mASF post by "TheDatingWizard"
posted on: mASF forum: Advanced Discussion, July 7, 2005On 7/20/05 1:26:00 AM, Paraiso wrote:
>>Why then would you create a style where
>you're so concerned about what the woman
>thinks about you?
Listen, dude. There are guys out there
where they BETTER hear it from an instructor
that the way they are coming across is FUCKING
LAME and FUCKING DORKY. So in the beggining,
for SOME guys, they BENEFIT massively from
BEING concerned. This is like telling a guy
who wants to be in the FULL CONTACT
ULTIMATE FIGHTING CHAMPIONSHIPS to have "confidence",
which is important, but if he is NOT READY
TO STEP IN THE RING YET, he has to be told
that he will get RIPPED TO SHREDS so that
he LEARNS WHAT HE NEEDS TO KNOW before he
steps in that ring.
Anything less is pure stupidity and will
get the guy blown out instantly.
>were to actually be out in the world
>where you're getting pussy every day
My personal life is not part of this
discussion, but it seems logical debate
is out of your league. What IS relevant
is that I've demonstrated living proof in clubs,
not only commercially but also by hooking up
with various guys from the Toronto lair last
year and it was "streamlined" enough to have
VISIBLE RESULTS AS STRONG AS ANYTHING OUT THERE,
you name it, extractions of hooters girls,
kiss makeouts in under ten minutes with
non-drunk, tall, educated hb9s, etc etc.
But proven my streamlined skills?
I definately have.
Also, you will see that for some girls,
a LOT of this asf shit doesn't work at all,
and that's because this board is designed
for TYPICAL girls, not for ATYPICAL girls
which I prefer, who have different values.
I SWEAR to this, for the BEST girls in
my life that I have met for relationships,
most of the asf stuff would have screwed
it up, BIG TIME. Yes, SCREWED IT UP, big time.
That's why there is so little discussion
here of relationships.
>>If you had balls of steel you wouldn't
>be using indirect.
Let me guess, RAPE is even MORE direct.
After all, what can be MORE direct than that?
Just GO FOR WHAT YOU WANT, right?
Don't TALK, take ACTION!!!!!!!!!
>Name a few. If you can name a situation
>where it's not just you and the woman
>then what are you talking about?
Groups of women, that sound familiar?
>EXCUSER. EXCUSER. EXCUSER. EXCUSER.
>That's all I've got to say about that.
>If you don't think so, then you should
>examine the way you think about
>yourself.
Interesting variety of
colourful NAME CALLING.
How about we graduate from kindergarten?
x4.
>Yes. How often do those conversations
>end up in lays?
Probably more often than letting
dorks talk to women with NO IDEA
of what is going on, and before being
told to DE-DORKIFY themselves
and learn a few things.
This is like telling a HORRENDOUSLY
UGLY WOMAN to just chat up a guy
and have no excuses before she even
learns to take a shower get fit and
dress well.
And lots of us may have
been dorks, there's nothing wrong
with that, as long as we learn.
>
>How can you be of more value if you're
>talking to them from a position of
>inferiority such as indirect?
NOT a position of inferiority.
That's an obscene distortion of "indirect".
>Seems like a lot of minuses for
>indirect. I used to be a regular dude
>that couldn't talk to girls as well and
>I found direct to be more practical to
>learn.
GREAT. For you. That doesn't mean
that for some guys, they can't benefit
from the OTHER style of learning, which
really isn't THAT different either.
>Why would you. If you get to this
>level. Why would you ever go back to
>indirect?
Because it gives you MORE options and
causes LESS blow outs.
Michael W
The Dating Wizard
www.thedatingwizard.com»
|
