Subliminal Talk
Shannon's Journal Discussion - Printable Version

+- Subliminal Talk (https://subliminal-talk.com)
+-- Forum: Men's Journals (18+ NSFW) (https://subliminal-talk.com/Forum-Men-s-Journals-18-NSFW)
+--- Forum: Men's Journals (https://subliminal-talk.com/Forum-Men-s-Journals)
+--- Thread: Shannon's Journal Discussion (/Thread-Shannon-s-Journal-Discussion)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691


RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - Cozy - 10-22-2016

Oh, definitely thought you meant the girls weren't attractive.


RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - SargeMaximus - 10-22-2016

(10-22-2016, 04:02 PM)Banksy Wrote: Oh, definitely thought you meant the girls weren't attractive.

Oh ok, yeah they were attractive but clunky and TOO subtle in their interactions with me.

Btw Shannon, I believe that if you could make it so that the women we desire are validated (temporarily) by having sex with the dmsi user (and pleasing him) and are invalidated by not having sex with or not pleasing the dmsi user you would be onto something powerful. Everyone wants to feel validated and like they belong to something.


RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - FREAK4LIFE - 10-23-2016

(10-22-2016, 03:25 PM)SargeMaximus Wrote:
(10-22-2016, 03:12 PM)Banksy Wrote:
(10-22-2016, 12:34 PM)SargeMaximus Wrote:
(10-22-2016, 12:26 PM)THolt Wrote:
(10-21-2016, 10:32 PM)wolverine_i_am Wrote: It's normal that you're gonna have impatient people, Shannon. Don't let it discourage you. Although I am sure you will use it as fuel to achieve greatness. I'd like to thank you for working so hard on this subliminal. It's definitely helped so much. It's massively speeding up my progress and I can see myself reaching the end goal in the near future!

How are they being "impatient" when they genuinely aren't getting results? Aren't they supposed to report what results they are actually getting? If people get criticized for not reporting actual results, then it creates a groupthink atmosphere that discourages people from reporting their results

For me I'd like to see reports of what people ARE getting. It would help us understand what's going on more. Plus, sometimes people don't think anything's happening when it is. I've been approached twice by women while on DMSI. Both times were so subtle it would be missed by 99% of guys unless you understand how a girl "approaches".

Granted they weren't what we're after, but they were results.

I think this is a perfect example of how subjective these "results" can be. First of all how attractive are these girls to begin with, everyone has their own standards, and is in their own league.

They were both very attractive to me. Just had to clarify. Smile

(10-22-2016, 03:12 PM)Banksy Wrote: For example, if you're like super attractive, a non-attractive girl may ignore you or treat you bad because she sees you as above her league, while an attractive girl can be giving you all the signals. The reverse is true too, if you're not attractive a non-attractive girl may have more confidence towards you, and an attractive girl may ignore you. And then there may be a DMSI user who doesn't believe himself to be in a certain league, and get confused by these results. This is a very real dynamic.

Of course but the goal of DMSI is to make women we find attractive offer themselves to us sexually. For example, I find Megan Fox to be very attractive. A solid 9 for me personally.

Theoretically, DMSI should make her approach me for sex if we were in the same venue and we interacted with each other.

At least, that's my understanding of how it should work.

(10-22-2016, 03:12 PM)Banksy Wrote: Then there's approach, when I say approach I mean like a girl walking up to you and starting a conversation / flirting with you. As a shy kid I remember an older (cute face nice ass 9.5/10) girl asking me to join a group where basically I could **** a bunch of girls no string attached. Basically no effort. (I turned it down) And I wouldn't consider myself necessarily an alpha male back then although I think I was pretty cool. Those are the kind of results I think DMSI is aiming for, and it happened for me when I was a shy non-aggressive kid. Although quite handsome. I don't think I would get that kind of result with my current attitude, even though I might be more attractive. [i]There's something to being shy. There may even be power in it.[/i]

Yes, I totally agree. I've been shy many times and had girls come on to me. I've also had girls come on to me when i was being hateful as I've mentioned countless times before.

But i think it's in line with being non-threatening. Same in sales. You can't go far in sales if your threatening. And you can't catch fish by jumping in the water and splashing around. You gotta let them come to you.

So yeah, perhaps we should go down that route more or at least explore it.



Megan fox from 5 years ago or now, Sarge?


RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - Ricardo - 10-23-2016

Let's not forget that DMSI is still EXPERIMENTAL and until Shannon brings out the first full working version we shouldn't whinge too much about not getting the exact results. It's something that we keep forgetting, that it's experimental. I'm of the view that the goals won't even be close until we are into version 3.x, even then a few tweaks may be required. If Shannon throws the towel in and says it's not going to happen, for whatever reason then remember that through all this, you haven't wasted your time or money as the process has at least produced some great sexual healing and healing in general stuff. So those versions that have come out are worth it in their own right.
I think Shannon gets an unfair rap on these boards when it's not called for.


RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - Shannon - 10-23-2016

(10-22-2016, 09:20 PM)SargeMaximus Wrote:
(10-22-2016, 04:02 PM)Banksy Wrote: Oh, definitely thought you meant the girls weren't attractive.

Oh ok, yeah they were attractive but clunky and TOO subtle in their interactions with me.

Btw Shannon, I believe that if you could make it so that the women we desire are validated (temporarily) by having sex with the dmsi user (and pleasing him) and are invalidated by not having sex with or not pleasing the dmsi user you would be onto something powerful. Everyone wants to feel validated and like they belong to something.

Validation is planned for 3.0, but perhaps not the way you might expect.


RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - bits - 10-23-2016

(10-23-2016, 04:02 AM)Shannon Wrote:
(10-22-2016, 09:20 PM)SargeMaximus Wrote:
(10-22-2016, 04:02 PM)Banksy Wrote: Oh, definitely thought you meant the girls weren't attractive.

Oh ok, yeah they were attractive but clunky and TOO subtle in their interactions with me.

Btw Shannon, I believe that if you could make it so that the women we desire are validated (temporarily) by having sex with the dmsi user (and pleasing him) and are invalidated by not having sex with or not pleasing the dmsi user you would be onto something powerful. Everyone wants to feel validated and like they belong to something.

Validation is planned for 3.0, but perhaps not the way you might expect.

self validation? Wink


RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - THolt - 10-23-2016

(10-23-2016, 03:42 AM)Ricardo Wrote: Let's not forget that DMSI is still EXPERIMENTAL and until Shannon brings out the first full working version we shouldn't whinge too much about not getting the exact results. It's something that we keep forgetting, that it's experimental. I'm of the view that the goals won't even be close until we are into version 3.x, even then a few tweaks may be required. If Shannon throws the towel in and says it's not going to happen, for whatever reason then remember that through all this, you haven't wasted your time or money as the process has at least produced some great sexual healing and healing in general stuff. So those versions that have come out are worth it in their own right.
I think Shannon gets an unfair rap on these boards when it's not called for.

Well when the program certainly wasn't experimental when people were having results but now they are questioning the program all of sudden the experimental aspect of it is being emphasized. If the program is getting results, say it. If it isn't then say that too. This will be beneficial to V3 development.


RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - SargeMaximus - 10-23-2016

(10-23-2016, 02:57 AM)FREAK4LIFE Wrote: Megan fox from 5 years ago or now, Sarge?

There's a difference?

(10-23-2016, 04:02 AM)Shannon Wrote:
(10-22-2016, 09:20 PM)SargeMaximus Wrote:
(10-22-2016, 04:02 PM)Banksy Wrote: Oh, definitely thought you meant the girls weren't attractive.

Oh ok, yeah they were attractive but clunky and TOO subtle in their interactions with me.

Btw Shannon, I believe that if you could make it so that the women we desire are validated (temporarily) by having sex with the dmsi user (and pleasing him) and are invalidated by not having sex with or not pleasing the dmsi user you would be onto something powerful. Everyone wants to feel validated and like they belong to something.

Validation is planned for 3.0, but perhaps not the way you might expect.

Oh?

Well at the very least, hope I gave you some ideas.


RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - Shannon - 10-23-2016

I'm way ahead of you. Smile


RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - SargeMaximus - 10-23-2016

(10-23-2016, 08:10 AM)Shannon Wrote: I'm way ahead of you. Smile

As always lol. Big Grin

EDIT: Oh btw, don't know if I mentioned this or if you've thought of it, but some randomization to the validation and whatever else the girl is getting from DMSI would be good too. to keep things interesting for her with the user things can't be too predictable.


RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - Bookstacks DC737 - 10-23-2016

Is it possible to make a special request for BASE 4G? It's no longer in the store.


RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - maxx55 - 10-23-2016

Just wanted to point something out.

I had DMSI 2.4 playing via VLC for iPhone and I noticed the volume would drop every minute or so and then slowly return to what it was already at. I thought maybe Shannon used some kind of new masked volume differencing. But when I played it on VLC on the computer, the volume stayed constant.

It sounded weird to me, but it might be "normal" for those who never noticed. Just wanted to point it out. I'm returning to using TuneShell for iPhone and FileMaster where I never had that issue.


RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - Bookstacks DC737 - 10-23-2016

(10-23-2016, 09:27 AM)maxx55 Wrote: Just wanted to point something out.

I had DMSI 2.4 playing via VLC for iPhone and I noticed the volume would drop every minute or so and then slowly return to what it was already at. I thought maybe Shannon used some kind of new masked volume differencing. But when I played it on VLC on the computer, the volume stayed constant.

It sounded weird to me, but it might be "normal" for those who never noticed. Just wanted to point it out. I'm returning to using TuneShell for iPhone and FileMaster where I never had that issue.

Yes I noticed the same thing! Must just be VLC.


RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - rayrocanaldo - 10-23-2016

Maybe DMSI doesnt work for most of us is because we only listen to it for 3 loops. Should be more