Pure Genius [Archive] - Page 2 - WannaBeBig Bodybuilding and Weightlifting Forums

marburg

02-07-2003, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by Tryska
well hell if we are now changing what attracts to mean "status" so that it neatly fits your theory, women define status amongst themselves as she who is the prettiest.

therefore, men are nothing but status-seeking whores as well as long as they are lookign for a woman who looks good.

and since you said the magic word study, you're now going to have to post your study, along with references so we all know you are not magically pullign stuff out of your arse. thanks in advance!

:study:

Sure Trysta. The book is the Evolution of Desire by David Buss. It's all about the study he did (over 10,000 people I might add) and his conclusions. Check it out.

Ok, even if I grant you that status and wealth are not equivalent (although i would agree men look for physical appearance more than woman do as you said) I can still make my point.

In a matriarchal society, men are all at an equal level of wealth. There amount of wealth a man has does not vary. Therefore, it is still possible that the women have an innate tendency to want to mate with rich guys. Since there aren't any rich guys, they don't have any options.

The fact that they don't have a chance to express the preference doesn't mean that it is nonexistant.

Gio Casanova

02-07-2003, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by Tryska
there was a long winded and quite disrespectful of everyone's here post made by your screen-name which puzzled me because it didn't quite sound like you, yet it was.

Something agian about my post coun, and how i must have no life since i get the opportunity to post so much.

if that wans't you, you might wanna be careful about whom you give your passwords too, or get your altar ego in check or something, cuz they weren't reflectign very well on you as you've been so far.

I'm still quite confused. I don't recall saying that. Could you point me to it or tell me where this post is at?

marburg

02-07-2003, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by PowerManDL
Hell yes.....let me go dig it up! :D

Marbie marbie marbie---- its that black and white thing with you again! Learn to see gray, bro!

I do see gray, you just don't understand my version of it.

All people have selfish tendencies, they just exhibit them to differing degrees (it's gray...)

All people have feet, some can run faster than others.

All people have hands, but not all of them jerk off.

I am talking about selfishness being a physiologically built in tendency. It's not a matter or black or white. It's a matter of fact. It either is or it isn't.

marburg

02-07-2003, 01:17 PM

Gio are you letting Diesel borrow your computer again? ;)

PowerManDL

02-07-2003, 01:17 PM

Sure its there, for the sake of survival.

But you're equating presence with dominance.

That's where your thinking is flawed; the mere presence of a trait doesn't mean its in command.

Tryska

02-07-2003, 01:19 PM

it was deleted gio as i was tryign to quote it. I'm not sure who made it or why, but it was udner your user name.

marburg - unfrotunately telling me a study is in some book by some guy really doesn't help me to consider it valid. This si a bodybuilding site. despite the fact that proper misconception is that bodybuilders are stupid meatheads, we hold our studies to be quite valuable. If we have emprirical data, from a known good source, in a peer-reviewed journal, it might help sway opinion. but if you can't give me details like when the study took place, who the team was that created it, what the exact procedure was, what empirical data was divined from the study, what journal it was published in and if that journal is peer-reviewed, i ahve no choice but to consider it bunk. any joker can say yeah, ia sked 10,000 people this questiona nd this is what they said, but a a study liek you are describing would require a team of people, a large amount of resources, and anhtorpologists who would be able to ask those of cultures not contaminated by first-world ways the questions required, without contaminating their subject pool. so please, if that is in fact what happened, by all means, furnish the references, but don't ask me to go buy a booka nd find it myself. and for the love of god, please do not use it as the basis of an argument on this particular site.

marburg

02-07-2003, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by PowerManDL
Sure its there, for the sake of survival.

But you're equating presence with dominance.

That's where your thinking is flawed; the mere presence of a trait doesn't mean its in command.

If you read back I always agreed that you have conscious control over your actions.

The thing is, most people don't want to believe that they have a selfish tendency. They don't admit it is there. So, it works in the background and they don't even know it. Since they don't know it is there, they believe they are acting rationally.

Do you see the difference? You CAN control it, it is not necessarily in command. But if you let go of the steering wheel, the innate structure of the car and the road you are on will determine where you end up.

Maki Riddington

02-07-2003, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by Rock
Cant you SS.com guys just get out of here in every post youve made Pup or powerman spooned your **** back in, girlie boys.

*** Rock, think before you type or just be quiet.

marburg

02-07-2003, 01:22 PM

Tryska, I'm surprised you didn't have time to do a little research.

http://www.psy.utexas.edu/psy/FACULTY/BussD/bussD.html

This is the author's page. It lists his books and a bunch of his studies, the journals they are in, etc.

Now please, dont ask me to post the entire text of the journal articles for you.

EDIT:

Here is also a link to a list of his articles in PDF format. Just to make it easier for you...

http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/Group/BussLAB/papers.htm

PowerManDL

02-07-2003, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by marburg
If you read back I always agreed that you have conscious control over your actions.

The thing is, most people don't want to believe that they have a selfish tendency. They don't admit it is there. So, it works in the background and they don't even know it. Since they don't know it is there, they believe they are acting rationally.

Do you see the difference? You CAN control it, it is not necessarily in command. But if you let go of the steering wheel, the innate structure of the car and the road you are on will determine where you end up.

Then that kinda throws the whole argument about active cynicism out, doesn't it? :)

marburg

02-07-2003, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by PowerManDL

Then that kinda throws the whole argument about active cynicism out, doesn't it? :)

When did I make an argument for active cynicism?

If you are referring to the rule about women being "manipulative...etc" the rule never says that they TRY to be, or that they WANT to be, or that they CHOOSE to be.

Granted, some people might believe they do.

Tryska

02-07-2003, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by marburg

Sure Trysta. The book is the Evolution of Desire by David Buss. It's all about the study he did (over 10,000 people I might add) and his conclusions. Check it out.

Ok, even if I grant you that status and wealth are not equivalent (although i would agree men look for physical appearance more than woman do as you said) I can still make my point.

In a matriarchal society, men are all at an equal level of wealth. There amount of wealth a man has does not vary. Therefore, it is still possible that the women have an innate tendency to want to mate with rich guys. Since there aren't any rich guys, they don't have any options.

The fact that they don't have a chance to express the preference doesn't mean that it is nonexistant.

and to address your other point, if status-seeking is innate biology, then a society such as this would never exist in the first place. my point is nurture vs nature. youa re trying to say that woemn are hard-coded to seek wealth. oh wait, you changed it....now women are hard-coded to seek status.

guess what - everyone is hard-coded to seek the best most fertile, genetically different mate possible.

male or female. we look for physical fertility cues (in men that owuld be waist-to-hip ratio, a certain facial symmetry, healthy hair and skin), in women that is low body-fat, a v-shaped physique, and healthy hair and skin. in both sexes pheromones play a large part.

THAT is the extent of what is genetically coded within us as far mate-seeking. The rest of is nurture. it depends on how you grew up, whom you grew up with, what the cultural norms are, etc.

marburg

02-07-2003, 01:29 PM

Tryska,

It's ok for you to believe that, and I accept that that is your opinion.

Do you deny that marrying a wealthy man helps your offspring to be successful (and thus pass on your genes better)?

Or do you simply deny that a "gene" or group of genes could exist that makes people look for wealth when choosing a mate?

Just for clarification.

howsertrading

02-07-2003, 01:29 PM

Cant you SS.com guys just get out of here in every post youve made Pup or powerman spooned your **** back in, girlie boys.

I think marburg is doing very well in the face of insurmountable odds:rolleyes:

Maki Riddington

02-07-2003, 01:30 PM

I agree.

Tryska

02-07-2003, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by marburg
Tryska, I'm surprised you didn't have time to do a little research.

http://www.psy.utexas.edu/psy/FACULTY/BussD/bussD.html

This is the author's page. It lists his books and a bunch of his studies, the journals they are in, etc.

Now please, dont ask me to post the entire text of the journal articles for you.

EDIT:

Here is also a link to a list of his articles in PDF format. Just to make it easier for you...

http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/Group/BussLAB/papers.htm

okay..visited the site. i see articles. i don't see studies. i see references in hsi articles to other people's articles. What was the name of the study, now?

marburg

02-07-2003, 01:31 PM

I'm impressed anyone is actually reading all of this.

LOL

marburg

02-07-2003, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by Tryska

okay..visited the site. i see articles. i don't see studies. i see references in hsi articles to other people's articles. What was the name of the study, now?

The second link I posted. I believe it's the three at the bottom of the page he writes about in his book, but there may be others also. (They are all from 89)

Unfortunately, in the book he tends to not reference his own studies (only things he takes from other people) so I can't point you to an exact study for each of the things he says.

But, atleast you know that I'm not making it up.

Tryska

02-07-2003, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by marburg
Tryska,

It's ok for you to believe that, and I accept that that is your opinion.

Do you deny that marrying a wealthy man helps your offspring to be successful (and thus pass on your genes better)?

Or do you simply deny that a "gene" or group of genes could exist that makes people look for wealth when choosing a mate?

Just for clarification.

depends on what your definition of successful is. If that man is wealthy, but is not a good role model as a father, and my children turn out to be weak, wastreling drug addicted spoiled brats, who flunk out of college and are depraved trust-fund babies, then no, i would not consider them successful, or myself successful for that matter.

I definitely deny that there is a "gene" that exists for looking for wealth. I won't deny that from a purely genetic viewpoint women SHOULD select mates that will make good fathers in the long-term. By being invested in sticking around, and beign a helpmate. That, genetically would make sense. But if it is hard-wired, why then are there women who will mate with total loser-boys with nothing to offer them, and re-produce with them?

your argument will of course be self-esteem. Which would be brought on by nurturing. But if a gene is a gene, i find it rather difficult to believe, that it would be that easily squashed. Perhaps it's a recessive gene?

Tryska

02-07-2003, 01:42 PM

yeah i checked the papers. nothing hard and fast in there, mostly stuff regurgitated from other people with his hypotheses. I don't necessarily believe oyu were making it up, i jsut want a valid source, when you start thrwoing studies around. I don't consider him a valid source yet. If you've got a study that fits the criteria a good resource should have, an it satisfies the scientist in me, it's all good, and i may change my perspective a bit, but my scientist hasn't been appeased.

marburg

02-07-2003, 01:42 PM

Your idea of recessive/dominant genes is wrong...or at the least you are using incorrect terminology.

Anyway, by saying that the rich guy is "not a good role model" you are:
1) introducing another variable into the situation

and/or

2) implying that anyone who has money is a bad father figure

The point is, given two men that are equal in every other way except wealth, it would be advantageous for a woman to choose the wealthier one. You pretty much admit that.

However, if you agree that there are "genes" that make women attracted to certain physical attributes in men as clues to fertility (even though we often don't know consciously that we attracted to more fertile people) is it really out of the question to say that we are in some way attracted to clues of wealth?

marburg

02-07-2003, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by Tryska
If you've got a study that fits the criteria a good resource should have, an it satisfies the scientist in me, it's all good, and i may change my perspective a bit, but my scientist hasn't been appeased.

I don't think a such a study will ever exist that fits your criteria of a "good resource" as your criteria is subjective ;)

By that I mean, a "good resource" is one which supports your cause.

Rock

02-07-2003, 01:49 PM

Maki, ok I will think before I talk, but its just so pathetic its hard to find words, its degrading towards women in general.

marburg

02-07-2003, 01:51 PM

it's not my fault if the truth is degrading towards women...

I didn't make the truth, I only discovered it

:D

Tryska

02-07-2003, 01:52 PM

many studies fit my criteria of a good resource. that is the standard for considering a study as containing scientifically valid empiricial data. (not my criteria midn you, but Science's criteria ;) )

i don't think you can find a study that would be consdiered scientifically valid that would prove the point you are trying to make tho. therefore, you might want to couch what you say as your opinion, or the opinion of so and so, rather than scientific fact. unless oyu've got science to prove you've got a scientific fact, it ain't a scientific fact.

marburg

02-07-2003, 01:54 PM

Tryska,

It's also human nature to be more critical of things that you disagree with.

And that....is my opinion :D

What's the record for # of posts by a user in a single thread?

Tryska

02-07-2003, 01:59 PM

a criticial eye is necessary to be able to tell fiction from fact, regardless of whether you agree or not.

marburg

02-07-2003, 02:01 PM

And yet, you should realize that just because you don't think his evidence is "empirical" doesn't mean that what he says is false :)

Tryska

02-07-2003, 02:14 PM

i don't necessarily think it's true either. in his perception it may be. i wouldn' call it scientific fact until it had proven out in an empirical way.

and it certainly won't sway me, just cuz he thinks he's right. also remember that what he says, and what you extrapolate form what he says may not necessarily be the same thing. You can read something and see it your way, i can read it and see it another way entirely.

i've been reading through your site. what i see is a lot of lost boys that have trouble with girls. It seems the very nature of a site designed to help men get women to like them. But what you allege you preach - "women are jsut human beings- don't revolve your world around them" seems contrary if not anathema to the fact the site exists and guys are spending a good bit of there time trying to become don juans.

does no one else see the paradox? the whole thing revolves around women, whilst telling men not revolve around women.

Y2A

02-07-2003, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by Tryska

does no one else see the paradox? the whole thing revolves around women, whilst telling men not revolve around women.

This is a GREAT point, nice work detective :)

howsertrading

02-07-2003, 02:20 PM

Maybe you should ask the users of sosuave.com if the evidence is empirical or not,as it is not upto any one,two or ten scientific reviews to decide.Truth emerges from the social structure of science in a way that is beyond the power of any individual or group to determine.the decision about validity is made by the community of active scientists using natural world criteria,and there can be no greater number of active scientific practitioners of these theories than the users of sosuave.com

Tryska

02-07-2003, 02:34 PM

yeah, i've read through the site. many don't seem to be too succssful, but the ones that are successful seem to be most successful at getting laid. now sure what to make of that.

a bodybuilding site i can kidn of understand...it's a hobby, not everyone does it. But getting girls to like you? is that really a lifestyle? I thought it was something that naturally happened, if you are into chicks that is.

Rock

02-07-2003, 02:38 PM

Amen Tryska, damn she is good.

howsertrading

02-07-2003, 02:41 PM

Rock,Im not usually a rude person,so im not gonna start now:(

howsertrading

02-07-2003, 03:13 PM

yeah, i've read through the site. many don't seem to be too succssful, but the ones that are successful seem to be most successful at getting laid. now sure what to make of that.

You might make of it that the ammount of users of that site that actually post there are trace,compared to the lurkers.Of course there are some very childish posts on there,because young guys feel the need to show bravado,and make out that they know what they are doing when it comes to women etc.That is just par for the course.And I would imagine that it is mostly these young guys that are feeling the need to sign up.

I also bet there are more guys out there today that from taking a few ideas from that site,have managed to pluck up the courage to speak to the girl they woud'nt normally have dared to,and are having healthy relationships,than there are bounders,trying to shag as many women as they can(all those guys are sat at home posting about it) ;)

a bodybuilding site i can kidn of understand...it's a hobby, not everyone does it. But getting girls to like you? is that really a lifestyle?

Im quite surprised you say that considering you and I partake in what is one of the most ridiculed pastimes in the world:D

Tryska

02-07-2003, 03:27 PM

well yeah, but that's jsut it, howser..it's a past-time. i don't think having girls as a past-time i necessarily healthy though. I mean i could understand that site if most of the posts weren't quite so negative.

howsertrading

02-07-2003, 03:40 PM

I mean i could understand that site if most of the posts weren't quite so negative.

I agree with you,but I doubt there is much they can do about the tone of the post's.The guys who are just looking for a little confidance boost are not likely to be signing up,so like most messageboards out there,you have a handfull of helpfull people,who want to see you do better for yourself,and a huge number of wannabes,posting their bench press maximum's so to speak:D

Tryska

02-07-2003, 03:45 PM

*lol* true.

DIESEL v2.0

02-07-2003, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by Tryska

*lol* i just noticed that thread has been removed over there. according to your post, you wanted people to think your were a jackass. That's what the last paragraph said. so basically you were quite successful. (imo dickwad = jackass). You should be proud that you illicited that reaction from me...not pretending to be hurt because i threw some "infantile" words at you.

secondly....you are backpedaling....acknowledging that women are not all sweetness and light isn't even close to a paraphrase of your original comments. I believe the words you used were "women are WEAK/WORTHLESS". If you have any balls at all at least stand by the bs you spew when taken out fo your home forum. no use strappign the balls on to impress the boys if you can't go ahead and stand by it when your talking to people outside of your element. if your gonna be real, then be real. I ahve nothign but respect for that. but don't sit there trying to sugarcoat it when confronted. that's weak.

95% of the women I meet are generally worthless for my purposes and don't really exhibit what I'm looking for in a long-term mate. If I'm not meeting what I consider to be "quality" women, that doesn't mean that I am going to live like a monk. If I am physically attracted to them, and they reciprocate, I will fukk them, even though I know they are not "relationship" material. I am very upfront about that. The reason I impose such criteria is because most relationships usually aren't worth the hassle, and I also believe that most men do settle..... a lot of times it's people who shouldn't even be together, who stay together out of some fear of loneliness. I don't really suffer from that weakness. That's what I meant by that statement, perhaps I should have fleshed it out... I'm not backpedaling, all I was implying is that I used an incredibly crude delivery to elicit a reaction.

Don't ever question my balls. Don't ever question my "realness"... You can't get more "real" than what I posted. Like you keep yammering on about, you don't fukkin' know me. And most men, wouldn't have the balls to even post something like that, even though many would agree with it.

I wasn't backpedaling.. you're inferring something that wasn't there. Women aren't all sweetness and light, and if you'll note I don't condemn all women.. there are actually some out there are worth the effort. That is made quite clear in the post.

We have a fundamentally different way of viewing the world and people. Your thus far feeble arguments against me (which have basically only amounted to insults) are definitely not going to change my views.

Like I also say in my post tryska, I don't really give a flyin' fukk about your opinion, it makes absolutely no difference in my life. You are just words on a computer screen.... I never expected you to agree with it. So bitch about it all you want, it makes no difference to me.. I'll have no regrets when I'm old.

Finally, Why the fukk would I be afraid to post outside my home forum? What the hell does that even mean?? What are we like battling gangs now?? What, is Paul going to come kick my ass now??

marburg

02-07-2003, 05:36 PM

Originally posted by Tryska
It seems the very nature of a site designed to help men get women to like them. But what you allege you preach - "women are jsut human beings- don't revolve your world around them" seems contrary if not anathema to the fact the site exists and guys are spending a good bit of there time trying to become don juans.

Trysta,

I've underlined the part of your post where you are wrong, IMO.

Certainly there are guys who come to the site looking for ways to get women (usually a certain girl) to like them.

What we teach, or atleast the valuable part of what you can learn at SS, is not how to make a girl like you, but how to become a man that girls will naturally like.

You may not see the difference, but I think it is crystal clear.

Nights

02-07-2003, 05:48 PM

"Don't ever question my balls. Don't ever question my "realness"... You can't get more "real" than what I posted. Like you keep yammering on about, you don't fukkin' know me. And most men, wouldn't have the balls to even post something like that, even though many would agree with it."

You gotta be ****ting me. You sound like every highschool little punk I ever knew, bragging about how much tail he can get, and you expect respect for that? For talking about how the only thing women are good for (sorry.. 95% of women) is ****ing? You expect respect for having the balls to post that ****? Wow, aren't you the big man.. talking all tough on the internet. That definitely gives you "ball" crediential in my book.

DIESEL v2.0

02-07-2003, 06:25 PM

Originally posted by Nights
"Don't ever question my balls. Don't ever question my "realness"... You can't get more "real" than what I posted. Like you keep yammering on about, you don't fukkin' know me. And most men, wouldn't have the balls to even post something like that, even though many would agree with it."

You gotta be ****ting me. You sound like every highschool little punk I ever knew, bragging about how much tail he can get, and you expect respect for that? For talking about how the only thing women are good for (sorry.. 95% of women) is ****ing? You expect respect for having the balls to post that ****? Wow, aren't you the big man.. talking all tough on the internet. That definitely gives you "ball" crediential in my book.

I'd tell you the same thing to your face. What's the difference. And your point about this whole irrelevant post is?? Yawn.

marburg

02-07-2003, 07:01 PM

diesel I like your tagline.

can I steal it? ;)

DIESEL v2.0

02-07-2003, 07:13 PM

sorry bro... gotta shine on your own line. LOL ...

.

marburg

02-07-2003, 07:41 PM

maybe I could change it to

1/4 man, 3/4 amazing...

or

13.5/27ths man, 13.5/27ths amazing...

*sigh*

just doesn't have the right ring to it...

Nights

02-07-2003, 10:43 PM

You'd say the same thing to my face? Not once did I say that you wouldn't. If you think that was the point of it, then you missed it completely. I'm saying that you shouldn't be bragging how big a balls ya got because you're a ******. Every high school kid that thinks he's the coolest thing since sliced bread walks around mumbling the same thing and thinking it's all original and that he's the greatest. That's all.

Oh. And Yawn. Wow.

Songsangnim

02-08-2003, 05:52 AM

Originally posted by Paul Stagg
.

RULE 25: Realize that women are tricky, lying, manipulative, devious, scheming, sneaky, cunning, calculating, shrewd, and Machiavellian creatures. Love them anyway.

Mr. Marburg, if you do not agree that a website which demeans 50% of the general population is rather offensive, short-sighted, and downright inaccurate, then you have some serious issues.

Leaving that aside for the moment, anybody who needs rules to interact with the opposite sex, is at best a sad person, and at worst completely pathetic. Most people learn the basic social skills needed before they are out of high school.

And all this BS about this website giving men confidence in dealing with women is just that...BS. Rules don't give you confidence. Confidence is something you have or don't have. If you need rules to learn how to relate to the opposite sex, then stay home and do some growing up. They are human beings like you and me. It's not rocket science.

I highly doubt that the majority of people who frequent this website are successful at all. They are too busy surfing for the latest tip in how to "con" women into loving them. If you need a website for that, well it is not very likely they will succeed in establishing a long-term relationship outside in the real world.

That is all.

marburg

02-08-2003, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by ExtremeAnabolic
Confidence is something you have or don't have.

Wow, and people jumped on me when they interpreted my remarks as being deterministic.

Songsangnim

02-08-2003, 11:25 PM

Originally posted by marburg

Wow, and people jumped on me when they interpreted my remarks as being deterministic.

There is a difference between making deterministic statements and stating facts. You either have confidence or you don't. There is no middle ground.

Gyno Rhino

02-09-2003, 09:40 AM

Marburg, you're an interesting character. I don't agree with too much of what you're saying, but I respect and enjoy reading your posts. Looking forward to further discussion.

Tryska, you're just plain right most of the time and you know I love you to death.

Diesel, you're incredibly foolish and come across as inexperienced and immature to a degree that isn't quantifiable with an age equivalency comparison.

Rock, you and I have no place in this argument. You and I have a sense of honor and prestige far above the levels of arguing women-folk over the internet. We are the chosen ones. Do not forget that our place in Valhalla is our destiny, and destiny is what we make of it. You must come visit me, Tryska, and Power. We will all go out and raid a small village (probably in Kentucky, they are the REAL hicks). You know I agree with you on this subject about SS being incredibly sad and regardless of the goals of the site, it usually serves to simply promote everything negative about the male sex. And BTW, the majority of you have been in my dreams as of late. It's quite strange.

The bottom line of this subject is that you should always follow your heart (if you have one that works and doesn't suffer from a couple myocardial infarctions, those will always make you extra horny). Following the Golden Rule may sound childish, but it's actually quite sage. AND, you should always listen to me. I am the smartest person to ever walk the earth.

Also, the "spoon" comment made earlier was highly inappropriate. And highly funny, too.

Rock

02-09-2003, 10:16 AM

Brother/Brodir, you have spoken wise words, damn that really hit me straight home, I shal embrace your widsom with my myrocardial ifarctional free hart, we are men of free harts, and smelly farts, and in this I take great pride.

Odin, din ære er stor, hør meg.

Did I have any cool part in your dream, like a cool sword or was I a drunken vinking!

Gyno Rhino

02-09-2003, 02:33 PM

I can't remember much of it all, but I DO clearly remember you standing there with your arms folded telling me something about Wendy's hamburgers or something. It was weird.

Gyno Rhino

02-09-2003, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by DIESEL v2.0

That's a nice sentiment, but an incredibly dumb way to approach dating.

For example, what if doing what feels right continually blows up in your face repelling women and not attracting them? You could be a complete freak for all you know, but hey acting that way feels completely right to you, yet totally wrong to 99/9% of all women out there... So you're saying then, that fate decided you were to be an eternal bachelor??

This is kind of an interesting statement. I'd say that yes, you will be an eternal bachelor.

Child rapists try to use an argument like this.

If watching porn 6 hours a day, being in a state of perpetual drunkeness, killing kittens, and hitting women all feel "right" to you, maybe you DON'T need a mate, ye know? Maybe those genes jst don't need to go on. The kid that eats the most marbles doesn't grow up to have kids of his own. *shrug*

Tryska

02-10-2003, 07:56 AM

rock on glen!

I lvoe ya back bro, and i'm glad you are back amongst us. I would be happy to roll up there and lay seige to some unsuspecting losers. hee hee.

was i in your dreams too?

and diesel...whatever dude....you jsut live in your own little world. I can see i got a rise out of you with the comment about your balls. that jsut told me all i need to know. nights already took care of reading and writing you. ;)

PowerManDL

02-10-2003, 08:02 AM

Tina, what's this I hear about you starting a fight at Lenox Mall this weekend?

Tryska

02-10-2003, 08:08 AM

*lol* tweren't me. I was in B'haven/Midtown...i left the city to the normal folks who don't knwo how to act right.

Y2A

02-10-2003, 08:24 AM

Originally posted by ExtremeAnabolic

There is a difference between making deterministic statements and stating facts. You either have confidence or you don't. There is no middle ground.

The rules wont give you confidence directly, but if you follow them and get results, that is where the confidence comes in. Just like working out, back in my fat days when I was learning about this stuff, I knew the rules of diet and training, but wasn't confident until I applied them and got results. Im not saying that these particular rules get you good dating results, but if they do, then indirectly, they give you confidence.

Songsangnim

02-10-2003, 09:13 PM

Originally posted by Y2A

The rules wont give you confidence directly, but if you follow them and get results, that is where the confidence comes in. Just like working out, back in my fat days when I was learning about this stuff, I knew the rules of diet and training, but wasn't confident until I applied them and got results. Im not saying that these particular rules get you good dating results, but if they do, then indirectly, they give you confidence.

Granted. However if you don't have confidence, how are you going to be able to approach the women to apply these rules in the first place? For people who apply these rules, they probably have a lot of confidence to begin with.

Y2A

02-11-2003, 07:11 AM

Originally posted by ExtremeAnabolic

Granted. However if you don't have confidence, how are you going to be able to approach the women to apply these rules in the first place? For people who apply these rules, they probably have a lot of confidence to begin with.

This is a much better point :)

Bigmofo

02-11-2003, 10:01 PM

Originally posted by marburg

Nobody came here to tell you guys that you are losers and you don't know how to pick up girls.

YOUR moderator came to OUR site, and then came back here to post insults and flames on the safety of a board where he has moderator priviledges.

*wonders why he didn't post on the SS site?*

I'm in enemy territory and I realize that. If you didn't want us here, you should have kept your mouths shut and stayed in your own forum. (Can we say double-standard?)

LMAO at this loser...I'm in enemy territory..that shows the maturity of this So-suave guy :cry: marburg and diesel you folks have some serious self-esteem issues...and please dont get "though" behind the keyboard, you learned that at so suave to??

Twan

06-28-2007, 01:14 AM

RULE 23: Getting advice about women from a woman is like asking Osama bin Laden to tell you the locations of all his terrorist camps.

** he's the only person who knows where they all are.

Rebuttal of the year!

Bohizzle

06-28-2007, 03:48 AM

**Idiot!

Late post of the year!

WillKuenzel

06-28-2007, 07:57 AM

Rock

06-28-2007, 08:40 AM

This thread is 4years old. Back when members knew eachother and you could say a members nick.

Questor

06-28-2007, 10:42 AM

Who spends their time reading four year old threads?

Hatred

06-28-2007, 11:03 AM

This thread is 4years old. Back when members knew eachother and you could say a members nick.

Your Brilliance never ceases to amaze me, Stein.

SpecialK

06-28-2007, 11:43 AM

Who spends their time reading four year old threads?

People who joined after the thread was made?

I don't see what people have against bumping old threads. Are you saying that after a certain amount of time has passed, no one could possibly have anything to contribute to an old topic?

Not only that, but a lot of times if you post a new thread on a topic that has been posted before, people will tell you to do a search.

They get mad if you bump old threads, and they also get mad if you post a new thread instead of using the old one.

I love Catch-22's.

anelka

06-28-2007, 01:34 PM

** Remarkably, once you get out of middle school, mature women will communicate what they are thinking and feeling.

You really think that?

** Currency? Giving attention sparingly will get you what you deserve: Dumped for someone who values the woman.

Real world observations suggest the opposite.

anelka

06-28-2007, 01:47 PM

****, I've been tricked into replying to a four-year old thread!

Rock

06-28-2007, 01:58 PM

Thanks Hatred :) you sometimes have a great sense of irony, but clearly my brilliance is a fact.

Neil

06-28-2007, 02:17 PM

****, I've been tricked into replying to a four-year old thread!

Don't sweat it, I've done the same thing.

Songsangnim

06-28-2007, 07:07 PM

People who joined after the thread was made?

I don't see what people have against bumping old threads. Are you saying that after a certain amount of time has passed, no one could possibly have anything to contribute to an old topic?

.

It depends on the context. In this particular case it was WWB members against Sosuave members. Since the opposing side has now left (4 years ago) there is not much left to say. The thread was finished.

SpecialK

06-28-2007, 07:25 PM

It depends on the context. In this particular case it was WWB members against Sosuave members. Since the opposing side has now left (4 years ago) there is not much left to say. The thread was finished.

Or maybe some people on here, particularly the newer members, might want to challenge or add something to one of the views already presented from WBB?

Hmmmm....

Also I didn't read the entire thread, but was everyone from WBB completely in agreement with each other?

sCaRz*Of*PaiN

06-28-2007, 08:43 PM

There is a difference between making deterministic statements and stating facts. You either have confidence or you don't. There is no middle ground.That's the most incorrect statement I think I've ever read. Confidence can be perfected...it can be honed...through practice. Things can be overcome. The mind can be slowly changed. I used to be so incredibly shy that I could barely talk to anyone. Now I just don't care and can talk to anyone. There's a quote that applies here: "Change your thoughts and you change your world." The mind is a powerful thing. Mind over body. Doing something that your body would otherwise not allow you to do...fear...adrenaline...etc...

And courage is certainly not the absence of fear. Many courageous people do things because that thing is more important than their fear. It's what makes people do extraordinary things. Don't underestimate the human mind's ability to adapt.

And yes, I'm aware that this post is friggin' 4 years old. :clap: But since the thread was resurrected from the dead...I figured what the heck?

Songsangnim

06-28-2007, 09:07 PM

That's the most incorrect statement I think I've ever read. Confidence can be perfected...it can be honed...through practice. Things can be overcome. The mind can be slowly changed. I used to be so incredibly shy that I could barely talk to anyone. Now I just don't care and can talk to anyone. ?

Of course confidence can be built. I never said that these were permanant fixed conditions. Now let's look at the statement. Do you agree that there are people in the world with confidence? Do you agree that there are also people in the world who lack confidence?

If you do then that statement is correct. Now you can improve on confidence...but that takes time. But that was not what I was talking about. My statement was in the context of here and now. Not about some time in the future when the person lacking confidence might possibly gain it.

And I really don't like arguing about things I said 4 years ago...for one I might not hold those same views. For two as far as I am concerned this thread was over and done with. For three given the time lag it can be easily taken out of context...which is what happened. Rules don't give you confidence...which is WHY I mentioned in the same post something about "growing up" (thus gaining confidence, maturity...)