In article <_dSdnb95eLQleg_VnZ2dnUVZ_uLinZ2d@
pghconnect.com>,
"Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\""
cybersheet.com> wrote:
> That's the whole point of the list: male fans my age are cREEPY by
> DEFAULT
No, YOU are creepy by default.
> We're not rich,
No, YOU are not rich.
> can't do much for their careers, etc.
No, YOU can't do anything for their careers except perhaps give them
some (perhaps undesired) publicity when you do a stunt to try to
impress her. (Think: John Hinkley, Jr.)
> For all the talk by PUAs about age and money not mattering, they do,
When was the last time you actually TRIED a technique from the PUAs?
Oh yeah, that's right, you just think everything up, you never actually
try it or use it.
> but that gets in the way of their selling product.
I dunno, I guess if you want admit that you, as a carrier of genital
herpes, would have sex with an underage celebrity that's your decision.
> Note, however, that the 50 year-old PRODUCERS of the women are NOT
> creepy,
I'm sure many of them are considered quite creepy. Your bipolar illogic
seems to make you conclude that every 50 year old producer is not
considered creepy by anyone.
That's why you decided to try your hand at claiming to be an expert
"producer" and talent agent who has offices in New York City, Las Vegas
and Los Angeles, right? You're just opening up your "casting couch" for
all those underage girls to audition, aren't you? Couldn't make it work
as a Olympic-level gymnastics coach ("hot" female gymnasts only), so
the next step to try to attract the under-18 sexy crowd is to try to
convince the singers/actresses that they can sleep their way to the
stars as long as you're the one they sleep with.
> even if they make someone perform in little more than her underwear
> at the age of sixteen.
That's a far cry from proclaiming online that if given the choice,
you'd sleep with her, but that you'd also "retire" her when she turned
18.
That's creepy.
> This is also why the UNSEXY list is replacing the sexy list. The
> sexy list scooped the other lists by three years in one case,
Any proof of that? Didn't think so.
> and hopefully it will do so again, but the unsexy list is right up my
> alley,
If you'd stop right there, truer words would never have been said.
> as it will include women that even a 41 year-old guy without money
> wouldn't fuck them.
I can't wait to see it. Too bad it's 404. That said, The new website
design is an improvement (but still typo-ridden--you just refuse to
admit when you make any errors; how BETA is that?).
I also wonder if the "unsexy" list will be an attempt to become a
defendant in court facing libel charges so that you can try to use the
advantages a defendant has in court to ask for even broader discovery
than usual on your enemies.
I suspect the "unsexy" list will contain all your personal female
enemies, as well as broad rollerbrush sweeps of categories including
your personal bugaboos so that you won't have to actually mention any
names. Which, of course, would make it a far cry from your "sexy" list.
But telling us who YOU wouldn't have sex with will probably make those
people that you actually identify breathe a collective sigh of relief
that, among the appealing desires you expressed that you thought they
would deserve for treating you like a loser (battery, murder, rape,
robbery, disrespect, oppression), rape isn't one they have to worry
about from you.
> How sad that men buy into the agenda of the social-climbers,
Seems like you've bought into it completely, Mr. Wanna-be multi-city
"talent agent" offering jobs and auditions.
> but PUA-as-AFC is the norm.
The most F of C's seems to be you. But maybe that could be because
you're below A.
** Posted from
http://www.teranews.com **
