Options

The Man Bible

1101112131416»

Posts

  • Options
    KrunkMcGrunkKrunkMcGrunk Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Yeah, pronounced El Taw-poe

    KrunkMcGrunk on
    mrsatansig.png
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2008
    Sakebomb wrote: »
    Just curious here, but what is wrong with:

    I want to have sex with someone I am attracted to tonight, so I am going to go to a place where attractive single people hang out, and I am going to act in a manner that is more likely to end the evening with me having sex with said attractive person

    Mostly that it's vague enough that you could be talking about anything from flirting and complimenting her fine hat to putting things in her drink, making it a poor response to a statement that has pretty clear conditions of context, motive and method explicitly listed within.

    Yeah I didn't add the disclaimers or weasel words because they would have quadrupled the size of the sentence, but just assume "No Illegal shit" because I'm not saying "Hey D n' D, what's wrong with roofies?"

    Conning people isn't illegal unless you do so in the process of committing a crime, sex isn't a crime. And no, you're deliberately making your statements as vague as possible in hopes that you will either trap someone in a retarded claim or at the least distract from the claim you're intentionally failing to respond to.

    lol what?

    edit: Don't even bother, I would have you on ignore if it weren't for this forum's dumbass "You can't ignore a mod's responses ever" policy

    This is the only forum Ive found were the mods can be worse than the trolls

    Yeah, don't bother to engage people's arguments, if you did that you might demonstrate that you're not actually just trolling.

    olol more projecting!

    So what purpose exactly does this post of yours here serve except to encourage a flame-type response? It doesn't seem to contain any argument, any claims, or anything at all apart from that.

    Well man, I'm just following your lead for the most part. I mean, shit. If you're going to steal, steal from the best. And you've done this song and dance in pretty much every thread I've ever seen you post in.

    I've never seen you not go off on some wild tangent about some nitpicky bullshit that has nothing to do with the argument at hand. Then when people get pissed off at you for engorging yourself upon semantics, pointing out what you think are logical fallacies (of course, while committing them yourself) or just being wildly rude or obnoxious, you act like you don't understand where this is all coming from.

    So, hey man. I mean, I don't get where you're coming from?
    Hey, did I do it right?

    What do you mean nothing to do with the argument at hand? The argument at hand is whether certain practices promoted by "PUA" culture are fucked up as hell. You all agree that some are, and spend the rest of your time trying to claim that people who oppose the notion that manipulating and deceiving people into sex is okay are instead claiming that learning is wrong and other ridiculous shit by expressly removing any and all conditions of context, motive or method from the claim. He asked what's wrong with that statement, I answered, and here we are still waiting for any of you clowns to respond.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    MikeMcSomethingMikeMcSomething Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    geckahn wrote: »
    Very true, I would say PUA is aimed at helping people meet members of the opposite sex by breaking down stuff like "Just don't say stupid shit" and "Have some self-esteem" into easily-digested bites.

    It turns what people with good game do naturally into steps that can be copied.

    Thats pretty much it. They usually fuck it all up and just end up being creepy fuckers that you can spot from miles away, but some of it is legit.

    Yeah this is a very accurate assessment.

    MikeMcSomething on
  • Options
    ZonkytonkmanZonkytonkman Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    What do you mean nothing to do with the argument at hand? The argument at hand is whether certain practices promoted by "PUA" culture are fucked up as hell. You all agree that some are, and spend the rest of your time trying to claim that people who oppose the notion that manipulating and deceiving people into sex is okay are instead claiming that learning is wrong and other ridiculous shit by expressly removing any and all conditions of context, motive or method from the claim. He asked what's wrong with that statement, I answered, and here we are still waiting for any of you clowns to respond.

    Well that's enough for me.

    Zonkytonkman on
  • Options
    ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    people who oppose the notion that manipulating and deceiving people into sex

    ..people whose definition of "manipulating and deceiving" extends as far as shaving in the morning and wearing a nice watch..

    Æthelred on
    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2008
    ege02 wrote: »
    Please read the thread. It took ten, hell almost fifteen, pages for her to finally give in and admit that PU culture has some positive aspects to it. Before I came in here it was a circle-jerk between Incen, VC, Medo, and a few others regarding how stupid the whole thing is.

    Actually, having just read this ridiculous thread start to finish, she did say that from the start. There's no admitting going on. Medo has also gone out of her way to make allowances for yours and Aethel's and whoever that other dude was's views, and has conducted herself as diplomatically as possible, but all three of you have been so defensive, childish, and hysterical in your defence of your love for treating life like a video game that she may as well have been singing Madame Butterfly in backwards Swahili. Your responses display a deep lack of security in your current modes of interaction.

    No-one thinks you're Teh Devil for using this stuff. A lot of people do think you're the boy equivalent of someone who thinks Cosmo is the key to female happiness, though, and a lot of people are attempting to point out that putting yourself in the mindset where the use of 'tricks' and little 'secret' things to do is essential to your interactions with the opposite sex means you're setting yourself up for trouble in the long term. That's all.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2008
    people who oppose the notion that manipulating and deceiving people into sex

    ..people whose definition of "manipulating and deceiving" extends as far as shaving in the morning and wearing a nice watch..

    Oh so you can quote the post where someone other than you stated any such definition?

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    MikeMcSomethingMikeMcSomething Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    The "Top 5 mistakes" part of the man bible is pretty good stuff IMO. Obvious stuff, but good stuff.

    MikeMcSomething on
  • Options
    GreeperGreeper Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    I guess in the clusterfuck that is life, it provides something like order.

    Hey that is an awful lot like religion.

    Greeper on
  • Options
    MikeMcSomethingMikeMcSomething Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Your sig is ideal for this thread Greeper



    Juke, Box, Hero
    Got staaaaaaaaaaars in his eeeeeeeeeeyes

    MikeMcSomething on
  • Options
    ZonkytonkmanZonkytonkman Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    The Cat wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    Please read the thread. It took ten, hell almost fifteen, pages for her to finally give in and admit that PU culture has some positive aspects to it. Before I came in here it was a circle-jerk between Incen, VC, Medo, and a few others regarding how stupid the whole thing is.

    Actually, having just read this ridiculous thread start to finish, she did say that from the start. There's no admitting going on. Medo has also gone out of her way to make allowances for yours and Aethel's and whoever that other dude was's views, and has conducted herself as diplomatically as possible, but all three of you have been so defensive, childish, and hysterical in your defence of your love for treating life like a video game that she may as well have been singing Madame Butterfly in backwards Swahili. Your responses display a deep lack of security in your current modes of interaction.

    I really don't know how the thread went prior to my joining it, but there is no way that this could be referring to the part of the thread that I'm familiar with, so I'll assume that it isn't.

    Zonkytonkman on
  • Options
    GreeperGreeper Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Your sig is ideal for this thread Greeper



    Juke, Box, Hero
    Got staaaaaaaaaaars in his eeeeeeeeeeyes

    Hey, look at that, it is.

    Semi on topic. I guess what I learned from my own brief sojourn into PU culture is that you should have confidence in yourself and women will reject you so get over it now.

    So I guess I gained from it, but the whole thing was a little creepy.

    Greeper on
  • Options
    ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    The Cat wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    Please read the thread. It took ten, hell almost fifteen, pages for her to finally give in and admit that PU culture has some positive aspects to it. Before I came in here it was a circle-jerk between Incen, VC, Medo, and a few others regarding how stupid the whole thing is.

    Actually, having just read this ridiculous thread start to finish, she did say that from the start. There's no admitting going on. Medo has also gone out of her way to make allowances for yours and Aethel's and whoever that other dude was's views, and has conducted herself as diplomatically as possible, but all three of you have been so defensive, childish, and hysterical in your defence of your love for treating life like a video game that she may as well have been singing Madame Butterfly in backwards Swahili. Your responses display a deep lack of security in your current modes of interaction.

    Minor point of order: I don't interact in the way I've been defending. At all. ege and I have pretty much nothing in common.

    Æthelred on
    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • Options
    MikeMcSomethingMikeMcSomething Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Lies! You can never put forth an argument for a subject matter without exemplifying all of its negative aspects!

    MikeMcSomething on
  • Options
    KrunkMcGrunkKrunkMcGrunk Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Sakebomb wrote: »
    Just curious here, but what is wrong with:

    I want to have sex with someone I am attracted to tonight, so I am going to go to a place where attractive single people hang out, and I am going to act in a manner that is more likely to end the evening with me having sex with said attractive person

    Mostly that it's vague enough that you could be talking about anything from flirting and complimenting her fine hat to putting things in her drink, making it a poor response to a statement that has pretty clear conditions of context, motive and method explicitly listed within.

    Yeah I didn't add the disclaimers or weasel words because they would have quadrupled the size of the sentence, but just assume "No Illegal shit" because I'm not saying "Hey D n' D, what's wrong with roofies?"

    Conning people isn't illegal unless you do so in the process of committing a crime, sex isn't a crime. And no, you're deliberately making your statements as vague as possible in hopes that you will either trap someone in a retarded claim or at the least distract from the claim you're intentionally failing to respond to.

    lol what?

    edit: Don't even bother, I would have you on ignore if it weren't for this forum's dumbass "You can't ignore a mod's responses ever" policy

    This is the only forum Ive found were the mods can be worse than the trolls

    Yeah, don't bother to engage people's arguments, if you did that you might demonstrate that you're not actually just trolling.

    olol more projecting!

    So what purpose exactly does this post of yours here serve except to encourage a flame-type response? It doesn't seem to contain any argument, any claims, or anything at all apart from that.

    Well man, I'm just following your lead for the most part. I mean, shit. If you're going to steal, steal from the best. And you've done this song and dance in pretty much every thread I've ever seen you post in.

    I've never seen you not go off on some wild tangent about some nitpicky bullshit that has nothing to do with the argument at hand. Then when people get pissed off at you for engorging yourself upon semantics, pointing out what you think are logical fallacies (of course, while committing them yourself) or just being wildly rude or obnoxious, you act like you don't understand where this is all coming from.

    So, hey man. I mean, I don't get where you're coming from?
    Hey, did I do it right?

    What do you mean nothing to do with the argument at hand? The argument at hand is whether certain practices promoted by "PUA" culture are fucked up as hell. You all agree that some are, and spend the rest of your time trying to claim that people who oppose the notion that manipulating and deceiving people into sex is okay are instead claiming that learning is wrong and other ridiculous shit by expressly removing any and all conditions of context, motive or method from the claim. He asked what's wrong with that statement, I answered, and here we are still waiting for any of you clowns to respond.

    D'awww my bad. I forgot to call you Jingles.

    Also, I think your question was in fact answered earlier in this thread. Why the hell would anyone bother putting their input into something that has already been solved?

    Oh wait, I forgot. You assumed we loved hearing the sound of our own voices. Well, I guess that's one attribute of yours that I hadn't mirrored yet.

    KrunkMcGrunk on
    mrsatansig.png
  • Options
    Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Didn't you spend a couple of pages replying with nothing but "sure thing, muffin" or something similar?

    Nope.

    How are you still a mod

    Salvation122 on
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2008
    So I'm supposed to be civil and stick to the subject at hand but everyone else is cool to just troll? Okay, you jackasses win the thread.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2008
    How are you still a mod

    This is a lovely example.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    You just straight out fucking lied when everyone and their mother can go back however many pages and know it, and the scary thing is I'm pretty sure you actually believe what you're saying. It's hysterical in a fucked-up kind of way, and I am one hundred percent certain if you weren't a mod your ass would be sitting in jail for trolling and stupidity.

    Aethel is and has been stretching some things, but that comment I quoted takes the goddamned cake.

    Salvation122 on
  • Options
    KrunkMcGrunkKrunkMcGrunk Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Also, I'm pretty sure that you fired the first shot here, VC. No, actually, I'm positive that you did. In fact, you fired many subsequent shots throughout the entire thread before anyone said anything about three pages ago.

    KrunkMcGrunk on
    mrsatansig.png
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2008
    You just straight out fucking lied

    No, I did not. If you can find the multiple pages I spent on responses consisting of nothing but "sure honey" posts, you can call me a liar, but when you find that there are exactly two posts, directed toward a poster who you just admitted is arguing disingenuously, you'll have to either rescind your accusation or just be a liar yourself.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    MikeMcSomethingMikeMcSomething Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    I was just about to post that he probably means "Nope" like "No, I did not literally make exactly 2 pages of posts consisting of nothing but the words sure thing, muffin so your point is moot"

    I like the assertion that "Aethel has been stretching some things = Aethel has been arguing disingeuously = I can troll Aethel and it's OK"

    MikeMcSomething on
  • Options
    ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    4 times in a row across 2 pages, I make it. He really can't stop either lying or resorting to petty semantics.

    Æthelred on
    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2008
    I was just about to post that he probably means "Nope" like "No, I did not literally make exactly 2 pages of posts consisting of nothing but the words sure thing, muffin so your point is moot"

    I like the assertion that "Aethel has been stretching some things = Aethel has been arguing disingeuously = I can troll Aethel and it's OK"

    Actually those are two separate equations.

    Aethel has been stretching some things = Aethel has been arguing disingeuously

    Aethel can troll me and it's OK = I can troll Aethel and it's OK

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited May 2008
    Didn't you spend a couple of pages replying with nothing but "sure thing, muffin" or something similar?

    Nope.

    How are you still a mod

    He's not a mod of this damn forum. Why do you fuckers keep bringing this shit up, along with whatever he says in H/A? I don't know what he says in H/A, I don't read, H/A, I don't give a fuck about H/A, it's off-topic, so keep that shit the fuck out of this forum.

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • Options
    ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited May 2008
    And yes, locked after a million retarded reports, huge quote trees, and posts worthy of Gaia online.


    20020619h.gif

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Not actually a mod. Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited May 2008
    That comic is as awesome as this thread is not.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited May 2008
    Infinitely?

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
This discussion has been closed.