"She Made Her Decision Before You Finished Your Sentence"
Three seconds. That's how long it took. Your shoes. Your posture. The way you held your drink. Whether you looked at the floor or looked at her.
She already filed you away. Interesting. Boring. Safe. Bold. Before you even opened your mouth.
Everything you say after that is just her confirming what she already decided.
So stop rehearsing lines. Fix the first three seconds. Stand tall. Look up. Smile like you mean it. Walk like you belong wherever you're standing.
The words come later. The impression comes first.
Architect Richard Gage
- Thread starter Drdeee
- Start date
"She Wants a Man, Not a Boy"
You asked her if she wanted to grab coffee. Then you asked if the time worked. Then you asked if the place was okay. Then you asked if she'd prefer tea.
Four questions. Four chances for her to say no. Four signals that you're terrified of making a decision.
Plan it. Pick the place. Pick the time. Tell her where to meet you. She'll either show up or she won't.
Either way, you look like a man instead of a scared little boy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g
This engineer does some experimenting and concludes that the thermite demolition theory is plausible (key word).
This engineer does some experimenting and concludes that the thermite demolition theory is plausible (key word).
Thermite was never found, so what's the point in experimentation? If you believe thermite (or nano-thermite, whatever) was ever found, I'm warning you I have write-up awaiting you. I'm writing this short post as a courtesy before I give a gentlemanly smackdown. I might hold-off for a few days or week while I polish the writing, but it awaits.Alle_Gory:
This engineer does some experimenting and concludes that the thermite demolition theory is plausible (key word).
You're right. Nothing was found. The remains were hauled away very quickly and destroyed despite protests that there should be a proper investigation.Rogue said:Thermite was never found, so what's the point in experimentation?
There was some "nano-thermite" claims floating around but the chain of custody wasn't as strict as it could have been.
If you can refute this guy's claims then I'd like to hear it.I'm writing this short post as a courtesy before I give a gentlemanly smackdown. I might hold-off for a few days or week while I polish the writing, but it awaits.
"She Liked You in March. It's October Now."
Attraction runs on a clock.
She flirted for weeks. Touched your arm. Found reasons to be alone with you. And you were careful. Respectful. Waiting for the right moment.
The moment had a shelf life. It expired around month two, and by the time you asked her out, she'd quietly filed you under "little brother."
One of the hardest lessons inside the 22 Rules: women rarely wait. Interest either grows or it decays, and nothing decays it faster than a man who never moves.
Make the move while she's still inventing reasons to be near you.
LowPlainsDrifter
Senior Don Juan
My biggest issue with the controlled demolition theory, is this: how were two huge buildings wired to blow without attracting a tremendous amount of attention?
I've watched documentaries about demolition crews. They need a lot of guys, taking a lot of time to do the job right.
Even if the buildings were prepped without attracting attention, why didn't someone doing an office renovation uncover the work? Or a maintenance man chasing down a busted pipe? Or an electrician running Cat5?
I don't know anything about ignition sequences of any sort of blasting material, but isn't it also possible that an aircraft strike could interfere with that, too?
I agree that there are "anomalies" surrounding the attacks and their aftermath, but I'm quite doubtful about the controlled demolition theory.
I've watched documentaries about demolition crews. They need a lot of guys, taking a lot of time to do the job right.
Even if the buildings were prepped without attracting attention, why didn't someone doing an office renovation uncover the work? Or a maintenance man chasing down a busted pipe? Or an electrician running Cat5?
I don't know anything about ignition sequences of any sort of blasting material, but isn't it also possible that an aircraft strike could interfere with that, too?
I agree that there are "anomalies" surrounding the attacks and their aftermath, but I'm quite doubtful about the controlled demolition theory.
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-09-07/#featureAlle_Gory said:If you can refute [Richard Gage's] claims then I'd like to hear it.
Better late than never.
I've read through it and if the evidence truly is as presented it's a very reasonable analysis. It's also concerning how people tested the chemicals found on ground zero. If they really believed foul play it would have been REALLY NICE for them to collect data and evidence in a more thorough manner.Deep Dish said:
Thanks for the read. Just out of curiosity, didn't you post under Rogue after abandoning your account as Deep Dish? Or am I mistaken?
Also I am not completely sold on the claims about Building #7.
"You Can't Argue a Woman Into Liking You"
You made your case like a lawyer. Stable job. Good guy. Ready for something real. All true. All irrelevant.
She weighed your points, nodded along, felt nothing — then fell hard for some tattooed bartender with a motorcycle and a gambling problem.
Logic is where attraction goes to die. The "22 Rules" work a level deeper, on the subconscious switches that decide within minutes whether you register as a MAN or as part of the furniture.
Stop presenting evidence. Start flipping switches.
Yes. I had abandoned this name for several reasons, but changing the name was a big mistake. I'm open about it as I have no interest in sock puppetry.Alle_Gory said:Thanks for the read. Just out of curiosity, didn't you post under Rogue after abandoning your account as Deep Dish? Or am I mistaken?
Quiksilver
Master Don Juan
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2006
- Messages
- 2,813
- Reaction score
- 55
The logistics of the attacks demonstrated a degree of intelligence.DanielMadr said:Why is it hard to believe that bunch of pissed off muslims did it?
The concept of a political group (the Taliban) coming to power in Afghanistan in 2000/2001 and deciding it was a good idea to attract the ire of the most powerful military on the planet demonstrates an inconsistent degree of intelligence.
Inconsistency = cracks. Doubt creeps into the cracks.
In other words, it was retarded for the Taliban to kick a hornets nest in the same year that it was coming to power in their own country.
In 365 day hindsight (9/11/2002), was it prudent for those 'pissed off muslims' to carry out the attack? They got their ass chased around the world and their numbers are dwindling to a 4-digit population after 10 years of sustained attack.
One could have assumed prior to planning the 9/11 attack that the aftermath would not go down well for the planners. One has to assume they were intelligent enough to fathom the aftermath given the sophistication of the attack, and yet ...
--
That, plus a plethora of other oddities that I don't really want to discuss on this date.
Al Qaeda and the Taliban, though perhaps sharing some similarities, are two distinct political groups. A former al Qaeda operative wrote a book which explained their motive in drawing the United States was to drive us into bankruptcy, and I believe they succeeded rather admirably. We fell right into their trap. I guess you must be forgetting about all the plots foiled by the FBI for the decade prior to 9/11—I don't—and this far preceded the Taliban's prominence in power.Quiksilver said:The logistics of the attacks demonstrated a degree of intelligence. The concept of a political group (the Taliban) coming to power in Afghanistan in 2000/2001 and deciding it was a good idea to attract the ire of the most powerful military on the planet demonstrates an inconsistent degree of intelligence.
(And yes, the CIA had done business with al Qaeda in the late 1970's. It's longstanding US foreign policy to engage our enemies in the fight with a shared enemy.)
Considering that we are in a depression in the western world with our economy in shambles and we have troops over there now, so they don't have to do elaborate plots to come here and kill us, I would say the muslims achieved their objectives. Destabilize the wests financial systems. Check. Destroy their personal freedoms to make the people hate their government more. Check. Get American's in easy shooting distance by having them send troops over. Check. Become martyrs and rally people to their cause? Check. Get a foothold in pakistan (a nuclear power), check and mate. It may have been an inside job, or it may have been brilliant planning by american educated O bin Lama.
1. AQ first assasinated Shah Masud anti-Taliban warlord and hero against the soviets. This secured them Talib support post 9/11. They owed them big time instead of only sharing the similar goal.
2. They did not crush our financial system, we did by reckless spending.
3. They did not count with invasion. As Saddam didn't. They underestimated us. They thought after Mogadisho we just fire some rockets. And watching Saddam challenging us, boasting about WMDs, dodging embargoes and inspections, assured them, we are weak.
4. We brought fanatics all over the world to fight us. Not in our streets but in Iraq and Afghanistan. Fighting armed soldiers not bombing civilians.
5. UBL is dead after years in hiding unable to operate efficiently. No attacks on western soil.
Only thing AQ achieved is that now when shyt hit the fan, we can see who is willing to fight and who is happier drowning in self invented conspiracies.
2. They did not crush our financial system, we did by reckless spending.
3. They did not count with invasion. As Saddam didn't. They underestimated us. They thought after Mogadisho we just fire some rockets. And watching Saddam challenging us, boasting about WMDs, dodging embargoes and inspections, assured them, we are weak.
4. We brought fanatics all over the world to fight us. Not in our streets but in Iraq and Afghanistan. Fighting armed soldiers not bombing civilians.
5. UBL is dead after years in hiding unable to operate efficiently. No attacks on western soil.
Only thing AQ achieved is that now when shyt hit the fan, we can see who is willing to fight and who is happier drowning in self invented conspiracies.
"The Coffee Shop Girl You Never Spoke To"
You've replayed it a hundred times. She stood three feet away, scrolling her phone. You had an opening. You composed the perfect line — after she was gone.
For all you know, she's married now. To some guy who said something. Anything.
Openers are cheap. Almost any sentence works when it's delivered within three seconds. The expensive part is the standing there, drafting and deleting, while the window quietly closes.
The "22 Rules" stripped out my hesitation. What to open with, how to keep it alive, and the one habit that costs guys more women than anything else: waiting for perfect.