They are not "rephrasings" of the same system, anymore than geometry is algebra "rephrased."
Geometry is just algebra rephrased
Descartes came up with his coordinate system for exactly this reason; algebra really is just a way of writing the ideas in geometry, and vice versa.
What I was getting at with my claim, is that post-MM, all game systems are pretty much doing the same thing: that is, establishing attraction and comfort before seducing. Different systems organise the information differently, and suggest different techniques to achieve the goal, but all fundamentally (necessarily!) achieve the same goals, because these are the goals that must be achieved to sleep with a woman.
So for example, I have a friend who talks about "open, social hook, sexual hook, pull, fuck". Inside his idea of open/social hook/sexual hook/pull are the same ideas I have, of opening, building value, qualifying, comfort, seduction, but just arranged and organised differently, and in field, we do pretty much the same thing.
If I were to hazard a guess, your SAC/VAC systems also accomplish opening, building value, qualifying, comforting, seducing - because if they didn't, they wouldn't work consistently. Your systems just present the same ideas differently, and perhaps prescribe different techniques for accomplishing the goals (which is the only true difference between these post-MM systems). For example, Mystery method prescribes group-theory, negging, DHV stories to build value. But you could run pure Mystery Method without doing any of these things, because, fundamentally, all it comes down to is the compliance algorithm and the understanding of the stages of seduction.
So when I say they're all basically the same, I mean that they all hit the same beats, just present them differently.
Which is why I said that there's no pointing hopping about and arguing over which system is better, because if you're gaming perfectly, you're hitting the beats in whatever way is most convenient to you at that moment. If my friend running his social/sexual hook thing were to try my way of thinking, he'd quickly discover that it's pretty much the exact same as his way of thinking, except with a focus on different techniques, and different mental checkpoints, but the path is the same. It's like marking the same path in mile or kilometre checkpoints.
All of which is to say, the different systems are different ways of applying the same ideas - very useful as training wheels to force you to think in different ways and apply different techniques, but all ultimately reducing to the same thing.
If you saw me run "Mystery Method", as I do in most sets, you might not think it looks anything like Mystery Method, but I'm marking off the mental checkpoints that I learnt from MM - even though it might look like I'm running some weird RSDnatural shit or whatever.
Obviously some systems, like Gunwitch Method do
not mark off the beats that MM introduced, but all such systems are suboptimal and less consistent. I love GM, I used it exclusively for a while to work on my SS projection, got laid with it many times, but because it does not by itself consider value/comfort optimally, the system is not optimal. All optimal systems will rephrase the ideas of attraction/comfort/seduction in some way.
Like Lagrangian dynamics is the exact same thing as Newtonian mechanics, even though it's written completerly different. If it didn't contain every thing Newtonian mechanics did, it simply wouldn't work.
www.girlschase.com
www.instagram.com
