On Sep 10, 9:00Â pm, nfm
gmail.com> wrote:> On Sep 9, 10:24 pm, Vance
gmail.com> wrote:
>>> [standup clown routine, complete with juggling]
>
> how long are you planning on sounding like an incoherent fucking idiot
> tryin to performed a failed standup routine before you get to the
> point. hold on little girl, here's a cursory clap.. ok you happy now?
>
Yes. In fact I am quite happy with your whole post. We'll get to
that later.
>
>> There are two things about real men that seem to be true: Â 1) Â They
>> aren't worried about whether they are real men, nor are they
>> particularly worried about someone who has to use 'realmen101.html' as
>> a kind of manual for being a man.
>
> oops, stupidfuck, let's help out your OBVIOUS, FAILED LOGIC here; you
> dumbfucks are on a forum DEDICATED to teaching men how to be men..
> sure you might not say it in so many words, but guys are spouting
> things like mystery method, RSD, NLP, etc. these were not things they
> gleaned from the womb, you fucking idiot. they LEARNED THEM. guys
> TAUGHT them how to act like men, so to speak. this is all one big
> "MANUAL" for how to behave/act/function like a "man". so don't kid
> yourself, pumpkin. you are engaged in exactly the same endeavor. just
> because you're too fucking stupid to codify anything into a
> comprehensive format doesn't automatically negate my work.
>
I love it when people who haven't a clue, but do know an impressive
sounding cliche, like 'failed logic', and try and sound so impressive
and intimidating by using it. However, you have a credibility problem
given all the logical flaws and fallacies in your 'work.' I can
understand that. You must get dizzy from the circular logic, lost in
begging the question and tired from jumping to conclusions.
By the way, I am not engaged in 'exactly the same behavior', meaning
teaching men how to be men. The only time I had that responsibility,
or even interest in whether someone behaved like a man or not, was
when I raised my son. Everyone else is on their own. As far as
codifying anything, that doesn't take any great intelligence and
anything can be codified, including total BS, like astrology and your
so called work.
> we speak about the 'PRINCIPLES' of manhood on
manhood101.com ...
>
> unlike you, we don't jack off to pet theories and pet methods .. we
> speak about the PRINCIPLES that apply to ALL MEN.
>
> gravity is a LAW. it's a CONSTANT. it is a 'manual' for how objects
> relate to one another. anybody with a brain who studies physics would
> understand that it's paramount to grasp the concept of gravity. this
> understanding doesn't fluctate because the principle itself doesn't
> fluctuate. it's a constant principle. that's why we refer to it as the
> 'LAW' of gravity.
>
> in a similar fashion, we are concerned with the LAWS/PRINCIPLES of
> social interaction. and we are specifically addressing MEN. this is
> why we are referring to the principles of 'MANHOOD'.. as we already
> explain in other articles which i will post, this has nothing to do
> with the concept of machismo but has everything to do with how men
> PRACTICALLY FUNCTION as men. this is not about preference. this is not
> about pet theories. this is about understanding social interaction
> PRINCIPLES. if you got off your personal high horse long enough to
> understand that, you might actually learn something valuable. you
> already know how to behave like a bitch, now try acting like a man.
> you might enjoy it.
>
You seem to be a little confused about what constitutes a law of
nature and seem totally confused about gravity. I refer you to
Einstein's general theory so you can brush up a bit. I suggest one of
the popular general consumer books or maybe something along the lines
of this link:
http://sigfpe.blogspot.com/2006/01/general-relativity-for-dummies.html
Think of it as intellectual baby food for toddlers.
Now, about this law crap as it applies to social interaction. In
order for something to be a law in the sense you are trying to use it,
something must be true under all possible conditions. There can be
philosophical arguments about whether that can be known, but it's not
necessary here. We can call it a law if it has the same regularity
that say the speed of light has, or the property of pure copper to
always conduct electricity. In other words, there is only one
possible behavior. Manhood, apart from the concept of maleness, is a
sociocultural construct and because of that, is not lawful in the
sense you want. If it were lawful in the way you assert, lawful like
gravity is lawful, there wouldn't be any 'need' for your work, would
there? No other behavior would be possible. Simple, huh?
>>They aren't cartoon characters
>> acting out like is says on p. 45 of the 'Manual for Being a Real Man'
>> like you seem to be;
>
> no stupidfuck. this is you projecting your tiny brained understanding
> of manhood onto our work. again, you are referencing the failed notion
> of machismo which we already debunk in our articles. but this would
> require an education to grasp. do any of you children ever crack open
> a book?.. holy fuck. i feel like i'm talking to a bunch of retards..
> this isn't that hard to grasp if you just pay attention.
>
Actually, you are simply suffering the frustration that comes from
presenting a dogmatic and merely assertive series of propostions to an
audience that has pretty good BS detectors. But, hey, pearls before
swine, yes?
>>2) they are generally considered nice guys by
>> both women and men and are extremely comfortable with themselves and,
>> as a result, comfortable with nearly everyone else.
>
> this is actually untrue. real men are NOT considered 'nice guys' by
> today's feminist's standards. that's your wishful thinking. real men
> are able to tell women "NO".. which means they are not ALWAYS
> considered "nice".. and this is seen in their interactions with men
> when they become attracted. i can't tell you how many times i've had a
> woman refer to me as an "asshole", "jerk", "mean", etc... not because
> i did anything particularly terrible when meeting them. mostly this
> stemmed from my unwillingness to give them their way, to meet their
> feminist expectations...
>
Dude, that's known as slipping a reference and leads to the formal
fallacy of ambiguity. You are also, and this is a big error in logic,
too, trying to go from the general to the specific. I said women. Do
you know how to construct a Venn Diagram? Sure you do, being all
about intelligence and education and how stupid everyone is but you
and stuff. Start with the set of all possible women as the enclosing
circle since you are trying to use the Universal Qualifier and then
draw your circle of feminists. Unless feminists is a linguistic tag
for all women, you have a problem. Since you referred specifically to
feminists and not all women, well, you can see the problem. Now, this
can give rise to behavioral problems where your behavior is predicated
on women being feminists and you run into women who are not
feminists. This situation would be covered under various
configurations of frame theory in either artificial intelligence or
cognitive psychology. It's called the frame problem and you can look
it up, being all educated and such.
[tragic tail of being taken advantage of in the work place and how
that formed a philosophical orientation towards life snipped]
>
> just like a little BITCH, you read things EMOTIONALLY. a real man uses
> LOGIC & COMMON SENSE. men read for CONTENT. bitches like you read for
> emotional meaning and indignant self-righteousness..
>
Sparky, your in my backyard now and there is now way you can win this
game. You're wrong, simply as a matter of neuropsychological fact. I
think you really, really should look up the role of emotion in
cognitive processes in human beings.
>> Little boy and what else can you be
>> when you think that schoolyard gender insinuations and insults are
>> something important,
>
> little incoherent bitch, what else can you be when you support fucking
> morons lobbing insults at me?..and you yourself are guilty of
> insulting me instead of showing respect and answering my post in a
> respectful way.. who the fuck are you to lecture anyone on manhood
> when you're too fucking stupid to gage your own hypocrisy? little
> girl, you need help.
>
Okay, everything I have posted is available, point out where it is
incoherent. Also, look up what the word hypocrisy means before you
use it. It's so much more impressive when you can use a work properly
in context. Get's the girls all wet, you know. Now, you're the one
who came on to an NG that is patently sterile as far as your being
able to achieve any agenda regarding your truly insignifican work.
I'm sure that you started off believing, or at least being optomistic,
that you would find some adherents here, but that doesn't seem to be
the case. Everything you may have wanted to accomplish seems to be
pretty futile on this venue, but you persist. That, my friend is
stupid.
>> you haven't brought any revelations to enlighten
>> anyone on this NG and that includes the most clueless newbies.
>
> haha.. just like a LITTLE BITCH, you try to use the classic "we"
> social frame. yeah you speak for EVERYONE on planet earth, i forgot.
>
> how fucking presumptuous of you to speak for everyone else.. you are a
> classic little bitch. real men can speak for themselves and are able
> to make a point without referring to consensus.. notice, when i
> address your points, i don't need to reference the number of friends
> on myspace who agree with me or disagree with you.. as a real man, i
> appeal to reason and common sense. as a punk ass bitch, you make
> emotional appeals and rest your argument on consensus.
>
> pathetic. sad and pathetic.
>
Now, it's back to your logic problems, again. My friend, I said you
haven't brought any revelations to this NG and you haven't. It's been
seen before, all of it. I never said anything about everyone on the
planet, now did I? I've already touched on the problems you have with
Universal Qualifiers. By the way, what you consider addressing my
points has been mostly an emotional, irrational tantrum. Yep, just
dripping with manly emotions. By the way, has anyone told you how
cute you are when your mad?
>> Everybody here, newbies included, has pretty much grown up past the
>> need for a handbook on manhood
>
> wow, i can see i'm talking to a fucking idiot.
>
> obviously you don't grasp the point above that this IS one gigantic
> 'manual' on manhood.. just because you haven't labeled it as such,
> doesn't remove the fact that it functions that way..
>
> and no, stupidfuck, men haven't grown up, otherwise this group
> wouldn't exist in the first place.. i can't believe you're so fucking
> stupid you can't even grasp the inconsistencies in your failed attempt
> at reasoning.. manhood is not simply about peeing while standing up,
> you fucking idiot. it is much more involved and complex.. but you
> yourself should know that as MASF is chalk full of 'teachings'
> designed to teach men how to act with women.. they are ineffective
> however, just as you are ineffective, because you fail the test of
> reason.. you fail the test of critical scrutiny.
>
Somehow, failing your critical scrutiny, based on hardcore and manly
reasoning, of course, none of that emotional stuff, doesn't seem to me
a low point in my life. I'm sure that it's simple because I fail to
see the subtleties.
>>and is ready to tackle the existential
>> problem of how do I get laid. Â No ism this, or ism that to blame
>> things on.
>
> oh so that's the major problem plaguing men: how to get laid?
>
If you went to public school, I can see that the money wasn't well
spent wherever it was. You know the KISS principle = 'Keep It Simple
Stupid.' So, just for you, KISSY, KISSY:
You are on an NG with a self selected audience and participants. Not
all men, as your statement implies. Again with that Universal
Quatifier problem. They are here because, in the broad sense, they
have a problem with seduction. That problem may only be they just
aren't as good at it as they would like to be. People get to define
their own problems, but that's often the case with problems. Notice
that covers the nominal range of interests (or problems) of this NG.
Whether you want to characterize it as a problem, or an abiding
interest, yes, the subject is how to get laid. Along with that often
comes pretty good info on how how a man handles things.
> see, it's simplistic morons like you that make the rest of mankind
> suffer when you presume to take the role of teacher and damage the
> other guys who come here looking for advice with your utter
> pussification.
>
You speak for all of mankind? A little presumptious, don't you
think?
> 1. you're too fucking stupid to even grasp this concept. you need to
> work on your education before you try to tackle me, junior.
Would you like to talk about how genetic influences help shape, but do
not determine, cultural and social constructs. Maybe the differences
between how male brains function versus female brains (yes, including
emotions). I'm pretty conversant in that subject. Since your into
social interaction, a discussion on how seduction lines as speech acts
can help get the women wet would be cool. The problem is this, I've
been to your site. You don't have anything interesting to say.
> 2. you have poor and inaccurate information.
>
> 3. you debate like a little bitch throwing a tantrum, unable to answer
> anything with reason & common sense, instead resorting to emotional
> appeals and group consensus.
>
> did i miss anything?
>
>> What I find hilarious is that people who function from your space are
>> the absolute easiest to eliminate in any kind of seduction scenario.
>
> hahahahahahahah.. i would love to have a good laugh watching you try
> to "eliminate" me..
>
> oh no! a little girl is going to try and run the show around here! let
> me start shaking, pronto.
>
> lol :)
>
>> Just push their little 'manly man' buttons and watch them act the
>> fool.
>
> there's really not many 'buttons' i have to push on you.. let's see..
>
> 1. clit? check.
>
> 2. purse? check.
>
> 3. wishful thinking? check.
>
> you're too fucking dumb to compete with me, junior :)
>
>>It's not necessary, of course, you're not competitive, but it
>> can be entertaining for the crowd and always gets the lady.
>
> yeah it's always entertaining to watch a monkey dance... should i play
> organ grinder music while you jump around, or do you have enough
> practice working your own organ?
Now, my original post was designed to pretty much push your little
manly man buttons and get you to act the fool. You've done pretty
much that, and your frantic posting of garbage from your website was
just icing on the cake.
Your response has been highly emotional and irrational, sorta girly
and pretty predictable. It's time to plonk you now. I can only take
so much boredom.
Vance
