Longest day of my life
Knightout
And while I knew it would be both, the way things turned out surprised me.
This is a long, rambling, diary-style post, and I'm writing it more for my
own catharsis rather than the benefit of your average froupreader, so you
might like to stop here.
I still haven't had 'that conversation' with Girl I Like, and we've avoided
saying a great deal to one another over the last few days (or, at least, I
have). We've not discussed it, and I don't even know other guys name. But I
know it's happening. I know it's fairly serious. And I know that she doesn't
share my visions of the future. At least not any more.
I could see a future. I saw her lying beside me in the morning. I saw myself
smelling her and stroking her pale, smooth skin. I saw her standing beside
me in a crowd of Coventry fans, looking quirkily beautiful in a Sky Blue
shirt, kissing me passionately as we scored the winning goal. I saw the
moment we got together and I was finally able to put behind me years of
continuous rejection. I saw taking her on adventures that she's only dreamed
of. I saw myself holding her hand by the bedside as she gave birth to our
first child.
Last week I felt the future change, and God knows I'm not sure if I'm going
to be able to change it back.
So we haven't talked. And she may still have no idea just how strongly I
feel. But we've had some 'unspoken' conversations, and that's part of the
problem. I can see deep inside her soul, and communicate on a spiritual
level. It's an amazing and inexplicable thing that attracted me to her. And
it's that same thing that now upsets me, because when I look inside, I
encounter guilty blockades, and energies intended for the other guy.
What a happy coindence that with all the tension in the air, we had to spend
all day together. Not easy. At all.
After two days out of sight, out of mind, I thought some resolution may have
been reached, but, no, we're still each playing our own game.
I strongly considered not going along. I'm not aversed to exposing myself to
new things, and I hadn't attended a ballet since I was a child, but I'd be
lying if I said that a major factor in my being there wasn't that I would
drop everything else from my life to seize any opportunity at all to spend
time with her.
But it would've looked obvious, bitter and childish if I couldn't make it.
So I made it.
Most of the other people in our social group are aware of how I feel and
felt (and one of them told me repeatedly that a relationship between GIL and
myself was just waiting to happen because she liked me so much, but let's
not go there). They knew this would be awkward.
So, what then are the odds, that I'd find myself sitting immediately next to
her at the ballet AND the pub AND the restaurant...?
I mean, yeah, a few weeks ago that's what I would've expected, but now you'd
have thought that sensible social mores would've meant that people
faciliated a bit of space and a few bodies between us, no? Is it only me who
analysis social logistics like this?
Come on, if I was going out with six or seven people, two of whom were in
the midst of a difficult situation of unrequited love, I'd do my best to
keep them apart, get them engaged in seperate conversations etc. Common
sense, no?
So, I'm sitting next to a girl who I've been developing a serious
infatuation with over the last few months, watching a ballet of an
ultimately romantic theme, feeling like I shouldn't be there. Normally I
would react to her during the emotional scenes - squeeze her hand, put my
arm aroud her and check that she's OK, brush her hair away from her eyes,
little cuddle etc.
But I knew that all of these sensual reactions needed to be repressed as
they would now seem innappropriate at best.
There's a huge irony to the story of the Edward Scissorhands ballet. True
love. Rejection. Poor choices. Regret. And fairly obviously we were both
aware of these. And both crying, though possibly not on the same emotional
level.
The performers on stage were good, but I too deserved an oscar for my
emotional control. For the last few days at work it's been easy to keep
contact to a minimum, and although it's pretty obvious, it's fairly
straightforward.
Trying to make smalltalk over a period of several hours, however, is less
fun. And fucking hard work. And she's surrepticiously sending text messages
to her new beau all day, obviously.
I tried not to appear unduly brusque or mean, but a lot of the conversations
that I would previously have had had with her now seem wrong-headed, because
the intention of my original enquiry will be viewed in a different - more
sinister - light.
In the past I talked to her about holidays, because I was planning on taking
her places as soon as we got together (if it happened this Christmas, we'd
be off to Lapland where she's always wanted to go).
If we talked about work it's so I could do whatever I could to make her days
brighter. If we talked about food and drink it's so I could always have
ideas of where to take her next time, and what to have in my flat in case
she came over. Which she never did, strangely.
I've got champagne from the year of her birth. It's been there a while.
So, anyway, I came over all miserable and stand-offish, which was an
accurate reflection, but possibly didn't paint me in the best light for
future endeavours.
I tried to make jokes because clownliness is almost always expected of me in
a group context. I made the 'The only thing I don't get is what the fuck is
wrong with his hands?' gag without much conviction. Nobody was expecting me
to be the life of the party, and I wasn't.
I was also almost certainly as unattractive as I've ever been too. Even by
my standards. What would have been a day on which I tried to make a
legendary impression and demonstrate my Alpha Male of Group skills, was a
day in which I was subdued and rubbishcunt.
Still we never discussed 'it'.
As the evening wore on, it almost went back to the way things were before -
which made me feel worse. It just wasn't quite the same. There was some less
inhibited fluff-talk over dinner, and I didn't feel the need to end every
conversation abruptly and on my terms. We were fairly close to the
flirtacious behaviour that had entranced me in the past. Except that whereas
before I loved looking deep into her eyes, I can't seem to do that any more.
'That conversation' never happened though.
Late last night I got home feeling empty, and numb, and in a bizarre limbo
that has now lasted a long time.
A very curious thing, is that I didn't cry afterwards. Every time when I'd
go out and do something in GIL's company, I'd go home and cry. Whether it be
the two of us alone, or any group permutation, I'd helplessly analyse the
evenings events, and cry about things that I could've said differently,
about moments where I could've acted differently, and about how I'd failed
to move things on to a new level.
Now I just feel like everything I've been hoping for over the last several
months has ceased to exist, and maybe was never there in the first place.
Difficult times are not always character building. I've been here all to
often before.
And now just emptiness. If it all happens again I'm not sure I'll have any
emotion left in me.
GIL, you've probably figured out who you are, so if you're reading this a
day, a month, a year or 50 years after I wrote it, and we still haven't had
that talk, give me a call. Closure would be good.
And if you're reading this and we're together: I never stopped loving you.
BTN
Osbourne Ruddock
@individual.net:
> I've got champagne from the year of her birth. It's been there a while.
Heh, beautiful stuff. *applause*
--
Cheers, Os
Joe Horowitz
"Knightout" <knig...@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:405shtF...@individual.net...
> This is a long, rambling, diary-style post, and I'm writing it more for my
> own catharsis rather than the benefit of your average froupreader, so you
> might like to stop here.
No way. I like having my desires challenged. Same reason you read half my
posts, really, you know there's a chance I'll be a total cunt but there's
also a chance I won't. It's clearly a chance we're both willing to take.
However, as a safety precautions I have removed all of my clothing. I don't
know why that feels safer but it does.
> If we talked about work it's so I could do whatever I could to make her
days
> brighter. If we talked about food and drink it's so I could always have
> ideas of where to take her next time, and what to have in my flat in case
> she came over. Which she never did, strangely.
This is a terribly sad post, although beautifully written, and it does
illustrate rather nicely the down-side to this whole romance thing which
Hollywood films paint in such a good light.
I would, however, suggest that her never going round to your flat, ever, in
all your months of close friendship, was possibly a very bad sign. I think
this is why I always tend to argue in favour of most things that involve
getting shit out in the open, if there's the potential for pain there then
there's probably greater potential for pain there at a later date.
Would I be right in assuming that you had invited her at times?
> I've got champagne from the year of her birth. It's been there a while.
That's beautiful, actually. A very lovely and imaginative touch. It
needn't go to waste, mind you, just make sure the next girl you fall in love
with is the same age.
> I tried to make jokes because clownliness is almost always expected of me
in
> a group context. I made the 'The only thing I don't get is what the fuck
is
> wrong with his hands?' gag without much conviction. Nobody was expecting
me
> to be the life of the party, and I wasn't.
I know this isn't the main point here, but what exactly _was_ wrong with his
hands?
> GIL, you've probably figured out who you are, so if you're reading this a
> day, a month, a year or 50 years after I wrote it, and we still haven't
had
> that talk, give me a call. Closure would be good.
Hmmm. From what you say it seems she is aware of the situation, and like
yourself is trying to make the best of it. However, you're clearly unable
to broach the subject with her, and her with you, so what does that say
about your relationship potential anyway? If there really is/was this
ability between you to communicate in this wonderful, effortless and
spiritual way, (and I believe there was) then that of all things must be
something you could talk about, because it's the most important thing to you
in the whole world.
If the friendship between you is real, and yet from your point of view is
based on an understanding that it could progress to something else, and her
point of view is the opposite, then you are unwittingly leading each other
astray in equal amount.
These things are never easy to approach, but the danger is in worrying too
much about _how_ you approach them. Thinking of different ways to put
things, maybe hoping to come up with something a little bit smooth or
amusing or charming in some other way. This isn't how you communicate on
the whole, especially not on a spiritual level, so sometimes the only way
forward is to raise it is to approach it as if it were any other subject.
Look, I need to talk to you about something, I think this, I worry about
that, I feel the other. However you normally put stuff.
She's supposed to be a close, _close_ friend of yours, yet you can tell a
total bunch of cunts on t'internet stuff you can't tell her.
If it's any consolation at all, even I'm not dark enough to say dark shit
right now.
Actually, disregard that bit, it sort of makes things sound worse.
> And if you're reading this and we're together: I never stopped loving you.
\m/
That bit was nice.
--
Joe
(Poleson for manager)
Vicky Conlan
>I saw myself holding her hand by the bedside as she gave birth to our
>first child.
I really don't recommend this plan.
--
Caption Competition: http://sig.comps.org/caption/
Osbourne Ruddock
@magenta.plig.net:
>>I saw myself holding her hand by the bedside as she gave birth to our
>>first child.
>
> I really don't recommend this plan.
Yeh, if he tried that he could end up with, like, scissorhands or
something.
--
Cheers, Os
Michael Cunningham
news:%Hknf.32412$xb2....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> And if you're reading this and we're together: I never stopped loving you.
>
> \m/
>
> That bit was nice.
AWTWP. I think Ben rocks and I always have. And I don't
think I'm the only one here who thinks that. What I'm trying
to say, really, is that Ben and GBL may never happen but he's
got a whole newsfroup that loves him and, in a very real way,
that's much better.
--
Mike
Sir Benjamin Nunn
"Joe Horowitz" <joeundersc...@youblunder.cunts.youghey> wrote in
message news:%Hknf.32412$xb2....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> my
> posts, really, you know there's a chance I'll be a total cunt but there's
> also a chance I won't. It's clearly a chance we're both willing to take.
>
> However, as a safety precautions I have removed all of my clothing. I
> don't
> know why that feels safer but it does.
Yeah, I think the ancient Youksef motto is 'Be prepared' or 'Prepare your
Penis' or something.
>> If we talked about work it's so I could do whatever I could to make her
> days
>> brighter. If we talked about food and drink it's so I could always have
>> ideas of where to take her next time, and what to have in my flat in case
>> she came over. Which she never did, strangely.
>
> This is a terribly sad post, although beautifully written, and it does
> illustrate rather nicely the down-side to this whole romance thing which
> Hollywood films paint in such a good light.
>
> I would, however, suggest that her never going round to your flat, ever,
> in
> all your months of close friendship, was possibly a very bad sign. I
> think
> this is why I always tend to argue in favour of most things that involve
> getting shit out in the open, if there's the potential for pain there then
> there's probably greater potential for pain there at a later date.
>
> Would I be right in assuming that you had invited her at times?
No. No, I never did.
Maybe I should've. (Although as Parkes and Kullrad can testify, it may not
have created the best impression tbh).
>> I've got champagne from the year of her birth. It's been there a while.
>
> That's beautiful, actually. A very lovely and imaginative touch.
I know. I'm full of lovely and imaginative touches. Cunt.
> It needn't go to waste, mind you, just make sure the next girl you fall in
> love
> with is the same age.
True. 83 is also my lucky number as you know. Well, I don't know about
'lucky'. Maybe it's just /my/ number.
>> I tried to make jokes because clownliness is almost always expected of me
> in
>> a group context. I made the 'The only thing I don't get is what the fuck
> is
>> wrong with his hands?' gag without much conviction. Nobody was expecting
> me
>> to be the life of the party, and I wasn't.
>
> I know this isn't the main point here, but what exactly _was_ wrong with
> his
> hands?
I guess we'll never know, Joe, I guess we'll never know.
>> GIL, you've probably figured out who you are, so if you're reading this a
>> day, a month, a year or 50 years after I wrote it, and we still haven't
> had
>> that talk, give me a call. Closure would be good.
>
> Hmmm. From what you say it seems she is aware of the situation, and like
> yourself is trying to make the best of it.
Make the best of it? She wins FFS.
I hate it when people talk about 'making the best' of a situation in which
there are clearly winners and losers.
I wanted a relationship with her. I haven't got it. I LOSE.
I didn't want to have to see her in a relationship with someone else. I have
to. I LOSE.
She presumably didn't want a relationship with me. And she isn't in one. SHE
WINS.
She wanted a relationship with this new guy. She's got it. SHE WINS.
By my reckoning it's GIL 4-0 BTN at half-time.
> However, you're clearly unable
> to broach the subject with her, and her with you, so what does that say
> about your relationship potential anyway? If there really is/was this
> ability between you to communicate in this wonderful, effortless and
> spiritual way, (and I believe there was) then that of all things must be
> something you could talk about, because it's the most important thing to
> you
> in the whole world.
In a way I'm still denying it, and in another way, I don't want to say
things that she doesn't want to hear because I really care.
I'm a majorly fucked-up human being, and the weight of issues and pain I
carry around with me is probably bordering on mental illness.
I feel things intensely, and if I start telling her how I feel, it could
freak her out and damage any possible future happiness between us that I
might preserve by playing it cool.
> If the friendship between you is real, and yet from your point of view is
> based on an understanding that it could progress to something else, and
> her
> point of view is the opposite, then you are unwittingly leading each other
> astray in equal amount.
As has happened to me several times in the past, yes.
Thing is, she knows all about my history (I made sure to tell her some time
ago, *in case* I ever fell for her, to try and protect against it
happening).
> These things are never easy to approach, but the danger is in worrying too
> much about _how_ you approach them. Thinking of different ways to put
> things, maybe hoping to come up with something a little bit smooth or
> amusing or charming in some other way. This isn't how you communicate on
> the whole, especially not on a spiritual level, so sometimes the only way
> forward is to raise it is to approach it as if it were any other subject.
> Look, I need to talk to you about something, I think this, I worry about
> that, I feel the other. However you normally put stuff.
>
> She's supposed to be a close, _close_ friend of yours, yet you can tell a
> total bunch of cunts on t'internet stuff you can't tell her.
There's people on here who are married'n'shit who still use the froup as an
exclusive outlet for different stuff that they might not share with their
beloved spouses.
That's the great thing about UKSF. There are things you can discuss, and
ways of discussing them, that don't exist anywhere else.
> If it's any consolation at all, even I'm not dark enough to say dark shit
> right now.
>
> Actually, disregard that bit, it sort of makes things sound worse.
>
>> And if you're reading this and we're together: I never stopped loving
>> you.
>
> \m/
>
> That bit was nice.
It was nice because everybody knows I meant it.
BTN
Sir Benjamin Nunn
"Michael Cunningham" <supe...@spamxxblockuksf.org.uk> wrote in message
news:k1onf.3244$j7.7...@news.indigo.ie...
>>> And if you're reading this and we're together: I never stopped loving
>>> you.
>>
>> \m/
>>
>> That bit was nice.
>
> AWTWP. I think Ben rocks and I always have. And I don't
> think I'm the only one here who thinks that. What I'm trying
> to say, really, is that Ben and GBL may never happen but he's
> got a whole newsfroup that loves him and, in a very real way,
> that's much better.
I sometimes wonder if, when I get to Heaven, I'll be able to talk to God and
angrily enquire:
'God, I've been a reasonable person. Why did you never give me the
relationship I craved? I was so miserable, and you delivered perfect life
partners to so many rubbishcunts. Why not me?'
And God will reply:
'Ben, you had a relationship all along. You just didn't realise it. For you
see, Ben, your lifelong love affair was with the froup.'
And then I'll say 'Right, I'm Off', and go and look for a place in Hell.
BTN
Vicky Conlan
>>> And if you're reading this and we're together: I never stopped loving
>>> you.
>It was nice because everybody knows I meant it.
You don't love her, you're obsessed with her, it's different.
I think 99% of people who claim to be "in love" don't have a clue
what love is. Either that, or I don't, but /obviously/ I'm right
and everyone else is wrong.
Sir Benjamin Nunn
"Vicky Conlan" <co...@riffraff.plig.net> wrote in message
news:dnklld$2lmb$1...@magenta.plig.net...
> According to <knig...@nospam.co.uk>:
>>I saw myself holding her hand by the bedside as she gave birth to our
>>first child.
>
> I really don't recommend this plan.
Pfft, and what do you know about it, relationshipmothergirl?
Just because you don't have a partner as supportive in parenthood as I would
be.
I'd fucking rock as a Dad, I would. I'd be the best fucking father in the
world ever. All the other kids in the world would have to be taken into care
because, compared to me, all other parents on the planet would seem grossly
negligent and abusive.
BTN
Sir Benjamin Nunn
> According to <ben...@depro.co.uk>:
>>>> And if you're reading this and we're together: I never stopped loving
>>>> you.
>>> That bit was nice.
>>It was nice because everybody knows I meant it.
>
> You don't love her, you're obsessed with her, it's different.
> I think 99% of people who claim to be "in love" don't have a clue
> what love is. Either that, or I don't, but /obviously/ I'm right
> and everyone else is wrong.
You're just jealous 'cause people don't get obsessed with you.
Or not as obsessed as you'd like, anyway.
BTN
Vicky Conlan
>>>I saw myself holding her hand by the bedside as she gave birth to our
>>>first child.
>> I really don't recommend this plan.
>Pfft, and what do you know about it, relationshipmothergirl?
I know that if someone had been stupid enough to be holding my hand
that they probably wouldn't have any fingers left afterwards. And I
had an /easy/ birth.
>Just because you don't have a partner as supportive in parenthood as I would
>be.
Actually, he was surprisingly not-too-incompetent during the birth.
He was useless as fuck during the whole 12 hours of labour pains
beforehand, and paternity leave was spent mostly on his new Xbox,
but actual /during/ the birth he did all the required things, such
as not passing out. Possibly because it was just about short enough
to stick within his attention span.
>I'd fucking rock as a Dad, I would. I'd be the best fucking father in the
>world ever. All the other kids in the world would have to be taken into care
>because, compared to me, all other parents on the planet would seem grossly
>negligent and abusive.
Yes, Ben, this is exactly how it would be. *pat*pat*
Vicky Conlan
>You're just jealous 'cause people don't get obsessed with you.
Actually, I've been deliberately trying to keep out of the whole
thing, because your entire ranting story has reminded me of what,
afaict, is exactly the same thing I went through, except from her
point of view, obviously. Which means I can't offer any advice
because the person in question turned out to be a complete twat,
and once the whole obsession thing wore off, he refused to speak
to me, after putting me through a load of selfish guilt-trippy
shit. Now, obviously, /you/ would never think of being like
that at all, would you, Ben ... Ben? ...
>Or not as obsessed as you'd like, anyway.
Yep. Definitely. Shirt.
Sir Benjamin Nunn
>>You're just jealous 'cause people don't get obsessed with you.
>
> Actually, I've been deliberately trying to keep out of the whole
> thing, because your entire ranting story has reminded me of what,
> afaict, is exactly the same thing I went through, except from her
> point of view, obviously.
Yeah, I thought so. Thanks for rising to the bait, hun.
> Which means I can't offer any advice
> because the person in question turned out to be a complete twat,
> and once the whole obsession thing wore off, he refused to speak
> to me, after putting me through a load of selfish guilt-trippy
> shit. Now, obviously, /you/ would never think of being like
> that at all, would you, Ben ... Ben? ...
Actually, I'm not particularly like that.
As everyone knows I've been in similar situations a few times before, and I
only did the seriously guilt-trippy stuff once, when I was 18.
Retrospectively, I wish that I hadn't done it then, and I made a mental note
not to do it again.
Being an idiot doesn't solve anything, and I've learned that women are far
crueller and far less compassionate/sympathetic than Hollywood would have us
believe, so making an issue out of desperation is also a waste of time.
Nowadays, I'll usually make her feel a bit uncomfortable, not necessarily
through choice, explain how I feel, and then generally keep my distance, to
the benefit of both of us.
This time it's complicated because 'out of sight, out of mind' isn't much of
an option. I almost think it's better if she doesn't find out how strongly I
feel, and just thinks that I fancied her a bit like the other sad, single
men in the office, frankly.
>>Or not as obsessed as you'd like, anyway.
>
> Yep. Definitely. Shirt.
Quite.
BTN
Vicky Conlan
>Yeah, I thought so. Thanks for rising to the bait, hun.
:-P
>> shit. Now, obviously, /you/ would never think of being like
>> that at all, would you, Ben ... Ben? ...
>Actually, I'm not particularly like that.
Ah, right. That's ok then.
>As everyone knows I've been in similar situations a few times before, and I
>only did the seriously guilt-trippy stuff once, when I was 18.
I think a lot of guilttrippyness is subject to the, well, subject.
>Retrospectively, I wish that I hadn't done it then, and I made a mental note
>not to do it again.
Good. You will, though.
>Being an idiot doesn't solve anything, and I've learned that women are far
>crueller and far less compassionate/sympathetic than Hollywood would have us
>believe, so making an issue out of desperation is also a waste of time.
Except for me. I'm a bloody stupid, pathetic walk-over.
>This time it's complicated because 'out of sight, out of mind' isn't much of
>an option. I almost think it's better if she doesn't find out how strongly I
>feel, and just thinks that I fancied her a bit like the other sad, single
>men in the office, frankly.
Well, it will probably make it a lot less awkward if she's ever out on
the available trolley again, I guess.
>>>Or not as obsessed as you'd like, anyway.
>> Yep. Definitely. Shirt.
>Quite.
Mongoose.
Sir Benjamin Nunn
> According to <ben...@depro.co.uk>:
>>>>I saw myself holding her hand by the bedside as she gave birth to our
>>>>first child.
>>> I really don't recommend this plan.
>>Pfft, and what do you know about it, relationshipmothergirl?
>
> I know that if someone had been stupid enough to be holding my hand
> that they probably wouldn't have any fingers left afterwards. And I
> had an /easy/ birth.
Nah, you just need to match the squeeze with equal force, and you can absorb
the energy.
It's a bit like at a barn dance, when you have to swing your partner. If one
person is half-hearted, and the other person really goes for it, it doesn't
work. You need to be exerting equal amounts of energy.
Also, it's like fisting.
>>Just because you don't have a partner as supportive in parenthood as I
>>would
>>be.
>
> Actually, he was surprisingly not-too-incompetent during the birth.
> He was useless as fuck during the whole 12 hours of labour pains
> beforehand, and paternity leave was spent mostly on his new Xbox,
> but actual /during/ the birth he did all the required things, such
> as not passing out. Possibly because it was just about short enough
> to stick within his attention span.
Heh. Xbox.
>>I'd fucking rock as a Dad, I would. I'd be the best fucking father in the
>>world ever. All the other kids in the world would have to be taken into
>>care
>>because, compared to me, all other parents on the planet would seem
>>grossly
>>negligent and abusive.
>
> Yes, Ben, this is exactly how it would be. *pat*pat*
That's some nice patting, hun.
BTN
Sid
> Yesterday was strange, and it was difficult.
> And while I knew it would be both, the way things turned out surprised me.
> This is a long, rambling, diary-style post, and I'm writing it more for my
> own catharsis rather than the benefit of your average froupreader, so you
> might like to stop here.
> And if you're reading this and we're together: I never stopped loving you.
Ben. Ben. Ben. We've all been there. Well, I have. Not exactly the same
as you, mind you, but similar enough, and with enough of the
post-realisation awkwardness, that this all rings quite uncomfortably
close for comfort. The reason for not-working-out was different from
yours and the settings slightly different, but I too had no chance of
'out of sight' etc.
Of course, nowadays I am a very paranoid person, so I don't express
much on the internet. All I can say, is that I went through a few weeks
of this and, while I don't know if it "all worked for the best", a
sentence I despise, we are very good friends now (as we were before).
I know this is of no help, seeing as I have no dark jokes to make, but
it's better than going unsucked, I guess.
Sid
PS: That champagne was a very good touch.
Sid
> "Joe Horowitz" <joeundersc...@youblunder.cunts.youghey> wrote in
> Make the best of it? She wins FFS.
> By my reckoning it's GIL 4-0 BTN at half-time.
Yes, but she doesn't know that you are packing Ole Gunnar Horsecock and
Teddy Buttplugingham on the bench and you will unleash them in the 89th
minute.
Sid, by all counts, teal GIL is screwed
Sid
> "Joe Horowitz" <joeundersc...@youblunder.cunts.youghey> wrote in
> Make the best of it? She wins FFS.
> By my reckoning it's GIL 4-0 BTN at half-time.
Yes, but she doesn't know that you are packing Ole Gunnar Horsecock and
Teddy Buttplugingham on the bench and you will unleash them in the 89th
minute.
Sid, by all counts, team GIL is screwed
Joe Horowitz
"Sir Benjamin Nunn" <ben...@depro.co.uk> wrote in message
news:407nimF...@individual.net...
> Yeah, I think the ancient Youksef motto is 'Be prepared' or 'Prepare your
> Penis' or something.
'Always The Penis', I think you'll find. Although it does sound better in
Latin.
> No. No, I never did.
>
> Maybe I should've. (Although as Parkes and Kullrad can testify, it may not
> have created the best impression tbh).
Heh.
> > Hmmm. From what you say it seems she is aware of the situation, and
like
> > yourself is trying to make the best of it.
>
>
> Make the best of it? She wins FFS.
Err... only if she is not, in fact, your friend, but some fiendish
adversary attempting to foil your dastardly plans of happiness. I got the
impression you two were friends and cared about each other'n'shit, though,
in which case this would have been lose-lose for both parties.
> I hate it when people talk about 'making the best' of a situation in which
> there are clearly winners and losers.
It's only your own personal interpretation in which there is a 'clear'
winner and loser. In mine, it's less than favourable for both of you. See,
from your point of view her relationship with Other Guy is integral to her
relationship with you, so you consider them as one entity. To her, though,
they're separate things, so while she may have WON with regards to him, she
has clearly LOST with regards to you, and that's the situation she has to
try and make the best of.
> I wanted a relationship with her. I haven't got it. I LOSE.
Agreed.
> I didn't want to have to see her in a relationship with someone else. I
have
> to. I LOSE.
Agreed.
> She presumably didn't want a relationship with me. And she isn't in one.
SHE
> WINS.
Disagree. That's negative logic that, almost exactly the same sort of thing
as you laughed at Cook for using only recently. I've never met this girl,
but from what you say it sounds like she is a lovely caring person who
really is fond of you, and it's almost certain that this situation sucks
from her point of view. Not as much as from yours, obviously, because she
has other man to comfort her, but it's not what she would have chosen.
Imagine she had the following options:
1) Get what she wants without hurting anyone she cares about
2) Have what she wants and hurt someone close to her in having it
3) Not have what she wants
Option 1 was the only nice one, but she didn't have that one. She had 2 or
3.
Both of those options suck. I'm not for one second expecting you to care
much about that, I'm sure your life is much harder etc, I'm just trying to
clarify what I meant by 'making the best of'. Being, as I am, a bit of a
Mummy's boy, I've seemed to have a lot of platonic friendships with chicks
over the years, and pretty much all of them have been in GYL's situation at
some point, and without exception they all found it very upsetting and full
of guilt'n'shit. In some cases, it was a double-blow of having to also
realise that the so-called 'friendship' they _thought_ they had wasn't
anything of the sort, and that the chap no longer wished to be friends with
them if it was on the understanding that it would never go further. Which
means they were never really their friend in the first place, just someone
pretending to be so they could get something from them. Whatever you might
like to think, it's not actually something women ever enjoy finding out.
They lose. Everyone loses.
If at all possible, imagine a different girl was besotted with you, and you
really didn't feel that way about her even though you did love her and care
about her very much, and you had a chance to have a relationship with GYL.
And you took that chance, and your friendship with GYDL was subsequently
fucked and she was utterly miserable. Wouldn't that suck?
> By my reckoning it's GIL 4-0 BTN at half-time.
Did the dating gurus teach you to look at prospective parters as 'the
opposition' in this strangely depressing way? You'll be buysing her chips
next.
> In a way I'm still denying it, and in another way, I don't want to say
> things that she doesn't want to hear because I really care.
>
> I'm a majorly fucked-up human being, and the weight of issues and pain I
> carry around with me is probably bordering on mental illness.
I think most people are pretty mental, tbh, and I've said this before. How
mental we perceive each other and ourselves to be merely depends upon how
different our mentals are.
Conlan thinks _I'm_ weird. Conlan!1!ffs!1etc
You seem fine to me, definitely odd, admirably unconventional, painfully shy
and lamentably, unerringly unhappy, but basically fine. Typically mental
for a human.
> I feel things intensely, and if I start telling her how I feel, it could
> freak her out and damage any possible future happiness between us that I
> might preserve by playing it cool.
I don't see what future happiness you might have with someone with whom you
can't discuss your feelings. This is my major problem with conventional
relationships, so much seems to hinge upon keeping stuff hidden for fear it
might shatter the illusional construct. If the thing's so fragile in the
first place, I'd rather smash the fucker to bits and re-build it out of
stronger material. But then, I've been told my approach to relationship is
weird by many people so I guess my advice might be the shittest.
> There's people on here who are married'n'shit who still use the froup as
an
> exclusive outlet for different stuff that they might not share with their
> beloved spouses.
Agree, but only to a point. A marriage that someone could only talk about
on here, but not with their spouse, would most probably be a marriage in
trouble. So someone might only talk to us about their love of
horseporn'n'shit, but if they're thinking of leaving their wife I imagine
it's something they'd discuss with them at some point as well.
> That's the great thing about UKSF. There are things you can discuss, and
> ways of discussing them, that don't exist anywhere else.
AWTWP. But, there really isn't one single thing I could tell you cunts that
I couldn't or wouldn't tell my closest friends in the world. That's why
they're my closest friends in the world.
> It was nice because everybody knows I meant it.
It was nice because it was romantic'n'shit, like Hollywood films.
Michael Cunningham
> And God will reply:
>
> 'Ben, you had a relationship all along. You just didn't realise it. For you see, Ben, your lifelong love affair was
> with the froup.'
>
> And then I'll say 'Right, I'm Off', and go and look for a place in Hell.
Is this your way of telling us you love us but you're just not
_in_ love with us?
--
Mike
Joe Horowitz
"Michael Cunningham" <supe...@spamxxblockuksf.org.uk> wrote in message
news:k1onf.3244$j7.7...@news.indigo.ie...
> think I'm the only one here who thinks that. What I'm trying
> to say, really, is that Ben and GBL may never happen but he's
> got a whole newsfroup that loves him and, in a very real way,
> that's much better.
AWTWP.
Doesn't make him better than us, though.
Dat
<ben...@depro.co.uk> wrote:
>By my reckoning it's GIL 4-0 BTN at half-time.
Oh dear, BTN has never, ever overcome even a 2-0 deficit.
I want to cling to the hope that the remaining fading ember can be
teased into a tiny flicker of flame which might, given sufficient care
and attention be ultimately fanned into a blazing inferno that could
warm the world, but the stats clearly show it is time to get out of
the car park before the rush.
--
Dat
Dat
<knig...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>GIL, you've probably figured out who you are, so if you're reading this a
>day, a month, a year or 50 years after I wrote it, and we still haven't had
>that talk, give me a call. Closure would be good.
>
>And if you're reading this and we're together: I never stopped loving you.
If you don't cease and desist with your continual shadowing of my
every move you'll leave me with no other option than to request that
my \M/ has a little word with you.
I should warn you that he's a very physical man who tends to allow his
fists, or his penis, to do his talking, if you know what I mean...and
no, he does not possess a talking cock, even though he often spends
hours at a time talking to it. Still, love the one you're with and all
that shite.
Do yourself a favour and find yourself a good woman, or something.
--
Ms Kullrad
Michael Cunningham
Yeah, good point.
Hear that, Ben? All this stuff'n'shit is all well and good but it
doesn't make you better than us. Don't forget that.
--
Mike
Sir Benjamin Nunn
"Joe Horowitz" <joeundersc...@youblunder.cunts.youghey> wrote in
>
> Both of those options suck. I'm not for one second expecting you to care
> much about that, I'm sure your life is much harder etc,
Irony is that I do care about that, because I care about her.
I'm such a supplicating wuss that I can't even hate people properly when I
feel for them. Cunt.
> I'm just trying to clarify what I meant by 'making the best of'. Being,
> as I am, a bit of a
> Mummy's boy, I've seemed to have a lot of platonic friendships with chicks
> over the years, and pretty much all of them have been in GYL's situation
> at
> some point, and without exception they all found it very upsetting and
> full
> of guilt'n'shit. In some cases, it was a double-blow of having to also
> realise that the so-called 'friendship' they _thought_ they had wasn't
> anything of the sort, and that the chap no longer wished to be friends
> with
> them if it was on the understanding that it would never go further. Which
> means they were never really their friend in the first place, just someone
> pretending to be so they could get something from them. Whatever you
> might
> like to think, it's not actually something women ever enjoy finding out.
> They lose. Everyone loses.
The problem here is that with a few exceptions - like your fortunate self,
apparently - society puts peoples interactions into little boxes and
encourages people to categorise in the same way.
Why should there be a 'friends' box and a 'relationship' box? Why should the
fact that I want a more intimate relationship with GIL mean that I'm not a
friend? etc.
My interactivity with everybody is as an individual. I don't rule out
anything physical or emotional, and my experiences in the world of teh ghey
have taught me that mainstream relationships are not the only way.
In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think my gayness has
influenced me in a way that is unhelpful to forming relationships with
women. Within the gay scene there is a blurring of the boundaries between
friends and fuckbuddies, with loving relationships seemingly an extension of
that.
From what I've studied about female relationship psychology (whether it's
instinctive or influenced by social pressure) the 'path' is chosen far
earlier in the process. There are various therories that women will mentally
rule you out forever within 3 minutes or 30 seconds or 10 seconds unless you
make the right first impression as a 'lover'.
I don't find women attractive /until/ I get to know them, by which time it's
purportedly too late. Frankly, I'm not convinced I've ever started down the
right path, and that sucks.
> If at all possible, imagine a different girl was besotted with you, and
> you
> really didn't feel that way about her even though you did love her and
> care
> about her very much, and you had a chance to have a relationship with GYL.
> And you took that chance, and your friendship with GYDL was subsequently
> fucked and she was utterly miserable. Wouldn't that suck?
I honestly cannot imagine it.
I cannot imagine a situation where conditions seemed perfect for a
relationship, and where I really cared about somebody, but did not wish to
express my love in a relationshipal way.
>> By my reckoning it's GIL 4-0 BTN at half-time.
>
> Did the dating gurus teach you to look at prospective parters as 'the
> opposition' in this strangely depressing way? You'll be buysing her chips
> next.
Heh. No, the gurus would tell me to get over my 'one-itis', and go out and
pickup loads of girls for sex.
> You seem fine to me, definitely odd, admirably unconventional, painfully
> shy
> and lamentably, unerringly unhappy, but basically fine. Typically mental
> for a human.
If I'm 'fine' I'd hate to meet someone with problems.
>> I feel things intensely, and if I start telling her how I feel, it could
>> freak her out and damage any possible future happiness between us that I
>> might preserve by playing it cool.
>
> I don't see what future happiness you might have with someone with whom
> you
> can't discuss your feelings. This is my major problem with conventional
> relationships, so much seems to hinge upon keeping stuff hidden for fear
> it
> might shatter the illusional construct. If the thing's so fragile in the
> first place, I'd rather smash the fucker to bits and re-build it out of
> stronger material. But then, I've been told my approach to relationship
> is
> weird by many people so I guess my advice might be the shittest.
Yes, your approach is unconventional, but you've got a reality in which it
works for you.
The reason people (specifically heterosexual men, in fact) feel they can't
discuss their feelings is because emotion and honesty are not attractive
qualities to women.
They may say the opposite of this (how they want a man who can talk about
his feelings etc.) but it isn't true.
Talk about your feelings to a girl, and you get put in the 'no sex, we're
just good friends' box, or she'll try to find a nice gay boyfriend for you.
Indifferent, emotionless cunts are far better at attracting women and
establishing relationships than people like me.
>> It was nice because everybody knows I meant it.
>
> It was nice because it was romantic'n'shit, like Hollywood films.
I watched those two Todd Solondz films, plus Life Aquatic and wasn't that
impressed.
You know what, I've come to a strange conclusion about films. I actually
*like* my films to have a mainstream, Hollywood-style plot and structure.
But I can't stand Hollywood-style characters and narrative.
BTN
Joe Horowitz
> Irony is that I do care about that, because I care about her.
>
> I'm such a supplicating wuss that I can't even hate people properly when I
> feel for them. Cunt.
Why would you hate her?
> The problem here is that with a few exceptions - like your fortunate self,
> apparently - society puts peoples interactions into little boxes and
> encourages people to categorise in the same way.
>
> Why should there be a 'friends' box and a 'relationship' box? Why should
the
> fact that I want a more intimate relationship with GIL mean that I'm not a
> friend? etc.
I don't think it does. In my apparently odd worldview, if you still want to
be friends with her even if you know it can never progress to something
else, and you can be happy for her being happy, then you're a friend. This
isn't true of most blokes in your situation, though, they're only interested
in the friendship as a means to an end. Therefore they're not actually
friends, not because they're interested in something else, but because the
'friendship' was in fact _conditional_ on that something else. To me, all
friendship by definition is unconditional, that's what makes it truly a
friendship.
> My interactivity with everybody is as an individual. I don't rule out
> anything physical or emotional, and my experiences in the world of teh
ghey
> have taught me that mainstream relationships are not the only way.
I happen to think they sux donkee dik, personally, but that's just me. The
very idea that there should even be such a thing as a 'mainstream'
relationship makes no sense to me, I can only think of relationships as
being unique and individual things tailored specifically in each case to the
individuals involved.
I guess a lot of people prefer things to be a lot more simple than that, and
so they have 'friends', with whom they are not in a 'relationship', and then
there are 'relationships' which are a very specific thing and which follow a
very specific set of rules which were developed by women's magazines in
conjunction with the Catholic church. Cunts.
I think this is why most 'relationships' are a total and utter failure, it's
like if every football team tried to play the same style and formation, for
every match.
> In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think my gayness has
> influenced me in a way that is unhelpful to forming relationships with
> women. Within the gay scene there is a blurring of the boundaries between
> friends and fuckbuddies, with loving relationships seemingly an extension
of
> that.
That's pretty much how I see all of it, tbh. I must be like some sort of
confused teh ghey who only fancies women.
> From what I've studied about female relationship psychology (whether it's
> instinctive or influenced by social pressure) the 'path' is chosen far
> earlier in the process. There are various therories that women will
mentally
> rule you out forever within 3 minutes or 30 seconds or 10 seconds unless
you
> make the right first impression as a 'lover'.
I'm deeply sceptical about all that stuff, tbh. In fact, I actually think
it's all total and utter bollocks. Remember when Barrett came out with that
stuff a year or two ago? But then, only two days later she was chastising
you for giving up too easily and banging on about how women reserve the
right to change their minds and they like to be chased and conquered and all
that? I think we can learn from this that it's _all_ bollocks, the various
'rules' are often contradictory so there's really no point making them or
trying to pretend that they exist.
Relationship gurus would appear to have a lot to answer for.
> I don't find women attractive /until/ I get to know them, by which time
it's
> purportedly too late. Frankly, I'm not convinced I've ever started down
the
> right path, and that sucks.
See the above. All bollocks.
> I honestly cannot imagine it.
>
> I cannot imagine a situation where conditions seemed perfect for a
> relationship, and where I really cared about somebody, but did not wish to
> express my love in a relationshipal way.
That shows a surprising lack of imagination.
> Heh. No, the gurus would tell me to get over my 'one-itis', and go out and
> pickup loads of girls for sex.
Maybe that's what you should do then.
> If I'm 'fine' I'd hate to meet someone with problems.
Everyone has problems. People are mental. You've met many people with
problems in your life, if anything the cunts you've hated meeting have
probably been the people with the _least_ issues.
> Yes, your approach is unconventional, but you've got a reality in which it
> works for you.
I've created my own reality in this life. It works for me because I created
it for me.
> The reason people (specifically heterosexual men, in fact) feel they can't
> discuss their feelings is because emotion and honesty are not attractive
> qualities to women.
DWTWP. I may have to bow to your superior knowledge of women here, but what
you say doesn't really ring true from my experiences and those of everyone I
know.
> They may say the opposite of this (how they want a man who can talk about
> his feelings etc.) but it isn't true.
DWTWP. See the above. If all of what you seem to think about women was
true, none of my friends would ever get laid. In fact, only chavs would
ever get any, with me, everyone I know and pretty much all male Youksefers
out in the cold.
> Talk about your feelings to a girl, and you get put in the 'no sex, we're
> just good friends' box, or she'll try to find a nice gay boyfriend for
you.
DWTWP. What's more, it even contradicts a load of other stuff you've said
in this very post about how they've already decided six seconds after
meeting you or whatever, in which case what difference would it make if you
subsequently talked about your feelings or not?
> Indifferent, emotionless cunts are far better at attracting women and
> establishing relationships than people like me.
DWTWP. This 'it's because I'm not a cunt' line of thinking you continually
employ might help you to feel a little better about not getting laid or
attracting women in the short term, but in the long term I don't think it's
ever going to help you get laid or attract women. I agree with many of
Dat's webs on this subject, most of all the one about walking around a town
centre and seeing that women are attracted to all sorts. You'll never get
laid until you can come up with a better reason for not getting laid than
'it's because I'm not a cunt'.
As long as you keep comparing yourself to chavs you'll keep drawing blanks,
because all that logic hinges on the misunderstanding that only chavs get
laid.
I also agree with Dat that you generally come across as if you despise and
resent women, which might not be the best way to attract them.
Furthermore, women do seem to like to feel as if the person they're with
finds them physically attractive, society has turned them all into gibbering
wrecks of insecurity in this respect. From what you say, it seems as if you
are incapable of feeling such an attraction, and can only find women
attractive in a spiritual way once you get to know them. This is great, and
it's not something I'd encourage you to lie about because I believe in total
honesty at all times, but I would be careful how you explain it. 'I don't
find you physically attractive, it's your personality that turns me on about
you', if phrased carelessly, could easily be misconstrued as 'you're a bit
of a minger but I'm desperate'.
> I watched those two Todd Solondz films, plus Life Aquatic and wasn't that
> impressed.
Of course you weren't, you're an immovable bastion of negativity.
> You know what, I've come to a strange conclusion about films. I actually
> *like* my films to have a mainstream, Hollywood-style plot and structure.
> But I can't stand Hollywood-style characters and narrative.
I don't think I can talk to you about films, you didn't even like 'Clerks'.
Sir Benjamin Nunn
"Joe Horowitz" <joeundersc...@youblunder.cunts.youghey> wrote in
>
>> Irony is that I do care about that, because I care about her.
>>
>> I'm such a supplicating wuss that I can't even hate people properly when
>> I
>> feel for them. Cunt.
>
> Why would you hate her?
Her actions caused me to feel pain?
Or her presence in my life created a situation in which I felt pain?
However I deconstructed the motives, hatred would seem to be a far more
positive force to channel into future ventures than despair and self-pity.
This sort of thing makes me feel inadequate, like a sub-human, incapable of
achieving something that other people seem to manage fairly easily, and have
done so since the dawn of time. Seems like it should be very easy to hate
myself for feeling this way, or to hate others who've created the conditions
in which I feel this way.
>> The problem here is that with a few exceptions - like your fortunate
>> self,
>> apparently - society puts peoples interactions into little boxes and
>> encourages people to categorise in the same way.
>>
>> Why should there be a 'friends' box and a 'relationship' box? Why should
> the
>> fact that I want a more intimate relationship with GIL mean that I'm not
>> a
>> friend? etc.
>
> I don't think it does. In my apparently odd worldview, if you still want
> to
> be friends with her even if you know it can never progress to something
> else, and you can be happy for her being happy, then you're a friend.
> This
> isn't true of most blokes in your situation, though, they're only
> interested
> in the friendship as a means to an end. Therefore they're not actually
> friends, not because they're interested in something else, but because the
> 'friendship' was in fact _conditional_ on that something else. To me, all
> friendship by definition is unconditional, that's what makes it truly a
> friendship.
IAWTWP, although I also think that friendship needs to go both ways to truly
work.
If I am to accept the aspect of her character that she doesn't want me, then
she'd logically also need to accept the way I felt about her was a part of
my being, and that these feelings might never change.
These are difficult things to accept, on both sides, and that's why so many
human beings are dishonest and play games instead of being honest about it -
myself included, although I like to think I'm a bit more honest than most.
You'd think it would get easier, after all I've been in these situations
several times throughout the last ten years (in fact, I've never been in any
other sort of situation as far as relationships with women are concerned,
unless you count the whore-punter relationship).
> I guess a lot of people prefer things to be a lot more simple than that,
> and
> so they have 'friends', with whom they are not in a 'relationship', and
> then
> there are 'relationships' which are a very specific thing and which follow
> a
> very specific set of rules which were developed by women's magazines in
> conjunction with the Catholic church. Cunts.
Absolutely. And how the 'relationship' people are offered lots of extra
stuff that the friends don't get, like sex and cuddling up while watching
films'n'shit, but the 'friends' never get dumped, but the 'relationship'
people are hardly ever seen again when it's all over.
That always strikes me as bizarre. I fucking hate structures.
>> In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think my gayness has
>> influenced me in a way that is unhelpful to forming relationships with
>> women. Within the gay scene there is a blurring of the boundaries between
>> friends and fuckbuddies, with loving relationships seemingly an extension
> of
>> that.
>
> That's pretty much how I see all of it, tbh. I must be like some sort of
> confused teh ghey who only fancies women.
It sounds like it, although your life also exhibits qualities of the master
Pick Up Artists, who also shun mainstream relationships, in favour of
multiple women who are all cool with it.
>> From what I've studied about female relationship psychology (whether it's
>> instinctive or influenced by social pressure) the 'path' is chosen far
>> earlier in the process. There are various therories that women will
> mentally
>> rule you out forever within 3 minutes or 30 seconds or 10 seconds unless
> you
>> make the right first impression as a 'lover'.
>
> I'm deeply sceptical about all that stuff, tbh. In fact, I actually think
> it's all total and utter bollocks. Remember when Barrett came out with
> that
> stuff a year or two ago? But then, only two days later she was chastising
> you for giving up too easily and banging on about how women reserve the
> right to change their minds and they like to be chased and conquered and
> all
> that? I think we can learn from this that it's _all_ bollocks, the
> various
> 'rules' are often contradictory so there's really no point making them or
> trying to pretend that they exist.
In a way I've always agreed WTWP, as you know, but right now, I'm trying
hard to give theory the benefit of the doubt, for the sake of
self-improvement.
> Relationship gurus would appear to have a lot to answer for.
Maybe so. Although if I go into the venture dismissing all of their
theories, it's probably even less likely to be effective.
I have enough problems with self-defeating mentality as it is, thanks.
Deep down, philosophically, I don't particularly believe that pushing myself
hard on my ski machine thing will make me fitter, or that jelq exercises and
St. John's Wort will enlarge my penis, or that eating more fruit will make
me healthier.
Ultimately I have a very subjective reality, but if I didn't give new things
a chance, I'd go crazy. If I had to accept that it was all futile and that
I'll never find love, I'm not sure i'd want to live.
On that basis, if my life now is worth living, then the only reason I have
for being alive is my quest to try and change and improve things.
I don't expect you to particularly understand this.
>> I cannot imagine a situation where conditions seemed perfect for a
>> relationship, and where I really cared about somebody, but did not wish
>> to
>> express my love in a relationshipal way.
>
> That shows a surprising lack of imagination.
Why? All imagination and creativity stems from putting existing ideas in new
and subverted combinations as far as I understand it.
Sure, I can concieve the situation notionatlly, but I haven't got a clue how
it would /feel/, because I have no reference points to go on.
I've never eaten a crododile and lime pie. However, I've eaten crocodile,
limes and pies, so I can put together a reasonable mental image of what it
might taste like.
I've never eaten penguin, and I really don't have much of an idea what it
would taste like.
>> The reason people (specifically heterosexual men, in fact) feel they
>> can't
>> discuss their feelings is because emotion and honesty are not attractive
>> qualities to women.
>
> DWTWP. I may have to bow to your superior knowledge of women here, but
> what
> you say doesn't really ring true from my experiences and those of everyone
> I
> know.
I'm basing it on my own negative experiences, and the contrasting and
positive testimonials of those who are 'successful' with women.
Much as I despise the dating guru culture, they have, at least, given me
practical tips and exercises that I can use to try and better my life.
Do you have any real-world advice based on your differing experiences?
>> They may say the opposite of this (how they want a man who can talk about
>> his feelings etc.) but it isn't true.
>
> DWTWP. See the above. If all of what you seem to think about women was
> true, none of my friends would ever get laid. In fact, only chavs would
> ever get any, with me, everyone I know and pretty much all male Youksefers
> out in the cold.
Give me the tips based on your own observations then. I'm waiting eagerly.
>> Talk about your feelings to a girl, and you get put in the 'no sex, we're
>> just good friends' box, or she'll try to find a nice gay boyfriend for
> you.
>
> DWTWP. What's more, it even contradicts a load of other stuff you've said
> in this very post about how they've already decided six seconds after
> meeting you or whatever, in which case what difference would it make if
> you
> subsequently talked about your feelings or not?
Doesn't contradict it at all.
I used this exact same argument on one of the pickup message boards
(actually in a conversation with a woman, strangely enough). Apparently it
works thusly:
She can rule you out within six seconds.
She can also not rule you out early on, but can still rule you out at any
subsequent point if you make a fatal mistake like talking about your
feelings.
NOTE: All this guru shit isn't necessarily my inner view. It's just
something I'm trying to apply to myself in pursuit of a brighter future.
>> Indifferent, emotionless cunts are far better at attracting women and
>> establishing relationships than people like me.
>
> DWTWP. This 'it's because I'm not a cunt' line of thinking you
> continually
> employ might help you to feel a little better about not getting laid or
> attracting women in the short term, but in the long term I don't think
> it's
> ever going to help you get laid or attract women. I agree with many of
> Dat's webs on this subject, most of all the one about walking around a
> town
> centre and seeing that women are attracted to all sorts. You'll never get
> laid until you can come up with a better reason for not getting laid than
> 'it's because I'm not a cunt'.
I agree that the logic might be flawed, but I don't see how that in itself
will prevent me from being successful.
> As long as you keep comparing yourself to chavs you'll keep drawing
> blanks,
> because all that logic hinges on the misunderstanding that only chavs get
> laid.
That's not really what I believe, although I would contest that Chavs do
seem to have it easier when attracting women than I do.
If I really believed that I had zero chance, I would have deliberately
stopped myself trying to get somewhere with GIL, right? However bleak a
picture I paint, there's always a glimmer of hope. Mostly.
What I do know is that I haven't yet encountered ANY study programmes based
around being a nice guy and getting what I want from a love life. Everything
I've read focusses on being 'bad', indifferent, insulting, and generally
cunty in order to attract women.
I'm not saying it's the only way, but there's no other documented and proven
way.
> I also agree with Dat that you generally come across as if you despise and
> resent women, which might not be the best way to attract them.
I don't despise women.
I do, however, despise and resent the world in which they don't love me in
the way that I love them. If that makes sense.
> Furthermore, women do seem to like to feel as if the person they're with
> finds them physically attractive, society has turned them all into
> gibbering
> wrecks of insecurity in this respect. From what you say, it seems as if
> you
> are incapable of feeling such an attraction, and can only find women
> attractive in a spiritual way once you get to know them. This is great,
> and
> it's not something I'd encourage you to lie about because I believe in
> total
> honesty at all times, but I would be careful how you explain it. 'I don't
> find you physically attractive, it's your personality that turns me on
> about
> you', if phrased carelessly, could easily be misconstrued as 'you're a bit
> of a minger but I'm desperate'.
Yeah, and it wouldn't really mean that at all. Except for the desperation
part.
Actually, not even that. I still like to think that I have standards, and
would want a very high quality girlfriend.
But I'd _settle_ for a needy chavette with issues (and treat her like a
princess) just to get myself on the ladder, if you like. Everyone has to
start somewhere.
(Oh, and GIL isn't a needy chavette with issues, BTW).
>> I watched those two Todd Solondz films, plus Life Aquatic and wasn't that
>> impressed.
>
> Of course you weren't, you're an immovable bastion of negativity.
Strangely, in this post I've tried to be positive and optimistic in the face
of your naysaying.
>> You know what, I've come to a strange conclusion about films. I actually
>> *like* my films to have a mainstream, Hollywood-style plot and structure.
>> But I can't stand Hollywood-style characters and narrative.
>
> I don't think I can talk to you about films, you didn't even like
> 'Clerks'.
I thought it was OK-ish.
Palindromes took an interesting idea, and I liked the continuity from
Welcome to the Dollhouse, but the whole thing just didn't quite work for me
as a whole.
Dollhouse was better, but needed to go deeper and darker, I felt.
BTN
Sir Benjamin Nunn
"Dat" <dat...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4bmup1hpd8mo22fth...@4ax.com...
>
>>By my reckoning it's GIL 4-0 BTN at half-time.
>
> Oh dear, BTN has never, ever overcome even a 2-0 deficit.
>
> I want to cling to the hope that the remaining fading ember can be
> teased into a tiny flicker of flame which might, given sufficient care
> and attention be ultimately fanned into a blazing inferno that could
> warm the world, but the stats clearly show it is time to get out of
> the car park before the rush.
It still could happen, Dat, it still could happen.
I never rule out any possibility, because philosophically it's a stupid
thing to do. As far as I'm concerned, I might be immortal, until my death
proves otherwise.
BTN
Dat
<ben...@depro.co.uk> wrote:
>What I do know is that I haven't yet encountered ANY study programmes based
>around being a nice guy and getting what I want from a love life. Everything
>I've read focusses on being 'bad', indifferent, insulting, and generally
>cunty in order to attract women.
Do you think this might say something about the type of folk who make
and market these ways to get into someone's pants things?
>I'm not saying it's the only way, but there's no other documented and proven
>way.
Proven?
Don't believe the hype.
--
Dat
Dat
<ben...@depro.co.uk> wrote:
>It still could happen, Dat, it still could happen.
Too bloody late, mate. If I get home and the highlights program shows
you scoring, I'll kick myself silly, obviously, but I've got things to
do, places to see, people to beat...I can't hang around all day on the
off chance that I'll witness the biggest comeback since the christians
conquered Rome.
>I never rule out any possibility, because philosophically it's a stupid
>thing to do. As far as I'm concerned, I might be immortal, until my death
>proves otherwise.
Your death could occur at the precise millisecond that time ceases to
exist, in which case you will have lived forever and therefore have
been immortal. You give up too easily. :)))))))))))
--
Dat
Osbourne Ruddock
>
> The problem here is that with a few exceptions - like your fortunate
> self, apparently - society puts peoples interactions into little boxes
> and encourages people to categorise in the same way.
This is all bollocks Ben. Society doesn't do shit. Most cunts who attempt
to 'conform' to the women's mag's idea of life end up fucking out anyway.
>
> Why should there be a 'friends' box and a 'relationship' box? Why
> should the fact that I want a more intimate relationship with GIL mean
> that I'm not a friend? etc.
Look in the mirror big boy, I'd say any uncomfortableness in your
situation now is eminating from you. Chances are that GYL would love to
go back to just having you as a friend.
I'm no pickup artist, just about all the relationships I've had with
women have come about after long friendships. I was mates with Mrs R for
18 months before we got together. I suspect if I'd been all over her
eminating relationship vibes from day one that would never have happened.
An easy-going, close friendship is a great starting point for a
relationship. But I have a heap of those with women that I've only ever
been friends with and would never think of having a relationship with.
You come across on here as a bit uptight and desperate, it's kind of
scary to watch and I can only imagine what it eminates out to the G'sYL.
There is no solution for you really, unless you can just put all this
'society is against me for being different' shit out of your mind, relax,
and just enjoy what relationships you do have with women. Yes, a
friendship is a relationship, but you seem to put so much value on one
kind and so little on the other. Or that's the way it comes across at
least.
Or just be ghey.
>
> My interactivity with everybody is as an individual. I don't rule out
> anything physical or emotional, and my experiences in the world of teh
> ghey have taught me that mainstream relationships are not the only
> way.
There's no such thing, even the most straight looking straightheads have
their own issues and their own stories. You seem to take the most
chaviest cunts as the norm whereas they're the far side of the bell-end.
>
> In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think my gayness has
> influenced me in a way that is unhelpful to forming relationships with
> women.
You think?
>
> From what I've studied about female relationship psychology (whether
> it's instinctive or influenced by social pressure) the 'path' is
> chosen far earlier in the process. There are various therories that
> women will mentally rule you out forever within 3 minutes or 30
> seconds or 10 seconds unless you make the right first impression as a
> 'lover'.
Probably true in some cases, not true in most.
>
> I don't find women attractive /until/ I get to know them, by which
> time it's purportedly too late. Frankly, I'm not convinced I've ever
> started down the right path, and that sucks.
>
That's because there is no right path. Man, you web-programmers have a
fucked up view of life.
>
>
> If I'm 'fine' I'd hate to meet someone with problems.
Heh, AWTWP. Although we've never met obviously.
I've come to the conclusion that for a myriad of reasons, a million
little things that knock us down, a heap of events, both good and bad
that effect us, the timing of shit happening and what that does to our
cells and chemical makeup, all the physical, spiritual and mental
reactions to situations throughout our whole existence, but especially
early on, make us how we turn out. It tells in our reactions to shit, it
tells in our motivations, our outlook etc... It doesn't matter whether
you're David Beckham or Ben Nunn, shit happens to you. Brilliant cunts
die early, useless cunts live till they're 90. It's why I feel so
strongly about physical or emotional harm coming to children, it's far
reaching stuff, every good day for a child is a great step towards them
becoming a nice adult.
Here's a little story. At intermediate school I became a cunt. Fuck knows
why, I was fiddled with by a Vicar (cunts), and I was about to enter
puberty'n'shit, and I'd started messing with girls (heh) but I don't know
if any or all of that went towards my cuntiness. I started Form 1 with a
young female teacher and we didn't really get on from day 1 so I became a
cunt. This didn't work out too well for me as I started regularly getting
the strap, and by Form 2 the cane, and bad school reports etc... God
knows what mum and dad must've thought as I'd been a pretty likeable
bloke before that.
Then, late in Form 2 we had a school camp and my, then male, teacher
seemed to pick up on the fact that I really liked the outdoors'n'shit so
he made me a group leader of one bunch of kids and also the assistant for
climbing and abseiling because a lot of the kids were a bit worried about
doing that stuff. He also asked me to look after the ugly girl who was a
bit freaky and got picked on, mainly by the other girls. I don't know
what happened really but I got a sense of responsibility out of it, and a
bit of empathy as I seemed to realise that this girl was struggling. It
changed me a bit, didn't make me a saint but definitely changed me. I
think that teacher was a clever man. I also think if that 'click' hadn't
happened I might have led a much harder, sadder life.
I also think the changes of achieving that 'click' get harder as we get
older. As an adult, I've come to the conclusion that several people I
know will never be happy. I have no inclination to fix them because it
wouldn't work. If it could work, I'd move heaven and earth to help them,
but it won't. The best that can happen for these people is that they
learn to get by and occasionally have better days. It's sad but that's
the way it is for them.
From what I've heard from the froup from you, that is the way it is for
you with relationships. It probably will never happen, there's no silver
bullet, you might die never having had a relationship with a woman. Learn
to get by, stop looking for silver bullets, learn to appreciate what
you've got now with women. If you can do that, you might have better
days, if you can't, life will continue to be miserable.
Is that fair? No. Can any of us change that for you? No.
It's nice to talk about but it's all just dead air in terms of results.
--
Cheers, Os
Joe Horowitz
> "Joe Horowitz" <joeundersc...@youblunder.cunts.youghey> wrote in
> message news:iFfof.57014$Ms6....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> Her actions caused me to feel pain?
Because you think she's so great. So you'd be hating her for being so
great, which doesn't make much sense.
> Or her presence in my life created a situation in which I felt pain?
Hardly her fault, really.
> However I deconstructed the motives, hatred would seem to be a far more
> positive force to channel into future ventures than despair and self-pity.
Agree, but only in the same way I'd agree that eating raw chicken is far
safer than eating broken glass. I presonally wouldn't consider any of the
above to be positive forces tbh.
> This sort of thing makes me feel inadequate, like a sub-human, incapable
of
> achieving something that other people seem to manage fairly easily, and
have
> done so since the dawn of time. Seems like it should be very easy to hate
> myself for feeling this way, or to hate others who've created the
conditions
> in which I feel this way.
Again, I can't understand where hatred comes into it though, of yourself or
her. I could only hate someone for doing things I thought were really,
_really_ bad, because in order to hate them I'd have to think they were
utterly shit. I don't think I hate anyone anyway, life's too short and so
am I.
> IAWTWP, although I also think that friendship needs to go both ways to
truly
> work.
Well, of course. Otherwise it's not friendship either IMHO, one person
cannot have a friendship on their own.
> If I am to accept the aspect of her character that she doesn't want me,
then
> she'd logically also need to accept the way I felt about her was a part of
> my being, and that these feelings might never change.
Totally AWTWP.
> These are difficult things to accept, on both sides, and that's why so
many
> human beings are dishonest and play games instead of being honest about
it -
> myself included, although I like to think I'm a bit more honest than most.
AWTWP, although compared to me you're probably downright deceitful. My
total and utter honesty, with everyone I know, on everything, is possibly
both my greatest strength and weakness at the same time. Makes life simple
though, which is why I don't try to change this aspect of myself. So many
less decisions to make.
> You'd think it would get easier, after all I've been in these situations
> several times throughout the last ten years (in fact, I've never been in
any
> other sort of situation as far as relationships with women are concerned,
> unless you count the whore-punter relationship).
Again, where I'm probably different to most is that I'd consider your
interactions with every woman you ever met as relationships of one sort or
another. They just haven't involved teh sex.
> Absolutely. And how the 'relationship' people are offered lots of extra
> stuff that the friends don't get, like sex and cuddling up while watching
> films'n'shit, but the 'friends' never get dumped, but the 'relationship'
> people are hardly ever seen again when it's all over.
>
> That always strikes me as bizarre. I fucking hate structures.
AWTWP. I consider there to be six people _very_ close to me in my life
outside of family, and one of them is an 'ex' of sorts (Shelly). Another is
my current (Juicy). The two of them are very close as well, without there
being any issues regarding the past. I really don't think this could happen
in most people's lives, they've read too many magazines or something.
> It sounds like it, although your life also exhibits qualities of the
master
> Pick Up Artists, who also shun mainstream relationships, in favour of
> multiple women who are all cool with it.
Heh. Aside from this being a massive exaggeration (I'm not a pick-up artist
at all, and have slept with just seven women in the last seven years - one a
year on average. Hardly a short wiry Don Juan, now, am I), does it not also
sit rather uncomfortably with the Dating Gurus? I mean, I'm honest,
kind-hearted, I don't treat to women with the indifferens, and I've no
problems talking about my feelings. By your logic I should be out in the
cold, ruled out forever at least once in the first few minutes of knowing
anyone.
> In a way I've always agreed WTWP, as you know, but right now, I'm trying
> hard to give theory the benefit of the doubt, for the sake of
> self-improvement.
Heh. That's fair enough, and I'm certainly not telling you that you
shouldn't or that I know better. It's just stuff I think about what you've
posted on the froup, which is kind of why I come here.
> Maybe so. Although if I go into the venture dismissing all of their
> theories, it's probably even less likely to be effective.
See the above. Of course you have to go into everything with an open mind,
just as I did my recent Jungian mind-melding course which I think I got a
lot out of. It's just as important, though, to take everything with a pinch
of salt and ultimately draw your own conclusions, merely considering what I
or Double Your Dating or whatever have to say along the way. The more
information and ideas you can gather along the way, perhaps, the better.
The fact is, though, I do actually give a shit about you, Ben, probably more
than you'd think. I'm very fond of you, especially now I've met you, and
would love to see you get some hot sex action or even a conventional
relationship. If I see these cunts have been saying stuff to you which,
rightly or wrongly, I believe to be bollocks, I'm going to say so. I could
be wrong about everything, of course, as anyone could, but it's not in my
nature to worry too much about that. I'm just saying what I think.
Besides, I like typing.
> I have enough problems with self-defeating mentality as it is, thanks.
AWTWP.
> Deep down, philosophically, I don't particularly believe that pushing
myself
> hard on my ski machine thing will make me fitter,
Heh. It almost certainly will.
> or that jelq exercises and St. John's Wort will enlarge my penis,
I've no idea about that.
> or that eating more fruit will make me healthier.
It almost certainly will.
> Ultimately I have a very subjective reality, but if I didn't give new
things
> a chance, I'd go crazy. If I had to accept that it was all futile and that
> I'll never find love, I'm not sure i'd want to live.
AWTWP. I like your ability to give new things a chance, it's one of your
most attractive qualities.
> On that basis, if my life now is worth living, then the only reason I have
> for being alive is my quest to try and change and improve things.
AWTWP. Quests to try and change and improve things are great.
> I don't expect you to particularly understand this.
Awwww. I think you do me a disservice there, tbh hun. I understood
completely and agreed with most of it.
> Why? All imagination and creativity stems from putting existing ideas in
new
> and subverted combinations as far as I understand it.
>
> Sure, I can concieve the situation notionatlly, but I haven't got a clue
how
> it would /feel/, because I have no reference points to go on.
DWTWP. I asked you, essentially, how it would feel if you knew your
actions, in attempting to find happiness, had made someone else you loved
miserable in a way you could only have avoided by giving up your chance of
happiness. The specific details were arbitrary. You love people. You can
imagine wanting something. You can imagine someone you love being
miserable. You can imagine that being shit. You can imagine all the rest,
I'm sure you can. Maybe not to the extent that you can imagine getting
fisted, but some.
> I've never eaten a crododile and lime pie. However, I've eaten crocodile,
> limes and pies, so I can put together a reasonable mental image of what it
> might taste like.
>
> I've never eaten penguin, and I really don't have much of an idea what it
> would taste like.
I've never eaten penguin, but I think I can imagine myself eating one. I
can picture it right now, there I am in the frozen wastes, wrapped in
sealskin or somesuch and huddled round a poorly-constructed fire, a joint of
freshly undercooked penguin in my gloved hands. I can imagine my teeth
tearing tough flesh from bone and wondering why the fuck I agreed to let
Cypher talk me into the expedition in the first place, and where the fuck
he'd got to anyway when he said he was going for a shit and that was two
days ago. I can imagine it very well. I'm slightly scared, actually. I
can imagine I don't like eating penguin very much, but of course subsequent
and actual experience of eating penguin might change that.
> I'm basing it on my own negative experiences, and the contrasting and
> positive testimonials of those who are 'successful' with women.
I don't think you can base it on your own negative experiences without using
negative logic. Otherwise you could argue that women don't like blokes
called Ben, or Coventry fans, or people who don't own model aeroplanes or
drink milk.
You know loads of cunts who are 'successful' with women, many of them in
this very newsfroup. Most of us aren't cunts, ergo not being a cunt doesn't
stop you getting laid or married'n'shit.
> Much as I despise the dating guru culture, they have, at least, given me
> practical tips and exercises that I can use to try and better my life.
Have you ever seen 'Magnolia'? If yes, thoughts? If no, please see. Then,
thoughts? I ask because Tom Cruise, in the only performance of his I've
_ever_ enjoyed, plays a dating guru. His catchphrase is:
"Respect the cock!11!.... TAME the CUNT!1!1one!1alphamale!11".
It's funny. Well, you might not laugh but I did.
> Do you have any real-world advice based on your differing experiences?
Yeah, fucking loads. I've been attempting to give you the benefit of what
tiny monged wisdom I might have for three years now, you've never
appreciated it and you probably never will but I'm sure I'll keep going
anyway because I like typing and this subject interests me. Just don't make
out like I haven't tried, when you haven't even had to pay subscription fees
for _my_ bullshit.
> Give me the tips based on your own observations then. I'm waiting eagerly.
Heh. That's nice, these self-appointed Dating Gurus who know you no better
than Strawberry and that Wigan fan get oodles of your hard-earned cash, and
for all you fucking know they can't get laid either, and I don't even get
asked nicely?
Regardless of your poor manners and your probably negative disposition
towards whatever I say next, here goes yet more of the best I can do for
you, although <disclaimer> please bear in mind that I have at no point
appointed myself as 'dating guru' or taken your money or anything, and do
not consider my opinions to be worth any more to you than any other.....
1) Lose weight, lots of weight. Fat blokes get laid as well of course, but
I think that by being a big fat bastard you do decrease the odds a bit,
especially in a small pool like Ipswich. One thing that is true of most
women and men is that they like to feel physically attracted to prospective
partners, and don't feel attracted to very fat men, this may not be
something you can understand but it's clearly something you have to live
with so you can keep bemoaning it's unfairness, however justly, or just make
the fucking best of it. You say you're on a ski-machine, I think that's
fucking great. Sincerely. Absolutely top marks from me on that one.
2) Think about leaving Ipswich forever - it might just be the way you tell
'em, but you do make it sound like the least enlightened place on Earth and
one where chav culture truly dominates in a way it does in nowhere I've ever
been. Might be holding you back.
3) Be more positive in general, about _everything_. I found your company
stimulating, challenging and generally a Good Thing, I was impressed by you
in many ways and always have been. However, I did also find you drainingly
negative. I do think most girls are more horny when they're happy and
having 'fun', so constantly being told how shit everything is, and why, is
perhaps not condusive to free-flowing chickjuices. So, for instance, when a
girl asks you what you thought of a film, start by saying what you _liked_
about it, the bits that were okay-ish, then work your way onto where it
could have been better. It's no good just continually pointing out how
things don't match your ridiculously high expectations of just how good
stuff _could_ be, think more about how it sits in relation to the majority
of dross that's around. It's still the truth, still total honesty, just
approached from a slightly different angle.
Negative conversations mostly make people feel negative, you regularly
challenge my desires on this froup but it's the cheerful likes of Osbourne
and Mikey who make me horny. Remember the Conlanic insight which was
'transferred guilt'? I've thought about it a lot since then, and the more I
think about it, especially having had a night out with you, the more I think
it's something most of us get. More a 'people insight', if you will. Much
as I prepared myself mentally for your visit, heeding your warning of being
hard work and impossible to please, and much as I intended just to not care
what you thought of anything and just assume you'd think it was all rubbish,
I did in the end care about it all. I felt responsible for making sure your
time off, as precious to you as mine is to me, and the expense of coming
down, wasn't wasted. I ended up feeling quite bad because I couldn't help
feeling like I was just completely wasting your time and money, up until the
evening of the second day when I kind of gave up and couldn't be arsed
anymore. If I was a woman who you were dating, I don't think I'd have been
comfortable with the idea that you thought I was the only great thing about
anything.
4) Don't think of women as the opposition who can beat you 4-0 at halftime
just by not falling in love with you. Everything you think about people
comes out subtly when you interact with them, if you think someone's great
they should be able to pick up on this with a little effort. Similarly, if
you think they're a cunt you can only hide it so well. So if you're looking
at women as the opposition, and relationships with them as something in
which there is a 'clear winner and loser' then I really don't think that's
going to endear you to them sexually in the long run. Think of all but the
most very specialest of women as being blokes with tits, and interact with
them as you would any other guy. If you revere them they can smell your
fear.
5) Stop fucking trying so fucking hard, your ouvert desperation is probably
a bit scary for women. I'd have been overwhelmed by someone doing all the
stuff for me you had planned for this chick, it would all just be too much
and I'd feel a little intimidated and pressurised by it all. People want to
give what they take, so giving someone too much can make them feel
inadequate or rushed. It's a fucking tough irony of life, this, but we
really do more often find things when we relax and stop looking so hard for
them, something to do with receptive cognition or somesuch I shouldn't
wonder, psychologists probably have a fancy name for it like that. So,
Osbourne's web about giving up on the whole bloody thing is probably,
ironically, the only one which might actually end up with you getting
loved'n'laid after all.
Furthermore, I really do believe that there's absolutely nothing you can get
from a 'relationship' that you can't get from a close friend and a whore.
It's just great for people if they can have both in one place, like a
supermarket. Often the quality is compromised for the sake of convenience
from what I've seen, though, okay friends and okay sex but at least they
don't have to leave the house.
That's all for now, I want to play some ProEvo before I go to bed.
> I used this exact same argument on one of the pickup message boards
> (actually in a conversation with a woman, strangely enough). Apparently it
> works thusly:
>
> She can rule you out within six seconds.
>
> She can also not rule you out early on, but can still rule you out at any
> subsequent point if you make a fatal mistake like talking about your
> feelings.
Yeah, and they can rule you back in again. Seriously. This 'they know
after six seconds' stuff is, IMO, just some bollocks from a women's magazine
which caught on a few years ago and is in danger of becoming mainstream
thinking, presumably dreamed up to make teenage girls feel even more fucking
empowered than they already are or someshit. I seriously doubt most of the
girls who've slept with me over the years ever thought they would when they
met me, I just don't have that sort of appeal. I know girls who've slept
with blokes they thought they'd never sleep with, because something they've
found out or got to know about them has led them to look at him in a
different light.
Women are fickle, it's their prerogative. Of course they fucking rule you
out in six seconds, but if you pick up a guitar and play like Jimi Hendrix
or take off your shirt whilst dancing expertly to reveal a surprisingly and
deceptively muscular torso or drive away in a really expensive car or
perform some astonishingly kind act of loveliness towards someone they care
about or say a load of hilarious things that make them piss themselves or
write a film that becomes a cult classic or do anything else they think is
impressive, or become someone who their best mate fancies, they _totally_
reserve the right to rule you back in again if they so choose, and even
swear blind to their friends that they always found you a little bit
attractive. I've seen it a million times.
> NOTE: All this guru shit isn't necessarily my inner view. It's just
> something I'm trying to apply to myself in pursuit of a brighter future.
Heh. And here's me trying to stop you to the very same end.
> > centre and seeing that women are attracted to all sorts. You'll never
get
> > laid until you can come up with a better reason for not getting laid
than
> > 'it's because I'm not a cunt'.
>
> I agree that the logic might be flawed, but I don't see how that in itself
> will prevent me from being successful.
Well, essentially I didn't say it would, I just said it wouldn't help you.
However, since you asked, I think it's a red-herring, a blind alley, a wild
chav chase. Imagine a football team with a brilliant defence, but shit
strikers, who keep losing games or drawing them 0-0 but can't score goals to
get results. Does the manager thinking the defence is the problem, and
scouring the gut-leagues for promising young defenders, prevent the problems
at the front from being rectified? Well, no, not directly, but it's time
and club resources he could have spent looking for better strikers. Hence,
one could reasonably suggest that scouting more defenders won't help him.
> That's not really what I believe, although I would contest that Chavs do
> seem to have it easier when attracting women than I do.
People attract as people are, so chavs generally attract chavs. None of the
women _I_ think are amazing and beautiful and special, and that I would want
attracted to me, go anywhere near them. Chavs are a laughing stock outside
of their own kind, a giant national punchline. Chavs have it easier when
being a punchline and attracting chavettes, and doing shit jobs from which
there is no real escape except into other shit jobs, and looking gormless.
I don't suppose that many are any happier than any other subculture, there
are probably those who'll enjoy their lot whatever and those who won't and
have issues. There's really no need to envy them, it's like envying
chemists or people called 'Jason' (or 'Shirley, if they're a girl) or anyone
born on a Monday. You might finally get the Brain Operation, and return as
an equally troubled chav who ends up in a life of drugs and crime, and goes
to prison and still only gets teh ghey sex after all. There's plenty of
them.
> If I really believed that I had zero chance, I would have deliberately
> stopped myself trying to get somewhere with GIL, right? However bleak a
> picture I paint, there's always a glimmer of hope. Mostly.
AWTWP, but then I would because I'm a very positive person.
> What I do know is that I haven't yet encountered ANY study programmes
based
> around being a nice guy and getting what I want from a love life.
Everything
> I've read focusses on being 'bad', indifferent, insulting, and generally
> cunty in order to attract women.
See Osbourne's web, you've read plenty in this newsgroup which doesn't, you
presumably also have nice male friends who have or had chicks, you can
choose to see whatever you want to see. It's possibly a fairly specific
type of person who becomes a dating guru, they might only offer one very
specific angle.
> I'm not saying it's the only way, but there's no other documented and
proven
> way.
Define 'documented' and 'proven' in this context, please, because I'm unsure
what that sentence means. I can, for what it's worth though, prove I have
had sex. So can Osbourne and Paul C, and Kullrad.
> I don't despise women.
You're always saying nasty things about them in this group. Women are this,
they're that, they only want such-and-such despite what they say, therefore
they're all liars as well, they prefer blokes who knock them about, blah
blah blah blah blah fucking blah. If I was a girl, and I read all your
woman-related posts in this froup, I wouldn't even want to be your friend
because I'd feel like you hated me unless I slept with you.
> I do, however, despise and resent the world in which they don't love me in
> the way that I love them. If that makes sense.
Yeah, I don't mind your comments on 'the world', I've no problem with those.
I was talking about your comments on 'women', though, which are generally
negative and paint them in a poor light of shallowness and cruelty. They
really do. GYL is of course wonderful and special, but women are shit.
Yet she's a woman, therefore she's shit. She'd rather a bloke who knocked
her about. She might say she appreciates honesty and sensitivity but she's
lying cynicallly and really just wants a chavcunt. GYL, despite what
Hollywood films might have us believe, is not actually compassionate and
caring or whatever. Etc. Am I making any sense at all? This wouldn't be a
good impression to project to her.
> Strangely, in this post I've tried to be positive and optimistic in the
face
> of your naysaying.
That's nice, but don't make out like I've been naysaying you and your life
and your chances of happiness because I haven't and I don't. I've merely
naysayed the dating gurus who sound like they want to turn everyone into
cunts.
> I thought it was OK-ish.
>
> Palindromes took an interesting idea, and I liked the continuity from
> Welcome to the Dollhouse, but the whole thing just didn't quite work for
me
> as a whole.
These are good comments, I like them.
> Dollhouse was better, but needed to go deeper and darker, I felt.
Yep, this is a massive improvement on 'I wasn't impressed', it's far more
the sort of thing to get an enjoyable conversation going with a girl. Just
a shame you started with the blunt 'I wasn't impressed', I'm already
predisposed against this conversation now and uninclined to discuss how
Dollhouse could have gone deeper and darker before jumping into bed with
you. I've no heart for the chat, all the fun was knocked out of it at 'I
wasn't impressed'. Let's talk about something else.
You see how that works?
Also, is it lovemaking time yet? We must be due some.
Joe Horowitz
"Osbourne Ruddock" <stri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns972E6891C5527s...@130.133.1.4...
> Look in the mirror big boy, I'd say any uncomfortableness in your
> situation now is eminating from you. Chances are that GYL would love to
> go back to just having you as a friend.
AWTWP.
> I'm no pickup artist, just about all the relationships I've had with
> women have come about after long friendships. I was mates with Mrs R for
> 18 months before we got together. I suspect if I'd been all over her
> eminating relationship vibes from day one that would never have happened.
> An easy-going, close friendship is a great starting point for a
> relationship. But I have a heap of those with women that I've only ever
> been friends with and would never think of having a relationship with.
AWTWP.
> You come across on here as a bit uptight and desperate, it's kind of
> scary to watch and I can only imagine what it eminates out to the G'sYL.
> There is no solution for you really, unless you can just put all this
> 'society is against me for being different' shit out of your mind, relax,
> and just enjoy what relationships you do have with women.
AWTWP. You know, Osbourne, I think I love you sometimes. Real love, like
Ben loves GHL. I wish I was teh ghey, and you were teh ghey, and we lived
in the same city and had teh ghey love. Life would all be so much easier.
You wouldn't have your kids, though, so probably disregard.
> There's no such thing, even the most straight looking straightheads have
> their own issues and their own stories. You seem to take the most
> chaviest cunts as the norm whereas they're the far side of the bell-end.
AWTWP.
> > women will mentally rule you out forever within 3 minutes or 30
> > seconds or 10 seconds unless you make the right first impression as a
> > 'lover'.
>
> Probably true in some cases, not true in most.
AWTWP.
> That's because there is no right path. Man, you web-programmers have a
> fucked up view of life.
AWTWP.
> I've come to the conclusion that for a myriad of reasons, a million
> little things that knock us down, a heap of events, both good and bad
> that effect us, the timing of shit happening and what that does to our
> cells and chemical makeup, all the physical, spiritual and mental
> reactions to situations throughout our whole existence, but especially
> early on, make us how we turn out. It tells in our reactions to shit, it
> tells in our motivations, our outlook etc... It doesn't matter whether
> you're David Beckham or Ben Nunn, shit happens to you. Brilliant cunts
> die early, useless cunts live till they're 90. It's why I feel so
> strongly about physical or emotional harm coming to children, it's far
> reaching stuff, every good day for a child is a great step towards them
> becoming a nice adult.
AWTWP.
> Here's a little story.
<snip interesting Ruddockical insights>
> I also think the changes of achieving that 'click' get harder as we get
> older. As an adult, I've come to the conclusion that several people I
> know will never be happy. I have no inclination to fix them because it
> wouldn't work. If it could work, I'd move heaven and earth to help them,
> but it won't. The best that can happen for these people is that they
> learn to get by and occasionally have better days. It's sad but that's
> the way it is for them.
>
> From what I've heard from the froup from you, that is the way it is for
> you with relationships. It probably will never happen, there's no silver
> bullet, you might die never having had a relationship with a woman. Learn
> to get by, stop looking for silver bullets, learn to appreciate what
> you've got now with women. If you can do that, you might have better
> days, if you can't, life will continue to be miserable.
Sort of DWTWP actually, it's certainly probably just about the most helpful
thing anyone's ever said to Ben, but I rather dislike the idea that your
life is fully-formed at 27 or whatever Ben is. I think I developed as much
between the ages of 25 and 30 as I did any other time of my life, and I also
know at certain times in my life there have been radical shifts in outlook,
philosophy and perception, of myself and the outside world. I was a happy
young child, but utterly miserable as a teenager, and flirted with dangerous
addictions and the suchlike. Life was good from 21-24, then it turned to
total and utter shit for two or three years, by 27 it was back on track
again and the last five years have rocked.
I don't think I ever knew true happiness and contentment, though, until
after the 'turned to shit' part. I actually live quite a modest life on the
whole, on a modest income, nothing about it is particularly remarkable apart
from possibly my sex life which has been quite unconventional. My
happiness, I guess, comes from an ability to truly appreciate every single
thing that I have, and every thing I don't have to put up with, because I
can still remember a time when I had pretty much nothing save for a few
hundred great records and a Mother who loved me from a long way away.
Mind you, and I've mentioned this to Ben before, my Brother didn't really
have any more luck with chicks than Ben does until he met his current wife
at the age of thirty, who would appear to be the 'silver bullet' of which
you speak. His wife rocks, and they seem to love each other to bits. How
he got there I'm not entirely sure, for a long time I had a brother who
couldn't pull and the next thing I know he's getting married. I think though
he just stopped caring and did like you say. Like when you've lost your
hash, you usually find it when you stop looking and do something else.
There was a girl in work tonight, regular customer, and an absolutely lovely
lass. Beautiful as well, at least I think so. Mid-twenties maybe. I've
quite a crush on her. Now, for the first four years that I worked there,
she used to come in on crutches, but it seemed to become a struggle for a
while and for the last six months she's been coming in a wheelchair. So,
presumably, she has some sort of debilitating thing which just gets worse
and worse, and given the timescale it's probably one of these things which
medical science can currently slow down but not cure. I can't help
wondering what comes after 'can't walk at all'. Does she lose the use of
her hands? Is she going to die well young?
That sort of thing makes me happy. Not because I wish harm on anyone, but
because it's something that reminds me just how much shit I've dodged in
this life.
Fucking hell, I think all that actually means I agree with you after all.
Cunt.
Just fuck off.
Cypher
> > I've never eaten penguin, and I really don't have much of an idea what it
> > would taste like.
>
> I've never eaten penguin, but I think I can imagine myself eating one. I
> can picture it right now, there I am in the frozen wastes, wrapped in
> sealskin or somesuch and huddled round a poorly-constructed fire, a joint of
> freshly undercooked penguin in my gloved hands. I can imagine my teeth
> tearing tough flesh from bone and wondering why the fuck I agreed to let
> Cypher talk me into the expedition in the first place, and where the fuck
> he'd got to anyway when he said he was going for a shit and that was two
> days ago. I can imagine it very well. I'm slightly scared, actually. I
> can imagine I don't like eating penguin very much, but of course subsequent
> and actual experience of eating penguin might change that.
I was lying about needing a shit. The chill Polar winds may have hidden my tears
of frustration but didn't you notice how I winced everytime you mentioned Nunn,
did you think those groaning noises came from the icepack underfoot?
I thought a trip into the wilds would do you good, Joe, I really did. I took it
upon myself to lure you away from your ceaseless tour of the psyche ward but you
brought your work with you.
It got to the stage where I'd have pushed you into a crevasse if I'd heard you
mention that emotional jessie again and I didn't ever want to hurt you, Joe,
we've had our good times, we can still have more. So I conjured up a fake bowel
movement and made my escape. It hurt like hell leaving you behind but I'd have
had to kill you if I'd stayed.
Osbourne Ruddock
>
> AWTWP. You know, Osbourne, I think I love you sometimes. Real love,
> like Ben loves GHL. I wish I was teh ghey, and you were teh ghey, and
> we lived in the same city and had teh ghey love. Life would all be so
> much easier.
It'd be cool. We could swap horny girlfriends and have lady babe group
sex while being all ghey'n'shit.
>
> You wouldn't have your kids, though, so probably disregard.
>
Well, I guess I'll always have my kids now, no matter how much ghey
banging we manage to get up to.
>
> Sort of DWTWP actually, it's certainly probably just about the most
> helpful thing anyone's ever said to Ben, but I rather dislike the idea
> that your life is fully-formed at 27 or whatever Ben is. I think I
Yeh, my logic is kind of all monged there, talking about how you can be
turned around and then offering Ben no hope. I guess I was saying you can
find yourself in a place that you don't know you're in until you look
back in later life and think, 'how did I mong out like that?'. You can
also change your thinking. Ben seems happy to read dating guru's stuff
but doesn't seem the least bit interested in changing himself. Or he
might for a bit while fully believing that it's all going to fail, the
Eeyore approach if you will. There might be hope though, Ben hinted at it
himself with his 4-strokes theory. I'd love him to get a short shot of
luck or confidence that set him on his way but I can't see it happening.
Depressed people have a million reasons why happy cunts are deluded but I
still know what side of the fence I'd prefer to be on.
> developed as much between the ages of 25 and 30 as I did any other
> time of my life, and I also know at certain times in my life there
> have been radical shifts in outlook, philosophy and perception, of
> myself and the outside world. I was a happy young child, but utterly
> miserable as a teenager, and flirted with dangerous addictions and the
> suchlike. Life was good from 21-24, then it turned to total and utter
> shit for two or three years, by 27 it was back on track again and the
> last five years have rocked.
Life went up and down for me. I've been the most self-loathing or self-
pitying cunt you could imagine over my late teens and early twenties. The
two things that probably made me grow up more than anything else was
seeing my kids born, and seeing a couple of friends die. Cliche'd maybe
but it's been true for me.
>
> I don't think I ever knew true happiness and contentment, though,
> until after the 'turned to shit' part. I actually live quite a modest
> life on the whole, on a modest income, nothing about it is
> particularly remarkable apart from possibly my sex life which has been
> quite unconventional. My happiness, I guess, comes from an ability to
> truly appreciate every single thing that I have, and every thing I
> don't have to put up with, because I can still remember a time when I
> had pretty much nothing save for a few hundred great records and a
> Mother who loved me from a long way away.
It is pretty amazing. I'd be lost without my partner or kids tbh. I love
my own space and time but that's partly because I don't get too much of
it.
>
> Mind you, and I've mentioned this to Ben before, my Brother didn't
> really have any more luck with chicks than Ben does until he met his
> current wife at the age of thirty, who would appear to be the 'silver
> bullet' of which you speak. His wife rocks, and they seem to love
> each other to bits. How he got there I'm not entirely sure, for a
> long time I had a brother who couldn't pull and the next thing I know
> he's getting married. I think though he just stopped caring and did
> like you say. Like when you've lost your hash, you usually find it
> when you stop looking and do something else.
Yep, but Ben thinks too much to ever do that, and there lies the imutable
truth in his life. Fucked.
>
> There was a girl in work tonight, regular customer, and an absolutely
> lovely lass. Beautiful as well, at least I think so. Mid-twenties
> maybe. I've quite a crush on her. Now, for the first four years that
> I worked there, she used to come in on crutches, but it seemed to
> become a struggle for a while and for the last six months she's been
> coming in a wheelchair. So, presumably, she has some sort of
> debilitating thing which just gets worse and worse, and given the
> timescale it's probably one of these things which medical science can
> currently slow down but not cure. I can't help wondering what comes
> after 'can't walk at all'. Does she lose the use of her hands? Is
> she going to die well young?
>
How would you handle death? How would you handle knowing the approximate
time of your death? Imagine if you'd had the 3 months diagnosis from the
doctor so you knew that 2006 was it for you, that Euro 2008 was an
international comp too far, that Paul C might even outlive you? My friend
Claire was brave as fuck but she wouldn't broach the subject, even when
it was staring us all in her steroids ridden face. I'd go weeping like a
big arsed baby I suppse.
> That sort of thing makes me happy. Not because I wish harm on anyone,
> but because it's something that reminds me just how much shit I've
> dodged in this life.
>
Heh, Nunn's dodged some too but he can't seem to see it.
> Fucking hell, I think all that actually means I agree with you after
> all. Cunt.
>
And I you, so that makes us even.
Cunt.
--
Cheers, Os
Sir Benjamin Nunn
>
>> > Why would you hate her?
>>
>> Her actions caused me to feel pain?
>
> Because you think she's so great. So you'd be hating her for being so
> great, which doesn't make much sense.
DWTWP. Magnitude is necessary to inspire strong emotion, be it love or hate.
I'm fairly comfortable with my hatred, as I am with my love, tbh. Either is
better than teh rubbishcunt indifferens.
But it's a moot point because I don't hate her, and probably never will.
> Again, I can't understand where hatred comes into it though, of yourself
> or
> her. I could only hate someone for doing things I thought were really,
> _really_ bad, because in order to hate them I'd have to think they were
> utterly shit. I don't think I hate anyone anyway, life's too short and so
> am I.
I'm a passionate person, and I can't always control that.
In real life, you did strike me as somewhat emotionally detached, tbh, even
more than I anticipated.
Emotional detachment is not a bad thing. It probably gets you way more in
the way of success, but the downside is that you won't appreciate them as
much.
The key to me becoming a profitable poker player was to detach myself from
the bad beats, avoid tilting, and play robotically 99% of the time. This has
earned me money, and made me care less about losing big pots when my
opponent made an incorrect decision and got lucky, but it's also made the
game almost completely passionless, and killed my enjoyment.
I don't know - maybe it's impossible to have what I want - which is to have
my needs met, and feel love in my life while still caring passionately about
it.
>> You'd think it would get easier, after all I've been in these situations
>> several times throughout the last ten years (in fact, I've never been in
> any
>> other sort of situation as far as relationships with women are concerned,
>> unless you count the whore-punter relationship).
>
> Again, where I'm probably different to most is that I'd consider your
> interactions with every woman you ever met as relationships of one sort or
> another. They just haven't involved teh sex.
Teh Sex isn't even that important to me. I have a usenet reputation for
being some depraved, kinky weirdo, which isn't particularly true.
As I've mentioned before, I have a somewhat low sex drive. Quality is way
higher up my priority list than quantity, and I'd probably never have
developed most of my kinks if I'd been having regular vanilla sex in a
mainstream relationship anyway.
Years of being single gave me a lot of time on my hands, and it's boredom
and the quest for new experience that led me to gheylove, buttplugs, and
shooting electrical charges through my prostate'n'shit.
>> It sounds like it, although your life also exhibits qualities of the
> master
>> Pick Up Artists, who also shun mainstream relationships, in favour of
>> multiple women who are all cool with it.
>
> Heh. Aside from this being a massive exaggeration (I'm not a pick-up
> artist
> at all, and have slept with just seven women in the last seven years - one
> a
> year on average. Hardly a short wiry Don Juan, now, am I), does it not
> also
> sit rather uncomfortably with the Dating Gurus? I mean, I'm honest,
> kind-hearted, I don't treat to women with the indifferens, and I've no
> problems talking about my feelings. By your logic I should be out in the
> cold, ruled out forever at least once in the first few minutes of knowing
> anyone.
I reckon you should start promoting the Horowitz method. Seriously.
> The fact is, though, I do actually give a shit about you, Ben, probably
> more
> than you'd think. I'm very fond of you, especially now I've met you, and
> would love to see you get some hot sex action or even a conventional
> relationship. If I see these cunts have been saying stuff to you which,
> rightly or wrongly, I believe to be bollocks, I'm going to say so. I
> could
> be wrong about everything, of course, as anyone could, but it's not in my
> nature to worry too much about that. I'm just saying what I think.
> Besides, I like typing.
OK. I do appreciate your shitgiving. Really.
>> Ultimately I have a very subjective reality, but if I didn't give new
> things
>> a chance, I'd go crazy. If I had to accept that it was all futile and
>> that
>> I'll never find love, I'm not sure i'd want to live.
>
> AWTWP. I like your ability to give new things a chance, it's one of your
> most attractive qualities.
But, for me, one of the most frustrating.
> DWTWP. I asked you, essentially, how it would feel if you knew your
> actions, in attempting to find happiness, had made someone else you loved
> miserable in a way you could only have avoided by giving up your chance of
> happiness. The specific details were arbitrary. You love people. You
> can
> imagine wanting something. You can imagine someone you love being
> miserable. You can imagine that being shit. You can imagine all the
> rest,
> I'm sure you can. Maybe not to the extent that you can imagine getting
> fisted, but some.
Tbh, I really can't visualize myself being happier than anyone I love. I
just can't.
I only see myself at the bottom of the pile, trying desperately to improve
things.
The closest I can get to this emotional state is when I was about seven and
my parents split up and then my dad was apparently dying in hospital, and my
mum was really unhappy, and she was stressing about our financial problems,
and I said she could stop giving me pocket money if it would help.
>> Much as I despise the dating guru culture, they have, at least, given me
>> practical tips and exercises that I can use to try and better my life.
>
> Have you ever seen 'Magnolia'? If yes, thoughts? If no, please see.
> Then,
> thoughts? I ask because Tom Cruise, in the only performance of his I've
> _ever_ enjoyed, plays a dating guru. His catchphrase is:
>
> "Respect the cock!11!.... TAME the CUNT!1!1one!1alphamale!11".
>
> It's funny. Well, you might not laugh but I did.
Yeah. See, I didn't laugh, I just thought about how tragically accurate it
probably was.
The irony is that in a lot of ways I can be extremely selfish, just selfish
in a different sort of way from T.J. Cuntflaps or whatever the character was
called.
>> Do you have any real-world advice based on your differing experiences?
>
> Yeah, fucking loads. I've been attempting to give you the benefit of what
> tiny monged wisdom I might have for three years now, you've never
> appreciated it and you probably never will but I'm sure I'll keep going
> anyway because I like typing and this subject interests me. Just don't
> make
> out like I haven't tried, when you haven't even had to pay subscription
> fees
> for _my_ bullshit.
Maybe you should've charged a fee, tbh.
>> Give me the tips based on your own observations then. I'm waiting
>> eagerly.
>
> Heh. That's nice, these self-appointed Dating Gurus who know you no
> better
> than Strawberry and that Wigan fan get oodles of your hard-earned cash,
> and
> for all you fucking know they can't get laid either, and I don't even get
> asked nicely?
GPWM. I deserved that.
> Regardless of your poor manners and your probably negative disposition
> towards whatever I say next, here goes yet more of the best I can do for
> you, although <disclaimer> please bear in mind that I have at no point
> appointed myself as 'dating guru' or taken your money or anything, and do
> not consider my opinions to be worth any more to you than any other.....
>
> 1) Lose weight, lots of weight. Fat blokes get laid as well of course,
> but
> I think that by being a big fat bastard you do decrease the odds a bit,
> especially in a small pool like Ipswich. One thing that is true of most
> women and men is that they like to feel physically attracted to
> prospective
> partners, and don't feel attracted to very fat men, this may not be
> something you can understand but it's clearly something you have to live
> with so you can keep bemoaning it's unfairness, however justly, or just
> make
> the fucking best of it. You say you're on a ski-machine, I think that's
> fucking great. Sincerely. Absolutely top marks from me on that one.
OK. You're in agreement with the Dating Gurus so far. 'Get in shape' is one
of the things they say from time to time, hence the purchase of the
ski-machine thing.
Self-improvement'n'shit, right? I'm doing it. Not sure it'll work, but I'm
giving it a go.
However, I'm not sure I could ever love 100% a woman who would make a
decision on whether she wanted to be with me solely based on my size. At the
back of my mind, the shallowness would bug me, in the same way that people
who only go for blondes, or for short women, or for black men etc. makes me
feel really uncomfortable.
> 2) Think about leaving Ipswich forever - it might just be the way you
> tell
> 'em, but you do make it sound like the least enlightened place on Earth
> and
> one where chav culture truly dominates in a way it does in nowhere I've
> ever
> been. Might be holding you back.
Ah, yes, move to a new town. As recommended by Steve P, Dr. Paul and David
D.
Leaving my job (and therefore Ipswich) is very much on the plan for 2006, as
a solution to having to face GIL every day.
I probably make Ipswich sound worse than it is. It's not as bad as Leeds,
for example.
> 3) Be more positive in general, about _everything_. I found your company
> stimulating, challenging and generally a Good Thing, I was impressed by
> you
> in many ways and always have been. However, I did also find you
> drainingly
> negative. I do think most girls are more horny when they're happy and
> having 'fun', so constantly being told how shit everything is, and why, is
> perhaps not condusive to free-flowing chickjuices. So, for instance, when
> a
> girl asks you what you thought of a film, start by saying what you _liked_
> about it, the bits that were okay-ish, then work your way onto where it
> could have been better. It's no good just continually pointing out how
> things don't match your ridiculously high expectations of just how good
> stuff _could_ be, think more about how it sits in relation to the majority
> of dross that's around. It's still the truth, still total honesty, just
> approached from a slightly different angle.
Heh. Strike 3. Joe's in agreement with the Dating Gurus again.
This is the most difficult thing, and my 'drainingly negative' tendancies
have been noted by a previous GIL during a 'that conversation'.
I try to do it, really I do. But it all comes out so false. I use words like
'fantastic' and 'wonderful' and 'spectacular' (not followed by 'failure').
Every time, they come out sounding cynical.
I need to do work on my positivism. Good call.
Heh. I actually didn't have _that_ bad a time in Bristol by my standards. I
wasn't on particularly inspired form, admittedly, but I've been worse.
See, that worries me, because I know you're not that bothered about this
sort of thing, and if my presence affected you in that way, then Fuck Knows
what effect I have on others who do get sensitive to this. Like GIL.
Shit, how do I change this stuff, Joe?
> 4) Don't think of women as the opposition who can beat you 4-0 at
> halftime
> just by not falling in love with you. Everything you think about people
> comes out subtly when you interact with them, if you think someone's great
> they should be able to pick up on this with a little effort. Similarly,
> if
> you think they're a cunt you can only hide it so well. So if you're
> looking
> at women as the opposition, and relationships with them as something in
> which there is a 'clear winner and loser' then I really don't think that's
> going to endear you to them sexually in the long run. Think of all but
> the
> most very specialest of women as being blokes with tits, and interact with
> them as you would any other guy. If you revere them they can smell your
> fear.
Man, you're got this dating guru stuff down perfectly. Almost word for word
from the 'Deep Inner Game' programme, this is.
I don't doubt this, but I'm not sure how to change my mind about this.
Possibly hypnosis?
> 5) Stop fucking trying so fucking hard, your ouvert desperation is
> probably
> a bit scary for women. I'd have been overwhelmed by someone doing all the
> stuff for me you had planned for this chick, it would all just be too much
> and I'd feel a little intimidated and pressurised by it all. People want
> to
> give what they take, so giving someone too much can make them feel
> inadequate or rushed. It's a fucking tough irony of life, this, but we
> really do more often find things when we relax and stop looking so hard
> for
> them, something to do with receptive cognition or somesuch I shouldn't
> wonder, psychologists probably have a fancy name for it like that. So,
> Osbourne's web about giving up on the whole bloody thing is probably,
> ironically, the only one which might actually end up with you getting
> loved'n'laid after all.
OK, that's five out of five things that you've said which - despite your
opinions on them - have been key components of pretty much all the Dating
Guru methods out there.
It's another one where I'm not sure exactly what practical steps I can
take - a BOA, if you will.
> Yeah, and they can rule you back in again. Seriously. This 'they know
> after six seconds' stuff is, IMO, just some bollocks from a women's
> magazine
> which caught on a few years ago and is in danger of becoming mainstream
> thinking, presumably dreamed up to make teenage girls feel even more
> fucking
> empowered than they already are or someshit. I seriously doubt most of
> the
> girls who've slept with me over the years ever thought they would when
> they
> met me, I just don't have that sort of appeal. I know girls who've slept
> with blokes they thought they'd never sleep with, because something
> they've
> found out or got to know about them has led them to look at him in a
> different light.
If true, this is massively reassuring.
> You're always saying nasty things about them in this group. Women are
> this,
> they're that, they only want such-and-such despite what they say,
> therefore
> they're all liars as well, they prefer blokes who knock them about, blah
> blah blah blah blah fucking blah. If I was a girl, and I read all your
> woman-related posts in this froup, I wouldn't even want to be your friend
> because I'd feel like you hated me unless I slept with you.
Heh. Maybe they've all been reading UKSF all along.
I should stop posting to the froup and then I'll get a deep and fulfilling
relationship. Maybe.
>> I do, however, despise and resent the world in which they don't love me
>> in
>> the way that I love them. If that makes sense.
>
> Yeah, I don't mind your comments on 'the world', I've no problem with
> those.
> I was talking about your comments on 'women', though, which are generally
> negative and paint them in a poor light of shallowness and cruelty. They
> really do. GYL is of course wonderful and special, but women are shit.
> Yet she's a woman, therefore she's shit. She'd rather a bloke who knocked
> her about. She might say she appreciates honesty and sensitivity but
> she's
> lying cynicallly and really just wants a chavcunt. GYL, despite what
> Hollywood films might have us believe, is not actually compassionate and
> caring or whatever. Etc. Am I making any sense at all? This wouldn't be
> a
> good impression to project to her.
GPWM, although, why would women want to even be 'friends' with me if I
projected so much misogynistic bile?
Every time I meet a new woman who I care about, I give her the benefit of
the doubt that she's not like all the things you said.
I hate men more.
> Yep, this is a massive improvement on 'I wasn't impressed', it's far more
> the sort of thing to get an enjoyable conversation going with a girl.
> Just
> a shame you started with the blunt 'I wasn't impressed', I'm already
> predisposed against this conversation now and uninclined to discuss how
> Dollhouse could have gone deeper and darker before jumping into bed with
> you. I've no heart for the chat, all the fun was knocked out of it at 'I
> wasn't impressed'. Let's talk about something else.
Heh. Cunt.
> You see how that works?
No. I genuinely don't 'get it'. It all seems too much like trying to
psychologically manipulate people with the way in which you say things, and
the words you use, tbh. And the idea that some opinions are more valid than
others. I find it all dishonest social cuntwank.
> Also, is it lovemaking time yet? We must be due some.
No. No, not yet.
BTN
Allen Parkes
<Cookular snip>
Right, I don't which of the 400-line long messages to post this in, so I'm
just intersecting here and you can all move over to make room for me. Yes,
I know my arse is fat, just fucking move over.
Reading through this thread with all the
Joe's-not-a-PUA-but-here's-his-advice stuff, and Ben's rebuttal that the
principles preached were those of the dating gurus anyway, I got thinking.
Psychologists almost universally agree that there are four stages of
learning: unconscious incompetence (you're a rubbishcunt but you don't know
better), conscious incompetence (you've seen better but you're still
rubbish), conscious competence (you're learning to do better but it's an
effort), and unconscious competence (you're so good you don't even think
about what you're doing anymore).
And there are also schools of thought to which I've alluded previously, that
propose there are 'critical leanring periods' during a person's
psychological development. These CLPs variously exist during childhood and
puberty, for example it's much easier for a baby to learn languages than it
is for an adult, as the CLP for linguistic development is a much younger age
than adulthood. I know kids who speak three languages fluently whilst I
make do with one and odds n'sods of others.
So, what if the reason the Joes and the Osbournes of this thread pour scorn
upon Ben's dating material is because they underwent the four stages of
learning how to deal with women during the CLP, i.e. puberty? I'd hazard a
guess that the majority of people do this, they learn about relationships
and what to say and what not to do during their teenage years, and as I've
said before, the Parkeses and the Nunns who missed this period will continue
to struggle. That's not set in stone forever of course, since change is
always possible, just much harder, later in life.
But when Ben talks about 'being a cunt' to attract women, it's because the
material he's been reading (as have I, incidentally) talks about adopting a
conscious mindset of indifference, etc., in order to down play the
exaggerated importance that would otherwise be evident as a form of
desperation. You've seen in this thread alone how important this one girl
became to Ben, and I know first hand how when you allow something like that
to dominate your thinking, it becomes the most important thing in the world
and you couldn't possibly stand to make a mistake. This has to come through
in your body language, tone of voice, etc. when talking to the girl and ergo
she thinks you're desperate and that is unattractive.
Now, to Ben and I, this seems like 'being cunty' - deliberately going out of
your way to not be 'nice' in the way that he or I would normally. To Joe
and Os, I wager, the notion of being a cunt is ludicrous in those
circumstances - because the elements of cuntiness required are minimal and
they will have learned to use them back in puberty when they first got into
girls, in the CLP. To Ben and I, this is something different than our usual
mentality, it's a Conscious Construct of Cuntiness. To Joe and Os, it's not
cunty at all. It's just ribbing a girl about her hair to make her laugh,
etc., and is normal flirting to the well-adjusted.
Just a bit of a brainfart from me, but I think it could explain a lot. When
the Dats and the Oses weigh in with commentary such as "drop all this guru
stuff and be yourself," it's because for them at least, yourself is someone
who knows how to talk to women and deal with women rationally and naturally.
But to Ben or me, it's a terrible idea, as being yourself is what we've done
so far and it's gotten us almost nowhere. Neuro-Linguistic Programming
experts like to say, "if you always do what you've always done, you'll
always get what you've always got," and in this case it makes sense to me.
FWIW, I think Ben should continue to try out the PUA material, but the
problem is as Os put it, the Eeyore Mentality. I think deep down Ben's
willingness to change is limited by his desire to remain such a unique
individual and not conform to the masses in any way, shape or form - and
that only by truly discovering a will to change will any results be yielded.
It's easy to dismiss professionally-sold dating advice seeing as how it's
ultimately a profit-making endeavour on someone's part and the more
well-adjusted among you will think it's bogus compared to 'being yourself'.
But I maintain that those of us who have found that 'yourself' is hopelessly
incompetent would do well from consciously adopting the CCC and related
attitudes since, over time, it will help us to learn what works and what
doesn't and overcome the abject fear of rejection, or indeed of women
themselves.
--
Al
"i like chelsea.
Are you?"
- Mr Bean, Dec 2005
Sir Benjamin Nunn
>> The problem here is that with a few exceptions - like your fortunate
>> self, apparently - society puts peoples interactions into little boxes
>> and encourages people to categorise in the same way.
>
> This is all bollocks Ben. Society doesn't do shit. Most cunts who attempt
> to 'conform' to the women's mag's idea of life end up fucking out anyway.
What's this based on?
Like it or not, society exists and will enforce its worldview on gays,
paedophiles, depressives and anyone else who doesn't fit in.
>> Why should there be a 'friends' box and a 'relationship' box? Why
>> should the fact that I want a more intimate relationship with GIL mean
>> that I'm not a friend? etc.
>
> Look in the mirror big boy, I'd say any uncomfortableness in your
> situation now is eminating from you. Chances are that GYL would love to
> go back to just having you as a friend.
She'd love to go back to a situation where I'd go home and cry after
spending time with her?
That's a great advert for women right there, Os.
> I'm no pickup artist, just about all the relationships I've had with
> women have come about after long friendships. I was mates with Mrs R for
> 18 months before we got together. I suspect if I'd been all over her
> eminating relationship vibes from day one that would never have happened.
> An easy-going, close friendship is a great starting point for a
> relationship. But I have a heap of those with women that I've only ever
> been friends with and would never think of having a relationship with.
Good for you. OTOH, I've had a heap of women who I've only ever been friends
with and who would never think of having a relationship with me.
The irony is that I tried /not/ to eminate relationship vibes, even
recently. I liked to plan a lot of shit for the future, but as I've
discussed here in the past, I'm not even that confident at touching and
kissing'n'shit.
> You come across on here as a bit uptight and desperate, it's kind of
> scary to watch and I can only imagine what it eminates out to the G'sYL.
AWTWP. It's scary to be like this as well. Absolutely fucking terrifying.
My atypical and unbalanced past (as I perceive it) is effecting me all the
time, and only by having 'normal' experiences, can I overcome it, but the
question for normal experience leads to desperation (as others perceive it).
> There is no solution for you really, unless you can just put all this
> 'society is against me for being different' shit out of your mind, relax,
> and just enjoy what relationships you do have with women. Yes, a
> friendship is a relationship, but you seem to put so much value on one
> kind and so little on the other. Or that's the way it comes across at
> least.
It comes across that way because I've spent my entire life having the
'other' kind of relationship - e.g. friendship.
And every time it's all been very one-sided and frustrating, from my
perspective because I haven't had the sexual relationships to bring balance
to my life.
I sometimes wonder why women would want to be friends with me, when so much
of what they expect me to do as part of the friendship (hearing about their
boyfriends etc.) brings me pain. Can anybody explain that?
> Or just be ghey.
Tried it for a few years. Good sex. Learned a lot. Unfulfilled. Cried every
time I sucked some guys cock in a sauna while he talked about how he enjoyed
the secrecy, and was going home to his family afterwards.
>> In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think my gayness has
>> influenced me in a way that is unhelpful to forming relationships with
>> women.
>
> You think?
Yes. I spend time listening to womens problems and frustrations and being
sympathetic and empathic'n'shit.
All the while, my own frustrations just build up, and I have to use outlets
such as the froup to let them all out.
> I also think the changes of achieving that 'click' get harder as we get
> older. As an adult, I've come to the conclusion that several people I
> know will never be happy. I have no inclination to fix them because it
> wouldn't work. If it could work, I'd move heaven and earth to help them,
> but it won't. The best that can happen for these people is that they
> learn to get by and occasionally have better days. It's sad but that's
> the way it is for them.
>
> From what I've heard from the froup from you, that is the way it is for
> you with relationships. It probably will never happen, there's no silver
> bullet, you might die never having had a relationship with a woman. Learn
> to get by, stop looking for silver bullets, learn to appreciate what
> you've got now with women. If you can do that, you might have better
> days, if you can't, life will continue to be miserable.
That, right there, is darker and more depressing than any of the bleakest
shit I've ever posted here.
BTN
Sir Benjamin Nunn
"Allen Parkes" <forename...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:40frbfF...@individual.net...
> Psychologists almost universally agree that there are four stages of
> learning: unconscious incompetence (you're a rubbishcunt but you don't
> know better), conscious incompetence (you've seen better but you're still
> rubbish), conscious competence (you're learning to do better but it's an
> effort), and unconscious competence (you're so good you don't even think
> about what you're doing anymore).
> And there are also schools of thought to which I've alluded previously,
> that propose there are 'critical leanring periods' during a person's
> psychological development. These CLPs variously exist during childhood
> and puberty, for example it's much easier for a baby to learn languages
> than it is for an adult, as the CLP for linguistic development is a much
> younger age than adulthood. I know kids who speak three languages
> fluently whilst I make do with one and odds n'sods of others.
Yeah, but these concepts obviously can't be applied to the ability to form
relationships with women, right?
Heh.
> So, what if the reason the Joes and the Osbournes of this thread pour
> scorn upon Ben's dating material is because they underwent the four stages
> of learning how to deal with women during the CLP, i.e. puberty? I'd
> hazard a guess that the majority of people do this, they learn about
> relationships and what to say and what not to do during their teenage
> years, and as I've said before, the Parkeses and the Nunns who missed this
> period will continue to struggle. That's not set in stone forever of
> course, since change is always possible, just much harder, later in life.
Al, this is beautifully insightful.
I'm all-too-aware that I missed out on this learning period, for various
reasons including but not limited to:
1. Ambiguity over my own sexuality.
2. Involvement in sexual situations as a pre-teen by-passing the notion of
romance, and therefore screwing up the ordering of events as I felt I needed
to engage in them. (Desires challenged too early, perhaps).
3. An overall lack of mainstream socialisation at this stage of my life (I
was always a loner, and then later, part of the gangs of misfits, rather
than generically popular).
4. A moral code that made me want to reject what everyone else was doing
(stuff that I thought sad and rubbish which retroactively turned out to be
instrumental in early courtship ritual) and my consequent looking down on
them.
> But when Ben talks about 'being a cunt' to attract women, it's because the
> material he's been reading (as have I, incidentally) talks about adopting
> a conscious mindset of indifference, etc., in order to down play the
> exaggerated importance that would otherwise be evident as a form of
> desperation. You've seen in this thread alone how important this one girl
> became to Ben, and I know first hand how when you allow something like
> that to dominate your thinking, it becomes the most important thing in the
> world and you couldn't possibly stand to make a mistake. This has to come
> through in your body language, tone of voice, etc. when talking to the
> girl and ergo she thinks you're desperate and that is unattractive.
Totally AWTWP. This expresses a lot of what I've been saying in a refreshing
new way.
> Now, to Ben and I, this seems like 'being cunty' - deliberately going out
> of your way to not be 'nice' in the way that he or I would normally. To
> Joe and Os, I wager, the notion of being a cunt is ludicrous in those
> circumstances - because the elements of cuntiness required are minimal and
> they will have learned to use them back in puberty when they first got
> into girls, in the CLP. To Ben and I, this is something different than
> our usual mentality, it's a Conscious Construct of Cuntiness. To Joe and
> Os, it's not cunty at all. It's just ribbing a girl about her hair to
> make her laugh, etc., and is normal flirting to the well-adjusted.
I'm convinced you are on to something big here.
And in many ways these things seem 'cunty' precisely *because* they work so
effortlessly for other people and not for us.
Sometimes, simply being a certain type of person makes you a cunt in the
eyes of someone else. When hear some guy tell me about his relationship, I
instinctively think 'cunt'.
I've got a friend who's political views are somewhat different from mine. He
hates rich people. The nicest bloke in the world can show some small sign of
wealth, and Trevor will think 'fucking rich cunt'. That's just his Socialist
way.
Jealousy? Yes, in my case it certainly is. Do I want to learn from these
cunts? Yes. Would I like to become more of a cunt? Yes.
> Just a bit of a brainfart from me, but I think it could explain a lot.
> When the Dats and the Oses weigh in with commentary such as "drop all this
> guru stuff and be yourself," it's because for them at least, yourself is
> someone who knows how to talk to women and deal with women rationally and
> naturally. But to Ben or me, it's a terrible idea, as being yourself is
> what we've done so far and it's gotten us almost nowhere.
> Neuro-Linguistic Programming experts like to say, "if you always do what
> you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got," and in this
> case it makes sense to me.
As you know, I'm scepitcal of how much NLP can help me, but the principle is
good.
One thing I do accept is that carrying on as I am is probably not a recipe
for success.
> FWIW, I think Ben should continue to try out the PUA material, but the
> problem is as Os put it, the Eeyore Mentality. I think deep down Ben's
> willingness to change is limited by his desire to remain such a unique
> individual and not conform to the masses in any way, shape or form - and
> that only by truly discovering a will to change will any results be
> yielded.
> It's easy to dismiss professionally-sold dating advice seeing as how it's
> ultimately a profit-making endeavour on someone's part and the more
> well-adjusted among you will think it's bogus compared to 'being
> yourself'. But I maintain that those of us who have found that 'yourself'
> is hopelessly incompetent would do well from consciously adopting the CCC
> and related attitudes since, over time, it will help us to learn what
> works and what doesn't and overcome the abject fear of rejection, or
> indeed of women themselves.
You're almost certainly right about my deep desire not to lose my
individuality. Much as I strive to improve myself and change myself (and
invest almost all of my spare time trying to achieve this) it may be that
there are internal forces holding me back.
This is a classic BOA. If I could subconsciously surrender my uniqueness
tomorrow, and not care about it, I'd do it. Fuck, I'm really trying hard to
do it consciously.
BTN
Sir Benjamin Nunn
"Joe Horowitz" <joeundersc...@youblunder.cunts.youghey> wrote in
>
> AWTWP. You know, Osbourne, I think I love you sometimes. Real love, like
> Ben loves GHL. I wish I was teh ghey, and you were teh ghey, and we lived
> in the same city and had teh ghey love. Life would all be so much easier.
Yes, yes, and then I could join in all teh ghey love...
Oh, I see. *flounces off*
>> From what I've heard from the froup from you, that is the way it is for
>> you with relationships. It probably will never happen, there's no silver
>> bullet, you might die never having had a relationship with a woman. Learn
>> to get by, stop looking for silver bullets, learn to appreciate what
>> you've got now with women. If you can do that, you might have better
>> days, if you can't, life will continue to be miserable.
>
> Sort of DWTWP actually, it's certainly probably just about the most
> helpful
> thing anyone's ever said to Ben, but I rather dislike the idea that your
> life is fully-formed at 27 or whatever Ben is. I think I developed as
> much
> between the ages of 25 and 30 as I did any other time of my life, and I
> also
> know at certain times in my life there have been radical shifts in
> outlook,
> philosophy and perception, of myself and the outside world. I was a happy
> young child, but utterly miserable as a teenager, and flirted with
> dangerous
> addictions and the suchlike. Life was good from 21-24, then it turned to
> total and utter shit for two or three years, by 27 it was back on track
> again and the last five years have rocked.
I'm 28 and two thirds.
Joe, I appreciate your Demosthenean optimism here in the face of Ruddock's
desperately defeatest pessimism.
Who knows what the future might bring: Potentially anything could happen in
my future, including things that I really, really want.
It's hard for me to say this with the way I'm feeling at the moment but:
Life is better now than it was, say, six or seven years ago.
I'm not unhappy with some aspects of my life, and have also gone through
some times that were better than others. However, I think it's fair to say
that I've never been fulfilled in a relationship sense since I was a
teenager (the possible exception being the period a few years ago when I
tried seriously to be gay).
It's true that sometimes other things mattered more, and I've probably only
noticed my acute loneliness in the last three years, because for the first
time in my life I've had real job security and therefore no financial
worries.
In my late teens and early 20s I built up an impressive array of debts
(which still affect my credit rating to this day, even though everything is
paid off) and got into some serious financial trouble. I spent every minute
dreading calls from some creditors, and along with my brothers drug
addiction and the resultant family stresses, these were the big strains on
my life.
The fact that I'm now *noticing* my lack of a relationship means that I've
improved things in other areas, and for that reason I'll always keep the
faith.
> I don't think I ever knew true happiness and contentment, though, until
> after the 'turned to shit' part. I actually live quite a modest life on
> the
> whole, on a modest income, nothing about it is particularly remarkable
> apart
> from possibly my sex life which has been quite unconventional. My
> happiness, I guess, comes from an ability to truly appreciate every single
> thing that I have, and every thing I don't have to put up with, because I
> can still remember a time when I had pretty much nothing save for a few
> hundred great records and a Mother who loved me from a long way away.
AWTWP.
I have a lot to be thankful for, in a lot of ways, and I never let myself
forget it.
Does it make me feel any less alone at night? Nope.
> Mind you, and I've mentioned this to Ben before, my Brother didn't really
> have any more luck with chicks than Ben does until he met his current wife
> at the age of thirty, who would appear to be the 'silver bullet' of which
> you speak. His wife rocks, and they seem to love each other to bits. How
> he got there I'm not entirely sure, for a long time I had a brother who
> couldn't pull and the next thing I know he's getting married. I think
> though
> he just stopped caring and did like you say. Like when you've lost your
> hash, you usually find it when you stop looking and do something else.
Inspirational stuff.
> There was a girl in work tonight, regular customer, and an absolutely
> lovely
> lass. Beautiful as well, at least I think so. Mid-twenties maybe. I've
> quite a crush on her. Now, for the first four years that I worked there,
> she used to come in on crutches, but it seemed to become a struggle for a
> while and for the last six months she's been coming in a wheelchair. So,
> presumably, she has some sort of debilitating thing which just gets worse
> and worse, and given the timescale it's probably one of these things which
> medical science can currently slow down but not cure. I can't help
> wondering what comes after 'can't walk at all'. Does she lose the use of
> her hands? Is she going to die well young?
Why don't you wonder if she'd consider going out with Ben Nunn?
Selfish, Nunnxclusive cunt.
> That sort of thing makes me happy. Not because I wish harm on anyone, but
> because it's something that reminds me just how much shit I've dodged in
> this life.
>
> Fucking hell, I think all that actually means I agree with you after all.
> Cunt.
>
> Just fuck off.
I can't help but wonder if Os telling me that I'll definitely never have a
relationship is just a trick so I'll stop wanting one, and therefore comes
across as less desperate, and then I actually get one by not wanting it.
Cunt.
It's this sort of inherent dishonesty in human nature that I fucking hate,
but which may be beneficial. 4 Strokes Argument etc.
BTN
Dat
wrote:
>How would you handle death? How would you handle knowing the approximate
>time of your death?
That would be great. You'd be able to sort out all your shit, say all
the things you needed to to those that mattered, possibly visit
somewhere you always meant to but life and planning for the
future'n'shit prevented. You'd have time to blow every cent you ever
made doing whatever makes you happy, and with a bit of careful
planning ensure that you expired just as the funds ran out. Or, if you
had dependents or a loved one that was going to need assistance, you
could make sure that was covered as best you could.
What would really rock would be to have an inbuilt self termination
thingy that you knew about. Then you could drag yourself off to some
long forgotten corner of existence and not trouble anyone else.
Alternatively, if it caused you to explode, you could do everything
possible to be close to someone that needed to be removed from the
face of the planet when it happened.
>Imagine if you'd had the 3 months diagnosis from the
>doctor so you knew that 2006 was it for you, that Euro 2008 was an
>international comp too far, that Paul C might even outlive you?
If it were a deteriorating thing instead of a one minute everything is
rosy, the next you're dead, I'd probably do my best to accomplish as
much of the above as possible and then top myself while I still had
enough control to do so.
I'd make sure I thanked Paul for all his hard work in keeping our
interest up with his wonderful comps first though.
>My friend
>Claire was brave as fuck but she wouldn't broach the subject, even when
>it was staring us all in her steroids ridden face. I'd go weeping like a
>big arsed baby I suppse.
No you wouldn't. You love your family too much to put them through
that. You'd put on your happy face and tell them everything will be
alright....possibly even make passing reference to a next life whether
you believe in one or not, for their sake.
Perhaps Claire was doing the same? Maybe being aware of what little
time she had, she elected not to waste any of it on discussing
something she couldn't change. Possibly she knew you well enough to
make an educated guess at the big cry baby it would release and found
the idea of that more distressing than what she already had awaiting
her. She may have been attempting to banish death with positiveness
and mentioning its existence would have broken the spell.
Who knows? It was her choice.
--
Dat
Dat
<forename...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>Psychologists almost universally agree that there are four stages of
>learning: unconscious incompetence (you're a rubbishcunt but you don't know
>better), conscious incompetence (you've seen better but you're still
>rubbish), conscious competence (you're learning to do better but it's an
>effort), and unconscious competence (you're so good you don't even think
>about what you're doing anymore).
Typical. You've forgotten about me too. This is becoming a trend with
management.
I'm an unconscious consciousness. I've no idea where I am, where I
should be, or what I should be doing. Fortunately I don't spend a lot
of time worrying about such weighty matters.
I like yellow roses.
>And there are also schools of thought to which I've alluded previously, that
>propose there are 'critical leanring periods' during a person's
>psychological development. These CLPs variously exist during childhood and
>puberty, for example it's much easier for a baby to learn languages than it
>is for an adult, as the CLP for linguistic development is a much younger age
>than adulthood.
I think most would agree with this.
>So, what if the reason the Joes and the Osbournes of this thread pour scorn
>upon Ben's dating material is because they underwent the four stages of
>learning how to deal with women during the CLP, i.e. puberty? I'd hazard a
>guess that the majority of people do this, they learn about relationships
>and what to say and what not to do during their teenage years, and as I've
>said before, the Parkeses and the Nunns who missed this period will continue
>to struggle. That's not set in stone forever of course, since change is
>always possible, just much harder, later in life.
So, you can teach an old dog old tricks. Perfect. That should be
enough for Ben and yourself to get by with.
I won't attempt to speak for Joe or Os. Myself, I have difficulty
relating to Ben's need for a manual in the same way that I have
trouble understanding normal folk regularly consulting shrinks. I've
never felt so fucked up that I've ever felt the need (doesn't mean I'm
not).
Interacting with others is something that takes practice. Unlike
mechanical things, there doesn't seem to be a right way as such. It's
extremely variable and you have take responsibility for it yourself
rather than checking off items on someone elses list. Beyond the
obvious of being courteous, attempting to pay attention, avoiding
hurting people, etc, which I'm fairly certain we're all aware of, I
don't see how reading about it is any better preparation than diving
in and getting your hands dirty.
I'm a lousy conversationalist. I often say things that are totally
inappropriate, often unintentionally and sometimes because I get bored
with small talk I guess. I was a late developer as far as feeling the
need to mix with the "opposite sex" and I'm still no better at doing
so than I am with blokes.
In short, I'm not so sure I've even progressed much beyond your second
stage, yet I don't recall ever being desperate. Perhaps I've been
lucky. Maybe I've taken risks at opportune times. Who knows? Generally
I've just gone with the flow and not worried about it too much and if
something has popped up then that's been a bonus.
Tbh I quite enjoyed being single and carefree and never imagined
myself settling down to a long term compromise till death. I've never
wanted to produce mini mes though, so our reasons for doing so, or
wanting to do so may be quite different.
The problem with your web here is that it's very easy to fall into the
trap of believing that everyone else is a member of some secret club
and that they received all the answers during initiation. Let's call
this the NewbieView. Despite them not, it could become a comfortable
crutch, one that becomes more necessary the longer it is relied upon.
>But when Ben talks about 'being a cunt' to attract women, it's because the
>material he's been reading (as have I, incidentally) talks about adopting a
>conscious mindset of indifference, etc., in order to down play the
>exaggerated importance that would otherwise be evident as a form of
>desperation. You've seen in this thread alone how important this one girl
>became to Ben, and I know first hand how when you allow something like that
>to dominate your thinking, it becomes the most important thing in the world
>and you couldn't possibly stand to make a mistake. This has to come through
>in your body language, tone of voice, etc. when talking to the girl and ergo
>she thinks you're desperate and that is unattractive.
I'm all for putting your best foot forward but this appears to be
leaning towards being something you aren't, and that's worse than
appearing a little desperate.
I'm sure a lot of us feel much the same way about a new love, and that
refers to both parties. Nervousness, tongues being tied, inertia due
to uncertainty, etc are all parts of the process for anyone who
doesn't chop and change partners on a regular basis, or possess
mountains of self confidence, and a lack of it would seem unnatural to
me. In fact I'd probably read it as disinterest rather than feigned
indifference.
A little desperation doesn't necessarily have to be repulsive. It
could be viewed as a compliment so long as you aren't salivating and
fiddling in your pockets.
>Now, to Ben and I, this seems like 'being cunty' - deliberately going out of
>your way to not be 'nice' in the way that he or I would normally. To Joe
>and Os, I wager, the notion of being a cunt is ludicrous in those
>circumstances - because the elements of cuntiness required are minimal and
>they will have learned to use them back in puberty when they first got into
>girls, in the CLP. To Ben and I, this is something different than our usual
>mentality, it's a Conscious Construct of Cuntiness. To Joe and Os, it's not
>cunty at all. It's just ribbing a girl about her hair to make her laugh,
>etc., and is normal flirting to the well-adjusted.
If that's an example of what he's been referring to as cunty behaviour
then the word really has lost all meaning.
What you seem to be saying is that you and Ben are either much nicer
than everybody else, or that you have difficulty viewing women as
people...not just difficult to talk to, but untouchable objects. I
find the first hard to believe. I can sympathize with the second, a
bit, but it's something _you_ must overcome and no amount of boning up
beforehand is gonna get you through it. Actually it seems to be making
things worse.
I think this is what most people mean when they suggest being
yourself. You don't have difficulty taking the mickey out of your
mates, yourselves, or even strangers on the eweb, or being witty,
thoughtful, caring, etc, so if you were like that with the ladies they
might enjoy your company as much as we do. It wouldn't guarantee an
attraction but it'd be a start.
Rather than showing them the indifferens, the callous construct of
crap cuntiness, or fawning Gollum for that matter, work on Joe's line
of men with tits. They'll work out whether you're interested without
any great need for a plan of action to be followed step by step.
>Just a bit of a brainfart from me, but I think it could explain a lot. When
>the Dats and the Oses weigh in with commentary such as "drop all this guru
>stuff and be yourself," it's because for them at least, yourself is someone
>who knows how to talk to women and deal with women rationally and naturally.
>But to Ben or me, it's a terrible idea, as being yourself is what we've done
>so far and it's gotten us almost nowhere. Neuro-Linguistic Programming
>experts like to say, "if you always do what you've always done, you'll
>always get what you've always got," and in this case it makes sense to me.
All of what you're saying makes sense of a sort, but it's way too
simplistic in some respects and way too overthought in others.
I am rarely come across as rational and less so natural when
interacting with anybody bar one or two people in this world. I know
most of my faults (and believe me it's quite some list) and endeavour
to find ways of working around them.
The suggestions to be yourselves are because if we all manage to find
a lot to like about you, then it isn't so far fetched that some
womenfolk might too. We are afterall a big bunch of wet fuckers.
Further, most people aren't good enough actors to pull off being
someone else, and falseness is about the biggest turn off you could
find. You appear to be having enough difficulty being who you are. How
do you expect to successfully come across as another when you don't
even have that base to work from?
Joe again suggested you've got to stop thinking of women as "them". It
can be difficult, especially with someone you're infatuated with, but
being yourself, albeit with your best foot forward, combined with
treating women like regular people is about the best advice you're
going to get. Special people who are inclined to reciprocate won't
mind feeling like you think they're special.
>FWIW, I think Ben should continue to try out the PUA material, but the
>problem is as Os put it, the Eeyore Mentality. I think deep down Ben's
>willingness to change is limited by his desire to remain such a unique
>individual and not conform to the masses in any way, shape or form - and
>that only by truly discovering a will to change will any results be yielded.
Partly agree. He can't and shouldn't need to change who he is, the
core of Ben. That doesn't mean that he can't do things that might make
him more attractive to prospective partners.
Also, the chance of him bumping into someone who likes him precisely
the way he is, wouldn't change a hair on his head, isn't impossible.
It's just that where he is atm, mentally/physically(both), doesn't
seem to be conducive to that happening, so his choices are to continue
down your NLP path and hope, or mix things up a little and possibly
cast a bigger net.
>It's easy to dismiss professionally-sold dating advice seeing as how it's
>ultimately a profit-making endeavour on someone's part and the more
>well-adjusted among you will think it's bogus compared to 'being yourself'.
>But I maintain that those of us who have found that 'yourself' is hopelessly
>incompetent would do well from consciously adopting the CCC and related
>attitudes since, over time, it will help us to learn what works and what
>doesn't and overcome the abject fear of rejection, or indeed of women
>themselves.
Partly agree again. If you're lost, a map and a compass can prove most
useful. Unfortunately they alone cannot get you out of the shithole.
Eventually you must stand on your own two feet and walk the walk.
There are no rescue helicopters here.
What you're doing is better than just sitting on your arses. However I
still think you'd learn more by getting out there and making your own
mistakes than relying on what may have worked for someone else,
someone who may be nothing like you at all, who met and fell in love
with a psychowoman who's now got him locked in a dank dungeon churning
out 'I Love Me And So Does She' books in the hope that people coming
to call for autographs might be willing (or not, it doesn't matter) to
contribute to the skin coat she's sewing.
--
Dat
Osbourne Ruddock
> normally. To Joe and Os, I wager, the notion of being a cunt is
> ludicrous in those circumstances - because the elements of cuntiness
> required are minimal and they will have learned to use them back in
> puberty when they first got into girls, in the CLP. To Ben and I,
> this is something different than our usual mentality, it's a Conscious
> Construct of Cuntiness. To Joe and Os, it's not cunty at all. It's
> just ribbing a girl about her hair to make her laugh, etc., and is
> normal flirting to the well-adjusted.
Oh man, I'm starting to really like this thread now I seem to be
attaining a hitherto well-hidden Casanovacious quality. It's all
misguided of course as, and I've mentioned it several times, I was never
a brilliant pickup artist, just the same hapless tryer as 95% of the
other cunts out there. And I've been out of the game for nearly 20 years,
I'd be hopeless if I suddenly had to get out there romancing the ladies
again, terrible. But if I had to, it would undoubtedly start with simple
conversations with women. And I'm not talking about 'secret girl
science' conversations or special chat picked up from my mad loveskills
boxset, just general conversations, boring shit about work, books, movies
and stuff.
Actually, and I don't mean to be intemperate, there's a woman at work
right now who I'm reasonably certain I could boff at fairly short notice.
We don't work closely together, we get on really well, she tends to
gravitate towards me at work do's and likes to comment on my witty
cynicism etc... while drinking wine and leaning in fairly close. She's
left her husband in the last 12 months and she's pretty, arty, loves
books and naughty blokes. Because I'm not in the game it's all very
relaxed and I think she's great, no-sex flirty friendships can be really
nice.
Ahem, now where was I?
>
> Just a bit of a brainfart from me, but I think it could explain a lot.
> When the Dats and the Oses weigh in with commentary such as "drop all
> this guru stuff and be yourself," it's because for them at least,
> yourself is someone who knows how to talk to women and deal with women
I know what you mean Al, and I know guys who are very clever, a bit
nerdy, pretty cynical about a lot of stuff, really nice guys but they're
going to struggle to apply the happy face and go dating (and I think I'm
putting you into this category Al, even though I don't know you well,
obviously). We don't date in this country, you guys don't date either. We
go and see bands, get drunk, go to parties and sometimes shag. A couple
of these guys are just off the scale with the big brain thing and the
nerdiness so they'd be a bit frightening for a lot of women.
But a couple of them managed to get themselves into fantastic
relationships and one's now got a daughter. I should ask him how he did
it actually it might be useful. He was a Dr of Physics (uh oh), liked
'70s German experimental prog rock and classical, never washed, never
changed his clothes, never changed style (well not from the late '70s
when I first met him), loved farty real ale and single malt, was short
sighted and had a reasonable speech impediment that made him hard to
understand. His partner is an attractive woman of the same age with a
nice figure and short black hair. What is her thing? She's pretty intense
and likes super brains. I don't think I'm thick but I'm a total pleb
compared to this guy. They decked their daughter's baby room out in
surrealist and dadaist artworks and lived happily ever after.
He would've been on my list of never-relationships like Ben so my theory
is obviously a bit of a cock and should give Ben a small amount of hope.
Also, he was about 35 when they got together, also, they were friends for
a couple of years before they got together. Her previous bloke was a
professor who committed suicide by jumping off a cliff, true story.
>
> FWIW, I think Ben should continue to try out the PUA material, but the
> problem is as Os put it, the Eeyore Mentality. I think deep down
> Ben's willingness to change is limited by his desire to remain such a
> unique individual and not conform to the masses in any way, shape or
> form - and that only by truly discovering a will to change will any
> results be yielded. It's easy to dismiss professionally-sold dating
Ben seems to have a purity of vision that may lock out 90% of males and
females. It's seems to me that it would be easy for a nice woman to fall
out of favour with him because he has such high ideals about what is good
and what pisses him off. I'm not suggesting he has to give up and slum it
with chav's but maybe there are a wider range of people that he can find
good points in. Here's what I look for in a woman in prioriy order;
1. Kindness
2. Humour
3. Interest in books and/or movies or music that goes beyond the
mainstream
4. Looks nice
5. A bit naughty, not too straight
6. Other stuff, travel, food, wine etc...
It's specific but still leaves a lot of room to manoeuvre.
> advice seeing as how it's ultimately a profit-making endeavour on
> someone's part and the more well-adjusted among you will think it's
> bogus compared to 'being yourself'. But I maintain that those of us
> who have found that 'yourself' is hopelessly incompetent would do well
> from consciously adopting the CCC and related attitudes since, over
> time, it will help us to learn what works and what doesn't and
> overcome the abject fear of rejection, or indeed of women themselves.
It's a tough one, and I feel bad for you. Some of my most downer times
were when I was alone. I feel lucky and I wish I had a silver bullet
success guaranteed solution. Have you thought of drugs?
--
Cheers, Os
Vicky Conlan
>Actually, and I don't mean to be intemperate, there's a woman at work
>right now who I'm reasonably certain I could boff at fairly short notice.
>We don't work closely together, we get on really well, she tends to
>gravitate towards me at work do's and likes to comment on my witty
>cynicism etc... while drinking wine and leaning in fairly close. She's
>left her husband in the last 12 months and she's pretty, arty, loves
>books and naughty blokes. Because I'm not in the game it's all very
>relaxed and I think she's great, no-sex flirty friendships can be really
>nice.
Heh. I had one of those with Nick. And look where that got me.
>understand. His partner is an attractive woman of the same age with a
>nice figure and short black hair. What is her thing? She's pretty intense
>and likes super brains.
Apparently after my ex's parents met me they had some kind of "how the hell
does he always manage to get attractive* women?" conversation. Think it
turns out that we're relatively not-too-minging but also clinically insane.
Or something. But anyhow.
>He would've been on my list of never-relationships like Ben so my theory
>is obviously a bit of a cock and should give Ben a small amount of hope.
My ex should be one of those. Actually, that'll be my ex who apparently
I've told Ben reminds me of him, in some ways. Mostly the bitching and
whining, I think.
>Also, he was about 35 when they got together, also, they were friends for
>a couple of years before they got together. Her previous bloke was a
>professor who committed suicide by jumping off a cliff, true story.
... or was he pushed?
--
Caption Competition: http://sig.comps.org/caption/
Joe Horowitz
"Cypher" <cyp...@home.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e0d2adc3...@127.0.0.1...
> I was lying about needing a shit. The chill Polar winds may have hidden my
> tears of frustration but didn't you notice how I winced everytime you
> mentioned Nunn, did you think those groaning noises came from the
> icepack underfoot?
>
> I thought a trip into the wilds would do you good, Joe, I really did. I
took
> it upon myself to lure you away from your ceaseless tour of the psyche
> ward but you brought your work with you.
>
> It got to the stage where I'd have pushed you into a crevasse if I'd heard
> you mention that emotional jessie again and I didn't ever want to hurt
> you, Joe, we've had our good times, we can still have more. So I conjured
> up a fake bowel movement and made my escape. It hurt like hell leaving
> you behind but I'd have had to kill you if I'd stayed.
Oh, Cypher. And this was supposed to be our reconciliatory 'spend some time
together and remember why we love each other' trip away, and now I feel like
I've ruined it. It's hard, though, I take my work very seriously, even
though I don't get paid for it or asked nicely, and it's hard to switch off
at times. Maybe we just picked a bad time to go away, I'm right in the
middle of some serious shit with a particularly disturbed ghey at the
moment, and it was irresponsible of me to just drop everything at the drop
of your dirty pants and fuck off out into the wilderness with you.
I'm up for giving it another try though, maybe with a little more notice
this time so I can tie up my loose ends first. It was all I could do to get
a suitcase packed and head round to yours in the time you gave me, dropping
the SBL off at Martin's along the way. I knew I'd left things in a bad way
at work, though, and it just kept nagging at me the whole time we were away.
No, I didn't notice you wincing, and I didn't notice the groaning noises. I
didn't notice the look of frustration in your eyes as I stood aside a
crevasse going over the details one more time as you used every inch of your
being to stop yourself from pushing me over the edge. I don't even think I
noticed when you made love to me on the third night, and I didn't notice
you'd been gone an awful long time for a shit until your rucksack was
totally covered over in snow and your coffee had frozen solid. I was
preoccupied. You did the right thing, I had it coming. It's my fault, not
yours.
I'd be willing to give it another try, though, if you would. Give it some
thought. You can even plan the expedition and choose the place'n'shit again
if you like, you're better at that bit than me anyway.
That time I had us try to cross the Nile on foot was a disaster.
Robert Poleson
Ruddock mask expected us to read the following bollocks:
>Here's what I look for in a woman in prioriy order;
>
>1. Kindness
>2. Humour
>3. Interest in books and/or movies or music that goes beyond the
>mainstream
>4. Looks nice
>5. A bit naughty, not too straight
>6. Other stuff, travel, food, wine etc...
>
Forgive me for butting in on this thread (which should have been
renamed 'Longest post of my life' about 50 fucking years ago)
but I just think Humour should be at #1. And kindness should be
replaced by politeness at #2.
--
rob at rjp.clara.net
December, the month when females completely lose
an already tenuous grip on reality. - Cypher
Joe Horowitz
> "Joe Horowitz" <joeundersc...@youblunder.cunts.youghey> wrote in
> message news:3yrof.63745$Ms6....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > great, which doesn't make much sense.
>
>
> DWTWP. Magnitude is necessary to inspire strong emotion, be it love or
hate.
DWTWP. There are exceptions. I've only ever hated one person in my life,
and yet I know very little about them and have never even met them. Which
is good, because for two or three years I would quite probably and literally
have killed them.
> I'm a passionate person, and I can't always control that.
>
> In real life, you did strike me as somewhat emotionally detached, tbh,
even
> more than I anticipated.
That's possibly a little harsh, given that you probably didn't see me in any
situations in which I might reasonably be expected to exhibit great emotion.
In another way, though, you have a point, in that I can at times be
_completely_ detached, but more as something I've taught myself to do
because it can at times be very fucking useful. I'm not the most emotional
of people, but I am passionate, very much so, and I've argued passionately
enough in this newsfroup over the years to back that up.
All our emotional extremes are defined by our experiences, when I hadn't
seen too much shit in my life I could get upset about something relatively
minor, now I rationalise things and compare them to what's gone before and
how bad things could get, and nothing ever seems like a big problem. And it
never turns out to be a big problem, which leads me to believe I was right
not to waste my time being upset about it at the time.
My earliest ever memory, and it pre-dates any subsequent memories by some
time, was an utterly unremarkable event from my pre-talking pre-walking
days. It's shockingly clear as well, like I have this strange window which
sees directly into a time well before I ever formed any other memories of
anything. Anyway, I was in the crib downstairs, and the telly was on,
children's programmes. No idea what any of it meant, just lots of nice
bright colours and noises and everything moving a lot and keeping my
attention. It was great, I remember that. I was on the edge of my crib.
Then the children's programmes finished, and something totally crap came on
(I now understand it was the 1pm news, but at the time I just remember it
was crap). There were no bright colours, just a man saying stuff. This was
far from satisfactory, the stuff before was great and I just couldn't
understand what the fuck this shit was which had replaced it. I knew one
thing, I definitely wasn't having fun anymore.
So I did what any red-blooded man would do if suddenly everything was not to
his complete satisfaction. I cried. Absolutely bawled my eyes out to make
sure someone came and got me and did something, and someone did (my Mum's
home-help woman thingy who lodged there). I was picked up, and taken
upstairs to be put in my cot for a sleep, which at that point suddenly
seemed liked the most reasonable course of action. Everything was okay
suddenly, and I was asleep before we got halfway up the stairs. No memories
after that until a good couple of years later, toddling and the suchlike.
It's a memory of being a proper baby, tiny infant useless rubbishcunt
thingy. I've no idea why I have it, but it's as clear as day and always has
been.
My point is, when something I like finishes on the telly now, and something
I don't like comes on, it doesn't seem to bother me that much. I just live
with it, I change the channel or I go do something else, or just watch it
anyway because I'm knackered and can't be arsed to move. Same goes for
pretty much everything else. Doesn't mean I have a cold, cold heart with no
room for love and life and laughter and laundry and a picture of Michael
Cunningham, it just means it's not a fucking problem.
> Emotional detachment is not a bad thing. It probably gets you way more in
> the way of success, but the downside is that you won't appreciate them as
> much.
You'd be surprised how much I appreciate all the good stuff I have.
However, when our cellarman died last year, I was fucking glad of being able
to detach myself and drag the place kicking and screaming through the
busiest period of the year, because most of the people around me were a mess
and some cunt had to be the pillar of strength or it would all have gone
much more wrong, and that would have all been much harder for Maggie when
she was ready to come back. Heh, it's just occurred to me that maybe making
sure I felt useful and in some way empowered to make things better for some
other people was my own way of coping, but that would still come across as
emotionally detached to some.
In short, there's a fine line between 'emotionally detached' and 'strong
minded' and if you're determined enough to be okay then some cunts,
including me apparently, can manage it no matter what. In the eyes of
woman's magazines this probably makes me some emotionally repressed typical
man who can't discuss his feelings, but I've no real problem doing that
either. To be fair, I'm comfortable enough discussing all the issues you
raise, aren't I? Without some of my own emotions by which to make
reference, I just wouldn't have the first fucking clue what to say to you
about any of this shit.
I'd just call you a big girly puff and move on.
> I don't know - maybe it's impossible to have what I want - which is to
have
> my needs met, and feel love in my life while still caring passionately
about
> it.
No chance. No-one passionate has ever felt love in their life, that is
scientific fact.
> I reckon you should start promoting the Horowitz method. Seriously.
I don't actually have one, that might prove hard to market.
> The closest I can get to this emotional state is when I was about seven
and
> my parents split up and then my dad was apparently dying in hospital, and
my
> mum was really unhappy, and she was stressing about our financial
problems,
> and I said she could stop giving me pocket money if it would help.
Heh. I had almost exactly the same conversation with my Mum, at exactly the
same age, although obviously the circumstances of why we didn't have any
money'n'shit were different. My Dad wasn't dying or owt, but I do remember
my Mum saying we wouldn't be able to have proper pocket money anymore (I
think we used to get a couple of quid each week or something) but they would
keep pennies and tuppennies in a jar and my Brother and I could share them
out at the end of each week. Was about twenty pence each in the first week,
my brother got all pissy and said I might as well have all of it because at
least one of us would be able to do something vaguely useful, which was
absolutely fine by me. I got more money.
> Maybe you should've charged a fee, tbh.
To be fair, you gave me damn fine whisky and a buttplug, I can't really ask
for much more than that. You're on my Christmas present list, btw, so I'll
need your address in the next few days. Gheymail me it. Thanks.
> OK. You're in agreement with the Dating Gurus so far. 'Get in shape' is
one
> of the things they say from time to time, hence the purchase of the
> ski-machine thing.
>
> Self-improvement'n'shit, right?
You know my feelings on that term, Ben.
> I'm doing it. Not sure it'll work, but I'm
> giving it a go.
>
> However, I'm not sure I could ever love 100% a woman who would make a
> decision on whether she wanted to be with me solely based on my size.
Heh. You've twisted things a little there, though, as no-one for one second
has ever suggested that you should. Of course you're not going to attract
someone who wants you solely for what you look like, ever, but there's just
a chance that if someone finds you physically attractive that could be one
of many things they come to love about you, things they may not ever have
found out if there wasn't that instinctive early feeling of 'hey, this guy
seems interesting _and_ he's quite dishy, I'd like to know more'. You can
look down your nose at it and claim that any form of physical attraction by
anyone towards anyone is logistically a shallow and heartless cuntformity of
which you are way above, but we'll come to all that in a second as it's
something else I want to address. Something much bigger. For now, just try
to accept that physical attraction adds another element to lovemaking which
improves it for most people, and a relationship in which it is involved will
be preferable to most than one where it isn't. Me included. Probably GYL
as well. And anyone can be attractive, there are all sorts of majority and
minority tastes out there, but if you're hoping to improve your odds then
logistically the majority ones are the safer bet.
For what it's worth, I'd love to be a bit taller, because it is pretty much
scientific fact that I would have got laid slightly more over the years if I
was. Just a bit more, because of a slight improvement in odds. The fact
that I'm a short cunt, and clearly not the kind of tall, brawny alpha-male
the chicks are supposed to want, obviously hasn't held me back. But I'd be
a naive fool if I couldn't appreciate that it always decreased my odds a
bit. At least you can go on a fucking ski-machine.
Think about that for a second.
> At the
> back of my mind, the shallowness would bug me, in the same way that people
> who only go for blondes, or for short women, or for black men etc. makes
me
> feel really uncomfortable.
Okay, but that doesn't mean that anyone with physical preferences is being
shallow. Most of us have them, most of us aren't shallow, same as the 'not
a cunt' argument in a way. You have other preferences, many of them for
things which people can't help either, we all have unique individual
combinations of what turns us on about each other. It's a beautiful thing
really, if you ask me. Otherwise we'd all just rabidly fancy everyone,
which could become problematic. I like, for instance, that I haven't ever
really fancied any of my best friend's girlfriends, even though in some
cases I could see that they were very beautiful people and maybe even
conventionally very attractive in some ways. Similarly, I hated it when I
stayed at JdS's house and really had the hots for his missus, because it
made it hard to concentrate and just enjoy their company and not look at her
arse'n'shit.
If I felt like that about every woman I'd go mental, and if I never felt
like that about any of them I'd probably never have bothered having any sex
at all, ever.
> I probably make Ipswich sound worse than it is. It's not as bad as Leeds,
> for example.
To be fair, Ben, you almost undoubtedly make _everything_ sound worse than
it actually is.
> Heh. Strike 3. Joe's in agreement with the Dating Gurus again.
> This is the most difficult thing, and my 'drainingly negative' tendancies
> have been noted by a previous GIL during a 'that conversation'.
> I try to do it, really I do. But it all comes out so false. I use words
like
> 'fantastic' and 'wonderful' and 'spectacular' (not followed by 'failure').
> Every time, they come out sounding cynical.
> I need to do work on my positivism. Good call.
Like I say, it's not about using certain words for me, although I'm sure
that shit works as well. That's just going too deeply into psychostuff for
my liking, and similarly I've heard much stuff along the same lines in
training for sales or management, key words, ways to phrase things. It's
all quite powerful stuff if you can learn to harness it. I personally think
you'd should just phrase shit as naturally as comes to you, because being
natural and thinking of women as 'blokes with tits' is all part of my
documented and proven programme of dating help which I've just invented in
these last couple of webs.
It's just about being less depressing company by not always focusing
instantly on the many various possible negative aspects to absolutely
everything. I'm not saying you do this all the time, but most of the time.
Your first response seems to be to consider what you don't like about
something rather than what you did, we could all do that if we wanted to but
there's a danger of coming across as supercillious if you just refuse to see
the goodness in anything. More on this later, again.
> Heh. I actually didn't have _that_ bad a time in Bristol by my standards.
I
> wasn't on particularly inspired form, admittedly, but I've been worse.
>
> See, that worries me, because I know you're not that bothered about this
> sort of thing, and if my presence affected you in that way, then Fuck
Knows
> what effect I have on others who do get sensitive to this. Like GIL.
You probably make her feel like she's up on some pedestal, a shining
monument of greatness and beauty in a sea of absolutely everything around
her being shit by comparison. Like if you had a relationship, how much time
would be spent feeling like the only thing that pleased you was herself, but
she'd be unlikely to cook you a meal or take you to a nice night at the
pictures without hearing about how flawed it all was afterwards. "How was
dinner?", "I wasn't impressed, tbh, although I appreciated it because you
made it. Very bland meal". "Did you enjoy the film I rented?" "I wasn't
impressed. Nice cuddling up though, I've always wanted that".
Possibly. I've never met her, though, or spent time with you when you're
around her, so all of the above is idle speculation. Please disregard if
it's so far off the mark as to be impossible.
> Shit, how do I change this stuff, Joe?
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, Ben. As you know.
And believe it or not, you've probably already made many more steps than you
realise. You are actually more upbeat and positive in the froup than you
used to be, only a little but it's not gone unnoticed by me. The last
whiney fucking 'everything is against me it's unfair' type nonsense I can
remember before this thread was the Yahoo thread, before that probably some
post about Coventry in the summer or something. After all, GYL must have
enjoyed an awful lot about your company to some extent or she wouldn't have
spent so much time with you. It's entirely possible you were just a bit of
a scary relationship prospect what with all the negativity and the pedestal
and everything, hence people who know her saying to you 'it might be on'
when in fact it maybe was, except it seemed too big a project to take on and
BSL looked more like fun and laughter.
> Man, you're got this dating guru stuff down perfectly. Almost word for
word
> from the 'Deep Inner Game' programme, this is.
Great title. I must offer Juicy a Deep Inner Game at some point.
> I don't doubt this, but I'm not sure how to change my mind about this.
> Possibly hypnosis?
Maybe. I don't know much about that, tbh, so it's not something I could
recommend with great authority.
> OK, that's five out of five things that you've said which - despite your
> opinions on them - have been key components of pretty much all the Dating
> Guru methods out there.
Heh. So when do we get to the bit where we say you should be a cunt, or
dishonest, or not have feelings, or be teh Alpha Malecunt, or treat to women
with the indiferens? I only know about Dating Gurus what you've said on
this froup, and I don't remember any of what I've posted above or I'd just
have agreed with it and moved on. I certainly woudn't have re-typed it in
my own words, would I? I don't like typing quite that much.
More 'everything is against me, it's all unfair' mentality, perhaps. From
what I can make out, you always talk about the DG's as if they say the only
solution is for you to be a totally different person, in fact the kind of
person you despise (as do I, for the record), a total cunt. But it's so
unfair, because why should you have to stop being a nice person and an
individual'n'shit? What a cruel world etc. Then I suggest that that
they're talking a load shit, and I say 'you could just try such-and-such'
and you go 'yeah, actually that is more like what they actually said' and I
say 'being a bit more so-and-so might help' and you go 'they said that as
well' and I say 'try not to be such a fucking cunt' and you say 'yeah, they
said all of this Joe, you're just agreeing with them despite your earlier
webs of disapproval'.
Maybe I should be some sort of guru, I bet it pays better than the actually
quite difficult job I already do.
> It's another one where I'm not sure exactly what practical steps I can
> take - a BOA, if you will.
Not neccessary. If there's one thing I agree with about all this self-help
and 'self-improvement' <spits> shit it's that you are master of your own
destiny, and that any cunt can re-programme themselves with enough will so
to do so to so do. For instance, while some aspects of my Jungian
mind-melding course annoyed me, especially parts where self-fulfilling
predictions of one sort or another were submitted as evidence of the
reliability of other, unprovable ones, there were elements of it where I
came to recognise and understand certain aspects of my behaviour,
specifically in my interactions with different types of people (as that was
the focus of the course), and now if I want I can work on changing some of
them. And I will, because I want to be better at my job and I can see clear
tangible ways in which slight shifts in the way I can respond to certain
situations with certain people will better enable me to get the best out of
it and them. That doesn't mean I'm going to change who I am, just some
aspects of the way I react in certain situations with certain people.
Gurus'n'shit talk about writing things down, this has a basis in some
well-researched and tested psychology about how we learn shit and how we
change our behaviour. I can understand it as well. I haven't employed any
of these methods myself, because I'm not in a position where I'm feeling
like I'll try fucking anything if I think it'll help, but you are so here's
one right out of the textbooks:
Pick a phrase that defines something about how you want to become. Not
something that involves changing the Essence of Nunn because I'm dead
against that, because you rock, truly rock in a million ways. Just
something that involves a change of approach, or a subtle shift in the way
you react in certain situations. You can't, after all, change who you are,
but you can change how you react, providing you actually want to, and
providing you're able to keep recognising instantly when you've done what
you're trying not to do. Write it down somewhere and in some way that you
will be unable to keep seeing it, you could do this by maybe writing it on a
stiff-ish piece of card and keeping it in your pocket for a week so you keep
going "wtf's that?" and taking it out and reading it and going "oh yeah", or
just write it on a note somewhere you can't miss it, like on your toilet
seat which you suddenly start leaving down so you have to notice it before
you can take a piss, whatever. So long as you're forced to keep noticing
the phrase you'll keep thinking back to recent events while they're fresh in
your mind and thinking 'I did it again, maybe in a similar event I'd like to
have done more like so-and-so', or even better, you'll be thinking ahead to
an upcoming event and thinking 'oh yeah, I'm going to give this a try this
time'. I've had the psychotheory explained to me, and it's about how much
more powerful a phrase is in the brain if there is not just a location in
memory, but a continuously re-enforced concious pathway to the memory
location. Something like that anway.
Might be something for you to consider.
> If true, this is massively reassuring.
Fuck yeah. Women can change their mind about _anything_, it's in their
contract or something. Doesn't mean they will, just means they can if they
want.
> Heh. Maybe they've all been reading UKSF all along.
>
> I should stop posting to the froup and then I'll get a deep and fulfilling
> relationship. Maybe.
Yeah, but we'd miss you and your posts are part of My Little Empire so let's
not do that instead. Thanks.
If we can't find a way you can stay here _and_ find love then I'm bailing
out of this conversation right now because it'll no longer be in my own
interests. The thought of losing your relentlessly negative angle on
everything in an otherwise fairly upbeat and chirpy froup is bad enough, but
at least you'll still be here and say some funny shit and we can beat you at
FF. Losing you altogether would be too much sacrifice for any of us cunts
to make for your happiness. Way too much.
Let's not even talk about it.
> GPWM, although, why would women want to even be 'friends' with me if I
> projected so much misogynistic bile?
You probably don't project misogynistic bile, Ben, more a slight air of
supercilliousness. This is the Big Thing I've been promising to come to.
Which is ironic, because in many ways this whole women thing, as you said
yourself, makes you feel like something less than everyone else, sub-human,
which is just about the most saddest thing I've ever heard anyone say about
the way they feel about themselves ever. But you possibly project slightly
more often that you are a bit better in many ways than everyone else,
because you alone can see through all the bullshit that everyone swallows,
you alone are an individual in a sea of cuntformity, films aren't good
enough for you, music isn't good enough for you, nothing ever is because you
can appreciate true greatness so much better than everyone else can. Sad
thing is, it's probably pretty much the truth as well, your huge gynormous
uber-brain might well be your undoing in this life, but it doesn't half make
you sound like a cunt sometimes.
It's intimidating, maybe not for me because I am one hell of an arrogant
belittling cunt myself and in plain text I'm as big as any fucker alive, but
it might be how you make some others feel in the flesh. They can't measure
up. Man, even I've taken three years to get used to you, I don't take
offence to anything you say now and I sincerely hope you don't to me, but I
sure as fuck did when you read my first ever post that gave away the
slightest real clues as to who I actually am and proclaimed 'bah, yet
another cosy perfect mainstream vanilla life, what a cunt' or something.
Look at Greedy G, you reduced him to a jibbering wreck in five seconds. All
you said was 'not proper poster', three words and the next thing you know
he's got a chip on his shoulder the size of Villa Park, banging on about
cunts who like arthouse films and the suchlike. All very well in a
newsfroup football context, in fact it's one of the reasons why you are
undoubtedly now regarded by most as one of the greatest players ever to
grace the sport ever, but having met you in real life and found out your are
just as demanding and uncompromising, I have to say even I didn't feel I
could make the grade at times. Me, with all my self-assurance and
everything. I enjoyed the challenged, I'd do it again, but it's a tough
environment for a girl who just wants a friend and some good times.
Snuggling, laughter, sex, these are things girls want and which you can
offer in great abundance. A continual reminder of the unfairness of
everything, of how great things could theoretically be in every single way
and how far short of that things will always fall, this probably isn't
something a girl would list in her list of preferences. Me neither, tbh.
> Every time I meet a new woman who I care about, I give her the benefit of
> the doubt that she's not like all the things you said.
That's even worse. You meet a new WWYCA, who might become GYL on the basis
that she hasn't yet proven herself _not_ to be so much better than everyone
else as to be as better than everyone else as you are, and worthy of her GYL
pedestal. Just so long as she doesn't reject you.
Then, you can exist together on some higher plane of unconventional thinking
and uniqueness, and be so much better than everyone else.
It's great that you love yourself, I love myself as well. I think I'm
fucking great, and I'd be the biggest cuntocrite in the world if I tried to
tell you to think less of yourself. I just think you have an
unrealistically negative view of everyone else, and often simply come across
as if you really just know better than us mortal cunts. Especially happy,
optimistic cunts like me, we really are too blind to understand anything.
Lucky you don't expect us to understand.
> I hate men more.
We speak very highly of you, Ben. That doesn't make you better than us.
Man, who would have thought two unfashionable and under-used Youksef
catchphrases, from me and Mikey no less, would ever suddenly make so much
sense in conjunction and be so poignant.
> No. I genuinely don't 'get it'. It all seems too much like trying to
> psychologically manipulate people with the way in which you say things,
and
> the words you use, tbh. And the idea that some opinions are more valid
than
> others. I find it all dishonest social cuntwank.
*bangs head against wall*
Ffs you cunt, just when I think we're getting somewhere you go and twist
shit all around again and end on a note of misunderstanding. Show me the
fucking bit where I advocated dishonesty. Show me the fucking bit where I
implied that some opinions are more valid than others. Quote the fuckers,
show me where I fucking well said any of that. Cunt.
The only bit in which you made any reference to anything I actually said is
the 'trying to psychologically manipulate with the way etc' bit, and in a
thread the entire basis of which is 'how the fuck can I get laidlove?'
that's a bit fucking cuntocritical. It's not like I'm asking you to fucking
hypnotise some fucking bitch into shagging you, I'm just saying she might
be more inclined to if you made her happy and not sad. And that the answer
to making someone happy isn't 'buy them something romantic'. It's 'be good
company'. Dishonest social cuntwank indeed.
Cunt. Twisting my words again, it's exactly this sort of mis-translation
that made me think the Dating Gurus did nothing except advocate Alpha
maleism.
I'd stick dishonest social cuntwank right up your fucking arses right now,
if it wasn't for the fact that you'd probably enjoy that you fucking weird
ghey kinky hotsex dirty bitch.
Cunt.
> > Also, is it lovemaking time yet? We must be due some.
>
> No. No, not yet.
Cunt. I want lovemaking.
*cries*
Joe Horowitz
"Robert Poleson" <s...@m.no> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e0d82023...@news.clara.net...
> Forgive me for butting in on this thread (which should have been
> renamed 'Longest post of my life' about 50 fucking years ago)
AWTWP.
That last post of mine was so big, I had to delete yet more porn before it
would fit in my Sent Items folder without crashing my HDD.
I wish my new PC would hurry up and arrive.
Cunts.
Vicky Conlan
>DWTWP. There are exceptions. I've only ever hated one person in my life,
>and yet I know very little about them and have never even met them. Which
>is good, because for two or three years I would quite probably and literally
>have killed them.
Blimey, that's a bit harsh for someone you've never met.
>My earliest ever memory, and it pre-dates any subsequent memories by some
>time, was an utterly unremarkable event from my pre-talking pre-walking
>days. It's shockingly clear as well, like I have this strange window which
>sees directly into a time well before I ever formed any other memories of
>anything.
I have one of those. They're very odd, aren't they?
>In the eyes of
>woman's magazines this probably makes me some emotionally repressed typical
>man who can't discuss his feelings, but I've no real problem doing that
>either.
Women's mags are, to quote a phrase, teh ghey.
>I'd just call you a big girly puff and move on.
Tbh, I think that's what we ought to be doing. A slap generally helps, but
he's all the way over in sillyland. If he wants to waddle down for a coffee
some time, I'll provide the slap free of charge.
>Heh. I had almost exactly the same conversation with my Mum, at exactly the
>same age, although obviously the circumstances of why we didn't have any
>money'n'shit were different.
I don't remember ever getting pocket money at the age of seven. It think my
grandad used to give me 10p when I saw him, which was generally once a week,
so I guess that was my pocket money. Until they brought out the 20p piece,
then I got a 100% raise, woo.
>My Dad wasn't dying or owt, but I do remember
>my Mum saying we wouldn't be able to have proper pocket money anymore (I
>think we used to get a couple of quid each week or something) but they would
Blimey.
>keep pennies and tuppennies in a jar and my Brother and I could share them
>out at the end of each week. Was about twenty pence each in the first week,
>my brother got all pissy and said I might as well have all of it because at
>least one of us would be able to do something vaguely useful, which was
>absolutely fine by me. I got more money.
You're brother's not the shiniest penny in the jar, is he?
>At least you can go on a fucking ski-machine.
This is BtN we're talking about. Can you imagine him on a ski-machine? Knowing
his luck he'd manage to cause the first ever ski-machine avalanche. And mountain
rescue wouldn't be able to get to him because of bad weather, or some shit.
>Similarly, I hated it when I
>stayed at JdS's house and really had the hots for his missus, because it
>made it hard to concentrate and just enjoy their company and not look at her
>arse'n'shit.
If it helps, she'll be all hugely fat and waddley atm. Just like Ben. :-D
(but less ghey)
>If I felt like that about every woman I'd go mental, and if I never felt
You'd probably just get used to it and learn to partition that bit of brain off.
>like that about any of them I'd probably never have bothered having any sex
>at all, ever.
That's what beer and bedside lights are for.
>To be fair, Ben, you almost undoubtedly make _everything_ sound worse than
>it actually is.
Heh. AWTWP.
>It's just about being less depressing company by not always focusing
>instantly on the many various possible negative aspects to absolutely
>everything.
To be honest, I think Ben projects himself worse on here than he is "in
company" (if you can call me+JdS+(sprout/hugecockman) 'company' anyhow)
by quite a long way. With a beer and a quiz machine in the vicinity, you
can almost forget what a miserable piercedcock grumpyarse he is.
>You probably make her feel like she's up on some pedestal, a shining
>monument of greatness and beauty in a sea of absolutely everything around
>her being shit by comparison. Like if you had a relationship, how much time
>would be spent feeling like the only thing that pleased you was herself, but
>she'd be unlikely to cook you a meal or take you to a nice night at the
>pictures without hearing about how flawed it all was afterwards. "How was
>dinner?", "I wasn't impressed, tbh, although I appreciated it because you
>made it. Very bland meal". "Did you enjoy the film I rented?" "I wasn't
>impressed. Nice cuddling up though, I've always wanted that".
Oh god. You'd just kill him, wouldn't you? Ungrateful harlot!
>Fuck yeah. Women can change their mind about _anything_, it's in their
>contract or something. Doesn't mean they will, just means they can if they
>want.
Believe it or not, I think /men/ can change their minds about anything as
well. Or at least, they could if they ever bothered to have an opinion about
anything in the first place. Lazy bastards.
>Ffs you cunt, just when I think we're getting somewhere you go and twist
>shit all around again and end on a note of misunderstanding. Show me the
Heh. I think I've just remembered why he reminds me of my ex! :-)
Sir Benjamin Nunn
"Joe Horowitz" <joeundersc...@youblunder.cunts.youghey> wrote in
>
> DWTWP. There are exceptions. I've only ever hated one person in my life,
> and yet I know very little about them and have never even met them. Which
> is good, because for two or three years I would quite probably and
> literally
> have killed them.
I know he's not a proper poster, but that's really quite harsh, Joe.
> That's possibly a little harsh, given that you probably didn't see me in
> any
> situations in which I might reasonably be expected to exhibit great
> emotion.
> In another way, though, you have a point, in that I can at times be
> _completely_ detached, but more as something I've taught myself to do
> because it can at times be very fucking useful. I'm not the most
> emotional
> of people, but I am passionate, very much so, and I've argued passionately
> enough in this newsfroup over the years to back that up.
I think I've just realised where we differ here - I can get passionate
and/or emotional about a /lack/ of things.
E.g. I'm passionate about hearing some really beautiful music, or drinking a
great wine. However, when faced with indifferent shit, I'm still
passionate - passionate about the fact that it's *not* amazing IYSWIM.
I find myself thinking about everything that is not, as well as everything
that is, if that makes sense. Probably to an unhealthy degree. Right now,
I'm still thinking heavily about GIL and what didn't happen between us.
> All our emotional extremes are defined by our experiences, when I hadn't
> seen too much shit in my life I could get upset about something relatively
> minor, now I rationalise things and compare them to what's gone before and
> how bad things could get, and nothing ever seems like a big problem. And
> it
> never turns out to be a big problem, which leads me to believe I was right
> not to waste my time being upset about it at the time.
AWTWP. It's normally good to use what the psychologists call 'observing ego'
well in advance of these situations, rather than letting them get to us. In
my case, much easier said than done, however.
Your point about emotional extremes being defined by experiences is very
interesting to me, and the logical extension to that, I guess, is that where
one has a lack of experience, there is no outer boundary or limit for the
emotion.
I'm purely guessing here, but I would imagine that, for example, Liz
Taylor's 6th divorce was not as painful as her first because she was getting
used to the emotional rollercoaster by then, and had some boundaries and
expectations already in place.
Similarly, someone who defines the loss of a baby child as worse than the
loss of elderly parents, is likely to be less affected by the death of their
parents, if they've already suffered the loss of a baby child.
It's for this reason that other peoples suffering actually comforts me a
bit. Leicester Hospital Baby Argument.
Like what might happen if JdS is punished by God.
> To be fair, you gave me damn fine whisky and a buttplug, I can't really
> ask
> for much more than that. You're on my Christmas present list, btw, so
> I'll
> need your address in the next few days. Gheymail me it. Thanks.
Send me a relationship with GIL please. That's all I ask.
I kinda understand this, but I just don't really 'get' physical attraction.
For instance, I find every inch of GIL amazingly beautiful, but I'm pretty
sure that's because it's her, and because of how I feel about her.
There could be somebody who looked physically identical, but who I wouldn't
find attractive because it wouldn't be the same person I've fallen for.
It's hard to talk about this without sounding like a wierdo because not
everybody believes in these things, but the first thing I noticed about GIL
on the day I met her was her soul, for want of a better word.
Throughout my lifetime I've encountered a handful of people who I've been
able to 'see inside' and communicate with on a deep level (not just young
women who I went on to find attractive, BTW, but all different people in the
unlikeliest places).
She was the most fascinating of any of them, amazingly so for someone so
young.
I sensed that GIL was scared of me - understandably, it's an invasive
process. And it took months to break down the barriers, build trust, and
have some good psychic dialogues. It took a long time for her to grow to
like me, and I was always way ahead of the process.
By the time she considered me a friend (probably the early part of 2005) I
had fallen for her.
The way she looked never really mattered at any stage. I just found her more
beautiful, the more I grew to love her (or, as Conlan would say, 'obsess
about her') as a person.
> For what it's worth, I'd love to be a bit taller, because it is pretty
> much
> scientific fact that I would have got laid slightly more over the years if
> I
> was. Just a bit more, because of a slight improvement in odds. The fact
> that I'm a short cunt, and clearly not the kind of tall, brawny alpha-male
> the chicks are supposed to want, obviously hasn't held me back. But I'd
> be
> a naive fool if I couldn't appreciate that it always decreased my odds a
> bit. At least you can go on a fucking ski-machine.
>
> Think about that for a second.
Heh. According to the Dating Gurus (again), height isn't relevent to women -
e.g. there is no overall preference for taller men.
Apparently (something I amazingly DIDN'T get from the gurus, this) the
tallness of the 'tall, dark and handsome' stereotype actually dates back to
the traditions of the theatre, where it was logistically easier to stage a
kiss if the man was taller than the woman, and so the hero parts were given
to the taller actors, which perpetuated the idea that tallness is attactive
in men.
> If I felt like that about every woman I'd go mental, and if I never felt
> like that about any of them I'd probably never have bothered having any
> sex
> at all, ever.
Heh. Maybe I should've done that.
I don't know what it's like to have sex with someone I'm really attracted
to.
> You probably make her feel like she's up on some pedestal, a shining
> monument of greatness and beauty in a sea of absolutely everything around
> her being shit by comparison. Like if you had a relationship, how much
> time
> would be spent feeling like the only thing that pleased you was herself,
> but
> she'd be unlikely to cook you a meal or take you to a nice night at the
> pictures without hearing about how flawed it all was afterwards. "How was
> dinner?", "I wasn't impressed, tbh, although I appreciated it because you
> made it. Very bland meal". "Did you enjoy the film I rented?" "I wasn't
> impressed. Nice cuddling up though, I've always wanted that".
This makes me laugh and cry at the same time. Nothing else to add.
I'm glad that Knightout started this thread now, it's turning into one of
the finest threads ever.
> A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, Ben. As you
> know.
> And believe it or not, you've probably already made many more steps than
> you
> realise. You are actually more upbeat and positive in the froup than you
> used to be, only a little but it's not gone unnoticed by me. The last
> whiney fucking 'everything is against me it's unfair' type nonsense I can
> remember before this thread was the Yahoo thread, before that probably
> some
> post about Coventry in the summer or something. After all, GYL must have
> enjoyed an awful lot about your company to some extent or she wouldn't
> have
> spent so much time with you. It's entirely possible you were just a bit
> of
> a scary relationship prospect what with all the negativity and the
> pedestal
> and everything, hence people who know her saying to you 'it might be on'
> when in fact it maybe was, except it seemed too big a project to take on
> and
> BSL looked more like fun and laughter.
You could be right. If and when we eventually have an honest conversation
about it in the unambiguity of the real world, it would be interesting to
find out if that is how she felt.
And how I'll react if it is.
>> Man, you're got this dating guru stuff down perfectly. Almost word for
> word
>> from the 'Deep Inner Game' programme, this is.
>
> Great title. I must offer Juicy a Deep Inner Game at some point.
Heh. Cunt.
> Heh. So when do we get to the bit where we say you should be a cunt, or
> dishonest, or not have feelings, or be teh Alpha Malecunt, or treat to
> women
> with the indiferens? I only know about Dating Gurus what you've said on
> this froup, and I don't remember any of what I've posted above or I'd just
> have agreed with it and moved on. I certainly woudn't have re-typed it in
> my own words, would I? I don't like typing quite that much.
Well, teh indifferens Alpha Malecunt doesn't contradict any of the five
points on which you agree with the gurus. Alpha Malecunts /are/ generally
optimistic and confident avoid negativity, have a positive outlook and body
language, and are likely to work out and be notfat'n'shit.
> More 'everything is against me, it's all unfair' mentality, perhaps. From
> what I can make out, you always talk about the DG's as if they say the
> only
> solution is for you to be a totally different person, in fact the kind of
> person you despise (as do I, for the record), a total cunt. But it's so
> unfair, because why should you have to stop being a nice person and an
> individual'n'shit? What a cruel world etc. Then I suggest that that
> they're talking a load shit, and I say 'you could just try such-and-such'
> and you go 'yeah, actually that is more like what they actually said' and
> I
> say 'being a bit more so-and-so might help' and you go 'they said that as
> well' and I say 'try not to be such a fucking cunt' and you say 'yeah,
> they
> said all of this Joe, you're just agreeing with them despite your earlier
> webs of disapproval'.
Like you, I instinctively try to see all sides of any theory, and have put
the guru shit up to close scrutiny, rather than accepting it all blindly
(although by all accounts it works most effectively for those who do accept
it without question).
FWIW I do think ski machines are for cunts. And by using one, I am making
myself cuntier. (it's actually teh ghey stand-up bicycle macine techincally
as well, I suppose, not really skiing at all.)
> Not neccessary. If there's one thing I agree with about all this
> self-help
> and 'self-improvement' <spits> shit it's that you are master of your own
> destiny, and that any cunt can re-programme themselves with enough will so
> to do so to so do. For instance, while some aspects of my Jungian
> mind-melding course annoyed me, especially parts where self-fulfilling
> predictions of one sort or another were submitted as evidence of the
> reliability of other, unprovable ones, there were elements of it where I
> came to recognise and understand certain aspects of my behaviour,
> specifically in my interactions with different types of people (as that
> was
> the focus of the course), and now if I want I can work on changing some of
> them. And I will, because I want to be better at my job and I can see
> clear
> tangible ways in which slight shifts in the way I can respond to certain
> situations with certain people will better enable me to get the best out
> of
> it and them. That doesn't mean I'm going to change who I am, just some
> aspects of the way I react in certain situations with certain people.
Absolutely, and it's all a big learning curve.
I do think that some people - myself included - are further from optimal
than others, and therefore require a greater self-change in order to reap
the rewards.
OK.
I'd like to have a Run Nunn to decide the exact phrase to use, if that's
alright?
>> I should stop posting to the froup and then I'll get a deep and
>> fulfilling
>> relationship. Maybe.
>
> Yeah, but we'd miss you and your posts are part of My Little Empire so
> let's
> not do that instead. Thanks.
>
> If we can't find a way you can stay here _and_ find love then I'm bailing
> out of this conversation right now because it'll no longer be in my own
> interests. The thought of losing your relentlessly negative angle on
> everything in an otherwise fairly upbeat and chirpy froup is bad enough,
> but
> at least you'll still be here and say some funny shit and we can beat you
> at
> FF. Losing you altogether would be too much sacrifice for any of us cunts
> to make for your happiness. Way too much.
>
> Let's not even talk about it.
OK. Deal.
On an unrelated subject, this will be my last ever post to the froup.
>> GPWM, although, why would women want to even be 'friends' with me if I
>> projected so much misogynistic bile?
>
> You probably don't project misogynistic bile, Ben, more a slight air of
> supercilliousness. This is the Big Thing I've been promising to come to.
Ooh good, I like Big Things.
> Which is ironic, because in many ways this whole women thing, as you said
> yourself, makes you feel like something less than everyone else,
> sub-human,
> which is just about the most saddest thing I've ever heard anyone say
> about
> the way they feel about themselves ever. But you possibly project
> slightly
> more often that you are a bit better in many ways than everyone else,
> because you alone can see through all the bullshit that everyone swallows,
> you alone are an individual in a sea of cuntformity, films aren't good
> enough for you, music isn't good enough for you, nothing ever is because
> you
> can appreciate true greatness so much better than everyone else can. Sad
> thing is, it's probably pretty much the truth as well, your huge gynormous
> uber-brain might well be your undoing in this life, but it doesn't half
> make
> you sound like a cunt sometimes.
Heh. I accept this criticism - if indeed it is a criticism.
You'll also know that I wish I could be cured of my elitism, or good taste,
or pickyness, or supersillyrubbishcunt or however we choose to define it.
After all, it has given me a lifetime of constant disappointment.
> It's intimidating, maybe not for me because I am one hell of an arrogant
> belittling cunt myself and in plain text I'm as big as any fucker alive,
> but
> it might be how you make some others feel in the flesh. They can't
> measure
> up. Man, even I've taken three years to get used to you, I don't take
> offence to anything you say now and I sincerely hope you don't to me, but
> I
> sure as fuck did when you read my first ever post that gave away the
> slightest real clues as to who I actually am and proclaimed 'bah, yet
> another cosy perfect mainstream vanilla life, what a cunt' or something.
Bah, yet another cosy perfect mainstream vanilla life.
What a cunt.
> Look at Greedy G, you reduced him to a jibbering wreck in five seconds.
> All
> you said was 'not proper poster', three words and the next thing you know
> he's got a chip on his shoulder the size of Villa Park, banging on about
> cunts who like arthouse films and the suchlike. All very well in a
> newsfroup football context, in fact it's one of the reasons why you are
> undoubtedly now regarded by most as one of the greatest players ever to
> grace the sport ever, but having met you in real life and found out your
> are
> just as demanding and uncompromising, I have to say even I didn't feel I
> could make the grade at times. Me, with all my self-assurance and
> everything. I enjoyed the challenged, I'd do it again, but it's a tough
> environment for a girl who just wants a friend and some good times.
> Snuggling, laughter, sex, these are things girls want and which you can
> offer in great abundance. A continual reminder of the unfairness of
> everything, of how great things could theoretically be in every single way
> and how far short of that things will always fall, this probably isn't
> something a girl would list in her list of preferences. Me neither, tbh.
AWTWP. I don't want full sex with it. Just to hold it for a little while,
while listening to some James Blunt would be good.
>> Every time I meet a new woman who I care about, I give her the benefit of
>> the doubt that she's not like all the things you said.
>
> That's even worse. You meet a new WWYCA, who might become GYL on the
> basis
> that she hasn't yet proven herself _not_ to be so much better than
> everyone
> else as to be as better than everyone else as you are, and worthy of her
> GYL
> pedestal. Just so long as she doesn't reject you.
>
> Then, you can exist together on some higher plane of unconventional
> thinking
> and uniqueness, and be so much better than everyone else.
That's the dream.
Actually, I'd love to live in a world where most pubs stopped selling Stella
and Carling because they weren't popular, and people were drinking hundreds
of different real ales instead.
A world where hat shops thrived, and baseball caps were almost non existent,
except on American sportspeople. Where you could smell the delightful aroma
of a different pipe tobacco on every corner.
Where the madrigal evening and string quartets were more abundant forms of
entertainment than karaoke, and where loads of independent food retaillers,
all delicious in their own way, replaced the endless high street monotony of
KFC and McDonalds.
Note that this isn't a world in which everyone is /like me/, but just a
world in which everyone is as good as me, in unique and varied ways. My
attitude would soon disappear in that world.
> It's great that you love yourself, I love myself as well. I think I'm
> fucking great, and I'd be the biggest cuntocrite in the world if I tried
> to
> tell you to think less of yourself. I just think you have an
> unrealistically negative view of everyone else, and often simply come
> across
> as if you really just know better than us mortal cunts. Especially happy,
> optimistic cunts like me, we really are too blind to understand anything.
>
> Lucky you don't expect us to understand.
Quite.
But, BOA, obviously. I don't like being in this position - it's just the way
I seem to be.
> *bangs head against wall*
>
> Ffs you cunt, just when I think we're getting somewhere you go and twist
> shit all around again and end on a note of misunderstanding. Show me the
> fucking bit where I advocated dishonesty. Show me the fucking bit where I
> implied that some opinions are more valid than others. Quote the fuckers,
> show me where I fucking well said any of that. Cunt.
I'm sorry, Joe.
I really don't mean to twist shit around - I'm not even aware that I'm doing
it. It's just another one of those things that I don't 'get'. Maybe when I
read stuff on the froup, I add a whole load of other shit in my head or
something ghey?
> The only bit in which you made any reference to anything I actually said
> is
> the 'trying to psychologically manipulate with the way etc' bit, and in a
> thread the entire basis of which is 'how the fuck can I get laidlove?'
> that's a bit fucking cuntocritical. It's not like I'm asking you to
> fucking
> hypnotise some fucking bitch into shagging you, I'm just saying she might
> be more inclined to if you made her happy and not sad. And that the
> answer
> to making someone happy isn't 'buy them something romantic'. It's 'be
> good
> company'. Dishonest social cuntwank indeed.
Out of the mouths of the gurus. Although from what you've said, I could be
taking all their shit the wrong way as well.
> Cunt. Twisting my words again, it's exactly this sort of mis-translation
> that made me think the Dating Gurus did nothing except advocate Alpha
> maleism.
>
> I'd stick dishonest social cuntwank right up your fucking arses right now,
> if it wasn't for the fact that you'd probably enjoy that you fucking weird
> ghey kinky hotsex dirty bitch.
>
> Cunt.
Thanks.
>> > Also, is it lovemaking time yet? We must be due some.
>>
>> No. No, not yet.
>
> Cunt. I want lovemaking.
>
> *cries*
Heh. If only GIL demanded lovemaking like that.
BTN
Joe Horowitz
"Vicky Conlan" <co...@riffraff.plig.net> wrote in message
news:do0s6i$gjp$1...@magenta.plig.net...
> According to <joeundersc...@youblunder.cunts.youghey>:
> >DWTWP. There are exceptions. I've only ever hated one person in my
life,
> >and yet I know very little about them and have never even met them.
Which
> >is good, because for two or three years I would quite probably and
literally
> >have killed them.
>
> Blimey, that's a bit harsh for someone you've never met.
It's more than fair.
> >My earliest ever memory, and it pre-dates any subsequent memories by some
> >time, was an utterly unremarkable event from my pre-talking pre-walking
> >days. It's shockingly clear as well, like I have this strange window
which
> >sees directly into a time well before I ever formed any other memories of
> >anything.
>
> I have one of those. They're very odd, aren't they?
Extremely. I like thinking about it, though, because all my
understandings'n'shit were so abstracted and simplistic. It's interesting.
I like how I didn't understand any of the telly programmes, and didn't need
to because I wasn't supposed to understand anything at that point. I can
remember the opening titles of the news programme as well, very clearly.
The music was that sort of one high note going diddle-iddle-id diddle-id
diddle-iddle-id etc, and the pictures were a blue/greeen monotone blurry
image of a man's fingers typing on a keyboard. Very low tech, early
seventies graphics. Presumably typing the news out so the cunt could read
it in a minute.
> Women's mags are, to quote a phrase, teh ghey.
Heh. Well, yeah, of course. Most mags are in fact, but gender-specific
ones are the fucking worse. 'Nuts' or 'Cocks' or 'Cunts' or whatever can't
be any better than 'Woman'.
> >I'd just call you a big girly puff and move on.
>
> Tbh, I think that's what we ought to be doing. A slap generally helps,
but
> he's all the way over in sillyland. If he wants to waddle down for a
coffee
> some time, I'll provide the slap free of charge.
I just can't believe you read all the way through 28kb of my drunken
ramblings. Well done.
> I don't remember ever getting pocket money at the age of seven. It think
my
> grandad used to give me 10p when I saw him, which was generally once a
week,
> so I guess that was my pocket money. Until they brought out the 20p
piece,
> then I got a 100% raise, woo.
My brother was ten, he used to save up for Star Wars figures and the
suchlike. I think the logic went something like: he got something
appropriate for his age, and I got the same or I kicked up a big stink.
> You're brother's not the shiniest penny in the jar, is he?
We're both quite clever, but in different ways. He did much better at exams
and degrees'n'shit than I did, and earns much more money. And is married,
and owns a house and a car. So who's the cunt?
> This is BtN we're talking about. Can you imagine him on a ski-machine?
It certainly is an enduring mental image.
> Knowing
> his luck he'd manage to cause the first ever ski-machine avalanche.
Heh. You have no idea how close you just came to causing a coffee-related
keyboard accident. Good work.
> And mountain
> rescue wouldn't be able to get to him because of bad weather, or some
shit.
Yeah, and it'd all happen on the night he was supposed to finally get it on
with GHL, who'd be left eating on her own at Pizzaland and wondering why
she'd been stood up, and ends up crying on the shoulder of an opportunistic
chav waiter.
> >Similarly, I hated it when I
> >stayed at JdS's house and really had the hots for his missus, because it
> >made it hard to concentrate and just enjoy their company and not look at
her
> >arse'n'shit.
>
> If it helps, she'll be all hugely fat and waddley atm. Just like Ben.
:-D
> (but less ghey)
GPWM. She looked like the type who'd be dead fit again about three weeks
after the birth though, like my friend Emma.
> >If I felt like that about every woman I'd go mental, and if I never felt
>
> You'd probably just get used to it and learn to partition that bit of
brain off.
Heh. Cunt.
You're probably right though.
> >like that about any of them I'd probably never have bothered having any
sex
> >at all, ever.
>
> That's what beer and bedside lights are for.
I've found that they're a poor substitute for sex these last few months.
> To be honest, I think Ben projects himself worse on here than he is "in
> company" (if you can call me+JdS+(sprout/hugecockman) 'company' anyhow)
> by quite a long way. With a beer and a quiz machine in the vicinity, you
> can almost forget what a miserable piercedcock grumpyarse he is.
I've met him as well, don't forget.
> Oh god. You'd just kill him, wouldn't you? Ungrateful harlot!
Yep. I had to go and play football for two hours and kill that instead,
then come back to Nunn with any aggression out of my system.
> Believe it or not, I think /men/ can change their minds about anything as
> well. Or at least, they could if they ever bothered to have an opinion
about
> anything in the first place. Lazy bastards.
Exactly. I think us blokes change our minds less on the whole, because we
can't be arsed.
> >Ffs you cunt, just when I think we're getting somewhere you go and twist
> >shit all around again and end on a note of misunderstanding.
>
> Heh. I think I've just remembered why he reminds me of my ex! :-)
Yeah. He hits me but I love him.
Osbourne Ruddock
@news.clara.net:
>
>>Here's what I look for in a woman in prioriy order;
>>
>>1. Kindness
>>2. Humour
>>3. Interest in books and/or movies or music that goes beyond the
>
> Forgive me for butting in on this thread (which should have been
> renamed 'Longest post of my life' about 50 fucking years ago)
> but I just think Humour should be at #1. And kindness should be
> replaced by politeness at #2.
Thanks for that Rob, as I was referring to what _I_ look for in a woman
though, I'll probably keep it exactly how it is. I agree about the
importance of humour though and, like coffee, I like it black, very black
indeed. In fact, a lack of humour in a person puts me off more than
finding out weird poilitical, religious or other shit out about them. If
you can have a laugh together you're going to get on.
I'm interested in your addition of politeness, it seems a bit
anachronistic for some reason. On the one hand if a woman wants to say to
me 'Oi, you filthy fucking cunt, stick that in here and don't fucking
stop until I tell you to!' it would hardly be polite, but I wouldn't
harbour any grudges against her for saying it, in fact I'd probably
admire her naughty little ways. On the other hand, politeness is a most
overlooked attribute nowadays and by and large is a nice one to have.
--
Cheers, Os
Osbourne Ruddock
> That last post of mine was so big, I had to delete yet more porn
> before it would fit in my Sent Items folder without crashing my HDD.
>
> I wish my new PC would hurry up and arrive.
When is that new PC working out for you Joe?
--
Cheers, Os
Osbourne Ruddock
news:dnvm8c$314s$1...@magenta.plig.net:
>>very relaxed and I think she's great, no-sex flirty friendships can be
>>really nice.
>
> Heh. I had one of those with Nick. And look where that got me.
It won't happen in my case but it's nice to feel that little tingle of
interest. It seems a bit Nunn-xclusive though that it's so much easier
doing the initial get to know bit when you're already in a steady
relationship, kind of like the old, easier to get a job when you already
have a job, thing, but with bonking.
>
> Apparently after my ex's parents met me they had some kind of "how the
> hell does he always manage to get attractive* women?" conversation.
> Think it turns out that we're relatively not-too-minging but also
> clinically insane. Or something. But anyhow.
But they all end up as ex's by the sound of it so it's not all good news
for him.
>
>>He would've been on my list of never-relationships like Ben so my
>>theory is obviously a bit of a cock and should give Ben a small amount
>>of hope.
>
> My ex should be one of those. Actually, that'll be my ex who
> apparently I've told Ben reminds me of him, in some ways. Mostly the
> bitching and whining, I think.
Hopefully it's just the b&w having seen Nunn grimacing over his 24 inch
donger collection.
>
>>Also, he was about 35 when they got together, also, they were friends
>>for a couple of years before they got together. Her previous bloke was
>>a professor who committed suicide by jumping off a cliff, true story.
>
> ... or was he pushed?
>
Dave used to laugh about this very thing actually, but no, the bloke was
a mate as well as the partner of the woman he fancied, and he was as
shaken up about it as anyone.
--
Cheers, Os
Vicky Conlan
>> Blimey, that's a bit harsh for someone you've never met.
>It's more than fair.
Fair enough.
>> I have one of those. They're very odd, aren't they?
>Extremely. I like thinking about it, though, because all my
>understandings'n'shit were so abstracted and simplistic. It's interesting.
Ah, see mine is a bit less fun than that, cos I don't think I was really
aware of what was going on. I just remember being carried over my nan's
shoulder across a road in a thunder storm, my mum was crossing in front,
and we'd just left the hospital. I think I was about 16-18 months old.
>> Women's mags are, to quote a phrase, teh ghey.
>Heh. Well, yeah, of course. Most mags are in fact, but gender-specific
>ones are the fucking worse. 'Nuts' or 'Cocks' or 'Cunts' or whatever can't
>be any better than 'Woman'.
IirtVictoriaWoodJoke correctly, "Bella* will tell you what an orgasm is,
Cosmo will tell you how to have a better one, and Woman's Own will tell you
how to knit one"
(*it wasn't Bella, but I can't remember what it was)
>I just can't believe you read all the way through 28kb of my drunken
>ramblings. Well done.
Thanks. I'm quite good at skipping paragraphs, or at least sentences.
Most people are better to read when they're drunken rambling.
>> You're brother's not the shiniest penny in the jar, is he?
>We're both quite clever, but in different ways. He did much better at exams
>and degrees'n'shit than I did, and earns much more money. And is married,
>and owns a house and a car. So who's the cunt?
Me? Ben? GBL?
>> This is BtN we're talking about. Can you imagine him on a ski-machine?
>It certainly is an enduring mental image.
I'm starting to get mental images that remind me of waterbeds now.
>> Knowing
>> his luck he'd manage to cause the first ever ski-machine avalanche.
>Heh. You have no idea how close you just came to causing a coffee-related
>keyboard accident. Good work.
Thank you.
>> And mountain
>> rescue wouldn't be able to get to him because of bad weather, or some
>shit.
>Yeah, and it'd all happen on the night he was supposed to finally get it on
>with GHL, who'd be left eating on her own at Pizzaland and wondering why
>she'd been stood up, and ends up crying on the shoulder of an opportunistic
>chav waiter.
Pizza /express/. Let's be accurate about these fun filled activities.
>> If it helps, she'll be all hugely fat and waddley atm. Just like Ben.
>> (but less ghey)
>GPWM. She looked like the type who'd be dead fit again about three weeks
>after the birth though, like my friend Emma.
Cunts. :-<
>> >If I felt like that about every woman I'd go mental, and if I never felt
>> You'd probably just get used to it and learn to partition that bit of
>> brain off.
>Heh. Cunt.
Seriously!
>You're probably right though.
It happens occasionally.
>> >like that about any of them I'd probably never have bothered having any
>> >sex at all, ever.
>> That's what beer and bedside lights are for.
>I've found that they're a poor substitute for sex these last few months.
You're obviously not using them right. There's probably websites that can
help you out. Ben can probably point you at them.
>> To be honest, I think Ben projects himself worse on here than he is "in
>> company" (if you can call me+JdS+(sprout/hugecockman) 'company' anyhow)
>> by quite a long way. With a beer and a quiz machine in the vicinity, you
>> can almost forget what a miserable piercedcock grumpyarse he is.
>I've met him as well, don't forget.
I know. But you had him all to yourself rather than "in company", which
is what we were talking about. (afaik you did, anyhow. Or did you share
him out?)
>> Believe it or not, I think /men/ can change their minds about anything as
>> well. Or at least, they could if they ever bothered to have an opinion
>> about anything in the first place. Lazy bastards.
>Exactly. I think us blokes change our minds less on the whole, because we
>can't be arsed.
I must admit, I don't /think/ I change my mind a lot. But then, I'm really
bad at making decisions. I do try my best to make other people take them.
And mostly I'm ambivalent about the things that I make people decide about
for me. Christ, I'm a bloke really, aren't I? :-/
>> >Ffs you cunt, just when I think we're getting somewhere you go and twist
>> >shit all around again and end on a note of misunderstanding.
>> Heh. I think I've just remembered why he reminds me of my ex! :-)
>Yeah. He hits me but I love him.
We all love him when he hits you, Joe.
Joe Horowitz
"Allen Parkes" <forename...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:40frbfF...@individual.net...
> Right, I don't which of the 400-line long messages to post this in, so I'm
> just intersecting here and you can all move over to make room for me.
Yes,
> I know my arse is fat, just fucking move over.
*moves over a bit to let Parkes in*
> Reading through this thread with all the
> Joe's-not-a-PUA-but-here's-his-advice stuff, and Ben's rebuttal that the
> principles preached were those of the dating gurus anyway, I got thinking.
<snip inspired webbage>
Man, sometimes I forget how clever and reasonable you are, Allen. This is a
great, great post. I can't really add much to it, partly because it's hard
enough keeping up with my conversation with Ben, but also because pretty
much anything I did want to say is contained in Dat's equally excellent
reply. I just didn't want it to pass by without showing some appreciation
for the fact that you can explain some of Ben's webs to me better than he
can.
Although, obviously, he's still better than you in a very general sense.
Osbourne Ruddock
>> This is all bollocks Ben. Society doesn't do shit. Most cunts who
>> attempt to 'conform' to the women's mag's idea of life end up fucking
>> out anyway.
>
>
> What's this based on?
Sky high divorce rates as much as anything. A high percentage of
marriages and de facto relationships fail. Logic would suggest that those
built on false ideals rather than honesty would be the highest of the
highest in the failure stat's.
>
> Like it or not, society exists and will enforce its worldview on gays,
> paedophiles, depressives and anyone else who doesn't fit in.
>
Well I'm happy enough if 'society's' size 12 boot enforces itself on
paedophiles but overall I believe more people here are tolerant of gay
people than ever before (they are here anyway if survey after survey,
even those done by the conservative right, are to be believed). Not sure
how society can force a worldview on depressives, aren't they just sad
about shit due to a whole variety of factors including physical and
chemical?
>> Look in the mirror big boy, I'd say any uncomfortableness in your
>> situation now is eminating from you. Chances are that GYL would love
>> to go back to just having you as a friend.
>
>
> She'd love to go back to a situation where I'd go home and cry after
> spending time with her?
>
> That's a great advert for women right there, Os.
>
Well I was under the mistaken impression it was a friendhip Ben, but it
appears to have been unrequited love from day 1 if what you're telling me
is correct. That's just a bit creepy.
>
> The irony is that I tried /not/ to eminate relationship vibes, even
> recently. I liked to plan a lot of shit for the future, but as I've
> discussed here in the past, I'm not even that confident at touching
> and kissing'n'shit.
>
You must be giving off some vibes though from what you've talked about
here. It's all wrapped up in the intensity of being Ben Nunn, you love
the stuff that you consider worthy of your love, intensely. And likewise
you hate or despise the rest with equal intensity. Moderating or relaxing
your view somewhat, toning stuff down, or learning to accept that just
because it doesn't quite make the grade in Nunn-world, doesn't
automatically mean it's shit. We're all a little bit like this, I'm
disparaging of music that I think is a bit rubbish etc... and I've made a
conscious effort over the years to be nicer to friends & partners who's
views diverge from mine. You're feeling seems to be though, that you'd
have to become a cunt and join all the other cunts in bland chavvy
cuntland and love cunty cuntformist stuff that society tells you to like
etc... before you will be more acceptable to women. I don't really know
what to say about this but I think it's more of a subtle change than an
overt one. It's about accepting other people, your focus has always been
on people not accepting you, turn this around a bit and have a look at
it. You have an interest in Christianity and religion, well unconditional
love is one of the conrnerstones of christianity, learn to accept a bit
more, you'll become more appealing, and possibly more interesting and
likeable.
>
> My atypical and unbalanced past (as I perceive it) is effecting me all
> the time, and only by having 'normal' experiences, can I overcome it,
> but the question for normal experience leads to desperation (as others
> perceive it).
>
It's not 'normal experience' that'll save you Ben as has been mentioned
quite often over the course of this Web, there is no such thing. Empathy,
forgiveness and unconditional love are your roads to redemption. It's
tough, but there it is.
>
> It comes across that way because I've spent my entire life having the
> 'other' kind of relationship - e.g. friendship.
>
> And every time it's all been very one-sided and frustrating, from my
> perspective because I haven't had the sexual relationships to bring
> balance to my life.
>
Heh, you think friendships are tough without sex, you wait pal!
> I sometimes wonder why women would want to be friends with me, when so
> much of what they expect me to do as part of the friendship (hearing
> about their boyfriends etc.) brings me pain. Can anybody explain that?
>
I presume they expect you to talk honestly about your stuff in the same
way. Women love that sort of stuff. Yeh I know, your stuff involves
saying 'but I love you GIL!' leading to embarassed silence etc...
>
> Yes. I spend time listening to womens problems and frustrations and
> being sympathetic and empathic'n'shit.
>
> All the while, my own frustrations just build up, and I have to use
> outlets such as the froup to let them all out.
>
It's a good thing Ben, we love it.
>>
>> From what I've heard from the froup from you, that is the way it is
>> for you with relationships. It probably will never happen, there's no
>> silver bullet, you might die never having had a relationship with a
>> woman. Learn to get by, stop looking for silver bullets, learn to
>> appreciate what you've got now with women. If you can do that, you
>> might have better days, if you can't, life will continue to be
>> miserable.
>
> That, right there, is darker and more depressing than any of the
> bleakest shit I've ever posted here.
>
I know, and I didn't particularly enjoy writing it, but it's the way that
I feel from the little I know through your writings on the froup, and my
experience in life so far. If there was a SBL on a future Nunn
relationship my youks would be going on the 'No' option, put it that way.
But it's only my opinion and a lovely relationship might drop on your
head tomorrow. But not in my opinion.
That doesn't mean I hate you Ben, quite the opposite in fact. I also
think you'd be a great partner, sensitive, devoted, witty and charming.
You'd undoubtedly be a great dad giving your kids security, love and
devotion, and I hope I'm wrong and you get the chance to have it.
--
Cheers, Os
Joe Horowitz
"Sir Benjamin Nunn" <ben...@depro.co.uk> wrote in message
news:40g9meF...@individual.net...
> I'm 28 and two thirds.
Is that years or stone?
> Joe, I appreciate your Demosthenean optimism here in the face of Ruddock's
> desperately defeatest pessimism.
>
> Who knows what the future might bring: Potentially anything could happen
in
> my future, including things that I really, really want.
Fuck yeah.
> It's hard for me to say this with the way I'm feeling at the moment but:
> Life is better now than it was, say, six or seven years ago.
As recently as two or three years ago, you'd have swore blind that you had
nothing worth having, that every single thing about your life is utter shit,
and that everyone and everything was completely and utterly against you. So
life would appear to be better than it was even more recently than you say.
> The fact that I'm now *noticing* my lack of a relationship means that I've
> improved things in other areas, and for that reason I'll always keep the
> faith.
Quite right. I'm a strong believer in improving anything you want. The
more empowered you feel to do stuff, the more empowered you are, and other
such motivational bollocks.
> I have a lot to be thankful for, in a lot of ways, and I never let myself
> forget it.
You know, it's not an impression you've ever conveyed to me before, and that
might tell you something in itself. Up until reading this, I had absolutely
no idea that you had any idea that you had anything to be thankful for at
all, and if you tell me that I missed some post or other where you said
otherwise MP will still S because I've read five years of your posts and
only ever thought you were a miserable cunt who didn't appreciate anything.
The sentence above has come as a revelation to me, Ben, it really has.
Were you being dishonest and cunty when you said it? If not, another of MP
will suddenly S as well.
> Does it make me feel any less alone at night? Nope.
Of course it doesn't. But if you're able to show that side of your
personality as well as you do the miserable defeatist side, you might get a
little closer to rectifying that problem without having to employ the use of
dishonest social cuntwank at any stage.
> Inspirational stuff.
Just call me T.J. Cuntflaps.
> Why don't you wonder if she'd consider going out with Ben Nunn?
Yeah, and then I'll wonder if I might lay an egg in my sleep while Charlton
win the Premiership and Jade Goody finds a miscalculation in quantum maths
which disproves conventional logic.
> Selfish, Nunnxclusive cunt.
There's only so many hours in the day, Ben. I can't wonder everything.
> I can't help but wonder if Os telling me that I'll definitely never have a
> relationship is just a trick so I'll stop wanting one, and therefore comes
> across as less desperate, and then I actually get one by not wanting it.
> Cunt.
>
> It's this sort of inherent dishonesty in human nature that I fucking hate,
> but which may be beneficial. 4 Strokes Argument etc.
Yeah, Osbourne comes across as a really dishonest sort of cunt. I hate him.
Joe Horowitz
Cunts. I don't know.
Originally they said about two weeks, which would have been December 6th,
but I e-mailed them on December 7th and they fobbed me off a bit. So I
phoned them on December 8th and they 'came clean' that they were all ready
to go except the soundcard I'd ordered hadn't come in yet but they were
expecting it that day or the next, to which I replied they could just as
easily told me that the day before and then I wouldn't have had to ring
them. I don't mind if there's a problem, we have those where I work as well
and things can get held up by unforeseen circumstances, but much of the
brownie points they got for pre-sales stuff they've already lost by trying
to fob me instead of just telling me what was going on.
But then they still hadn't got back to me last Monday, so I phoned them
again and they said it still hadn't come in yet but they would phone me when
they were ready to ship so I knew it was coming. Then I phoned them on
Thursday and they said it was actually finally ready and had a soundcard and
everything and they were going to ship on Friday so I'll get it on Monday.
So, if I don't get it on Monday I will be very very cross, because that's
the one day they have actually said I will get it so that would be a fob too
far. I get fucking well paid on Monday ffs, half the point of all this was
that the excitement of the new PC was supposed to offset the cuntiness of
having absolutely fuck all money for a month. Cunts.
I'm not going to buy any more stuff from them now unless I have some problem
in a few months and their tech support is really good. Then they'd be back
in my good books.
At least they're still answering their phone, I can get quite paranoid about
people I've never met having all of my money in their hands.
Robert Poleson
>@news.clara.net:
>
>>
>>>Here's what I look for in a woman in prioriy order;
>>>
>>>1. Kindness
>>>2. Humour
>>>3. Interest in books and/or movies or music that goes beyond the
>
>>
>> Forgive me for butting in on this thread (which should have been
>> renamed 'Longest post of my life' about 50 fucking years ago)
>> but I just think Humour should be at #1. And kindness should be
>> replaced by politeness at #2.
>
>Thanks for that Rob, as I was referring to what _I_ look for in a woman
>though, I'll probably keep it exactly how it is. I agree about the
>importance of humour though and, like coffee, I like it black, very black
>indeed. In fact, a lack of humour in a person puts me off more than
>finding out weird poilitical, religious or other shit out about them. If
>you can have a laugh together you're going to get on.
>
I agree completely. Humour roolz!
>I'm interested in your addition of politeness, it seems a bit
>anachronistic for some reason. On the one hand if a woman wants to say to
>me 'Oi, you filthy fucking cunt, stick that in here and don't fucking
>stop until I tell you to!' it would hardly be polite, but I wouldn't
>harbour any grudges against her for saying it, in fact I'd probably
>admire her naughty little ways. On the other hand, politeness is a most
>overlooked attribute nowadays and by and large is a nice one to have.
>
After having a little think about it, politeness and kindness
aren't all that different. Next time you notice someone sneezing
say, "Bless you." to them. It's so rare anyone does it these
days and it nearly always makes the sneezer smile.
Sir Benjamin Nunn
"Robert Poleson" <s...@m.no> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e0f680eb...@news.clara.net...
>
> After having a little think about it, politeness and kindness
> aren't all that different. Next time you notice someone sneezing
> say, "Bless you." to them. It's so rare anyone does it these
> days and it nearly always makes the sneezer smile.
Heh.
'Bless You/Him/Her/Them' is one of GIL's favourite phrases. She uses it all
the time, not just when people sneeze.
It's the sort of thing that I'd normally expect to be highly annoying, but
actually find rather cute.
BTN
Vicky Conlan
>After having a little think about it, politeness and kindness
>aren't all that different. Next time you notice someone sneezing
>say, "Bless you." to them. It's so rare anyone does it these
>days and it nearly always makes the sneezer smile.
You're obviously hanging about with the wrong people. I get it all
the time at work (I sneeze a lot, I have an issue with sunlight),
and I actually find it really annoying, cos it feels impolite not to
say "thank you", but apparently it's bad luck. I wish no-one had ever
told me that. Bah.
Allen Parkes
> So, you can teach an old dog old tricks. Perfect. That should be
> enough for Ben and yourself to get by with.
It's certainly fine by me, albeit Ben seemingly has the Eeyore Mentality.
> I won't attempt to speak for Joe or Os. Myself, I have difficulty
> relating to Ben's need for a manual in the same way that I have
> trouble understanding normal folk regularly consulting shrinks. I've
> never felt so fucked up that I've ever felt the need (doesn't mean I'm
> not).
This was kinda the point of my post. Too often people prescribe advice
based on their perception of things, without first seeking to understand
where the advisee is coming from, IYSWIM.
> Interacting with others is something that takes practice. <snip> I
> don't see how reading about it is any better preparation than diving
> in and getting your hands dirty.
AWTWP. The first thing made clear in any of the books Ben or I have read is
that too some extent, it's a numbers game. If you approach 100 women in a
night, you'll find maybe 10 who are interested. Furthermore, reading a
dozen books is no subtitute for talking to a dozen women, so getting your
hands dirty and learning from your mistakes is not only the first order of
business, but preety much the main portion of the advice offered. Yes, it
seems fucking obvious to me now and likely to everyone else too, but fear
and etc. would previously have prevented me from doing this.
>Generally I've just gone with the flow and not worried about it too much
>and if
> something has popped up then that's been a bonus.
Fair enough, although the 'not worrying about it' part would be where I'd
have fallen down, and no doubt the same applies to Ben.
> The problem with your web here is that it's very easy to fall into the
> trap of believing that everyone else is a member of some secret club
> and that they received all the answers during initiation. Let's call
> this the NewbieView. Despite them not, it could become a comfortable
> crutch, one that becomes more necessary the longer it is relied upon.
AWTWP, although I think it's fair that you have to accept that at some point
after much floundering - and seeing other people who you might consider less
'smart' or less 'socially aware' not floundering - that other people seem to
know something about this that you don't. That isn't to say there's a
massive conspiracy or a gang that everyone else got initiated into that I or
Ben didn't, just that they're better at this than I am and I want to learn
from that.
> I'm all for putting your best foot forward but this appears to be
> leaning towards being something you aren't, and that's worse than
> appearing a little desperate.
It's a fine line when reading through the material to see the point where
they stop advising on how to be your best self and how to pretend to be
something you aren't. Ben seems to struggle with that along the same lines
as your web above, though I can't say I am. If anything, what's hit me most
hard from reading some of these books is how much of the suggested attitudes
or social skills I already have, have always had, and never used in the
right context.
It's also why if I were to ask any of my friends why I'm so bad with teh
girls they usually say "I've no idea, Al." Because around friends, or women
I'm not attracted to, I'm my 'usual' self, who ironically does all he'd need
to if there were pretty girls around too. Thing is, I generally /don't/
behave like that when the girls are around, I retreat into a comfortable
armchair of abject fear and cluelessness, clam up and say very little. All
I've learned so far is how to use what's already in there at the right time
to present myself in a better light than "that quiet nerdy bloke who doesn't
say much".
> I'm sure a lot of us feel much the same way about a new love, and that
> refers to both parties. Nervousness, tongues being tied, inertia due
> to uncertainty, etc are all parts of the process for anyone who
> doesn't chop and change partners on a regular basis, or possess
> mountains of self confidence, and a lack of it would seem unnatural to
> me. In fact I'd probably read it as disinterest rather than feigned
> indifference.
In my case, and probably in Ben's, the nervousness had always proved
crippling. Not just straightforward tongues tied, but a near life-or-death
gravity to each word spoken in her company. I'm guessing on Ben's view
here, but this is how it always was with me.
> A little desperation doesn't necessarily have to be repulsive. It
> could be viewed as a compliment so long as you aren't salivating and
> fiddling in your pockets.
DWTWP. I can't think of any circumstances in which a woman has found a
man's desperation attractive. Perhaps not repulsive, I'll concede, but the
point I make is one of intensity, as above - it becomes so important in your
mind, the totality of the situation is allowed to grow unchecked until it is
the most important thing ever in the history of man. No, really, that's how
it felt. Ridiculous, perhaps, but these are the issues with which I would
struggle. That sort of intensity leads to Joe's pedestal theory, and I
AWHWP that this is overwhelming and a Bad Thing.
>>To Joe and Os, it's not cunty at
>> all. It's just ribbing a girl about her hair to make her laugh,
>> etc., and is normal flirting to the well-adjusted.
>
> If that's an example of what he's been referring to as cunty behaviour
> then the word really has lost all meaning.
It's a weak example, but I was making a point.
> What you seem to be saying is that you and Ben are either much nicer
> than everybody else, or that you have difficulty viewing women as
> people...not just difficult to talk to, but untouchable objects. I
> find the first hard to believe. I can sympathize with the second, a
> bit, but it's something _you_ must overcome and no amount of boning up
> beforehand is gonna get you through it.
Yep, the second one I guess. It doesn't consciously 'feel' like
objectifying or not viewing women as people, but it kinda fits with what
you're saying.
>Actually it seems to be making
> things worse.
This statement, and a few others, are why I left it a while before I
replied, Dat. I've not, too my knowledge, gone into this much depth about
my perspective on these matters on the froup for absolutely ages (HSH
possibly), if at all. More recently, things have variously changed with me
and I've certainly had reason to sort out some of my issues and change my
perspectives n'shit. It's been great, very empowering as Joe would say, and
I feel healthier and more balanced than I have in ages. I'm not sure why
you can read from one post in support of /explanation of Ben's situation
that things are being made worse for me in some way. Explanation, please.
> I think this is what most people mean when they suggest being
> yourself. You don't have difficulty taking the mickey out of your
> mates, yourselves, or even strangers on the eweb, or being witty,
> thoughtful, caring, etc, so if you were like that with the ladies they
> might enjoy your company as much as we do. It wouldn't guarantee an
> attraction but it'd be a start.
AWTWP, as I mentioned above.
> Rather than showing them the indifferens, the callous construct of
> crap cuntiness, or fawning Gollum for that matter, work on Joe's line
> of men with tits. They'll work out whether you're interested without
> any great need for a plan of action to be followed step by step.
Heh. Joe's Blokes With Tits argument is a thing of beauty, and puts it
better than I could and in far fewer words, too. This is some of what I
meant with my CCC ramblings, since being cunty with mates is usually pretty
funny and everybody has a laugh. It's just that I'd have been too shit
scared of offending some pretty girl with such behaviour in the past to dare
try it with her. "But...BUT...what if she walks
AWAY!1!!1OMg!1!aloneforever@!1eleven!!" IYSWIM.
> All of what you're saying makes sense of a sort, but it's way too
> simplistic in some respects and way too overthought in others.
Probably the fault of the author more than the psychology and theory, Dat.
It's how my brain is.
> Further, most people aren't good enough actors to pull off being
> someone else, and falseness is about the biggest turn off you could
> find.
Yep, I'm not sure I made myself very clear in explaining this stuff so far,
maybe this post will help to clarify that I'm not talking about wearing
someone else's pants when you go into town. I'm not trying to be a Pick Up
Artist, and especially not one who pretends to be someone else as a PUA. I'm
just learning to put my best foot forward, as you say.
For me, the basic principles behind the books I've read so far could be
equally substituted for what's in this thread so far, especially the bits
about Blokes With Tits. If I'd spent the hundreds of pounds Ben has so far,
I'd probably be a bit upset that this thread is doing just as good a job but
for free.
>You appear to be having enough difficulty being who you are.
I do? Well fuck me.
> Joe again suggested you've got to stop thinking of women as "them".
He's suggested no such thing to me. Are you talking to Ben by this point?
It just seems like some of this stuff is aimed at me yet I've only
contributed one post in the thread prior to this one. I'm not the one
professing to be 4-0 at half time, Dattykins.
> Partly agree. He can't and shouldn't need to change who he is, the
> core of Ben. That doesn't mean that he can't do things that might make
> him more attractive to prospective partners.
AWTWP, that's the part I mean about unwillingess to change. I think in
Ben's world, even minor changes in what you do elicit the same animosity as
would vast changes at the core of your being.
> Also, the chance of him bumping into someone who likes him precisely
> the way he is, wouldn't change a hair on his head, isn't impossible.
Also true, but people get very bitter when they're waiting around in hope
and desperation, which leads to...
> It's just that where he is atm, mentally/physically(both), doesn't
> seem to be conducive to that happening,
...this. So, Quite.
> Partly agree again. If you're lost, a map and a compass can prove most
> useful. Unfortunately they alone cannot get you out of the shithole.
> Eventually you must stand on your own two feet and walk the walk.
> There are no rescue helicopters here.
Totally AWTWP, that's what I've been saying to Ben. Move on and get out
there and do shit n'shit. Hey, you know what would be good? If you said
some of this stuff to Ben instead of me.
--
Al
"i like chelsea.
Are you?"
- Mr Bean, Dec 2005
Allen Parkes
>> After having a little think about it, politeness and kindness
>> aren't all that different. Next time you notice someone sneezing
>> say, "Bless you." to them. It's so rare anyone does it these
>> days and it nearly always makes the sneezer smile.
AWTWP, I do that too.
> 'Bless You/Him/Her/Them' is one of GIL's favourite phrases. She uses
> it all the time, not just when people sneeze.
>
> It's the sort of thing that I'd normally expect to be highly
> annoying, but actually find rather cute.
Hey, I say "God bless you" quite often too. Am I rather cute?
Joe Horowitz
>
> "Joe Horowitz" <joeundersc...@youblunder.cunts.youghey> wrote in
> message news:7KMof.3144$Og1....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >
> > DWTWP. There are exceptions. I've only ever hated one person in my
> > life, and yet I know very little about them and have never even met
them.
> > Which is good, because for two or three years I would quite probably
> > and literally have killed them.
>
>
> I know he's not a proper poster, but that's really quite harsh, Joe.
Racist. Just because he's Irish, doesn't mean he's not a proper poster.
> I think I've just realised where we differ here - I can get passionate
> and/or emotional about a /lack/ of things.
>
> E.g. I'm passionate about hearing some really beautiful music, or drinking
a
> great wine. However, when faced with indifferent shit, I'm still
> passionate - passionate about the fact that it's *not* amazing IYSWIM.
>
> I find myself thinking about everything that is not, as well as everything
> that is, if that makes sense. Probably to an unhealthy degree. Right now,
> I'm still thinking heavily about GIL and what didn't happen between us.
Yes, I'd say that's a pretty big difference. I just try really really hard
not to spend my time thinking my way down blind alleys of depsair, and I'm
very good at not doing it.
> AWTWP. It's normally good to use what the psychologists call 'observing
ego'
> well in advance of these situations, rather than letting them get to us.
In
> my case, much easier said than done, however.
My approach is this:
Something shit happens, or something doesn't go according to plan.
First, I think about how this affects me right now and what I can do about
it. If the answer is very shit and upsetting, I think how it will effect me
tomorrow or what I can have done about it by then. If the answer is still
shit I think to next week, next year, keep going until I can get to the
point where it probably doesn't matter anymore and everything's fine again,
and focus on that. The worst ones are usually only a week or two in most
cases, although I did once console myself with the fact that that the sun
will implode at some point.
> Your point about emotional extremes being defined by experiences is very
> interesting to me, and the logical extension to that, I guess, is that
where
> one has a lack of experience, there is no outer boundary or limit for the
> emotion.
Exactly.
> I'm purely guessing here, but I would imagine that, for example, Liz
> Taylor's 6th divorce was not as painful as her first because she was
getting
> used to the emotional rollercoaster by then, and had some boundaries and
> expectations already in place.
Exactly.
> Similarly, someone who defines the loss of a baby child as worse than the
> loss of elderly parents, is likely to be less affected by the death of
their
> parents, if they've already suffered the loss of a baby child.
Exactly. We'll call this the 1pm News Argument. There was a time when if
the the good television with the colours and movement'n'shit finished and
the shit television with the man saying stuff came on, I was totally
distraught. A mess. Simply because it was the worst thing that had ever
happened to me. I don't think anything has ever hurt me more than that did,
tbh, it's just that my capacity for pain and pleasure has increased so it
take more to touch the sides. It's certainly the hardest I can ever
remember crying about anything, and the most helpless I've ever felt to do
anything about it.
> It's for this reason that other peoples suffering actually comforts me a
> bit. Leicester Hospital Baby Argument.
I'm not sure I like LHB argument, tbh, now I've had a chance to think about
it.
> Like what might happen if JdS is punished by God.
Quite. And see, this is where I don't like it. I asked you if Conlan or
JdS or even someone you liked lost a baby would make you happier, and you
said it would because it would illustrate a side of love and relationships
you don't have to put up with. And I accepted that as sound logic and
reason and moved on. Something bugged me for ages afterwards, though, and
by the time I'd put my finger on it the conversation had passed and I
couldn't be arsed to re-open it. However:
Given that this shit goes on all the time, and you know that it does (as in,
x babies died last year in this country, and it's probably a reasonably bet
that x or thereabouts will again next year), why do you need it to happen to
someone you love, or someone you can see in a car-park you walk through in
Leicester, to be able to appreciate that it's not happening to you? I said
the girl with the debilitating whatever-it-is at work gave me comfort
because it reminds me of shit I've dodged, but the difference between me and
you would appear to be that I'd be delighted if she came in tomorrow totally
cured and with a lovely boyfriend because I've spoken to her very briefly a
couple of times and she seems like a nice person who deserves good shit,
you'd rather (it appears) she became completely paralysed or died because
that would go even further towards making your life seem comparitively
better. Even though if she does or she doesn't it doesn't really affect the
total stats of how many cunts do every year, so your life is comparably
pretty much the same either way. It won't make you feel any less alone at
night, as you said yourself.
If one of my friends' kids died, or indeed Conlan's or JdS's kids, I'd be
totally gutted about it because they are people that I know (sort of), so in
my own frame of existence and the people I like etc things had overall just
got worse rather than better. I've actually met Mr and Mrs dS, they're
fucking lovely if you ask me and the thought of their world turning to shit
is one I find utterly horrifying. Similarly Conlan, we've had our
differences but we do get on pretty well these days, I've known her in a way
for five years or something and have become reluctantly fond of her, and a
death in her life would still be a little bit too close to my own not to
affect me. Infant deaths are never a nice thought, frankly, because of the
impact on the parents (usually fucks them up pretty much forever, from what
I've seen) and of course the ridiculously tragic nature of some poor cunt
not even getting the chance to experience _anything_, not so much as a bar
of Dairy Milk or a Darkness record, in their lifetime. Not one experience.
No ghey experiment. No Belgian beer. No Todd Solondz film. No nothing.
Born, die, nothing in between.
I actually don't find that thought comforting in any way, I find that sad.
Of course, my opinion on this is no more valid than yours etc, but this is a
thread about which aspects of your character might or might not be
attractive to women, and I'd suggest this might be another thing you could
think about. Most women do appreciate compassion in a man, despite what you
might think, and an inability to feel anything other than smug
self-satisfaction when shit things happen to good people does not paint you
in a compassionate light. Much more a nasty, sneering alpha-male one if
anything.
> Send me a relationship with GIL please. That's all I ask.
No way. Her favourite song isn't 'Africa' by Toto, she's not good enough
for you.
> I kinda understand this, but I just don't really 'get' physical
attraction.
>
> For instance, I find every inch of GIL amazingly beautiful, but I'm pretty
> sure that's because it's her, and because of how I feel about her.
<snip inner beauty>
Yeah, I get all that, it's fair enough. Tbh, though, just sounds pretty
much how I feel about all of my closest friends, I think they are all
absolutely beautiful people in a million wonderful ways, including the
blokes. Just doesn't mean I want to fuck them.
> Heh. According to the Dating Gurus (again), height isn't relevent to
women -
> e.g. there is no overall preference for taller men.
Heh. Maybe they're right. I'm not complaining either way, tbh.
> Apparently (something I amazingly DIDN'T get from the gurus, this) the
> tallness of the 'tall, dark and handsome' stereotype actually dates back
to
> the traditions of the theatre, where it was logistically easier to stage a
> kiss if the man was taller than the woman, and so the hero parts were
given
> to the taller actors, which perpetuated the idea that tallness is
attactive
> in men.
That makes no sense to me whatsoever, though. Why would it be logistically
easier to stage a kiss if one specific gender was higher than the other,
unless there was already a pre-determined societal ideal about which one
_should_ be higher?
> Heh. Maybe I should've done that.
>
> I don't know what it's like to have sex with someone I'm really attracted
> to.
Heh. I'm the opposite. Sex for me has only ever been an intense expression
of mutual attraction of one form or another. Physically = always, in other
ways as well = sometimes. The best sex, of course, has had the other ways.
> This makes me laugh and cry at the same time. Nothing else to add.
>
> I'm glad that Knightout started this thread now, it's turning into one of
> the finest threads ever.
I don't like it, I've put all sorts of effort into it and still not got any
lovemaking. It's like being you.
> Well, teh indifferens Alpha Malecunt doesn't contradict any of the five
> points on which you agree with the gurus. Alpha Malecunts /are/ generally
> optimistic and confident avoid negativity, have a positive outlook and
body
> language, and are likely to work out and be notfat'n'shit.
Skewed logic again. The fact that ducks have beaks doesn't mean animals
with beaks are ducks. So it seems increasingly (especially having read
Allen's articulate webs) like teh gurus have merely been saying all the
stuff I've been saying about just trying to be good company etc, not make
chicks feel weird'n'shit and not look down on everyone and project an air of
superiority and harsh judgement, and you've made all the Alpha Male stuff up
yourself in a typical act of Nunntastic word-abuse.
> Like you, I instinctively try to see all sides of any theory, and have put
> the guru shit up to close scrutiny, rather than accepting it all blindly
> (although by all accounts it works most effectively for those who do
accept
> it without question).
DWTWP, and here we might really be getting somewhere. It sounds like
Allen's getting quite a bit out of this thread and some other similiar
resources, and not because he's accepting it all blindly. Any teacher knows
that cunts learn things much better when they can see _how_ it works and not
just know that it _does_. Whatever subject, maths, languages, anything. At
worst, I'd say that if Allen still can't get laid, he'll at least have some
fucking idea finally _why_ he can't get laid and what's been holding him
back, which is presumably marginally preferable to it all just being some
big frustrating mystery. At best, he might just sort it out and live a
happier life. I hope it's the second one, personally.
However, I'm often extremely sceptical as to the exact nature of your 'close
scrutiny'. It seems like Allen uses 'close scrutiny' to try to understand
something and get as much as he can from it, whereas you come from a
slightly different angle and use 'close scrutiny' to find a way you can go
'A-ha!11 Yet more Nunn-excluding unfairness right there!111! Told you
everything was against me!11', which you can obviously find in absolutely
anything if you look hard enough and are prepared to twist a few words and
phrases here and there.
And so, close scrutiny of someone suggesting you're a bit less fucking
negative and try to relax a bit more around the women you like reveals a
thinly-veiled message of teh alpha-maleism where you're pretty much being
told, in so many words, that you will never find love unless you start
knocking girls about'n'shit and buysing them chips.
Close scrutiny of me telling you that I am the most honest person there is
and that it's never stopped me having a good sex life reveals me actually
telling you that dishonest social cuntwank is your only hope.
Maybe you should try closely scrutinising your close scrutiny. It's akin to
journalism sometimes perhaps, in that you decide what your story is and then
find the facts to back it up, twisting words and phrases where you need to.
Might be holding you back.
> FWIW I do think ski machines are for cunts. And by using one, I am making
> myself cuntier. (it's actually teh ghey stand-up bicycle macine
techincally
> as well, I suppose, not really skiing at all.)
Look at it this way, aside from the outside chance of marginally improving
your odds of attracting a mate, it's pretty well documented that the mind
and body, and condition thereof, are for the most part inextricably linked.
Improvement of one will more often than not lead to improvement of the
other. I don't, obviously, mean that footballers are cleverer, just that
the more energy you have physically the more positive and motivated you will
generally feel mentally. I'm never less cheerful than when I'm ill or
hungover, it's all linked. Time spent on your ski-machine might ultimately
lead to you waking up in a slightly better mood and with a slightly better
outlook, which could have a knock on effect on everything else. I really
_don't_ think ski-machines are for cunts, the only thing I do feel a little
is how much of a shame it is that so many people can make so much money from
people getting fitter in ways they could just as easily have done without
expensive machinery. My mate Andy (who Kullrad met), in his martial-arts
days, used to do a two-hour workout twice a week using nothing but the
muscles in his own body against one another. He just needed a bit of
floorspace and everyone to leave him the fuck alone for a bit. I can,
however, appreciate that some need the financial commitment and scheduled
time at the gym or whatever to keep themselves motivated.
If you can progress onto some sort of _enjoyable_ activity that just happens
to be physical as well, and therefore 'get in shape' whilst doing something
you get real pleasure from anyway, then I'd suggest that might be a good
next step. I'm extremely fit, and I've never set foot inside a gym or taken
any exercise for it's own sake, ever, because there's enough stuff I enjoy
doing anyway which happens to be really good for me physically. The only
difference is I sometimes go to football on Tuesday nights even when I don't
really feel like it, because I can also appreciate the fact that it has
other benefits in my life as well. And I always enjoy it anyway, even when
I really really didn't want to leave the house just beforehand.
> Absolutely, and it's all a big learning curve.
>
> I do think that some people - myself included - are further from optimal
> than others, and therefore require a greater self-change in order to reap
> the rewards.
I don't know about 'optimal', but some peole are very unhappy and others
aren't, so it's more a case of 'not fixing what ain't broken'. I'm no
better than you in any way whatsoever, I'm just much much happier so great
change in my life is perhaps less neccesary.
> OK.
>
> I'd like to have a Run Nunn to decide the exact phrase to use, if that's
> alright?
Heh. Why are you asking me? You Run Nunn yourself ultimately, no-one can
do it for you. Do whatever you like.
However, if you merely wanted my opinion on this matter, I personally think
it would fit more of the pyschorules of what works and what doesn't, and how
much, if the phrase was something you came up with yourself, and which
reflected truly accurately the changes _you_ wanted to make in your own
life.
You shouldn't be looking to anyone else to tell you what to do, IMHO, all me
or a guru or teh froup can ever offer is what we think about shit, based on
our own experiences and perceptions and what we may or may not understand
about you. Your challenge is to sift the fuck through all that and decide
for yourself what, of everything you've read and of all my drunken ramblings
etc, makes some sense and may be of some use to you, and what is just
bollocks. If you come to the conclusion that it's _all_ bollocks, then fair
enough, you're back to square one a little bit but at least you researched
some new shit and gave some new ideas consideration. If some of it makes
some sense, though, and you think you can use it, then you try to use it.
In short, the only person in the whole world even _remotely_ qualified to
make a decision for you, about absolutely anything, is you, because you're
the only person who will ever know all your various factors.
Run Nunn is great fun, you get to canvass opinion and Youksef gets a virtual
pet for a thread. Like one of those Japanese whatsits, tamagoshi or
somesuch. They probably won't hep you much in the long run, though, unless
ultimately the decision of what to do next comes from the same place as the
decision to have the Run Nunn in the first place. Merely the scant
consolation that if things don't work out for you, you've one more reason to
blame everyone except yourself.
> > can appreciate true greatness so much better than everyone else can.
Sad
> > thing is, it's probably pretty much the truth as well, your huge
gynormous
> > uber-brain might well be your undoing in this life, but it doesn't half
> > make you sound like a cunt sometimes.
>
> Heh. I accept this criticism - if indeed it is a criticism.
Of course it's not a criticism. I don't have one single criticism of you in
any way, shape or form, people aren't software or recipes or somesuch to be
tweaked and tuned to your own specifications, you accept someone as a
package or you don't accept them and I hope it's pretty fucking obvious that
I do accept you and think you're basically great. This is merely one of
many contributions I've made to a thread in which we are, for the most part,
talking about possible reasons why no-one ever sucks your cock unless you
pay them.
> You'll also know that I wish I could be cured of my elitism, or good
taste,
> or pickyness, or supersillyrubbishcunt or however we choose to define it.
Heh. If there's one thing that should have come through in all these webs
is that the BOA has increasingly little use to you, as it is entirely
possible to perform your own internally. Just so long as you actually want
to and aren't just pretending to want to, both to yourself and everyone
else, whilst actually remaining fixed in your own little comfort zone of
futility where you don't actually have to do anything about anything because
ultimately you can't.
We'll call this the self-help argument.
> After all, it has given me a lifetime of constant disappointment.
Yeah, and it's all you have to look forward to unless you work on finding a
different mindset. Entirely your choice.
> Bah, yet another cosy perfect mainstream vanilla life.
>
> What a cunt.
Etc. And yet, you know a little more about me now, and while you might even
more reasonably envy my life than before, I hope you can also see that it's
not _that_ mainstream or vanilla. You even called me a free-thinking not
much more than a year or so later, which I pretty much took as an apology
and an admission of having talked silly judgemental bollocks before.
> That's the dream.
>
> Actually, I'd love to live in a world where most pubs stopped selling
Stella
<snip usual bollocks>
Yeah yeah, and I'd love to live in a world where MDMA was available over the
counter at Boots etc etc. Big fucking deal.
> Note that this isn't a world in which everyone is /like me/, but just a
> world in which everyone is as good as me, in unique and varied ways. My
> attitude would soon disappear in that world.
Yeah, but until you can get over the idea that everyone isn't _already_ as
good as you, in unique and varied ways, you'll always come across as a
supercillious cunt who'd pick faults in everything his wife cooks or rents
from the DVD store.
> Quite.
>
> But, BOA, obviously. I don't like being in this position - it's just the
way
> I seem to be.
SHA.
> I'm sorry, Joe.
>
> I really don't mean to twist shit around - I'm not even aware that I'm
doing
> it. It's just another one of those things that I don't 'get'. Maybe when I
> read stuff on the froup, I add a whole load of other shit in my head or
> something ghey?
Quite possibly. Here's another good example for you: Osbourne says 'I
expect GYL would probably like to still be your friend'. (Which I actually
agree with, btw, although I don't know for sure because I haven't met her).
You reply "Ha!1! so she _does_ want me to cry'n'shit, so girls _are_ evil
after all by your logic!1!lol!1!crushinggripofreason!1!1"
That's a pretty major twist in an initially simplistic and reasonable web,
don't you think? It's practically a double fucking reef-knot.
> Out of the mouths of the gurus. Although from what you've said, I could be
> taking all their shit the wrong way as well.
Heh. Very much a possibility, I'd say. Tell me, do they actually mention
alpha males at any point at all?
> > Cunt. I want lovemaking.
> > *cries*
>
>
> Heh. If only GIL demanded lovemaking like that.
She probably does, Ben.
:-P
Allen Parkes
famously said:
> DWTWP, and here we might really be getting somewhere. It sounds like
> Allen's getting quite a bit out of this thread and some other similiar
> resources, and not because he's accepting it all blindly. Any
> teacher knows that cunts learn things much better when they can see
> _how_ it works and not just know that it _does_. Whatever subject,
> maths, languages, anything. At worst, I'd say that if Allen still
> can't get laid, he'll at least have some fucking idea finally _why_
> he can't get laid and what's been holding him back, which is
> presumably marginally preferable to it all just being some big
> frustrating mystery. At best, he might just sort it out and live a
> happier life. I hope it's the second one, personally.
AWTWP. For all the flaws in the material and the parts that look
rubbischunt and I'm not reading (stealing chicks from their boyfriends
indeed), it does put this stuff into words I can understand and it is
starting to make sense. That's pretty new, that.
> However, I'm often extremely sceptical as to the exact nature of your
> 'close scrutiny'. It seems like Allen uses 'close scrutiny' to try
> to understand something and get as much as he can from it, whereas
> you come from a slightly different angle and use 'close scrutiny' to
> find a way you can go 'A-ha!11 Yet more Nunn-excluding unfairness
> right there!111! Told you everything was against me!11', which you
> can obviously find in absolutely anything if you look hard enough and
> are prepared to twist a few words and phrases here and there.
<...>
> Maybe you should try closely scrutinising your close scrutiny. It's
> akin to journalism sometimes perhaps, in that you decide what your
> story is and then find the facts to back it up, twisting words and
> phrases where you need to. Might be holding you back.
Heh. When I said this on MSN t'other week, Ben got quite upset and told me
I sounded like you.
Michael Cunningham
> 'Bless You/Him/Her/Them' is one of GIL's favourite phrases. She uses it all the time, not just when people sneeze.
>
> It's the sort of thing that I'd normally expect to be highly annoying, but actually find rather cute.
No, that's definitely annoying. Very annoying, in fact. Trust me
on this one, Ben. You're better off without her.
--
Mike
Dat
>After having a little think about it, politeness and kindness
>aren't all that different.
Aren't they?
Cunts can manage politeness when it suits. It's how most of us manage
to get along. Kindness is a different kettle of alms altogether. To me
it encompasses a little more than just being civil.
> Next time you notice someone sneezing
>say, "Bless you." to them. It's so rare anyone does it these
>days and it nearly always makes the sneezer smile.
So you'd encourage us to encourage others to infest the air around us
with whatever infection is currently affecting them more regularly
would you, Rob...or should that be Dr Poleson?
--
Dat
Dat
(Vicky Conlan) wrote:
>To be honest, I think Ben projects himself worse on here than he is "in
>company" (if you can call me+JdS+(sprout/hugecockman) 'company' anyhow)
>by quite a long way.
I don't think he's the only one that comes across as more extreme than
the life sized version[1]. That has a lot to do with the medium but
might also be partly due to maintaining a character on here.
I often get the impression that Ben is hamming it up and that is no
doubt reflected in some of my replies. I feel guilty about it
afterwards if it becomes apparent that he was not, but I refuse to
apologize. I'm a man ffs!
I think I'd be the disappointed one if we ever met and he wasn't a
fleshy Marvin the robot.
>Believe it or not, I think /men/ can change their minds about anything as
>well. Or at least, they could if they ever bothered to have an opinion about
>anything in the first place. Lazy bastards.
Cuttingly good points.
On the one hand you have those that can see more than three sides to
every story and all seem equally plausible. On the other you have
those that, having made a decision, can't be seen to change their mind
because it might be viewed as detracting from their manhood. And on
the third hand, it's not laziness so much as being comfortable with
any of the options you decide to take.
[1] I mean, how could Joe possibly be that reasonable, rational, and
downright sexy? Surely Poleson must be wrong occasionally. I heard a
rumour that Mikey is not immune to the rehashing of old material, and
apparently was once suspected of being in possession of a pimple in
public! And, if you can believe this, that JdS doesn't smell even the
slightest bit musty.
--
Dat
Dat
<forename...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>Dat <dat...@yahoo.co.uk> once famously said:
>> I won't attempt to speak for Joe or Os. Myself, I have difficulty
>> relating to Ben's need for a manual in the same way that I have
>> trouble understanding normal folk regularly consulting shrinks. I've
>> never felt so fucked up that I've ever felt the need (doesn't mean I'm
>> not).
>
>This was kinda the point of my post. Too often people prescribe advice
>based on their perception of things, without first seeking to understand
>where the advisee is coming from, IYSWIM.
Surely you're not suggesting that I don't have a firm handle on
immaturity?
I'm doing my best to keep up, but in the end the only advice I can
offer is drawn from experience, either mine own or that which I've
observed. If it were not for the why mes I'd not be inclined to offer
it.
>>Generally I've just gone with the flow and not worried about it too much
>>and if
>> something has popped up then that's been a bonus.
>
>Fair enough, although the 'not worrying about it' part would be where I'd
>have fallen down, and no doubt the same applies to Ben.
Yeah, I suspect that's where we differ quite a bit. I've never gone
out of my way to hit on people. Sure, I used to frequent places I knew
there would be women, but I was happy just having a good time and just
kinda bumped into them from time to time, more often through friends
than cold calling if you like. The not worrying refers as much to not
being overly concerned about getting me a woman as anything else.
I know it's probably because this is the topic on offer, but it does
sound a little like you're both planning on mounting some kind of
military operation or something.
>AWTWP, although I think it's fair that you have to accept that at some point
>after much floundering - and seeing other people who you might consider less
>'smart' or less 'socially aware' not floundering - that other people seem to
>know something about this that you don't. That isn't to say there's a
>massive conspiracy or a gang that everyone else got initiated into that I or
>Ben didn't, just that they're better at this than I am and I want to learn
>from that.
That's fair enough. Again I think our approaches differ in that I
rarely compare myself to others in that way. I don't look at more
successful people, be it monetarily, possessionwise, relationshipwise,
or abilitywise, and think they're complete ming mongs, why can't I
achieve what they have? I guess I'm not as driven...as you, in this
respect. Certainly not as much as many others.
>It's also why if I were to ask any of my friends why I'm so bad with teh
>girls they usually say "I've no idea, Al." Because around friends, or women
>I'm not attracted to, I'm my 'usual' self, who ironically does all he'd need
>to if there were pretty girls around too. Thing is, I generally /don't/
>behave like that when the girls are around, I retreat into a comfortable
>armchair of abject fear and cluelessness, clam up and say very little. All
>I've learned so far is how to use what's already in there at the right time
>to present myself in a better light than "that quiet nerdy bloke who doesn't
>say much".
I know exactly where you're coming from, apart from the nerdy. I've
been referred to as anal a couple of times recently, but given that
I'm way less fastidious now than I have ever been, I can only assume
that they are suggesting I smell like poo.
Perhaps if you just went about being the quiet nerdy bloke and forgot
about being the quiet nerdy bloke who just happens to be a chick
magnet in his spare time, you might run into a lass who digs quiet
nerdy blokes?
That's probably going against the proactiveness your books recommend,
but it ain't hurt me.
In Ben's situation in particular, the logic of attempting to be more
chavlike in a world full of chavs seems a little askew. Being the odd
one out in a crowd, provided odd doesn't extend to dangerously weird,
can be an attractive quality in its own right, and given that chavs
attract chavettes, apparently, why would you want to waste time on a
catch and release comp when you're looking for the full fish supper
with all the accoutrements?
>In my case, and probably in Ben's, the nervousness had always proved
>crippling. Not just straightforward tongues tied, but a near life-or-death
>gravity to each word spoken in her company. I'm guessing on Ben's view
>here, but this is how it always was with me.
I'm not sure Ben has that problem tbh. Since he doesn't seem to find
women attractive on a superficial level and requires time for any
attraction to develop, he must be past that stage by the time he
realizes. He's told us about a couple of girls he's been getting along
fine with in the last year or so. His difficulty seems to lie in
broaching the let's go to bed bit, or at least making it clear that
that could be an option before they think of him as just one of the
girls.
I think I've been where you've been and the problem, I think, lies
with thinking there's possibly something on the horizon before you
really know much about them, and because of that and the mental block
that entails, you never do.
If it's any help, any girl I've enjoyed any real relationship with was
one that I found it easy to talk to virtually from the off. There was
something there that was obvious to both parties from the start and
the "Fuck, I can't screw this up" thing barely looked up from whatever
it happened to be doing at the time. If it did, I was too engrossed in
the girl to pay it any heed.
Perhaps if that's not happening for you, there was nothing there no
matter how you acted, you've been barking up the wrong tree as it
were, and you'd have been better off moving on as soon as it was
obvious it didn't click. Then again, maybe I'm just not the one for
challenges and am not the best example of raging testosterone fueled
pulling power.
>> A little desperation doesn't necessarily have to be repulsive. It
>> could be viewed as a compliment so long as you aren't salivating and
>> fiddling in your pockets.
>
>DWTWP. I can't think of any circumstances in which a woman has found a
>man's desperation attractive.
Ok, if you fancied someone from across the room and when she
approached you (yeah, just go with it for a minute) it became
immediately clear that she was trying way too hard, would you tell her
to fuck off?
Alright, women are that little bit different and some may be less
likely to be as up for it as a bloke, but they're not that different.
It could happen and I'm leaving my point hanging on that.
> Perhaps not repulsive, I'll concede, but the
>point I make is one of intensity, as above - it becomes so important in your
>mind, the totality of the situation is allowed to grow unchecked until it is
>the most important thing ever in the history of man. No, really, that's how
>it felt. Ridiculous, perhaps, but these are the issues with which I would
>struggle. That sort of intensity leads to Joe's pedestal theory, and I
>AWHWP that this is overwhelming and a Bad Thing.
Now I'll admit to being a tad confused. We're not talking about
someone you'd just met here, are we? If you're clamming up and
generally turning into Mr Jellypants you can't have gotten to know her
all that well and that's where Vicky's (or was it Joe's?)
infatuation/obsession web comes in.
If that's the case I can only hark back to my earlier suggestions that
you need to chill and perhaps place less importance on...er,
lustfullness (I don't mean to belittle your situation but am having
difficulty with where we've ended up here), and hope that you'll feel
more comfortable with someone you're more suited to, or her you.
Fuck, that's some of the worst shite I've ever written. Sorry, I can't
do any better atm. I'm starting to feel the onset of Jellybrain
myself.
>>>To Joe and Os, it's not cunty at
>>> all. It's just ribbing a girl about her hair to make her laugh,
>>> etc., and is normal flirting to the well-adjusted.
>>
>> If that's an example of what he's been referring to as cunty behaviour
>> then the word really has lost all meaning.
>
>It's a weak example, but I was making a point.
Sorry, you failed with me. That's probably my fault though. When Ben
goes on about chavs and cunty behaviour I have visions of
inappropriate touching, abusive chat, generally treating women like
filth. The indifference I was down with, but this was so far from
where I was at, or vice versa, that it barely made sense.
>>Actually it seems to be making
>> things worse.
>
>This statement, and a few others, are why I left it a while before I
>replied, Dat.
If I've offended you please feel free to pull me up. I told you I'm
prone to saying inappropriate things and trying to inject humour into
serious subjects is where I fall down a lot.
> I've not, too my knowledge, gone into this much depth about
>my perspective on these matters on the froup for absolutely ages (HSH
>possibly), if at all.
I know, and you'll note I haven't mentioned a certain place since you
made it clear that it was a painful topic. I can be a dick both
unintentionally and not, but I don't come here with the intention of
harming anyone.
> More recently, things have variously changed with me
>and I've certainly had reason to sort out some of my issues and change my
>perspectives n'shit. It's been great, very empowering as Joe would say, and
>I feel healthier and more balanced than I have in ages. I'm not sure why
>you can read from one post in support of /explanation of Ben's situation
>that things are being made worse for me in some way. Explanation, please.
Yeah, sorry. Lumping you in together was my fault too.
You were speaking on behalf of Ben and since he was the one that
rabbits on about cunty behaviour it was meant to refer to him in that
he seems to have gotten even deeper into this one with his planning
for the future and all that before actually informing the girl that it
included her and did she want to come along and stuff. His fall,
whether it turns out to be temporary or not, seems to have been harder
as a result.
What would I know though? He may have done the same with the previous
young girl too. Either way, you have my apologies for not being clear
and Ben has them for making assumptions.
>Heh. Joe's Blokes With Tits argument is a thing of beauty, and puts it
>better than I could and in far fewer words, too.
It is, but I'm a little concerned that it comes across as the tits
being the focus of the attraction. Is that the image we as men want to
project?
As part of the whole entity they can indeed be inspirational
adornments. I would however proffer the decline of our ex-gaffer as an
example of what could befall those too tempted by the pleasures of the
pendulous flesh.
> This is some of what I
>meant with my CCC ramblings, since being cunty with mates is usually pretty
>funny and everybody has a laugh. It's just that I'd have been too shit
>scared of offending some pretty girl with such behaviour in the past to dare
>try it with her. "But...BUT...what if she walks
>AWAY!1!!1OMg!1!aloneforever@!1eleven!!" IYSWIM.
Interesting that you should end with a swim. There are plenty of
pretty girls in the sea. You make a habit of taking your holidays in
seasidey places. I shouldn't have to explain this.
I'm still not comfortable with your definition of cunty btw. A lot of
the behaviour I get up to with mates would be likely to offend most
people, pretty much as some of the interactions within this very froup
do with some newbies. Let's not forget that the suggestions of
treating women like breast enhanced blokes are ones where the blokes
are chaps you've just met. They'll probably flatten you or worse if
you attempt to put them in a headlock.
>> All of what you're saying makes sense of a sort, but it's way too
>> simplistic in some respects and way too overthought in others.
>
>Probably the fault of the author more than the psychology and theory, Dat.
>It's how my brain is.
Let's split the difference. You over think stuff and I'm a bit simple.
>Yep, I'm not sure I made myself very clear in explaining this stuff so far,
>maybe this post will help to clarify that I'm not talking about wearing
>someone else's pants when you go into town. I'm not trying to be a Pick Up
>Artist, and especially not one who pretends to be someone else as a PUA. I'm
>just learning to put my best foot forward, as you say.
Conducting group conversations in a public text based forum is
probably not the best method of discussing such complex matters.
What I meant about being someone else is Ben's apparent reading of
similar material to that which you've dipped into and concluding that
he (and you should you plan on following his path) needs to be more
cuntish, where I understood cuntish to be way more extreme than
pulling a girl's leg about her hair. (That reads funny)
My incorrect reading of it lead me to believe that he's attempting to
go quite a bit further than just putting on his happy face, clean
underwear, and using his best manners. My bad.
>For me, the basic principles behind the books I've read so far could be
>equally substituted for what's in this thread so far, especially the bits
>about Blokes With Tits. If I'd spent the hundreds of pounds Ben has so far,
>I'd probably be a bit upset that this thread is doing just as good a job but
>for free.
Ben has money to burn. If anything anyone here offers is in any way
more helpful than his research material, then he can just add it to
the cuntspiracy tab. Win win.
I was thinking about this last night actually. Some people are
incapable of accepting advice from friends/acquaintances/employees,
etc. "Experts" otoh, well say no more.
I know a garden maintenance chap who got sick of looking after a
property because the owners, who he got on with very well, wouldn't
allow him to trim branches from beneath some trees that were causing
difficulty with mowing and tending to the gardens. He finally jacked
it in after a year or so as he was getting cut to shreds whilst
attempting to do his duties.
He bumped into the next bloke they hired who happened to have a
horticultural qualification of some sort, and recommended that he
continue beating his head against a wall vis-a-vis the tree pruning.
Low and behold he discovers the silly buggers had accepted the
interloper's similar advice on first ask and the new bloke was finding
it to be a tidy little earner.
>>You appear to be having enough difficulty being who you are.
>
>I do? Well fuck me.
Nice try. I love you as a man but am not all that interested in taking
it to the next level. Sorry.
I think I meant it mostly as advice to Ben who despite being honest
and a non-game player seems to have great difficulty telling GsHL
exactly how he feels, albeit with reason, but reason that might not
vanish until he gets his timing right. You've lumped yourself in with
him here, ergo you've become him. Sorry again.
Then again, you are experiencing problems being who you are around
girls you fancy, so fuck it, yes, yes you do.
I meant one of those, or both. I can't remember anymore.
>> Joe again suggested you've got to stop thinking of women as "them".
>
>He's suggested no such thing to me. Are you talking to Ben by this point?
>It just seems like some of this stuff is aimed at me yet I've only
>contributed one post in the thread prior to this one. I'm not the one
>professing to be 4-0 at half time, Dattykins.
Fuck off. You're just taking the piss now. Take it away and dump it on
some girl's hair. (That was a joke. I'm not usually the one for
explaining them but there's been enough confusion already)
>> Partly agree. He can't and shouldn't need to change who he is, the
>> core of Ben. That doesn't mean that he can't do things that might make
>> him more attractive to prospective partners.
>
>AWTWP, that's the part I mean about unwillingess to change. I think in
>Ben's world, even minor changes in what you do elicit the same animosity as
>would vast changes at the core of your being.
In all honesty Ben's World isn't somewhere I feel like visiting at the
minute. My last visit seems to have left me stuck on the kerb trying
to hail cabs which refuse to stop due to my lack of pants. If nothing
else, I think I've learnt something.
>> Also, the chance of him bumping into someone who likes him precisely
>> the way he is, wouldn't change a hair on his head, isn't impossible.
>
>Also true, but people get very bitter when they're waiting around in hope
>and desperation, which leads to...
Nice place to leave it hanging. That's the kind of text based magic
that keeps me coming back.
>> It's just that where he is atm, mentally/physically(both), doesn't
>> seem to be conducive to that happening,
>
>...this. So, Quite.
Oh crap. I'm lousy at this game.
Um....er......tiddlywinks?
Salamander?
>Totally AWTWP, that's what I've been saying to Ben. Move on and get out
>there and do shit n'shit. Hey, you know what would be good? If you said
>some of this stuff to Ben instead of me.
Quite.
--
Dat
Vicky Conlan
>> 'Bless You/Him/Her/Them' is one of GIL's favourite phrases. She uses it
>> all the time, not just when people sneeze.
>>
>> It's the sort of thing that I'd normally expect to be highly annoying,
>> but actually find rather cute.
>
>No, that's definitely annoying. Very annoying, in fact. Trust me
>on this one, Ben. You're better off without her.
Glad we got that one all sorted out at last.
Vicky Conlan
>I think I'd be the disappointed one if we ever met and he wasn't a
>fleshy Marvin the robot.
You'd probably not be disappointed, tbh.
Joe Horowitz
*lol*
U R teh alpha-meal!1!!!
I reckon me and Os might stick a couple of Youks on you getting some at some
point.
Sir Benjamin Nunn
> famously said:
>> DWTWP, and here we might really be getting somewhere. It sounds like
>> Allen's getting quite a bit out of this thread and some other similiar
>> resources, and not because he's accepting it all blindly. Any
>> teacher knows that cunts learn things much better when they can see
>> _how_ it works and not just know that it _does_. Whatever subject,
>> maths, languages, anything. At worst, I'd say that if Allen still
>> can't get laid, he'll at least have some fucking idea finally _why_
>> he can't get laid and what's been holding him back, which is
>> presumably marginally preferable to it all just being some big
>> frustrating mystery. At best, he might just sort it out and live a
>> happier life. I hope it's the second one, personally.
>
> AWTWP. For all the flaws in the material and the parts that look
> rubbischunt and I'm not reading (stealing chicks from their boyfriends
> indeed), it does put this stuff into words I can understand and it is
> starting to make sense. That's pretty new, that.
I was thinking about this the other day: Maybe it only actually makes sense
to those of us who are in need of the advice in the first place.
When someone is a 'natural', do they still have a conscious understanding of
what they are doing? Probably not. To do something deliberately which would
normally be spontaneous is neither easy nor natural, and is downright
counterintuitive.
Yesterday, to my horror, my mum noticed me saying something in a Suffolk
accent - well, I have been there over three years now. It wasn't deliberate,
it just came out like that.
Of course, after she pointed it out, I was a bit 'really? I didn't know I
was doing that!!11regionalaccentsaretehghey11' I then tried to do it again,
deliberately this time, and completely failed to recreate the East Anglian
dialect to which I'd previously inadvertently succumbed.
Trying to do something that I apparently did naturally was actually harder.
But, I would imagine that somebody who /hasn't/ been spending their recent
years in Ipswich could probably affect a more convincing Suffolk accent than
normal if they did try deliberately, IYSWIM.
The same thing is almost certainly true of body language, voice inflection,
hypnotic phrasing and other devices that those of us who don't seem to do it
by default need to learn.
>> However, I'm often extremely sceptical as to the exact nature of your
>> 'close scrutiny'. It seems like Allen uses 'close scrutiny' to try
>> to understand something and get as much as he can from it, whereas
>> you come from a slightly different angle and use 'close scrutiny' to
>> find a way you can go 'A-ha!11 Yet more Nunn-excluding unfairness
>> right there!111! Told you everything was against me!11', which you
>> can obviously find in absolutely anything if you look hard enough and
>> are prepared to twist a few words and phrases here and there.
> <...>
>> Maybe you should try closely scrutinising your close scrutiny. It's
>> akin to journalism sometimes perhaps, in that you decide what your
>> story is and then find the facts to back it up, twisting words and
>> phrases where you need to. Might be holding you back.
>
> Heh. When I said this on MSN t'other week, Ben got quite upset and told
> me I sounded like you.
Just protecting MLE, Al.
You have been one of the very few people who I feel can actually understand
my loveless plight, and I don't mind admitting that I'm scared shitless of
losing you to the 'normals' and leaving me behind on my own.
BTN
Sir Benjamin Nunn
"Joe Horowitz" <joeundersc...@youblunder.cunts.youghey> wrote in
>
>
> Extremely. I like thinking about it, though, because all my
> understandings'n'shit were so abstracted and simplistic. It's
> interesting.
> I like how I didn't understand any of the telly programmes, and didn't
> need
> to because I wasn't supposed to understand anything at that point. I can
> remember the opening titles of the news programme as well, very clearly.
> The music was that sort of one high note going diddle-iddle-id diddle-id
> diddle-iddle-id etc, and the pictures were a blue/greeen monotone blurry
> image of a man's fingers typing on a keyboard. Very low tech, early
> seventies graphics. Presumably typing the news out so the cunt could read
> it in a minute.
OMG!!!11 Fuck, you've just brought back a very early memory for me! In fact,
I've just remembered the last time I remembered it (probably 15 years ago or
so) IYSWIM.
I think you're talking about the ITN news that was on at lunchtime or early
afternoon'n'shit. That had the green thing and the typing, and the blippy
noise.
>> Women's mags are, to quote a phrase, teh ghey.
>
> Heh. Well, yeah, of course. Most mags are in fact, but gender-specific
> ones are the fucking worse. 'Nuts' or 'Cocks' or 'Cunts' or whatever
> can't
> be any better than 'Woman'.
I know people who read them with little or no trace of irony.
They are very bad.
>> This is BtN we're talking about. Can you imagine him on a ski-machine?
>
> It certainly is an enduring mental image.
FFS, it's not a ski-machine. I know I said it was, but it's not.
It's an 'Ultratrek' Home Cardiovascular fitness body workout machine.
>> And mountain
>> rescue wouldn't be able to get to him because of bad weather, or some
> shit.
>
> Yeah, and it'd all happen on the night he was supposed to finally get it
> on
> with GHL, who'd be left eating on her own at Pizzaland and wondering why
> she'd been stood up, and ends up crying on the shoulder of an
> opportunistic
> chav waiter.
Heh. Does Pizzaland still exist?
>> >Similarly, I hated it when I
>> >stayed at JdS's house and really had the hots for his missus, because it
>> >made it hard to concentrate and just enjoy their company and not look at
> her
>> >arse'n'shit.
>>
>> If it helps, she'll be all hugely fat and waddley atm. Just like Ben.
> :-D
She can go on a ski-machine like me then.
>> To be honest, I think Ben projects himself worse on here than he is "in
>> company" (if you can call me+JdS+(sprout/hugecockman) 'company' anyhow)
>> by quite a long way. With a beer and a quiz machine in the vicinity, you
>> can almost forget what a miserable piercedcock grumpyarse he is.
>
> I've met him as well, don't forget.
Strangely, I think you probably got a different impression of me from most
other Youksefers.
I'm more comfortable on my own turf - like meeting people for several beers
in a pub in a City I know. Going to stay in somebody's house a long way from
home isn't something I have very much experience with, and I was a bit
subdued and drained by the process, tbh. That's no reflection on you, your
home or your life, it's just not a situation that I'm too comfortable with.
I can't be sure, but I suspect that the BTN that Conlan has met is quite a
bit louder, livlier and more confident than the one you've met, tbh.
BTN
Osbourne Ruddock
> still be a little bit too close to my own not to affect me. Infant
> deaths are never a nice thought, frankly, because of the impact on the
> parents (usually fucks them up pretty much forever, from what I've
> seen) and of course the ridiculously tragic nature of some poor cunt
> not even getting the chance to experience _anything_, not so much as a
> bar of Dairy Milk or a Darkness record, in their lifetime. Not one
> experience. No ghey experiment. No Belgian beer. No Todd Solondz
> film. No nothing. Born, die, nothing in between.
>
> I actually don't find that thought comforting in any way, I find that
> sad.
Absolutely AWTWP. Beautifully put Joe, and that is one of the key
problems facing Ben. If he really thinks like that, he can forget about
the relationship thing right now, unless he can find a complete psycho
tucked away somewhere who'll find his happiness at other's misery as
attractive and comforting as he does. This plus the general misanthropy,
superiority and elitism do not an attractive package make.
> outlook, which could have a knock on effect on everything else. I
> really _don't_ think ski-machines are for cunts, the only thing I do
> feel a little is how much of a shame it is that so many people can
> make so much money from people getting fitter in ways they could just
> as easily have done without expensive machinery. My mate Andy (who
Heh, I was thinking the same thing. If you can get in a place where you
like a run around or even a long walk to clear your head, and come to
enjoy it, and get grumpy when you don't do it, and look forward to doing
it, then you're on a good road towards general fitness. It's not about
being super sleek or having the washboard ab's of a Cypher or something,
it's just about feeling better. Anyone can say exercising makes them feel
like shit but if you persevere it does make you feel better. More energy,
brighter outlook etc...
It's like climbing to the top of a mountain (or hill in your lot's case).
It sounds completely cunty but it's bloody marvellous to plan it, train
yourself up a bit and then go and do it. Especially if it knackers you
getting up there and it's a bit dodgy getting down, because when you get
down you can say 'I did that', it feels good. And when other cunts wank
on about it you can say 'Oh I've been up blah blah etc...'. A small rise
in fitness and confidence is no bad thing.
>
> Quite possibly. Here's another good example for you: Osbourne says
> 'I expect GYL would probably like to still be your friend'. (Which I
> actually agree with, btw, although I don't know for sure because I
> haven't met her). You reply "Ha!1! so she _does_ want me to
> cry'n'shit, so girls _are_ evil after all by your
> logic!1!lol!1!crushinggripofreason!1!1"
>
> That's a pretty major twist in an initially simplistic and reasonable
> web, don't you think? It's practically a double fucking reef-knot.
That's kind of what I was trying to hint at with my never-relationship
argument. Over the course of all his 'Life might rock' and 'Longest day'
threads it's become increasingly obvious that this is all as much about
Ben's enjoyment of negating options as well as the chance to moan about
his girlfriendless life. Fat cunt is having his cake _and_ eating it too,
in other words.
Then he has the face to appear surprised at getting such a dark response
on the matter?
Now Al Parkes, I would never say I believed Al would never get into a
relationship. He seems to be just like the rest of us at various stages
of our existence in terms of experience and confidence. Ben, on the other
hand has a mountain to climb (that's two now by my count, if you count
the actual mountain mentioned above) before he might be in a position
where anyone could find potential in him as an attractive partner
prospect.
--
Cheers, Os
Sir Benjamin Nunn
"Vicky Conlan" <co...@riffraff.plig.net> wrote in message
news:do0s6i$gjp$1...@magenta.plig.net...
>>My earliest ever memory, and it pre-dates any subsequent memories by some
>>time, was an utterly unremarkable event from my pre-talking pre-walking
>>days. It's shockingly clear as well, like I have this strange window
>>which
>>sees directly into a time well before I ever formed any other memories of
>>anything.
>
> I have one of those. They're very odd, aren't they?
Yeah, that's true. Does it really need to be shaped like a big dogs cock?
> I don't remember ever getting pocket money at the age of seven. It think
> my
> grandad used to give me 10p when I saw him, which was generally once a
> week,
> so I guess that was my pocket money. Until they brought out the 20p
> piece,
> then I got a 100% raise, woo.
My grandad used to give me 10p every Sunday, but it quickly rose to 20p then
50p and then £1, and then my uncle started giving me the same.
Good times for buying Logger bars, and Panini Football stickers.
>>At least you can go on a fucking ski-machine.
>
> This is BtN we're talking about. Can you imagine him on a ski-machine?
> Knowing
> his luck he'd manage to cause the first ever ski-machine avalanche. And
> mountain
> rescue wouldn't be able to get to him because of bad weather, or some
> shit.
YKS, C, IJWTEAYPF.
>>Similarly, I hated it when I
>>stayed at JdS's house and really had the hots for his missus, because it
>>made it hard to concentrate and just enjoy their company and not look at
>>her
>>arse'n'shit.
>
> If it helps, she'll be all hugely fat and waddley atm. Just like Ben.
> :-D
> (but less ghey)
You're on very good form today, hun.
What the fuck have you been drinking/eating/inserting? And can I have some?
> To be honest, I think Ben projects himself worse on here than he is "in
> company" (if you can call me+JdS+(sprout/hugecockman) 'company' anyhow)
> by quite a long way. With a beer and a quiz machine in the vicinity, you
> can almost forget what a miserable piercedcock grumpyarse he is.
*blush* Aw, thanks, that's about a close to a compliment as I'm likely to
get today.
>>Ffs you cunt, just when I think we're getting somewhere you go and twist
>>shit all around again and end on a note of misunderstanding. Show me the
>
> Heh. I think I've just remembered why he reminds me of my ex! :-)
It's my happy-go-lucky attitude and positive outlook, isn't it?
BTN
Cypher
stri...@hotmail.com says...
(snip)
> Heh, I was thinking the same thing. If you can get in a place where you
> like a run around or even a long walk to clear your head, and come to
> enjoy it, and get grumpy when you don't do it, and look forward to doing
> it, then you're on a good road towards general fitness. It's not about
> being super sleek or having the washboard ab's of a Cypher
Are you insinuating I might only have the one ab, Os?
This thread is a steaming pile of shite and I'm only skimming the poo to see if
I get a mention and fuck me, I do, and it is an old urban fable disproved by
Snopes years ago.
Here is a bit of sagacious advice I'll dispense on my way through this
malodourous thread...the fucker should get off his rowing machine and go
outside. Stick on a fucking hat, poke his pipe in his fucking mouth, grab his
fucking mandolin and fucking walk around the city busking on a succession of
fucking street corners. As an added incentive he can fucking donate any money he
earns to the Church or some city mission.
This will also increase my odds on him getting hit by a serial killer.
\m/
Vicky Conlan
>I can't be sure, but I suspect that the BTN that Conlan has met is quite a
>bit louder, livlier and more confident than the one you've met, tbh.
Judging by the rest of this thread, that would be cos you don't fancy
me, but you do fancy Joe, right?
Vicky Conlan
>> I have one of those. They're very odd, aren't they?
>Yeah, that's true. Does it really need to be shaped like a big dogs cock?
It doens't /have/ to be, but some people find it helps.
>My grandad used to give me 10p every Sunday, but it quickly rose to 20p then
>50p and then £1, and then my uncle started giving me the same.
>
>Good times for buying Logger bars, and Panini Football stickers.
Shame you had to save up to buy a big rubber ring to sit in ...
>YKS, C, IJWTEAYPF.
Yes, but what about when you've finished eating all the yellow pretty flowers
and there are none left?
>> If it helps, she'll be all hugely fat and waddley atm. Just like Ben.
>> :-D
>> (but less ghey)
>You're on very good form today, hun.
Thanks, sweetie.
>What the fuck have you been drinking/eating/inserting? And can I have some?
If I work it out, I'll be sure not to tell you.
>> To be honest, I think Ben projects himself worse on here than he is "in
>> company" (if you can call me+JdS+(sprout/hugecockman) 'company' anyhow)
>> by quite a long way. With a beer and a quiz machine in the vicinity, you
>> can almost forget what a miserable piercedcock grumpyarse he is.
>*blush* Aw, thanks, that's about a close to a compliment as I'm likely to
>get today.
Yes. yes it probably is.
>>>Ffs you cunt, just when I think we're getting somewhere you go and twist
>>>shit all around again and end on a note of misunderstanding. Show me the
>> Heh. I think I've just remembered why he reminds me of my ex! :-)
>It's my happy-go-lucky attitude and positive outlook, isn't it?
That and the fact that you're a cunt.
Sir Benjamin Nunn
"Joe Horowitz" <joeundersc...@youblunder.cunts.youghey> wrote in
>
>> It's for this reason that other peoples suffering actually comforts me a
>> bit. Leicester Hospital Baby Argument.
>
> I'm not sure I like LHB argument, tbh, now I've had a chance to think
> about
> it.
OK, bear in mind though, that no baby necessarily died in LHB argument. I
invented the back-story entirely in my head, to give myself a bit of
perspective on how things could be worse.
For all I know, LHB family could have been just on their way to the
hospital, fearing the worst, and were greeted with the joyous news that the
baby had miraculously pulled through and was going to be OK.
I just interpreted the situation in a way that would give me a little boost.
What actually happened is ultimately of little consequence to me (knowing
that you have broadly similar views on the death of strangers to myself).
> Given that this shit goes on all the time, and you know that it does (as
> in,
> x babies died last year in this country, and it's probably a reasonably
> bet
> that x or thereabouts will again next year), why do you need it to happen
> to
> someone you love, or someone you can see in a car-park you walk through in
> Leicester, to be able to appreciate that it's not happening to you? I
> said
> the girl with the debilitating whatever-it-is at work gave me comfort
> because it reminds me of shit I've dodged, but the difference between me
> and
> you would appear to be that I'd be delighted if she came in tomorrow
> totally
> cured and with a lovely boyfriend because I've spoken to her very briefly
> a
> couple of times and she seems like a nice person who deserves good shit,
> you'd rather (it appears) she became completely paralysed or died because
> that would go even further towards making your life seem comparitively
> better. Even though if she does or she doesn't it doesn't really affect
> the
> total stats of how many cunts do every year, so your life is comparably
> pretty much the same either way. It won't make you feel any less alone at
> night, as you said yourself.
Ah, I see it's now your turn to twist and misinterpret things.
I don't generally rejoice in other peoples suffering, and I have vast
reserves of pity for others as well as myself (IIRC in a similar thread last
year, I staunchly defended the virtues of pity, while you thought it a bad
thing).
But I'd be lying if I said I wasn't way more comfortable with people who are
unlucky, because I can relate to them better, and my interactions aren't
crippled with the jealousy that I feel towards a lot of 'normals'.
Of all the concepts I've tried manfully to explain here over the years, this
is one of the most difficult and complicated. I guess one analogy (which
probably falls way short) is how alcoholics take strength from being in
their AA meetings because other people are going through it, and/or have
been through it, and can relate to them.
Or, to use another probably pisspoor reference point, families who don't
talk to one another for years, but finally come together emotionally through
the tragedy of a relative dying, and the shared misery providing common
ground for them.
> If one of my friends' kids died, or indeed Conlan's or JdS's kids, I'd be
> totally gutted about it because they are people that I know (sort of), so
> in
> my own frame of existence and the people I like etc things had overall
> just
> got worse rather than better. I've actually met Mr and Mrs dS, they're
> fucking lovely if you ask me and the thought of their world turning to
> shit
> is one I find utterly horrifying. Similarly Conlan, we've had our
> differences but we do get on pretty well these days, I've known her in a
> way
> for five years or something and have become reluctantly fond of her, and a
> death in her life would still be a little bit too close to my own not to
> affect me. Infant deaths are never a nice thought, frankly, because of
> the
> impact on the parents (usually fucks them up pretty much forever, from
> what
> I've seen) and of course the ridiculously tragic nature of some poor cunt
> not even getting the chance to experience _anything_, not so much as a bar
> of Dairy Milk or a Darkness record, in their lifetime. Not one
> experience.
> No ghey experiment. No Belgian beer. No Todd Solondz film. No nothing.
> Born, die, nothing in between.
>
> I actually don't find that thought comforting in any way, I find that sad.
Yes. It's sad.
I'm sad too.
I find commonality and comfort with other sad people.
That's also sad.
> Of course, my opinion on this is no more valid than yours etc, but this is
> a
> thread about which aspects of your character might or might not be
> attractive to women, and I'd suggest this might be another thing you could
> think about. Most women do appreciate compassion in a man, despite what
> you
> might think, and an inability to feel anything other than smug
> self-satisfaction when shit things happen to good people does not paint
> you
> in a compassionate light. Much more a nasty, sneering alpha-male one if
> anything.
Hmm... if people really perceive me in that way, then I've got even more
serious problems than I thought.
Actually, I don't think they do, however. I think that one of the reasons
girls I've liked have wanted to be friends with me is because of my
compassion and sympathy.
I'm not saying that compassion is a good thing, necessarily, but I do
believe it to be one of my defining qualities.
> Yeah, I get all that, it's fair enough. Tbh, though, just sounds pretty
> much how I feel about all of my closest friends, I think they are all
> absolutely beautiful people in a million wonderful ways, including the
> blokes. Just doesn't mean I want to fuck them.
Like I said, fucking isn't that important to me. It's about the love.
In the unlikely scenario that I get into bed with GIL this week, I'd expect
it to be meaningful and deep, and from my own perspective massively
significantly life-changing. But on a purely physical level, I wouldn't
assume it to be particularly great compared to some of my past experiences.
>> Apparently (something I amazingly DIDN'T get from the gurus, this) the
>> tallness of the 'tall, dark and handsome' stereotype actually dates back
> to
>> the traditions of the theatre, where it was logistically easier to stage
>> a
>> kiss if the man was taller than the woman, and so the hero parts were
> given
>> to the taller actors, which perpetuated the idea that tallness is
> attactive
>> in men.
>
> That makes no sense to me whatsoever, though. Why would it be
> logistically
> easier to stage a kiss if one specific gender was higher than the other,
> unless there was already a pre-determined societal ideal about which one
> _should_ be higher?
Umm... because a classic stage kiss involves the woman leaning back and the
man leaning forward over her. If they're the same height, the bodies don't
bend right on stage. Ideally, the stage man should be between six inches and
a foot taller than the woman.
A theatrical director told me that. One of the very few interesting things
he ever said.
I probably then told him that if a large number of chorus people are singing
a phrase that ends in a hard consonant, like a 't' you should have at least
half of them not sing the consonant but just fade off, otherwise it will
sound stuttery and harsh.
>> Heh. Maybe I should've done that.
>>
>> I don't know what it's like to have sex with someone I'm really attracted
>> to.
>
> Heh. I'm the opposite. Sex for me has only ever been an intense
> expression
> of mutual attraction of one form or another. Physically = always, in
> other
> ways as well = sometimes. The best sex, of course, has had the other
> ways.
I might not be the opposite if I'd had a bit more choice in the matter, tbh.
Actually I'd be a virgin. Disregard.
>> Well, teh indifferens Alpha Malecunt doesn't contradict any of the five
>> points on which you agree with the gurus. Alpha Malecunts /are/ generally
>> optimistic and confident avoid negativity, have a positive outlook and
> body
>> language, and are likely to work out and be notfat'n'shit.
>
> Skewed logic again. The fact that ducks have beaks doesn't mean animals
> with beaks are ducks. So it seems increasingly (especially having read
> Allen's articulate webs) like teh gurus have merely been saying all the
> stuff I've been saying about just trying to be good company etc, not make
> chicks feel weird'n'shit and not look down on everyone and project an air
> of
> superiority and harsh judgement, and you've made all the Alpha Male stuff
> up
> yourself in a typical act of Nunntastic word-abuse.
Nah, they have said all the Alpha Male badboy stuff as well.
FFS, you could actually read some of the shit yourself, to find out first
hand the sort of advice that is being given out. The web is full of articles
that are free to read.
Some of it is very uncomfortable reading. Some of it is common sense. Some
of it is just like the things that you've said.
> However, I'm often extremely sceptical as to the exact nature of your
> 'close
> scrutiny'. It seems like Allen uses 'close scrutiny' to try to understand
> something and get as much as he can from it, whereas you come from a
> slightly different angle and use 'close scrutiny' to find a way you can go
> 'A-ha!11 Yet more Nunn-excluding unfairness right there!111! Told you
> everything was against me!11', which you can obviously find in absolutely
> anything if you look hard enough and are prepared to twist a few words and
> phrases here and there.
Thing is, the reason I'm giving all these channels of self-improvement a
chance, is because I want to get out of the mindset of victim thinking and
cuntspiracy.
UKSF often seems to infer that I enjoy being a victim, and wallow in it. Not
true. It's something I've been trying to change for years, with increasing
desperation.
Besides, when I've got helpful cunts like Osbourne telling me that all hope
is lost, do I really need to talk myself into a negative mindstate?
> And so, close scrutiny of someone suggesting you're a bit less fucking
> negative and try to relax a bit more around the women you like reveals a
> thinly-veiled message of teh alpha-maleism where you're pretty much being
> told, in so many words, that you will never find love unless you start
> knocking girls about'n'shit and buysing them chips.
>
> Close scrutiny of me telling you that I am the most honest person there is
> and that it's never stopped me having a good sex life reveals me actually
> telling you that dishonest social cuntwank is your only hope.
Well, yes, but you're one person, which is hardly a representative sample
size.
Doyle Brunson famously won two WSOP Main Events in a row with Ten-Deuce.
Doesn't make it a good starting hand.
Your argument here seems to contradict what you previously saying (which I
agreed with) about increasing my chances, by making a few changes to become
closer to the man that women are likely to want.
Isolated examples are almost worthless: Tony Towers has a wife, and he's
fatter than me, therefore I should gain weight for success with women.
Bollocks logic, I'm sure you'll agree.
> Maybe you should try closely scrutinising your close scrutiny. It's akin
> to
> journalism sometimes perhaps, in that you decide what your story is and
> then
> find the facts to back it up, twisting words and phrases where you need
> to.
> Might be holding you back.
Well, it never fails to amaze me how I can attempt to make a point on the
froup, and have somebody completely grasp the wrong end of my web. It's not
unreasonable to suspect that this may happen in real life as well, and that
the signals I'm sending out are quite different from the process going on in
my head.
> If you can progress onto some sort of _enjoyable_ activity that just
> happens
> to be physical as well, and therefore 'get in shape' whilst doing
> something
> you get real pleasure from anyway, then I'd suggest that might be a good
> next step.
Heh. Like regular bouts of energetic lovemaking with a loving partner, I
guess.
> I don't know about 'optimal', but some peole are very unhappy and others
> aren't, so it's more a case of 'not fixing what ain't broken'. I'm no
> better than you in any way whatsoever, I'm just much much happier so great
> change in my life is perhaps less neccesary.
AWTWP.
>> OK.
>>
>> I'd like to have a Run Nunn to decide the exact phrase to use, if that's
>> alright?
>
> Heh. Why are you asking me? You Run Nunn yourself ultimately, no-one can
> do it for you. Do whatever you like.
I can't win, can I?
If I have the convictions of my own views and tastes, it's supersillycunt
and when I try to glean the wisdom of others who might know better than me,
that's wrong too.
It's exasperating, this self-help-me-do.
> In short, the only person in the whole world even _remotely_ qualified to
> make a decision for you, about absolutely anything, is you, because you're
> the only person who will ever know all your various factors.
I also think that maybe my own decisions are very often rubbishwank though,
and that sometimes other people could make better ones for me.
We can call this the Arranged Marriage Argument or something.
> Run Nunn is great fun, you get to canvass opinion and Youksef gets a
> virtual
> pet for a thread. Like one of those Japanese whatsits, tamagoshi or
> somesuch. They probably won't hep you much in the long run, though,
> unless
> ultimately the decision of what to do next comes from the same place as
> the
> decision to have the Run Nunn in the first place. Merely the scant
> consolation that if things don't work out for you, you've one more reason
> to
> blame everyone except yourself.
Although obviously I could still blame myself for doing the Run Nunn in the
first place... and frequently do.
>> Heh. I accept this criticism - if indeed it is a criticism.
>
> Of course it's not a criticism. I don't have one single criticism of you
> in
> any way, shape or form, people aren't software or recipes or somesuch to
> be
> tweaked and tuned to your own specifications, you accept someone as a
> package or you don't accept them and I hope it's pretty fucking obvious
> that
> I do accept you and think you're basically great. This is merely one of
> many contributions I've made to a thread in which we are, for the most
> part,
> talking about possible reasons why no-one ever sucks your cock unless you
> pay them.
Some gay men sucked my cock without me paying them.
I seem to have to keep pointing out that for me, it's not particularly about
sex.
I'm not Al Parkes.
>> You'll also know that I wish I could be cured of my elitism, or good
> taste,
>> or pickyness, or supersillyrubbishcunt or however we choose to define it.
>
> Heh. If there's one thing that should have come through in all these webs
> is that the BOA has increasingly little use to you, as it is entirely
> possible to perform your own internally. Just so long as you actually
> want
> to and aren't just pretending to want to, both to yourself and everyone
> else, whilst actually remaining fixed in your own little comfort zone of
> futility where you don't actually have to do anything about anything
> because
> ultimately you can't.
>
> We'll call this the self-help argument.
So, just in case anybody actually knows, how the fuck do you actually do it?
I seem to be having this discussion frequently with the 'new' Parkes, and
have seen no answers.
I've read ever so much theory on the subject, and around NLP in general, but
nothing actually seems to explain how to change things in your brain and get
rid of the thoughts that you don't want in there.
This is why my next self-help step - assuming nothing changes radically in
the near future - will be hypnosis.
And, if that doesn't work, serious drug abuse.
> Quite possibly. Here's another good example for you: Osbourne says 'I
> expect GYL would probably like to still be your friend'. (Which I actually
> agree with, btw, although I don't know for sure because I haven't met
> her).
> You reply "Ha!1! so she _does_ want me to cry'n'shit, so girls _are_ evil
> after all by your logic!1!lol!1!crushinggripofreason!1!1"
Well, it's fairly basic logic.
One aspect of the 'friendship' is that it created a lot of situations where
I cried.
Therefore, if GIL wants to back to the 'friendship' exactly as it existed
before, then she wants to go back to a friendship that created situations
where I cried.
Now, she might not be /aware/ of all the aspects of the friendship from my
perspective, and this might indeed change her judgement (e.g. she might want
a different 'friendship', one which didn't make me cry, or she might think
that if me crying is an integral part of the 'friendship' then she doesn't
want it etc.) so it's up to me and her to discuss the situation as honestly
as possible and hopefully try and reach a mutually acceptable reality.
I wouldn't go so far as 'evil', but if - even with the knowledge that the
friendship included my crying - she still wanted it, that would make her
pretty selfish IMHO. (I don't think she would want that, btw, because she's
too kind).
Ultimately it's all a question of ethics based on the information available.
If my work gave me a £1000 bonus every week, I'd be very happy with it.
If I then found out additional information about the situation - e.g. they
beat up pensioners and stole a total of £1000 every time they paid me the
bonus or something - then that would somewhat change my perspective on
whether I wanted to keep receiving it.
> Heh. Very much a possibility, I'd say. Tell me, do they actually mention
> alpha males at any point at all?
Well, different gurus use different terminology, but generally, yes, they do
talk a lot about alpha males, and how being one is a good thing.
BTN
Sir Benjamin Nunn
> According to <ben...@depro.co.uk>:
>>I can't be sure, but I suspect that the BTN that Conlan has met is quite a
>>bit louder, livlier and more confident than the one you've met, tbh.
>
> Judging by the rest of this thread, that would be cos you don't fancy
> me, but you do fancy Joe, right?
Damn, I didn't want to hurt your feelings because you mean a lot to me but,
yep, that's pretty much it.
BTN
Vicky Conlan
>Isolated examples are almost worthless: Tony Towers has a wife, and he's
>fatter than me, therefore I should gain weight for success with women.
Maybe he wasn't fatter than you when he got a wife?
Vicky Conlan
>>>I can't be sure, but I suspect that the BTN that Conlan has met is quite a
>>>bit louder, livlier and more confident than the one you've met, tbh.
>> Judging by the rest of this thread, that would be cos you don't fancy
>> me, but you do fancy Joe, right?
>Damn, I didn't want to hurt your feelings because you mean a lot to me but,
>yep, that's pretty much it.
That's ok, I'll try not to be bothered too much by it. Obviously I won't
be able to speak to you ever again because it will be too painful. But I'm
sure you'll understand.
Sir Benjamin Nunn
> According to <ben...@depro.co.uk>:
>>Isolated examples are almost worthless: Tony Towers has a wife, and he's
>>fatter than me, therefore I should gain weight for success with women.
>
> Maybe he wasn't fatter than you when he got a wife?
You mean you get to eat a load of food as well?
Shit, I'm missing out on even more than I realised.
BTN
Sir Benjamin Nunn
> Dat <dat...@yahoo.co.uk> once famously said:
>> So, you can teach an old dog old tricks. Perfect. That should be
>> enough for Ben and yourself to get by with.
>
> It's certainly fine by me, albeit Ben seemingly has the Eeyore Mentality.
Yeah, seemingly.
Thing is, in the last eight years I've massively improved my career.
In the last three years, I've massively improved my poker game.
In the last six months, I've massively improved my mandolin playing.
So, fairly obviously, change for the better is not impossible with me, and
in each case it stemmed from a desire to learn and to better myself.
Is this so different?
> AWTWP. The first thing made clear in any of the books Ben or I have read
> is that too some extent, it's a numbers game. If you approach 100 women
> in a night, you'll find maybe 10 who are interested. Furthermore, reading
> a dozen books is no subtitute for talking to a dozen women,
Semi-DWTWP, in that approaching the dozen women the 'wrong' way (the 'AFC'
way) is probably worse unless you learned from your mistakes, and then read
the books anyway.
> so getting your hands dirty and learning from your mistakes is not only
> the first order of business, but preety much the main portion of the
> advice offered. Yes, it seems fucking obvious to me now and likely to
> everyone else too, but fear and etc. would previously have prevented me
> from doing this.
But not, interestingly, disinterest, which is where we are different.
> AWTWP, although I think it's fair that you have to accept that at some
> point after much floundering - and seeing other people who you might
> consider less 'smart' or less 'socially aware' not floundering - that
> other people seem to know something about this that you don't. That isn't
> to say there's a massive conspiracy or a gang that everyone else got
> initiated into that I or Ben didn't, just that they're better at this than
> I am and I want to learn from that.
AWTWP.
IMHO there's no shame in admitting that you don't 'get' something, or in
wanting to learn more.
>> I'm all for putting your best foot forward but this appears to be
>> leaning towards being something you aren't, and that's worse than
>> appearing a little desperate.
>
> It's a fine line when reading through the material to see the point where
> they stop advising on how to be your best self and how to pretend to be
> something you aren't. Ben seems to struggle with that along the same
> lines as your web above, though I can't say I am. If anything, what's hit
> me most hard from reading some of these books is how much of the suggested
> attitudes or social skills I already have, have always had, and never used
> in the right context.
Whereas (and this is for the benefit of the thread, Al, as you already know)
I found that many of the suggested attributes and skills were the very
things I found annoying and cunty in others, and had done since my
schooldays, so it seems like it will be a bigger leap for me.
As an example, one of the recommended tips is to feign an interest in things
that are psychic and spiritual, and talk to women about these things,
completely ignoring the idea that any man might actually have a genuine
interest in these things to begin with.
Similarly, the rating of 'hot babes' on a 1-10 scale based on their looks
(and the implication that all men can do this instinctively and
consistently) makes me very uncomfortable.
> It's also why if I were to ask any of my friends why I'm so bad with teh
> girls they usually say "I've no idea, Al." Because around friends, or
> women I'm not attracted to, I'm my 'usual' self, who ironically does all
> he'd need to if there were pretty girls around too. Thing is, I generally
> /don't/ behave like that when the girls are around, I retreat into a
> comfortable armchair of abject fear and cluelessness, clam up and say very
> little. All I've learned so far is how to use what's already in there at
> the right time to present myself in a better light than "that quiet nerdy
> bloke who doesn't say much".
Whenever I ask my friends about it they always seem to think that a
relationship is just around the corner for me, or that it's destined to work
out with whichever girl I like at the time.
They've been saying that sort of shit for years now. Every time my best mate
says 'you'll meet someone soon' I really wonder what he's basing it on. He
used to say 'you'll meet someone before I do', but then he can't say that
any more as he's been cosily relationshipped-up for a couple of years now.
>> I'm sure a lot of us feel much the same way about a new love, and that
>> refers to both parties. Nervousness, tongues being tied, inertia due
>> to uncertainty, etc are all parts of the process for anyone who
>> doesn't chop and change partners on a regular basis, or possess
>> mountains of self confidence, and a lack of it would seem unnatural to
>> me. In fact I'd probably read it as disinterest rather than feigned
>> indifference.
>
> In my case, and probably in Ben's, the nervousness had always proved
> crippling. Not just straightforward tongues tied, but a near
> life-or-death gravity to each word spoken in her company. I'm guessing on
> Ben's view here, but this is how it always was with me.
Yeah, it's an overwhelming fear that you could just say or do the wrong
thing, and dash all your hopes in an instant, like Bill Murray trying to win
over Andie MacDowell in Groundhog Day, but without another crack at it.
>> A little desperation doesn't necessarily have to be repulsive. It
>> could be viewed as a compliment so long as you aren't salivating and
>> fiddling in your pockets.
>
> DWTWP. I can't think of any circumstances in which a woman has found a
> man's desperation attractive. Perhaps not repulsive, I'll concede, but
> the point I make is one of intensity, as above - it becomes so important
> in your mind, the totality of the situation is allowed to grow unchecked
> until it is the most important thing ever in the history of man. No,
> really, that's how it felt. Ridiculous, perhaps, but these are the issues
> with which I would struggle. That sort of intensity leads to Joe's
> pedestal theory, and I AWHWP that this is overwhelming and a Bad Thing.
Yes. Yes, it is. Although I'm not sure anyone has worked out the technique
to stop it happening in our minds.
BTN
Joe Horowitz
"Dat" <dat...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4uebq19vo68p2gumo...@4ax.com...
> >Heh. Joe's Blokes With Tits argument is a thing of beauty, and puts it
> >better than I could and in far fewer words, too.
>
> It is, but I'm a little concerned that it comes across as the tits
> being the focus of the attraction. Is that the image we as men want to
> project?
>
> As part of the whole entity they can indeed be inspirational
> adornments. I would however proffer the decline of our ex-gaffer as an
> example of what could befall those too tempted by the pleasures of the
> pendulous flesh.
<ahem>
I think I should clarify what I meant by 'blokes with tits', as it appears
to have been rather misconstrued here as some kind of mammary-focus. Tbh, I
hadn't even considered it could be taken the way you have until I read the
above, but I think Allen took it the way I meant it.
And that was, 'blokes who look slightly different to blokes and maybe are
slightly different as well, but not enough as to warrant that you should
behave any differently around them as you do around blokes'.
I might have just as easily said 'blokes with longer hair on average' or
'blokes who cry more' but 'blokes with tits' seemed like the only one that
wasn't teh ghey generalisation.
I suppose I could have said 'blokes with cunts' to the same end.
And for the record, I'm not a 'breast man' anyway. My favouritest thing in
the whole entire world ever is the soft, tender upper-inside part of an
otherwise firm and slender female thigh. You all knew that really.
Joe Horowitz
> [1] I mean, how could Joe possibly be that reasonable, rational, and
> downright sexy?
Believe it lady.
> Surely Poleson must be wrong occasionally.
Pffft. Not at any point during my visit, I know that much. No evidence
whatsoever of any previous wrongness around his flat either, and no signs of
weakness even when he was totally and utterly cunted on hard drugs and
whisky.
I'd say he probably is basically pretty much infallible in every single way,
having met him. A god in human form.
> I heard a
> rumour that Mikey is not immune to the rehashing of old material, and
> apparently was once suspected of being in possession of a pimple in
> public!
Those in the public spotlight, especially those enjoying the crest of a wave
of universal acclaim such as that Mikey enjoyed on his recent tour of the
Eastern Europe, often end up attracting some sort of a backlash. Sites like
'theCunninghamConspiracy.org' and 'fuckblurry.com' do nothing but spread
hateful bile, the fact that you're clearly taken in by some of it surprises
me, Dat.
> And, if you can believe this, that JdS doesn't smell even the
> slightest bit musty.
He doesn't, actually. In fact, he must be just about the most attractive
and fragrant corpse I've ever met.
And Ben really is a fat ghey miserable cunt.
And Kullrad has dead shark eyes.
And ST has the biggest cock you ever saw and oodles of cash.
We are all exaggerations on teh froup, granted, but not total abstractions.
Osbourne Ruddock
>> history of man. No, really, that's how it felt. Ridiculous,
>> perhaps, but these are the issues with which I would struggle. That
>> sort of intensity leads to Joe's pedestal theory, and I AWHWP that
>> this is overwhelming and a Bad Thing.
>
>
> Yes. Yes, it is. Although I'm not sure anyone has worked out the
> technique to stop it happening in our minds.
>
That''s very simple Ben. Just imagine GYL naked, it'll break the tension
completely.
--
Cheers, Os
Dat
<joeundersc...@youblunder.cunts.youghey> wrote:
>Those in the public spotlight, especially those enjoying the crest of a wave
>of universal acclaim such as that Mikey enjoyed on his recent tour of the
>Eastern Europe, often end up attracting some sort of a backlash. Sites like
>'theCunninghamConspiracy.org' and 'fuckblurry.com' do nothing but spread
>hateful bile, the fact that you're clearly taken in by some of it surprises
>me, Dat.
I try to keep an open mind, but eventually the weight of the ABCs
becomes like some persistent negative affirmation or something. If
it's any consolation, I feel suitably foolish for allowing myself to
be sucked off by their cunningycism.
You're wrong about fuckblurry btw. The stuff all over my monitor and
keyboard is not bilecoloured.
>And Ben really is a fat ghey miserable cunt.
Ah, now we're back on firmer ground. I find this comforting.
>And Kullrad has dead shark eyes.
It's his most endearing feature.
>And ST has the biggest cock you ever saw and oodles of cash.
Sometimes life does manage to find ways to compensate. Not adequately,
obviously, but it has made the effort and that's the main thing.
>We are all exaggerations on teh froup, granted, but not total abstractions.
Not me. Uh-uh, no way. I really am YMO's biggest fan. True story.
--
Dat
Dat
<joeundersc...@youblunder.cunts.youghey> wrote:
><ahem>
>
>I think I should clarify what I meant by 'blokes with tits', as it appears
>to have been rather misconstrued here as some kind of mammary-focus.
No, no you shouldn't and no, no it wasn't.
I made a valiant effort to not get heavily drawn into this thread, for
a while, but eventually succumbed the call of the Nunn dressed up as
the Parkes. I am weak. And wouldn' you know it, all the fun is being
sucked out of everything the longer we dally in this blackhole and my
initial feeling has been validated.
Curse you Dat and your caring'n'shit.
My comments were a passing bit of silliness in the lead up to the
warning about treating freshly met MammaryMen in a similar manner to
the newly introduced bestubbled variety and not in a manner befitting
your long lost drinking buddies.
I can see what you're doing though, you and your Power To The Smilies
Coalition. I warn you, focus your winning efforts upon the Julie Js of
this world and cease wasting your efforts on the likes of me. I'll not
be swelling your ranks today, or tomorrow, or the day after....
>I suppose I could have said 'blokes with cunts' to the same end.
I'm not at all comfortable with blokes describing womenfolk as cunts
:))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
>And for the record, I'm not a 'breast man' anyway. My favouritest thing in
>the whole entire world ever is the soft, tender upper-inside part of an
>otherwise firm and slender female thigh. You all knew that really.
Yes, we've all seen your collection and were suitably impressed.
Bloody show off.
--
Dat
Kullrad
>> Yes. Yes, it is. Although I'm not sure anyone has worked out the
>> technique to stop it happening in our minds.
>>
> That''s very simple Ben. Just imagine GYL naked, it'll break the tension
> completely.
I imagined GBL naked once.
--
Kullrad (4)
UKSF Best New Poster 2003
"Er, I think you'll find it's the Year of the Brummiecunt this time.
Yam Ki Pa Tai." - Joe Horowitz
Winamp is spewing forth: My Chemical Romance - The Ghost Of You
Vicky Conlan
>I might have just as easily said 'blokes with longer hair on average' or
>'blokes who cry more' but 'blokes with tits' seemed like the only one that
>wasn't teh ghey generalisation.
I understood, Joe. And I thought it was definitely the best bit you
could have chosen, all in all.
>I suppose I could have said 'blokes with cunts' to the same end.
I don't think this would have tripped off the tongue quite so easilly.
>And for the record, I'm not a 'breast man' anyway. My favouritest thing in
>the whole entire world ever is the soft, tender upper-inside part of an
>otherwise firm and slender female thigh. You all knew that really.
Although "Blokes with soft, tender upper-inside part of an otherwise
firm and slender female thigh" may have got points for trying.
Allen Parkes
>> That''s very simple Ben. Just imagine GYL naked, it'll break the
>> tension completely.
>
> I imagined GBL naked once.
Really, Kullrad? AHDTWOFGBL?
--
Al
"i like chelsea.
Are you?"
- Mr Bean, Dec 2005
Vicky Conlan
>>>Isolated examples are almost worthless: Tony Towers has a wife, and he's
>>>fatter than me, therefore I should gain weight for success with women.
>> Maybe he wasn't fatter than you when he got a wife?
>You mean you get to eat a load of food as well?
>Shit, I'm missing out on even more than I realised.
I'm not sure if it's the "eating shit loads of food" or the "not feeling
obliged to shift your fat arse unless it's about to get run over by a
large truck or the house is about to fall on it and the only reason you
would move it then is because you'd have trouble keeping hold of the tv
remote control", but yes. Yes you are.
Allen Parkes
> As an example, one of the recommended tips is to feign an interest in
> things that are psychic and spiritual, and talk to women about these
> things, completely ignoring the idea that any man might actually have
> a genuine interest in these things to begin with.
Heh. That's one of the examples of the more cunty things in the books, tbh.
That's the sort of thing I'd read and think "mmm...nah." It's pretending,
y'see, and that's not good. I'd sooner find some other means of
conversation that doesn't involve feigned interest.
> Similarly, the rating of 'hot babes' on a 1-10 scale based on their
> looks (and the implication that all men can do this instinctively and
> consistently) makes me very uncomfortable.
That's just a means of simplifying what they're saying. "Don't use Neg Hits
unless the girl is sufficiently attractive that the majority of men would
probably think she is staggeringly beautiful, or she's a model, or
something" isn't quite as easy to say as "Only use Neg Hits on HB9s or
better". Yes, you could take issue with the subjectivity of it and have a
good old brood that these dating gurus objectify women - heaven forbid - or
you could just accept it as a means of easily communicating some ideas, even
if you don't agree outright with the means they've used.
> Yeah, it's an overwhelming fear that you could just say or do the
> wrong thing, and dash all your hopes in an instant, like Bill Murray
> trying to win over Andie MacDowell in Groundhog Day, but without
> another crack at it.
Quite.
Kullrad
>>> That''s very simple Ben. Just imagine GYL naked, it'll break the
>>> tension completely.
>>
>> I imagined GBL naked once.
>
> Really, Kullrad? AHDTWOFGBL?
*We* ended up united.
You're up early today, or haven't you been to bed yet?
--
Kullrad (4)
UKSF Best New Poster 2003
"Er, I think you'll find it's the Year of the Brummiecunt this time.
Yam Ki Pa Tai." - Joe Horowitz
Winamp is spewing forth: My Chemical Romance - I'm Not Okay (I Promise)
Allen Parkes
> particularly about sex.
>
> I'm not Al Parkes.
If I'm to read the inference of these two statements being made in such
proximity correctly, then you're a total cunt and you can Fuck Off.
>> We'll call this the self-help argument.
>
> So, just in case anybody actually knows, how the fuck do you actually
> do it? I seem to be having this discussion frequently with the 'new'
> Parkes,
> and have seen no answers.
> I've read ever so much theory on the subject, and around NLP in
> general, but nothing actually seems to explain how to change things
> in your brain and get rid of the thoughts that you don't want in
> there.
I can only tell you what seems to be working for me, which is zero conscious
effort, oddly enough. I read a textbook on NLP, most of the way through
thinking to myself "this is bollocks, it'll never work". Then, two days
later, I just started seeing shit differently. I don't know if the NLP
stuff went in through the backdoor or if it just gave me cause to look at my
patterns of thought and what drove what etc., but that's what happened.
>> Heh. Very much a possibility, I'd say. Tell me, do they actually
>> mention alpha males at any point at all?
>
> Well, different gurus use different terminology, but generally, yes,
> they do talk a lot about alpha males, and how being one is a good
> thing.
Not quite. They suggest you adopt some characteristics of the Alpha Male,
e.g. being the centre of your social group's attention (as a means of
generating social proof), or demonstrating confidence enough that you aren't
fazed by anything someone says to you; but in general I'd say the material
refers to Alpha Males as broadly being just as cunty as Joe's
interpretation, hence the AMOGging techniques designed to eliminate them
from your immediate surround.
Allen Parkes
Not every day starts at the crack of noon, Kullster. Just the ones after I
stay up til 4:45am kicking your lanky arse on Pro Evo.