(11-17-2016, 07:38 PM)maxx55 Wrote: Just another idea here Shannon. Well two actually.

1. I think it could be useful if sexual frustration from the user was turned into a source of energy usable for the aura. Either that or maybe just eliminate it if transforming it isn't possible.

2. You said that you were going to expand on the celebrity effect for the v3 branch. I'm not sure if it's already in there, but if you could add something that essentially turns the user into a celebrity among women I think that would be incredible. Something so that regardless of the girl the user comes in contact with that sense of "Oh my God! I can't believe it's him...in the flesh!" hits them. I think this would be useful because all girls have an attractive girlfriend and they'll probably tell the story.

(11-17-2016, 07:55 PM)yeah! Wrote:

(11-17-2016, 07:48 PM)Steven Wrote: Hey everyone,

For those of you running DMSI, I wanted to post this quote Shannon just left on another thread regarding preparing for v3.0.1:

"I would say that you would do best to stop 21 days or more before the release date if you have been using 2.5, and 15 days or more if 2.4."

http://subliminal-talk.com/thread-8080-post-142623.html#pid142623

What about for E2?

5G programs?

4G?

(11-17-2016, 07:44 PM)yeah! Wrote: Thanks Shannon

I added to that post but the gist is

Would AM6 foundation be likely to help in 7 or will 7 work the same regardless and in 1 or 2 runs?

(11-17-2016, 12:49 PM)Shannon Wrote: There are a lot of people in the world. If I can all for, and meet, a "natural redhead with long wavy copper red hair who is a 23 year old virgin with blue eyes, full lips, a C cup chest, inverted nipples, freckles and naturally red eyebrows and pubic hair" (the actual list was a lot longer) - and I did meet such a female within a week when calling for her - then I am pretty sure you can find your perfect whatever in this sea of 8+ billion humans.

It is much more likely than not to find them, than not, considering 8+ BILLION people.

The real Achilles heel is time and timing. When you start calling they may be in some way "indisposed".

(11-17-2016, 10:35 PM)AbundanceCH Wrote:

(11-17-2016, 12:49 PM)Shannon Wrote: There are a lot of people in the world. If I can all for, and meet, a "natural redhead with long wavy copper red hair who is a 23 year old virgin with blue eyes, full lips, a C cup chest, inverted nipples, freckles and naturally red eyebrows and pubic hair" (the actual list was a lot longer) - and I did meet such a female within a week when calling for her - then I am pretty sure you can find your perfect whatever in this sea of 8+ billion humans.

It is much more likely than not to find them, than not, considering 8+ BILLION people.

The real Achilles heel is time and timing. When you start calling they may be in some way "indisposed".

Shannon, I remember your post about this manifestation in another thread. I have been meaning to ask you for a while now. Can you give a little bit more detail as to what you did to manifest her?

I'm curious about

1. When it comes to the journal entry itself did you write a list of attributes of what you wanted in this girl

Quote:or did you write a story in as if already in the present format of you having her and describing her qualities?

Quote:2. Did you do anything else besides write your journal entry?

Quote:I'm very curious to your method as I have been journaling to manifest my relationships for a couple of years now and I know this works. I write a letter thanking the universe as if I already have her and just describing all her qualities (and also what she likes about me very important). But from what I understood from your post all you did was just write a list of her attributes and qualities and not really in a letter format but rather a bullet point format.

(11-17-2016, 11:40 PM)CatMan Wrote: Hello Shannon,

I've noticed a lot of new ASDFWTFBBQs going into V3.0.1 that I've never heard of before, that's exciting, lol.

Since the 21st cutoff for additions to V3.0.1 is approaching, and since I haven't seen updates of their inclusion yet in your journal, I'd just like to kindly remind you about:

1. The emotional shielding inclusion from E2.

2. Self limiting beliefs removal programming inclusion.

3. Self sabotage removal programming inclusion.

Numbers 2 and 3 were for somewhat selfish reasons as they seemed to be big stumbling blocks for me getting results with the program according to you, and would obviously benefit others as well. Number 1 would also be a huge benefit to myself, and others.

With everything you got going on, I just wanted to send a reminder a few days out so they can be included without any hardship incurred. I know you wanted to stop adding on the 21st, and refine and tweak until the 27th then release, so I thought I'd post this now a few days before the 21st.

Thank you, Shannon. And I'm excited to see how far forward V3.0.1 takes me. I'm sure it will build on V2.5's initial success!

(11-18-2016, 12:08 AM)Shannon Wrote:

(11-17-2016, 11:40 PM)CatMan Wrote: Hello Shannon,

I've noticed a lot of new ASDFWTFBBQs going into V3.0.1 that I've never heard of before, that's exciting, lol.

Since the 21st cutoff for additions to V3.0.1 is approaching, and since I haven't seen updates of their inclusion yet in your journal, I'd just like to kindly remind you about:

1. The emotional shielding inclusion from E2.

2. Self limiting beliefs removal programming inclusion.

3. Self sabotage removal programming inclusion.

Numbers 2 and 3 were for somewhat selfish reasons as they seemed to be big stumbling blocks for me getting results with the program according to you, and would obviously benefit others as well. Number 1 would also be a huge benefit to myself, and others.

With everything you got going on, I just wanted to send a reminder a few days out so they can be included without any hardship incurred. I know you wanted to stop adding on the 21st, and refine and tweak until the 27th then release, so I thought I'd post this now a few days before the 21st.

Thank you, Shannon. And I'm excited to see how far forward V3.0.1 takes me. I'm sure it will build on V2.5's initial success!

#2 and #3 are done. #1 should be done in a day or three.

Keep in mind, though, that the list of things to include is a lot longer than it was when I posted "40% of what is in the list", so regardless of what happens with 3.0.1, remember that there is a LOT more to add still. I also am consistently seeing the same returns from the predictive models when I query it concerning the effectiveness of the progression of the 3.x series, and it consistently shows me that:

1. 3.0.1 will be much more powerful than 2.5
2. 3.0 will be much less powerful than 3.1 and beyond.
3. The final of the 3.x series is most likely one of two versions, which keep switching off as to which one ends up being the final.
4. The final of the 3.x series will be vastly more powerful and effective than 3.0.1.

(11-17-2016, 07:37 PM)Duke.Togo Wrote: Hey Shannon, stupid question, but, what's a Quirple?

(08-10-2016, 03:49 PM)K-Train Wrote: Shannon based off the current level of scripting technology at your disposal how powerful do you believe you can make the disinhibitor and based off that power level, what have the models said would be the effects of introducing that "maxed out" disinhibitor into DMSI? Thanks for your time.

(08-10-2016, 04:17 PM)Shannon Wrote: To answer your question, we must invent a unit of measurement. Let's use "quirples", because it sounds funny and makes me laugh.

Now, a subliminal or some component thereof can be measured in terms of power in quirples, but for this to make sense, we must define a quirple.

This is where the answer to your question fails, because I do not know how to define a quirple other than to say it is a unit of measurement for the power level of a subliminal or subcomponent thereof. Without a specific value, it is essentially meaningless. I could say, "Oh, I can make a disinhibitor at 250 quirples!" and it would mean the exact same thing as if I said 2.5 quirples or 2.5 billion quirples.

Let's suppose that a quirple is equal to the percentage of the population affected, times the number of people affected as desired over the number not so affected.

Q = X(A/B)

That's still impossible for me to use, because I don't have the data to plug in for X, A or B!

I have not run any models on a maxed out disinhibitor for DMSI. I don't think I can, because "maxed out" would be full 6G.

So the only really accurate answer is...

"I don't know yet."