Evidence that David DeAngelo's testmonials are faked

[frivolousz21]

if you are already on Sosuave.com you dont need anything else.

 

[Baddy Love]

Originally posted by Blue Phoenix
You can use any "sharing" program, like "winmx"! You type what you want, and there you have it!

Easy no?

I've been downloading lots of movies using this!!!

Sh1t, why haven`t i tought of it, thanks man.

 

[smooth666]

I know some of his stuff. I do not know if the letters are fake and as long as the tips are alright I do not care.


I was wondering what D.Deangelo looked like. Can you post a pic or a link eith a pic of him?????

 

[The Rev]

Originally posted by Sazuki
David thinks we are "lumbering gene robots."

You will notice this when he says this in a somewhat weak/secrative voice when he leans a bit forward towards his seminar visitors.

HE THINKS WE ARE ROBOTS CARRYING GENES.

David D. insert penis ... COMPUTE ... BLEEP ... ERROR

Yes he has a lot of experience, and if you can trigger the emotion of ATTRACTION, than the girl will most likely pursue you in some way. The focus here is EMOTION, a feeling that sets you in motion, the feeling to mate/reproduce.

BUT, I dont like nihilistic atheistic cynical gene robots like David.

Now I know why he is so into NLP, since that defenitely goes along with the whole concept of us being gene robots. INPUT > OUTPUT.

Haha! I would almost sell his DVD just because of this fact.

Stupid capatalistic atheistic arrogant short sighted gene robot!

But the last part of his DVD is full with good ideas. Playfull remarks, date setup, and some good interviews.

His ebook is basic, his newsletter is pretty good. Who cares if it is fake? Aslong as you get results in the real world. The only C/F approach is shallow, but good to spice things up, I dont have much experience with this yet tho.

GENE ROBOTS ERROR! Haha what a joke.

LOL. It's completely obvious that you haven't read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins (the book DD was referring to when he made the "gene robots" statement).

 

[7 Virtues]

Sazuki, I don't see how knowing the underlying nature of a phenomena destroys its beauty.

 

[seize_the_pattern]

Just because of the insight of how those genes might be conducting us, simply does not mean that the magic stops there, but it moves even to a deeper level imho

Now, I personally like to think of science as a description of reality, but of course in a different way than art. The good news is that I find in some sciences a very useful description that helps me focus on the things in life in a way to make them work for me.

Sounds like DeAngelo's favorite diagram happening here. Frustrated, defiant, (forgot the other 4 or 5 for the moment)

Just my two cents

Cheers

 

[MysteryWoman]

Originally posted by John Blonn
Whether or not his e-mails are fake or not is irrelevant to me. I barely read them anymore; I see them as a pure advertising tool to get guys to buy his e-book and CD/DVDs.

I like DeAngelo's stuff because it's ground in scientific and psychological principles. This guy has done a lot of reading and I have followed up on what he has read. The perspectives in those books are what have truly changed me, along with David's guidance.

His use of evolution (Selfish Gene, Sperm Wars, Red Queen, etc.) I believe defines what this game is about. In the end, we're trying to give our genes the best possible chance of survival. That is the end to which the "game" is aimed. Looking at everything through that lens, the perspective begins to change. Most of David's techniques fit into this genetic/evolutionary framework.

The psychological issues he brings up are important as well. It's good not be a complete reductionist and rely solely on fundamental principles of evolution but to use psychological principles as well. His recommendations in this arena really helped me.

In short, faked e-mails or not, I believe David provides a holistic approach that address body, mind, and social context.

No, he uses the evolution theory for men, but trys to socially stereotype women. Men are attracted to youth for fertility reasons.

But if a guy knows his game, he neither has to be good looking or rich to score with a model. But how does a model genetically benefit from this for her future potential offspring?

 

[seize_the_pattern]

Good question I think. My guess is that a guy who has his game together conveys ornamentations that lie at a deeper level than physical appearance and financial wealth/success. When the child gets freshly born, the belief in these theories is that it comes into this world with no fears (except then falling and loud noises). All the other fears are learnt by their parents, later on by social programming/ culture.
Now, having game presupposes confidence, thus an essential form of fearlessness.

 

[The Rev]

Originally posted by Sazuki
Would it really matter?

Richard dawkins in the heretic of beauty and life itself.

What complete cynic would write a book called: DISECTING the rainbow?!

And just to prove that christianity is based on false premises.

I would be so gratefull if that zoologist wouid die a horrible painfull death, and im totally serious.

Destroying natures finest, or destroying life itself. He shouldnt be walking this planet.

Everytime I see a rainbow I start thinking about this book and the magic is gone.

I wish I never viewed that DYD DVD and started looking for those books, rather AFC for life than comming across a book that disects beauty itself.

Die Dawkins!

Sorry Sazuki, it just sounds like you are rejecting Dawkins only because what he says bothers you and interferes with your perspective on life. I can't tell if you've actually read his work or are just basing it on hearsay about his writing.

 

[The Rev]

Originally posted by MysteryWoman
No, he uses the evolution theory for men, but trys to socially stereotype women. Men are attracted to youth for fertility reasons.

But if a guy knows his game, he neither has to be good looking or rich to score with a model. But how does a model genetically benefit from this for her future potential offspring?

This is a different topic than what Dawkins is talking about - Dalkins talks about evolution, but you're referring to something that happens under the guise of sexual selection, which operates under very different conditions than does evolution.

While evolution relies on "survival of the fittest" and natural selection, sexual selection relies on perceived attractiveness.

Let's say a woman is attracted to a male because he "knows his game". She is attracted to him because she knows that his offspring will inherit this "game", and thus his offspring will be successful with women (and dating in general). Therefore, their offspring together will be good with women, and their genes will spread through the population.

Refer to The Mating Mind, by Geoffrey Miller. Yet another book David recommends.

 

[The Rev]

As an aside, this illustrates a very basic principle about evolution.

A woman will benefit by mating with a male in two ways:

1) the male is rich/attractive/whatever - showing that he has good genes - and thus his offspring will better be able to survive...

OR

2) the male advertises himself well, therefore getting a lot of partners - his offpsring will inherit this advertisement ability, and will thus have a lot of mating partners regardless of the true fitness of the offspring! This is the key. Mating comes down to perceived attractiveness - how well can you display your true fitness or pretend that you actually have it?

 

[MysteryWoman]

Intelligence is not inherited. Women seek out wealth for secruity and physical attraction for good genes.

You now about the 1 in 5 b@stards, marry a mature wealthy guy and get the handsome unreliable stud's genes. Thats what female birds.

 

[Wyldfire]

Originally posted by MysteryWoman
Intelligence is not inherited. Women seek out wealth for secruity and physical attraction for good genes.

You now about the 1 in 5 b@stards, marry a mature wealthy guy and get the handsome unreliable stud's genes. Thats what female birds.

Damn...what happened to you? You sound so, well...bitter.

 

[The Rev]

Originally posted by MysteryWoman
Intelligence is not inherited. Women seek out wealth for secruity and physical attraction for good genes.

Intelligence is 50% heritable, 10% due to shared environment, and 40% due to unique environment.

 

[Gangster Of Love]

Originally posted by frivolousz21
if you are already on Sosuave.com you dont need anything else.

Hmmmm, yeah, right!

All I need is to read most of the posts of 17-18 year old newbies and chumps giving advice to men in their 30's and beyond.

With all the newbie posts that contain the term AFC, I will become one just from seeing it so much.

Try filtering the good stuff out of the thousands of useless posts. Possible if you have time. Time is money.


Something to think about: If you are David D. and you get thousands of emails, off course you're gonna pick the best ones that showcase the benefits of the program.

If you pick 100 posts at random from the main forum here, guess what? A lot of them are gonna sound the same, ex. "Should I approach?" "Is it AFC to....?" "Does she like me?", even if they are not by the same author. Do you think that the men who write and/or buy David D's stuff don't most have the same issues and ways of dealing with women?

 

[Blue Phoenix]

Originally posted by Wyldfire
Damn...what happened to you? You sound so, well...bitter.

Wildfire, is Mysterywoman your sister?

Anyway, how many women we have here?

Mysterywoman, Wildfire, Sexy_malibu, Penkitten...

 

[seize_the_pattern]

I dont consider looking at a painting, a rainbow, Listening to a fantastic piece of music , being blown away by the beauty of it and feeling the magic because I dont know what's going on as frustrating. Indeed I too enjoy art since it holds a description of nature's secrets in many beautiful ways and I enjoy the awe it inspires. I too like to undergo those emotions without having to analyze because that kills the magic and spirit

With women and dating this is a little different. It is pretty frustrating to a lot of men who are happy with the way their minds make them see everything except women. That's the big difference here I guess

 

[MysteryWoman]

Originally posted by Wyldfire
Damn...what happened to you? You sound so, well...bitter.

Hi Wyldfire! You can't expect MysteryWoman to be Miss nice girl.
I don't hang out much anymore.

 

[MysteryWoman]

Yes but I really believe that David D'Angelio is fake. For a start he looks so weak and boring. The best thing he has got going for him is that he doesn't look repulsive. It is hard to believe that he is the same guy who writes those newsletters, like another guy on here said his voice is so boring an mono-tone. And believe me a lot of girls have a thing for men's voices.

 

[A-Unit]

Re:

I would have said that alot of what people said about DD made sense, but because I don't believe in one standard theory, I can't make that statement.

While I like his understanding of the "game of dating," I find it too simplistic and finite. To a degree, C&F is the characteristics that men should exude. It's like shelacking a house thats decrepit to sell it, while the inside rots, the outside sparkles. Until you give the grand tour...

He's spot on when dealing with the "Inner Game," as far as the "Outer Games" goes, to each his own.

I posted sometime ago on hormones and how influential they are, yet how people dismiss them when considering other factors in relationships, dating, and equality issues. Most 'gurus' don't broach the topic and view dating/mating strictly from evolutionary and genetically based roles. Well, in a society full of conscious players, it's hardly so predictable.

I'd say of whether he's a fake or not, he isn't. He's done more research, work, insight into dating than most other guys, and I've yet to see what 'guru' back up their reputation with strong facts. So what's in question? The fact he is rising faster than most other 'gurus' has brought his reputation into question?

That's nothing new.

Whether you believe some of the things he believes isn't the question. Whether you accept what he says as what works is what matters. The other factor is, does it work?

Using a bland strategy that is not adaptable to a variety of social situations is very non-tact-like. For instance, using C&F in settings where a woman puts up with lots of shyt, such as a waitressing job can be viewed as positive or negative. I know when I've had a long day of people interaction that's exhausted me, the last thing I want is to deal with more crap. Not that I don't want a 'spicey' woman who's feisty, but that there's certain times its applicable and certain times it isn't. Just like what is touted for romance and feelings, so does the same apply to being ****y and Funny.


A-Unit