MachineGunJack
New Member
In 2004, I began reading David DeAngelo's e-mail newsletter. I thought
he had some interesting points but I began to notice a couple of patterns:
1: Repeating old material with but a word change or throwing in old stories
with very brief new items.
2: Responding to any criticism by ad hominem attacks. A woman once said
that his vaunted ****y & Funny techniques were wearing thin
on her by various men she met in social settings. Rather than address
the matter on its merit, he went into a tirade saying her boyfriend
was probably some crack addict or crack dealer wussy boy. He did
not use good business sense by asking what the exact context was
and then address the issue by saying that his work has been at times
used incorrectly.
While I enjoy his articles, I also know they are contain some sense
of dramatic license; exaggerations of things that may have happened
in order to weave a better story.
Also, I disagree with his assertion that his techniques can overcome
one's ingrained preferences. Let's put that claim to the test by first
putting the shoe on the other foot.
A man who looks like Matt Damon or a younger Mark Harmon; young,
handsome and athletic is approached by a woman who looks like
Madeline Albright or Janet Reno. She is ****y and funny up the
wazoo. However, our gentleman is attracted to athletic Polynesian
females. No amount of C&F is going to break through his prejudices.
Using David D's logic, a man who looks like Danny DeVito or the late
Chris Farley should be able to attract a woman who looks like
Lindsay Lohan or Jessica Simpson just by using his C&F and other
techniques even if the woman in question is attracted to men who
are over 6 feet with blonde or light brown hair (think Peyton Manning
here).
I once asked out a gal and used a tad of ****y and Funny and guess what?
She likes guys who are 6 feet tall with blonde hair and blue eyes. When
you're me, a ruddy/swarthy SOB with dark hair and dark eyes, using
any number of techniques is going to be a cumbersome effort in
overcoming prejudices and preferences that have manifested themselves
into one's psyche over years.
My point is is that while I think techniques like C&F are good as general
pointers to pull out of the bag at appropriate moments, it really is
a case by case basis. Different people have different wants or needs;
different people will respond differently to any technique, just like
different people watching the same movie will walk out with a different
opinion or experience of the movie. I once used ****y and funny in
a brash, ball busting way and the woman I did it to took affront, thinking
I was an immature smart ass/jackass. Another person may have
laughed with me and ate it up. As I said, just depends on the
situation.
he had some interesting points but I began to notice a couple of patterns:
1: Repeating old material with but a word change or throwing in old stories
with very brief new items.
2: Responding to any criticism by ad hominem attacks. A woman once said
that his vaunted ****y & Funny techniques were wearing thin
on her by various men she met in social settings. Rather than address
the matter on its merit, he went into a tirade saying her boyfriend
was probably some crack addict or crack dealer wussy boy. He did
not use good business sense by asking what the exact context was
and then address the issue by saying that his work has been at times
used incorrectly.
While I enjoy his articles, I also know they are contain some sense
of dramatic license; exaggerations of things that may have happened
in order to weave a better story.
Also, I disagree with his assertion that his techniques can overcome
one's ingrained preferences. Let's put that claim to the test by first
putting the shoe on the other foot.
A man who looks like Matt Damon or a younger Mark Harmon; young,
handsome and athletic is approached by a woman who looks like
Madeline Albright or Janet Reno. She is ****y and funny up the
wazoo. However, our gentleman is attracted to athletic Polynesian
females. No amount of C&F is going to break through his prejudices.
Using David D's logic, a man who looks like Danny DeVito or the late
Chris Farley should be able to attract a woman who looks like
Lindsay Lohan or Jessica Simpson just by using his C&F and other
techniques even if the woman in question is attracted to men who
are over 6 feet with blonde or light brown hair (think Peyton Manning
here).
I once asked out a gal and used a tad of ****y and Funny and guess what?
She likes guys who are 6 feet tall with blonde hair and blue eyes. When
you're me, a ruddy/swarthy SOB with dark hair and dark eyes, using
any number of techniques is going to be a cumbersome effort in
overcoming prejudices and preferences that have manifested themselves
into one's psyche over years.
My point is is that while I think techniques like C&F are good as general
pointers to pull out of the bag at appropriate moments, it really is
a case by case basis. Different people have different wants or needs;
different people will respond differently to any technique, just like
different people watching the same movie will walk out with a different
opinion or experience of the movie. I once used ****y and funny in
a brash, ball busting way and the woman I did it to took affront, thinking
I was an immature smart ass/jackass. Another person may have
laughed with me and ate it up. As I said, just depends on the
situation.
