Discussion:
David or Ross or both?
(too old to reply)
Bahram Mokhtare
2004-11-09 12:54:29 UTC
Permalink
What works more effectively in your opinions, Speed Seduction or DYD? Or a
combo of both? And do both these guys use the Silva Method?

eLMac
LeModernCaveman
2004-11-09 15:45:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bahram Mokhtare
What works more effectively in your opinions, Speed Seduction or DYD?
I wouldn't venture a guess.

What's the best place to eat lunch: McDonald's or Burger King?
Player88
2004-11-09 16:34:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by LeModernCaveman
Post by Bahram Mokhtare
What works more effectively in your opinions, Speed Seduction or DYD?
I wouldn't venture a guess.
What's the best place to eat lunch: McDonald's or Burger King?
And then there are Mr. Parker's books, which are the equivalent of the
soup kitchen for the homeless.
Paul Robinson
2004-11-09 20:17:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Player88
Post by LeModernCaveman
Post by Bahram Mokhtare
What works more effectively in your opinions, Speed Seduction or DYD?
I wouldn't venture a guess.
What's the best place to eat lunch: McDonald's or Burger King?
And then there are Mr. Parker's books, which are the equivalent of the
soup kitchen for the homeless.
More like feeding stations in Africa whose food supplies have been
confiscated by the military.
HeeroYuy
2004-11-09 16:47:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by LeModernCaveman
Post by Bahram Mokhtare
What works more effectively in your opinions, Speed Seduction or DYD?
I wouldn't venture a guess.
What's the best place to eat lunch: McDonald's or Burger King?
If Gordon couldn't venture a guess, then why is he injecting his pointless,
and thus worthless, thought into this thread?
Player88
2004-11-09 18:13:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by HeeroYuy
Post by LeModernCaveman
Post by Bahram Mokhtare
What works more effectively in your opinions, Speed Seduction or DYD?
I wouldn't venture a guess.
What's the best place to eat lunch: McDonald's or Burger King?
If Gordon couldn't venture a guess, then why is he injecting his pointless,
and thus worthless, thought into this thread?
I think Mr. Parker is admitting that he's not a customer of either
"David" or "Ross" and is attempting to change the subject to something
he is an expert at: eating jumbo upsized fast food combo meals.
HC
2004-11-09 19:19:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by HeeroYuy
Post by LeModernCaveman
Post by Bahram Mokhtare
What works more effectively in your opinions, Speed Seduction or DYD?
I wouldn't venture a guess.
What's the best place to eat lunch: McDonald's or Burger King?
If Gordon couldn't venture a guess, then why is he injecting his pointless,
and thus worthless, thought into this thread?
He's trying to impress everyone with his writing skills.

He thinks it's impressive that he knows how to use a colon.

What a genius he is.
Player88
2004-11-09 19:49:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by HC
Post by HeeroYuy
Post by LeModernCaveman
Post by Bahram Mokhtare
What works more effectively in your opinions, Speed Seduction or DYD?
I wouldn't venture a guess.
What's the best place to eat lunch: McDonald's or Burger King?
If Gordon couldn't venture a guess, then why is he injecting his pointless,
and thus worthless, thought into this thread?
He's trying to impress everyone with his writing skills.
He thinks it's impressive that he knows how to use a colon.
What a genius he is.
What a colon he is.
Paul Robinson
2004-11-09 20:26:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by HeeroYuy
Post by LeModernCaveman
Post by Bahram Mokhtare
What works more effectively in your opinions, Speed Seduction or DYD?
I wouldn't venture a guess.
What's the best place to eat lunch: McDonald's or Burger King?
If Gordon couldn't venture a guess, then why is he injecting his pointless,
and thus worthless, thought into this thread?
I am disappointed that I have to unfortunately hold my stomach and retch
as I take Ray's side as this is one of the few times he was on point.
Both of them offer essentially similar solutions to the problem and his
posting in which he uses a comparison which is easy to understand is one
of the very few times he has been on point and done so with a succinct
statement.

Were he able to answer more comments this way he could be relevant here.
2004-11-09 19:23:15 UTC
Permalink
I think what works most effectively is to go out and learn as much as you
can... Get as much practical experience as you can.. and find out what works
for you... until you get prac exp it wont click...
Post by Bahram Mokhtare
What works more effectively in your opinions, Speed Seduction or DYD? Or a
combo of both? And do both these guys use the Silva Method?
eLMac
Ferdinand B
2004-11-10 06:23:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by
I think what works most effectively is to go out and learn as much as you
can... Get as much practical experience as you can.. and find out what works
for you... until you get prac exp it wont click...
Post by Bahram Mokhtare
What works more effectively in your opinions, Speed Seduction or DYD? Or a
combo of both? And do both these guys use the Silva Method?
eLMac
Perhaps you should model yourself after someone who actully was able
to get girls. Someone who could get ALOT of girls... someone who could
get these women to do ANYTHING he wanted them to do. The person I have
in mind is also poor, unattractive and short. This person was Charles
Manson. He literally had a harem at his disposal. Ray, David, and Ross
never even came close to this accomplishment as far as I know.


----------------------------------
Secrets of cult leaders Revealed!
www.cultsecrets.com
Will Nelson
2004-11-10 08:11:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ferdinand B
Perhaps you should model yourself after someone who actully was able
to get girls. Someone who could get ALOT of girls... someone who could
get these women to do ANYTHING he wanted them to do. The person I have
in mind is also poor, unattractive and short. This person was Charles
Manson. He literally had a harem at his disposal. Ray, David, and Ross
never even came close to this accomplishment as far as I know.
It sounds like you're his latest disciple. Groovy, man.
Richard
2004-11-10 19:38:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bahram Mokhtare
What works more effectively in your opinions, Speed Seduction or DYD? Or a
combo of both? And do both these guys use the Silva Method?
ok I'll give it a try:

if you are completely new and
want an "Idiots guide to sex"
you can either read the very good
Texts on fastseduction.com and
(especially) the field reports
they are in my opinion pure Gold

Or go for DYD.

I think De Angelo boils down to
the easy "cocky and funny".
It is easy to read and you do not
have to "learn" anything.
His Material is tailored more to the
youth I think
(it works very well in crowded places
in wich you can only talk a few words)

R.J. is a little more complicated
and aims more to the "grown ups"
with a lot of communication.

What to take?

first read mASF it is worth the time!!!!
then go for De Angelo if you want a
"one size fits most" tool

R.J is on a higher level:
If you are no complete newbie with women
you should go for him.
Especially if you want it to be
a long term Relationship.

I hope this gets a discussion about the Systems started

Richard
Will Nelson
2004-11-10 19:50:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard
Post by Bahram Mokhtare
What works more effectively in your opinions, Speed Seduction or DYD? Or a
combo of both? And do both these guys use the Silva Method?
I hope this gets a discussion about the Systems started
Anyone remember one of the earliesy, if not first, "get laid" guides from the
70s? Essentially, evrything else is built on that, IMO.

Most, if not all, social structure changes that affect "gtting laid" seem
restricted to the unique sociological milieu of the US and to a lesser
degree, Canada.
Bryen193
2004-11-10 21:07:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will Nelson
Most, if not all, social structure changes that affect "gtting laid" seem
restricted to the unique sociological milieu of the US and to a lesser
degree, Canada.
What do you mean by that? Aren't there many Europeans and Asians using this
stuff? It seems from the postings over the years, there are. What factors do
you consider unique to the United States and Canada?


"There is only one real antidote to the anguish engendered in humanity by its
awareness of inevitable death: erotic joy." Gilles Neret
++++ http://www.angelfire.com/80s/ashenthorn/index.html ++++
Will Nelson
2004-11-10 21:48:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bryen193
Post by Will Nelson
Most, if not all, social structure changes that affect "gtting laid" seem
restricted to the unique sociological milieu of the US and to a lesser
degree, Canada.
What do you mean by that?
The puritanical- based/ psuedoneoliberal paradox. One way to describe it is
by looking at the curious sociological structure of the US in it's abortion-
on- demand vs. fervent death penalty vs. covert institutional racism vs.
affirmative action sensibilities. In other words, it is these paradoxes that
are so deeply ingrained that contribute to the near- schizophrenic mindset of
the nation. That confusion contributes to the vast gender- specific aberrant
behaviors exemplified by the "nice guys finish last", "women respond to
indifference and machismo, yet a common mantra is that men aren't sensitive
enough", etc. social paradigms.

Of course, these paradigms aren't exclusive, but they are prevalent.



Aren't there many Europeans and Asians using this
Post by Bryen193
stuff?
If so, it's probably an artificial phenomenon and not nearly as extensive as
here, or at least as is clearly observable in my rather broad experiences in
Italy, France, Germany and Japan. However, the perfusion of American culture
via film and teevee certainly helps to instill many of the same conflicting
mass psychoses and will probably spread more of the discord we have in this
country. I think a good barometer of social, gender- specific anxiety is
divorce rates.



It seems from the postings over the years, there are. What factors
Post by Bryen193
do
you consider unique to the United States and Canada?
Well, Canadians aren't nearly as affected by virtue of their vastly more
homogeneous culture, (but that is changing rapidly), so that wasn't really a
good example. The US is unique in it's relatively recent societal upheaval in
regards to slavery, prevailing racist attitudes, neocultural icons and the
ensuing liberal backlash to such. That, coupled with the advent of oral
contraception has "empowered" women to an extent of giving them reign that
nature had never intended and for which culture is not capable of dealing
with and the concomitant "freedom" of men, which they are also ill- equipped
to deal with.

I generally ascribe to the Freudian idea of women secretly desiring mutiple
partners and men secretly desiring stability and monogamy. It reconciles
nicely if you believe that natural balances exist, and thusly explains the
huge problems encountered when the barriers (psychological, physiological and
cultural) are removed.
Post by Bryen193
"There is only one real antidote to the anguish engendered in humanity by its
awareness of inevitable death: erotic joy." Gilles Neret
++++ http://www.angelfire.com/80s/ashenthorn/index.html ++++
Bryen193
2004-11-11 18:08:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will Nelson
The US is unique in it's relatively recent societal upheaval in
regards to slavery, prevailing racist attitudes, neocultural icons and the
ensuing liberal backlash to such. That, coupled with the advent of oral
contraception has "empowered" women to an extent of giving them reign that
nature had never intended and for which culture is not capable of dealing
with and the concomitant "freedom" of men, which they are also ill- equipped
to deal with.
I think the last item (the oral contraception) is the most important one in
terms of seduction and the sex habits of women, but I do get what you are
talking about in terms of the conflicting messages ingrained in American women
creating an atmosphere where these counter-intuitive psychology-based seduction
techniques become very effective. Techniques that may not necessarily be
needed with, say European women.

One area you left out (and one that I think is ultimately the most important
one) is the shift from a manufacturing-based economy to a service-based economy
that has taken place in the post WW2 era, and the resulting economic
empowerment of women. I believe that over a just a few generations, the
factors based upon which women choose sexual partners has radically shifted
(and continues to radically shift). Also, the number of sexual partners that a
woman generally has is on the increase, and the mitgating factors that used to
hold that number down are evaporating. For example in the last generation,
women wisely feared being called a "slut", because to be branded a slut caused
a real danger to the women - a serious threat to her ability to be economically
supported by the most capable men in an era when she had no ability to
economically support herself. In this current generation women fear being
branded a slut based mostly on conditioning from the leftover men and women of
that era (their parents and grandparents), but to be branded a slut now causes
no actual danger to today's women - the smartest and most progressive of whom
have really realized this and have adjusted their sex lives accordingly (see
The Ethical Slut, by Easton & Liszt). As for the next generation? Without the
conditioning of parents and grandparents who grew up in the era in which women
didn't and couldn't generally support themselves financially, I would expect
the methodology by which women make their sexual choices to become more and
more like that of men - with wealth, height, physical strength, etc. becoming
less and less relevant to selection and other factors coming to the forefront.
Post by Will Nelson
I generally ascribe to the Freudian idea of women secretly desiring mutiple
partners
The evidence suggests this.
Post by Will Nelson
and men secretly desiring stability and monogamy.
It reconciles
nicely if you believe that natural balances exist, and thusly explains the
huge problems encountered when the barriers (psychological, physiological and
cultural) are removed.
Well as you have seen, certain forces in American society are attempting to jam
the genie back in the bottle so to speak, and solve the problems by rolling
back abortion rights, legislating "moral values" etc. And they've been
successful to some degree, but I maintain the only way to accomplish their
real goals is to effect an actual largescale rollback of womens' ability to
work and be economically self sufficient. I don't see that happening no matter
what political party is in office, so we need more progressive solutions to the
huge problems (which I assume to mean out of wedlock births, STD's, emotional
problems caused by promiscuity, etc.).


"There is only one real antidote to the anguish engendered in humanity by its
awareness of inevitable death: erotic joy." Gilles Neret
++++ http://www.angelfire.com/80s/ashenthorn/index.html ++++
Ray Gordon
2004-11-11 23:27:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bryen193
One area you left out (and one that I think is ultimately the most important
one) is the shift from a manufacturing-based economy to a service-based economy
that has taken place in the post WW2 era, and the resulting economic
empowerment of women.
You mean YOUNG PRETTY women, because ugly older women don't get rich unless
they married it.

If a corporate sugar daddy is "empowerment" that's pretty sad.
Krus T. Olfard
2004-11-12 00:24:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Gordon
Post by Bryen193
One area you left out (and one that I think is ultimately the most important
one) is the shift from a manufacturing-based economy to a
service-based economy
that has taken place in the post WW2 era, and the resulting economic
empowerment of women.
You mean YOUNG PRETTY women, because ugly older women don't get rich
unless they married it.
And where, exactly, did he say 'rich'?
Economic empowerment is not the same as rich. That was a very pitiful
attempt at deflecting his arguement back onto one of your favorite rants.
So pitiful that it didn't work.
Post by Ray Gordon
If a corporate sugar daddy is "empowerment" that's pretty sad.
If this reply is the result of your attempt to read for content "that's
pretty sad."
--
KTO



------------------
Everything I post is my opinion. If you don't like my opinions then
killfile me, if you have the balls.
Bryen193
2004-11-12 04:07:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Krus T. Olfard
Post by Ray Gordon
Post by Bryen193
One area you left out (and one that I think is ultimately the most important
one) is the shift from a manufacturing-based economy to a
service-based economy
that has taken place in the post WW2 era, and the resulting economic
empowerment of women.
You mean YOUNG PRETTY women, because ugly older women don't get rich
unless they married it.
And where, exactly, did he say 'rich'?
Economic empowerment is not the same as rich.
Yes. I meant being able to support oneself, survive comfortably & removre the
economic desparation from sex partner search criteria. Of course, the vast
majority of either gender are not rich.

It's worth noting that there's still alot of fear and resentment among men
about women in the workplace. You'd think that might be due to men's fear of
being displaced or replaced in their jobs by women, but I don't think so.
Despite the massive influx of women in the workplace in the last 50 years, the
country remains at or around full employment statistically (despite Kerry and
Bush quabbling over a perecentage point here or there). I think the remaining
fear and resentment of women in the workplace really has roots in the resulting
loss of male control over women sexually that has inevitibly happened as women
grow economically independent, as opposed to any real male career concerns.


"There is only one real antidote to the anguish engendered in humanity by its
awareness of inevitable death: erotic joy." Gilles Neret
++++ http://www.angelfire.com/80s/ashenthorn/index.html ++++
Ray Gordon
2004-11-12 04:31:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bryen193
Post by Krus T. Olfard
Post by Ray Gordon
You mean YOUNG PRETTY women, because ugly older women don't get rich
unless they married it.
And where, exactly, did he say 'rich'?
Economic empowerment is not the same as rich.
Yes. I meant being able to support oneself, survive comfortably & removre the
economic desparation from sex partner search criteria.
Yet this, however, is illusory, as women who are pretty enough to attract
men will find themselves "owned" by their corporate "sugar daddies" who have
control over them for 40+ hours a week, AND whom they are dependent upon,
often without being attracted to them.

I've shown several examples where women have alleged horrible behavior at
work, and either the men are enduring this without knowing, or the women are
lying.
Post by Bryen193
Of course, the vast
majority of either gender are not rich.
But the vast majority who post to ASF claim to be.
Post by Bryen193
It's worth noting that there's still alot of fear and resentment among men
about women in the workplace. You'd think that might be due to men's fear of
being displaced or replaced in their jobs by women, but I don't think so.
Despite the massive influx of women in the workplace in the last 50 years, the
country remains at or around full employment statistically (despite Kerry and
Bush quabbling over a perecentage point here or there).
With women getting to cherry-pick the professions they want, leaving the
bias alone in the dangerous jobs or jobs requiring heavy lifting, for
example.
Post by Bryen193
I think the remaining
fear and resentment of women in the workplace
God you are WHIPPED.
Post by Bryen193
really has roots in the resulting
loss of male control over women sexually that has inevitibly happened as women
grow economically independent, as opposed to any real male career concerns.
Men have MORE control over women thanks to the workplace. A boss can hire
eye-candy at will, even have employment agencies do the dirtywork for them.
They can hire college interns who sometimes don't even get paid (ever see
the pictures of some media interns when they get a public thank-you)?

What men resent is that the merit system isn't being used. Men grew up on
the idea that merit, rather than race, gender, or any other reason, was how
we got jobs, the idea that the most skilled worker was hired and that people
did the right thing.

Now we've devolved into a society where whoever has the most toys wins, even
if he had to steal them from other kids. Ask a hottie if she cares about an
ugly or older woman who was more deserving but didn't get the job she has,
and watch the cognitive dissonance set in. The only reason the men defend
the hotties (by claiming anyone else must be "jealous" rather than
indignified at the injustice), is that they don't want to fuck the other
women.
Krus T. Olfard
2004-11-12 08:28:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Gordon
Post by Bryen193
Post by Krus T. Olfard
Post by Ray Gordon
You mean YOUNG PRETTY women, because ugly older women don't get
rich unless they married it.
And where, exactly, did he say 'rich'?
Economic empowerment is not the same as rich.
Yes. I meant being able to support oneself, survive comfortably & removre the
economic desparation from sex partner search criteria.
Yet this, however, is illusory, as women who are pretty enough to
attract men will find themselves "owned" by their corporate "sugar
daddies" who have control over them for 40+ hours a week, AND whom
they are dependent upon, often without being attracted to them.
I've shown several examples where women have alleged horrible behavior
at work, and either the men are enduring this without knowing, or the
women are lying.
Post by Bryen193
Of course, the vast
majority of either gender are not rich.
But the vast majority who post to ASF claim to be.
Post by Bryen193
It's worth noting that there's still alot of fear and resentment
among men about women in the workplace. You'd think that might be
due to men's fear of
being displaced or replaced in their jobs by women, but I don't think
so. Despite the massive influx of women in the workplace in the last
50 years, the
country remains at or around full employment statistically (despite Kerry and
Bush quabbling over a perecentage point here or there).
With women getting to cherry-pick the professions they want, leaving
the bias alone in the dangerous jobs or jobs requiring heavy lifting,
for example.
Post by Bryen193
I think the remaining
fear and resentment of women in the workplace
God you are WHIPPED.
Post by Bryen193
really has roots in the resulting
loss of male control over women sexually that has inevitibly happened as women
grow economically independent, as opposed to any real male career concerns.
Men have MORE control over women thanks to the workplace. A boss can
hire eye-candy at will, even have employment agencies do the dirtywork
for them. They can hire college interns who sometimes don't even get
paid (ever see the pictures of some media interns when they get a
public thank-you)?
What men resent is that the merit system isn't being used. Men grew
up on the idea that merit, rather than race, gender, or any other
reason, was how we got jobs, the idea that the most skilled worker was
hired and that people did the right thing.
Now we've devolved into a society where whoever has the most toys
wins, even if he had to steal them from other kids. Ask a hottie if
she cares about an ugly or older woman who was more deserving but
didn't get the job she has, and watch the cognitive dissonance set in.
The only reason the men defend the hotties (by claiming anyone else
must be "jealous" rather than indignified at the injustice), is that
they don't want to fuck the other women.
What a very twiste view you have of the world.
--
KTO



------------------
Everything I post is my opinion. If you don't like my opinions then
killfile me, if you have the balls.
Ray Gordon
2004-11-12 13:42:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Krus T. Olfard
What a very twiste view you have of the world.
What'd my mom ever do to you again?

So you rape women to get them into bed and abuse and defame others who never
did a thing to you. No wonder you hide like a fucking cockroach.

She's ready to call an attorney over this.
Player88
2004-11-12 14:03:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Gordon
What a very twisted view you have of the world.
What'd my mom ever do to you again?
She gave birth to you, didn't she? Or are you adopted?
Post by Ray Gordon
So you rape women to get them into bed and abuse and defame others who never
did a thing to you. No wonder you hide like a fucking cockroach.
Search DejaNews [http://www.dejanews.com] and put my names (Ray
Gordon or Gordon Roy Parker) in, and check the posts [...] Let go of
my anger? Not a chance. I have a few favors to return, and an amount
of power to return them that you couldn't even comprehend. I know who
has harmed me, who has stood by and did nothing, and who has helped
me. Each group will be treated accordingly. [...] I'm just a 'loser.'
Look at the way women treat 'losers' and you will see why they wind up
beaten, murdered, raped, robbed, disrespected, and oppressed. It is
because women DESERVE it. The ones who harmed me should thank their
lucky stars that I didn't react like a primate and just dump them six
feet underground. Unfortunately, premeditated murder would ruin this
ethical thing I have going for me, although on a primal level it is
(Read the full message and thread in Google Groups
[http://www.dejanews.com] for context.)
She's ready to call an attorney over this.
According to public usenet archives, she was ready to call an attorney
over similar activity six years ago.

I plan to hold you fully and completely accountable for the words you
have posted.
JJT
2004-11-12 14:33:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Gordon
Post by Krus T. Olfard
What a very twiste view you have of the world.
What'd my mom ever do to you again?
YOU said your MOTHER wanted to hit a minor with a
baseball bat. THAT is child abuse.. She is an abuser.
Post by Ray Gordon
She's ready to call an attorney over this.
I wish she would, so YOU could explain to her why you
felt the need to repeat her threats to minors online..?

Have her 'attorney' contact me anytime..

JJT
Post by Ray Gordon
Post by Krus T. Olfard
Subject: Re: Need A Piece Of Advice
Date: 1998/11/02
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,3-5,10-14,23-29,32-45,47-50,55-58,60-61,74-77,
79-87,95-97,99-102,105-112,121-122,130-131,138-139,146-147,
156-157,160-161,163-164,181-182,196-197,199
Newsgroups: alt.romance
Look at the way women treat "losers" and you will see
why they wind up beaten, murdered, raped, robbed, disrespected, and
oppressed. It is because women DESERVE it. The ones who harmed me
should thank their lucky stars that I didn't react like a primate and
just dump them six feet underground. Unfortunately, premeditated murder
would ruin this ethical thing I have going for me, although on a primal
level it is quite appealing.
Ray Gordon
2004-11-12 14:59:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by JJT
Post by Ray Gordon
Post by Krus T. Olfard
What a very twiste view you have of the world.
What'd my mom ever do to you again?
YOU said your MOTHER wanted to hit a minor with a
baseball bat.
No, my mother said that if the 19 year-old gymnastics groupie tried to kill
her as he was threatening repeatedly, she would use *self-defense* to
prevent the attack.

Now JJT is fixating on my mother. Says a lot about him. Wonder if his
girlfriend knows about these tendencies of his towards women who never did a
thing to him.

Say, I wonder if the alleged "publisher" of this USENET group has done
anything in the legal sense to prevent people from misusing what s/he claims
is his or her "property." I mean, property owners are generally liable for
injuries which occur on their property.
JJT
2004-11-12 15:06:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Gordon
Post by JJT
YOU said your MOTHER wanted to hit a minor with a
baseball bat.
No, my mother said that if the 19 year-old gymnastics groupie tried to kill
her as he was threatening repeatedly, she would use *self-defense* to
prevent the attack.
'tried' to kill her..? IN PERSON, or just from a comment
to YOU over your threats and "..wishes.." on children?

Y-O-U said SHE made the baseball bat comment. WHY did
she say it, instead of calling the cops..? HUH?
Post by Ray Gordon
Now JJT is fixating on my mother. Says a lot about him. Wonder if his
girlfriend knows about these tendencies of his towards women who never did a
thing to him.
I pity your mommie, but she has done alot, from
your words, that paints her as one sick puppy.
Post by Ray Gordon
Say, I wonder if the alleged "publisher" of this USENET group has done
anything in the legal sense to prevent people from misusing what s/he claims
is his or her "property." I mean, property owners are generally liable for
injuries which occur on their property.
Who knows, who cares..

JJT




Who's peeking out from under mommy's skirt
Running from every challenge he makes
Who's knelling down to service his, um 'hellen'..
Everyone knows it's grp-ie

Who threatens children, molesting their moment..
Hiding from every adult he flees
Who's spewing hate, gloating on 9/11 horrors
Everyone knows it's grp-ie

And grp-ie has creepy eyes
That cry for his dreams are lies
And grp-ie has dolls to confide..
They run his life..all day and night

Who's trolls the net to flee his lame life
Suing everybody that doesn't agree
Who wants children to die, if it were legal..
Everyone knows it's grp-ie
ghoul
2004-11-13 02:01:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Gordon
Post by JJT
Post by Ray Gordon
Post by Krus T. Olfard
What a very twiste view you have of the world.
What'd my mom ever do to you again?
YOU said your MOTHER wanted to hit a minor with a
baseball bat.
No, my mother said that if the 19 year-old gymnastics groupie tried to
kill her as he was threatening repeatedly, she would use *self-defense* to
prevent the attack.
Now JJT is fixating on my mother. Says a lot about him. Wonder if his
girlfriend knows about these tendencies of his towards women who never did
a thing to him.
Say, I wonder if the alleged "publisher" of this USENET group has done
anything in the legal sense to prevent people from misusing what s/he claims
is his or her "property." I mean, property owners are generally liable
for injuries which occur on their property.
what publisher would that be, groups are propagated by lots of people and
services that better things to do and try to humor your demands
Krus T. Olfard
2004-11-12 17:06:27 UTC
Permalink
Reply-To: "Ray Gordon" <***@cybersheet.com>
From: "Ray Gordon" <***@cybersheet.com>
Newsgroups: alt.seduction.fast
References: <***@204.127.204.17>
<***@mb-m18.aol.com>
<W0Xkd.1866$***@trndny09> <***@204.127.199.17>
Subject: Re: David or Ross or both?
Lines: 11
Organization: www.cybersheet.com
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
Message-ID: <a53ld.1540$***@trndny06>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 13:42:30 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.162.126.139
X-Complaints-To: ***@verizon.net
X-Trace: trndny06 1100266950 68.162.126.139 (Fri, 12 Nov 2004 08:42:30 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 08:42:30 EST
Xref: attbi_master11 alt.seduction.fast:86006
X-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 13:42:31 GMT (attbi_s51)
Post by Ray Gordon
Post by Krus T. Olfard
What a very twiste view you have of the world.
What'd my mom ever do to you again?
So you rape women to get them into bed and abuse and defame others who
never did a thing to you. No wonder you hide like a fucking
cockroach.
She's ready to call an attorney over this.
And what did I ever do to your mom again?
Is there some context in the prior message, which I notice that you
conveniently snipped, where my saying you have a twisted view of the world
is insulting your mother? If there is then my reading for content must be
getting as bad as yours because I certainly didn't see it. Until you can
show me where my saying you have a twisted view of the world insults your
mother I can only assume that you are deflecting again.

And in fact if you have read the other threads you will notice I called
someone else on bringing up your mother.

And in fact as I told you I would do, since you snipped almost the total
post to which you replied, that post is repeated below my signature so that
your snipping will not alter the context of my response to you and place it
in a misleading light.

Once again you have accused me of rape. Once again you make this grievous
and injurious lie with nothing to back it up but your twisted view of the
world.
Once again you accuse me of abusing and defaming you, again with nothing to
back it up but your twisted view of the world.

Needless to say I have archived this portion of this thread with all
headers. Your attempt to lie about me insulting your mother and abusing and
defaming you will not be unchallenged, ever.

I, sir, have NEVER insulted your mother and I never will. I DO NOT drag in
uninvolved people, as you apparently do by mentioning your mother. YOU ARE
THE ONE WHO BROUGHT YOUR MOTHER INTO THIS, NOT ME. Even so, I will still
not insult her. I have to assume she has enough problems with having you
living in her apartment.
--
KTO


------------------
Everything I post is my opinion. If you don't like my opinions then
killfile me, if you have the balls.



\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Newsgroups: alt.seduction.fast
Subject: Re: David or Ross or both?
From: "Krus T. Olfard" <***@odor.com>
References: <***@204.127.204.17>
<***@mb-m18.aol.com>
<W0Xkd.1866$***@trndny09>
Organization: aromatherapy
Message-ID: <***@204.127.199.17>
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
Lines: 89
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.18.234.78
X-Complaints-To: ***@comcast.net
X-Trace: attbi_s52 1100248122 24.18.234.78 (Fri, 12 Nov 2004 08:28:42 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 08:28:42 GMT
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 08:28:42 GMT
Xref: attbi_master11 alt.seduction.fast:85998
X-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 08:28:42 GMT (attbi_s51)
Post by Ray Gordon
Post by Krus T. Olfard
Post by Krus T. Olfard
Post by Ray Gordon
You mean YOUNG PRETTY women, because ugly older women don't get
rich unless they married it.
And where, exactly, did he say 'rich'?
Economic empowerment is not the same as rich.
Yes. I meant being able to support oneself, survive comfortably & removre the
economic desparation from sex partner search criteria.
Yet this, however, is illusory, as women who are pretty enough to
attract men will find themselves "owned" by their corporate "sugar
daddies" who have control over them for 40+ hours a week, AND whom
they are dependent upon, often without being attracted to them.
I've shown several examples where women have alleged horrible behavior
at work, and either the men are enduring this without knowing, or the
women are lying.
Post by Krus T. Olfard
Of course, the vast
majority of either gender are not rich.
But the vast majority who post to ASF claim to be.
Post by Krus T. Olfard
It's worth noting that there's still alot of fear and resentment
among men about women in the workplace. You'd think that might be
due to men's fear of
being displaced or replaced in their jobs by women, but I don't think
so. Despite the massive influx of women in the workplace in the last
50 years, the
country remains at or around full employment statistically (despite Kerry and
Bush quabbling over a perecentage point here or there).
With women getting to cherry-pick the professions they want, leaving
the bias alone in the dangerous jobs or jobs requiring heavy lifting,
for example.
Post by Krus T. Olfard
I think the remaining
fear and resentment of women in the workplace
God you are WHIPPED.
Post by Krus T. Olfard
really has roots in the resulting
loss of male control over women sexually that has inevitibly happened as women
grow economically independent, as opposed to any real male career concerns.
Men have MORE control over women thanks to the workplace. A boss can
hire eye-candy at will, even have employment agencies do the dirtywork
for them. They can hire college interns who sometimes don't even get
paid (ever see the pictures of some media interns when they get a
public thank-you)?
What men resent is that the merit system isn't being used. Men grew
up on the idea that merit, rather than race, gender, or any other
reason, was how we got jobs, the idea that the most skilled worker was
hired and that people did the right thing.
Now we've devolved into a society where whoever has the most toys
wins, even if he had to steal them from other kids. Ask a hottie if
she cares about an ugly or older woman who was more deserving but
didn't get the job she has, and watch the cognitive dissonance set in.
The only reason the men defend the hotties (by claiming anyone else
must be "jealous" rather than indignified at the injustice), is that
they don't want to fuck the other women.
What a very twiste view you have of the world.
--
KTO



------------------
Everything I post is my opinion. If you don't like my opinions then
killfile me, if you have the balls.
Player88
2004-11-12 13:56:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Gordon
Now we've devolved into a society where whoever has the most toys
wins, even if he had to steal them from other kids. Ask a hottie if
she cares about an ugly or older woman who was more deserving but
didn't get the job she has, and watch the cognitive dissonance set in.
The only reason the men defend the hotties (by claiming anyone else
must be "jealous" rather than indignified at the injustice), is that
they don't want to fuck the other women.
This must mean that Gordon Roy Parker WANTS to fuck the other women.
Post by Ray Gordon
Search DejaNews [http://www.dejanews.com] and put my names (Ray
Gordon or Gordon Roy Parker) in, and check the posts [...] Let go of
my anger? Not a chance. I have a few favors to return, and an amount
of power to return them that you couldn't even comprehend. I know who
has harmed me, who has stood by and did nothing, and who has helped
me. Each group will be treated accordingly. [...] I'm just a 'loser.'
Look at the way women treat 'losers' and you will see why they wind up
beaten, murdered, raped, robbed, disrespected, and oppressed. It is
because women DESERVE it. The ones who harmed me should thank their
lucky stars that I didn't react like a primate and just dump them six
feet underground. Unfortunately, premeditated murder would ruin this
ethical thing I have going for me, although on a primal level it is
(Read the full message and thread in Google Groups
[http://www.dejanews.com] for context.)
What a very twisted view you have of the world.
Indeed, he has.
Paul Robinson
2004-11-12 17:18:51 UTC
Permalink
[Garbage disposed of]
Post by Krus T. Olfard
What a very twiste view you have of the world.
"Gee... it took you this long to find that out?
You're not as bright as I thought you were."

- Supervisor 246 in Paul Robinson's
"In the Matter of: Instrument of God"
Bryen193
2004-11-12 15:08:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Gordon
Post by Bryen193
Yes. I meant being able to support oneself, survive comfortably & removre the
economic desparation from sex partner search criteria.
Yet this, however, is illusory, as women who are pretty enough to attract
men will find themselves "owned" by their corporate "sugar daddies" who have
control over them for 40+ hours a week, AND whom they are dependent upon,
often without being attracted to them.
Male employees are "owned" by and dependent on their corporate "sugar daddies"
as well. That's the nature of the employer/employee relationship. My only
point here is to illustrate how the shift from the lifestyle women generally
lived 50 years ago to the one they live now has caused a massive change in
their sexual habits and any seduction or mating strategy should be designed
accordingly.
Post by Ray Gordon
I've shown several examples where women have alleged horrible behavior at
work, and either the men are enduring this without knowing, or the women are
lying.
You forget that this shift I'm talking about is an incredibly large cultural
upheaval for such a relatively short period of time. Of course there are going
to be newsworthy examples where people react to the upheaval by behaving badly.
Post by Ray Gordon
Post by Bryen193
Of course, the vast
majority of either gender are not rich.
But the vast majority who post to ASF claim to be.
Huh?
Post by Ray Gordon
Post by Bryen193
I think the remaining
fear and resentment of women in the workplace
God you are WHIPPED.
No. Just observant of the attitudes of men in the workplace. You don't think
my opinions are inspired by reading a bunch of feminist literature do you? The
good news is that the resentment seems to be almost exclusively expressed by
the older men.
Post by Ray Gordon
Post by Bryen193
really has roots in the resulting
loss of male control over women sexually that has inevitibly happened as women
grow economically independent, as opposed to any real male career concerns.
Men have MORE control over women thanks to the workplace. A boss can hire
eye-candy at will, even have employment agencies do the dirtywork for them.
Again, You're talking about a boss/employee relationship and I'm talking about
the effect that her having a salary has on her dating/mating habits outside the
workplace - a topic relevent to choosing a seduction method.
Post by Ray Gordon
What men resent is that the merit system isn't being used. Men grew up on
the idea that merit, rather than race, gender, or any other reason, was how
we got jobs, the idea that the most skilled worker was hired and that people
did the right thing.
There is no merit system in private industry employment and there never was.
Employers generally hire whoever they want (within the rules of employment
laws), and there's no requirement to hire the most qualified person for
anything, outside of the relentless demand of the profit motive. That's why
the job interview is the basic tool that employers use to hire, and not the
number 2 pencil test score. The good news for people who don't perform well
in this arena, is that some employers do have a merit system. For example, in
my area the four largest employers are as follows:

1. The United States Federal Government
2. State Government
3. County Government
4. City Government

With the largest private industry employer coming in at number 5. Of course
these "merit"-based employers are frought with corruption, cronyism, etc., but
that's another issue.


"There is only one real antidote to the anguish engendered in humanity by its
awareness of inevitable death: erotic joy." Gilles Neret
++++ http://www.angelfire.com/80s/ashenthorn/index.html ++++
Ray Gordon
2004-11-12 15:30:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bryen193
Post by Ray Gordon
Post by Bryen193
Yes. I meant being able to support oneself, survive comfortably &
removre
the
economic desparation from sex partner search criteria.
Yet this, however, is illusory, as women who are pretty enough to attract
men will find themselves "owned" by their corporate "sugar daddies" who have
control over them for 40+ hours a week, AND whom they are dependent upon,
often without being attracted to them.
Male employees are "owned" by and dependent on their corporate "sugar daddies"
as well.
Not in the good ol' boy network. Men share power and women with those who
play along. The only men who get screwed over are those like me who speak
out against the system.
Post by Bryen193
That's the nature of the employer/employee relationship.
This is something specific you are detaching from because it busts up your
anecdotal science that claimed that men "fear" women in the workplace.
Post by Bryen193
My only
point here is to illustrate how the shift from the lifestyle women generally
lived 50 years ago to the one they live now has caused a massive change in
their sexual habits and any seduction or mating strategy should be designed
accordingly.
Yet if a man tells women this they will deny it. If a woman admits to it,
every guy she knows will know where he stands with her, and she won't be
able to string men along since those she's not fucking are going to figure
they are wasting their time.

Things haven't changed at all, at least not substantively.
Post by Bryen193
Post by Ray Gordon
I've shown several examples where women have alleged horrible behavior at
work, and either the men are enduring this without knowing, or the women are
lying.
You forget that this shift I'm talking about is an incredibly large cultural
upheaval for such a relatively short period of time.
So are civil rights laws.
Post by Bryen193
Of course there are going
to be newsworthy examples where people react to the upheaval by behaving badly.
And of course there will be people who dismiss them as the exception rather
than the rule, even if *every* hottie gets bombarded with job offers. Maybe
you harass your secretary or something and I hit a sore spot.
Post by Bryen193
Post by Ray Gordon
Post by Bryen193
Of course, the vast
majority of either gender are not rich.
But the vast majority who post to ASF claim to be.
Huh?
Read their words: most claim to be well off.
Post by Bryen193
Post by Ray Gordon
Post by Bryen193
I think the remaining
fear and resentment of women in the workplace
God you are WHIPPED.
No. Just observant of the attitudes of men in the workplace.
Which men? You are arguing from anecdote.
Post by Bryen193
You don't think
my opinions are inspired by reading a bunch of feminist literature do you?
You haven't cited a thing and you are claiming something subjective as fact.
Post by Bryen193
The
good news is that the resentment seems to be almost exclusively expressed by
the older men.
That's deflected sexual angst.
Post by Bryen193
Post by Ray Gordon
Men have MORE control over women thanks to the workplace. A boss can hire
eye-candy at will, even have employment agencies do the dirtywork for them.
Again, You're talking about a boss/employee relationship and I'm talking about
the effect that her having a salary has on her dating/mating habits outside the
workplace - a topic relevent to choosing a seduction method.
I'm talking about what goes on during the 40+ hours a week a guy's
girlfriend or wife is "at work." That's quite relevant to seduction if
she's fucking guys at work, or even if she's being sexually harassed, now
isn't it?
Post by Bryen193
Post by Ray Gordon
What men resent is that the merit system isn't being used. Men grew up on
the idea that merit, rather than race, gender, or any other reason, was how
we got jobs, the idea that the most skilled worker was hired and that people
did the right thing.
There is no merit system in private industry employment and there never was.
Not legally, but it's a quasi-merit system, as many reasons for not hiring
someone are no longer valid and still more lose their validity with new
lawsuit.
Post by Bryen193
Employers generally hire whoever they want (within the rules of employment
laws), and there's no requirement to hire the most qualified person for
anything, outside of the relentless demand of the profit motive. That's why
the job interview is the basic tool that employers use to hire, and not the
number 2 pencil test score. The good news for people who don't perform well
in this arena, is that some employers do have a merit system. For example, in
1. The United States Federal Government
2. State Government
3. County Government
4. City Government
All bound by a merit system.
Post by Bryen193
With the largest private industry employer coming in at number 5.
Manpower? They are the nation's largest employer as far as I know.
Post by Bryen193
Of course
these "merit"-based employers are frought with corruption, cronyism, etc., but
that's another issue.
But it's equal opportunity! Governments don't push people out so much, even
if they might hold a few people back a notch or two.
Player88
2004-11-12 17:08:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Gordon
Manpower? They are the nation's largest employer as far as I know.
Wal-Mart is the nation's largest non-government employer. The U.S.
Government is the nation's largest employer, although Wal-Mart is on
track to surpass the U.S. government in several years.

Manpower is only the second largest provider of temporary employees in
the nation, behind Adecco. Their numbers of worldwide employees matches
the employment figures of the U.S. Government, but Manpower has a
sizable workforce in France and the UK.

It doesn't take a lot of time to Google "Manpower fact sheet." Why
someone refuses to check their facts when it is so easy is beyond me.
Post by Ray Gordon
Search DejaNews [http://www.dejanews.com] and put my names (Ray
Gordon or Gordon Roy Parker) in, and check the posts [...] Let go of
my anger? Not a chance. I have a few favors to return, and an amount
of power to return them that you couldn't even comprehend. I know who
has harmed me, who has stood by and did nothing, and who has helped
me. Each group will be treated accordingly. [...] I'm just a 'loser.'
Look at the way women treat 'losers' and you will see why they wind up
beaten, murdered, raped, robbed, disrespected, and oppressed. It is
because women DESERVE it. The ones who harmed me should thank their
lucky stars that I didn't react like a primate and just dump them six
feet underground. Unfortunately, premeditated murder would ruin this
ethical thing I have going for me, although on a primal level it is
(Read the full message and thread in Google Groups
[http://www.dejanews.com] for context.)
Krus T. Olfard
2004-11-12 17:12:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Gordon
Post by Bryen193
Post by Ray Gordon
Post by Bryen193
Yes. I meant being able to support oneself, survive comfortably &
removre
the
economic desparation from sex partner search criteria.
Yet this, however, is illusory, as women who are pretty enough to
attract men will find themselves "owned" by their corporate "sugar
daddies" who have
control over them for 40+ hours a week, AND whom they are dependent
upon, often without being attracted to them.
Male employees are "owned" by and dependent on their corporate "sugar daddies"
as well.
Not in the good ol' boy network. Men share power and women with those
who play along. The only men who get screwed over are those like me
who speak out against the system.
Post by Bryen193
That's the nature of the employer/employee relationship.
This is something specific you are detaching from because it busts up
your anecdotal science that claimed that men "fear" women in the
workplace.
Post by Bryen193
My only
point here is to illustrate how the shift from the lifestyle women generally
lived 50 years ago to the one they live now has caused a massive
change in their sexual habits and any seduction or mating strategy
should be designed
accordingly.
Yet if a man tells women this they will deny it. If a woman admits to
it, every guy she knows will know where he stands with her, and she
won't be able to string men along since those she's not fucking are
going to figure they are wasting their time.
Things haven't changed at all, at least not substantively.
Post by Bryen193
Post by Ray Gordon
I've shown several examples where women have alleged horrible
behavior at work, and either the men are enduring this without
knowing, or the women are
lying.
You forget that this shift I'm talking about is an incredibly large cultural
upheaval for such a relatively short period of time.
So are civil rights laws.
Post by Bryen193
Of course there are going
to be newsworthy examples where people react to the upheaval by behaving badly.
And of course there will be people who dismiss them as the exception
rather than the rule, even if *every* hottie gets bombarded with job
offers. Maybe you harass your secretary or something and I hit a sore
spot.
Post by Bryen193
Post by Ray Gordon
Post by Bryen193
Of course, the vast
majority of either gender are not rich.
But the vast majority who post to ASF claim to be.
Huh?
Read their words: most claim to be well off.
Post by Bryen193
Post by Ray Gordon
Post by Bryen193
I think the remaining
fear and resentment of women in the workplace
God you are WHIPPED.
No. Just observant of the attitudes of men in the workplace.
Which men? You are arguing from anecdote.
Post by Bryen193
You don't think
my opinions are inspired by reading a bunch of feminist literature do you?
You haven't cited a thing and you are claiming something subjective as fact.
Post by Bryen193
The
good news is that the resentment seems to be almost exclusively expressed by
the older men.
That's deflected sexual angst.
Post by Bryen193
Post by Ray Gordon
Men have MORE control over women thanks to the workplace. A boss can hire
eye-candy at will, even have employment agencies do the dirtywork for them.
Again, You're talking about a boss/employee relationship and I'm talking about
the effect that her having a salary has on her dating/mating habits outside the
workplace - a topic relevent to choosing a seduction method.
I'm talking about what goes on during the 40+ hours a week a guy's
girlfriend or wife is "at work." That's quite relevant to seduction
if she's fucking guys at work, or even if she's being sexually
harassed, now isn't it?
Post by Bryen193
Post by Ray Gordon
What men resent is that the merit system isn't being used. Men grew
up on the idea that merit, rather than race, gender, or any other
reason, was how
we got jobs, the idea that the most skilled worker was hired and that people
did the right thing.
There is no merit system in private industry employment and there never was.
Not legally, but it's a quasi-merit system, as many reasons for not
hiring someone are no longer valid and still more lose their validity
with new lawsuit.
Post by Bryen193
Employers generally hire whoever they want (within the rules of
employment laws), and there's no requirement to hire the most
qualified person for anything, outside of the relentless demand of
the profit motive. That's why
the job interview is the basic tool that employers use to hire, and not the
number 2 pencil test score. The good news for people who don't perform well
in this arena, is that some employers do have a merit system. For example, in
1. The United States Federal Government
2. State Government
3. County Government
4. City Government
All bound by a merit system.
Post by Bryen193
With the largest private industry employer coming in at number 5.
Manpower? They are the nation's largest employer as far as I know.
Post by Bryen193
Of course
these "merit"-based employers are frought with corruption, cronyism, etc., but
that's another issue.
But it's equal opportunity! Governments don't push people out so
much, even if they might hold a few people back a notch or two.
What a very twisted view you have of the world.
--
KTO



------------------
Everything I post is my opinion. If you don't like my opinions then
killfile me, if you have the balls.
Paul Robinson
2004-11-12 16:53:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Gordon
Post by Bryen193
Post by Krus T. Olfard
Post by Ray Gordon
You mean YOUNG PRETTY women, because ugly older women don't get rich
unless they married it.
And where, exactly, did he say 'rich'?
Economic empowerment is not the same as rich.
Yes. I meant being able to support oneself, survive comfortably & removre
the economic desparation from sex partner search criteria.
Yet this, however, is illusory, as women who are pretty enough to attract
men will find themselves "owned" by their corporate "sugar daddies" who have
control over them for 40+ hours a week, AND whom they are dependent upon,
often without being attracted to them.
Your comment is exactly the same situation as a man who works for a
living who is dependent upon his salary to survive (as most people are).
Why do you seem to think a woman who works for a living is in any
different situation than a man who does so.

I've worked lots of places where there were not attractive and older
women (some who were married with husbands also working).

This kind of blows your claim that the only women who get good paying
jobs in professional offices are young and pretty.

Your claims have no merit anyway, so the point isn't really that
relevant. As you never are.
The Voice of Reason
2004-11-12 16:21:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Gordon
Post by Bryen193
One area you left out (and one that I think is ultimately the most important
one) is the shift from a manufacturing-based economy to a service-based economy
that has taken place in the post WW2 era, and the resulting economic
empowerment of women.
You mean YOUNG PRETTY women, because ugly older women don't get rich unless
they married it.
Weren't you the one saying that women over 21 were past their 'sell by date'?
TdN
2004-11-13 03:31:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Gordon
Post by Bryen193
One area you left out (and one that I think is ultimately the most important
one) is the shift from a manufacturing-based economy to a service-based economy
that has taken place in the post WW2 era, and the resulting economic
empowerment of women.
You mean YOUNG PRETTY women, because ugly older women don't get rich unless
they married it.
You're getting a really, really bad grade of crack in your
neighborhood.

Some of the richest women in the world include Oprah Winfrey, J.K.
Rowling, Kiran Mazumdar Shaw (a well-known Indian biotech
entrepreneur), Dame Stephanie Shirley (UK technology pioneer and
philanthropist), Martha Stewart, Ann Winblad (technology venture
capitalist)...the list of highly successful women whose faces have not
been their fortunes goes on and on.

Does it burn you up to know that, however long you live, you will
never enjoy a fraction of the success and respect--let alone the vast
wealth--that these women have earned for their creativity and hard
work?

T.
Will Nelson
2004-11-13 05:56:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by TdN
Post by Ray Gordon
Post by Bryen193
One area you left out (and one that I think is ultimately the most important
one) is the shift from a manufacturing-based economy to a service-based economy
that has taken place in the post WW2 era, and the resulting economic
empowerment of women.
You mean YOUNG PRETTY women, because ugly older women don't get rich unless
they married it.
You're getting a really, really bad grade of crack in your
neighborhood.
Yeah, in Philly one would be advised to go the Oxford Circle area of
Frankford for good crack. Where he's at it's all fake if you're a white guy.
Post by TdN
Some of the richest women in the world include Oprah Winfrey, J.K.
Rowling, Kiran Mazumdar Shaw (a well-known Indian biotech
entrepreneur), Dame Stephanie Shirley (UK technology pioneer and
philanthropist), Martha Stewart, Ann Winblad (technology venture
capitalist)...
All are good points excpet for Martha. I still think she's HOT, especially if
she was in a merrywidow, black stockings and heels. Whorish makeup couldn't
hurt, either.



the list of highly successful women whose faces have not
Post by TdN
been their fortunes goes on and on.
Does it burn you up to know that, however long you live, you will
never enjoy a fraction of the success and respect--let alone the vast
wealth--that these women have earned for their creativity and hard
work?
Hey, ya never know. There's always the PA lottery.
JJT
2004-11-13 13:19:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by TdN
You're getting a really, really bad grade of crack in your
neighborhood.
GREAT !!!!!!, Think I'll remember that one..


JJT







...It is history in the making...

......and it's in the Key of ' A '..

...what more can any civilized man want...

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...