Please evaluate this text conversation

[Guest]

I put this in the tactics and techniques section, because I may have stumbled upon an interesting new tactic that I would like to see if it's any good. Okay before I go into it, a little background:

First, I met the girl two months ago and we ended up making out pretty hot and heavy at the club and then bounced to a diner where I was able to get her in comfort, but it was logistically impossible to get her home for the f-close. Since then we would text each other back and forth, but because again logistics and I think waning disinterest on her part, I was never able to set up a day two. Eventually, I got tired of chasing, and deleted the number (a bad habit I have).

Last week, out of the blue, she texted me. I complied with her initiation of the thread but did so in a purposefully aloof way so that the conversation wouldn't go anywhere unless she put in some major effort. This one died quickly. She texted me again out of the blue again, this time with a stronger IOI, but I reacted the same way, and let the thread die an even quicker death.

I re-thought my position and decided to text her today, just to see what would happen, and we had a pretty long conversation where I think I may have discovered a new useful tactic.

Sometimes I liked to send one text message and then a quick second text before the girl has a chance to reply to the first, to bombard them and catch them off gaurd (If the rhythm of the texts are right). I've been using that to great success recently but something interesting and accidental happened, and I'll show you.

It started when she sent me this reply to a "what have you been up to?" question in the middle of the interaction (at this point I was working on establishing mostly comfort and rapport):

HB: I have been reading a lot and trying to understand people around me specially "difficult" ppl lol and working a lot as usual, you?

(now here I decided to use the above mentioned double text tactic, and accidentally split the conversation in two)

MeConvo1: Define: difficult. :)

MeConvo2: Reading 1984?
(I had seen it in her car and we talked about it)

HBConvo1: Difficult, well specifically someone who is insanely self-absorbed they refer to their self in 3rd person, intrigues and deeply disturbs me.

HBConvo2: Half-way through it, I just re-read one of my fav books, a seperate peace

(I waited for both replies to come in before sending two more rapid fire ones, and kept this up for the rest of what's transcribed)

MeConvo1: I've been dealing with dificult people too, only they've been more self-absorbed and needy. :/

MeConvo2: What's a seperate peace?

HBConvo1: Really! So you can relate, it's really draining and takes a mountain of patience, don't know how it can be done long term...

HBConvo2: It's an old book, I read it forever ago in school and it stayed with me I love it, written by john knowles

MeConvo1: It's two people. They both get really paranoid and upset when I can't or don't want to hang out. They are also insanely jealous.

MeConvo2: Is it like a catcher in the rye teenage angst thing?

HBConvo1: Geez! Drama! Must be girls ;)

HBConvo2: Hmm not really its a sad story about jealousy and friendship between 2 boys

MeConvo1: Actually, yes! I could tell you the craziest stories.

MeConvo2: Was this the first book you ever really connected with?

After that we continued on the book thread, and dropped the other. Might I have stumbled onto something useful here. It takes a lot of investment on her part to keep two conversations going. Also, both were eliciting a seperate array of emotions. Maybe this could be useful if tweaked and tinkered with a bit. What do you guys think?

[Guest]

I remember reading something about this when I first joined the boards. I think it was Bull Run who did the same type of thing. I think he called it "tacking". Like stacking, but with text.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=sooners123;33886]I remember reading something about this when I first joined the boards. I think it was Bull Run who did the same type of thing. I think he called it "tacking". Like stacking, but with text.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I just did a search. It is tacking and Bull Run did come up with it. That's probably where I first learned about it.

[URL]http://www.dallaslair.com/forum/showthread.php?p=32320&highlight=tacking#post32320[/URL]

[URL]http://www.dallaslair.com/forum/showthread.php?p=32296&highlight=tacking#post32296[/URL]

Nothing in there about splitting the conversation in two, though. Maybe Bull Run wants to chime in about it?

[Guest]

This would be a good time to elicit her inner persona.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=sooners123;33886]I remember reading something about this when I first joined the boards. I think it was Bull Run who did the same type of thing. I think he called it "tacking". Like stacking, but with text.[/QUOTE]


haha! that was bull run's post! which was a great read, and i suggest everyone read it...

credit to bull run, "tacking..!" :cool:

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Fuzz;33888]Yeah, I just did a search. It is tacking and Bull Run did come up with it. That's probably where I first learned about it.

[URL]http://www.dallaslair.com/forum/showthread.php?p=32320&highlight=tacking#post32320[/URL]

[URL]http://www.dallaslair.com/forum/showthread.php?p=32296&highlight=tacking#post32296[/URL]

Nothing in there about splitting the conversation in two, though. Maybe Bull Run wants to chime in about it?[/QUOTE]



Yeah, tacking is a Bull Run original.

Regarding splitting the conversation into multiple, parallel threads. I know I've gotten myself into situations where I was running multiple, parallel text threads with women but Jesus, at least for me, I found it annoying. When that happened to me, which is not an uncommon thing to happen with girls that are ADD, I usually just tried to consolidate the thread into one string so that I could guide it to the places I wanted it to go.

In my experience, the danger you run by splitting your thread is to allow her to focus on one or the other conversation. The reality is that she already has three options with a single thread: 1) continue the thread 2) change the subject or 3) drop the thread. When you add a second thread, you give her another 'out.' The way I see it, I want to try to give women as few 'outs' as possible.

So, if I'm running a playful text thread with sexual undertones and a more serious, comfort building thread then I run the risk of her dropping the first thread and picking up the second thread.

Now, one could argue that by running a more intense, suggestive thread in conjunction with a more innocuous thread then you are improving your odds that she'll still engage in some form of conversation. Unfortunately, this kind of goes against my personal philosophy with women, I lead them to where I want them to go and then I get sexual with them (in a playful way via text). I'm not going to give them more options to be flaky and play it coy with me. Her decision matrix is that she can either engage in the playful, sexual thread or she can find a different guy. I'm not going to fart around with boring 20 question type stuff: what do you do? where do you live? what tv do you like? Etc.

Also, while it may appear that women are investing more in a multi-threaded conversation I would argue that that's just not true. If you've ever seen a woman on IM with a group of her friends, she can carry on 4, 5, 6+ conversations with great ease. The investment isn't all that much higher for her than just 1 conversation. For men, on the other hand, the difficulty of maintaining multiple threads grows exponentially. We're just not wired that way.

Having said that, I think there may be some situations in which this could prove useful. If, for example, you're on a thread and it has become bland and boring you can split it into two conversations and let the original thread die out. But, even then, I think you're giving women way too many options with how she decides to interact with you.

That's what this all really comes down to, in my opinion, if you want to be playful, sexual, serious, sincere, etc. then if she likes you she's going to conform to that tone and interact with you on the same level. That's what girls do. But, you have to set the tone. If you have two different tones running in text thread(s) then she's going to be confused as to what you expect from her and, as such, won't deliver the goods that you're seeking.

Again, it all comes down to leading. Leaders don't generally give options for their followers, that's the opposite of leading. Instead, leaders let it be known what they expect and their followers will either comply or not. Text threads should be ones in which you lead them to the place you want them to go...whether that's sexual, comfort, rapport, sincerity, playful, whatever.

[Guest]

Very nice post bull run. I believe i am above average on my text game(ignoring my most recent game problem lol) and i absolutely hate having multiple conversations going on at once. Annoys the fuck outta me lol. What i'll do sometimes is say the conversation is sexual, i'll send a playful yet suggestive text and then immediately afterwards send a very(or more) forward text. Hit her with some shock and awe. That works well with me.