(09-16-2016, 07:48 PM)Shannon Wrote: My name is Shannon, thanks. Shortening it doesn't work.

(09-16-2016, 07:48 PM)Shannon Wrote:

(09-16-2016, 02:45 PM)Churchill Wrote: Hey Shann , I know it's a bit off topic but I'm just curious here....
Do we absorb messages flashed in our peripheral vision field subliminally?

My name is Shannon, thanks. Shortening it doesn't work.

Peripheral vision is almost entirely subconsciously absorbed information, and that makes it subliminal.

(09-18-2016, 11:45 AM)ncbeareatingman Wrote: same here but in a different 'format' I detest meeting a FELLA online & he jumps right into "Hey Bud" which sounds like he's talking down to a 5 yr old. To Me "bud' is wally cleaver's friends whose freinds with leave it to beaver. he does NOT Live here. Im a grown ass 58 yr old man,to me such 'nicks' are presumtive,overly familiar,assumptive throw away terms, I Like the T shirt that say's "Dont Bro me ,if you dont know me", aint ch'er bro,your cuz, and I absolutley detest being reffered to as "hon' by another man. fukin hate it. the waitress at "Denny's" can call me 'hon' but NOT the truck driver dude!
I get it Shannon and totally respect it ! RESPECT MUST COME FIRST and is in short order in this country these days. Kudu's Man. Keith.
PS: Oh and while Im on it "LoL" is another one,waaayy da fuk over used, a lot of times looks juvenille,adolescent and insincere,to me. most adults are almost NEVER "LoL-ing" when they're writing sum'sum' out online. If I write "LoL" which is extremely rare for me to do so I REALLY TRULY AM LAUGHING OUT LOUD!

(09-18-2016, 01:15 PM)Churchill Wrote:

(09-16-2016, 07:48 PM)Shannon Wrote:

(09-16-2016, 02:45 PM)Churchill Wrote: Hey Shann , I know it's a bit off topic but I'm just curious here....
Do we absorb messages flashed in our peripheral vision field subliminally?

My name is Shannon, thanks. Shortening it doesn't work.

Peripheral vision is almost entirely subconsciously absorbed information, and that makes it subliminal.

Thanks, I'm sorry about shortening your name Shannon, pretty alpha that you mentioned your dislike for it, or I'd have kept pissing you off without knowing. The way some of you talk in this forum tells me all I need to know about the efficacy of AM6
I was told the mind could only detect motion/change/difference in the peripheral field, motion but not detail. So I guess you're saying that the CONCIOUS mind detects motion/change/difference but the SUBCONSCIOUS is getting both these and the detail..
I'd appreciate anyone's comment.

(09-18-2016, 10:29 AM)Shannon Wrote:

(09-17-2016, 02:48 PM)RTBoss Wrote: Thinking out loud here:

Originally, being a tester and buying AOSI/DMSI was one and the same.

Then, there was the revelation there would be another level of DMSI that would require another purchase. AOSI/DMSI testing did not achieve the results initially intended, so this new level (3.0) became a "free upgrade."

There are people who could have just ran EHPRA 2.0 continuously for 8+ months (or another sub) while other people helped out to test, and they (the new purchasers) get to pay base price for 3.0 - after all the "kinks" are worked out. Meanwhile, the "testers" get a "free" upgrade. Months of helping out, but at the end of the day, pay exactly the same as someone just coming on board for the final product?

Seems off to me. Either charge people more for DMSI 3.0 to reflect all the work you've put into this, or...well, give long-term testers some kind of future testing privilege unavailable to others (or some other perk).

I'm surprised to see you saying this.

You're getting all these different versions of the program for free after buying in, and not having to pay the increased price when I increase it. But... when I see DMSI give the desired results, I will adjust it's price accordingly.

(09-18-2016, 10:37 AM)Shannon Wrote:

(09-18-2016, 07:43 AM)Firas1 Wrote:

(09-16-2016, 07:48 PM)Shannon Wrote: My name is Shannon, thanks. Shortening it doesn't work.

Peripheral vision is almost entirely subconsciously absorbed information, and that makes it subliminal.

Hello Shannon, I am new here and this is my first post.

I emailed this question but was told to post it in this thread.

I came across a website saying that in subliminals, the affirmations must be in the 'You' form, not 'I'. It was trying to say that it will not help you or will not be effective because the voice in the subliminal is talking about him/herself, hence the 'I' and it is not directing the statements to you. If a stranger is telling your subconscious 'I am confident' how can it be so effective? Why not 'you are confident?'

This is a good point and I am not sure if this has been brought up before.

Can you please shed some light on this?
Most subliminals out there are in I form.

The facts according to realty, instead of simply playing telephone with everyone on the Internet assuming everything everyone on the Internet says must be true, is as follows:

"YOU" statements work only for people who accept direct control from others. It would be the equivalent of a hypnotist giving commands to achieve the trance state, instead of doing so in a subtle, passive way that allows the individual the illusion of control. These very same statements will be rejected, resisted and ignored by those who would require the indirect approach with a hypnotist.

"I" statements are much more acceptable, and universally so, because they work for both much better. They don't trigger "You can't tell me what to do!" responses from control freaks, and they work for everyone else as well.

The fact is, even if I use a male voice only, and I use an "I" statement, even female listeners will execute the statements because part of the process of cognition subconsciously appears intrinsically tied to execution. This is why I cannot get an "if/then" statement to work definitively so far, even after 24 years of doing this.

Of course the gender of preference is better, so I use both male and female voices whenever possible, or whenever it would not detract from the goal.

This information is based on more than a decade of research and experimentation, and observing what actually works. I used to use "YOU" statements in the beginning, because like everyone else, "I read it online". But the fact is, most of what is online about subliminal scripting is incorrect, again, as borne out by more than a decade of research and experimentation on my part.

(09-17-2016, 03:07 PM)maxx55 Wrote:

(09-17-2016, 02:48 PM)RTBoss Wrote: Thinking out loud here:

Originally, being a tester and buying AOSI/DMSI was one and the same.

Then, there was the revelation there would be another level of DMSI that would require another purchase. AOSI/DMSI testing did not achieve the results initially intended, so this new level (3.0) became a "free upgrade."

There are people who could have just ran EHPRA 2.0 continuously for 8+ months (or another sub) while other people helped out to test, and they (the new purchasers) get to pay base price for 3.0 - after all the "kinks" are worked out. Meanwhile, the "testers" get a "free" upgrade. Months of helping out, but at the end of the day, pay exactly the same as someone just coming on board for the final product?

Seems off to me. Either charge people more for DMSI 3.0 to reflect all the work you've put into this, or...well, give long-term testers some kind of future testing privilege unavailable to others (or some other perk).

I know the E2 comment was totally about me :angel:

I do see your point though, but the thing is that this is something should have been made clear from the get go. If prices would increase as time went on, then that should have been stated. Shannon said that he will be increasing the price after the initial release of the final version once it's produced the results x amount of times over. I'll hold him to that and I think that's fair.

On the other side, I do see why testers could want an extra benefit from dedicating time to it. I'll be one to say that I'm appreciative that people like you, CatMan, Chaosvirgin, and everyone else are all a part of this and publicly posting your results. I sincerely appreciate that. At the same time, I know that I was testing DMSI right now, I'd see my reward as giving Shannon enough feedback and him upgrading and adding enough resistance-killing tech into it for me to achieve the goal of the program.

(09-18-2016, 06:41 PM)RTBoss Wrote:

(09-17-2016, 03:07 PM)maxx55 Wrote:

(09-17-2016, 02:48 PM)RTBoss Wrote: Thinking out loud here:

Originally, being a tester and buying AOSI/DMSI was one and the same.

Then, there was the revelation there would be another level of DMSI that would require another purchase. AOSI/DMSI testing did not achieve the results initially intended, so this new level (3.0) became a "free upgrade."

There are people who could have just ran EHPRA 2.0 continuously for 8+ months (or another sub) while other people helped out to test, and they (the new purchasers) get to pay base price for 3.0 - after all the "kinks" are worked out. Meanwhile, the "testers" get a "free" upgrade. Months of helping out, but at the end of the day, pay exactly the same as someone just coming on board for the final product?

Seems off to me. Either charge people more for DMSI 3.0 to reflect all the work you've put into this, or...well, give long-term testers some kind of future testing privilege unavailable to others (or some other perk).

I know the E2 comment was totally about me :angel:

I do see your point though, but the thing is that this is something should have been made clear from the get go. If prices would increase as time went on, then that should have been stated. Shannon said that he will be increasing the price after the initial release of the final version once it's produced the results x amount of times over. I'll hold him to that and I think that's fair.

On the other side, I do see why testers could want an extra benefit from dedicating time to it. I'll be one to say that I'm appreciative that people like you, CatMan, Chaosvirgin, and everyone else are all a part of this and publicly posting your results. I sincerely appreciate that. At the same time, I know that I was testing DMSI right now, I'd see my reward as giving Shannon enough feedback and him upgrading and adding enough resistance-killing tech into it for me to achieve the goal of the program.

Perhaps - but I'll have you know, I respect your decision to stick with E2 as long as you have. I've said it before. I perceived a trait in you, and others that have done the same, that I admire greatly. It's just the mental "split" that I have - that part of me that's unsure I did "the right thing," and is envious of you, that lashed out. So keep being, and doing, you. You've changed in some amazingly positive ways. You have a really bright future ahead of you, and I hope it only get brighter. :exclamation:

(09-18-2016, 04:50 PM)RTBoss Wrote:

(09-18-2016, 10:29 AM)Shannon Wrote:

(09-17-2016, 02:48 PM)RTBoss Wrote: Thinking out loud here:

Originally, being a tester and buying AOSI/DMSI was one and the same.

Then, there was the revelation there would be another level of DMSI that would require another purchase. AOSI/DMSI testing did not achieve the results initially intended, so this new level (3.0) became a "free upgrade."

There are people who could have just ran EHPRA 2.0 continuously for 8+ months (or another sub) while other people helped out to test, and they (the new purchasers) get to pay base price for 3.0 - after all the "kinks" are worked out. Meanwhile, the "testers" get a "free" upgrade. Months of helping out, but at the end of the day, pay exactly the same as someone just coming on board for the final product?

Seems off to me. Either charge people more for DMSI 3.0 to reflect all the work you've put into this, or...well, give long-term testers some kind of future testing privilege unavailable to others (or some other perk).

I'm surprised to see you saying this.

You're getting all these different versions of the program for free after buying in, and not having to pay the increased price when I increase it. But... when I see DMSI give the desired results, I will adjust it's price accordingly.

Lol, sorry man! I was drinking while watching the football game yesterday. I tend to say things I wouldn't say otherwise. Call it a moment of weakness.

(09-18-2016, 04:54 PM)Firas1 Wrote:

(09-18-2016, 10:37 AM)Shannon Wrote:

(09-18-2016, 07:43 AM)Firas1 Wrote:

(09-16-2016, 07:48 PM)Shannon Wrote: My name is Shannon, thanks. Shortening it doesn't work.

Peripheral vision is almost entirely subconsciously absorbed information, and that makes it subliminal.

Hello Shannon, I am new here and this is my first post.

I emailed this question but was told to post it in this thread.

I came across a website saying that in subliminals, the affirmations must be in the 'You' form, not 'I'. It was trying to say that it will not help you or will not be effective because the voice in the subliminal is talking about him/herself, hence the 'I' and it is not directing the statements to you. If a stranger is telling your subconscious 'I am confident' how can it be so effective? Why not 'you are confident?'

This is a good point and I am not sure if this has been brought up before.

Can you please shed some light on this?
Most subliminals out there are in I form.

The facts according to realty, instead of simply playing telephone with everyone on the Internet assuming everything everyone on the Internet says must be true, is as follows:

"YOU" statements work only for people who accept direct control from others. It would be the equivalent of a hypnotist giving commands to achieve the trance state, instead of doing so in a subtle, passive way that allows the individual the illusion of control. These very same statements will be rejected, resisted and ignored by those who would require the indirect approach with a hypnotist.

"I" statements are much more acceptable, and universally so, because they work for both much better. They don't trigger "You can't tell me what to do!" responses from control freaks, and they work for everyone else as well.

The fact is, even if I use a male voice only, and I use an "I" statement, even female listeners will execute the statements because part of the process of cognition subconsciously appears intrinsically tied to execution. This is why I cannot get an "if/then" statement to work definitively so far, even after 24 years of doing this.

Of course the gender of preference is better, so I use both male and female voices whenever possible, or whenever it would not detract from the goal.

This information is based on more than a decade of research and experimentation, and observing what actually works. I used to use "YOU" statements in the beginning, because like everyone else, "I read it online". But the fact is, most of what is online about subliminal scripting is incorrect, again, as borne out by more than a decade of research and experimentation on my part.

Eh? I wasn't 'playing telephone' assuming everything was true. I just wanted to ask and find out about what seems like a good point.
You have to question sometimes, so you can know what is the truth.

(09-19-2016, 12:48 AM)lokko Wrote: Offtopic: I bought premature ejaculation sub 5g but never really used it. Got tied up with health issues then dmsi...with 5.5 showing great potential i dont even want to go back to 5g.

Will we ever see the premature ejaculation sub in 6g? I'm sure a lot of people on the forum feel the same way