The point was, "what works" varies as the goal changes. Not everyone is interested in women for whom knowledge of "gangsta rap" and presence in clubs, etc. is a turn-on; not everyone is interested in simply getting laid.
1) "Liveliness, genuinety, happiness, able to give energy and love, share your deepest thoughts, etc, etc." - in order for a woman to give a rat's ass about these things, the guy must be "cute" and thus worth trying to talk to and getting to know. The difference between "i want to talk to the hot guy" and "that creep is staring at me" is purely in the physique of the men involved.
2) Telepethy does not exist (well, if you've discovered a way to make it work, share it with the world). A person's "subconscious" can only pick up signs that are _physically present._ hence the appearance-is-everything idea. "normal" people (those who have had relationships) who insist that it is not the main factor in who is allowed relationships and who is not remind me of "old money" (inherited wealth) millionaires who lecture incessantly about the value of hard work in getting rich.
"How so called geeks and hackers can not pick up books and study this baffles me."
Show me the book that can compensate for two decades of missed basic socialization experience that most people go through. Where is the book that advises one on how to attract intelligent women that aren't swayed by "seduction methods" - the ones that do not frequent rowdy clubs, or dance to gangsta rap (perfectly fine hobbies, but not shared by all males who desire mates)?
And, most importantly, what "neuro-linguistic" trick will transform a decidedly ugly male into something that is desirable to human females? No, alcohol doesn't count - see above. Some of us are interested in something more than toll-free prostitution - actual relationships, for instance. While males are stereotyped as creatures obsessed with appearances, it seems that for men there is a "sliding scale" of what is acceptable, and we can move our standards up or down as required, depending on what is available. For women, however, one can't help but notice that there is a minimum standard of "male beauty" which rarely varies, and women - with their controllable sex drive - are perfectly happy to remain celibate until a visually appealing and culturally-appropriate male is found.
It is a fallacy that all males who are alone are lazy, stupid, or simply do not know where to look.
Civil tort system is a weapon of the moneyed class
on
RIAA Sues 12-Year Old Girl
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Today's civil tort system serves the role that the machine gun-toting Pinkerton guards served during the Gilded Age - crushing profit-threatening dissent . I don't see how anyone could think otherwise. If suing someone who is not particularly wealthy is guaranteed to bankrupt them, I simply cannot understand how anyone has any respect remaining for the civil tort system. One thing that an honorable person can do to fight this practice is, if serving on a jury in a tort case, simply refuse to vote in favor of any corporate plaintiff, no matter what the evidence, i.e. nullify. On the scientific side of the question, contribute to research on anonymous/encrypted communications that could make electronic censorship irrelevant, no matter how fanatical or well-funded the censors are.
Slashdot Mirror
The point was, "what works" varies as the goal changes. Not everyone is interested in women for whom knowledge of "gangsta rap" and presence in clubs, etc. is a turn-on; not everyone is interested in simply getting laid.
1) "Liveliness, genuinety, happiness, able to give energy and love, share your deepest thoughts, etc, etc." - in order for a woman to give a rat's ass about these things, the guy must be "cute" and thus worth trying to talk to and getting to know. The difference between "i want to talk to the hot guy" and "that creep is staring at me" is purely in the physique of the men involved. 2) Telepethy does not exist (well, if you've discovered a way to make it work, share it with the world). A person's "subconscious" can only pick up signs that are _physically present._ hence the appearance-is-everything idea. "normal" people (those who have had relationships) who insist that it is not the main factor in who is allowed relationships and who is not remind me of "old money" (inherited wealth) millionaires who lecture incessantly about the value of hard work in getting rich.
"How so called geeks and hackers can not pick up books and study this baffles me." Show me the book that can compensate for two decades of missed basic socialization experience that most people go through. Where is the book that advises one on how to attract intelligent women that aren't swayed by "seduction methods" - the ones that do not frequent rowdy clubs, or dance to gangsta rap (perfectly fine hobbies, but not shared by all males who desire mates)? And, most importantly, what "neuro-linguistic" trick will transform a decidedly ugly male into something that is desirable to human females? No, alcohol doesn't count - see above. Some of us are interested in something more than toll-free prostitution - actual relationships, for instance. While males are stereotyped as creatures obsessed with appearances, it seems that for men there is a "sliding scale" of what is acceptable, and we can move our standards up or down as required, depending on what is available. For women, however, one can't help but notice that there is a minimum standard of "male beauty" which rarely varies, and women - with their controllable sex drive - are perfectly happy to remain celibate until a visually appealing and culturally-appropriate male is found. It is a fallacy that all males who are alone are lazy, stupid, or simply do not know where to look.
Today's civil tort system serves the role that the machine gun-toting Pinkerton guards served during the Gilded Age - crushing profit-threatening dissent . I don't see how anyone could think otherwise. If suing someone who is not particularly wealthy is guaranteed to bankrupt them, I simply cannot understand how anyone has any respect remaining for the civil tort system. One thing that an honorable person can do to fight this practice is, if serving on a jury in a tort case, simply refuse to vote in favor of any corporate plaintiff, no matter what the evidence, i.e. nullify. On the scientific side of the question, contribute to research on anonymous/encrypted communications that could make electronic censorship irrelevant, no matter how fanatical or well-funded the censors are.