DAOS 4G

[Shannon]

Did you actually read my post? Doesn't look like it when you're the one being illogical here.

Please show me where I said 3.1 (or 3.0 for that matter) didn't work. And for the record, I've been using B versions of both. I thought you already knew my stance on healing that clearing.

Post #20 is a good quick example. I'm not going to spend a lot of time arguing that point, because it's pretty obvious what you're saying if you read the thread. And using B is supposed to be done after using A, because B is for straight execution and A is for clearing the way to being able to get results on B. Not using A, then, and getting results you don't like on B, points to you not following the directions. I believe your stance on healing and clearing is, "Run away!!!"

I laid out the results I had with 3.1 after using it for about a month, haven't counted the days so it could be 3 weeks. But that's not the point. Neither is the point whether the sub is working or not.

I'm not running away from anything.

Of course not. You're refusing to use A because you know you'll get better results by not following the instructions, right? The truth is, you don't want to use A because you know that it will require you to deal with some stuff that you prefer to avoid instead of deal with. Which is kind of, I don't know... running away. Let's call a rose a rose here, Sick.

You seem to expect that your customers are a bunch of losers with no awareness. I said I don't want the results DMSI has given me. I want results that are positive for me as an individual. That's my choice, and trying to ridicule me for it shows all about your character.

Then maybe follow the directions? Just going out on a limb here. I'm not trying to ridicule you, I'm pointing out a gross error in logical thinking.

Look, if DMSI isn't for you, fine, whatever. Use DAOS. No skin off my nose. But you don't get to disregard the instructions and then claim that the results are indicative of a problem with the program or how it's being developed.

I have no beef with you personally. But the way you're doing things here needs to be called out. And if you think that's me attacking you, it's not, but whatever. I am just pointing out some logic errors. If you wanna start playing lawyer games with what I am saying and attacking my character in all this, you should stop now while you're ahead. The fact is, you are not using the program correctly, and you are complaining about the results you get. That's on you. Take some personal responsibility for your choices. I spent the time to make A so people who could not handle B would have a way to get to that point. At least if you were following the instructions, you could legitimately say there was something wrong, and it would provide data for me to improve the program. All you're doing at this point is intentionally ignoring the instructions on how to get the results and proving that A exists for a reason. Which I already knew. The goal is to make it work. I'm not disputing that it's not done yet.

If you create a program that I paid for and am not happy about the results, it's well within my rights to say it.

True. It's also well within my rights to point out where you are not happy with it for reasons that come back to what you chose to do - namely, disregarding the instructions and failing to provide any useful data for improving it while engaging in logic errors that misrepresent the facts.