way from the list I would attribute to her
if I had to guess.

For example, Jackie reminds us frequently that no equalist/matriarchal
society has ever out-competed a patriarchal society. But I honestly
do not know whether Charlotte would disagree with this nor at what
level she might do so. Would Charlotte agree with the empirical
evidence and disagree with Jackie's conclusion, or would she
produce contrary evidence? Or would she accept Jackie's conclusion that
men and women will never be, on average, equal in terms of economic
and political power? (Or more accurately, would Charlotte agree
that men will always be overrepresented among the tiny minority
of people with the most power in a culture? Men also happen to
be overrepresented among the least powerful people in many cultures,
but it's easy for us to forget that, and especially easy for women
to forget it since women are genetically programmed to ignore losers.)

I don't know if you have ever been *CURIOUS* about something, so
perhaps I'm wasting my time by telling you I am curious about what
Charlotte means. But I guess I can't resist tilting at those
windmills so I told you anyway.

Really, which makes a better soc.singles? When everybody hides
behind ambiguities and casts vague aspersions at each other or
when people send their real armies out onto the field and have a
proper battle? Nobody ever won a war by taking potshots at
the enemy. That has never dislodged an entrenched army.
To win a war takes a major commitment and the willingness to
accept risk.

To all those people who cannot understand what Charlotte wrote,
what she wrote is meaningless. Except, of course, that it does
indicate she thinks Jackie is out to lunch on *something*.

By not exposing her chain of reasoning to Jackie, assuming her
reasoning is rational, Charlotte is depriving Jackie of the
ability to improve his model of reality. Jackie has repeatedly
demonstrated his ability to respond to reasoned arguments right
here in full view of everyone. That means anybody who is afraid
to debate Jackie is tacitly admitting that (s)he harbors
irrational beliefs. That is, (s)he is announcing to one and all
that (s)he cannot explain why (s)he believes what (s)he believes.

That is why I never "agree to disagree." Agreeing to disagree
is really agreeing to be irrational. It is a way for two people
to admit to each other that at least one of them *MUST* be wrong
and they have no way to determine who that is. How can any
intellectual accept this impasse? When someone disagrees with me
I want to know exactly where our chains of reason diverge. If
they diverge at a spot where insufficient data exists to justify
the separate paths we have taken, then the proper response is
for both of us to weaken our beliefs, not "agree to disagree."

Of course, occasionally it turns out the person disagreeing with me
does not even have a chain of reason. That's because most people
come by their beliefs by some other mechanism than examining
evidence and thinking things through.

[Daniel Mocsny]

Morgan Sheridan wrote:
> Daniel Mocsny wrote in message <3501C493...@mfm.com>...

> >Charlotte L. Blackmer wrote:
> >> While I certainly agree to disagree with Jackie on some things,
> >> and think he is seriously out to lunch on others, there are a number
> >> of times when I think he is right freakin' on the money.
>

> Oh, c'mon on Dan... it isn't that hard to break down to three points:
>
> Sometimes Charlotte: 1.) disagrees with Jackie; 2.) thinks some of his ideas
> (presumably, in her opinion/based on her experience/knowledge) are so off

> base that he's "out to lunch"; and 3.) "thinks he is right freakin' on the
> money."
>

> It can't be that hard for you to discern her meaning, now can it?

I understand that but I want to know what "some of his ideas"
expands to.

Am I the only person on soc.singles who understands that not everybody
can be vague at all times?

For example, when you sit down at a computer, you have to type specific
commands. If you say to the computer, "some things" or "etc." the
computer will not "know" what you are telling it to do. That's because
you aren't telling the computer what to do, i.e., your commands have
no *MEANING*.

Or for example, if your best friend told you she was getting married,
and you asked her who she was marrying, would you accept "a man" as
a satisfying answer? Would it not seem to you that your friend was
stonewalling?

Do you agree that knowing exactly *WHO* your friend was marrying
would be more meaningful than simply knowing *that* she was getting
married?

I want to know exactly where Charlotte disagrees with Jackie and why.
In part that's because Jackie is very persuasive, and I must resist
the temptation to accept all his views until I hear the alternatives.
So far there just haven't been many real alternatives.

I've thrown down the gauntlet by suggesting that Charlotte (and
perhaps others) are *afraid* of Jackie. Of course I can hear the
chorus of denials already but (in)actions speak louder than words.
To the rationalist, anyway.

[rosmaderos]

cbianco wrote:

>
> Daniel Mocsny <dmo...@mfm.com> wrote:
>
> >>Of course, occasionally it turns out the person disagreeing
> >>with me does not even have a chain of reason. That's because
> >>most people come by their beliefs by some other mechanism
> >>than examining evidence and thinking things through.
>

> Cmon Dan, dont you know ?? -- most people come to their beliefs
> by watching TV.
>
> its a gothicallyt eraly prep run, for our eventual evolution
> into pure electrical-intelligences. At that point in the future,
> you and and jackie and me will be cloned for zoo purposes. ross
> will be bronzed.

Don't you mean ge^hilded?

Rosmaderos

[Morgan Sheridan]

Daniel Mocsny wrote in message <350349E2...@mfm.com>...

>Morgan Sheridan wrote:
>> Daniel Mocsny wrote in message <3501C493...@mfm.com>...

<snip>

>I understand that but I want to know what "some of his ideas"
>expands to.
>
>Am I the only person on soc.singles who understands that not everybody
>can be vague at all times?
>

<snip>

>I want to know exactly where Charlotte disagrees with Jackie and why.

Not so, Dan. You said: " Please explain where you **believe** Jackie is out
to lunch."

Now the problem with anyone attempting to explain a *belief*, is that
*belief* is not something that is rooted in the domain of empirical fact.
By and large, beliefs are *not* rational and typically they are *loaded*
with emotional connotations for the holder of those beliefs.

Asking someone to explain "where you believe X is out to lunch" is not the
same as asking, "X, exactly what does Y say that you disagree with?" It
appears to me that those are two entirely different questions. The former
inquiry being far more in the subjective and interpretive domain of the
observer...(in this case, Charlotte being the observer), in which case the
answer may well indeed be vague and not particularly satisfactory in the
first place.

Your response "I want to know exactly where Charlotte disagrees with Jackie
and why." is really not the same question you asked previously although it
does appear to ask for specific instances in which case the answer may not
be vague.

So which inquiry is Charlotte to answer to?

>In part that's because Jackie is very persuasive, and I must resist
>the temptation to accept all his views until I hear the alternatives.
>So far there just haven't been many real alternatives.
>
>I've thrown down the gauntlet by suggesting that Charlotte (and
>perhaps others) are *afraid* of Jackie. Of course I can hear the
>chorus of denials already but (in)actions speak louder than words.

Well, isn't that silly? It doesn't appear to me that people's responses to
Jackie are necessarily coming from a place of defensiveness or fear. When I
disagree with some of his points of view, it's usually a matter of
aesthetics and taste as far as I'm concerned; therefore there is no
particular need on my part to react or respond to that which I disagree
with. I'm no more likely to persuade him that my point of view is the
superior one than he is to persuade me that his view is superior.

>To the rationalist, anyway.
>

So what's a rationalist doing asking for someone to expound on beliefs,
which are *not* rational?

Morgan -- Honk, honk!!

[cbianco]

Daniel Mocsny <dmo...@mfm.com> wrote:

>>Of course, occasionally it turns out the person disagreeing with me
>>does not even have a chain of reason. That's because most people
>>come by their beliefs by some other mechanism than examining

>.evidence and thinking things through.

Cmon Dan, dont you know ?? -- most people come to their beliefs by
watching TV.

its a gothicallyt eraly prep run, for our eventual evolution into pure
electrical-intelligences. At that point in the future, you and and
jackie and me will be cloned for zoo purposes. ross will be bronzed.

cbainco

[Mix]

Daniel Mocsny <dmo...@mfm.com> wrote:
>I've thrown down the gauntlet by suggesting that Charlotte (and
>perhaps others) are *afraid* of Jackie. Of course I can hear the
>chorus of denials already but (in)actions speak louder than words.

>To the rationalist, anyway.

I believe that there are a variety of emotional responses at work here,
fear among them. The mind has various mechanisms for filtering out unwanted
information. I have no doubt that many of the people who have posted that
they were 'plonking' me after a particularly nasty post felt nothing but
contempt for me. For example when I dissed Lady Di while her corpse was
still warm several self righteous people used that as the reason to cease
discussion with me.
Of course many of these people are already in debates with me on unrelated
subjects when they beat their hasty retreats.
Some people are definitely avoiding me.
And perhaps for good reason.
Ideas are weapons.
And my ideas are such that if they were to become widely known and
understood they would change the face of the world forever.
In fact I speculate that given sufficiently skilled memetic manipulation
civilization itself could be laid to waste and the streets would run red
with blood... all because of people SAYING certain words in a certain
sequence... tapping into the cultural currents and shifting them just
so.
But then if I did that... it would be wrong...
Jackie the Tokeman

[Cheezits]

On Sun, 8 Mar 1998, Daniel Mocsny wrote:
> Morgan Sheridan wrote:
> > Sometimes Charlotte: 1.) disagrees with Jackie; 2.) thinks some of his ideas
> > (presumably, in her opinion/based on her experience/knowledge) are so off
> > base that he's "out to lunch"; and 3.) "thinks he is right freakin' on the
> > money."
> > It can't be that hard for you to discern her meaning, now can it?

> I understand that but I want to know what "some of his ideas"
> expands to.

You said she made a meaningless statement. Are you ready to retract that
yet?

> I want to know exactly where Charlotte disagrees with Jackie and why.

I don't especially care, myself. I tend to think he's right about some
things and not so much about others as well. Same as you or anybody else.
I just don't have the time or patience to speak up on *every single one*
of them. (Face it, the guy posts a lot!) And Charlotte may feel the same
way, who knows?

> I've thrown down the gauntlet by suggesting that Charlotte (and
> perhaps others) are *afraid* of Jackie.

Yes, and we're all afraid of Ch*ney, too. You don't see too many people
arguing with him anymore, do you?

> Of course I can hear the
> chorus of denials already

That's right, we're all in denial. Proof by psychoanalysis.

> but (in)actions speak louder than words.

Inactions don't say much of anything unless you make up your own theories
about them, hamster-style.

> To the rationalist, anyway.

Does "rationalist" mean "one who rationalizes"? Just wondering.

Sue
--
----- Never spam anyone who mentions cauce.org in their .sig. -----
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green

[Lenore Levine]

"Charlotte L. Blackmer" <c...@rahul.net> writes:

>C(who is usually amused when Usenet strangers try the name-calling
>thang on her, because such people are as a rule so wrong it's funny)LB

You're just saying this because you can't get a date! Otherwise,
why would you be posting to soc.singles? And I bet you're fat, too!

Sheesh, it's so easy to figure these people out.

Lenore Levine

--
"The fact that the circumference of Solomon's pool measured only 3
times the diameter rather than 3.1415..etc. shows that God can inter-
vent to change 'natural' law if He chooses...That's why God's so
great." -- Jack Garbuz

[Stephanie Dobler]

Daniel Mocsny wrote:
> As far as I can tell, Jackie is one of the most rational persons
> currently posting to soc.singles. I believe that if you can
> argue your views starting from evidence Jackie can observe
> and lead him through a chain of unavoidable conclusions,
> he will adopt your views if he does not already hold them.

> --- Daniel J. Mocsny

So far as I can tell, you seem to subscribe pretty closely to the
sociobiological interpretation of human behavior. Yet Jackie has stated
clearly that he has no desire to have children (in fact, he seems to
hate them) and will never become a father. In sociobiological terms,
this makes him a big loser. No procreation, no passing on of his genes.

You seem to admire rationality, but doesn't Jackie's rationality make
him a loser in your scheme of things?

--
Stephanie Dobler

[rosmaderos]

Mix wrote:
>
> Daniel Mocsny <dmo...@mfm.com> wrote:

> >I've thrown down the gauntlet by suggesting that Charlotte

> >(and perhaps others) are *afraid* of Jackie. Of course I
> >can hear the chorus of denials already but (in)actions
> >speak louder than words. To the rationalist, anyway.

[Activity picks up at the S.S.C.K.A.F.F.T. main office in
Winslow, Arizona; cell phones ringing and faxes flying ...
flying faxes being on the endangered species list, we do try
to be discreet about it ...]

> I believe that there are a variety of emotional responses at
> work here, fear among them.

Don't forget surprise, always an important element of any
strategy.

> The mind has various mechanisms for filtering out unwanted
> information. I have no doubt that many of the people who have
> posted that they were 'plonking' me after a particularly nasty
> post felt nothing but contempt for me. For example when I
> dissed Lady Di while her corpse was still warm several self
> righteous people used that as the reason to cease discussion
> with me.

A tasteless joke on Usenet? How extraordinary. Did you hear the
one about the Speed Seductionist on the Titanic? It was women
and children first.

> Of course many of these people are already in debates with me
> on unrelated subjects when they beat their hasty retreats. Some
> people are definitely avoiding me. And perhaps for good reason.
> Ideas are weapons.

You have been borrowing Cahaney's Hai Karate.

> And my ideas are such that if they were to become widely known
> and understood they would change the face of the world forever.
> In fact I speculate that given sufficiently skilled memetic
> manipulation civilization itself could be laid to waste and the
> streets would run red with blood... all because of people SAYING
> certain words in a certain sequence... tapping into the cultural
> currents and shifting them just so.

Yeah just go down to Florence and Normandie.

> But then if I did that... it would be wrong...
> Jackie the Tokeman

So, when are you gonna show up at a boink and demonstrate your
memetic engineering skills? Charlotte's boinks in Berkeley are
often open to soc.singles folks as well as soc.singles.moderated
folks.

Rosmaderos

[Daniel Mocsny]

No, it makes his genes a loser, in the future that none of us
will inhabit.

One of the first things you would pick up from an introductory
book on sociobiology would be the idea that what is best
for an individual is not necessarily what is best for his or
her genes. There are many organisms of many species that
accept mortal risks to reproduce. For example, before the
advent of modern medicine, it was rather common for women to
die in childbirth. Among other species, there are plenty of
animals that weaken themselves through battling for mates
or nurturing their young and in doing so make themselves more
vulnerable to predators, disease, or starvation.

To a rational observer it would seem risky reproduction is
foolish. And it most certainly is. But we are here today because
our ancestors could not say "no" to their genes, so they took
those foolish risks and somehow beat the odds in every single
generation in one continuous string going all the way back to
first self-replicating macromolecule.

Humans are the first species, apparently, in which individuals
have become smart enough to thwart their genes---to some extent.
We do this every time we have sex while using effective
contraception. However, we still carry the full and formidable
genetic programming that sufficed to motivate our ancestors to
do those things that in the ancestral environment tended to
produce offspring.

It's too bad for Jackie's genes their strategy has hit a dead
end. After 3.5 billion years of beating the odds, they finally
lose to a thin layer of latex. But that is not too bad for
Jackie. On the contrary, it's great for Jackie. He gets
to enjoy the psychic rewards his genes have programmed him to
experience when he obeys their instructions, and he gets to
keep his resources because his genes' instructions are no longer
effective.

[Ocean Gypsy]

In article <3503424F...@mfm.com>,

Daniel Mocsny <dmo...@mfm.com> wrote:
>Ocean Gypsy wrote:
>> In article <3501C493...@mfm.com>,
>> Daniel Mocsny <dmo...@mfm.com> wrote:

>> >Charlotte L. Blackmer wrote:
>> >> While I certainly agree to disagree with Jackie on some things,
>> >> and think he is seriously out to lunch on others, there are a
>> >> number

>> >> of times when I think he is right freakin' on the money.
>> >
>> >Please explain where you believe Jackie is out to lunch. If you
>> >do not do this, your sentence is very nearly meaningless.
>>
>> Do I detect the appearance of a very petulant child who, failing in
>> the past to successfully apply his loopy theories
>
>Tell me which of "my theories" you consider loopy. If you do not,
>then you are indulging in the same meaningless sniping that seems
>to be the best Charlotte can produce.

And if I do not, it may mean I wouldn't dignify your nattering with a
response. Basing a conclusion on whether or not you get a response from
someone on Usenet given the set of variables involved seems rather
meaningless in and of itself...

>I had to put quotes around "my theories" because it is likely that
>a person who is as confused as you are about what the word
>"meaningless" means probably would be unable to articulate any
>of my theories to my satisfaction.

Heh...I wouldn't even begin to try to do anything to *your
satisfaction*, much less want to.

Meaningless and loopy to me is putting forth the theories that you can
tell how horny or how fat someone is by what they post, both of which
I've seen you do.

Of course the all time classic as far as I'm concerned is your
description of the number of stiffies that kmd's s.o. would have in a
year's time, written in support of your men are hornier than women
theory.

>> to Miz Charlotte's
>> postings, resorts to meaningless ultimatums and judgements?
>
>It seems that we disagree on what constitutes "meaningless."
>
>What part of my challenge to Charlotte are you unable to understand?
>Even the petulant child of your fertile imagination could understand
>what I am asking Charlotte to do.

My imagination need not be particularly fecund to mark petulancy in you
requiring that if someone does not elaborate on their reasons for a
remark that it is "nearly meaningless".

Meaningless to what - your desire for an explanation? Didn't your mama
tell you that you can't always get what you want? It may frustrate you
in your quest to analyze and nit-pick things to death that pique your
interest but it certainly doesn't make Charlotte's remark meaningless.

That's Petulance with a capitol P.

<rest snipped...reminds me why I can't find the time to slog through
this stuff anymore>

[Ian Turton]

> Rosmaderos wrote: [some funnies snipped]

> > Mix wrote:
> > Of course many of these people are already in debates with me
> > on unrelated subjects when they beat their hasty retreats. Some
> > people are definitely avoiding me. And perhaps for good reason.
> > Ideas are weapons.
>
> You have been borrowing Cahaney's Hai Karate.
>
> > And my ideas are such that if they were to become widely known
> > and understood they would change the face of the world forever.
> > In fact I speculate that given sufficiently skilled memetic
> > manipulation civilization itself could be laid to waste and the
> > streets would run red with blood... all because of people SAYING
> > certain words in a certain sequence... tapping into the cultural
> > currents and shifting them just so.
>
> Yeah just go down to Florence and Normandie.
>
> > But then if I did that... it would be wrong...
> > Jackie the Tokeman
>
> So, when are you gonna show up at a boink and demonstrate your
> memetic engineering skills? Charlotte's boinks in Berkeley are
> often open to soc.singles folks as well as soc.singles.moderated
> folks.
>
> Rosmaderos
>
>

Ha ha, nice one. It really comes across totally ironic that he builds this
wall of voodoo witch tough guy image and you just know there is this little
man hiding behind the curtain.

Follow the yellow brick road my ass, more like follow the line on the mirror.

Ian

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

[kim vawryk]

On 9 Mar 1998 20:36:37 GMT, lev...@orion.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
wrote:

>"Charlotte L. Blackmer" <c...@rahul.net> writes:
>
>>C(who is usually amused when Usenet strangers try the name-calling
>>thang on her, because such people are as a rule so wrong it's funny)LB
>
>You're just saying this because you can't get a date! Otherwise,
>why would you be posting to soc.singles? And I bet you're fat, too!
>
>Sheesh, it's so easy to figure these people out.
>
>Lenore Levine
>

Geez! Is someone writing like a fat person again. Dammit stop
that! How many times we gotta tell you. :)

Kim

[kim vawryk]

On Mon, 9 Mar 1998 06:53:36 -0800 (PST), Mix
<mixm...@remail.obscura.com> wrote:

>Daniel Mocsny <dmo...@mfm.com> wrote:
>>I've thrown down the gauntlet by suggesting that Charlotte (and
>>perhaps others) are *afraid* of Jackie. Of course I can hear the
>>chorus of denials already but (in)actions speak louder than words.
>>To the rationalist, anyway.

Yes Dan, I do admit that I am afraid of you and your 634 line posts.

But of Jackie, no. I disagree with a lot of his ideas, but I respect
them on the basis of respecting anyone's opinion.

Maybe it has all been said and they wish not to say it again or have
just grown tired of the debate.

Kim

>I believe that there are a variety of emotional responses at work here,

>fear among them. The mind has various mechanisms for filtering out unwanted

>information. I have no doubt that many of the people who have posted that
>they were 'plonking' me after a particularly nasty post felt nothing but
>contempt for me. For example when I dissed Lady Di while her corpse was
>still warm several self righteous people used that as the reason to cease
>discussion with me.

>Of course many of these people are already in debates with me on unrelated
>subjects when they beat their hasty retreats.
>Some people are definitely avoiding me.
>And perhaps for good reason.
>Ideas are weapons.

>And my ideas are such that if they were to become widely known and
>understood they would change the face of the world forever.

Example please.

>In fact I speculate that given sufficiently skilled memetic manipulation
>civilization itself could be laid to waste and the streets would run red
>with blood... all because of people SAYING certain words in a certain
>sequence... tapping into the cultural currents and shifting them just
>so.

>But then if I did that... it would be wrong...
> Jackie the Tokeman

Any well spoken person with a platform can do that.

Kim

[Mix]

"Charlotte L. Blackmer" <c...@rahul.net> wrote:
>Duh. I'm human, after all. And I've made no secret about my religious
>affiliation. Do I have objective evidence that Christ was raised from the
>dead on the third day and ascended into heaven? Nope, I wasn't anywhere
>near what happened nearly 2,000 years before I was born and I'm not a
>past-lifer, either. Do I believe the story of the Resurrection to be true?
>Yes, yes, yes.

Since the very basis of your entire existence is unmitigated bullshit you
are wise not to engage in battle.
Don't sweat it though - most people go through life in a state of total
delusion so you have lots of company.
Of course you are all wasting your lives for nothing but hey it's your funeral.
Jackie the Tokeman

[Mix]

Stephanie Dobler <dob...@psc.edu> wrote:
>Daniel Mocsny wrote:
>> As far as I can tell, Jackie is one of the most rational persons
>> currently posting to soc.singles. I believe that if you can
>> argue your views starting from evidence Jackie can observe
>> and lead him through a chain of unavoidable conclusions,
>> he will adopt your views if he does not already hold them.
>
>> --- Daniel J. Mocsny
>
>So far as I can tell, you seem to subscribe pretty closely to the
>sociobiological interpretation of human behavior. Yet Jackie has stated
>clearly that he has no desire to have children (in fact, he seems to
>hate them) and will never become a father. In sociobiological terms,
>this makes him a big loser. No procreation, no passing on of his genes.

Does Dan claim that one has an obligation to serve evolution?

>You seem to admire rationality, but doesn't Jackie's rationality make
>him a loser in your scheme of things?

Evolution knows nothing of birth control.
I am evolved to want to shag lots of hot chicks. In the state of nature
that would naturally lead to many children if I were successful in my
quest. But in the modern world medical science has allowed me to fulfill my
biological desires while eliminating the inconvenient consequences.
So I am a winner in the contest that leads to pleasurable sensations.
And that's all that matters to me.
Jackie the Tokeman

[Mix]

Ian Turton <ia...@wm.estec.esa.nl> wrote:
>> Rosmaderos wrote: [some funnies snipped]
>> > Mix wrote:

(snip)

>> > But then if I did that... it would be wrong...
>> > Jackie the Tokeman
>>

>> So, when are you gonna show up at a boink and demonstrate your
>> memetic engineering skills? Charlotte's boinks in Berkeley are
>> often open to soc.singles folks as well as soc.singles.moderated
>> folks.
>>
>> Rosmaderos
>
>Ha ha, nice one. It really comes across totally ironic that he builds this
>wall of voodoo witch tough guy image and you just know there is this little
>man hiding behind the curtain.

If I showed up at a boink... how would you know?
Jackie the Tokeman

[rosmaderos]

Ian Turton wrote:
>
> Rosmaderos wrote: [to Jackie]

> > So, when are you gonna show up at a boink and demonstrate
> > your memetic engineering skills? Charlotte's boinks in
> > Berkeley are often open to soc.singles folks as well as
> > soc.singles.moderated folks.
>

> Ha ha, nice one. It really comes across totally ironic that
> he builds this wall of voodoo witch tough guy image and you
> just know there is this little man hiding behind the curtain.

Well, I was serious about the invitation. Jackie got carried
away with the affecting the world bit, but I wouldn't expect
to find a "little man hiding behind the curtain". I'd expect
him to be as offbeat as many of the rest of us.

Rosmaderos

[rosmaderos]

Mix wrote:
>
> If I showed up at a boink... how would you know?
> Jackie the Tokeman

An excellent point, one which I must think about.
It would take an exceptionally skilled person to
create a highly consistent net persona yet be able
to dissociate from it completely either at a boink,
or for that matter in the manifestation of other net
personas.

Rosmaderos

[Cheezits]

On Tue, 10 Mar 1998, Mix wrote:
> If I showed up at a boink... how would you know?

What, you wouldn't even introduce yourself? Hmph.

Someone at Denver Boink claimed to be Lewis Depayne, but then peegs
started flying out his butt.

[Kenn Barry]

In article <1998031019...@sirius.infonex.com>,
mixm...@remail.obscura.com says...

> >> Rosmaderos wrote: [some funnies snipped]

> >> So, when are you gonna show up at a boink and demonstrate your
> >> memetic engineering skills? Charlotte's boinks in Berkeley are
> >> often open to soc.singles folks as well as soc.singles.moderated
> >> folks.
>

> If I showed up at a boink... how would you know?

Boinks in recent years have been way too small to be
anonymous, Jackie. And you haven't answered George's question.
Why not meet some of the folks some time?

Kayembee

[Mix]

Cheezits <chee...@netaxs.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 10 Mar 1998, Mix wrote:

>> If I showed up at a boink... how would you know?
>

>What, you wouldn't even introduce yourself? Hmph.

I might introduce myself. But it might not be the same self.

>Someone at Denver Boink claimed to be Lewis Depayne, but then peegs
>started flying out his butt.

There are peectures of Lewis on the web - or at least there were.
So you could check and see if it was him.
Jackie the Tokeman

[Mix]

ba...@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) wrote:
>In article <1998031019...@sirius.infonex.com>,
>mixm...@remail.obscura.com says...
>> >> Rosmaderos wrote: [some funnies snipped]
>> >> So, when are you gonna show up at a boink and demonstrate your
>> >> memetic engineering skills? Charlotte's boinks in Berkeley are
>> >> often open to soc.singles folks as well as soc.singles.moderated
>> >> folks.
>>

>> If I showed up at a boink... how would you know?
>

> Boinks in recent years have been way too small to be
>anonymous, Jackie.

You mean there's never been some stranger there, someone who didn't claim
to post much, someone who said very little... and then you never saw him
again?

>And you haven't answered George's question.
>Why not meet some of the folks some time?

Because there are more pretty girls in any nice shopping mall?
(nah, that couldn't be it...)
Jackie the Tokeman

[Mix]

rosmaderos <ging...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Ian Turton wrote:
>>
>> Rosmaderos wrote: [to Jackie]

>> > So, when are you gonna show up at a boink and demonstrate
>> > your memetic engineering skills? Charlotte's boinks in
>> > Berkeley are often open to soc.singles folks as well as
>> > soc.singles.moderated folks.
>>

>> Ha ha, nice one. It really comes across totally ironic that
>> he builds this wall of voodoo witch tough guy image and you
>> just know there is this little man hiding behind the curtain.
>
>Well, I was serious about the invitation. Jackie got carried
>away with the affecting the world bit,

If you reread what I said I only kidded about me doing it (it would be
wrong) but I was quite serious about it being possible to alter the course
of history with words.
Just ask the Apostle Paul.
Do I think I could do the same? I don't know yet.
I'll get back to you...

> but I wouldn't expect
>to find a "little man hiding behind the curtain". I'd expect
>him to be as offbeat as many of the rest of us.

An offbeat man could still be a little man hiding behind a curtain.
I'm far beyond offbeat.
I am the master.
Jackie the Tokeman

[Mix]

rosmaderos <ging...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>Mix wrote:
>>
>> If I showed up at a boink... how would you know?

>> Jackie the Tokeman
>
>An excellent point, one which I must think about.
>It would take an exceptionally skilled person to
>create a highly consistent net persona yet be able
>to dissociate from it completely either at a boink,
>or for that matter in the manifestation of other net
>personas.

No, it wouldn't be difficult at all.
I would just pretend to be a shy niceguy and you wouldn't even notice I was
there!
;)
Jackie the Tokeman

[Mix]

wowb...@onix.com (Mike Given) wrote:
> Which also leads me to some conundrums. Charlotte's opinion and the
>details thereof seem to mean quite a bit to you, so I'm puzzled as to
>why you have no suspicions of your own beyond "fear". Under other
>circumstances I'd also be suprised you couldn't figure a slightly more
>persuasive means of coaxing those details out other than accusations of
>meaninglessness, and if by chance her opinions do in fact *not* mean
>that much to you just why you're so eager to find them out.

Oh come on, it's so fucking obvious.
Dan wants to bait her into debating some of his favorite topics with me as
backup. In fact he's trying to bait both of us. He knows I'm better at this
than he is and he'll get to enjoy the spectacle.

> Why do you think that Charlotte (and perhaps others) are afraid of
>Jackie? Maybe, just maybe, if you come up with a good answer, Charlotte
>(and perhaps others) will explain to you what it is about Jackie's
>opinions that raise any loathing.

That's obvious too.
The truths I state so bluntly undermine the social fabric of all
civilizations.
The sheep must never, ever see the truth. If they do they will realize they
are cogs being worn down to dust by an amoral system that cares nothing for
them or their sacrifices. Then there will be no more cannon fodder for the
next war. No more charity. No more religion. Nothing but people looking to
have fun.
With no more willing victims how would the machinery of the state be kept
oiled?
It takes a great deal of blood and everyone really must keep doing their
part...
So give til it hurts.
Jackie the Tokeman

[Mike Given]

Daniel Mocsny <dmo...@mfm.com> wrote:
>Morgan Sheridan wrote:

>>Daniel Mocsny wrote:
>>>Charlotte L. Blackmer wrote:
>>>> While I certainly agree to disagree with Jackie on some things,
>>>> and think he is seriously out to lunch on others, there are a number
>>>> of times when I think he is right freakin' on the money.
>>>Please explain where you believe Jackie is out to lunch. If you
>>>do not do this, your sentence is very nearly meaningless.

[..deletia - sorry Morgan..]

>I understand that but I want to know what "some of his ideas"
>expands to.

Ah, the persuit of meaning in an alleged "meaningless" sentence. I
just *love* the smell of Zen in the morning!

>Am I the only person on soc.singles who understands that not everybody
>can be vague at all times?

Why "yes", of course you are.

>For example, when you sit down at a computer, you have to type
>specific commands.

<giggle>..Yah, right. Don't let's be vague; you have to type specific
commands to get specific results.

>If you say to the computer, "some things" or "etc." the computer will
>not "know" what you are telling it to do.

There's a damn good reason for that: computers, at least the ones
that most of us proles are used to dealing with, despite some ingenious
programming and adherence to logic, are mind-bogglingly stupid.

<cough>. Or seemingly at the very least, incredibly dense. That and
most of the analogies they sprout are exceedingly poor.

>That's because you aren't telling the computer what to do, i.e., your
>commands have no *MEANING*.

Because that's the way they're made; computers are quite literal and
they don't know much of shit about innuendo.
Frex, a woman can say "fuck!" to me in such a way that I'd make haste
to the nearest exit, or she could say "fuck!" to me in another fashion
that would glean an entirely different result. Now, when I type "fuck!"
into my HP9000, it says "sh: fuck!: not found.". It says pretty much
the same thing even when I put the command in caps. And let's face it,
all the programming in the world ain't gonnna make an HP9000 "fuck!" the
way I wanna "fuck!".

>Or for example, if your best friend told you she was getting married,
>and you asked her who she was marrying, would you accept "a man" as
>a satisfying answer?

Perhaps not. It is interesting to observe that you put Charlotte's
opinion on an analagous par with "best friend" though. Perhaps such a
friend would not refer to such a statment as "meaningless", either.

>Would it not seem to you that your friend was stonewalling?

Think of it as a learning experience.

>Do you agree that knowing exactly *WHO* your friend was marrying
>would be more meaningful than simply knowing *that* she was getting
>married?

If she were my *best* friend, I expect I'd already *know* who she was
marrying.

>I want to know exactly where Charlotte disagrees with Jackie and why.

Hm. I couldn't begin to speak for Charlotte and I've yet to meet her
in person but I've read enough of her correspondence (..and at least
some of Jackie's when he's not too deep into spinning Cahaney's wheel..)
to come up with some reasonable suspicions.

Which also leads me to some conundrums. Charlotte's opinion and the
details thereof seem to mean quite a bit to you, so I'm puzzled as to
why you have no suspicions of your own beyond "fear". Under other
circumstances I'd also be suprised you couldn't figure a slightly more
persuasive means of coaxing those details out other than accusations of
meaninglessness, and if by chance her opinions do in fact *not* mean
that much to you just why you're so eager to find them out.

Quite honestly Dan, you puzzle me.

>In part that's because Jackie is very persuasive, and I must resist
>the temptation to accept all his views until I hear the alternatives.

Hm. Why not just accept his views as theory and experiment on your
own? I understand they built a lab for such tests, with a BIG blue
ceiling and a *BIG* yellow light bulb that stays lit all day.

>So far there just haven't been many real alternatives.

Real alternatives to *what*? Speed Seduction?

>I've thrown down the gauntlet by suggesting that Charlotte (and
>perhaps others) are *afraid* of Jackie.

Neat. So, now I have a question:

Why do you think that Charlotte (and perhaps others) are afraid of
Jackie? Maybe, just maybe, if you come up with a good answer, Charlotte
(and perhaps others) will explain to you what it is about Jackie's
opinions that raise any loathing.

>Of course I can hear the chorus of denials already but (in)actions
>speak louder than words.

Don't I know it. Why I bother posting at you is beyond me; you never
even gave a glimmer of response to the ones I cc:'ed to you per your
request claiming crappy newsfeed.

>To the rationalist, anyway.

Rationalism is nice, but what's best for some isn't always best for
others. And some people don't know what's good for them, much less
what's best.

Mikey (..and what's reasonable to some ain't reasonable to others..)
--
URL http://linux.onix.com/~wowbaggr
ICQ # 4965610

[Kenn Barry]

In article <1998031107...@sirius.infonex.com>,
mixm...@remail.obscura.com says...

> ba...@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) wrote:
> >In article <1998031019...@sirius.infonex.com>,
> >mixm...@remail.obscura.com says...

> >> If I showed up at a boink... how would you know?
> >

> > Boinks in recent years have been way too small to be
> >anonymous, Jackie.
>
> You mean there's never been some stranger there, someone who didn't claim
> to post much, someone who said very little... and then you never saw him
> again?

Uh, that would be me - I don't talk a lot :-). Seriously,
no, not in many years. Are you talking about someone attending
under an assumed identity? Hard to see the point of that. Only
motives I can think of for doing that, are either fear, or some
kind of weird voyeurism.

> >And you haven't answered George's question.
> >Why not meet some of the folks some time?
>
> Because there are more pretty girls in any nice shopping mall?
> (nah, that couldn't be it...)

Make jokes if you like, but my curiosity's genuine. Given
the amount you post on the net, you clearly have the time and
interest for activities beside chasing tail.

Kayembee

[Mix]

ba...@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) wrote:
>In article <1998031107...@sirius.infonex.com>,
>mixm...@remail.obscura.com says...
>> ba...@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) wrote:
>> >In article <1998031019...@sirius.infonex.com>,
>> >mixm...@remail.obscura.com says...
>> >> If I showed up at a boink... how would you know?
>> >
>> > Boinks in recent years have been way too small to be
>> >anonymous, Jackie.
>>
>> You mean there's never been some stranger there, someone who didn't claim
>> to post much, someone who said very little... and then you never saw him
>> again?
>
> Uh, that would be me - I don't talk a lot :-). Seriously,
>no, not in many years. Are you talking about someone attending
>under an assumed identity? Hard to see the point of that. Only
>motives I can think of for doing that, are either fear, or some
>kind of weird voyeurism.

Perhaps you haven't sufficient imagination to understand other motives.

>> >And you haven't answered George's question.
>> >Why not meet some of the folks some time?
>>
>> Because there are more pretty girls in any nice shopping mall?
>> (nah, that couldn't be it...)
>
> Make jokes if you like, but my curiosity's genuine.

No doubt.

> Given
>the amount you post on the net, you clearly have the time and
>interest for activities beside chasing tail.

There's only so much sex you can have in one day.
Jackie the Tokeman

[Mix]

"Carmine Baffa" <car...@carmine.net>
Newsgroups: alt.psychology.nlp
Subject: Re: Robbins' Wife Becky (repost since i didn't get an answer, sorry to do so, but just very curious)

>If those who profess themselves
>as skilled communicators are so easily provoked that they
>lose all sense of decency, all sense of fairness, as they
>do or say whatever in an attempt to bring attention to
>how they were wronged, then all in this field will suffer.

Isn't that just what you and your lackies did when you spread around those
stories about Ross and Kim?
Jackie the Tokeman

[rosmaderos]

Mix wrote:

[I lost your other replies in a Netscape crash, but this is a
not inappropriate place to continue ...]

> wowb...@onix.com (Mike Given) wrote:
> >
> >Why do you think that Charlotte (and perhaps others) are
> >afraid of Jackie? Maybe, just maybe, if you come up with
> >a good answer, Charlotte (and perhaps others) will explain
> >to you what it is about Jackie's opinions that raise any
> >loathing.
>

> That's obvious too. The truths I state so bluntly undermine
> the social fabric of all civilizations.

You're getting (getting?) megalomaniacal. How about *listing*
your naked truths without all the fluff so that we can all have
a rip roaring debate on their potential effects on social fabric.

> The sheep must never, ever see the truth. If they do they
> will realize they are cogs being worn down to dust by an
> amoral system that cares nothing for them or their sacrifices.

Nah, the sheep might be temporarily distracted but in the end
are too easily satisfied with some good cud and the occasional
visit from the shepherd boy.

> Then there will be no more cannon fodder for the next war. No
> more charity. No more religion. Nothing but people looking to
> have fun. With no more willing victims how would the machinery
> of the state be kept oiled? It takes a great deal of blood and
> everyone really must keep doing their part... So give til it
> hurts.
> Jackie the Tokeman

Not a word about seduction ...

Rosma...@welcome.to.the.next.level!

[Ian Turton]

rosmaderos wrote:

> Well, I was serious about the invitation. Jackie got carried

> away with the affecting the world bit, but I wouldn't expect

> to find a "little man hiding behind the curtain". I'd expect
> him to be as offbeat as many of the rest of us.
>

> Rosmaderos

Oops, sorry if that's the way you feel.
Basically, Jackie as you'd probably know irritates me. I'm all for free
speech, etc. But I fairly sure that Jackie is a salesman for NLP/SS -
actually earns dollars out of it. I mean who in their right mind would
continually keep banging on about the things he does without having a
financial incentive. The regulars have all read his view points and he's
pointed out his favorite books, isn't that enough? Doesn't it just
become veiled spam and is it fair to keep putting it into soc.singles
especially if he's trolling for customers.

My reference to the line on the mirror came out of my reading about the
mentality this can create, for example thinking that it's love because
your *not* _intelligent_. Which I disagree with. I believe that in some
sense everything is a drug, all having lesser and greater different
effects on the mind. If your tapping into something very strong which
denies spirit your going to be strongly "effected" and therefore quite
possibly divorced from "reality". If you are able to not be in any way
be "spiritual" then your outside of "reality" and off the mark in my
opinion.

Anyway he can post anything he likes in soc.singles, I'm clicking over
it now. I'd buy the books if I was interested rather than hearing it
second hand. Maybe he just needs a web page outlining his interests.
Sorry if I misunderstood your standpoint, I like reading your posts much
like a lot of the other regulars.

Ian

[Ian Turton]

In article <1998031019...@sirius.infonex.com>,
Mix <mixm...@remail.obscura.com> wrote:

>
> Ian Turton <ia...@wm.estec.esa.nl> wrote:
> >> Rosmaderos wrote: [some funnies snipped]

> >> > Mix wrote:
> (snip)
> >> > But then if I did that... it would be wrong...
> >> > Jackie the Tokeman
> >>

> >> So, when are you gonna show up at a boink and demonstrate your
> >> memetic engineering skills? Charlotte's boinks in Berkeley are
> >> often open to soc.singles folks as well as soc.singles.moderated
> >> folks.
> >>

> >> Rosmaderos

> >
> >Ha ha, nice one. It really comes across totally ironic that he builds this

> >wall of voodoo witch tough guy image and you just know there is this little

> >man hiding behind the curtain.
>

> If I showed up at a boink... how would you know?

> Jackie the Tokeman
>
>

Er, come back down Jackie. What you whittling on about this time. I can hop on
a plane anytime to get to the US. I'd have thought you'd say hi I'm Jackie or
something along those lines, although that may be a bit to conventional for
you. Do have to keep telling people to kill themselves or that there beliefs
are complete bullshit to a cool regular, you little charmer, that SS sure is
good stuff.
In the real world would you do that? Living by your rules on the street how do
think that might end?, when people don't feel like playing by the social rules
which I'm sure you could relate to? Noticed you ran away from the drugs
reference and can't use the love word. To shy to touch on those subjects?

Your starting to get on my tits as you've probably noticed, although like you
said a lot of people hate you so I guess your pushing me in that direction as
well. What a great salesman you are monkeyboy.

[John Fereira]

In article <1998031107...@sirius.infonex.com>, Mix <mixm...@remail.obscura.com> wrote:
>ba...@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) wrote:
>>In article <1998031019...@sirius.infonex.com>,
>>mixm...@remail.obscura.com says...

>>> >> Rosmaderos wrote: [some funnies snipped]

>>> >> So, when are you gonna show up at a boink and demonstrate your
>>> >> memetic engineering skills? Charlotte's boinks in Berkeley are
>>> >> often open to soc.singles folks as well as soc.singles.moderated
>>> >> folks.
>>>

>>> If I showed up at a boink... how would you know?
>>

>> Boinks in recent years have been way too small to be
>>anonymous, Jackie.
>
>You mean there's never been some stranger there, someone who didn't claim
>to post much, someone who said very little... and then you never saw him
>again?

Not at any of the boinks I've been to. At all of the boinks that I attended
people went there because they *wanted* to meet the others in attendance.
At the last boink that I attended (and also hosted) there were only two people
that I hadn't met previously.

>>And you haven't answered George's question.
>>Why not meet some of the folks some time?
>
>Because there are more pretty girls in any nice shopping mall?
>(nah, that couldn't be it...)

You probably wouldn't like going a boink there. There will only be men
and *women* there.

John Fereira
ja...@cornell.edu

[Jim Dutton]

In article <35060F...@pacbell.net>,

rosmaderos <ging...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Ian Turton wrote:
>>
>> Rosmaderos wrote: [to Jackie]

>> > So, when are you gonna show up at a boink and demonstrate
>> > your memetic engineering skills? Charlotte's boinks in
>> > Berkeley are often open to soc.singles folks as well as
>> > soc.singles.moderated folks.
>>

>> Ha ha, nice one. It really comes across totally ironic that
>> he builds this wall of voodoo witch tough guy image and you
>> just know there is this little man hiding behind the curtain.
>

>Well, I was serious about the invitation. Jackie got carried
>away with the affecting the world bit, but I wouldn't expect
>to find a "little man hiding behind the curtain". I'd expect
>him to be as offbeat as many of the rest of us.

You guys are pretty offbeat.

-Jeem, in a beatnick sorta way.

========================================================================
http://www.mcs.net/~jjd
Steatopygias's 'R' Us. doh#0000000005 That ain't no Hottentot.
Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. tbtw#6. s.s.m#8. There ain't no more
"There are two kinds of people, those who finish what they start
and so on..." -Robert Byrne
========================================================================

[John Fereira]

In article <35090b98...@news.microserve.net>, wowb...@onix.com wrote:
do.
> Frex, a woman can say "fuck!" to me in such a way that I'd make haste
>to the nearest exit, or she could say "fuck!" to me in another fashion
>that would glean an entirely different result. Now, when I type "fuck!"
>into my HP9000, it says "sh: fuck!: not found.".

But if you tell it to "make love" it will respond.

Make: Don't know how to make love. Stop.

John Fereira
ja...@cornell.edu

Stop Unsolicited Commercial Email - Join CAUCE (http://www.cauce.org)
Support HR 1748, the anti-spam bill.

[Cheezits]

On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, Mike Given wrote:
[no one cares about context anymore]

> And let's face it,
> all the programming in the world ain't gonnna make an HP9000 "fuck!" the
> way I wanna "fuck!".

No wannas on soc.singles!

Sue (some people never learn)

[rosmaderos]

Ian Turton wrote:
>
> If your tapping into something very strong which denies spirit
> your going to be strongly "effected" and therefore quite possibly
> divorced from "reality".

I think you've hit the nail squarely on the head.

> Anyway [Jackie] can post anything he likes in soc.singles, I'm
> clicking over it now.

Things will get more interesting.

> Sorry if I misunderstood your standpoint, I like reading your posts
> much like a lot of the other regulars.

Your post didn't bother me at all.

George

[Mike Given]

Mix <mixm...@remail.obscura.com> wrote:

>wowb...@onix.com (Mike Given) wrote:
>> Which also leads me to some conundrums. Charlotte's opinion and the
>>details thereof seem to mean quite a bit to you, so I'm puzzled as to
>>why you have no suspicions of your own beyond "fear". Under other
>>circumstances I'd also be suprised you couldn't figure a slightly more
>>persuasive means of coaxing those details out other than accusations of
>>meaninglessness, and if by chance her opinions do in fact *not* mean
>>that much to you just why you're so eager to find them out.

>Oh come on, it's so fucking obvious.

Is it? It's rather obvious that I have some suspicions about Dan's
motives but I'd certainly doubt my surety of them. Then again, there is
a plausible possibility that I'm not your match in deducing such things
from mere Usenet postings.

>Dan wants to bait her into debating some of his favorite topics with
>me as backup. In fact he's trying to bait both of us. He knows I'm better
>at this than he is and he'll get to enjoy the spectacle.

So basicly you're saying that Dan's playing out a less-than-elaborate
troll. If you're right, even though I must admit the thought had also
crossed my mind, I find myself rather disappointed, both at the motives
and the overall quality of troll.

>>Why do you think that Charlotte (and perhaps others) are afraid of
>>Jackie? Maybe, just maybe, if you come up with a good answer, Charlotte
>>(and perhaps others) will explain to you what it is about Jackie's
>>opinions that raise any loathing.

>That's obvious too.

Well, let's just see; I think I might fall into the "and perhaps
others" category reasonably well.

>The truths I state so bluntly undermine the social fabric of all
>civilizations.

Do please spare me the "film at eleven" Nostrodamic Usenet grandeur.

>The sheep must never, ever see the truth.

Why ever not? If a sheep is truly a sheep, you could mount
TheTrvth[tm] on a fire engine, get the lights and sirens going, and
still the best reaction you'd get is the sheep running away. You
couldn't possibly deny that; look at the relationship you and Cahaney
have.

>If they do they will realize they are cogs being worn down to dust by
>an amoral system that cares nothing for them or their sacrifices.

That rather sounds like a (pretty irrational) fear of your own; I
myself just don't see sheep evolving that quickly.

>Then there will be no more cannon fodder for the next war.

Assuming for the moment that sheep *would* in fact see TheTrvth[tm]
for what it is, what do you think the result of having no cannon fodder
for the next war would be? Would more evolved creatures have to fill in
the role, or would we just find yet another gullible species to cross
the minefield first? Or would there simply just be no war?

>No more charity.

"Charity" in what sense? I mean, I kinda like my pets, ya know.

>No more religion.

<sigh>. This is beginning to sound like an inverted John Lennon song.

>Nothing but people looking to have fun.

"And the Hedonists shall inherit the Earth." Hm. Somehow that just
doesn't sound right. <heh>.

>With no more willing victims how would the machinery of the state be
>kept oiled?

Well, without all those sheep tearing up the arable land, would there
really be a need for the "machinery of state"?

>It takes a great deal of blood and everyone really must keep
>doing their part...

Pah. It's not like there isn't enough sheep to go around or won't be
in the foreseeable future. Too damn many if ya ask me, and way too much
time and resource seems to be spent on shepherding.
Perhaps its high time we un-mothballed Auschwitz?

>So give til it hurts.

Why stop there?

Mikey (..<oink>..)

[Daniel Mocsny]

Charlotte L. Blackmer wrote:

>
> In article <3501C493...@mfm.com>, Daniel Mocsny <dmo...@mfm.com> wrote:
> >Charlotte L. Blackmer wrote:
> >> While I certainly agree to disagree with Jackie on some things,
> >> and think he is seriously out to lunch on others, there are a number
> >> of times when I think he is right freakin' on the money.
> >
> >Please explain where you believe Jackie is out to lunch.
>

> Are you paying me my "posting what someone else wants me to post, not what
> I care to post" rates for this, Dan? Fair warning, you could save the
> money for your date fund instead since all the women you know seem content
> to have you pay (and given my rates - $250/hr -, this could even include,
> say, airfare to NYC or Paris).

My only payment to you will be my recognition of your intellectual
integrity. This is, after all, the currency of a discussion group
such as soc.singles.

Charlotte, you are an intelligent person. The world does not have
enough intelligent people. Therefore it seems reasonable to expect
intelligent people to use their rare abilities to do the kind of
heavy intellectual lifting that other people cannot do.

Anybody can say "Jackie is out to lunch on XYZ." That requires no
intelligence.

Explaining *WHY* Jackie is out to lunch on XYZ requires intelligence.
In fact, one *HELL* of a lot of intelligence. Because so far it seems
Jackie is pretty handily dispatching just about everyone who challenges
him. That means Jackie appears to understand why he believes what he
believes better than any of his opponents understand why they believe
what they believe.

Do you have what it takes? There is only one way to prove that you do.
And that is not by thumping your chest.

> >If you do not do this, your sentence is very nearly meaningless.
>

> Actually, if you aren't asking for "mild disagreement" and "strong
> agreement" as well, your request doesn't make much sense.

Your sentence indicates that you are not understanding what I
have been saying about beliefs and how we form them.

If you agree with Jackie about something, neither of you are likely
to feel motivated to explain why you believe what you believe.
Agreement, therefore, rarely results in any sort of mental effort
or logical development that is intellectually stimulating to a reader.
It may be somewhat interesting or surprising to learn that you agree
with Jackie on some thing, but that is unlikely to lead to any
further development on how you both arrived at that belief.

I have said repeatedly that decapitated assertions are next to useless
and often dangerous. If all we get is that somebody believes something,
without any explanation of how that person gets from things we can all
observe to the belief (which may be unobvious, or may be only one of
many alternatives), then we don't have very much to chew on.

For example, if Jackie says something like: "Men will always control
the world" and you say, "Yup, that's right," what does anybody get
from that? If Jackie is wrong, we won't get any reasons to
suspect he is wrong. If he is right, we won't gain any insights into
the social and/or genetic mechanisms that produce male dominance.

Since the power distribution in society is vitally important to all
of us, it stands to reason that the more we know about the mechanisms
that produce the distribution of power, the more likely we are to be
able to position ourselves favorably with respect to it. Understanding
external reality is always the first step toward using it to one's
advantage.

Perhaps the reason we are talking past each other here is that I am
not solely interested in flaunting my opinions, but rather I want to
improve my understanding of how the world works.

To do that, I need more than ex cathedra pronouncements. I need smart
people who care enough about other people to take the time to explain
their chains of reasoning.

I'm not saying I *EXPECT* you to care. Obviously you have little reason
to give a shit about what I want. But if you give me something useful,
then my respect for you will increase. So it all comes down to whether
you want me to respect you.

> Actually, in the context (which I noticed you have snipped), it does make
> a lot of sense - basically I was explaining why he is not in my killfile
> :-)
>
> >And also, I would say, consistent with the hypothesis that you are
> >afraid to take Jackie on. If that hypothesis is correct,
>
> <sound effects: latte hitting monitor>
>
> Oh, yeah, I'm quaking in my boots, I am. I'm sooooo scared of him and all
> the other men who participate in this newsgroup.
>
> <pause while I find a screenwipe>

In the above passage, you eloquently describe your worship of
the subjective and your disdain for the objective.

See, there is something out there called "reality" which really does
exist and really does have some objective structure that is pretty
much beyond our ability rearrange simply by wishing. Certainly there
are some things we can change by having the right attitude and so on but
in many other areas there really are tests of falsifiability that a
person has to pass to establish real credibility with others.

I have a friend who dismisses the athletic accomplishments of the
competitors who ride in the Tour de France. He says, "If I had the
time to train as much as those guys, I could ride just as fast."

Well, that might be true. But then again, it might not. Interestingly,
the organizers of the Tour de France do not award a jersey to the
member of the general public who expresses maximum braggadocio.

Another example is Sri Chinmoy (if I've spelled his name correctly),
an Eastern mystic type who claims to have performed astounding feats
of weightlifting "through the power of the mind." I've seen photos
of him holding seemingly unbelievable weights. For example, in one
photo he has purportedly just completed a one-arm overhead press
with more than *TWICE* his bodyweight. In another photo, he has
raised a weight a few inches off a high rack by standing under the
bar, grasping the bar with his arm extended straight up (elbow in
the locked out position), apparently with knees and back slightly
bent, and then straightening himself to extend his vertical reach
upward to its maximum, and in the process raising the bar off the
rack supports. The bar is not a standard olympic bar, but instead
it is much longer and has truss reinforcements welded on to
prevent it from sagging under the many plates it holds. The number
of plates is ridiculously large, and Chinmoy claims the total
weight he lifted was over 7,000 pounds.

Why do I reject the claims of Sri Chinmoy? (1) Because anybody could
rig up an apparatus with styrofoam plates painted up to look like
real iron plates. (2) Because he refuses to enter any sanctioned,
refereed weightlifting competition. Weightlifting circles are rife
with claims of fantastic lifts. For every official record, there are
many claims of "gym lifts" exceeding them. Anyone who takes the time
to investigate these claims quickly discovers that they are worth
approximately the effort it takes to make them.

The fact that I would need to explain the rudiments of testing
assertions to you is evidence in favor of Jackie's claim that men
will always rule the world, or more accurately, that the people
who rule the world will always be disproportionately men. The men
who end up ruling the world are precisely those people who learn
early in life that what you *THINK* you can do is not what matters,
but rather what matters is what you *DO*. Everybody has an ego, so
everybody believes he or she can do all sorts of things. But until
people put their money where their mouths are, you have no way of
knowing whether they really can do what they claim.

This is a very basic life lesson. I'm sure you apply it to other
people all the time. Most people cannot obtain great success in
life until they become willing to submit to the same test. For some
reason, men seem statistically more likely than women to do this,
and we see that on soc.singles *ALL THE TIME*.

When someone says "I don't have to explain my position to you" the
speaker is more likely to be a woman than a man.

We see similar delusions at work when women enter the world of business
and whine about how the competitive nature of business is at odds with
their nurturing, gentle, connected personalities and how women need to
restructure the economy to be more accommodating to themselves.

Then, of course, there is the all-time whopper: "Womens' ways of
knowing."

> Do have your public health department check your water supply, Dan. I
> think there's something going on here. I don't take Jackie on head to
> head on a regular basis (although I have posted disagreements with some of
> the things he's said IIRC) because I don't particularly have the time or
> the energy.

You have plenty of time and energy to post articles to soc.singles, many
of which elaborate at length on why you are above scrutiny.

Your assertions do not provide sufficient evidence to rule out the
hypothesis that you are afraid of Jackie because you arrived at
your beliefs irrationally and are therefore unable to defend them
rationally.

> Frequently, if I'm thinking about doing something,
> someone else picks up the thread, so I just nod and go on to something
> else. I have limited time to spend on Usenet, so I try to choose
> carefully what I respond to. Plus I'm amused and entertained by many of
> the things he says, and as I said, there are things we agree on
> *strongly*, so I am far more inclined to cut him some slack.
>
> Not to mention that what goes on Usenet is not necessarily *all* the
> interaction we've had (*sweet smile*).
>
> Dan, why assume I'm scared? Why assume something negative? Why not apply
> Occam's Razor and assume that I just didn't feel like doing it?

I am applying Occam's Razor. See the above discussion about "gym lifts,"
my friend who claims he could compete in the Tour de France, etc.

The simplest explanation for a person's refusal to support a claim
is that the person cannot support it. This rule works so well that
*EVERY* group of people with objective performance criteria automatically
applies this rule. If you want to set a world record in any track and
field event, for example, you must set it in a sanctioned, refereed
competition. You also have to pee in a bottle with two qualified
medical observers watching you. If you just run around the block with
nobody watching, and you send in your time, the sanctioning body will
pitch it in the trash.

Cowardice in itself is not "negative." We have evolved the mental organs
to experience fear because fear increases our probability of surviving.

If you know Jackie will rip you to pieces you have every reason to
fear him. In fact, you would be irrational not to fear him.

There are many things I fear. For example, I fear stepping off the
sidewalk into the path of a speeding tractor-trailer. Or into the path
of just about anything else that weighs more than I do and is moving
quickly. While fear can get out of hand, most of the time it does not---or
else none of us would be here.

> I'm not
> exactly a shrinking violet here.

You do not shrink from trolling Jackie. But when the battle lines form,
it seems to be a different story.

You may claim anything you like. Maybe you could be a supermodel if
you tried. Or maybe you could win a Nobel prize. Or maybe you could
start a software company and put Bill Gates in Chapter 11. Or maybe
you could record the top-selling album in 1998.

Maybe. These claims in themselves would be nothing more than your
personal delusions, but there is a small possibility that someone
else would make a large bet on your claims.

> Does this have *anything* to do with the
> specific example I brought up of your avoiding an issue? I know nobody
> likes having the cloths pulled off their cage, but *really*, now.

If you were Joe Random Newbie taking the same potshots at Jackie
I would discount them in exactly the same way. However, I would
suspect in advance that Joe Random Newbie would be far less likely
than I imagine you to be capable of backing up those fightin' words.

That's because once in a rare while you have rolled up your sleeves
and shown yourself capable of writing something more substantial
than taunts and haughty proclamations of your exemption from
scrutiny.

> >it would be consistent with the additional hypothesis that you
> >harbor beliefs for which you are unable to articulate
> >objective evidence.

>
> Duh. I'm human, after all. And I've made no secret about my religious
> affiliation. Do I have objective evidence that Christ was raised from the
> dead on the third day and ascended into heaven? Nope, I wasn't anywhere
> near what happened nearly 2,000 years before I was born and I'm not a
> past-lifer, either. Do I believe the story of the Resurrection to be true?
> Yes, yes, yes.

I have actually studied my share of xtian apologetics, although I cannot
claim expertise and most of what I can recall on the subject would be
some hazy tidbits from Josh McDowell's "Evidence that Demands a Verdict."

In your list of rhetorical questions, you omitted something very
important. Josh McDowell actually does present evidence that is
consistent with the hypothesis that Christ rose from the dead. So
your claim that you have no objective evidence is a weaker claim
than you actually need to make.

Where Josh falls down is in his refusal to consider alternative
explanations and come up with objective evidence to rule *them* out.
One example is where Josh notes that the disciples (according to
the story) went from being fleeing cowards to bold "apostles"
practically overnight. Josh cites their sudden willingness to
die for their cause. However, Josh seems unaware that people have
been willing to die for incorrect or questionable beliefs all
through history. Does Josh find the willingness of Arab terrorists
to die for their cause a reason to believe those guys are on to
something?

Psychological research has objectively demonstrated the
unreliability of eyewitness accounts, especially after time has passed
and the stories mutate in retelling. This goes double when the
eyewitnesses have an obvious vested interest in the story. At the
time when Christ allegedly rose from the dead, there was no CSICOP nor
any other trained cadre of skeptics available to test claims for
evidence of flim-flam, wishful thinking, mass hysteria, or mutation
between the time of occurrence and the time when written accounts
first appeared.

Even today we see similar mob behavior whenever the Virgin Mary
allegedly puts in an appearance. One person claims to have seen
something, word spreads, and then thousands of pilgrims descend on
a place hoping against hope that they will see what they want to
see. Rumors of further sightings spread and soon the phenomenon
becomes self-sustaining. However, in *EVERY* case where trained
skeptics arrive and investigate, they always discover the claims
to be without objective basis. There are ample parallels between
these kinds of incidents today and the mythology that grows up
around them and the events that may or may not have taken place
in Roman-occupied Judea. Unlike those earlier events, we actually
have reliable historical records about some of the recent events
that can trace how these stories start and grow.

Back in my days of involvement in the church, I began to develop
my early suspicions that something was amiss when I discovered
a rule about claims of the miraculous: the farther away in space
and time an alleged miracle happened to be, the more miraculous
it became. This was obvious even in the testimony of "faith healers"
who traveled to 3rd world countries and claimed vastly greater
numbers of miraculous healings, etc., in their rallies and revivals
there. That's the spatial-distance factor. The time factor is when
we look at claims from the past, such as all the amazing things
that allegedly happened in the Bible and which we know about from
the writings of people who had an obvious interest in convincing
other people to believe what they believed.

There are inklings of rationality in the Bible, however. Moses
said you can identify whether a prophet speaks for God by whether
events come to pass as the prophet predicts. Moses put teeth
into it by saying if the prophet predicts incorrectly, you are
to kill the prophet. (They probably ignore this rule over at
Chase Econometrics and the Weather Bureau.) Elijah challenged
the prophets of Baal to a clear proof test: let's see whose God
can send fire down from heaven.

As time has gone on, humans have developed better intellectual
tools for testing claims. That is, the small tribe of rational
humans who are but a tiny minority of the overall population.

> So that one's a no-brainer. I mean, sheesh, Dan, *you* have zero
> objective evidence for a lot of the things you've said about snigglers.

When I say things like "writes *like*..." or "...is consistent
with the hypothesis that..." I am arranging my claims to square
with the available evidence. When better evidence appears, I
modify my claims accordingly. Some people who read my articles
do not appear to have sufficient training to understand exactly
what I am claiming, so they assume I am claiming more than I
am claiming.

And occasionally I get careless. But when you call me on it I will
recant and rephrase my claim more accurately.

> >While the vast majority of people harbor such
> >beliefs, a discussion group depends on people having discussions.
> >One of the more interesting topics to discuss is why you believe
> >what you believe.
>
> You're welcome to show where I've never done that sort of thing on Usenet.
> (*mo grin* -geez, ya just can't please some people)

I ask you to do X because there is some chance you will actually
do X. If you have done X in the past, then you might do X again.

If I thought you were an idiot I wouldn't waste my time. When an
idiot explains his beliefs we learn nothing useful.

> Of course, you're also welcome to show where taking other posters to task
> for *not* choosing to participate in particular threads is appropriate.

People are always asking me questions, because many of the things I
say demand explanations. I don't always get around to answering all
the questions but I think it's fair to say that I try. I don't
answer them by saying I'm spitting coffee on my monitor.

Laughing at people from a distance is not my idea of "discussion."
While I do occasionally laugh at people from a distance, I do not
consider myself to be participating in a discussion with them when
I do.

> >As far as I can tell, Jackie is one of the most rational persons
> >currently posting to soc.singles. I believe that if you can
> >argue your views starting from evidence Jackie can observe
> >and lead him through a chain of unavoidable conclusions,
> >he will adopt your views if he does not already hold them.
>

> Oh, sure, I wouldn't doubt that, he is quite intelligent (and also
> *sensible*, a trait which does not always follow from the intelligence).

OK. Now that we agree on something, let's ask ourselves what follows
from this. If Jackie is intelligent and sensible, and you tell him
he is "out to lunch" on something, could we imagine that Jackie might
find that claim interesting? Perhaps I am overestimating the interest
Jackie might take in your claims and in any arguments you might offer
to support them. If so, then my read on Jackie is wrong, because
Jackie seems "sensible" to me too, and a sensible person wants to
know where he might be making a mistake. Jackie postures, but he also
modifies his beliefs when he gets better evidence.

> >If you had said "There are some things Jackie writes that cause
> >me to experience disturbing emotions" then you would not need
> >to explain anything,
>
> 1. I don't *have* to explain anything, bubbeleh, it seems to be clear to
> everyone *but* you.

That's because I do not perceive myself to be above the scrutiny of
others. And also because I do not bow to any King, Pope, Shaman,
or anyone else who presumes to have the authority to make claims
without having to back them up.

Divine Right went out a long time ago. And I was not present
at your coronation as Queen of soc.singles. (Tell me, are the
paparrazi as bothersome as rumor has it?)

Of course, I do bow to whoever is aiming the most guns at me, but
that doesn't seem to be the dynamic at work on soc.singles.

> 2. I wouldn't say that anyway because it's not true.

The only remaining explanation for your reluctance to support your
reckless claims is intellectual sloth. Unless I'm missing something.

It's possible you don't care what anything thinks about you or your
beliefs and you are only taking the time to make these claims because
you like to read them yourself, and if they happen to go out to the
world at large that is not your concern. I find this explanation hard
to comprehend.

> >because you would be describing your own
> >subjective state rather than claiming to have a better take on
> >objective reality than Jackie does.
>
> Please either show where I claim that my thoughts and opinions are
> objective reality (THE TRVTH, as it were) for anyone but me (and
> sometime people I know well) or issue an apology for misreading what I
> wrote.

If you believe your thoughts and opinions only apply to you and your
circle of friends, why do you assert them upon the entire world?

> C(Predicting that Dan will either ignore that last paragraph or bend the
> English language like silly putty in response)LB

If I accept your challenge will you accept mine?

I am willing to do the necessary research to discover whether you have
made any claims about the probable effectiveness of Ross Jeffries'
products. If you have expressed your opinion that it is unlikely to
be useful for the people who buy it (who are probably outside the
group of people you know, and who will probably use it on people who
are outside the group of people you know), then you would be making
a claim about objective reality. If you have always been careful to
say *ONLY* that Ross's product *HAS NOT* worked on you (and I mean
*HAS NOT*, not *WOULD NOT*) or on your circle of friends, then you
would have indeed been as circumspect in your claims as you are
claiming to have been now.

But I don't have to go to such trouble. In this very article you
make many claims about people and objective reality other than yourself
or the people you know well. Examples:

> 1. I don't *have* to explain anything, bubbeleh, it seems to be clear to
> everyone *but* you.

> Oh, sure, I wouldn't doubt that, he is quite intelligent (and also
> *sensible*, a trait which does not always follow from the intelligence).

> Do I believe the story of the Resurrection to be true?
> Yes, yes, yes.

> Do have your public health department check your water supply, Dan. I
> think there's something going on here.

> >> While I certainly agree to disagree with Jackie on some things,
> >> and think he is seriously out to lunch on others, there are a number
> >> of times when I think he is right freakin' on the money.

You claim to understand something about me, i.e., my ability to grasp
what is clear to you (you qualified it with "seems" but it is still at
least a speculation about someone you do not know well). You claim to
understand something about Jackie. (For all I know he could be one of
the people you know well, but if not then I've got you there.)

You claim that the story of the Resurrection (capital R!) is "true."
Perhaps I will seem to be twisting the English language, but I know of
no other way to interpret *that* statement than as a claim about
objective reality. You already told us that you weren't there at the
time, so this claim cannot have anything to do with you or the people
you know well.

You claim that Jackie says various things that fall
into the categories of being "on the money" or "out to lunch."

I had to toss in the water supply comment because even though it is
probably a joke, you rarely miss a chance to cast aspersions at
other people you disagree with, whether you know them well or not.

In none of these claims did you make the effort to add in the appropriate
weasel words and escape hatches to indicate that you were not claiming
something about objective reality, but merely telling us what is true
for you and for the people you know well.

I'm not saying that you *could not* have been doing this, but until
now I would have had a very difficult time understanding the very
circumscribed nature of your assertions. Because frankly, I just would
not know how to process a statement like this:

"I believe the story of the Resurrection to be true (yes, yes, yes)
but this is my thought and opinion only and not a statement about
objective reality."

That's because in the world I currently inhabit, historical events
either happened or they did not happen. There is no Schroedinger's
box in which Christ is 50% resurrected. Any statement of belief that
an historical event happened is a claim that it did, indeed happen.

Unless you are telling us that you believe things that did not happen.

--
--- Daniel J. Mocsny, and if Christ is a subatomic particle I'll
try to keep an open mind

[Dawn O' The Dead]

Daniel Mocsny <dmo...@mfm.com> wrote:

> >Charlotte L. Blackmer wrote:
> >> While I certainly agree to disagree with Jackie on some things,
> >> and think he is seriously out to lunch on others, there are a
number
> >> of times when I think he is right freakin' on the money.
> >
> >Please explain where you believe Jackie is out to lunch.
>
> Are you paying me my "posting what someone else wants me to post,
not what
> I care to post" rates for this, Dan? Fair warning, you could save
the
> money for your date fund instead since all the women you know seem
content
> to have you pay (and given my rates - $250/hr -, this could even
include,
> say, airfare to NYC or Paris).

>Charlotte, you are an intelligent person. The world does not have

>enough intelligent people. Therefore it seems reasonable to expect
>intelligent people to use their rare abilities to do the kind of
>heavy intellectual lifting that other people cannot do.

<snicker> What color is the sky in your world, Dan? Expecting people
to behave in certain ways simply because of ... oh wait, that's right.
Sociobiology explains *everything* in your universe. I forgot for a
second.

Well, here on planet Earth I've found that people have this
frustrating habit of not always behaving the way I expect them to.
Dagblasted fools insist on having minds of their own! Here on my
planet smart people don't always do the "heavy intellectual lifting"
... nice people aren't always nice ... men aren't always chasing pussy
... women don't all judge men by the size of their wallets ... <sigh>
How nice it must be to live in your world, Dan, where everything is so
orderly and predictable and you can tell others that what you expect
of them is simply "reasonable".

>Anybody can say "Jackie is out to lunch on XYZ." That requires no
>intelligence.
>
>Explaining *WHY* Jackie is out to lunch on XYZ requires intelligence.
>In fact, one *HELL* of a lot of intelligence. Because so far it seems
>Jackie is pretty handily dispatching just about everyone who
challenges
>him. That means Jackie appears to understand why he believes what he
>believes better than any of his opponents understand why they believe
>what they believe.

I possess a relatively high degree of intelligence and I don't bother
with him at all. My personal opinion is that while Jackie is, indeed,
an intelligent person he is also emotionally and sexually retarded -
I'm not speaking for Charlotte but it's in this area that I, myself,
often consider him "out to lunch". My discussing this with him as a
way of debating his statements is completely pointless. Sexual
immaturity is not a state that changes through intelligent discourse.
Usually it changes through life experience. Sometimes it doesn't ever
change at all. But if Jackie feels that all he wants from
relationships with the 52% of the human race that happens to be female
boils down to "banging hot chicks", well ... I find it rather pathetic
but I have no desire to argue with him about it. It's really not an
issue for me one way or the other *what* he does.

(I do occasionally question how he can devote as much time to posting
to Usenet as he does if he's spending so much RL time wooing and
bedding the ladies ... but not enough to lie awake nights worrying
about it.)

Some of us choose not to bother with Jackie not out of fear of being
proven wrong but simply because we don't really care about what he
says enough to bother arguing. I read what he writes. I agree with
some of it. I disagree with a great deal of it. My choosing not to
detail my impressions of his statements has nothing to do with the
strength of my convictions nor with whether or not he believes
strongly in what he posts. I figure he believes it. And ya know, that
and a couple of bucks will buy him a cheeseburger Happy Meal. Big
whoop.

>Do you have what it takes? There is only one way to prove that you
do.
>And that is not by thumping your chest.

Another option - step aside and leave the pissing contests to others.

<about 7,000 lines snipped, as per usual with Daniel's posts>

Dawn

---
"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't
realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the
world."--Calvin (speaking to Hobbes)

I zzit the Javagrrl Great Big Website O' Fun?
http://www.teleport.com/~javagrrl

[jrc]

Daniel Mocsny <dmo...@mfm.com> wrote in article
<3501C493...@mfm.com>...

I am replying to your comments in your 11 March posting about Sri Chinmoy.
Yes you have spelled his name correctly but he should be described as a
fully realised spiritual Master dedicated to inspiring and serving those
seeking a deeper meaning in life. Sri Chinmoy is dedicated to world peace
and it deeply saddens me to see him talked of like you do. If you had
experienced his close presence you would know that he is just so humble and
so peaceful that he just doesnt want to claim world records for this and
that. His power of self transcendence is so remarkable that it is not
surprising that ordinary mortals will never believe that he can do
incredible things. Guru did not lift the weights to impress you or anybody
else. Guru lifted these weights way back in 1987 as a means of self
transcendence and has now moved on to other challenges. So why try and
ridicule a truly great man's achievements when he is one of the few men in
the world who is truly influencing the process of world peace and who is
constantly meeting world leaders for all our sakes.

For your information not only are the photos genuine but there are many
endorsements from famous weightlifters who have simply marvelled at his
truly wonderful lifts. He also has certificates about his lifts from
reputable authorities and they are also in the Guinness Book of Records.
But my main belief in the truth of these lifts is simply that I know that
Guru would never cheat or fool anybody. Read some of his books and you will
understand the truth of what I am saying.

Joshua

[Ian Turton]

In article <3506C7...@pacbell.net>,

ging...@pacbell.net wrote:
>
> Ian Turton wrote:
> >
> > If your tapping into something very strong which denies spirit
> > your going to be strongly "effected" and therefore quite possibly
> > divorced from "reality".
>
> I think you've hit the nail squarely on the head.
>

Nice of you to say so George, I think :)

It seems to me people are just defining/labeling/measuring stuff - science,
but at no time have I ever seen how they propose to make some *racial* changes
that make the world a "better" place. Just looks like a lot of hot air.

> > Anyway [Jackie] can post anything he likes in soc.singles, I'm
> > clicking over it now.
>
> Things will get more interesting.
>

Remains to be seen.

> > Sorry if I misunderstood your standpoint, I like reading your posts
> > much like a lot of the other regulars.
>
> Your post didn't bother me at all.
>

Good, coz I do sort of sway with the wind and just blurt things out without to
much consideration :)

> George
>
>

Ian - If you live for now you'll just destroy forever. Yikes :)

[Mix]

I actually agree with you completely there. Why should intelligent people
devote themselves to altruistically doing 'heavy intellectual lifting' if
they have better things they'd rather do?
After all, I myself apply at least 50% of my intellectual abilities here to
flaming the shit out of people which hardly contributes to the advancement
of the species.

>... men aren't always chasing pussy
>... women don't all judge men by the size of their wallets ... <sigh>

Both of the above are true but men DO spend a great deal of time chasing
pussy and women are far more concerned with the financial status of men
than men are of the financial status of women.

>>Anybody can say "Jackie is out to lunch on XYZ." That requires no
>>intelligence.
>>
>>Explaining *WHY* Jackie is out to lunch on XYZ requires intelligence.
>>In fact, one *HELL* of a lot of intelligence. Because so far it seems
>>Jackie is pretty handily dispatching just about everyone who
>challenges
>>him. That means Jackie appears to understand why he believes what he
>>believes better than any of his opponents understand why they believe
>>what they believe.
>
>I possess a relatively high degree of intelligence and I don't bother
>with him at all. My personal opinion is that while Jackie is, indeed,
>an intelligent person he is also emotionally and sexually retarded -
>I'm not speaking for Charlotte but it's in this area that I, myself,
>often consider him "out to lunch".

I have been told that by many people. The question I have often asked is this:
What objective standard is being used to determine the proper sexual and
emotional state? How is my way of life less valid than the one being
promoted by my critics? What is in it for me if I change?

> My discussing this with him as a
>way of debating his statements is completely pointless. Sexual
>immaturity is not a state that changes through intelligent discourse.

My statements about objective reality stand or fall on their own merits
regardless of my alleged level of maturity.

>Usually it changes through life experience. Sometimes it doesn't ever
>change at all.

Given a continuing failure by the advocates of 'maturity' (which sounds a
whole lot like 'obedience to liberal/altruist morality' to me) to make a
rational argument why I should change I think it's a safe bet that I never
will. At least not in the way you're talking about.
I am changing though. I am getting more money, more power and more knowledge.

> But if Jackie feels that all he wants from
>relationships with the 52% of the human race that happens to be female
>boils down to "banging hot chicks", well ... I find it rather pathetic
>but I have no desire to argue with him about it. It's really not an
>issue for me one way or the other *what* he does.

I have stated that I desire to make love with many beautiful women. I have
stated that I adore women. I believe in long term relationships - MULTIPLE
long term relationships, with the occasional fling thrown in - but real
relationships with women I love.
I have been in such a relationship for many years. I have also had other
long term relationships.
Banging hot chicks is just one aspect this. There is no contradiction
between banging hot chicks and having other sorts of relationships. Except
for monogamy of course, which imposes a monopoly.

>(I do occasionally question how he can devote as much time to posting
>to Usenet as he does if he's spending so much RL time wooing and
>bedding the ladies ... but not enough to lie awake nights worrying
>about it.)

I write fast.

>Some of us choose not to bother with Jackie not out of fear of being
>proven wrong but simply because we don't really care about what he
>says enough to bother arguing. I read what he writes. I agree with
>some of it. I disagree with a great deal of it. My choosing not to
>detail my impressions of his statements has nothing to do with the
>strength of my convictions nor with whether or not he believes
>strongly in what he posts. I figure he believes it. And ya know, that
>and a couple of bucks will buy him a cheeseburger Happy Meal. Big
>whoop.

I have no doubt that this is absolutely correct.
As people settle into their beliefs they feel no need to debate them
anymore unless debate is (as it is for me) an end in itself.
And when people adopt their beliefs their beliefs change them. If they
place low value on physical appearance they will let themselves go and
claim there's nothing wrong with severely hindering their power to effect
the world by getting fat and ugly. If they place low value on wealth they
will tend to work less hard at financially rewarding tasks. As time goes on
they get fatter and fatter or they stay poor or even get poorer and build
up a big investment in their existing way of life. A person in their
mid-30s who has settled into what I, from my point of view, would consider
a loser way of life has absolutely no positive incentive to listen to me.
The defense system is not fear, it's apathy.
Once the logic-tight shields have been raised there is no discomfort in
seeing people with other beliefs. Those other ideas are beyond the pale. No
need to think of them at all ever again.

>>Do you have what it takes? There is only one way to prove that you
>do.
>>And that is not by thumping your chest.
>
>Another option - step aside and leave the pissing contests to others.
>
><about 7,000 lines snipped, as per usual with Daniel's posts>

Dan, you'd do well to take this criticism to heart. I, who agree with much
of what you write, skip over your more verbose posts. Which in practice
means I skip most of them...
Jackie the Tokeman

[Charlotte L. Blackmer]

In article <1998031108...@sirius.infonex.com>,
Mix <mixm...@remail.obscura.com> wrote:
[Jackie and Kenn back and forthing; headers snipped for brevity]

>>> >> If I showed up at a boink... how would you know?
>>> >
>>> > Boinks in recent years have been way too small to be
>>> >anonymous, Jackie.
>>>
>>> You mean there's never been some stranger there, someone who didn't claim
>>> to post much, someone who said very little... and then you never saw him
>>> again?

>> Uh, that would be me - I don't talk a lot :-). Seriously,

>>no, not in many years.

I've been to a couple, but normally the host does the lurker vetting
first...there haven't been too many of these folks, and some of them start
posting and stop becoming "lurkers" :-)

The host normally knows who's showing up, since most of the activities
are at private residences and addresses are usually not posted.
A lot of my miniboink activities get primarily arranged thru email
(although I might be able to post a date and "drop me a line for time and
location") due to short notice - folks are out here on business trips or
whatever.

>>Are you talking about someone attending
>>under an assumed identity? Hard to see the point of that. Only
>>motives I can think of for doing that, are either fear, or some
>>kind of weird voyeurism.
>
>Perhaps you haven't sufficient imagination to understand other motives.

Or sufficient interest to bother thinking them up because the idea is too
weird for words.

>>> >And you haven't answered George's question.
>>> >Why not meet some of the folks some time?
>>>
>>> Because there are more pretty girls in any nice shopping mall?
>>> (nah, that couldn't be it...)

No, it couldn't, with a major university within my city's limits, and
another youth magnet right next door, there is no shortage of nubility in
the area. So that couldn't be it.

Meetin' and greetin' is a large part of the social fabric of this
newsgroup.

>> Make jokes if you like, but my curiosity's genuine.
>
>No doubt.

>> Given
>>the amount you post on the net, you clearly have the time and
>>interest for activities beside chasing tail.
>
>There's only so much sex you can have in one day.

Right on ;-) Ya gotta eat some time to keep your energy level up.

So book two tickets to Oakland or SF (Southwest offers quite
attractive fares), get a room (sorry, the big bed at my place is
full enough already) and bring your current squeeze along. Let us know
when you're arriving. We'll feed ya dinner. Airport taxi service also a
possibility.

Offer stands for Dan, too.

CLB, who is definitely not hiding behind her keyboard
------------------------------------------------------
Charlotte L. Blackmer http://www.rahul.net/clb
Berkeley Farm and Pleasure Palace (under construction)
Junk (esp. commercial) email review rates: $250 US ea

[Mix]

Ian Turton <ia...@wm.estec.esa.nl> wrote:

>rosmaderos wrote:
>
>> Well, I was serious about the invitation. Jackie got carried
>> away with the affecting the world bit, but I wouldn't expect
>> to find a "little man hiding behind the curtain". I'd expect
>> him to be as offbeat as many of the rest of us.
>>

>> Rosmaderos
>
>Oops, sorry if that's the way you feel.
>Basically, Jackie as you'd probably know irritates me. I'm all for free
>speech, etc. But I fairly sure that Jackie is a salesman for NLP/SS -
>actually earns dollars out of it. I mean who in their right mind would
>continually keep banging on about the things he does without having a
>financial incentive. The regulars have all read his view points and he's
>pointed out his favorite books, isn't that enough? Doesn't it just
>become veiled spam and is it fair to keep putting it into soc.singles
>especially if he's trolling for customers.

Good lord Ian you are an imbecile! How the hell could I possibly troll for
customers when I'VE DONE EVERYTHING IN MY POWER TO MAKE IT ABSOLUTELY
IMPOSSIBLE TO CONTACT ME!

>My reference to the line on the mirror came out of my reading about the
>mentality this can create, for example thinking that it's love because
>your *not* _intelligent_. Which I disagree with. I believe that in some
>sense everything is a drug, all having lesser and greater different

>effects on the mind. If your tapping into something very strong which

>denies spirit your going to be strongly "effected" and therefore quite

>possibly divorced from "reality". If you are able to not be in any way
>be "spiritual" then your outside of "reality" and off the mark in my
>opinion.

You have it completely upside down.
The 'spiritual' is a lie for which there is no evidence whatsoever. Reality
is where evidence is found and it is my strong respect for and desire to
take charge of reality that has led me to reject every sort of supernatural
claim due to lack of rational argument and/or verifiable evidence.

>Anyway he can post anything he likes in soc.singles, I'm clicking over
>it now. I'd buy the books if I was interested rather than hearing it
>second hand. Maybe he just needs a web page outlining his interests.

>Sorry if I misunderstood your standpoint, I like reading your posts much
>like a lot of the other regulars.

If you're going to start ignoring me you're going to have to do a better
job than that.
Jackie the Tokeman

[Charlotte L. Blackmer]

In article <1998031018...@sirius.infonex.com>,
Mix <mixm...@remail.obscura.com> wrote:
>"Charlotte L. Blackmer" <c...@rahul.net> wrote:

[Dan sez I hold beliefs that I have no objective evidence for and I give
one example of why this statement is a no-brainer]

>>Duh. I'm human, after all. And I've made no secret about my religious
>>affiliation. Do I have objective evidence that Christ was raised from the
>>dead on the third day and ascended into heaven? Nope, I wasn't anywhere
>>near what happened nearly 2,000 years before I was born and I'm not a
>>past-lifer, either. Do I believe the story of the Resurrection to be true?
>>Yes, yes, yes.
>

>Since the very basis of your entire existence

Oh, I'm fascinated. Jackie thinks he knows the very basis of my entire
existence, so shortly after seeming to confuse me with the nattering
crossposting slobberdonkeys from alt.romance.

Don't be vague, Jackie, tell us all about it. *What* precisely is the
very basis of *my* entire existence? I'm all ears.

>is unmitigated bullshit you
>are wise not to engage in battle.

Say what? I don't engage in battle here? What color is the sky on *your*
planet?

Jackie, please do check DejaNews. You have obviously mistaken me for
some other aspect of the sniggler (or crossposting alt.romance
dribbledick) HiveMindThatDoesn'tExist. Please do be careful around
noodles, cheesy poofs, and ten-speeds, since that is a very hamsterish
thing to do.

Although I really thought it was you who sent me that email about "how
dare you say anything bad about Dan, you know he's so intelligent" (and
that I answered back on). *pout* Well, if it wasn't, you should know
that someone who uses the same service does a *great* impression of you.

Personally, I think that Dan (who has been taking the wrong kind of
lessons from the hamster, in my considered opinion) brought this up to try
to create a diversion. He asked a vague question and loaded it with
negatives in my direction. Now if you read Dale Carnegie, that ain't the
way to get what you ask for. What little response I've seen to the
questions I've written has been mostly more indirection, more negatives,
lots of fog, and a continuation of the Manipulation 1A he tried in the
first one.

It does look mighty like he's trying to get me to NOT answer.

>Don't sweat it though - most people go through life in a state of total
>delusion so you have lots of company.

*laugh*

My, my. Christian-bashing. Yawn. How p-p-p, oh, I can't say those words,
trendy urban liberal of you. How incredibly tedious, too. Sorry to
disappoint you, we're not all Toohey or whatever his name was, or Jerry
(*spit*) Falwell, or even that puir wee fool Celebok. And some of us are
very wide awake - wide awake to know that someone who claims to know
someone else's very basis for existence while getting readily observable
basics about the other person *wrong* is probably riding along on the
delusion bus himself.

Do have a lovely day, now.

CLB

[Ian Turton]

Mix wrote:

> You have it completely upside down.
> The 'spiritual' is a lie for which there is no evidence whatsoever. Reality
> is where evidence is found and it is my strong respect for and desire to
> take charge of reality that has led me to reject every sort of supernatural
> claim due to lack of rational argument and/or verifiable evidence.

Keep hiding Jackie. No ones gonna hand it to you on a plate, sorry mate it
don't work that way.

Can you feel it, see it, hear it today?
If you can't, then it doesn't matter anyway
You will never understand it cuz it happens too fast
And it feels so good, it's like walking on glass

It's so cool, it's so hip, it's alright
It's so groovy, it's outta sight
You can touch it, smell it, taste it so sweet
But it makes no difference cuz it knocks you off your feet
You want it all but you can't have it
It's cryin', bleedin', lying on the floor
So you lay down on it and you do it some more
You've got to share it, so you dare it
Then you bare it and you tear it
You want it all but you can't have it
It's in your face but you can't grab it
It's alive, afraid, a lie, a sin
It's magic, it's tragic, it's a loss, it's a win
It's dark, it's moist, it's a bitter pain
It's sad it happened and it's a shame
You want it all but you can't have it
It's in your face but you can't grab it

WHAT IS IT?
IT'S IT
WHAT IS IT?...