mASF post by "hotlab"
posted on: mASF forum: General Discussion newsgroup, July 7, 2004On 7/8/04 1:16:00 PM, Harmless wrote:
>On 7/8/04 9:13:00 AM, hotlab wrote:
>>On 7/8/04 7:20:00 AM, Harmless wrote:
>>>If you haven't posted a LR,
>>>don't pretend that you have
>>>anything to say about any
>>>seduction issue. I'm not
>>>naming names. You know who you
>>>are. If you don't know who you
>>>are, I'll be more than happy
>>>to let you know.
>>
>>Harmless, it's pretty obvious that you
>>are talking about me, because I dared to
>>criticize what you wrote in Advanced. If
>>you aren't able to discuss the shit
>>you're posting but merely seek to be
>>flattered as a seduction guru then
>>please at least don't get all huffy
>>either.
>
>Well, not specifically about you... but
>I guess it does apply, doesn't it?
I thought because we had a little difference of opinion five minutes before
posting this.
If it applies to me or not is pretty much pointless. I don't know if it applies
to you either. I don't read much FRs and can't judge what's made up or not. I
usually judge posts by their content.
>
>>The main conflict that arises on this
>>board permanently is between guys who
>>are following the fast-lay philosophy
>>and guys who are striving for
>>relationships (and believe me there are
>>plenty of them). These two approaches
>>are to a large degree incompatible but
>>still have many things in common. Look
>>at Real_Quiet's recent post on Advanced,
>>which addresses a relationship issue.
>>ijjjji, who is definitely not interested
>>in relationships, steps in, critizises
>>the post without really understanding
>>it. These kind of discussions are
>>completely counterproductive. I'm
>>feeling guilty too, because your post
>>probably was intended towards the
>>fast-lay community and I stepped in with
>>a long-term seduction issue.
>
>Actually, it was most definitely
>directed towarsd the entire community.
>The basic idea is that you have to be
>relaxed, totally within your own
>reality, and confident that you are an
>attractive person, rather than TRYING to
>attract anyone. This is something that
>is core to both my and ijjjji's games,
>and actually applies to both fast
>seduction and relationships.
I got this and told you so in my post. This is almost trivial. I wrote this
myself at times in other words. Everybody writes it. What I didn't agree with
is that you don't make her the center of your attention. Real_Quiet stated it
perfectly why this works and actually is a good thing. If it doesn't work
you're still supplicating.
>
>I wish you had looked at the post on a
>larger scale instead of small-chunking
>down to the individual examples I
>provided. The examples were there to try
>to provide context clues so that people
>couild better understand a difficult
>subject. And since my examples are based
>on fast seduction, I can understand that
>you didn't like them. But the CONCEPT is
>still a good one for either camp.
Maybe I try to read it again. But it would help to summarize the key points.
>
>If you had picked up on the basic
>meaning of my post, I bet you would have
>been right with me, ESPECIALLY because
>of your bias for relationships. The
>essense of my game is about being a
>MONEY GUY that girls are naturally drawn
>to, not spitting routines and
>cavemanning her into bed.
Again I didn't disagree with you're whole post, just with the statement I
mentioned above. What got me upset is that ijjjji dismissed Robert Greene's
"Art of Seduction", which I cited as counter-example, as AFC literature and
additionally insulted me.
>
>>From what I wrote here, it should be
>>clear that I'm not that interested in
>>getting laid fast. If the opportunity is
>>there, I grab it. But I don't go out in
>>order to sarge women. This is too boring
>>to me. I go out to have a drink and/or
>>to talk with friends. Sometimes sex is
>>offered virtually in front of my nose.
>>If I'm in the mood I'll go for it
>>(happened 3 times this year), if not I
>>leave her alone. But I don't write
>>reports about this, because it's a waste
>>of time.
>
>It could be argued that you have no
>place at FAST SEDUCTION.COM» since you
>are not, in fact, interested in fast
>seduction.
From the charter:
"The topic of this board is the discussion of pick-up and seduction techniques
and ideas."
>It is certainly
>counterproductive to the mission of this
>board as a whole for people who don't
>like to "get laid fast" to criticise
>people who do merely for this reason.
I never said, that I don't like getting laid fast. I don't like sarging.
>
>In general, though, you should keep in
>mind that whatever your personal
>preference, this board IS about "getting
>laid fast".
Look at the charter about the purpose of the board
>If you disagree with a post
>simply because it is about fast
>seduction rather than relationships,
>this is not the place for it.
I disagreed with the post because I considered a statement of you to be wrong.
I cited a respected book about seduction as a proof. You demanded LRs as a
proof. Too me this makes no sense.
>But like I
>said, I can't actually fault you for not
>enjoying the sarging process or fools
>mates because I don't really enjoy those
>things either. ;-)
Occasionally I enjoy fool's mate. BTW the sarging process contradicts the whole
philosophy you described in your post, which I understand as "Be a confident
guy who has a life and doesn't need validation by chicks". If you're sarging
all the time or reading mASF, you don't have a life and have to fake it.
Now I'm running out of time. HBColombia is waiting;-)
Maybe I reply to the remainder of your post tommorrow.
hotlab
|
