wow thats even more ambitious. but more importantly its just totally unworkable as a standard to work with

anything can have a negative effect at any time


so ye, in ur face!!

I disagree, all of the first three so far agreed with in this thread fit the bill.

If smiling at someone has a negative effect I feel that your chances with that person were slim to none regardless of anything you try.

But ok, I'll go by the current metric already agreed here then, but what level of specificity are we talking about here? I could say "be attractive to that person" but that's a little vague.

The problem we have is specificity, different types of people respond positively to certain things and negatively to others, without specifying certain archetypes then there's very little else to add to K's list. However, there are (in my opinion) a few middle ground things that are good to do with anyone, hence my suggestion of things that won't have a negative effect.

I feel like something like this could be structured with K's on top followed by things that won't have negative effects followed by more specific things for various archetypes.

'Sup!

Joe actually suggested 2 of the 3, if we are assigning credits.


I'd like to wrap up the chat about Closes and IOMs. What have you got to say on my additional comments (a few posts back).


After that if no one has anything they think should be added to the original list, then we could consider a different set of criteria. E.g. the utilitarian stuff many people like.


Peace,

kowalski

... and that.


Peace,

kowalski

Agree with it, always have done but it's important that one thing is also added. In sales a close is not a close until the paperwork is signed. You can can cross the point of "it's on" but still do something stupid and lose it before getting to the end.

If I can go back to the brief discussion about the word 'close' and to quote kowalski: "Closes - Closing is a sales thing and refers to the closing of a deal. I don't even know if this is helpful language."

I tend to agree with this as closing implies a finality or the end of the interaction, so when it is said for example "I got a #close" or "a k-close" then that surely is not the intended end of the interaction with a chick? I mean, yeah I can sort of understand the use of f-close when one bangs her and you have no intention of seeing her again, but when you get the number or a kiss, to close the interaction at that point seems... well, pointless because you do want to get as far as the fuck, right?

Sure, a door can be opened again once it has been closed, but why not just leave it open? Better still, wedge the fucker wide open to ensure that the when you come to open the door again, it isn't closed and locked with a dead bolt

Yeah, and while we're at it, why the fuck do we call them wings?? It's totally confusing!!! They don't even have wings!
Shouldn't we be calling them 'Deployable Supporting Pick Up Artists, and Providers of Social Proof'. That would make a lot more sense!

Much love,

Craigus

ok, but that energy drink with the added bull semen does give you wings