I watched the whole presentation. Here are a few things I noticed:
Not once in that whole presentation did I see or hear her present ANYTHING she intends to offer in return for that list of 91 different things (she made a list) she expected to get from the target man.
This is a woman who studied online matching algorithms successfully enough to manipulate them to allow her achieve her goal. Nothing wrong with that. Once she learned how the algorithm worked, she completely changed her presentation (pictures, profile etc) of herself to generate maximum nonspecific interest. Different angles and lighting on pics, nothing in profile to hint at that strategy she was using to acquire, isolate and close on chosen target are not at the level of honesty she probably demanded somewhere on her list. Her ‘new and improved’ profile did not include that list of 91 demands so that people reading it could decide for themselves if spending time trying to contact her was worthwhile.
She showed off an inbox with over 1200 messages in it, and bragged that she had become the most popular person on the internet. Her first strategy was to generate maximum interest without regard to compatibility, and she seems to have succeeded. The problem with that is that she intentionally generated interest from the maximum number of people when in fact, she only needed one.
Next, she noted that not one of the 1200 people who messaged her ‘new and improved’ profile scored higher than her 650 point minimum requirement to qualify for a response. Yeah, she had a point system to grade men who showed interest. She wasted the time and ignored the interest of over 1200 people in her quest for the one lone final target. If each of them spent 10 minutes reading her bulls~~~ profile and writing a response to her, that’s 12,000 minutes she stole from the lives of other people in order to enhance her own. A 40 hour week has 2400 minutes. So what she did was little different from taking 5 full time work weeks of time from another person and returning exactly zero. Is there really a moral difference between taking this time from one man, or multiple men?
Being as good at math as she is, she should easily be able to realize that if her approach were taken by every woman online toward every man online, the result would be that every man online would have to spend (waste) the equivalent of 5 full time work weeks in order to find that one woman who considered him ‘worthy’ according to her point system grading scale. There are few men who have that much time to waste, and no women who are worth it (just to make contact).
Moving on… Although her system was not completely honest, and was larcenous of the time of over 1200 men, it did succeed in locating and isolating her target. Her system found a man willing to commit his life to someone as selfish, dishonest, and narcissistic as she showed herself to be in this presentation.
If she had been completely honest, the title of her presentation would have been something more along the lines of:
“Here’s a system you can apply to an entire metropolitan city in order to locate, isolate and acquire a man desperate and unsuspecting enough to commit his life to providing you with almost 100 of your demands… when you have almost nothing to offer in return…”.
This man was the low hanging fruit on the online dating tree in that city, and hers is a presentation for finding and picking him with complete disregard for the time of every other man in that city.
Fat, dishonest, narcissistic, entitled, selfish, larcenous. No surprise that she got huge applause from her female audience. She brought that to the table and came away with the wallet prize they all aspire to achieve for themselves.
Look, it's not my fault that tornado dropped a house on your sister. Now get back on your broom and get your ass out of here... and take your monkeys with you
Anonymous 2 years, 3 months ago.
