This is a straw man argument. Nobody is saying anything remotely like this. I would go to a doctor who believed in the use of voodoo and recommended it to all of his patients, as long as he still used accepted medical techniques despite his personal angle.

I like sausage and onion pizza. It's one of the nice things about living alone. I get to pick the toppings every time, as opposed to one time out of five or six, like when I was still living with my folks.

You can, however, perform good science by gathering evidence, making observations, and drawing conclusions. It so happens that this scientist has drawn the conclusion that the evidence and observations point to God and not to evolution. Most people in the scientific community would disagree with him, but that doesn't mean that he's engaged in junk science. If he has a plausible, rational argument to support his case, he's not a bad scientist. (Okay, I'm playing the devil's advocate here. Ultimately, I agree that good science is probably not going to point to God in the sense that this gentleman is suggesting.) On the other hand, if he believes in the operation of evolution, but not, necessarily, the mechanism of random mutation, I'd say he could still make worthwhile contributions to his field.

No, I'm not talking about capes and super powers. Sometimes, though, when I'm walking down a dark street at night, I'll think about being a hero. "If I hear somebody shouting for help," I say to myself, "I'm going to drop my backback and run to help them. If they're being attacked, I'll get to bust some hooligan ass." Does anybody else have any weird thoughts like this?

I'd like to think that the guy has a case. This excerpt is a little bit confusing:


Was he or was he not willing to perform work based on the idea of evolution (regardless of whether he believed it or not)?

I can see both sides of the argument, but I definitely sympathize more with the guy who was fired. As a Christian engineer, I've had more than one person tell me that because I resort to faith in any aspect of my thinking, it damages my credibility as a rational person. Granted, this guy's irrational thinking directly relates to the subject matter that he was hired to research, so his situation is a little bit clearer. Where should the line be drawn, though? Should the line be drawn at all?

I'm declaring this joke performance humour. It's funny because of what everybody has to say about it.

Okay, I let myself get a little bit worked up over an aspect of the outer game. I can work on my approach and find something that works for me, even if it isn't an overt execution of cat-string technique.

Let's talk about Inner Game. You stated at the beginning that it's more important than Outer Game and I believe that. Inner Game touches on a question that I had a while back.

Two of the pieces of advice that were offered were to be confident and to know that you're a leader, not a follower. How does this even work? To me, confidence is based on one's expectation of success. If you've almost never been successful before and (like me) disapprove of some of the games that both men and women play that appear necessary to success, what reason is there to be confident?

Another point that's made is, "Rid yourself of DESPERATION and NEEDINESS. You must be disconnected from the consequences. Live for the momment." Not being desperate or needy seems like very good advice, but you follow it up with advice that I find morally suspect. Disconnecting from the consequences seems like a recipe for rude behaviour. Sure, one aspect of it is not to care whether or not you get shot down. On the other hand, another aspect is not to care whether or not you hurt somebody else's feelings.

Geico saved 15% by switching to Chuck Norris.

Don't feed the trolls? I've been told that my trollishness is one of my most endearing traits. And eating is one of my favourite pastimes.

Very seldom. When I do, it usually part of a complaint to a coworker about a difficult telephone call I've just taken...

"So the guy tells me he needs it there by tomorrow and I'm thinking, 'That's just great, mac. I'm glad you told me today or else I'd never have been able to speed up the delivery of this week-old older.'"

This description bothers me. Playful or not, expressing disinterest where none is present is dishonest behaviour. You might say that it's harmless or that it's necessary or that people do it all the time, so why worry? I don't swing that way, though. Maybe that's why I'm bad at flirtation, but I don't think that I want to do what you've described here.

Could you elaborate on this point, perhaps? Honestly, I DON'T know what flirting is. What exactly am I pushing and pulling? I'm usually very forthright when it comes to talking to people, so subtle back-and-forth is tricky for me.

It is the hardest thing ever, for some people at least. I'd rather deliver a presentation to the board of directors of my company or jump out of an airplane than talk to an attractive person whom I don't know. Several people have advised me not to listen to what ChiefPUA has to say on the grounds that the art of the pickup is dishonest and self-seeking.

I have no intentions of pursuing it to seduction, though. I'd be happy just having a plan for what I'm going to do after I muster the courage to get up off my barstool and approach somebody. Not having a plan obliterates my confidence.

My mother went back to college when my sister and I were teenagers. As an adult with a goal, she was motivated and it turned out excellently for her. I think that it would be a very good move for any adult.

Here is a photograph of him. I'm pretty darned sure that it's the same guy.
http://www.wizards.com/sideboard/images/usnat02/792.jpg

Is it that you believe that any _method_ for engaging women is inherently dishonest or that the methods used by pickup artists in particular are dishonest? I ask because the fact of the matter is, I'm going to use need _some sort_ of a method. I'm here at this web site in the first place because I have severe problems even getting off my barstool and saying hello.

You say to trust my heart and my gut, but that, unfortunately, is a "death sentence" to me. My heart and my gut tell me that talking to people I don't know is pointless. Other people, after all, have better things to do than engage in conversation with strangers at bars. I feel nothing but fear and dread at the thought of interrupting somebody and imposing upon them with the assumption that they'd like to talk to me. (You can TELL me that this isn't the case, and I KNOW that this isn't the case, but I'm just letting you know how things stand when I let myself be ruled by my heart and my gut.)

When I saw the name "Mike Long," I did some quick Googling. Holy crap, if it's not the same Mike Long who plays (played?) Magic: The Gathering and got caught cheating during a high-profile event. What a crazy, small world.

Yokoke, allow me to flatter myself and suppose that I am one of the genuine, decent guys whom you reference. You say that this stuff is excrement; could you elaborate? I realize fully that life is not a game, but as I've noted, I could use some pointers because I'm not meeting any people by sitting alone and keeping my head down.

It is my understanding that part of the PUA playbook includes techniques for approaching a woman and making conversation. Even assuming that the PUA's motivation is dishonest or ungentlemanly (and I don't believe that it always is), I don't understand why I couldn't benefit from learning how pickup artists engage women in conversation and keep their interest.

Conventional wisdom states that you just need to be yourself and be comfortable in your own skin. My experience, however, suggests otherwise. I've been ignored or experienced ridicule far too often, even among so-called adults, to believe that.

There is also the unfortunate possibility that even if maturity and wisdom reveal that life is not a game, that other people my age may still be treating it that way. I've been told that it would be better to ask a woman if she'd like to go back to my apartment and fornicate than to ask her a more genuine question like whether she likes Russian literature, whether she'd like to join me for cake and coffee, or whether she enjoys board games.

I find it kind of frightening when I think about the possibility of dating a woman who already has children. I love kids and I'm a compassionate guy, so this isn't an automatic turn-off for me. It seems very daunting to me, though.

For one, it feels like I'd be taking on fatherly responsibilities prematurely. I am looking forward to being a father someday, but if my partner already has children, then I'll need to be a father figure as soon as the relationship becomes serious. I always expected that I'd be married for a year or two before shouldering those responsibilities.

It also highlights a disparity of experience. I've never even had sex, so it feels awkward trying to pursue a relationship with a woman who has not just had sex but who has borne one or more children.

One of the women with whom I'm communicating now has three kids. I would feel dastardly shutting her out, but I'm really afraid of what a relationship with her might mean.

When using an online service, though, it's smart to play it safe. Take things slow and only yield enough trust to make the next step possible at the right time. This is especially important when orchestrating the first couple of live dates.