Post: #626

(11-17-2014 01:32 PM)Jack198 Wrote:  

(11-15-2014 08:38 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  That's why RSD is issuing legal threats to 8Chan:

https://twitter.com/infinitechan/status/...2717462528

I don't know what the background of their lawyer is, but that is the worst "professional" legal response I've ever read - utterly amateur and not to be taken seriously. They need professional legal services at this point, not the rantings of some frat boy idiot they've kept on retainer and - by the sounds of it - has never practiced law since graduating from his fourth-tier toilet of a law school.

While perhaps entertaining to read, this is not the way a lawyer responds if they truly desire to be respected in a legal matter where the client stands to be harmed by ineffective (and juvenile) assistance of counsel.

I agree. What sort of lawyers would send a letter like that?

Probably losers, right?

I don't know who that Mike guy is, but he seems pretty stoopid.

This is the other guy who wrote the letter. He's on Wikipedia, as he runs a prank YouTube channel or something.

Post: #627

(11-17-2014 10:22 AM)VincentVinturi Wrote:  Let me ask you guys this: how would YOU have handled this situation if you were in Julien's shoes?

I'd have called in my most hard ass trial lawyer friends. Given them all of the evidence out there against me and given them ammo that isn't public.

Have them cross-examine me for hours. Take turns running me through a shark tank.

Learn how to handle questioning under pressure.

Then I would have a list of three bullet points. These would be three points I want to make.

* I trolled hard get on TV. It worked, didn't it?

* 50 Shades of Grey has sold 100 million copies.

* Women date tall men, I prefer feminine women.

Let them attack me.

CNN: "You're the most hated man in the world!"

Me: Yes, outrage sells. That's why you have me on TV, yes?

CNN: "You choke women?!"

Me: 50 Shades of Grey has sold 100 million copies.

CNN: Fat jokes!

Me: When women stop discriminating against short men, we can talk about how men discriminate against women. It's dating. People can make their own choices.

Keep making those same three points.

Over and over again.

That's how you win.

Post: #628

If 8chan isn't complying with RSD's demand letter, then why did they lock the julien thread?

Post: #629

(11-17-2014 10:16 AM)Nineteen84 Wrote:  

(11-17-2014 09:57 AM)RexImperator Wrote:  

(11-17-2014 09:31 AM)Troy Francis Wrote:  Here's the interview -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPT5dFHK3wo

Bad body language...

CNN!

Yes bad body language but I reckon he handled that pretty fucking well considering the overwhelming circumstances. I think a lot of people would have fallen apart under that sort of pressure.

To be honest I feel a bit sorry for the guy right now. He seems like a likeable guy to me minus the RSD.

Wow - that interview did not go well; bad body language, not rehearsed and waay to many attempts at appeasing the host, who obviously had it out for him well beyond the role of a supposedly impartial journalist.

That said, the upside is because it is CNN, nobody's watching it - the damage control has to be done via social media. Alas, by now it's way too late.

How would I handle it if it were me?
1) Never apologize
2) Remember the number one rule of politicians everywhere - NEVER answer the question that's asked, answer the question that YOU WANT TO ANSWER.
3) Turn it around on the interviewer:

Example: "So, it's bad that I run a course to help heterosexual men be more confident? What if I were running a course helping men come out of the closet and to terms with their homosexuality? Why do the heterosexual men have to make excuses for behaving like heterosexual men? If I were a gay man doing those things to young men, we wouldn't even be here and you know it."

Etc. Etc - don't give the guy the time to form rebuttals. Run a filibuster, say what you want to say, redirect and eventually eat up all of the time allotted for the interview. You have to keep fuckers like that off balance or they'll run circles around you. This kid was a goldfish in a shark tank - utterly embarrassing to watch and I don't even know him.

Post: #630

I read the comments from everyone so far and it seems to 60-40 in favor of a bad interview. I taught that he looked as good as he could have considering the circumstances. Admitted he was wrong in trying to be funny (excuse that he's gotta use since he went for shock value and it backfired).

But the question that I think we should debate on is this one: If you were a newbie that read a few game blog and going nowhere with money to burn, would you go to one of his bootcamps. Desperate time calls for desperate measures, so even with the backlash I would sign up for one of his bootcamps and hamster it to myself by saying that this guy created a world wide backlash, so he must be really good!!

Post: #631

(11-17-2014 11:31 AM)Roosh Wrote:  Bad decision to go on the "enemy's" platform when you already have a huge platform to put out your message.

Not if it's handled aggressively. Fact is, the average broadcast television viewer (and especially the TV news viewer) is about 55 years old. CNN is BEGGING for things like this which might interest younger viewers. They get the guy on, feign outrage and hope the eyeballs come running, enabling them to sell ad space.

If the guy were properly prepared, he'd have known this and pointed it out during the interview. Alas, if the letter from his pathetic "attorney" bro is any indication, he had no adult supervision or professional guidance before addressing the inquisition.

Post: #632

(11-17-2014 01:41 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  This is the other guy who wrote the letter. He's on Wikipedia, as he runs a prank YouTube channel or something.

Wait, so he's representing 8chan, not the guy in the CNN vid. Well, by his bio he's done a few high profile cases, usually involving porn and gutter trash. Maybe his style of writing has been effective in that area, but it still does not come across as professional.

Post: #633

(11-17-2014 02:27 PM)Jack198 Wrote:  

(11-17-2014 01:41 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  This is the other guy who wrote the letter. He's on Wikipedia, as he runs a prank YouTube channel or something.

I've heard of that guy - he's into a lot of high profile cases and should know better by now than to write such tripe. But it seems like he's more interested in his own ego than properly advising and preparing his clients for media appearances. Flashy and fun doesn't always equal effective assistance of counsel.

Wrong way round. Randazza is working for 8chan against RSD.

"I'd hate myself if I had that kind of attitude, if I were that weak." - Arnold

Post: #634

(11-17-2014 02:27 PM)Jack198 Wrote:  

(11-17-2014 01:41 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  This is the other guy who wrote the letter. He's on Wikipedia, as he runs a prank YouTube channel or something.

Wait, so he's representing 8chan, not the guy in the CNN vid. Well, by his bio he's done a few high profile cases, usually involving porn and gutter trash. Maybe his style of writing has been effective in that area, but it still does not come across as professional.

The other lawyer is MikeCF with whom you are conversing. They are both representing 8chan as you stated.

Post: #635

(11-17-2014 12:36 PM)VincentVinturi Wrote:  That's a good question.

I'd probably handle it from the angle of:

"Look.

If a girl has a problem with the way I approach her, she's free to rebuff me and walk away.
...

That's some good frame you are projecting there. However they should have done that kind of response right away also in written form - just repeated it in the interview.

Apologizing publicly does not work - at least in his case it does not - all that bowing to the feminine imperative and the feminists is just not worth it. They are not even satisfied when they have brought a scientific genius to tears because of the shirt he wore.

However it takes some steam out of their attacks - they have won and Julien has capitulated in front of the feminist lynch mob. Another man publicly humiliated by the harpies - fuck that...

Post: #636

(11-17-2014 02:27 PM)Jack198 Wrote:  Wait, so he's representing 8chan, not the guy in the CNN vid. Well, by his bio he's done a few high profile cases, usually involving porn and gutter trash. Maybe his style of writing has been effective in that area, but it still does not come across as professional.

Are you too stupid to run a Google Scholar search before running your mouth?

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&...5&as_sdtp=

Post: #637

(11-17-2014 03:09 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  Apologizing publicly does not work - at least in his case it does not - all that bowing to the feminine imperative and the feminists is just not worth it. They are not even satisfied when they have brought a scientific genius to tears because of the shirt he wore.

You don't apologize for the SJWs.

You explain yourself to the people in the middle.

Debate isn't about winning over your adversaries. Debate is about winning over the people watching it and also about rallying your own side and making people feel proud to associate with you and your brand.

Post: #638

Can't believe a guy like Julien who is capable of approaching the hottest women with ease could be shook so easily by some slimy news guy. That was weird. So much for holding frame.

Post: #639

(11-17-2014 03:11 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

(11-17-2014 02:27 PM)Jack198 Wrote:  Wait, so he's representing 8chan, not the guy in the CNN vid. Well, by his bio he's done a few high profile cases, usually involving porn and gutter trash. Maybe his style of writing has been effective in that area, but it still does not come across as professional.

Are you too stupid to run a Google Scholar search before running your mouth?

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&...5&as_sdtp=

Careful - calling people names around here can get you warned and eventually banned. And yes, I've seen his pubs. But the kind of language he uses in that letter is the stuff that makes professional conduct types (and often judges too) roll their eyes. One need not act like Larry Flynt to represent his kind.

Post: #640

(11-17-2014 03:17 PM)Jack198 Wrote:  Careful - calling people names around here can get you warned and eventually banned. And yes, I've seen his pubs. But the kind of language he uses in that letter is the stuff that makes professional conduct types (and often judges too) roll their eyes. One need not act like Larry Flynt to represent his kind.

Ask me how I know you're an SJW troll?

1. You claim, "The lawyer who wrote that letter is a smut lawyer frat guy from a 4th tier law school."

2. When confronted with evidence that the lawyer is nationally known and also an academic, you say:

3. I knew that all along!

Which means your first post about the letter was a troll.

That, or you're an SJW.

Either way, you lose!

Post: #641

(11-17-2014 03:48 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

(11-17-2014 03:17 PM)Jack198 Wrote:  Careful - calling people names around here can get you warned and eventually banned. And yes, I've seen his pubs. But the kind of language he uses in that letter is the stuff that makes professional conduct types (and often judges too) roll their eyes. One need not act like Larry Flynt to represent his kind.

Ask me how I know you're an SJW troll?

1. You claim, "The lawyer who wrote that letter is a smut lawyer frat guy from a 4th tier law school."

2. When confronted with evidence that the lawyer is nationally known and also an academic, you say:

3. I knew that all along!

Which means your first post about the letter was a troll.

That, or you're an SJW.

Either way, you lose!

Wow - it didn't take much to push your buttons, did it?

Read a few of my posts and you'll know I'm no SJW troll. Regarding my posts in this thread, I initially misunderstood who was representing who in this case and was put off by the colorful language in the letter referenced. Language like that is not ordinarily consistent with professional conduct but what do I know, I'm not familiar with the habits consistent with representing clients in the adult film industry and odd corners of the Internet. Where I'm from, acting like a frat boy in professional communication is frowned upon.

As for his pubs, those are mostly listed on the Wikipedia site someone posted, as are references to some of his cases, a few of which involve representing the smut industry and publishing matters on their behalf. I got his law school wrong - got me there. BTW, what's yours?

Post: #642

Just saw the interview. It was painful to watch. I'm not sure why Julien agreed to go on there (or the reasoning behind whatever handler may have put him on there). It just makes the whole situation look even worse than it did before. His body language and tonality were awful, as has repeatedly been mentioned. He looked and sounded like a coward who got caught doing something wrong, and he totally fed into the narrative.

What was the narrative?

Chris Cuomo made it seem that game was bad, wanting to have sex with women was bad, etc. Julien tried to backtrack and apologize by claiming that he's been to clients' weddings, thus reinforcing the neutering of male sexuality for anyone but media elites by Julien's painting them as good beta providers that just needed a boost.

This was not good, at all. We all know apologies and backtracking do not work with leftists. They are going to be even more emboldened by this.

Keep your powder dry, guys.

Post: #643

(11-17-2014 04:32 PM)Jack198 Wrote:  

(11-17-2014 03:48 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

(11-17-2014 03:17 PM)Jack198 Wrote:  Careful - calling people names around here can get you warned and eventually banned. And yes, I've seen his pubs. But the kind of language he uses in that letter is the stuff that makes professional conduct types (and often judges too) roll their eyes. One need not act like Larry Flynt to represent his kind.

Ask me how I know you're an SJW troll?

1. You claim, "The lawyer who wrote that letter is a smut lawyer frat guy from a 4th tier law school."

2. When confronted with evidence that the lawyer is nationally known and also an academic, you say:

3. I knew that all along!

Which means your first post about the letter was a troll.

That, or you're an SJW.

Either way, you lose!

Wow - it didn't take much to push your buttons, did it?

Post: #644

(11-17-2014 04:32 PM)Jack198 Wrote:  Wow - it didn't take much to push your buttons, did it?

Your'e projecting, typical of an SJW troll.

I logically destroyed your argument and exposed you as a troll.

It wasn't hard, as you're not a serious professional who understands why the letter was drafted the way it was.

Go back to Tumblr.

Post: #645

(11-17-2014 03:17 PM)Jack198 Wrote:  calling people names around here can get you warned and eventually banned.

November 2014 will go down in RVF history as having some of the funniest bans of all time.

Post: #646

(11-17-2014 04:44 PM)Libertas Wrote:  Julien tried to backtrack and apologize by claiming that he's been to clients' weddings, thus reinforcing the neutering of male sexuality for anyone but media elites by Julien's painting them as good beta providers that just needed a boost.

Very good point Libertas, this was a bad day for all men, not just Julien and RSD.

Post: #647

(11-17-2014 05:06 PM)ilovelatinas Wrote:  

(11-17-2014 04:44 PM)Libertas Wrote:  Julien tried to backtrack and apologize by claiming that he's been to clients' weddings, thus reinforcing the neutering of male sexuality for anyone but media elites by Julien's painting them as good beta providers that just needed a boost.

Very good point Libertas, this was a bad day for all men, not just Julien and RSD.

That was my "beef" with RSD.

Sure, they are cowards for not defending themselves. On it's own, not a big deal.

What's worse is their inaction and now their response is harming every man who enjoys the company of women.

Actively distancing one's self from RSD is crucial.

Post: #648

(11-17-2014 05:20 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  ...

That was my "beef" with RSD.

Sure, they are cowards for not defending themselves. On it's own, not a big deal.

What's worse is their inaction and now their response is harming every man who enjoys the company of women.

Actively distancing one's self from RSD is crucial.

Also calling his clients "socially awkward" is frankly a direct insult to anyone - while that may be true for some, most guys have just had a bad Blue Pill skill-set to deal with women. I know for a fact that some PUA bootcamp participants are successful guys making high 6-digits or more, so insulting their paying customers as some kind of weirdos who cannot talk to women and need "confidence" is just bad - really bad for business. It all falls into the frame of the mainstream media who are making fun of men who seek advice of PUAs in order to deal better with women - regardless whether it is a 3000$ bootcamp or 5$ e-book - to the mainstream media we all are "socially awkward" because we are looking into Game.

Post: #649

(11-17-2014 05:30 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  Also calling his clients "socially awkward" is frankly a direct insult to anyone - while that may be true for some, most guys have just had a bad Blue Pill skill-set to deal with women. I know for a fact that some PUA bootcamp participants are successful guys making high 6-digits or more, so insulting their paying customers as some kind of weirdos who cannot talk to women and need "confidence" is just bad - really bad for business. It all falls into the frame of the mainstream media who are making fun of men who seek advice of PUAs in order to deal better with women - regardless whether it is a 3000$ bootcamp or 5$ e-book - to the mainstream media we all are "socially awkward" because we are looking into Game.

Good point.

All of this shows that RSD only cares to use and con men out of their money.

Now the information is out there. If people still give RSD or Owen Cook money, it's on them.

Post: #650

Bet they are getting a lot of requests to return bootcamp/hotseat deposits. I hope they didn't blow all the $$ on legal fees already..

BTW Julien just posted some BS on RSD nation about the CNN interview.