mASF post by "Subtle22"
posted on: mASF forum: Advanced Discussion, June 6, 2005On 6/13/05 12:54:00 AM, Harmless wrote:
>I found it pretty hard to read
>past the tenth or eleventh
>post so I'm sure I'm missing
>some very important discussion
>but I'm going to get my
>political content out of the
>way first. Read on if you want
>my actual opinion on the
>topic.
>
>It seems to me like there's a
>lot of pent up hostility in
>this sector of the dating
>industry. Dimitri, Mystery,
>Tyler and maybe others
>constantly post these trolls
>under the disguise of offering
>real content. That's a blatant
>accusation.
>
>Now, Dima and Tyler, I hope
>you realize that I'm offering
>these thoughts as a friend
>and, perhaps, the only neutral
>party here. Mystery, I don't
>really know you but I
>certainly respect you, so the
>same applies. Do with it what
>you will. End of disclaimer.
>
>My advice: lighten up. If you
>take DYD as an example -- and
>I think you all should --
>you'll notice that he's never
>seen in public to be negative
>towards any of his
>competitors. It's a smart
>business strategy and it's a
>more honorable way to go about
>it. What does David always
>say? In the business world,
>look for ways to add value and
>it will come back to help you.
>Seems to work well on a
>personal interaction level
>too.
>
>No more beating a (hopefully)
>dead horse. To me, you are all
>sounding rather petty. Stop
>it.
>
>
>Ok, now... the question is:
>What is wrong with "Flash
>Game"?
>
>There are a few basic ideas
>that are important to remember
>here. They include "Less is
>More" and "Keep It Simple,
>Stupid". Basically, if you can
>get the desired response
>without using the flashy,
>over-the-top high octane
>stuff, do you need to use it?
>Nope. Does this mean that
>Flash Game necessarily has a
>negative effect on the sarge?
>I doubt it... unless you're
>doing it wrong.
>
>The problem that I see with
>Flash Game is this: Its output
>is often confused as being a
>necessary component of "solid
>game".
>
>I imagine that people who go
>to workshops and watch these
>guys run all this impressive
>Flash Game as an example of
>"what's possible" come away
>with the belief that if girls
>aren't giggling uncontrolably
>and completely unable to
>control their buying
>temperature, then they aren't
>gaming properly.
>
>I think it's a common
>misconception that if a set
>doesn't
>"blow up" then it's not going
>properly. Not true!
>
>And likewise, just because a
>girl is giggling and the set
>is blowing up, doesn't mean
>you're guaranteed to get laid!
>You've still got 70% of the
>game left to go.
>
>I think this all stems from
>one huge misconception, which
>is that gaining attraction is
>the most important part of the
>game. Wrong again!
Here you fail to take your own advice and then, if attraction really is not the
most important part, state what is.
I, for one, think it is and you'll get nowhere without attraction.
But, also, there is one more distinction - "gaining attraction" can mean being
the person people want to be around and chicks love to see themselves around -
and doesn't mean playing card tricks.
I mean, key things will always be a good opening frame (wether it's I like to
talk to anyone, I want to meet you, I like you and I want to meet you, You
crossed my path so I'll fuck you, I'm bored so entertain me or something else),
then attraction, then finding a common ground to get the day2 (building a
connection), and finally location for sex.
Sometimes connection is a given (ie you both like to party like animals - you
already have the connection!), and sometimes (in fact, in all other cases)
chicks see letting go in someone's presence and letting someone close to them
as connection.
I'd even say you can get by without proper location, just like you can without
great clothes, but without attraction?
If I'm missing something, please elaborate.
Subtle
|
