Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="debeguiled" data-source="post: 1279540" data-attributes="member: 7867">RE: Day game instructors are shutting down their web sitesOver at West Indian Archie's blog, someone in the comments has posted the BBC doc, which is very short.It reminds me of the cat calling video where the woman walked all over New York for 8 hours, didn't really get cat called, and had to redefine cat calling to make the point she wanted to make.If this guy went under cover with a Pick Up company to expose them, he really didn't get what he was looking for judging from his documentary.So he has to pad it out by saying how scared he was wearing a hidden camera, or using a fake name, or having to change batteries in the rest room.&nbsp; And then he has to change the subject to the guy who got arrested (as mentioned early in this thread) who he didn't really have any dealings with.I just don't see that he found them guilty of doing anything really wrong or he would have shown it in the documentary.Instead, he tries to drum up feelings of fear and disgust in the viewer based on the fear he felt going undercover.I am sure the documentary will still have its intended effect on viewers who are looking for straight male boogey men.&nbsp; It's just that it comes across as a very lame attempt at a smear if you look at the actual evidence he presents.[MEDIA=youtube]FTh4s_tlrHA&amp;t=103s[/MEDIA]</blockquote>

[QUOTE="debeguiled, post: 1279540, member: 7867"] [b]RE: Day game instructors are shutting down their web sites[/b] Over at West Indian Archie's blog, someone in the comments has posted the BBC doc, which is very short. It reminds me of the cat calling video where the woman walked all over New York for 8 hours, didn't really get cat called, and had to redefine cat calling to make the point she wanted to make. If this guy went under cover with a Pick Up company to expose them, he really didn't get what he was looking for judging from his documentary. So he has to pad it out by saying how scared he was wearing a hidden camera, or using a fake name, or having to change batteries in the rest room. And then he has to change the subject to the guy who got arrested (as mentioned early in this thread) who he didn't really have any dealings with. I just don't see that he found them guilty of doing anything really wrong or he would have shown it in the documentary. Instead, he tries to drum up feelings of fear and disgust in the viewer based on the fear he felt going undercover. I am sure the documentary will still have its intended effect on viewers who are looking for straight male boogey men. It's just that it comes across as a very lame attempt at a smear if you look at the actual evidence he presents. [MEDIA=youtube]FTh4s_tlrHA&t=103s[/MEDIA] [/QUOTE]

Verification