> In article newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "Bornnatural" asf.com> wrote:
>

>> "Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"" cybersheet.com> wrote in
>> message
>> news:DOydnTWj3Y6MUHHYnZ2dnUVZ_vamnZ2d@pghconnect.com...

>>>>> Since women are supposed to LOVE this stuff even if it's public,
>>>>> that would be stunning to learn otherwise to some, I'm sure.

>>>>
>>>> She doesn't love the book. She doesn't love the idea of this being
>>>> used. But she does love that it works.

>>>
>>> Where did she claim to love that it works or even claimed that it
>>> works?
>>>
>>> Her tone in the article suggests the opposite.
>>>
>>> The author is also married.

>>
>>
>> Women love to be seduced. Why can't you get that? You think they want
>> to be reasoned with?....lol.
>>
>>
>> BN

>
> Ray wants to do anything that would insure that he could sleep with any
> one particular woman he chooses, whether that woman is married, single,
> taken, untaken, straight, lesbian, black, asian, gymnast, hooters
> waitress, mother of a seven-year old, hypnotist, young, younger, in high
> school, smart, dumb, foreign, domestic, sane, insane, weak, weaker,
> stripper, prostitute, minister, movie star, webcam girl, fake, or
> divorced.

>
> That is painfully clear by his posting history, which contains many of
> the same unverifiable "internet props" he condemns others for. Also,
> since Ray has been caught online in several lies (regarding the
> existence of a girlfriend, the existence of an attorney, his "final"
> absence from usenet, etc.), it's very clear that the standard of proof
> for Ray is higher because of the additional lack-of-trust generated by
> these lies.

>
> Ray's goal appears to be to get as many others to give up on
> relationships and seduction as possible so that he can "muscle in" and
> have a chance to succeed for once.

>
> For example, Ray suggests that you only speak with 9s or 10s, yet he
> also says that your best relationships will happen with people who have
> compatible, but slightly higher CUPID ratings to yourself, especially if
> they perceive your CUPID rating to be higher than anyone else's around
> them. This is particularly discouraging to anyone with a mediocre CUPID
> rating.

>
> Then again, CUPID was expressly designed by the author to make himself
> look as good as possible. For example, in the men's looks category, the
> only factor quantified and discussed at length is height. Given that Ray
> is not the most attractive person in the face, and has admitted to
> having a body like John Goodman, it makes sense that height would be
> discussed as virtually the sole factor determining someone's looks.

>
> When intelligence is discussed, formal education is not included (Ray
> did not complete even one year of college, by his own admission), yet
> SAT scores are of paramount importance, as are particular IQ tests. It
> is likely, then, that Ray's SAT scores were quite good in the early
> 1980s when he took those tests (and I'd be quite sure the cutoff point
> for "elite" intelligence matches his SAT score, or is very close).

>
> When status is discussed, he makes very sure that "potential income" is
> included, because that increases Ray's status in his eyes, because at
> the time he wrote this high-school level essay, he had very little
> income but predicted that he would be on Oprah within 6 months and would
> be a New York Times bestseller--without an ISBN number, without
> distribution in bookstores, with no radio or TV interviews, with only a
> comparative handful of posts in a very few usenet forums (in which he
> had already developed a hostile and negative reputation) for promotion.

>
> When personality is included, he calls it a "sham" category, which leads
> to the question of its inclusion in the first place. Secondly, his
> definition of personality is "popularity." Which means, according to
> Ray, Hitler and Mother Theresa have similar personalities, since both
> people enjoyed widespread popularity. In fact, Ray might actually agree
> that Hitler probably had a greater personality.

>
> That very example should show the utter nonsense that CUPID really is.
> As a basic tool to encourage someone to improve themselves by becoming
> taller, smarter, richer, and more popular, it might have some small
> benefit, but as an accurate, precise rating tool for partners, it is
> severely flawed because of the author's own biases (shown above) which
> entered the formulas and definitions.
>
> When questioned about this, Ray merely throws up "the beauty premium" as
> proof of CUPID's validity. But one study that discusses one particular
> trait within the context of the workplace cannot solely be used to
> justify a broad-based general compatibility scale in the worldscope of
> relationships.

>
> At least one study shows (and I believe this study has been replicated
> several times) that when photos of people, some judged very attractive,
> others less attractive, are shown along with a composite picture, with
> their features "averaged" through computer imaging, that the
> non-existent "average" face was deemed the most attractive face ... even
> more attractive than the faces originally judged "very attractive."

>
> Other studies show that lack of height does not have the detrimental
> effects once attributed to it.

>
> In short, Ray's dream of a seduction-free world (with the exception of
> himself and his chosen women) is merely that, just a dream.

>
> In my opinion, a dream as likely to occur as is Ray winning any of his
> several lawsuits. Notice I said "win" not "refile" or "dismiss without
> prejudice" but "win" ... so far he has yet to do so.

>
> He even has yet to state the results of the police identification that
> HAD to have taken place when he says I was "almost" in jail. That's
> because, very simply, Ray was deliberately lying about me "almost" being
> in jail. He was lying as an attempt to intimidate me. But the internet
> wannabe punk was caught and embarrassed in his lie ... just as he was
> utterly embarrassed when he claimed (several times) that Mr. Hirsch was
> his attorney, also in an attempt to intimidate others.

>
> But hey, he can call my bluff anytime by simply posting that police case
> identification number. Betcha he won't though, because he's way too
> chicken to admit that he was wrong. He might be a "GAME OVER" Chicken
> Little, but he goes beyond chicken in my case ... he's more like the
> ostrich that buries his head in the sand hoping that whatever it is that
> bothers him goes away.
>
> Maybe someone will have the BALLS to make that bother go away.