On Sep 11, 5:34Â pm, Vance
gmail.com> wrote:> 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. Â In fact I am quite happy with your whole post. Â We'll get to
> that later.
cookie for me!
>>> 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. Â
i equally 'love' it when fucking morons try to sound intelligent by
regurgitating what they've read in comic books and allowing other
pseudo-academic pursuits to speak for them.. and it's even more
comical when said morons fulfill the poignant sentiment that Mark
Twain's pithy axiom warns children about:
"i never let my schooling get in the way of my education.."
i.e. beware of institutionalized intellectuals who are made from 2
parts library card, 10 parts pride and ZERO parts common sense.
>However, you have a credibility problem
> given all the logical flaws and fallacies in your 'work.' Â
no i don't really have a credibility problem. the issue is really more
simple than that-- you have a severe DUMBFUCK problem. i.e. your
ability to reason effectively is hindered by your head up your
assumption.
>I can
> understand that. Â
actually you can't.. you're too fucking DUMB, remember?
>You must get dizzy from the circular logic, lost in
> begging the question and tired from jumping to conclusions.
You must get dizzy from sounding like a complete fucking moron.. but
then again, you're too fucking DUMB to even realize you're a moron
which is often the case with morons.. which is, not coincidentally,
how you became a moron in the first place.
> By the way, I am not engaged in 'exactly the same behavior', meaning
> teaching men how to be men.
actually you ARE, you're just too fucking stupid to realize it. you
have no idea WHAT you're doing. unless i spell it out for you, word
for word, you're too stupid to connect the dots or reason your way
towards a valid conclusion. what a shocker.
>Â 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. Â
hey stupidfuck, i know this is over your head but, whenever you make a
post on here, you ARE attempting to teach someone something. now at
this point in your life, you're too fucking DUMB to comprehend how
that works.... so for now, just ponder it.. slowly.. don't hurt
yourself..
>Everyone else is on their own. Â
again, dumbfuck, WRONG. but then again, you haven't been right yet. so
at least you're consistent.
"no man is an island unto himself..." ..again, you're too fucking
stupid to grasp that. so just ponder it.. even, forget it.. it really
doesn't matter. the explanation is for the sake of accuracy. it's
obviously not for your education as that's already proven to be quite
a failure.
>As far as
> codifying anything, that doesn't take any great intelligence
no stupidfuck, it actually DOES take great intelligence to codify
something. that's why you CAN'T do it, DUMBFUCK, and i CAN.
> and
> anything can be codified, including total BS, like astrology and your
> so called work.
>
well sure. stupidfucks like you can codify all kinds of things.. you
can codify your car with a bologna sandwich. you can codify your cock
with a keyhole. you can codify your toothbrush with a lawn mower..
codifying in and of itself means nothing.. it's PROPER condification
that matters, stupidfuck.
>
>> 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. Â
you seem to be confused as to how a simple analogy works..
let me state this without an analogy:
you
are
a
fucking
moron.
simple.
>I refer you to
> Einstein's general theory so you can brush up a bit.
let me refer you to brain cell number 3 and 4.. so you can add them to
brain cell 1 and 2... now you're almost a genius.. just a trillion or
so more to go....
think of ABC blocks as a milestone in logic for you.. perhaps after
you're done drooling on yourself, you'll be able to understand how
concepts relate to one another in a simple fashion.
you go, girl!
> Now, about this law crap as it applies to social interaction. Â 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. Â There can be
> philosophical arguments about whether that can be known, but it's not
> necessary here. Â 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. Â In other words, there is only one
> possible behavior. Â
well at least you started off on a good foot.. let's see where this
goes..
>Manhood, apart from the concept of maleness, is a
> sociocultural construct and because of that, is not lawful in the
> sense you want.
uh, wrong again..
see, there's always a little something that fucks up your entire
point.. it's this tiny little thing called CONTEXT.
when i use a term like "manhood", i need to DEFINE IT properly before
i throw it around.. which is why i've done so on the
manhood101.com
site. you obviously (no shock) have FAILED once again to consider the
all-important CONTEXT surrounding the term, defining the term, making
the term applicable to the laws that constitute and govern it.
>Â 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? Â No other behavior would be possible. Â Simple, huh?
the only thing 'simple' around here at this point is your mind-- you
are a complete SIMPLETON.
if you knew how to properly debate, you wouldn't make yourself look
like such a fucking moron in the first place because as any good
scientist always knows, everything lives and dies by critical
scrutiny, NOT by failed attempts to control the frame of the
discussion with grade school sarcasm and silly bitch remarks .. that
just makes you look like a fucking moron.. especially when you're
talking to someone more competent like me.
the problem with your FAILED analogy is that you've ABUSED the
analogy .. you've put it into a different CONTEXT (remember that new
term you're just now learning?...)... so now i have to answer you
according to this new dipshit context you've just created. in which
case, we'd have to make the situation analogous to today's situation..
we'd have to posit that society removed guard rails from particularly
treacherous mountainside roads... that warning labels were removed
from the top steps of ladders... that road signs indicating steep
cliffs associated with danger were removed... basically, that any
negative social association with gravity was non-existent by design...
then this would definitely constitute a problem... and if we continued
along the lines of this analogy, we'd also have to start teaching kids
to voluntarily walk along the edges of high buildings. we'd have to
make it socially acceptable to fool around on tall playground
structures.. all safety equipment would have to go.. now we have a
situation analogous to feminism...
gravity STILL WORKS-- LAW remember?
but now what's the problem?...ahhh see tiny brain.. hopefully you're
catching on here... we're teaching people to VIOLATE the law of
gravity without informing them of the violent ramifications of such
actions. ok now your dipshit analogy makes sense because now it IS
necessary for me to come along and teach people that violating gravity
IS wrong.
>>>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. Â But, hey, pearls before
> swine, yes?
no actually, it's more like pride before dumbfucks..
you're simply suffering from the DELUSION that comes from retarded
children patting themselves on their collective backs for too long
without any adults around to invalidate their stupidity with something
called: REASON.
you don't have good BS detectors. you have a tight knit group of
fucking morons and immature little kids who are COWARDS-- afraid of
critical scrutiny.. if they don't agree with you, they don't debate
you any rational scientist would.. no, instead they simply ban you
from the playground because it's an easier solution for irresponsible
children like you who hate doing the grunt work of actually verifying
your bullshit.
but hey.. pride before dumbfucks...
>>>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.
no that's actually known as you being too fucking stupid to connect
the dots.. maybe if you use more pseudo-scientific terminology, it
will suddenly unfuck your nonsense... yeah, try that..
>Â You are also, and this is a big error in logic,
> too, trying to go from the general to the specific.
no actually the error in logic occurs when you're too fucking dumb to
comprehend the point and instead point to your mental masturbation
material in aisle 4 of the public library to explain yourself for
you... you are the epitome of the institutionalized idiot-- unable to
examine your own conclusions for fallacies..
>Â I said women. Â Do
> you know how to construct a Venn Diagram?
hey stupidfuck, what does that have to do with the price of tea in
china?... your irrelevant point is supposed to do what... distract me
from your other stupid points?
>Â Sure you do, being all
> about intelligence and education and how stupid everyone is
no stupidfuck, let me explain this point to you as well.. see
dumbfucks like you love to play the COLLECTIVE victim..
the people who posted their moronic yappings are "stupid"... everyone
is either intelligent or stupid to varying degrees.. so you don't need
to put words into my mouth.. it's enough for you to realize that
YOU'RE STUPID all by yourself.. you don't need to worry about the
intelligence (or lack thereof) of other until you can at least start
to reason on your own without making yourself look like a complete
idiot.
>but you
> and stuff. Â 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. Â Unless feminists is a linguistic tag
> for all women, you have a problem. Â Since you referred specifically to
> feminists and not all women, well, you can see the problem.
wtf are you talking about, moron?... wow you are DUMB.
obviously not ALL people are anything-- men or women. not all men are
pussified. not all women are feminists... but the problem is pervasive
enough that i can safely speak in general terms about the CLIMATE of
feminism which applies to a MAJORITY of women in the CONTEXT of the
usage (in our region, the US of A)..
i'm sure using Venn diagrams are gonna help you when you obviously
don't even have the ability to reason effectively.
>Â 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. Â
i know you're not bright enough to grasp this point, but we actually
LIVE in a FEMINIST society.. and i've given many examples of this in
my articles..which is why i teach guys about the problem first and i
cover it in depth... you obviously missed that lecture. maybe you
should go back and read those articles first so you don't sound so
incoherent.
>This situation would be covered under various
> configurations of frame theory in either artificial intelligence or
> cognitive psychology. Â It's called the frame problem and you can look
> it up, being all educated and such.
stupidfuck, now you're talking apples and oranges.. what kind of
ronald mcdonald school did you attend where they make you sound this
fucking stupid on purpose?... you need a refund on that
education...seriously.
>
> [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
hey sparkles, you're in MY backyard now.. your = possession. you're =
contraction. keep going..
>and there is now way you can win this
> game. Â
hey dumbfuck, i hate to tell you this, but your
backyard...yeah....it's in the middle of a freeway.. and i'm the semi
rolling down on your slip 'n' slide.
game. set. match. bitch.
>You're wrong, simply as a matter of neuropsychological fact. Â
no stupidfuck, you're wrong simply as a matter of me laughing over
your abuse of factual knowledge.
>I think you really, really should look up the role of emotion in
> cognitive processes in human beings.
i REALLY, REALLY think you should take my course because you're
OBVIOUSLY deficient in your understanding of social interaction. i.e.
TYPICAL PUSSIFIED MALE.
>>> 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.
hey dumbfuck. have you been paying attention?.. (i think we know the
answer)... what the fuck do you think i've BEEN doing?...
i think the better question is: when HAVEN'T you been incoherent?
> Â Also, look up what the word hypocrisy means before you
> use it.
stupidfuck, look up the idiom about the pot calling the kettle, black.
>Â It's so much more impressive when you can use a work properly
> in context. Â
at this point, i'd just be impressed if you could tell me 2 + 2 =
anything in the vicinity of 4, give or take 2
>Get's the girls all wet, you know. Â
yeah you're pretty wet from reading my posts, i can tell.. that's HOT!
you are one sexy mamasan.
>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.
this significant work is for education people. not fucking morons like
you... you're better off studying something at your intellectual
level.. like a coloring book...
> 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.
haha, that's cute.. you're an angry little girl, jealous that people
respond to common sense over your patently ridiculous chick logic.
keep trying, little girl.. i'm sure someone will pay attention to your
validation seeking eventually. :)
>Â Everything you may have wanted to accomplish seems to be
> pretty futile on this venue, but you persist. Â That, my friend is
> stupid.
hahaha.. after reading your posts, i'm pretty sure you have a solid
monopoly on the definition of stupid...
you put the I in IRONY :) LOL!
>>> 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 ...
i thought we covered that already, remember?
water, wet.
fire, hot.
you, dumbfuck.
(i tried to simplify it so your tiny brain could keep up.. i hope it
helped!)
xoxo,
NFM
manhood101.com
