| fast seduction 101 promotion section |
 If you haven’t already visited the
 ASF forum or Player
Guide web board, now would be a good time to do
so… Don’t forget to this site! Fast Seduction 101
now has a 
product review section. |
Learning more about the gigolo
4/19/01 6:02:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
As for those who don't follow the format and are hesitant about
contributing, how it works here's an explanation. When you hit "Reply" to
an email, what was written to you wrote comes back with ">" in front of each
sentence - but what you then write (i.e. new comments) don't have that. And
if you were commenting on comments, the previous comments will have ">>" in
front of them. So it is supposed to be very simple, but I know it looks
confusing. Below, new comments should have nothing in front of them and the
comments that are being commented on will have ">" or ">>" in front of them
(although there are times when I will just put the comments being commented
on in brackets and end that with a ":" to indicate that this is what is
being commented on). If it still is confusing, it is really just done to
imitate the way all your emails are done when you just reply to them.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
You can join Major Mark's NEW online discussions by sending a message to
Mar***e@ya***.com[ ? ].
And don't forget Mark's seminars that are upcoming:
May 9-13 Awakening Unafraid in Montreal
Sep 14-16 Advanced Hypnosis: Deep Trance, Mentalism and Beyond in Boulder
Oct 19-21 Advanced Stage: Non-verbal Hypnosis in Las Vegas
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Major Mark:
Hey Clifford -- thanks for the plugs! Steve and I have finished our
topic/exercise list for that weekend and it's safe to say that while we'll
cure you of your hesitations and fears along the way, we'll be romping
through some Very Cool Shit Indeed! Our intent is to be Fucking
Fantastic -- but if Canadian Customs screws up letting our sound system in,
we'll merely be Absolutely Amazing!
I keep meaning to comment on your topics here but.....I don't have the time,
energy or inclination to get into Mystery's Elvis Is In The Building
approach, which seems to have gained favor amongst your readers. Or is it
just the vicarious buzz of reading his stories that interests your readers?
It seems to me that his whole approach is based on weakness -- gotta pump it
up because being "me" isn't enough. I continue to rely on showing up, being
Mark with much Markness, and women keep liking me. Go figure.
> My Comment: I guess not everyone has my sense of humour. I just thought
> that was pretty interesting -- I am not a promoter of cults, that's for
> sure. And it was mentioned because there was a hypnosis/seduction element
> to it.
No shit! I know the authors, and when they sent me an early draft to review
I nearly fell off my chair -- it seemed that a LOT of what I do was
cult-recruitment methodologies! I followed up hastily with a phone call and
the Anonymous Brotherhood admitted that their material was, shall we say,
heavily influenced by my work. Which makes all of your admiration for my
stuff benign and welcome, as opposed to evil cult influence. Now, THAT
sounds better! LOL!
My Comment: And for those who haven't read this here a bazillion times
already, I will be at Mark's seminar in Montreal next month. Don't miss it.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
GameMaster:
>Ross
> Summary: TAKE THE LEAD. Expect to do ALL the calling, work, etc.
> CLOSE as soon as possible. Get the timing down. Don't do too much on
> the phone. Pick the adventurous and already highly sexual ones. Do
> NOT be the "advice counselor" which young ones sometimes try to do
> with us older guys. Also, when you pattern, they may not have too
> many real values/goals/etc. to work with, so you have to use more
> fantasizing, guided visualization, etc. Play up, in conversation,
> how immature younger guys can be; they just want a steady girl so
> they can then have a base of operations to go out and play and lay
> lots of other girls. Older guys have been there, done that, want to
> be more selective.
>
> Hope this is "linear" enough for some of my more idiotic
> critics....: ): ): )
GameMaster: Is Ross getting smarter in his old age or am I just growing up?
: )
There's a distinction between intelligence and wisdom in this message that a
lot of the guys need to get a handle on.
> Mystery:
> She put up a HOOP and I jumped through it, like a good little doggie. It
> cost me pride & dignity, and I have no intention of calling her again. Ok,
> fine. So Mystery, where (maybe it's perfectly obvious to everyone but
me),
> exactly, did I screw up? How could I have handled her HOOP and changed it
> into her jumping through MY HOOP?
Nobody in this list is infallible. Not me, not Mystery, nobody.
And I, more than anybody appreciate his admission that he fucked up with
some chick. I swear it's true, the more I learn the less I know! But the
lessons should stay with you...if you're awake.
>> I was on the inside for three years and I had one hell of
> >good time, but I would trade all that today for what I've reclaimed and
> that is a normal existence with women who can FEEL real emotion and return
that
> >emotion with great enthusiasm.
>
> I hear what you are saying and I guess there IS a familiarity to a
> lifestyle to "blind" people
OK Mys, how Freudian was that? Blind dude...and when you are on the inside
lookin' out you are fucking BLIND! OK, I owe you a beer over this one cause
that's fucking hilarious. Mystery, I'm not knocking the lifestyle and you
obviously know what you're doing with strippers and they are a boost to the
ego, are great eye candy, provide all the social proof you need when your
out on the town, and provide a wonderful visual when you're fuckin em'
but......there's something missing from the equation, and that is
emotion, real emotion. I will go to my grave (300 years from now) with the
absolute belief that women that take their clothes off for money are fucked
up at a core level and therefore inaccessible. I don't care what they tell
you, if they are talking they are lying to you. And the young guys on this
list should be aware of the realities of dating strippers. Hell, I'm still
hooked on them but my eyes are wide open now. That's the diff. I encourage
all the guys on this list to go fuck as many strippers as they can then
develop their own opinions. Anything you hear from me and Mystery has been
poisoned by individual
experience. And the funny thing about StripperWorld is, when we all
disconnect from the experience, the reality is always the same.
And they do SUCK in bed, there are better solutions to sex than a fucking
stripper. My only lasting memory of sex with a stripper was when Andreanna's
5 year old picked the lock to her bedroom door and discovered me fucking his
Mom in the ass. Wonder how much therapy that kid's gonna need? Little piece
of shit!
> Just so you know, I have fallen in love with MOST of the girls I
> went with. I minimize the importance of bonding with girls in my posts
and
> replies but I'm about feeling connected more than getting fucked.
Well, I can relate Mys. And MAYBE, because you CAN connect at this level is
a HUGE reason why you are so successful with women??? This goes back to my
point about women who want a man that can reveal his vulnerability, while
still remaining the alpha male». You are manifesting this in your
relationships, dude! I do the same thing but we do it at an unconscious
level...we show it and then take it away. Drives em' fucking absolutely out
of their minds. And that's a great control mechanism we have not discussed
but prolly worthy of some debate as well. Seems Mystery and I are on
the same page after all. I need a drink.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Mystery:
>You can't teach people an entirely different way of THINKING by
>having them imitate you in a club or do what you tell them to in a
>club.
You CAN'T? That's new to me. Why can't one person TEACH a BEHAVIOR through
imitation and REPEATED TRIALS? REPEATED trials certainly beats REPEATED
talking.
>My seminars aren't aimed at giving guys a set number of rehearsed
>moves, although we cover that as well, with word for word seduction
>patterns.
Consider finally adding FORMAT to your seminars, Ross. I'm now pleased to
be disappointed with your style only because I have finally demystified your
system. It's not so much WHAT you teach (lots of the ideas rock) but rather
the pace at which you teach and the 'classical way' you teach it. A seminar
could be a fun thing but, dude, there is NO WAY a guy is gonna GRASP the
concept of APPROACHING CONSISTENTLY unless they SEE the behavior.
>They are primarily aimed at teaching guys a different way of
>thinking, COMMUNICATING IN A WAY THAT CAPTURES AND LEADS THE IMAGINATION
>(that can be used in many different contexts besides seduction) and a way
>to change and control their state.
Isn't it more reasonable to teach BEHAVIORS? Tell me if I'm off base here.
You certainly can't capture and lead her imagination if you don't have the
guts to approach a girl. Once you can approach consistently, the students
learning curve will begin to soar. My METHOD includes a no holds barred in
your face attitude (which is what we are attempting to have in the first
place, right?) Are you afraid? Good, now go get her! You fucked it up?
No
worries, the night is young, there's another. GO! What went wrong there?
The opener sucked? Try girl # 3! GO! Better results but the close sucked.
What to do? There's #4! GO! Hell of a lot better (and way more fun to
boot) than sitting in a room full of guys, bro. Anyone care to comment? I
mean, anyone who actually has the guts to approach? (Having the guts
doesn't
mean NOT having ANY AA just DEALING with it and approaching anyway).
>You are just teaching people rote imitation. Fine and dandy. Go
>for it. I want to and DO give people more.
Imitation is MODELING. Once they get the hang of it then they find their
own style. Not til they are up and running with a lifestyle of consistent
approaches, however, or they will not be able to LEARN in the field. MM and
SS are not the be all and end all. We want to build LEARNERS and MM starts
them off right to learn at their natural pace (THEIR learning curve). If
they aren't out in the field then all my advice AFTER basic training will be
meaningless because they won't be using it anyways. The more I think of
this
logic, the less of a 'magic pill' SS seems.
>And for those who have some shyness issues, YOUR only answer is,
>"BE A MAN! TOUGH IT OUT!" I think that is a stupid and primitive
>answer, but if it is the only one you can provide, again, go for it.
Coming from a sympathetic "I UNDERSTAND YOU HAVE AA" attitude, I'm not out
to say, "I'll talk the AA away for you." I believe in the, "Yes you WILL
have AA ... and with experience you will STILL become COMPETENT and SKILLED
despite this feeling ... and with familiarizing yourself with AA the AA will
reduce in grip." There has GOT to be a limit between those who DO to do and
those who don't. What is that difference? I suppose when a man DESIRES to
learn this ENOUGH, when the pain of NOT having a woman is large enough, that
is when he will take the plunge and begin DOING what he must to get the
skills. If a person is scared stiff that's ok. If a person is a PHOBIC?
That's a disease and I don't deal with retards. The question a student to
the PUA should ask is: AM I A PHOBIC or just SCARED SHITLESS? I believe
THAT is the distinction to make before you decide to begin basic training.
> >. In the same
> >amount of time a person can get a hell of alot more in his head by
> >working a club with a PUA coach on his wing.
>
>You want to provide PERSONAL coaching for 40 people? How are you
>going to do that, one on one? TRY IT SOMETIME!
Oh, of course there are the technical issues - I wouldn't do 40 people - a
part of the SERVICE offered is MORE PERSONALIZATION - after all, people want
to learn what they need to, not pay you to teach them shit they may already
know. Who would pay to be in a class with 40 people (the old ceremonial way
of teaching) and going as fast as the slowest PHOBIC when they could have
live, exciting, in field experience WITH a master with only 3 to 5 other
students? Am I being totally unreasonable here?
> > Information goes from
> >brain to brain in a LINEAR way.
>
>Oh it does? I think this is rank ignorance. In fact, learning takes
>place in a lot of different ways. And learning is organized
>UNCONSCIOUSLY, through the use of symbology. I think you have lots
>to learn about modern learning theory.
Learning is organized UNCONSCIOUSLY? The word UNCONSCIOUS needs to be
clarified into a more TANGIBLE word for me. I see the brain in a complex
behavioral computer/controller for our robot body. That is the metaphor I
use. The word UNCONSCIOUS is wishy washy like the word TRANCE or PSYCHIC
INFLUENCE. Shall we bring neuroanatomy into this debate? Dang, bro, you're
into this consistent "you need to learn better" argument which is lameass.
Get to the POINT of an issue instead of saying, "you are stupid." The 'you
are ignorant' retort does not suit a man of your mental capacity. (Of
course, I take none of this personally, my good man - this is fun) : )
>What you are talking about is slavish imitation without
>understanding underlying principles. Works fine if you are in the
>EXACT situation you learned about. Otherwise...well...problems occur.
The only thing to be IMITATED is the PACING and CONSISTENCY of the evening.
Not the EXACT approach. Basic Training is about getting the student up to
speed so they are in a position to learn from their mistakes. the only
mistake a student CANNOT learn from is NOT APPROACHING. Basic Training
solves this.
> > MANY LOOPS and DIGRESSIONS make for a messy
> >(and may I add NEEDLESSLY MESSY) meme complex transfer. Instead of
trying
> >to teach all these IDEALISMS of SEDUCTION, why not teach exactly what he
> >DOES?
>
>Conceptual learning, not "idealism". Teach the principles behind the
>tools; what they are designed to do AND teach the tools. If you
>can't "unpack" what you do and explain the concepts behind them, then
>that is YOUR lack. As a practitioner and as a teacher. Not my
>problem.
Blah. Excuses, my good man. Giving people the WHY behind a
particular technique is all fine and dandy if you need to fill a seminar
with FILLER TIME but if you want to teach BEHAVIOR, in the field training is
the way: guys are pretty smart ... smart enough to understand the WHY of
things when they are seen to work ... AND: after a night of gaming in the
field, there is always the after game debriefing where questions are
handled. Wait for the questions to arise from the student and answer them
rather than small chunk it into separate atoms before they even know HOW. I
believe strongly that HOW must come before WHY. The student's confidence in
the WHY of something is substantiated when they SEE you work. Then, once
they KNOW it works, they can ask WHY. This INTERACTIVITY is what makes a
SEMINAR (and lectures and other classroom oriented ceremonies) WAY outdated.
We live in an age of interactivity. Teaching has a PACE - individualizing
this makes for a smarter student.
COMPLETE SIDE NOTE: I think a PUA is a POSER. Maybe the word POSER is a
GOOD THING though. We ACT the part of a man who is together until we BECOME
a together person. If we never actually DO, well, we still benefit from
being a ... POSER. Comments?
> > There ARE after all, only so many
> >scenarios, so many contingencies, so many routines to perform. This
> >is not an INFINITE system. It's a CLOSED SYSTEM - FINITE
>
>Humans aren't closed systems. Sooner or later you run into someone
>where the MEMORIZED pattern doesn't work. That is why you need to
>teach HOW it works.
Agreed. Basic Training isn't so much about memorizing precise scripts as it
is about conveying an attractive personality.
> > with a set
> >amount of running variables. You learn faster by DOING than just by
> >watching. 3 days of seminars ... that's a little rough on the ass, isn't
> >it? Having to go at the pace of the slowest phobic?
>
>Now here we have more dishonesty; who said anything about going at
>the slowest pace? If anything, I go too fast and the 3 days isn't
>enough to convey everything I have to convey.
Blah. Maybe your seminars have changed since what I have on tape. Let's
not
sugarcoat it: it's all filler between only a FEW basic concepts.
My Comment: Here's another example of where you can't appreciate what goes
on without attending Ross's seminars. To give you an idea, a wide range of
"essential skills" that he used to teach has been carved out and are now
taught separately by Kim & Tom (www.essential-skills.com). I have been to
several of his seminars and they have all been different and filled with new
material. The seminars really do not cover anywhere near all the material
Ross has to teach.
> > How bout going at your OWN pace?
>
>One on one coaching, sure. But a room of 40 guys? How would that
>work? More straw-men.
That is the whole point to my innovative approach. Please remember that my
enlightened view is not directed at YOUR WAY of teaching ... after all, you
are just modeling the way all seminars teach. I'm just saying it's out of
date and a more interactive and personalized service leads to greater
learning, faster learning, more experience and more ways of a student
GETTING IT. What I'm saying is, DON'T TEACH 40 people at a time. Don't DO
a seminar. I'm CERTAIN you would find potential students will to hand over
a little more money for the IN FIELD COACHING you could provide. But then,
YOUR field is not INTENSIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS like clubs. If you can
work a club, ALL OTHER ENVIRONMENTS are turkey shoots.
> >I do not challenge this data. The MAJOR difference here is that the
> >well defined laws of parabolas was already stored in memory by YEARS of
> >familiarity with the laws of physics (I assume the ball players were
> >not infants?).
>
>That is preposterous! HA HA HA! Ridiculous on the face of it. Even
>Randi would laugh at this. So, by your reasoning, people are
>unconsciously familiar with the laws of physics? HA HA HA HA!
>
> > Visualization cannot BEGIN until you have EXPERIENCE.
>
>So we only imagine what we've already encountered? This is vapid and
>stupid on the face of it.
"I know you are but what am I?" *shrug* Um, NO, it's not. If one NEVER
encounters a certain THING, one can not THINK of it. If you were not TOLD
about an INVISIBLE DRAGON in your garage nor SEEN it, you will not THINK it.
In fact, DRAGONS have been TALKED about already so it's still possible but
what about the invisible 6 titted dopplemorph? Bet you haven't contemplated
THEM beasts lately (although you may now fear entering your garage). Before
EINSTEIN, people did not think of gravity as equal to acceleration. HIS
thought (his MEME) was contagious and THAT is why you may now hold the meme
that space can bend in your head. There are only a finite amount of brains
contemplating certain foci of reality. He was the first to NOTE what was
always there. And so, here I am, possibly the FIRST to note that SEMINARS
are NOT the most effective way to teach "How to PickUp Women" and instead
INTERACTIVE PERSONALIZED COACHING IS. I'm an innovator : D
>For example, he quite accurately points out Uri Geller
>cheating/faking psi phenomena. The only scientific conclusion that
>can logically be reached from this is that Geller cheated in the
>tests Randi observed/designed.
>
>Does Randi stop here? No, he uses Geller as a strawman to leap to
>the conclusion that ALL "psi" phenomena MUST therefore be fraudulent,
>or hallucinations, or misreading of data etc. etc. etc.
"There's a sucker born every minute ... and two to take him." Every day NEW
cheaters are born and Randi can't keep showing they, too, cheat. So he
shows
that the most influential are in fact cheaters and can't get to all the new
ones. There is NO compelling evidence that PSI is real. NONE. Your
argument is like saying, "Just cause 99% of it is shown to be fake, that
doesn't mean the last 1% is too." Certainly. And yet, by the very weight
of
the 99%, which is MORE LIKELY? That the last 1% is ALSO fake ... or that
DESPITE the weight of all the fakes out there, the laws of physics are
actually being broken? Paaalease! Keep this cheapass PSYCHIC INFLUENCE out
of the SCIENCE of PERSUASION. Casting spells is great for the girls but
don't get suckered into trying to "psychically" persuade a girl to LOOK at
you. Talk about a leap of fucking faith bro. *sheesh* .... haaa.
>He takes a
>fairly obvious instance of fraud on the part of some person or
>persons and concludes an entire range of phenomena is IMPOSSIBLE and
>that any one with any personal experience of such things MUST be
>wrong, hallucinating, etc., etc.
Investigate ENOUGH claims and you TOO would conclude the same. Having an
open mind to NEW evidence is fine, but don't let your brains fall out of
your
head. I bet you think you have the ability to make girls LOOK at you from a
distance with psychic powers too, right? Palease.
>One thing that I'm talking about though, is being able to tell
>your stories and Ross's patterns without sounding like a robot or Timothy
>Leary's Trancemaster.
I think, like with a good performer (a comedian for example), practice
(consistent approaches) makes for a good act.
>I have no problem at all talking to the finest
>supermodel on the planet, because I have a devil-may-care personality, but
>sometimes I find myself thinking "why should I bother" because all I do
>with
>girls is fluff talk/try to elicit values, not supplicate, and follow the
>basic rules of HTGTWYDIB (How To Get The Women You Desire Into Bed), WOMEN
>by Maxim Books, Idiot's Guide to Seduction, and various stored articles and
>websites- i.e. the simple seduction strategies....no NLP, MM, or SS. I
>don't use the latter three because I've recorded myself repeatedly (yes,
>Mystery, alone) and still don't feel like it sounds unrehearsed enough to
>do
>in real life.
Yeah, I understand. I ENJOY the subtlety between responses to my shit. I
also LOVE women and being in the center feels GREAT to me.
>Both types of stories are generally and almost always TOTALLY
>PLOTLESS, which brings me to the subject of your linear/non-linear
>argument.
>
>Neither MM stories or SS patterns, as far as I can tell, are linear at all!
MM stories are like a comedian's comedy bits. They don't have to lead
seamlessly into the next. ZIG ZAGGING makes for a more exciting act. Each
bit either conveys or demonstrates a particular alpha male» characteristic.
(DEMONSTRATION is always better than tooting your own horn though - for
instance, showing a photo of you rock climbing is better than saying, "I'm
adventurous.")
>Ross says we need to think more non-linear, and I believe he's got a point
>because maybe that's my problem - I can't figure out why the hell I'd want
>to tell a girl that I found bear shit in the woods - makes me feel like I'm
>bragging cause I think it's cool that I can sniff shit and tell a bear's
>around.......I haven't been able to figure out an excuse to tell someone
>about Incredible Connections who I just met. I haven't read as much MM as
>SS, I'll confess, but I'd love to find out where to learn more about it.
Watch me work a room - Toronto. Um, I think that the word NON-LINEAR is
being used out of context. NON-LINEAR was used in our debate with regards
to the way Ross TEACHES ... not the way a student USES a pattern.
>So, anyway, I could walk out the door right now and meet 10 beautiful girls
>without thinking, but it would be mostly luck as to whether or not I hooked
>up with ANY of them because I don't use these seduction devices and I only
>try to close when it feels "right."
If they are hot and you WANT them, isn't our job to make the situation FEEL
RIGHT? Isn't that why this is an ART FORM?
>So I do sit in my place alot and try to
>act out the patterns in the mirror, or use them on ICQ or internet
>MatchMaker services, to get the hang of it......so far I still don't feel
>like I can get away with using them - even on ICQ some women say - "Sorry
>but I'm really not interested in this."
Yeah, now I understand. You need to learn TIMING ... a comedian doesn't
JUST PRACTICE new material in front of the mirror. He WORKS it. You have
to get lots of STAGE TIME to iron out the kinks. I think any particular
routine needs about 50 in field performances til it cleans up. I suggest
strongly
you check out comedian stuff ... go to www.tvradio.com and check out the
comedy learning video they have there. It correlates to our shit.
>Some women, of course, really did
>it, and I've had offers of sex/dates from chicks on the internet, but I had
>offers of sex/dates from girls on the internet before SS, too...
>
>Any comments?
Yeah, don't think online shit really cleans up your act. The game is played
IN THE FIELD. Curious? How many women have you approached this week? I
mean LIVE.
>This runs right along the lines of what I've come to describe as
>"Toronto's Plague". Some may disagree with me, but the chicks, and people
>in general, of Toronto, are far meaner than friendly.
I'm not out to disagree entirely because it IS tough in Toronto but having
been to LA I think it's tough everywhere unless you are particularly
skilled.
It's all about your experience to blast past the bitch shield.
>Mys, the only question I would have here is when you say you approach a
>group near her, do you KNOW this group before?
No, I start from scratch. Let's say there is an HB in a 2 or 3 set at a
bar.
I will not approach that group first. I will first approach, say, a 2 set
of
guys next to them (where I'm in the middle of both groups. After starting
it
up with them I will use their attention on me as social proof to then turn
and get the group I want to get into me. After all are disarmed and the
target negged (surprising all) I then go 1:1. I # closed a girl in about 8
minutes this way when the guy from Montreal came to watch me work the room.
> Do you also usually go to the
>same club(s) all the time, and just know a lot of people?
It certainly builds over time but knowing alot of people is only good to a
point. Once you are marked a regular you have a tougher time so there must
be balance.
>Or do you just go up to a group nearby and chat with them? Here's the
thing, I am curious how
>you do that, I understand it's a lot easier to speak with guys (unless they
>think you're a homo which unless they are too leaves you alone again!)
I have never been thought of as a homo. Just 3's rule the groups. I think
of guys as equal to ugly girls. I don't hit on them equally.
>and I
>know it's what you do first to disarm obstacles, etc. but WHAT do you SAY
>to the GUYS to start with?
"Hey, guys, have you seen the movie Poltergeist? Ya think it based on truth
or it's completely full of shit?"
>What I found interesting is that sometimes I TALK TOO MUCH! LOL but I do.
Life could be worse. At least you don't have it the other way round. This
you can hold back on, at least.
>There was this time it worked when I took a 7 back. She was still great in
>bed (very horny girl), not the best I've had look wise (she was pretty but
>had freckles and skinny) but fine. Anyway the thing is what turned out to
be
>obstacles (her 5 guy friends and girl friends) actually chatted me up first
>because one of them accidentally spilled a little bit of drink on me. I was
>at this club in a random city all by myself and they did the work for me -
>introducing themselves to me. I think it's so much easier if you're in a
>different city from your home town speaking to random people and people
want
>to get to know you. When I'm here in my "home town" (university town), I
>end up just hanging about with my friends, meeting their friends, talking
to
>them and using them as pawns. I wouldn't walk up to a random guy and chat
>him up. People don't BOTHER to meet you unless as Ross mentioned you're in
>a meat market which does exist but it's based ENTIRELY on PHYSICAL LOOKS
>(since it consists mainly of a dance floor!). However, I am sure this is
>EXACTLY what I need to learn to do. What do I say though? This is funny, I
>can't believe I'm asking how to speak with a guy.
It's a very legit question actually, haa. Use an opener. Openers are not
sexual anyways so using it on an obstacle (girl or ug) is normal. There are
loads of OPENERS in the archives.
>When you say "pawn the 7's off to get the target", how do you do that
>exactly? Do you mean getting "rid" of them, or do you introduce her into
>the group?
Basically, you shut the pawn off - like she will be hitting on you and you
will in front of the target say to the pawn, "Ok, ok, keep your hands off.
Don't touch the merchandise." By shutting down the pawn, the target views
you as hard to get, sexually attractive and choosy.
>Last thing I'm gonna say is regarding METHODS.
>I am finding a combination of AM (advanced macking), SS and MM to be
>rather effective IF used right.
Yeah, I totally agree. I don't include SS in my method because well SS is
not
MINE. I'm not out to write a PUA bible but rather contribute MY material to
the game. Why would I bother reiterating tons of other people's stuff,
after all. I don't say its MM or SS ... master both and merge them into
your
own style.
>Dude, I was using it as an example. For most strippers you could never be
>the best guy she's ever met because, from her experience, there is no such
>thing as a best guy. She thinks that men, especially the ones who come to
>the club, are chumps. So you have to show her you ain't another chump,
which
>I guess is where the whole "alpha male»" thing comes in. Could you give us
>your definition of the term "alpha male»"?
For me, I picture the 5 characteristics of an alpha-male: convey them (or
better yet DEMONSTRATE them) and you will have conveyed an ATTRACTIVE
personality and the girl will choose YOU
1 confident
2 great smile
3 sense of humour
4 well groomed
5 connection
Add in social proof and not supplicating and you are ALPHA MALE». Each gets
conveyed in your set and once all are shown you look for IOI's and close.
Great smile happens when you smile always (smile right when you get in a
club - like Dennis Quaid or Jack Nicholson) and 3 sec the approach.
Confidence is conveyed when you instantly approach and hide any possible AA.
Humor is conveyed by your stories. Social proof is conveyed when you
perform group approaches and also pawn one group for another. Well groomed
is when you dress well and brush your teeth, don't drink (breath!) and have
good shoes. Connection happens when you 1:1 and lead her imagination with
time distortion and such. That's it. Quite easy, really. From meeting to
closing, 25 minutes TOPS! Make a false time constraint on yourself if you
are at the 25th minute to appear busy and that your time is valuable.
> I have an idea of what that means
>in the world of canines. I am assuming that it means a man with some sort
of
>status--physique, looks, money, political/social power, huge penis--in the
>eyes of the stripper (and perhaps other men who want this stripper). But
I'd
>like to get your particular definition, Mystery, as it relates to picking
up
>chicks, specifically strippers.
Social proof is far better than conveying money. Money is merely a means to
an end - strippers prefer performers over biz men, anyways. Physique and
looks help but once we dress well, looks are out of our control so we don't
include it in the formula. As for social power ... it's not actual POWER
but
a perceived social proof - like the DJ of a club gets more pussy than a
barback. Why? They BOTH work in the club. So it's not POWER but SOCIAL
STATUS within the context of the club. Huge penis? Well, I'm not HUGE but
I've been told I'm good - I'm not unhappy. However, since I NEVER tell a
girl about my dick it's not a part of the equation either.
>My husband, during the beginning of his
>relationship with this stripper did show her he was the best guy she'd ever
>met (at the club) and that's why she approached and pursued him. But it
>didn't last long and she started seeing him as another chump and hence the
>lies, the drug dealer, etc.
>
>BTW, part of the story I forgot to mention was that a year after he dumped
>her, he ran into her at a bar and he went home with her and did her every
>which way. She wanted to get back together again. He said no and left.
>Didn't want to make the same mistake twice.
>
>But during the time he was with her, he got to know a lot of her co-workers
>at the strip club. Although there were a few women who outside of
stripping,
>led relatively conventional lives with a husband or steady boyfriend, an
>overwhelming number of them had drug problems, psychological issues, and
>just a lot of baggage. I assume that "sexually abused," "cocaine abuse" and
>"bipolar disorder" are not parts of the hottie profile, but like you said
it
>isn't the job so much as the person, and unfortunately, there are a few of
>these people who end up stripping.
Yes, I agree - your list of baggage is realistic. Dealing with a bi polar
girl isn't so bad so long as you understand how emotions get triggered.
It's
not so bad at all. Cocaine abuse? Not my thing but I've dinked a girl on
cocaine. I don't even drink so I was in it for the dinking and not the long
term thing so no worries - she was fucking HOT and I was happy - hell, it's
not MY job to FIX GIRLS. Some problems add ORIGINALITY to girls - so long
as HER issues don't ever become MY issues. As for the rape thing, yes I've
met lots of girls in clubs who have confided the rape thing: quite a turn
off, of course, but welcome to the rocky lives of hot girls. Hot girls
often
were hot kids to their sick uncles and shit so we have to deal with that
sometimes. What can I tell ya, it's something we need to weigh with other
problems to see whether we can handle the issues with her. Everyone has a
story. I'm not going to shy away from knowing someone just cause they
didn't
lead a perfect life. Shit happens.
>And I think Ross said something about how
>many of them need a lot of stimulus and if you're not Mr. Excitement, then
>forget about it.
That I DO agree with! If you can be excite man you are good to go. You
only need to APPEAR excite man til you've boned and then you will have SEX
as a contributive source of excite - part of the dynamic of just how
exciting
you are. My relationship with my GF is very sexual but I am totally in love
with this girl. She is my best friend but still, as SOON as we hook up,
within 15 minutes I'm literally IN her. We are just so fucking attracted to
each other this way. Is that wrong?
>Also, it's still sex-related work, though not quite prostitution per se.
It's so UN-SEX. The girls see it as ACTING and don't get SEX in the head
from it.
>And
>unfortunately, many people lump pros and strippers together. And because of
>this I would have to disagree with the statement that it's "only a job"
>because it's not a regular type of job.
Personally I lump priests, cult leaders and quacks together: none are NORMAL
to me but strippers and gogo dancers and bartenders are NORMAL to me.
>In some contexts, she won't be able
>to proudly tell people what she does for a living.
True. Short sighted people ... or rather SHELTERED people get spooked by
things like FUNERAL DIRECTORS TOO ... but that's a NORMAL job to me too.
>Some strippers don't come
>to terms with the fact that most people don't find stripping respectable
>work, which is probably not good for people with low self-esteem to begin
>with.
They do create a double life. In the day they tell certain people lies.
This duality they get used to - I wonder if the guilt of lying builds ... my
GF lies to mom and says she is a bartender. The mom is curiously oblivious
to the facts that point to the obvious truth. Denial.
>And when the regulars see a stripper outside of the strip club, like
>at a restaurant or party, the situation can get a little uncomfortable with
>some guys thinking she's still on the clock.
I was at a mall with my GF and she saw a customer there who waved at her
(because they were together only the night before). He was a dumpy man and
here I was looking all purdy and he KNEW I was with her. I felt VERY
PROUD - he was looking at me with envy. Admittedly I enjoy that feeling.
>So as far as SS is concerned, I guess banging and bagging a stripper is
>quite a feat, given all the obstacles.
Yeah! The challenge is fun and the work is worth the reward ... even if the
reward is only a series of strippers for short time (a couple months each).
I'm a PUA, after all.
>So is it just the challenge of
>getting this elusive game or what? Is it a status thing among other guys to
>be able to get a stripper? Are strippers easier to seduce than
non-stripping
>HB's? Is it really worth the trouble to focus your SS efforts on this small
>segment of the female population? Just curious.
To answer your 4 questions: yes yes no yes
>Jr. Harris:
>I've been reading these articles in your posts and it seems like they are
>all almost completely about clubs and strippers and dancing. Now that's
>great but I don't come across strippers much and clubs are in St. Louis...
>not an hour south of it here where I am. How about some info on doing
>Wal-Mart PU's and grocery stores... coffee shops like in Barnes and Noble..
>etc.
Ever been to a Wal-Mart? Not exactly an HB gathering.
>My Comment: While I happen to be a bit too lazy to put in the effort needed
>to really get Psychic Influence and/or Mind Power techniques to work, I do
>believe that they work to some extent. Some of the people reading this have
>a lot of experience with this and have gotten excellent results -- I
haven't
>been convinced that the skill level that would be ideal (being that you can
>go somewhere, apply the techniques usually to someone you don't know who
>appeals to you, and then the target approaches you and attempts to get you)
>can be reached by many if any. But I would be interested to read about the
>experiences of those reading this.
Haaa, so would I. And not OBSERVATIONAL BIAS stories but something a little
more like PROOF.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Halbster:
> A statement can always
> be simplified to a simple yes or no ... a truth or a falsehood.
I prefer dimmer switches on my lights that allow me to select from an
infinite variety of light switches. Some people only have the option of
lights on or lights off. Welcome to the wonderful world of fuzzy logic and
multiple solutions.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Christopher:
>Mystery wrote:
> Why is arguing ala James Randi a bad thing? The man is KNOWN for his
> brilliant rationalizations. This statement of yours is a GREAT
> COMPLIMENT. I respect Randi as does anyone with a penchant for
> systematically investigating irrational claims. Do I respect RATIONAL
> people? Fuck, yeah! What is WRONG with B&W thinking? (Let's remember
that
> B&W is only a metaphor ... yes or no is another way of thinking of it ...
or
> most accurately TRUTH or FALSE). A statement can always
> be simplified to a simple yes or no ... a truth or a falsehood. ALL
> KNOWLEDGE can be DIGITALLY ENCODED. ALL OF IT - information holds no
> MAGICAL quality - let's de-mystify it. If your mental model includes
> mystical notions like collective consciousness, psychic vampires and
> 'non-linear' thinking, or COLORFUL ways of thought like the colorful
> words TRANCE and HYPNOTIZE, then a more REASONABLE SYSTEM can still be
> found. Translating MYSTIC ideas into the language of memetics
> (specific length of information encoded in the brain) will result in a
> more accurate picture. Randi ROCKS. He is BRILLIANT ... although I
> doubt he gets laid much ... but that's another issue altogether. :D
Mystery,
So, let me tell you what is wrong with "B&W thinking":
Basically, all binary systems of logic fantasize about a mythic
concept called "the absolute truth". They have that in common
with the major world religions, Marxism, and various other
theologies used to enslave humanity over the millennia.
Dualistic logic by its nature creates poor maps of reality: it's
much truer to say that all statements bear varying degrees of
truth or falsehood lying somewhere between totally false and
totally true. True, all statements can be simplified to yes
and no questions, but that just means that some clever bastard
can choose which yes or no question suits his purposes best
(why we despise lawyers): "Sir, have you stopped beating your
wife yet?"
You, buddy, have been seduced by dualism. Here are your arguments
above, stripped to their essence:
Mystery: Digital, Rational, Linear, Reasonable, Good,
Intelligent, has Randi on his side
vs.
Disagree with Mys: Irrational, Non-Linear, Mystical, Bad,
Stupid, Unscientific
Here, let the waves of real logic wash over your toy sand castles,
eroding them even more:
1) Randi does not systematically investigate anything -- he
systematically disproves things. There's a huge difference
in outlook. My guess is, and I admit I'm reading your mind
here, you're using Randi's name to make someone wrong, without
taking responsibility for it. But hey, people do that kind of
stuff all the time, so don't feel terribly bad about it if
that is exactly what you're up to, OK?
2) Exactly which sense of "rationalization" do you mean? Randi
polemicizes, so I think he definitely shades into the sense
of rationalization which means to prove a point with ulterior
motives, which he actually makes no bones about. You have
ulterior motives too, buddy. Feel free to acknowledge them
whenever you want to.
3) The axioms of all binary systems of logic (Boolean algebra,
Aristotle's syllogisms, statistics) can be derived from
the axioms of fuzzy logic. Fuzzy logic is an analog system
having its basis in calculus & analysis. Bottom line, you
can get to the digital world from the real world, but you
can't get to the real world from the digital world. Frankly,
my digits and my dick got an amicable divorce some time ago
(credit RJ ; ).
4) I was going to go into a great big digression about the
non-linearity of knowledge, but I think you can't relate
to it, because you probably never have those "Eureka!"
moments, where small insights create huge, incredible nude
possibilities in your world.
5) Your accusation of MYSTICISM is nothing but name-calling.
Your claim that TRANCE and HYPNOTISM are somehow COLORFUL
terms, rather than technical terms describing known and
understood human behaviours merely underscores how little
you know. Just hogwash.
6) The way you use memetics reveals a misunderstanding about
where memes operate: between genetics and conditioning
(read learned) behaviour. Memes are behaviour patterns
that transmit themselves from person to person simply by
being observed; acquisition of memes happens instantaneously.
Memes are things like the difference between up and down,
seeing life as a journey, believing there is one and only
one right answer. Conditioned, learned behaviours take
practice (doing it more than once) to perfect. You can't
have it both ways, unless we're talking double penetrations.
Ironically, you're throwing memetics at this list, at a
time when there still exists major controversy regarding
the validity and usefulness of memetics.
I suggest you go read and re-read S. I. Hayakawa's classic test
"Language in Thought and Action" until your map of reality looks
more like reality; it's the sure cure for poor thinking habits
expressed unconsciously.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Enigma:
I thought you might get a kick out of trying this NEG/Takeaway. I have used
this on a number of chicks and it works every time, Complete MINDFUCK.
Get the chick to a peak, then whisper in her ear,
I LOVE YOU.......(draw back, get strong eye contact and say)
IN GOD'S WAY. In my experience, good for strippers too, because
they have to process it as a challenge of not being sexy enough)
Also, leaves you wide open as to where you want to go with
your follow-up on any chick cause you really haven't ripped
her...and they usually have no fucking clue about how to respond.
Also works as an opener in clubs if you walk away immediately and let
her think about it a while. She will find you.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Ross:
> I
>don't use the latter three because I've recorded myself repeatedly (yes,
>Mystery, alone) and still don't feel like it sounds unrehearsed enough to
do
>in real life. Both types of stories are generally and almost always TOTALLY
>PLOTLESS, which brings me to the subject of your linear/non-linear
argument.
You don't need to do the patterns word for word; follow the general
guidelines to construct your own, that make sense to YOU, based on
your own imagining AND experience (Note to Mystery: notice the
CONJUNCTIVE "and" instead of the DISJUNCTIVE "or")
>I haven't been able to figure out an excuse to tell someone
>about Incredible Connections who I just met. I haven't read as much MM as
>SS, I'll confess, but I'd love to find out where to learn more about it.
Jesus H. Applebees; I only go over and over and over the
conversational frameworks and openers that make it seem 100% natural
to bring up the patterns. Jeesh.
>Well, I like the spontaneity thing for sure. So you are on your way and
>planning on getting her. I would have said, "Ok, don't be fucking with
>me cause I'm well on my way and it would be really shitty of you to
>fuck me up when I'm almost there. Where do you live?"
Where is the context for her to GENUINELY respond, versus just play
with him? She blew him off once before; declined to go out. He's
still after her, chasing her down, so why SHOULD she take him
seriously?
>Do so many
>girls dig me but not others?!!! I just don't get it...the solution is to
>just KEEP GOING without looking back
What context are you creating that makes them inclined to respond
other than a temporary interest when you talk to them in the club?
So...you get a number? In what context is it given? Are you getting
deep rapport? Are you eliciting values? Building and anchoring
states, creating urgency, expectation, etc? What? NO? Then what
do you expect.......
>it's mostly a matter of hoping the seed you sewed
>will germinate cause there ain't much you can do when you call them and
>only get their machine.
There ain't much YOU can do. Why don't you fast forward through those
videos and try my answering machine intruder? Works 80% of the
time.
>GameMaster:
>Cliff, I need your ass down here bad. My wing has deserted me for
>this chick Melissa who he is never going to fuck and I am trying my level
>best
>to get rid of Natalie but she ain't getting the message. Yeah, I'm tired of
>her already.
>Think I pushed the wrong buttons cause apparently I am the chosen one. Most
>guys would give their eye teeth, I'd give everything I own just to get rid
>of her. She's making me insane. The night I got back from Mom's house she
>came over with dinner at midnight although I resisted and begged her to
wait
>until the next day...anyway, after a three hour session she want to talk
>about kids! You heard me. Apparently, through the grapevine she is planning
>a September wedding (a birthday present to dad) and at least 2.5 children!
>Nothing is
>enough to keep me in this insane relationship. I swear, if my attention is
>diverted for two minutes she starts screaming and throwing shit....crazy.
>Let's see, she broke up with me again twice last nite but kept coming over
>to tell me she never wanted to see me again. THEN, she just fucking walks
>in the door this AM with a goddamn biscuit from Burger King like nothing
>happened....that is until I told her I didn't want no fucking biscuit and I
>sure as shit didn't want her! More tears and yelling and door slamming only
>to return 15 minutes later to ask what time I wanted to meet her for dinner
>tonite. I swear I think I'm gonna have to move to fuckin' Canada! Think I
>may have gone
>too far with this one. More insanity to follow.
Watch out with the unbalanced ones.
http://www.psychoexgirlfriend.com
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Michael:
I have something to say about AM. When I first visited the site, it sounded
like it had so much to offer, so many promises... I read the free samples,
and thought "wow, this is great stuff. If I sign up I'll even get more out
of it!" I even signed up for the mailing list, and also got very impressed
with the testimonials and the material covered in those newsletters.
I received the AM e-mails from Anthony and thought "wow, this is good
material." I was convinced to join. I read the testimonials again, and was
only more motivated. I e-mailed all of them to ask if they really found it
as useful as they thought. And guess what, NINE of TEN turned out to be
NON-EXISTENT e-mail accounts. ONE got through but I NEVER got a reply.
Anyway, I still subscribed because it sounded promising. I also heard
somewhere that the site was going to be renovated really soon (this was like
in January), the e-mail addresses are outdated, etc. and yet NOTHING has
been done to the site. No new testimonials. Nothing. What I found however,
besides the intro page (which really doesn't have much), the REST of the
material is ALL OLD - EVERYTHING IS COVERED IN THE FREE "NEWSLETTER"/SALES.
I got pretty pissed off because I paid for NOTHING. Maybe one or two pages
are different, and I am not going to disclose these as they would not be
good for his business but I can tell you that even an AFC should know these
things.
I also noticed a section in his book which had something to do with taking
the girl back to your place and away from her friends, etc. It sounded
really similar, like material taken right out of Johnny Shack's Book.
I think that the methods are unique and they might occasionally work - but I
would NOT suggest you subscribe because pretty much EVERYTHING on the site
is covered in his marketing newsletters. I really don't see the point of
joining and why would he want to let people know everything for free and
THEN ask them to join when you don't get any new knowledge?? I feel like
it's such a lame marketing scheme...
But it's up to you to join, and you'll see what I'm talking about.
Anthony, author of Advanced Macking, responds to the above:
What this client describes is partly true: the tips in the newsletter are
found in the book. This is the norm for any newsletter that is associated
with
a book. What this customer failed to mention is that
there are many other tips in the book that cannot be
read in the newsletter: out of the 39 tips in the
book, 12 are in the newsletter. It wouldn't make sense
for me to offer nothing new in the book as there is in
the newsletter. This would only generate angry
customers and refunds. What may have happened (as it sounds, according to
his email) is that he may have read similar tips
elsewhere, and, upon having read the remaining 27 tips
that are in the book, was disappointed that he did not
learn something new.
As far as printing his email, it would definitely hurt
my sales, since customers are more likely to believe a
customer than a marketer. But, from an unbiased point
of view, anyone would see that there is still a lot of
useful and practical information in the book that
makes the book great.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Adam:
I think that anything that even remotely relates to persuasion (including
the cult thing) should be included in the list. If something can be
learned from it that will help me seduce women, I WANT IT.
I'm also interested in learning more about the gigolo, and guys like
convicted felon Matt Mathews. He's the fellow who worked the "Love Con"
and got something like 17+ different women to marry him. I'm not saying
that I want to do this, too. But I want to learn the techniques he used to
make women fall for him.
My Comment: I personally am fascinated by the "dark side" of seduction as
you mention, and really enjoy reading about these things even if they aren't
tactics I would use.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
| cliff’s list advertisment section |
| Cliff’s Comment: For those of you who are
just reading about this for the first time, I decided a couple of emails ago to add links
to these emails. The idea would be to get enough money in to hire someone to take
over the administrative work (and also to buy things which would improve this list, such
as proper mailing list software) for this list. If you were going to buy the product
anyway, just use the link that appears below and you are helping to keep this list going
at no extra cost to anyone. NON SEDUCTION-RELATED:
RECOMMENDED:
NOT REVIEWED YET:
|
| cliff’s free plugs section |
Cliff’s Comment: The following are all
recommended but clicking on the links and buying from them doesn’t send any money back
here (it is also recommended that the sponsors of these sites consider setting this up —
from the little experience I have had since I started the commercial section a couple of
weeks ago, I think you are missing a lot of business by not doing this):
|
INFORMATION ABOUT THIS NEWSLETTER ARCHIVE:
This is an archive of a free e-mail list relating to seduction,
maintained by "Clifford". Your comments are requested, encouraged, and
greatly appreciated (note that comments from different people are separated by
IIIIIIII’s). If you know anyone who would like to be added to the list, or if you
would like to be removed from the list, send an e-mail asking to be added or removed to cli***f@cl***.com[ ? ]
and it will be done. If you would like to be added to the free joke list, just
ask. For those of you unfamiliar with the references to Speed Seduction»Â®, Clifford
highly recommends your visiting http://www.seduction.com/. For those interested in seeing
the previous e-mails that were sent out ("the archives"), they are available on
request to Clifford or, preferably, can be browsed and searched at the archive at http://www.fastseduction.com/cliff/.
By your accessing this archive, you understand that the information contained in within is an expression of opinions, and they should be used for personal entertainment purposes only. You are responsible for your own behavior, and none of anything you read herein is to be considered legal or personal advice. You also understand and agree that any products you may order as a result of your reading about them in this archive are produced and sold independently from us and that any complaints, disputes or other issues which you may have with the sponsors of these products are to be dealt with directly with said sponsors and we are not responsible in any way whatsoever for any issues which you may have with them. If you are not in agreement with any of this, please leave his site now.
DISCLAIMERS:
This newsletter and the newsletter archive in general is reproduced here
with Clifford’s permission. Visual enhancements and search features have been added
by the fastseduction.com webmaster to facilitate the reading and researching of the
content. The raw text as it appears here is exactly as it appeared in the original
e-mail newsletter. Products, services, or external web sites mentioned or linked to
in this archive does not denote endorsement of those items. The contents reprinted
here are the opinion of the original writer(s) and are not necessarily the opinion of, nor
endorsed by, the owner(s) or operator(s) of fastseduction.com. The archive
enhancements are generated automatically and there may be occasions where the visual cues
don’t correlate exactly with the textual context; most of the time, though, the
enhancements are pretty accurate. The archive is updated as regularly as possible,
whenever new newsletters are sent out.
