An article about David DeAngelo

Games are for Children

Alexander McQueen Red Faithful Peep Toe Pumps
Louis Vuitton Monogram Miroir Golden Alma
Herve Leger Black Cutout Bandage Dress
MONCLER Quilted jacket with hood
Louis Vuitton Monogram Vernis Red Heart Coin Bag
Louis Vuitton Damier Azur Canvas Sneakers
Lancel White Crocodile Premier Flirt
Balenciaga Pink Covered Giant Compagnon
Jimmy Choo Frost Mirrored Sandals
Louis Vuitton Mahina Leather Black Lunar GM
Chloe Beige Paddington Wallet
Jimmy Choo Zebra Saba Bag
Louis Vuitton Monogram Canvas Pegase 55
Jimmy Choo Beige Perforated Ornament Lohla Bag
Christian Louboutin Black Very Prive Pumps
Anya Hindmarch Pearlited Black Hobo
Marc Jacobs Deep Blue Clutch
Alexander McQueen Black Faithful Booties
Jimmy Choo Silver Keenan Sandals
Alexander Wang Black Rocco Mini Duffle

Dolce

Wednesday, March 8. 2006

Posted by Steve in Business, The Approach

Comments (22)
Trackbacks (0)
| Top Exits (228)

Karma for this article:

-2
-1
0
+1
+2

Current karma: 2.81 of 5, 293 vote(s) 6151 hits

View as PDF: This entry | This month | Full blog

An article about David DeAngelo

"David's Response: If you don't want women, or you want women that control you and make you do everything that they want, be yourself. And that yourself that you are talking about is probably a wussie that is trying to control a woman in a wrong way. If you approach her being a nice guy you are doing it because you want her to like you. And I don't really car [sic] what you say about me because you are going to keep doing the same things until you open for some other possibilities."

The above paragraph was posted at 7PM Monday evening on Wikipedia, an encyclopedia written by everyone that's now the 18th most popular website in the world. The premise of the site is that anyone can edit any article. One result of this philosophy is that many articles have become extremely well-written and a comprehensive source on their subjects. Other articles, such as George W. Bush, have become the target of so-called "edit wars" where people continually change the article to support their own views or to prevent others' views from being distributed. But thousands of paragraphs like this are posted every day, and most aren't noticed, so why is this one even worth mentioning?

This comment is interesting because it's posted in direct criticism of this site, probably at me in particular. Could it be possible that David DeAngelo himself not only read his own Wikipedia article, but also visited this site in passing?

The article on DeAngelo dates back to last August. I stumbled upon it in October because I noticed the link in this site's referrer logs. Apparently, someone had visited this blog and posted a link here as (at the time) the only piece of criticism about DeAngelo. The text was extremely pro-seduction, and violated the "neutral point-of-view" policy of the site. Reading the article, I decided to add a more critical tone to the article to balance the viewpoint of the previous writer. I added more criticism and cleaned up the grammar, leaving a large portion of the original text intact but attempting to add additional, non-biased material.

Every week or so since then, I've checked the article for changes through the site's "watchlist" feature. It seemed that despite whatever I changed or deleted, the article trended towards sounding like an advertisement. Some contributors continued to change words here and there (calling them "minor" edits so as not to attract attention), and add DeAngelo's marketing slogans and other rhetoric. Until just recently, the article was the number one search result for DeAngelo on Google. Note: since the article has probably been edited as a result of this post, you can see the changes in question from this permanent link.

Now, the same trend of positive changes has occurred, but in a distinctly different tone. Several edits were made this morning, adding the "attraction is not a choice" motto back into the article (yet again, after someone else deleted it thrice), and inserting this out-of-place response. While obviously we can't be entirely sure that DeAngelo himself made the changes, consider the following.

First, if I were a shrewd businessman, I would be searching the Internet to see what people are saying about me. What would be more visible than an encyclopedia article about myself? If it were possible, I would also try to change what those same people are saying to try to create positive publicity.

Second, the comment begins "David's response." Trolls, or people with a grudge against someone, try all sorts of tricks on forums, one of which is impersonation. If I support someone, however, I might also post positive messages on the Internet, but it's unlikely that I'm going to go around claiming to BE the guy I back up, risking his anger and losing his respect.

Third, judging by the grammar and the number of similar edits that have been repeatedly reverted in the past, whoever it is clearly isn't a regular contributor. Most regular contributors would view the first-person pronouns in the comment as something that would be almost immediately rolled back because it's not an encyclopedic tone. In fact, the edit adding that paragraph was the first that had ever come from that IP address.

Fourth, DeAngelo is obviously Internet-saavy, since he started his business contributing to Internet mailing lists and to websites, and participated in discussion forums. He's probably heard of Wikipedia before and chances are he contributed to the site at least once.

What I can say for sure is that I've removed self-promotional language from this article more times than I can count. On the other hand, I can only recall one time where someone actually added something to the article that sounded remotely negative.

You can judge whether it's DeAngelo himself or simply someone who supports him. One thing's for sure: Mr. DeAngelo has quite a fan club online. I wonder, though, if the poor grammar, blatant advertising, and meaningless jibberish continually inserted into the Wikipedia article by his supporters tells something about what he teaches.

Updated 3/9/06 9:45AM - see clarification below.

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

"I wonder, though, if the poor grammar, blatant advertising, and meaningless jibberish continually inserted into the Wikipedia article by his supporters tells something about what he teaches."

Sniping, ad hominem attacks, projection of incorrect positions into people, and now association of validity of materials ... Could you PLEASE start debating fairly? I'd love to be able to actually talk about the issues instead of having to shoot down your form all the time.

Apart from that, this particular edit looks like the real thing - the writing style is David DeAngelo. I don't know about the other changes - you're referring to them indirectly, no links, no examples, so it's impossible to say if "Making it more advertisment-like" is what I'd consider to be "Removing incorrect anti-propaganda" or "Making it into an advertisment piece".

On a side note, I think it is unfair to judge David's materials without having read them and tried them out. His material is some of what goes LEAST towards game playing of anything on the market today, including mainstream pieces like "The art of conversation". His basic approach is, to my mind, "Do what you would have done if you had no fear". Yes, he details some of what this would be, and a lot of us have had the behaviours from fear pushed so deep into habit that it's some work to get out of the habit.

BTW: Some of this is the question of learning to communicate things in a way that makes and keeps girls interested, in other words, expressing your personality in a way that girls feel attractive. Some try to classify this as "playing games". When I try to say things to my mother in a way that doesn't hurt her - am I playing games?

-Eek

#1 Eek (Homepage) on 2006-03-09 04:20 (Reply)

I apologize - I misphrased the paragraph for which you took offense. What I meant to say wasn't necessarily that he's turning people into zombies, as it might have sounded. On the other hand, I was trying to say that regardless of the technical merit of his teachings, what he teaches appeals to a certain sort of person.

For example, someone who was brought up in a strictly conservative household and who follows the traditional courtship ritual is unlikely to think positively of the "cocky and funny" philosophy.

On the other hand, I think that people who already manipulate women, in a much more negative way than DeAngelo himself teaches, are more likely to support him. I would also argue that these type of people are more likely to disrupt an encyclopedia article. I'm not trying to say that DeAngelo is responsible for these people's behavior, but I do think that he attracts these people to his business.

You can judge for yourself how the article has changed, and whether it was DeAngelo/his supporters or I who were more biased. The differences are visible at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_DeAngelo&action=history.

Finally, I haven't heard of this book "The Art of Conversation." Did he just publish it? It seems to me that very few of his works, at least until recently, had much to do with fields other than dating.

#1.1 Steve (Homepage) on 2006-03-09 06:46 (Reply)

That's a mainstream book. As in, something I found in a bookstore.

And what it sounded like to me was that you attacked the validity of his materials on the basis of how the most rabid adherents might behave.

Applying one technique I've been working with lately, investigation of self-concept: Are you defining yourself somewhat from being "Not like them", where them are the people in the seduction community, David DeAngelo, players, those girls that have hurt you, etc?

It would fit very well with how I see your behaviour. If so: You're worth someting in terms of *what you are*. You're engaged, you're smart, you're a good speller (*grin*), etc. Find those things, and let others be what they are - you're what you are, and that's worthwhile.

-Eek

#1.1.1 Eek (Homepage) on 2006-03-09 07:41 (Reply)

>>And what it sounded like to me was that you attacked the validity of his materials on the basis of how the most rabid adherents might behave.

But isn't this how we should judge ideas? Not on the basis of people who halfheartedly follow them, but based upon those who live the lifestyle? We can't judge the idea of Communism by one farmer who shares a plow with the rest of his village. Instead, we need to look at the true impact of Communism in countries where everything was supposed to be the property of the state, and consider the results.

Likewise, I think that judging the validity of what DeAngelo teaches based upon the behavior of a guy who only uses one pattern and ignores everything else is incorrect. While I could be way off, the impression I get is that what DeAngelo teaches, when you do everything he suggests to the letter, not only leads to wild "success," but also to a sense of power.

There's a saying that power corrupts. When you can get good enough at this to have any woman in the world, that's absolute power, and it corrupts absolutely. At the very least, the power would lead one to believe that he's absolutely right when it comes to these issues, as the edits to the article would make one believe.

What do you think, Eek?

#1.1.1.1 Steve (Homepage) on 2006-03-09 08:11 (Reply)

There's several issues here, so please tolerate me for rambling a bit:

First, the lifestyle as taught by DeAngelo is often misunderstood as being "Arrogant Asshole", instead of "Cocky and Funny". Let me give an example of cocky and funny from my testing of it: I'm with a group of friends, somebody says something outrageous/stupid, one of the girls look the sky in the "Oh, God!" gesture, and I say "Why do you look up there - I'm here!" with the tonality to imply that I mean I'm God. She breaks out in laughter.

Second, you'll have rabid converts to anything. I don't judge the US from the rabid 2nd amandment freaks, I don't judge all of US christianity by the bible thumpers (except when they're put in the white house and bomb the crap out of large parts of the rest of the world ;), etc. As long as there's a reasonable and large majority, judging the ideas by the most rabid followers will shoot just about any idea down. There's even rabid followers of moderation...

Continuing: Yes, it leads to a sense of power. This power can corrupt, definately - I've seen a bunch of seducers drunk with power, using and throwing away women - on the other hand, it also liberate, and can let us behave better towards women. I'm not sure which is more common. Remember: Most women has this kind of power for a period in their lives already, and deal with it.

-Eek

#1.1.1.1.1 Eek (Homepage) on 2006-03-09 09:23 (Reply)

You bring up several interesting points about men and how they use the power, but I believe what's most interesting is what you said about women. Follow me in the same reasoning I used on men above, if you will.

Many (I would say most) women, as you say, have had this power of being able to choose among many different men for most of their lives. One might be able to argue that while only a few men become expert seducers and gain this power, most women already have it, and wield it often and forcefully.

I would reason, therefore, that some percentage of these women have become "corrupted" by this power. Just as you point out that some expert seducers "throw away" women, the women who are "corrupt" in this area of life would throw away men.

I knew one woman who had guys asking her out once a week, if not more often, it seemed. One night, she came on to me (this part is not in doubt), and while I was surprised, I mistakenly took the bait by asking her to see the movie she had said about five times before she wanted to see.

She continued to flirt but eventually issued a rejection. Two weeks later it was evident she had gossiped about the incident to everyone she knew, and when she talked with them it was obvious she was making fun of me behind my back. The sad part was that I bet some of the people she was talking to agreed with her.

After the fact, the gossip made it clear that it was obvious that she never really cared anything about me. I believe the power got to her head, and she wanted to see how far she could go with it.

I'm not sure that the solution to stories like these is to transfer the power back to men. DeAngelo doesn't advocate a balance of power; he advocates taking charge.

Men can abuse it just as easily as women can.

#1.1.1.1.1.1 Steve (Homepage) on 2006-03-09 09:59 (Reply)

In regards to the situatiion of the woman who came on to you, it sounds like the experience for you was very mixed. It was looking good but ended sour. A woman like that, sounds like she gets alot of free attention and is given control as you call power. Question, between all the attention she gets, she makes room to give you attention. Well then, obvious she is saying you are not a no body. Why bother? Perhaps you have crossed her curiosity. To do so, your presence must be different then the majority of others. Why so? My impression from the web blog and your background discription is that the difference between you and them is you have a higher education, and you have mastered that art of written study. You probably would kicked there ass if asked to program code or provide circuit analysis. My point is, this has given you a sense of accomplishment and pride that is solicited through your actions or behaviors. Based on the situation you descirbed, she already knows the face variables and is interested to see what happens. Lets note with people interactions like this, she is the veteran.

First of all she makes the first move. Now, it is your turn and your in the game. Are you really different from the others or is it fake. She placed here control in your hands. So she wants to know are you man enough. You are surprised which means unprepared. An alternate reaction could be cautious. I know it crossed your mind. At this point its disaster. You are to make the next move. In the end she will have the final say. Most likely she will reject you because she made the first move unless you do something profound. Between you and the other men, the other men made the first move. Caution is correct, cause you haven't earned anything. She knows the game and is probably five moves ahead of you. You describe the scenario as being baited. What she did is made you work and gave you an opportunity. In fact she gave you several opportunities by her continuous flirtations. It sounds to me your reaction didn't make you different and she saw the same movie before. Several opportunities is not bad intentions. I'm sure she would rather have a story to brag about then complain about. Remember, you said guys ask her out weekly.

Probably others have seen her actions. If not, it might be on her mind. Because, it didn't work out. She has to justify herself. Its easy, in her situation. Your not going to look good at all. Just like going to a bad resturaunt, the word will spread. She will look out for her friends that way and her friends will follow because she already has there respect. It depends on her, how bad you look.

Power as you call it is a matter of control. You weren't ready. No matter how innocent your intentions came out. That is life. When people interact daily there is always an exchange of control. How it is used will determine the outcome. I think there were some telling signs in your story that says she wasn't out to abuse power. The only reason for abuse would be to prove that your an idoit if you come off as arrogant. Nobody attacts the humble person. If they do, then they look bad and the roles reverse. Definitely not the intent.

#1.1.1.1.1.1.1 marc on 2006-03-12 14:59 (Reply)

I agree with most of what you have to say, with one exception. She may have had benign intentions, she may have wanted me to make a move, and she probably was "five moves ahead." She probably wasn't impressed with my lack of forthrightness, and decided against continuing any further.

Most people who are in touch with today's world would probably expect such an exchange, if it had stopped there. I probably wouldn't have even thought it noteworthy myself.

But then things changed when I saw her again two weeks later and she had told everyone she knew. It was obvious she had omitted her leading me on, and had instead warped the "experience" into something very negative about me. Some of her friends made some very negative jokes about me when I wasn't "supposed" to hear. These are people who I respected, before they started going along with her. And she continued to gossip even when I saw her doing it!

It wasn't the rejection that bothered me. If she had said no and stopped there, it wouldn't have been a bad situation. I remember being extremely angry (especially at myself) over the events that followed, but somehow I managed not to blow up at her or anyone else.

If she were truly willing to give me a chance and had simply decided not to pursue it, she would have been a woman about it, told me the truth, and gone her own way. Women who are worth spending time with don't put guys down to everyone they know with widespread gossip.

#1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Steve (Homepage) on 2006-03-12 18:13 (Reply)

And if you're OK with talking about this in public, I'd very much like an answer to the self concept thing - I'm trying to calibrate the details of this, so any case study helps. Thanks!

#1.1.1.1.2 Eek (Homepage) on 2006-03-09 09:30 (Reply)

In regards to the comment conservative household comment cocky funny, it is correct if you are a person who is obedient to follow others and performs in a serious train of thought. In that, these others are conservative and serious. Perhaps from your profile the navy provides this stablity and in complience with your standards and morals. You don't question those of higher authority. In addition, these perameters are a typical observation of an engineer. There is nothing wrong with that.
But your comment on cocky funny response is a matter of perspective. An individual who is from a conservative household can see the humor in cocky funny if it is viewed from a non serious stand point. There is nothing serious about being funny. Laughing is a good time. Cocky funny would be insulting if it were seroius. The cocky aspect tries to maintain some half degree of authority to the situation. From the womens perspective, the authority will give respect to that person because that person can show he has some authority. If he didn't have any authority, the women would think that this guy isn't good enough for me. If he can't show that he is good enough, time is being wasted. People in generally hate wasted time. If there is any degree af a relationship, short or long or any which way, the woman wants to be around a good selection. Engaging in a cocky funny manner is part of the showcase package. The psychology is the same when one makes a purchase, she would prefer to not settle for less. An example from a typically know observation, the girl from a conservative catholic household who may violate the household rules outside of the household. This girl is looking for some fun and to hang with an altering degree of authority. The point is that cocky funny works when applied in the appropriate situation. Again, it is a matter of perspective and if then senarios.

#1.1.2 Marc on 2006-03-11 15:28 (Reply)

One other comment - I think what bothers me most about DeAngelo is how he calls people derogatory terms like "Wusses." The comment that was posted included the term. The implication is clear: if you're a "Wuss," you're not as good a person as if you're a "non-Wuss."

It completely contradicts what he claims to teach - about reaching out to people, making conversation, and forming connections. He makes it sound as he wants his followers to appreciate spending time with all different types of women and all their differences.

With men, apparently, he's not so conciliatory. He follows the age-old stereotype of judging a man's worth by his success with women.

I believe that is WRONG. What's the difference between treating black people as if they're lesser persons and between treating those who aren't as skilled or don't want to be as skilled with women as lesser people? I don't see any difference.

#1.2 Steve (Homepage) on 2006-03-09 07:14 (Reply)

I wonder if we understand the term differently?

I don't understand the term as being generally bad with women. I understand it as a description for a particular kind of behaviour, a mild form of the behaviour for which women use the term "doormat" (and occasionally "desperate".) I see "wuss" as an attempt at using a much milder term, a term that people more easily can associate themselves with, a term that does not stigmatize people while still showing the behaviour fairly clearly. And I think the attempt works fairly well.

Since it is a specific behaviour, and that specific behaviour has been described using the word "wuss" (also sissy) since the 1960s, I see his use as reasonable.

As for judging: Without any value judgement, the behaviour he refers to is unattractive to both men and women (it makes people look down on the person that behave that way). This is a natural, hardwired biological reaction (in the limbic system, which handle social hierachies and notice deference).

#1.2.1 Eek (Homepage) on 2006-03-09 08:22 (Reply)

>>This is a natural, hardwired biological reaction (in the limbic system, which handle social hierachies and notice deference).

I'd be interested in seeing one of the papers where this is discussed.

I agree that perhaps it might be hardwired, but that doesn't mean it's the way things have to be. For example, some would point to studies saying that humans were "hardwired" to eat meat. However, there are millions of vegetarians and vegans around the world who don't eat meat.

Disregarding the pros and cons of vegetarianism, few would argue that it's "natural." Still, people have decided not to eat meat for whatever reason, and most get along pretty well without it.

I see this issue of how we see people as much the same. While it may be "natural" to see people as lesser because of a certain behavior, that doesn't mean the tendency can't be changed. I offer that perhaps it might be better if we changed our subconscious methods of evaluation to exclude criticism of this type of person.

If anything, people who DeAngelo characterizes as "Wusses" deserve more symphathy than everyone else. If someone shows himself as "desperate," as you state, then I have much more respect for that person than someone who pretends to be fine while hiding the desperation.

#1.2.1.1 Steve (Homepage) on 2006-03-09 08:56 (Reply)

The person you say you don't respect is who DeAngelo describe as a "wuss".

And the hardwiring is as an input; it may be possible to override, though I think it's way deeper than the meat preference (which vary from us to e.g. cows, while the hierarchy stuff is kept). You don't need papers - the social hierarchy system is it's covered in standard psychology textbooks.

#1.2.1.1.1 Eek (Homepage) on 2006-03-09 09:27 (Reply)

After searching for the phrase "doormat" I found this relationship book on amazon.com. My, how the market preys upon the insecure

Why Men Love Bitches: From Doormat to Dreamgirl-A Woman's Guide to Holding Her Own in a Relationship (Paperback)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1580627560/104-9938076-7767167?v=glance&n=283155

It is clear from these prolonged discussions, that the theory of life can be distilled into an all encompassing self-help book, that is going to miraculously transform you from lonely single wo/man, into a content and loving couple; and they all lived happily ever after.

You can theorise about living for the rest of your lives. You can puff your pipe and quaff your brandy, but one day, you're going to have to reach out.

Relationships don't start in the world of ideas, relationships start in the world of action.

You can't document life. You have to find out what life is about for yourselves.

For me, in my own part of this brightly coloured world, it is about letting go of the never ending excuses, and connecting with my community. It feels safe to hang out with my family and my friends. It feels safe to lose myself in virtual worlds and creative pursuits. It feels safe to surf the world's knowledge.

I have to break free from "my safe world" and find those who don't feel safe. I am not talking mother teresa or jesus christ. I just want to tip the balance from my own selfish aims.

"Dream my grandfather, dream of great quiet. Merely a flash between words and blue silence. Gentle this hour. Great is the highway. Brave are these cowards. Racing racing racing racing away."

#1.2.1.1.2 tidydave on 2006-03-19 17:40 (Reply)

"If someone shows himself as "desperate," as you state, then I have much more respect for that person than someone who pretends to be fine while hiding the desperation."

No you dont - not really

You can SAY that you do but you can never in actual actions SHOW that kind of respect. And women can SAY they prefer wussies but they cant actually prove it by sleeping with them.

This means everything cause its SELECTION and you cant ever sincerely claim to prefer something you do not select. Cause what you select IS what you prefer.

Claiming you want something you do not select is - putting it nice - real bad behavior. Its much worse manipulation than the kind people like DD are advocating.

At least DD advocates learning how to give something as opposed to making people that get nothing BELIEVE they are valued. Utterly BS!

I am PUA, I know these things cause I have heard the same old BS before turning PUA. If what you claim was the truth nobody would become PUA.

#2 GameMan on 2006-03-16 02:24 (Reply)

Sometimes this may be the case - they could prefer a more nice guy, but it takes longer to get into bed with them, because they are programmed to respond sexually to the game. It's called growing up and getting attracted to the right kind of people and also possibly not being as obsessed with sexual stimulation. If for the sake of argument some "nice guys" offer a spiritual value that is absent in the game of seduction, that value expresses itself differently when it comes to sexuality. It goes slower.

Recently I dated a few times with a real gorgeous lady, a beautiful model, a 10, and of course I really wanted to sleep with her, but I was off my game on that account. Yet something special seemed to have happened, which was we clicked on the heart level almost without me even realizing it cause I was so busy trying to score.

She kissed me at one point and said how much the time she spent with me meant to her. I could FEEL that straight from the heart and it really surprised me. It was gorgeous. I never slept with her, though she put on like she might like to have a relationship, when I didn't go for it she immediately slept with some PUA type guys. I got mad with jealousy, feeling both like I lost a possible love and that I was a chump for not getting her in bed.

I reflect on it and though I missed my opportunity to sleep with her, that kiss and emotion had a very high value, because it did come from the heart. It felt from a different place altogether than lust. So, that is perhaps what this gentleman running this site is trying to convey when he says PUA's miss out on some of the real treasure in life.

If you are all game, you can miss out on the poetry in your soul. (Then again, if I hadn't been practicing game, I don't know if I'd have had to confidence to get the date in the first place!) It's just that the gratitude and feeling of that kiss, came from another place...it was from the soul.

#2.1 Dylan on 2009-02-24 12:36 (Reply)

hahah wtf...

1) 50% of david deangelo followers are going to be retarded. This does not reflect on his teachings at all, it reflects on the worlds population in general.

2) I myself am a shy-guy turned seducer over 2 years (albeit dashingly handsome and intelligent) and all i know is that when i started deleting these "wussy" behaviours from myself, it opened up a world of oppurtunity for me. Now almost spoilt for choice, I feel better than ever.
Then by naturally gaining more and more female friends, I started to notice what all this "wussy behaviour" feels like from a female perspective. I started to feel ill, I felt the desperate-manipulation so common these days.

3) Deangelo is not god, as some believe (see #1 above). Of course he is gonna be wrong sometimes, but the stuff that can be gleaned out and used, is gold. Unless you dont have the ability to filter information (see #1 above).

4) Non-confidence is a big turn off for me(in both genders), and I know it's an even bigger one to women. For gods-sake, everyone feels scared, its natural, but you dont have to go around telling everyone about it.

Social programming is real, study some anthropolgy or sociology.
Dont do what disney told you is right, do what really works.
but if you DONT REALLY want anything to work (or are secretly emo and get off on it) you can wallow in ineffectuality.

#3 narcissist on 2006-03-22 23:23 (Reply)

DeAngelo is entirely justified in calling guys wusses because he's refering to something they can change.

If you suck with women, learn how to get better. Go out and approach some women, read ASF, take a bootcamp.

Its not comparable to 'race' because that not something people can change. Skill with women is.

#4 Murphy on 2006-11-23 19:40 (Reply)

my head hurt,s reading this dribble. goodbye for ever!

#5 lee (Homepage) on 2007-07-10 22:57 (Reply)

deangelo is nothing but a plagerizer who's ripped off the bulk of his material from others and is in it for greed and profit alone, and laughing all the way to the bank.

#6 lew chang on 2010-05-01 21:01 (Reply)

I'll agree with you, honestly he is a business man, Eban Pagan originally was one of those get rich quick guys, and all these books he write preach the same thing over and over. He's running with your money people stop thinking he's great. The women who follow him are the same idiot girls who just found out they have 10 fingers, real women don't fall for this shit at all. Be yourself, and if it doesn't get you every woman you see, don't assume something is wrong, just say that she wasn't right for me and move on. All the guys who defend the seduction community are just really really desperate, and David De Angelo preys on these guys. This comes from a guy who has a girlfriend with him for a year, and I never even picked up or read any books on dating, I've been myself with a balance of the somewhat 'Wuss' type behavior, and some of the 'Bad Boy' type behavior, and that is me. David De Angelo will preach to not be fake, but by following him, you are being fake if that is not who you are.

#6.1 Max on 2010-06-08 01:33 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	Standard emoticons like :-) and ;-) are converted to images. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above:
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Frontpage - Top level
View as PDF: This entry | This month | Full blog

Calendar

Comments

Max about An article about David DeAngelo

Tue, Jun 08, 01:33 AM

I'll agree with you, honestly he is a busine [...]

lew chang about An article about David DeAngelo

Sat, May 01, 09:01 PM

deangelo is nothing but a plag erizer who's r [...]

Rainita about Love as a mental illness

Sun, Jan 10, 09:17 PM

Love is definitely a mental il lness. And it [...]

nightowl about "I was checking to see if the fireplace went out!"

Sun, Sep 20, 09:23 PM

She was playing the come and t alk to me game [...]

Nick B about Low self esteem

Thu, Sep 17, 07:34 PM

This-'low self steem' thing is bull. Everyon [...]

Help us out!

This site is provided free of advertising. If you enjoy this site, please consider using our event videography services, located at http://www.shoemakervillage.org/videography.

Syndicate This Blog

Quicksearch

Back to front page

An article about David DeAngelo

Games are for Children

Wednesday, March 8. 2006

An article about David DeAngelo

About this site

Calendar

Comments

Categories

Help us out!

Syndicate This Blog

Quicksearch

Contribute!