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 - CatMan - 09-18-2016

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

LOL!

This reminds me of an old post I read awhile ago.

This woman, called you "Shanny". I laughed so hard! And cringed so much, I aged 10 years in my face, no doubt.

Thought I'd bring up that painful moment for you...time to fire up E2 to remove it.


RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - Shannon - 09-18-2016

Generally, I only get that sort of thing from guys who are insecure or trying to start an argument, or women who are trying to emasculate me. The former get bored and stop when I ignore them. The latter get kicked out of my life.

But yeah. My name doesn't work in nickname or shortened versions. It comes off as being disrespectful, and I don't take kindly to that.


RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - ncbeareatingman - 09-18-2016

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!


RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - Churchill - 09-18-2016

(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 AM6Smile
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.


RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - Shannon - 09-18-2016

(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!

I usually only type it when I am doing it also. I just happen to laugh more than most people because I like to have a positive outlook, and laughing makes me happy.


RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - Shannon - 09-18-2016

(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 AM6Smile
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.

Usually people don't intend to upset. That's why I say it when it doesn't work.

There is a big difference between the range of perception between the conscious and subconscious minds. There are limits to the amount of detail that can be perceived peripherally for some very good reasons based in physics when it comes to vision, but the subconscious still extracts vastly more information than the conscious does, regardless of those limits.


RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - RTBoss - 09-18-2016

(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.


RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - Firas1 - 09-18-2016

(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.


RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - RTBoss - 09-18-2016

(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:


RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - maxx55 - 09-18-2016

(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:

Thanks man! I appreciate the kind words.


RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - lokko - 09-19-2016

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


RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - Shannon - 09-19-2016

(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.

Well if you feel this way, think about it from my point of view for a bit.


RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - Shannon - 09-19-2016

(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.

I did not intend to imply that you were playing telephone. However, if you look at how information about subliminals and their scripting is acquired, it is very much like a game of telephone. We start off with someone saying X is true, and then the next person reads it and assumes it's rue and copies it, and then the next person reads it from the other two and assumes it's true and not only copies it, but states that it is known fact, and then...

Nobody's doing the research and experimentation to figure out what the truth is, except for me (and a few specialists in academic psychology, whose work is almost never read by anyone else outside the academic field).

So over literally thousands of re-tellings, there is a lot of repetition of the same "facts" which gain fact status simply because they've been repeated by so many sources, not because they're actually factual.

And the person who gets online looking for information is going to be beset with this sort of thing.

Then they're going to come across me, who is doing all sorts of things that are said to not work, and of course they ask why I do what "doesn't work". We get this periodically, and of course I am happy to explain, because this needs to get out there.

But the whole process just reminds me of a game of telephone. The fact is, short of doing the decades of research, and/or extensively experimenting for yourself, you couldn't possibly know the things that are true or otherwise about what's out there on the Internet. So you reading all that and then coming here and asking me why there is a discrepancy is a good thing. There was never any intention on my part to imply that you're playing telephone, and I apologize if it was worded in a way that seemed that way.


RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - Shannon - 09-19-2016

(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

Yes. And one for overcoming ED. I can't wait to crush that stuff in 6G!