"I just moved here from Florida."
That sentence contains at least five follow-up questions she WANTS you to ask. Where in Florida? What brought you here? How long have you been in the area? What do you miss? How does it compare to here?
She handed them to you on a silver platter. And you said, "Oh cool. I come here every week. I love this band. Ummm... pretty crowded tonight."
She smiled politely. Nodded. And never texted you back.
I was that guy for years. Talking too much. Listening too little. Panicking about my next sentence while she was literally feeding me the answers.
Then I found 22 rules that fixed the whole thing. Rule number one: shut up and listen. She'll tell you exactly what to say.
Architect Richard Gage
- Thread starter Drdeee
- Start date
"Why Women Dump the Guys Who Try the Hardest"
You paid for dinner. You drove. You said "whatever you want is fine" every single time. All the effort, no expectations.
And she left anyway — probably for a guy who makes her pick up the pizza.
Painful. Also predictable. Her mind quietly concludes that anything requiring zero effort from her is worth exactly zero. You became a free sample, and free samples get taken for granted.
The 22 Rules flip the dynamic. Small shifts that get her investing effort, money, and time in you — until SHE'S the one afraid of losing YOU.
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.
"So, What Do You Do for Fun?"
She asks it casually, mid-sip. And you feel the floor open up, because the honest answer is work, gym, and a couple shows you're half-watching.
Women rarely say this out loud, but a man with a life is attractive before he says a word. The guy who spent Saturday deep-sea fishing and came back with photos and a story — he walks in already interesting.
The "22 Rules" pushed me to build a life worth talking about. Turns out the fastest way to be interesting to women is to be interested in your own life first.
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.
"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.
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.
"Nervous Around Beautiful Women? There's a Rule for That"
I could talk to any woman I wasn't attracted to. Charming, funny, relaxed. Then a gorgeous woman looked my way and I'd become a sweating, babbling mess.
The fix took me years to find and ten minutes to learn. Nervousness and excitement are the same physical state — pounding heart, adrenaline, flushed face. Your brain just picks the label. And you can pick a better one.
Rule 16 shows you how. You feel the nerves, relabel them as excitement, and let that energy pour out as enthusiasm. Women notice the guy radiating it. They always do.