mASF post by "formhandle"
posted on: mASF forum: General Discussion newsgroup, June 6, 2004TylerDurden wrote:
>Hold up. Cut the bullshit and
>reframes and stick to the
>facts and common sense.
Hey TD. I'm kind of surprised you jumped into this thread. But, OK, it's a
chance for me to play my objective role and help maintain a balance of common
sense.
>What's important to me here is
>useless board clutter. I
>don't want to read more of
>these threads. These threads
>are the ones that bore good
>contributers and alienate them
>from the community.
One of your presumptions is based on the other presumption being true - that
good contributors occasionally get alienated from the community with the reason
being "threads like this". Everyone here should be a grownup and if they can't
get others to do their bidding or don't know how to debate appropriately then
their "alienation" is self-generated. Nobody is in any position to know for
sure why people stick around or why they don't.
>...
>that 'mating for morons' thing
>reads like a jab at DYD, which
>is known solid material. I
>may have misread that one.
>I've always felt though that
>the weakest aspect of
>Gunwitch's material is that it
>has been focused on attacking
>other people, which
>communicates insecurity on his
>part that his material can not
>stand alone and be persuasive
>in and of itself, without
>directly addressing other
>people's stuff and therefore
>justifying it. That aside, he
>has consistently produced good
>stuff.
TD, I am appreciating your contributions here & in this thread. However, I
tend to see a lot of consistent formula to your posts when you are making
points. The formula is making one point that is benign/positive to someone by
first basing it on a negative presupposition as if that presupposition were
true. I don't feel that is a fair way to communicate your points. I see it a
lot in these sorts of posts from you and I get disappointed when that is the
structure I find underneath. Perhaps it's not intentional, but I think it's
fair of me to point it out.
Anyway, onto the logic...
>...
>What's being requested here is
>baseline common sense.
>
>Kooper is a guy who has an
>archive
Actually, he was but a while back he asked me to disable access to his archive.
Not sure why, I think some privacy concerns. I'd be happy to keep his
archives/posts accessible if he wants them up again.
>My only interest here is that
>Kooper is making a request
>that like it or not, will be
>asked of Gunwitch over and
>over. I don't want to see
>thread after thread like this.
>Gunwitch, regardless of
>whether or not what Kooper
>asks for is PERFECT proof, it
>is still BETTER THAN NOTHING
>and provisionary.
Like you said above, this is about baseline common sense. You also stated your
belief in DyD being solid material (I agree). However, nobody has ever seemed
to demand pictures of David DeAngelo with chicks. I've never even recalled a
FR involving someone PUing with David D (I could be wrong - someone correct me,
if so!) Of course, I've met him & know he's a real guy and personable, etc,
but nobody is demanding the same level of proof from David as they are Gunwitch
- yet David is selling a lot more products at significantly higher cost than
Gunwitch.
If you guys want to cast your stones at Gunwitch, look around and apply the
same level of fairness across the board.
Also, keep in mind the frame of this. "Show us proof!" puts Gunwitch in the
position defending against what is effectively a social AMOG tactic. If she
shows pics, he becomes kooper's "picture bitch" as Vince stated (LOL), and
still open to distrust as the next wave of comments would be "That's probably
your sister/co-worker... where is the pic of your dick in her pussy? etc etc"
If he doesn't show pics, then of course that also will be portrayed badly.
I say, let the guy decide when HE wants to share pictures, if at all - not as a
response to a demand for "proof". Maybe he doesn't like the idea of chicks
he's with being seen & judged by a bunch of seduction trainees on a website
LOL...
At the same time, he gives away his basic method for free which anyone on here
is capable of going out and applying in the field. He's not exactly hiding his
method so it's very easy to judge the usefulness of what he's talking about
through what he's shared so far out in the open.
I find it funny that a bunch of people in the past were slamming Gunwitch
because he didn't have a commercial method, and now he's being slammed somewhat
because he decided to sell an ebook.
Really, guys (not aimed at you, TD), you can't complain about things at both
ends and expect anyone to believe you are the ones seeking a
satisfactory/objective judgement.
>I like Gunwitch's stuff, BUT I
>don't want these threads
>coming up on this chatboard
>OVER AND OVER.
I'm managing the place and I don't mind them as long as people can remain
objective and productive. And I don't really see this coming up "OVER AND
OVER". Once in a while - those who focus in on them enough to feel they're too
common are, perhaps, not stepping back to see the forest foe the trees.
>Therefore the
>way to avoid it is for
>Gunwitch to post some pics
Can the same request be applied to others who have a vested interest in
commercial gain? I'm not referring to you at all, I don't want to put anyone
else on the spot, but, really, think objectively about what you're asking for
and realize that it's casting stones.
>and
>meet up in real life with guys
>that are willing to travel to
>meet him. It's easier to do
>it than to not.
That is true. He's stated many times he not exactly rolling in dough which is
why Austin was more accessible to him than LA or Boston or wherever else. So,
logically, if others who are in an _objective_ position can head out to meet
the guy and see what he's like, without putting him on the spot, then perhaps
he might be interested in that. Someone should ASK him.
>...
>In the meantime, let's not get
>caught up in flaming Gunwitch.
I didn't really see any flaming in this thread. Just heated discussion and
misguided arguments.
>Give him the benefit of the
>doubt for now, but if he
>doesn't take care of it in the
>near future then that's a
>different story and his
>credibility will be
>non-existent.
Again, I bring up DyD. I don't recall David D ever sharing a single picture
with people of him with chicks and he's been promoting his stuff for almost 3
years. His credibility is not only still intact, but better than ever.
See what I'm saying? :-)
>The fact is
>though that for now, he is
>just getting in his first bit
>of proceeds from his book, and
>he hasn't had the time to do
>what he needs to do. He has
>made a promise to use the
>proceeds for a certain end,
>and so long as he lives up to
>that in the near future he has
>credibility in my books.
Agreed, and that is the way I see things as well. Nobody can deny he hasn't
helped anyone - he's helped plenty of guys who've made use of the ideas/methods
he's shared. Over time, it is Gunwitch that controls his own credibility.
--
Form [[email protected]]
Fast Seduction 101 - http://www.fastseduction.com/
Class is now in session...
|
