mASF post by "Odious"
posted on: USENet: alt.seduction.fast newsgroup, September 9, 2002Tony Jones wrote:
>
>
> http://www.newtimesla.com/issues/2000-01-06/feature.html/1/index.html
>
> So Jeffries goes for broke and asks for her number, but she turns him
> down flat. "I'm sorry, I don't give out my number. But I'll take your
> card if you have one," she says.
>
> He agrees, pulling out a card.
>
> ((Damn Ross, you fell for the oldest trick in the book.))((OH YEAH, I
> THOUGHT WE WEREN'T SUPPOSED TO SUPPLICATE WHAT ARE YOU DOING "ASKING"
> FOR A PHONE NUMBER,YOU PITIFUL BEGGAR)).((HOW THE HELL ARE WE SUPPOSED
> TO FOLLOW YOUR "RULES", WHEN YOU DON'T EVEN FOLLOW THEM
> YOURSELF)).((YOU FRAUD, YOU CHARLATAN, YOU LIAR)).
>
OMG are you this stupid? You think anything presented in the form of a
question is supplication? No wonder you're such a fuck up with SS. Like
a surgeon that doesn't know a scalpel from a syringe wondering why his
patients keep dying.
> If the press loves to ridicule him, however, Jeffries has only himself
> to blame. His materials make outrageous claims: that any man,
> regardless of appearance or previous facility with women, can go up to
> the most attractive, intelligent woman and in 30 minutes or less lay
> such a powerful mojo on her using sexually ambiguous language that
> she'll suddenly become a wanton, lascivious creature almost begging to
> be bedded.
>
> "It is hyperbole," Jeffries admits.
Umm, I think he was referring to the questioner's characterization.
> In his seminars, he gives his
> recruits more modest goals.
More modest than the bias misrepresentation the author just presented...
only so he could turn around and act as though there is some
inconsistency on Ross' part because the reality of what Ross teaches
doesn't match the bullshit description the author gave.
Come on, these are hit piece tricks I learned as a first year journalism
student. This isn't even good enough to be considered yellow. So it is
no surprise it is right on Tony's intellectual level.
> He tells them his methods will instill in
> them the confidence to approach women they'd never have had the
> temerity to accost before. And with the clever use of stories and
> banter (which Jeffries provides),
Correction, Ross provides teaching examples so students can learn
structure and presentation. This process is then personalized by the
individual.
> some percentage of the women they
> meet will accept their offers of a follow-up conversation. Two or
> three more meetings and more hypnotic suggestions, and some women will
> become willing sex partners.
> It's not typical, but it happens," he says.
>
WHat it is not typical, that it takes 2 or 3 meetings to get sex or not
typical to get sex even after 2 or 3 meetings? More of the same crap,
insinuating statements and out of context quote application.
> ((Damn Ross this is supposed to be "SPEED seduction»", why the hell is
> it taking so long?))
Funny, took me less than 30 minutes my first time out and the chick came
back to my place and banged the bejesus out of me, then told me she was a
lesbian who didn't dig guys but came home with me because of how I made
her feel.
If I could make it work so well my first time out, using only free
material I got off the website, how lame do you have to be to be such a
total fuck up?
> Reciting various patterns for a reporter, however, the Speed Seduction
> guru and several of his students sounded ridiculous.
"Reporter?" LOL! Calling the author of this hit piece a reporter is
like calling a horse stall mucker a hygienist. The guy doesn't even try
to hide his bias.
> But are they really hypnotizing them? It seems doubtful. Even Jeffries
> himself, when pressed on the matter, admitted that by "hypnotizing"
> women he really meant he was "appealing to a deep emotional state."
>
And again note the clear misrepresentation of a statement. They ask
Ross what he means by hypnotic... and he points out what it means,
appealing to deep emotional states. They then take that and try to
present it as if ross was somehow contradicting a previous claim or going
back on his statement about hypnosis.
> But is it really water? It seems doubtful. Even Jeffries
> himself, when pressed on the matter, admitted that by "water"
> he really meant "hydrogen bonded to oxygen in liquid form."
These are remedial tactics, Tony. Don't you have anything substantive?
I have personal experience that shows this stuff works, as do most of the
men here. So you're going to have to do better than this.
Frankly, given what you've already stated, I think the problems you're
having are a direct result of a lack of understanding of these methods.
You obviously do not understand what supplication means... I'm wondering
what else you don't understand.
|
