mASF post by "finalD"
posted on: mASF forum: General Discussion newsgroup, January 1, 2003Regarding this entire thread, and my (evidently irksome) participation in
it:
Something seems to be coming up between me and succinct intelligent
communication. (It's probably my verbose posts. Sorry. Blargh. As the
newsman said, "I don't have time to write it short.") I'd like to clarify
... First of all, that my "lambasting" post in this thread was simply
radical irony, as I soon explained to Mystery. I guess a few of you (him
included) missed it. Oh well, the Internet isn't exactly the wisest place
for me to be posting with tongue firmly embedded in cheek, sorry for the
miscommunication. [ I do have to give Mystery great compliments that he got
the situational described joke, though, with the "shithead opener." I would
have called it, "getting shitfaced," but either way props to him for
reading with care. :) ]
And second, that I'm in this "debate" for the furtherance of understanding.
I want to see some arguments for and against the whole "Mystery oeuvre,"
not just arguments for the leadership of Mystery as a man-mountain who
deserves my adulation. Abandon the ad-hominem, I request of the group, and
address yourselves to some specific questions regarding his method.
I don't discredit Mystery, his accomplishments in PU, or his capacity as a
teacher. As far as I can tell, he lands some hot babes -- although I have
no guarantee, I'm not particularly skeptical (why would he lie?); and
although there aren't any confirmations of SUPER-hotties (like, example,
the women of "Perfect 10" or "Playboy" or ... whichever one you prefer)
that could soon be in the cards for him, or for me. I won't quibble. I have
absolutely no reason to believe Mystery is a talented teacher -- in fact,
his interactions here suggest almost the diametrical opposite.
Nevertheless, how one "writes" to the 'net, and how one teaches in real
life, can be quite different. I remember (sadly) Jack JETMAN, again, who I
wish were here to straighten us all out.
But neither do I discredit Mystery's PU success or his teaching, nor do I
laud them. I QUESTION those ideas. I suspect he's just as good (or bad) a
seduction "guru" as any of the other successful guys out there (Formhandle
via the web; or Juggler, Ross Jeffries, or whoever) and I don't doubt that
there are some successes from his workshops, not only in the instantaneous
"this guy got laid that very night," but also in the long-term "this loser
turned into a PUA and now dates supermodels" phenomena. Heck, maybe he's
the DAMNED BEST IN THE LAND. I dunno. I have no proof either way.
What I'm trying to do, is get some SPECIFIC syllogistic investigation of
WHY such and such a technique works, and point out some of the weaknesses.
So far, my assertions about the weaknesses haven't been discredited
anywhere. I question that the MM can only work in a very specific context;
and performed only by a very specific set of individuals; and a few other
very specific conditions probably apply. I mentioned some of these
misgivings but received no specific response to any of them (except, "Don't
knock it 'til you try it," which is valid enough, but still not
particularly intelligent), so I remain skeptical.
And for the large price that Mystery expects, I'm personally going to
continue to perform EVERY possible bit of research into him (or anyone
else) before loading up my money onto a catapult and flinging it into the
abyss. When I was a WBAFC and first discovered the whole Ross-Jeffries-ism
phenomenon (not even on the Internet! I found it through PRINT media in the
1980s! wow, am I old or WHAT??!!) I was skeptical. But it wasn't "Just try
it before you knock it" that convinced me. I DID NOT try it. I LOOKED INTO
it. It was INTELLIGENT CONVERSATION that suggested to me that there might
be something to this whole thing.
A large portion of that intelligent conversation was (for me) the discovery
of the community of like-minded people on the Usenet newsgroup
alt.seduction.fast, which has now (thank you Jay) wonderfully migrated
almost in its entirety to these m.A.S.F groups. Hearing from those people
things like, "Hey, I tried X and Y and Z and it really worked," and NEVER
seeing them present something with a vested interest, is what got my mind
to start working positively toward change. Nobody was selling anything. In
fact, the only people selling things were also easily categorized --
because of their OTHER behaviors -- as loonies, and therefore (an ad
hominem fallacy?) quickly disregarded.
That's what I'm looking for between the doorpost and Mystery. Some
verifiable or, at least, non-biased reports of the investment being worth
it. In the absence of that, I remain a skeptic. Frankly, that's more of a
"PUA" style of thinking anyway -- to NOT simply jump to the leadership of
someone simply because he demands that I do so, but rather to say, "What's
in it for me? Oh yeah? Well, prove it." Mystery seems to have gotten his
hackles up a bit -- he's not used to being questioned, is how I categorize
that response of his -- but that doesn't mean his "method" and teachings
aren't worth learning.
It also doesn't mean they ARE worth learning. I'm STILL looking forward to
an occasion when my specific objections are discussed intelligently, rather
than simply blasted as "spurious" or otherwise stupid. Stupid? Why: tell me
the specifics, of why they they are stupid. Or, more to the point, tell me
what specifically his (or anyone else's) method CAN do for me. Is there
good reason for me to abandon the layguides and change my dynamics? Should
I start going to clubs and looking for multi-sets of women simply because
Mystery recommends that as the best hunting grounds? Forget pAImAI and the
stunning changes it has wrought to my mindset, and go right back to losing
my hearing in the "dead man's alley"? Is it time for me to buy a purple and
green cat-in-the-hat suit? These are radical changes that need to be
justified. I won't adopt them as a lump sum simply because some acolytes
claim their priest is cooler than I am.
And by the way, why are so many of you fawningly acting as acolytes to that
cool priest? Don't any of you want to be leaders rather than followers? Or
is that another thing he's convinced you to give up? (Hey, if it gets you
laid by supermodels ((whose pictures with you are soon to arrive in my
inbox as unbiased proof!!)) then who am I to complain?)
OK, I've said enough on this subject. I don't mean to be aggressive or
argumentative. I'm just looking for a dialectic of points and
counterpoints, rather than a hero-worshipping paean to the Gods of PU.
Epideictic call to arms, regardless of how empassioned, has seldom
convinced me. Reasoning is what I want ... can someone provide it?
|
