The Alan Roger Currie VS Yad Philosophical Debate

[ModeOne4Ever]

I do it that way because I enjoy it. I only analysed it after the fact because you seem to enjoy arguing about this stuff so much.

None of us have to do anything and there is no one interpretation of what is direct or non-direct. Mode One as written works for you, however I am not you and you are not me so I am free to do as I please which means I can adopt some, all or none of what you have written.

As long as it brings me the results that I am happy with who are you to tell me what I am doing is wrong?

Whoa big boy.  When did I ever tell you, or imply to you, that what methods and techniques you are employing with women is "wrong" or "ineffective?"  I rarely, if ever, tell guys that their chosen methods are "wrong."

I tell most guys, "do what works for you."

If anything, one of the reasons I tend to become so 'argumentative' is that I have a number of guys who try to tell me and my followers that what I'm doing is "wrong" and "ineffective."

Yad is a perfect example.  At the Direct Approach Dating Summit in November 2010, he stood on stage and said, "Some people associated with this conference will tell you that verbalizing your sexual intentions to women is the thing to do ... well, I say that is wrong ..."  WTF?  Who is he to say that this is 'wrong.'  Yad did it again in the interview with Paul Janka.

This is why I debate guys to death.  Not to show them that what THEY'RE DOING is 'wrong' or 'ineffective,' but conversely, to defend the value and effectiveness of Mode One Behavior against all invalid and highly subjective criticisms.

Bottom line:  Mate, I don't care WHAT YOU DO as far as approaching women.  As long as you don't try to tell me that Mode One Behavior and/or Direct Behavior in general is "ineffective," I have no problem with whatever you choose to do.

But I disagree with you that there are multiple definitions and interpretations of what a direct approach is.  I don't agree with that at all.  Direct is direct ... and indirect is indirect.

Direct is when everything about your words and behavior is representative of what you really want from women, and representative of why you really want to share their company (i.e., to have sex with them).

Indirect is when you [initially] attempt to hide, deny and/or camouflage your true desires and interests from a woman, but then at some point later on, you ultimately reveal what it is you REALLY want (sex).

I don't see where the confusion is regarding that.  All men know, deep-down, when they are truly being direct.  Don't fool yourselves.

[Dick Strong]

Who gives a fuck? We could sit here and argue what the definitions of indirect and direct are but it doesn't matter. It is pure intellectual masturbation.

If people realise that direct, indirect and all other labels are simply invented mental constructs that exist only to limit us then they might not have any need for your products. Of course that would not be in your best interests so away you go to continue futile discussions across the web.

[ModeOne4Ever]

Who gives a fuck? We could sit here and argue what the definitions of indirect and direct are but it doesn't matter. It is pure intellectual masturbation.

If people realise that direct, indirect and all other labels are simply invented mental constructs that exist only to limit us then they might not have any need for your products. Of course that would not be in your best interests so away you go to continue futile discussions across the web.

You're not fooling anyone (who is intelligent and perceptive).

You're trying to make it LOOK like I'm the one browsing the internet "searching for new debates and arguments to provoke," when in reality, that is your reality.

I rarely come to message boards and discussion forums to argue or debate.  I come to offer advice and wisdom.  What happens though 90-95% of the time, is that I get pulled into debates and arguments.

Personally, I would rather just deal with those men who are interested in my books, my advice, my knowledge, and the wisdom of my experiences, and have everyone else just leave me the fuck alone.

But realistically, because of guys like you, that will never happen.

Good day mate....

[craze6663]

what just happened? lol

[Dick Strong]

No one asked you to stir up shit on daygame.com or thelss.com and god knows what other forums you've been on (you've mentioned them in passing) but you do it anyway.

This whole issue was initiated by your actions (to be fair I wasn't there to see this):

"At the end of Yad?s talk, Alan Roger Currie grabbed the microphone and verbalised some disagreements with something that Yad had said, and the two had a bit of a verbal spar on stage."

Then on the comments thread for the Paul Janka podcast (which was followed by other comments)...

?Bold, Upfront, Straightforwardly honest behavior is the ?weakest thing you can do??!?!? WOW.?

You only think you get pulled into debates or arguments because that's how you perceive it. You create a disagreeable atmosphere wherever you go and then blame others when they respond in a negative manner.

Stop blaming other people for problems and disagreements you create for yourself. Your ego will no doubt react to this by automatically attacking me but I urge you to try to understand why you keep on doing this because if you don't then you'll remain a broken record that consistently keeps on playing the same garbled track over and over again.

EDIT: Also, no one asked you to start this thread so pretending you get dragged into arguments by other people is just plain stupid.

[ModeOne4Ever]

No one asked you to stir up shit on daygame.com or thelss.com and god knows what other forums you've been on (you've mentioned them in passing) but you do it anyway.

False propaganda, and you know it.  Matter of fact, I have some private inbox messages from at least 6-8 guys from The LSS Forum which said something to the effect of, "Alan ... at first we thought you were a 'troublemaker,' but then, on closer examination, we realized you were just defending your 'brand.'  We quickly realized that you were simply defending 'Mode One' ..."

The only time I jump into a debate, or respond to someone, is when they FIRST 'attack' the virtues of Mode One Behavior and/or Direct Behavior in general.  That phenomenon used to happen on AskMen.com between 2003 and 2006.  At first, I had nothing but rivals and adversaries on that Forum.  Just about everyone on there perceived me as an attention whore and an antagonistic debater.  But then, over a period of weeks and months, many of my former "critics" became some of my closest friends.

Why the change of heart?

Because when they allowed themselves to become more objective, they saw that the reason why I was involved in so many arguments, exchanges and debates is because people were always trying to attack and invalidate The Mode One Approach.  And as the Author of Mode One, I'm never going to allow that to happen.

This whole issue was initiated by your actions (to be fair I wasn't there to see this):

"At the end of Yad's talk, Alan Roger Currie grabbed the microphone and verbalised some disagreements with something that Yad had said, and the two had a bit of a verbal spar on stage."

Not totally true.  #1, Yad and I were never on stage together.  Yad spoke on stage right before me on the 2nd Day of The Direct Approach Dating Summit.  At first, I was just listening to him.  But as I said in my very first post in this thread, he started attacking the idea of being verbally straightforward with women. 

You're describing things as if Yad was simply talking on stage, and I just started "attacking" him for no reason.  Uhm .... no.  Yad was taking jabs at the idea of verbalizing your sexual intentions to women.

So ... you think I'm just going to sit there, and essentially allow him to attack and/or invalidate Mode One & verbally direct approaches??  If so, you're nuts, and you don't know me very well.  I'm always going to defend the effectiveness of Mode One Behavior and verbally direct behavior.  Always.

Then on the comments thread for the Paul Janka podcast (which was followed by other comments)...

?Bold, Upfront, Straightforwardly honest behavior is the ?weakest thing you can do??!?!? WOW.?


You only think you get pulled into debates or arguments because that's how you perceive it. You create a disagreeable atmosphere wherever you go and then blame others when they respond in a negative manner.

Read my response above.  You're trying to 're-frame' this, but it's not going to work.  It's not like I just came after Yad for "no reason."  This guy clearly said in the Janka interview, "Verbalizing your sexual intentions (to a woman) is the weakest thing a man can do." 

Do you REALLY think I'm going to let that fly???  If so, you have lost your damn mind.  Once again ... I AM NEVER GOING TO SIT BACK AND ALLOW ANY DATING COACH, AUTHOR, GURU or OTHER PERSON IN THIS COMMUNITY / INDUSTRY TRY TO DEVALUE MODE ONE and/or VERBALLY DIRECT BEHAVIOR.  NEVER.

I never have, and I never will.

Stop blaming other people for problems and disagreements you create for yourself. Your ego will no doubt react to this by automatically attacking me but I urge you to try to understand why you keep on doing this because if you don't then you'll remain a broken record that consistently keeps on playing the same garbled track over and over again.

EDIT: Also, no one asked you to start this thread so pretending you get dragged into arguments by other people is just plain stupid.

You want to know the #1 way to prevent me from debating with you and others?  Simply say, "Alan's Mode One style does not fit my personality, but I'm sure it works great for a lot of guys.  I choose to use other methods and techniques, and adhere to other principles and philosophies, and I just don't think Mode One is a good fit for me." (or something like that) 

I guarantee you and others ... when guys make comments like those, I never engage them in an argument or debate.  Never.

It is only when guys say stuff like, "Mode One only gets you laid with ugly chicks...." or "Being verbally direct is dating suicide...." or "You're gonna get kicked out of nightclubs being sexually straightforward with women ... that is crazy!"  See, when you say shit like this, I'm going to come back guns blazing.

Again ... good day mate.

[Ryan Jericho]

So ... if I approach a woman ... and have a conversation with her ... and within the first 10, 15, 20 minutes of the conversation, this woman clearly understands that I am talking to her because I want to have casual sex with her ... that is being DIRECT.
 

Just a quick question. How can you talk to a girl for 20 minutes and not have any fluff talk at all?

[Dick Strong]

Alan: Never once have I said "Mode One does not work for me". The opposite is in fact true as I stumbled upon much of what you have written simply by getting fed up of engaging in bullshit conversation with girls and asking "So when are we going back to mine?" and then persistently plowing through all of their bullshit. In those moments I didn't think that I should be Mode One (as I hadn't read it at that point). I just acted accordingly to what I felt was appropriate in that moment and never once did I give a shit about what category of game I was exhibiting.

I'm all for Mode One if it can help people break through their preconceptions of the male/female dynamic but shouting down people on internet forums and generally being obnoxious to anyone who does not share your particular opinion is bang out of order. Why do it? What is the purpose of acting like this if not to bolster your own ego?

If this is all about protecting your business and the Mode One brand image then take it up with Andy and Yad, don't drag it across different forums. Ultimately all you're doing in your debate about indirect or direct is engaging in a discussion about semantics which is pointless because we all see things completely differently.

If you are secure in your Mode One theories then let them stand on their own two feet.

[ModeOne4Ever]

So ... if I approach a woman ... and have a conversation with her ... and within the first 10, 15, 20 minutes of the conversation, this woman clearly understands that I am talking to her because I want to have casual sex with her ... that is being DIRECT.
 

Just a quick question. How can you talk to a girl for 20 minutes and not have any fluff talk at all?

I do it all of the time.  I define "fluff talk" or "small talk" as any conversation you're having with a woman that has absolutely nothing do with your true desires, genuine interests and real intentions.

[ModeOne4Ever]

Alan: Never once have I said "Mode One does not work for me". The opposite is in fact true as I stumbled upon much of what you have written simply by getting fed up of engaging in bullshit conversation with girls and asking "So when are we going back to mine?" and then persistently plowing through all of their bullshit. In those moments I didn't think that I should be Mode One (as I hadn't read it at that point). I just acted accordingly to what I felt was appropriate in that moment and never once did I give a shit about what category of game I was exhibiting.

Okay.  And . . .

I'm all for Mode One if it can help people break through their preconceptions of the male/female dynamic but shouting down people on internet forums and generally being obnoxious to anyone who does not share your particular opinion is bang out of order. Why do it? What is the purpose of acting like this if not to bolster your own ego?

You're not being objective.  Again, I don't come to message boards looking to "pick fights" with people for no reason.  This whole issue started with Yad's comments at the Direct Approach Dating Summit, and have since then, spilled over to DayGame.com and this forum.

Like I said ... if someone simply says, "I don't think Mode One is for me, but I'm sure it works great for other guys...," or something to that effect, that is when you will not hear a word of contentious debate from me.  But if someone says something along the lines of, "I think Mode One is bullsh**, and I think anyone who tries that method is crazy...," then you're in for one hell of a debate.

If this is all about protecting your business and the Mode One brand image then take it up with Andy and Yad, don't drag it across different forums. Ultimately all you're doing in your debate about indirect or direct is engaging in a discussion about semantics which is pointless because we all see things completely differently.

If you are secure in your Mode One theories then let them stand on their own two feet.

In my opinion, there should not even BE a "debate" about direct VS indirect.  Direct is direct ... and indirect is indirect.  Some guys like the indirect approach.  I don't have a problem with that.  But I prefer a more direct approach.

As I said before ... and this is my opinion .... indirect guys tend to 'hate on' the direct approach far more than those who favor the direct approach tend to harshly criticize the indirect guys.

If you want this to be between Yad and I, then please stop responding to each post I write.  I'm not addressing you.  Thank you.

[Dick Strong]

If there is only one objective truth and two parties have different ideas as to what it is then how can it be objective? It can't and the only logical conclusion is that everything is subjective and by proclaiming that your way of thinking (of direct and indirect) is the true way will lead to conflict with the opposing party (Yad).

This is just a classic clash of egos and isn't worth any more time thinking about.

[Rumba!]

Surely now would be a good time for Yad to post the reasons behind his comments (strange that he's not done so already  ), so we can put this debate to bed!?!

[ModeOne4Ever]

Surely now would be a good time for Yad to post the reasons behind his comments (strange that he's not done so already  ), so we can put this debate to bed!?!

My bet is that Yad is never going to post on this forum.  I might be wrong, but I don't see it.  I would love for Andy though to have a podcast "debate" where various issues related to approaching women, initiating a conversation with them, and ultimately attracting them and seducing them were presented to both Yad and I, and we can both present each of our respective arguments on the subject matter.

Sort of like the Dating & Relationships equivalent to the USA "Presidential Debates."

[ModeOne4Ever]

If there is only one objective truth and two parties have different ideas as to what it is then how can it be objective?

If I lived in a city where the temperature was 85 degrees, and you lived in a city where it was 35 degrees, then if you and I both visited a city where it was 60 degrees, we are both going to look at the weather totally different.

For me, 60 degree weather would seem "cool" or "cold," but for you, 60 degree weather would seem "warm" or even "hot."  So if I said, "it is cold here!," subjectively, my comment would be valid ... and if you said, "it is hot here!," subjectively, your comment would be valid.

Sorry mate ... but that is not the case with Yad and I.

Let's look at the common dictionary definitions of the terms "direct" and "indirect":

Direct (adjective, defined as it relates to communication with others) - To communicate in a manner that is candid, frank and straightforward; Absolute; Absent of ambiguity; Specific;  e.g., "I asked him a question, and he responded with a direct answer"

Indirect (adjective, defined as it relates to communication with others) - To communicate in a manner that is not candid, frank or straightforward; roundabout; devious; not clear; equivocal; e.g., "After offering employment to the candidate, I was not sure if he accepted the job because his response letter was written in very indirect language."

Common synonyms for the adjective "direct":  absolute, blunt, candid, explicit, forthright, frank, matter-of-fact, open, outspoken, plainspoken, point-blank, sincere, straight, straight from the shoulder, straightforward, unambiguous, unconcealed, undisguised, unequivocal

Common synonyms for the adjective "indirect":  ambiguous, circuitous, circular, complicated, contingent, crooked, devious, duplicitous, erratic, implied, long-winded, meandering, oblique, obscure, out-of-the-way, periphrastic, rambling, serpentine, sinister, snaking, sneaky, tortuous, twisting, underhanded, vagrant, vague

Now ... based on these definitions and thesaurus synonyms, I don't see how anyone can remotely confuse a "direct" approach with an "indirect" approach.  The two terms are TOTALLY DIFFERENT.

A "direct" approach is one that is CANDID, FRANK, and STRAIGHTFORWARD.

An "indirect" approach is one that is VAGUE, AMBIGUOUS, LONG-WINDED and even SNEAKY.

I rest my case.

It can't and the only logical conclusion is that everything is subjective and by proclaiming that your way of thinking (of direct and indirect) is the true way will lead to conflict with the opposing party (Yad).

This is just a classic clash of egos and isn't worth any more time thinking about.

Read my response above.

For me, there is no "confusion" what what type of behavior is 'direct' and what type of behavior is 'indirect.'  It's not even a contest.

[geo2010]

lets take the perspective of a beautiful woman. She can have sex with any guy she wants. Why would she fuck you? Just because you are being direct and confident? You want to sleep with a hot babe and so does she.
On the other hand if you have average looks the sensible thing to do, is to go indirect, show no interest at first, and show off your personality in order to build attraction.
women also want to have no accountability for sex, in order not to feel sluts, that's why you say lets go to my place to show you my whatever instead of lets go to fuck. Of course if the woman is 30+ it doesn't matter much.