Newsgroups: alt.seduction.fast

Bornnatural wrote

**************************************************
From: "Bornnatural" asf.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 14:14:04 GMT
Local: Wed, Feb 21 2007 6:14 am
Subject: Re: Ready for those BOOK SIGNINGS?

(Snipped, referring to whether or not bornnatural had tried Ray's
techniques)

Try them?....can't you read for context, WHY would I try something
that has no value to me.....go read that post again.

You are right, I found no specifics...anything that was new.

Ray, theres nothing new there, all that existed before, you just gave
a
different name.

Cupid, another way of saying look your best, like men did not know
that. Returning fox, another way of saying women come back
sometimes....wow.....really new. Reverse timetable, I don't remember
what this is, but I'll but its a rehash. Gimmicks, wow men never
thoguth of this.......

All I ever saw was you taking common behaviour that every does and see
everyday and attach a label to it....WOW.

(snipped)

(snipped)

(snipped)

Heres what you don't get, negs were here forever, everyone knew it,
BUT mystery took it and make it repeatable, workable......THAT IS WHAT
YOU can't do.

Being alpha, is more common shit....most of the guys take that idea
way to far to begin with.

See above.............

What you can't seem to understand is that all these guys take human
behaviour and make it repeatable and workable. You on the other hand
think all you have to do is label it and its done..............another
reason why you fail.......you have no field experence....I'm willing
to bet you never ever tested your own fucking ideas.

BN

**************************

Bornnatural puts it succinctly. The 'Guru' formulates and formalizes
what many, if not most of us, do naturally. In fact, stripped of the
characteristics of communication we bring to the table as Homo
Sapiens, Gurus are describing dynamics which directly exist in the
animal world.

The whole Alpha/Beta concept is simply a description of the behavior
commonly found in most social mammals. The role money plays in
seduction is directly paralleled in the mating behavior of the Rock
Hopper penguin. In other words, seduction is seduction. All we have
done, as a species, is elaborate it in ways specific to us.

An act of seduction is nothing more, or less, than an act of goal
directed communication. A successful seduction is an act of
successful communication. It's not an original observation and I
don't think a reasonable person would argue the point. It's also not
that simple if you consider the whole dynamic, but it is all you need
for practical application. From the dual observations that seduction
is communication and the basic dynamics of seduction being more or
less fixed, you can get to a framework for judging the potential value
of anyone's literature, including Gordon's.

*********************************

BN: "Heres what you don't get, negs were here forever, everyone knew
it, BUT mystery took it and make it repeatable, workable......THAT IS
WHAT YOU can't do.

BN: "What you can't seem to understand is that all these guys take
human behaviour and make it repeatable and workable. You on the other
hand think all you have to do is label it and its done ..............
another reason why you fail.......

*********************************

The central point of Bornnatural's post is the 'Guru' makes seduction
repeatable and workable. That is their utility and what makes their
material worth paying for. Bornnatural's central criticism of Ray's
work is that he fails to make seduction repeatable or workable.

Let's take BN's central point of utility and see how Parker's work
stands-up. The first thing seduction literature has to do is narrow
the focus and scope of communication to those things that are directly
related to seduction. I don't know how many times I have watched men
(and women) who have a complete toolbox of communication skills
flounder because they don't know what tool(s)relate to their goal.
It's painful to watch them throw shit at the wall and hope something
sticks. The good news is almost all of the work that is seriously
discussed accomplishes this narrowing of focus, some material better
than others and I will include Parker's stuff here. But nothing in
Parker's material, or anybody else's for that matter, is new in this
respect. We are not sexual tabla rasa's. Several hundred million
years of sexual reproduction have produced the fixed, raw material
that we have to work with. Everybody is going to identify the same
basics of seduction. However, as they say, identifying the
ingredients of seduction 'is necessary, but not sufficient.' In that
sense, nobody is creating anything new and, narrowly viewed, I don't
think his material should be criticized for not being creative because
you really don't want creativity here, you want the proven stuff.
Since his material identifies many of the same ingredients as 'gurus'
with a demonstrated track record in the real world, it's valid.

Things breakdown where the rubber meets the road - practical
application. Parker's work is 'theoretical' in nature, and I am using
the term 'theoretical' in the loosest possible sense. Regardless of
whether his theoretic is valid or not, all theory based approaches, or
primarily theory based approaches, share a common problem - they give
you the what, but not the how. What you want is a Time/Life how-to or
a Chilton's manual. I am most familiar with this problem from
psychology. It's a common complaint of clinical psychologists that
the research will identify some 'what' about a problem, but there is
no indication of how to use the information. This situation is why
there are such things as pure research (the what) and applied research
(the what to do with it).

For the sake of argument and to finish this criticism, assume that
Parker's work contains the required elements of a how-to book. Hell,
I'll even go so far as to say that it contains specific practical
exercises in communication that you can apply in everyday situations
that will enhance not only your ability to seduce someone, but enable
you to be more socially adept in general. It's phantasy, of course,
but let's use our imagination. We've got the ingredients of seduction
identified and (here's the imaginary part) applicable instructions.
What's the problem? Coherency. Parker is an incoherent writer and
this isn't limited to his seduction writings; his posts are mainly
incoherent and his court filings are incoherent. Without the ability
to structure and present information in an accessible manner, there
isn't anything there. The fatal flaw of virtually everything that
Parker writes, regardless of what it is, is that his only audience is
himself. That is not communication and it is the overarching reason
that so much of what he attempts fails.

I have no dog in this fight, but it is no secret that there is no love
lost between Ray and myself. However, I think I have been more or
less balanced in what I have said. I have read Parker's original free
material and this has been based on that material, but not just that
material. As I mentioned, supporting this opinion is the vast amount
of writing he has produced over time, up to and including the
present. If Ray feels that his current work doesn't fit this
criticism, he can send me a free copy and I will review it. I see no
personal value in paying him for it. When I used to review pop
psychology books I personally detested several of the authors. It was
a mutual feeling. Still, I was never criticized by them for letting
my personal feelings bias my reviews.

I don't expect to receive anything from Ray.

A general note on seduction literature: If the author's style,
structuring of the material or manner of explanation doesn't lead
naturally to your understanding, the material is not for you.

Regards,

Vance Lear