You guys on here are fvcking pathetic

[Prodigious1]

I've found the biggest problem with asking advice is that the majority of people eventually start to rely on it too much, and they become afraid to make a move without consulting their main source for advice. You always learn better by doing, make the mistakes, then come back and ask what you did wrong, it'll stick in your head a lot better the next time that situation comes along.

 

[PlentyOfLove]

I agree with the addicted to pvssy -bit, but the reason the same thread gets made over and over again is because most people here have been through the exact same situation. They can't get a girl they want, and they think their situation and girl are different from everyone else so they figure it's best to make a new thread in order to explain all the details, most of which ultimately make no difference. Search function is useless, because "nobody has been through this exact situation before me".

It's not your secret clubhouse, it's a place where people come when they become interested in the subject matter, which is because of the same exact thing disguised in different pants for pretty much everyone. Some people are also younger than you (inconceivable, am I right?), and didn't really have the chance to come here "back when it was still good". The fact that they are coming here now indicates a definite need for all the advice given on or hidden inside this forum; if you don't want to give it or see people ask for it, you can not read the threads. No need to get so a$$pained over it.

Simple as heck, right?

 

[Naughty Ninja]

We're all fvcking pathetic? I for one have never met the slvt!

 

[Mistic]

Really? Well the green rep dots in my user cp, the comments in this thread and the pm's in my inbox all say you're wrong. Why dont you hack my account and see for yourself.

 

[nismo-4]

I have a sticky thread with 40 common ass problems solved, as well as a sequel with 29 more.

I knew they'd still pop up.

Anyways, women are much better at banding together to raise the price of pu$$y than men are at banding together to lower its price.

This PUA sh*t gave men a free pass to bother women out of their league.

From what I've been seeing lately, the easiest way to better your chances is to become the man that women ACTUALLY WANT! i.e. A muscular millionaire with a Mercedes.

Women have control of the dating, love, and sex markets, and with the game getting tougher by the day, men need to be doing something to gain an advantage.

It's sad that dik doesn't have the same value as pu$$y.

 

[juicywa]

I've yet to see what Mistic has posted but I agree with what he says(about the newb posts). I'm new here at the forum (but not at "game") so I have a fresh outlook of what this section of the forum is all about. If you go to my posts, I've been replying to threads calling people "gay" "pvssy" "fags" because it is what it is.

However, I can't tell if some of these guys are new or not. Post count dont mean ****.

But then like Mistic says, everyone in the thread all come together and give each other the circle jerk treatment where everyone agrees and strokes each others egos. This I can attribute to people having a sense of community. So fvck it, I just stick mostly to Fitness/health section.


MAKE A NEWBIE SECTION ALREADY.

 

[PDubb75]

What makes me laugh about this whole thing is the sh!t about "things changing around here".

I don't know about the rest of you, but I go back and read old posts. I mean really old posts. I can't even tell you how many times I will open posts from 2004 and everyone is complaining how "things have changes around here" and "it's always the same crap in these posts lately". I think a lot of people have a skewed view of "the good ol' days" on the forum. Yeah, maybe there were some members who shared the gems that are now in the DJ Bible, but the rest was just as much garbage as it is now.

In my view, the problem isn't too many people asking the same question. The problem is too many people giving terrible advice and responses. How can we blame people for never learning this stuff when we are feeding them generic copy&paste responses? Even when decent advice is given, the reasoning behind it is rarely explained. In these cases the newbies might be hearing the right thing, but don't understand how to get there on their own, so they come back with a second, third, and fourth frequently asked question.

 

[AAAgent]

The gem's that your talking about that have been forever memorialized in the DJ Bible used to actually be around back then. I think when i first joined 1 or 2 of them still posted. Not pook though, he was before my time.

 

[PDubb75]

The gem's that your talking about that have been forever memorialized in the DJ Bible used to actually be around back then. I think when i first joined 1 or 2 of them still posted. Not pook though, he was before my time.

Right, that's what I'm saying. They were around back then, but aside from them, everything was exactly how it is now. Repeated questions, people complaining about repeated questions, people complaining that "things have changed around here". It makes me laugh every time I read it. By posting "things have changed around here" you are proving that nothing has changed around here.

The frequency of bible-worth threads may have dropped off, but I contribute that to the fact that there is only so much you can do in this game. All the info you need is in the Bible, aside from case-by-case scenarios. So people are reading the old advice threads and posting their specific examples of what they need help with. There isn't that much new advice to give. That's the nature of any practice that has been around a while. Game hasn't changed THAT much over 12 years, or however long this site has been up.

 

[PlentyOfLove]

I think a lot of people have a skewed view of "the good ol' days" on the forum. Yeah, maybe there were some members who shared the gems that are now in the DJ Bible, but the rest was just as much garbage as it is now.

That's the case with everything in the world. Working in sports journalism as a hobby, I can't tell you how many times people go "NHL was SOOOO much better back in <any random decade from the past>", or "Maradona was the real football player! Nowadays it's just yadda yadda bleh bleh". Heck, who hasn't heard this gem before: "Kids these days! When I was young...", or "Music used to be good! Now it's just auto-tune and Justin Bieber!" (as an avid music lover, this one especially irks the hell out of me).

It's all just bollocks. Music wasn't better back then; it's better now, because there's far more variety, better recording equipment, and it's generally just easier for people to express themselves, which leads to aforementioned varity, but also to the discovery of diamonds in the ruff. Sports weren't better back then, generally speaking. Sure, hockey had more fights and whatnot, but it was also slower and less skillful, not to even mention the strategy.

Goes for everything. World wasn't better back then; the world is better now. People aren't afraid to be themselves, and gay people don't have to be ashamed of their desires any longer. Racism is disappearing, as are religions, depression (though it's still a problem, make no mistake) etc. Violence, domestic or otherwise, hasn't increased; it's decreased, but it's easier to report it nowadays.

Men weren't better back whatever decade it is you want to bring up. Manlier than the average chump now, sure, but not because they lived the lives they wanted to live, but because they didn't have options. Not looking to work at the family farm? Too bad, nobody cares, go milk the cows. Not looking to settle down with that girl from across the street? Too bad, you will. Not liking violence? Too bad, here's WW2, go ruin your life and kill some Nazis.

And so on. People remember things they want to remember, and not what actually happened. Hell, I think kids this generation look idiotic with their striped caps and skate shoes, but looking back at pictures from when I was 15, I looked just as stupid. As did people in the 90's, 80's, 70's, 60's, 50's...

Especially people in the 60's. Boy.. I don't know where to begin.

 

[bigneil]

Music wasn't better back then; it's better now, because there's far more variety, better recording equipment, and it's generally just easier for people to express themselves.

Bullsh*t alert. Is this coming from a 21 year old by chance? Because we had this era called the 1960's and you actually KNOW the songs that were #1 then because people still PLAY them today. Brittney Spears had some #1 songs too. They were not better than the Beatles. She did not write "Yesterday", translated to 200 languages.

Today, the media reverse-engineers stars. We used to have the best songs percolate up from local bands to local radio stations to regional to national to world wide. Now the people who own the media manufacture stars who are then favorably reviewed in the same magazines they own (see Time Warner) - but they suck.

If there exists a musician who you have heard of but you can't name ONE song or hum ONE melody - they are not legitimate. Good singers are known for good songs, not because the media said they sold lots of records.

 

[PDubb75]

bigneil... not totally disagreeing with you. But you can't put Brittney Spears and the Beatles in as a fair comparison. The Beatles are one of the best bands of all times. Britney is know more for her life issues in the press than she is for her music. Yeah, she had some #1 singles, but so did Johnny Preston in the 60's and most people in the current generation won't know him. Just because someone has some #1 songs doesn't mean you can compare them to the Beatles.

The music example could be exactly the same as this forum. Maybe the best to come here were back then, but the average stuff from the 60's was no better than what you get now. There wasn't as much variety, so by default you listened to the best artists out much more often. If you had as much variety back then, it's possible the classics wouldn't be quite as big now. Not trying to take anything away from them, but it's like spinning plates. The more options you have, the less attractive each one is.

And I will agree with PlentyOfLove that music as a whole is better now, even if the best to come out of music were around back then.

 

[PlentyOfLove]

Bullsh*t alert. Is this coming from a 21 year old by chance? Because we had this era called the 1960's and you actually KNOW the songs that were #1 then because people still PLAY them today. Brittney Spears had some #1 songs too. They were not better than the Beatles. She did not write "Yesterday", translated to 200 languages.

Today, the media reverse-engineers stars. We used to have the best songs percolate up from local bands to local radio stations to regional to national to world wide. Now the people who own the media manufacture stars who are then favorably reviewed in the same magazines they own (see Time Warner) - but they suck.

If there exists a musician who you have heard of but you can't name ONE song or hum ONE melody - they are not legitimate. Good singers are known for good songs, not because the media said they sold lots of records.

You seem to confuse pop-music, eg. music made to be popular, with music made for expressing oneself; art. A common mistake, don't worry about it. All music is not meant to be "hummable", but rather to provoke feelings or thoughts. "Hummable" music are generally speaking simple pop tunes, nothing more. Being a star has very little to do with one's musical talent or creativity. And music as a whole has VERY little do with what you see on the MTV. It's part of it, sure, but because of the aforementioned varity the internet provides us with, only a very tiny fraction, whereas in the past, what radio played was what you had to listen to.

As far as popularity of something goes, argumentum ad populum. Music wasn't better in the 60's. People weren't more creative or talented back in the 60's, or do you honestly think evolution has turned us all into talentless hacks in 50 years? Not the way it works. It took evolution about 2,3 mil. years to get us from Homo to Homo Sapiens Sapiens, 50 years is nothing.

The reason you think these things is ignorance, I would wager. Or when's the last time you ventured into the wonderful world of the internet to seek out some new talented artists? Do you even listen to modern music, or are you stuck in the 60's, unable or unwilling to move forward because of some false sense of superiority of the past?

If you'd like we can continue this in more detail in a thread better suited for it. I'm always willing to debate music with anyone who'll answer the call.

 

[bigneil]

Sorry, but Elvis was actually better than Justin Bieber.

It's not just an illusion.

 

[FairShake]

Sorry, but Elvis was actually better than Justin Bieber.

True.

And men were actually more beta despite being more "manly" back in the old days. Old guys tend to be more faithful to their wives, have more respect for women, etc than guys now.

Women are less womanly but far easier to have sex with now. So you win some and you lose some I guess.

 

[Mistic]

Bullsh*t alert. Is this coming from a 21 year old by chance? Because we had this era called the 1960's and you actually KNOW the songs that were #1 then because people still PLAY them today. Brittney Spears had some #1 songs too. They were not better than the Beatles. She did not write "Yesterday", translated to 200 languages.

Today, the media reverse-engineers stars. We used to have the best songs percolate up from local bands to local radio stations to regional to national to world wide. Now the people who own the media manufacture stars who are then favorably reviewed in the same magazines they own (see Time Warner) - but they suck.

If there exists a musician who you have heard of but you can't name ONE song or hum ONE melody - they are not legitimate. Good singers are known for good songs, not because the media said they sold lots of records.

The Beatles werent a "Pop Band!?" Right And THEY wrote all their songs, not a team of studio writers. And that was Ringo playing drums in all those recordings Clearly you havent done your research. The Beatles were "New Kids OTB" of their time. Singing stupid catchy jingles. I wanna hold you hand. What a pvssy song. How bout, "Now i'm im through wit it, pass it to da homie, now you hit it." Thats is some real sh!t Biatch.

 

[TonyBaloney]

Talking of the staying power of the beatles.......If there is anyone that I would recommend to DJ's to follow as an example of unbridled masculinity on his own terms since the early 1960's until the present day- then it will be Mick Jagger.

A gifted man who's rocked, rolled and womanised his way all over the world.

This should be renamed the MJ forums - Mick is real - Don Juan was fictional.....

 

[Burroughs]

: And THEY wrote all their songs, not a team of studio writers. .

the early Beatles were most certainly a pop band...their growth and expansion is what makes them unique artists.

as for the songwriting...lennon/mccartney

http://www.musicbyday.com/lennon-vs-mccartney-who-wrote-each-of-their-27-1-hits/517/

Unless you know something different.

 

[Barracuda]

This should be renamed the MJ forums - Mick is real - Don Juan was fictional.....

Hahaha. I love it.

Imagine some of the titles..

"Mick Jagger Discussion Forum"
"How to become a REAL Mick Jagger"
"What separates the players from the Mick Jaggers..."