08-19-2019, 10:04 AM
You make a couple of points that I'd like to respond to.
First, equating subliminals with placebo, which is basically what you're doing, because you personally don't get the results, is a conclusion based on faulty thinking. It is quite possible for one person to get results and another not to, when the program is valid and working, because one person refuses to execute the script. It happens a lot, in fact and in fact that's why I have been working for many many years now to get us past where that is possible for anyone but the extreme outliers. The script is a set of instructions. You choose whether or not to execute, and that choice is influenced on my end by trying to find solutions to why you might not otherwise, and being persuasive. On your end, it boils down to irrational subconscious response that comes ultimately from fear, and almost certainly a fear of loss of control, which is by its very nature preposterous, or logically, you wouldn't be able to refuse to cooperate and get no results. But fear isn't logical.
Second point. There is a lot of testing that goes on behind the scenes. We test new technologies all the time, and some are in testing for years before we release them. Just because you don't see that, or see how it could be, doesn't make it not so. You load your statement by saying "any sort of rigorous empirical way", but we use empirical and other forms of testing. We start with the predictive models, and then narrow things down based on empirical testing. As for your definition of rigorous, now we're just playing at moving the goalposts as seems convenient for the argument at hand.
In the end, the results are what matters. No matter what I do, someone is going to find a way to refuse to execute. I have no illusions about that. Even when I finally stop trying to develop and advance this tech, and 6G comes out, there will likely be some small group of people who are so far out there in whatever way that they can and do resist and get no results. We have our refund policy not as a gimmick or as a marketing ploy, but to provide our customers with a fair way to make sure they get their money's worth, without ourselves being taken advantage of or scammed in the process. We have it because the evidence goes far beyond "I believe these work". The question is, how much are you willing to open your mind to it? Based on your apparent results with my programs and those of others, and your apparent "scientific skepticism" approach, I would say that some part of you at least, is not willing to open up and play along.
Nobody is perfect, and even at my best, I get help from my predictive models and multiple advisors in figuring this stuff out. But even I don't believe there will never come a day when I know everything, or know so much that I get a 100% success rate. Those who in the end don't execute, they will have to live with the consequences of that choice. And in the meantime, they can get a refund and find whatever does work for them.
First, equating subliminals with placebo, which is basically what you're doing, because you personally don't get the results, is a conclusion based on faulty thinking. It is quite possible for one person to get results and another not to, when the program is valid and working, because one person refuses to execute the script. It happens a lot, in fact and in fact that's why I have been working for many many years now to get us past where that is possible for anyone but the extreme outliers. The script is a set of instructions. You choose whether or not to execute, and that choice is influenced on my end by trying to find solutions to why you might not otherwise, and being persuasive. On your end, it boils down to irrational subconscious response that comes ultimately from fear, and almost certainly a fear of loss of control, which is by its very nature preposterous, or logically, you wouldn't be able to refuse to cooperate and get no results. But fear isn't logical.
Second point. There is a lot of testing that goes on behind the scenes. We test new technologies all the time, and some are in testing for years before we release them. Just because you don't see that, or see how it could be, doesn't make it not so. You load your statement by saying "any sort of rigorous empirical way", but we use empirical and other forms of testing. We start with the predictive models, and then narrow things down based on empirical testing. As for your definition of rigorous, now we're just playing at moving the goalposts as seems convenient for the argument at hand.
In the end, the results are what matters. No matter what I do, someone is going to find a way to refuse to execute. I have no illusions about that. Even when I finally stop trying to develop and advance this tech, and 6G comes out, there will likely be some small group of people who are so far out there in whatever way that they can and do resist and get no results. We have our refund policy not as a gimmick or as a marketing ploy, but to provide our customers with a fair way to make sure they get their money's worth, without ourselves being taken advantage of or scammed in the process. We have it because the evidence goes far beyond "I believe these work". The question is, how much are you willing to open your mind to it? Based on your apparent results with my programs and those of others, and your apparent "scientific skepticism" approach, I would say that some part of you at least, is not willing to open up and play along.
Nobody is perfect, and even at my best, I get help from my predictive models and multiple advisors in figuring this stuff out. But even I don't believe there will never come a day when I know everything, or know so much that I get a 100% success rate. Those who in the end don't execute, they will have to live with the consequences of that choice. And in the meantime, they can get a refund and find whatever does work for them.
Subliminal Audio Specialist & Administrator
The scientist has a question to find an answer for. The pseudo-scientist has an answer to find a question for. ~ "Failure is the path of least persistence." - Chinese Fortune Cookie ~ Logic left. Emotion right. But thinking, straight ahead. ~ Sperate supra omnia in valorem. (The value of trust is above all else.) ~ Meowsomeness!
The scientist has a question to find an answer for. The pseudo-scientist has an answer to find a question for. ~ "Failure is the path of least persistence." - Chinese Fortune Cookie ~ Logic left. Emotion right. But thinking, straight ahead. ~ Sperate supra omnia in valorem. (The value of trust is above all else.) ~ Meowsomeness!
