Anchored Trance Demo
Tom Vizzini
Notes from Phill
I wanted to write a quick post about yesterday's Gold Member's webseminar to
tell people just how amazing it was and why you should be amember.
Now for those of you who don't know already, Steve from the 3D Mindmailing
list has flown over (under?) to New Zealand to stay with me fora month.
So there we were awake at the horrendous time of 7am NZT time to attend the
seminar.
Tom led us through the 5 key steps of eliciting and leading someone else
into a trance state. Each step was carefully explained with examples given.
Those people attending the web seminar could ask questions and have Tom
answer them in real time so it was (as it always is) a veryinteractive
seminar.
And then Tom decided to give us a demonstration about the effectiveness of
trance. So he asks me to put Steve on webcam so everyone could see him and
then Tom pulls out this little red rubber duck.
When Steve was at the New York Essential Skills seminar Tom and Kim anchored
him to this little rubber duck. When he sees it and hears it squeak when
squeezed he goes instantly into trance.
So all of a sudden Steve suddenly slumps over in his chair laughing and
relaxed in a trance state - anyone watching could see that.
So then Tom decides to fire the other anchor they set on Steve and counts to
3 at which point Steve slides even deeper into trance.
Having not yet tormented Steve enough Tom gives him a suggestion that the
top of his head weighs more than the bottom of his head and Steve slowly
starts tipping to one side.
So there I am holding the webcam in one hand (pointing at Steve) andtrying
to hold him upright so he doesn't fall off the chair. A few seconds later
Steve falls off the chair anyway and is lying withhis head "stuck" to the
floor laughing but not really able to do muchabout it either.
After a minute of hilarity Tom gave Steve the command to come back out of
trance and gets him back in the chair...
...and then does it all again. Bang. Steve falls off the chair and is lying
on the floor with his head "stuck" to it.
Finally after another minute of laughing at Steve, Tom brought him back out
of trance and Steve discussed his experience with everyone.
Now the point I want to make is this...
Where else can you get this kind of interative training in skills of
persuasion and personal change where you get to see and experience real
results live.
Where else do you get to interact one on one with results focused trainers
that guide you step by step to getting measurable and specific results.
And all for only US$20 / month.
The Gold Members area is incredible value. If you're not a member already,
you should be.
Not only do you get at least one 1-3 hour web seminar each month, you also
get full access to the recordings of previous seminars.
So when you sign up you'll be able to watch Steve falling off the chair in
trance both times along with all of the other previously recorded seminars.
If you're serious about learning persuasion and influence skills or changing
your life, then check out the Gold Members area. I absolutely recommend it.
Two final points about yesterday's seminar:
(1) The day before Steve had really hurt his shoulder by agrivating an old
injury doing pull ups on a bar at the park. It was really painful and he was
commenting on it and massaging it for the rest of that day and the next
morning just before the seminar started.
While Steve was in trance Tom demonstrated an example of a hypnotic
suggestion. He suggested that Steve would continue to grow stronger and
build muscle in a way that was safe and healthy or some suggestions along
those lines.
When Steve came out of trance his shoulder pain was gone. It's been gone
ever since - not even a twitch of pain since.
(2) When Steve started falling off the chair yesterday it caught me off
guard. I wasn't expecting it at all. To be honest I was shocked by it. It
really was an amazingly powerful demonstration of the power of anchoring and
trance.
See what you are missing
Tom Vizzini
Real Skills for the Real Worldwww.essential-skills.com
New Gold Members Area www.essential-skills.com/content.php cid=1056
DBC
"Tom Vizzini" <T...@essential-skills.com> wrote in message
news:h4Cdnb0cu6f...@adelphia.com...
Tom Vizzini
"DBC" <d...@dbc.com> wrote in message news:dtdvos$36e$2...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> nice piece of theatrics.... and thats about it.
LOL!!! even with video proof some people still don't get it.
Your loss
DBC
this express a day-to-day skill.
dont even bother answering; within the next 10 replies you and or UnKah will
become demeaning if not plain rude.
and whats with the cotinuous nervous giggling, anyway.
"Tom Vizzini" <T...@essential-skills.com> wrote in message
news:yJSdnd41_tb...@adelphia.com...
Tom Vizzini
"DBC" <d...@dbc.com> wrote in message news:dte42p$abj$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> quite..LOL....you had leverage over the chap before you started. How does
> this express a day-to-day skill.
Gee.....anchoring, trance, suggestion structure, deepening techniques,
fractionation...anything else?
That does not include the other 2 hours of live video seminar that explains
even more of this.
> dont even bother answering; within the next 10 replies you and or UnKah
will
> become demeaning if not plain rude.
Oh yeah.....suggesting it was theatrics was not rude.....right?
> and whats with the cotinuous nervous giggling, anyway.
Ge it is called having fun...you should give it a try sometime.
Tom Vizzini
Why is it that some poeple seem yo act rude and abusive and expect to be
treated kindly? I read this again and this guys response was quite rude. Yet
he was complaining about ther rudeness of others
So let me say this. I have never been rude to anyone who treated me nicely.
I really wonder what kind of response this guy expected. Was I suppose to
say think you? Was I supposed to be kind? Was I supposed to just sit and
take his rudeness?
Well I am sorry but some people are just full if crap and DBC is one of
them.
You have to be a complete idiot to think you can treat people badly and not
get a bad response.
"DBC" <d...@dbc.com> wrote in message news:dte42p$abj$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
UnKa
Unlike you, I have many ways to respond to this, I can be purely
nasty, rude or polite, the choice is mine because I have all those
options, unlike you.
Here was a perfectly innocent post about some fellows playing around
with some valuable essential-skills teachings. Just to show folks like
yourself, the possibilities of these skills.
I happen to have met them both and they are both likable fellows and
they have no reason to lie because it is not their products and have
nothing to gain by their post.
So what is your point about this, did it happen, was it just cheap
theatric's, or by practicing, which Tomothy and Kimothy implore people
to do once they learn the skills.
Or is it just that you've been to so many NLP training's and have yet
to get or do anything from them?
If you would like to open a discussion about the skills they mentioned
then by all means do so, but if it is just you wish to post negative
posts and start shit, then please feel free to also do so, for it is
written in the constitution that you have that right.
So what about it was theatric's? How can you prove it since you weren't
there?
Is about it, trance and anchoring do you disapprove of or have
something against?
If you just don't like Tom then you've already lost because there was
something here to learn, even if it was just a tad bit, and you missed
it because of your hatred filter.
The floor is your, if you have any valuable insight to any of this,
please explain, if not, then resort to flame but expect the same in
return. This invite can not be any simpler.
mstr...@earthlink.net
Tom Vizzini wrote:
> http://www.essential-skills.com/content.php?cid=1118
>
> Notes from Phill
>
> I wanted to write a quick post about yesterday's Gold Member's webseminar to
> tell people just how amazing it was and why you should be amember.
>
The thing I noticed that struck me the strongest about this
demonstration was the inability of the demonstrator to cope with a very
common situation of someone who becomes so relaxed in trance that they
fall out of their chair and possibly injure themselves. At least as
the demonstration was described in the post, this was something that
the demonstrator should have addressed, directly and failed in even
recognizing as a potential problem.
Not exactly what I would call a sterling example of subject management,
especially with someone who had already mentioned a shoulder injury
which the fall could have aggravated further, not to mention the
possibility of an insurance liability issue that could arise from such
inattention to a volunteer's safety on stage, of course.
Sorry, Tom, but I came away from this example with an entriely
different view of the demonstration - that being that the demonstrator
didn't have the sense to tell the subject to stay in the chair!
Common sense would tell anyone with any to tell the subject to stay in
the chair and not to fall during the demonstration! It's something
that I have used in every demonstration that I have done since 1967 and
only ONE person has not followed it and that was because she didn't
HEAR it due to the fact that the speakers on her side of the stage
malfunctioned during that part of the suggestion sequence!
Given the number of demonstrations that I do every year and the depth
of relaxation that most of my volunteers exhibit, this suggestion is a
requirement, or I would have people falling all over the stage and
injuring themselves every time I work!
Sorry to disagree, but the demonstration, as described, had a
completely different lesson than the one you outlined, which was also
very good.
Safety First!
Respectfully,
Lee Darrow, C.H.
http://www.leedarrow.com
(writing from an after show event in Dubuque, IA, before returning to
Chicago for two more events this weekend)
DBC
you guys have become so transparent.
"Tom Vizzini" <T...@essential-skills.com> wrote in message
news:rt6dnR2WDNkFAWfe...@adelphia.com...
DBC
i have, fortunately, learnt to igone any thing that comes from you - it is
simply of no value at all; and so long winded.....
"UnKa" <monste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140503277.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
DBC
Joey - you owe me twenty bucks!
"Tom Vizzini" <T...@essential-skills.com> wrote in message
news:CY6dnVpVtvx...@adelphia.com...
ph...@getresults.co.nz
So let see if I have this right.
Tom organises his monthly *live* web seminar with around 20 people
attending.
Steve and I (the person he's staying with in New Zealand at the moment)
get up at 7am to be at the web seminar.
The seminar starts with Tom leading everyone through the 5 steps of how
to elicit and deepen trance states in others. He guides us step by
step giving example and questions interactively.
Then, after teaching us the basics Tom wants to give everyone a live
demonstration to show them how the skill is put into practice.
But you're saying that Tom can't actually do what he teaches right?
So instead he's decided to fool everyone. He secretly contacted Steve
and myself a few days before the web seminar and bribed us into doing a
demonstration faking Steve going into trance.
He taught Steve how to look like he was anchored to the red rubber duck
so that when Steve saw it he'd instantly relax and start laughing.
I guess Tom warned me to mess up holding the web-cam so that the
footage was shaky.
He obviously trained Steve in how to make the unconcious slightly
jerking sort of motion that people in hypnotic trances exhibit because
he knew that nobody would be fooled if Steve's movements were too
smooth and fluid.
Then I suppose he warned me about pretending to be shocked when Steve
was given the command to place his head on the floor. So I
pretended to try and stop Steve falling off the chair with one hand
while holding the webcam with the other.
And after a few seconds, as I'd been instructed to, I feigned being
unable to hold Steve up with one hand and letting him "slip" so he face
planted on the floor.
Of course Steve was trained to fall in a manner so that he lay in a
"trance" in what was a very strange position - still half on the chair
with his forehead on the ground. It would be too obvious that he was
faking if he fell into a nice position on the floor.
And then after the first round, Tom pretends to bring Steve out of
trance before making him do it all over again.
Is that how it works?
Now, of course to make this all appear real so that he wouldn't be
caught out, Tom made sure Steve was at the New York Essential Skills
seminar almost a year earlier.
At that seminar in front of almost 40 people, Tom, Kim and a few others
pretended to set the original anchor on Steve, knowing that a year
later they would have 40 witnesses ready to defend Tom's post on
alt.p.nlp as real.
So now not only has Tom fooled everyone watching at the web seminar,
but he also has 40 witnesses to provide testimony that the orignal
trance anchor was set around a year earlier in just a couple of
minutes. Even better because of his forward thinking, Tom can now
claim that an anchor set way back then on Steve still works today!
Wow. Not only has Tom "proven" through devious means that he can teach
step by step trance induction - he's also "proven" through devious
means that he can teach anchoring in an incredibly powerful way.
Damn Tom is clever. The incredible amount of work he's had to go to
train Steve and myself to put on a good show and arrange "witnesses"
just to fool 20 or so people in an online seminar.
You're right - it must be theatrics... right? .... right?
Or....
Maybe it was actually real.
Maybe Steve really is anchored to go into trance when he sees that red
rubber duck and hears it squeak.
Maybe I really did get a shock and almost dropped the webcam because I
wasn't expecting Steve to fall off the chair.
Maybe when I posted the email that started this thread to the Essential
Skills mailing list the next day describing the experience, it was
real.
Maybe the posts Steve and I have made since to the Essential Skills
mailing list as we've been practicing the Essential Skills anchoring
and rapport skills have also been real.
Maybe the hundreds of other posts Steve, myself and many others have
made on the Essential Skills mailing list over the last 3 years talking
about the Essential Skills Tom and Kim teach and the incredible results
we're getting are real.
Maybe you could buy one of Tom and Kim's products and try them for
yourself to see if they work as promised.
Given they come with a 100% no questions asked money back guarantee
it's not like you're going to lose anything by trying.
Well, except maybe the belief that these skills don't work as Tom
claims.
Only you can decide that. But it would be nice in the meantime if you
actually have some evidence to base your claims on if you decide to
cast doubt.
ph...@getresults.co.nz
DBC wrote:
> quite..LOL....you had leverage over the chap before you started. How does
> this express a day-to-day skill.
> dont even bother answering; within the next 10 replies you and or UnKah will
> become demeaning if not plain rude.
> and whats with the cotinuous nervous giggling, anyway.
How about you go read my follow-up posts to the Essential Skills public
mailing list about the fun Steve and I have had since practicing
elicitations, anchoring and rapport.
While Tom had anchored Steve to the duck previously, when Steve was
putting me into trances and doing crazy stuff it was a first time for
me.
You'll see that where I write about it on the list.
So I guess that qualifies as a real world day to day skill if Steve and
I can put ourselves into trances and set strong anchors after attending
the web seminar where we were given step by step guidance on how to do
it.
As for the continuous giggling - if you had paid attention you would
realise that Steve is anchored to laughter and relaxation when he sees
the red duck. It really doesn't take a heck of a lot of calibration
skills to figure that out.
ph...@getresults.co.nz
> The thing I noticed that struck me the strongest about this
> demonstration was the inability of the demonstrator to cope with a very
> common situation of someone who becomes so relaxed in trance that they
> fall out of their chair and possibly injure themselves. At least as
> the demonstration was described in the post, this was something that
> the demonstrator should have addressed, directly and failed in even
> recognizing as a potential problem.
Steve wasn't just relaxed. If you paid attention to what Tom said he
gave Steve the command that his head was being pulled to the floor - of
course he was going to fall out of the chair.
Maybe it happened a bit faster than Tom expected :)
But hey, I sort of managed to hold Steve up so he didn't hit the ground
too hard and he was just fine.
Yes, maybe the demonstration could have been done a little more safely
- for example, if I'd had some warning about what was about to happen
with Steve so I could put the webcam down and catch him properly as he
fell over.
But, that doesn't take away from the fact that it was an extremely
effective demonstration of state elicitations and trance.
DBC
<ph...@getresults.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1140506452.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
ph...@getresults.co.nz
Oh yeah?
So the hundreds of emails I've written on the Essential Skills mailing
list over the last few years is something Tom paid me to do?
And the many other articles posted to the Essential Skills & 3D Mind
lists by people I have personally taken through the 3D Mind process
over the phone or in the video chat room? They were written by others
in collusion with Tom as well?
Anyone who takes 30 minutes to read my articles on the ES mailing list
is going to see me arriving on the scene about 3 years ago stuck in
fear and insecurity, full of doubt and skeptical.
They will see me asking questions and getting answers, starting to
learn the Essential Skills and put them to use.
They'll read about how skepticism gave way to hope that these
techniques might actually work and then amazement as I started to
achieve significant changes and measurable results.
They'll notice that at a certain point that through using 3D Mind I
resolved many of my own deep rooted insecurities and gained the
confidence to start helping others.
>From there they'll read the posts I wrote detailing how I was learning
to improve my own use of 3D Mind and gaining increased results with
others.
You'll read the testimonials I received from people all around the
world who I've worked with.
You'll read as I go from a skeptic to endorsing Tom and Kim's products
because they get results better than anything else I've tried.
You'll read the story of how I wasted over $30,000 on other NLP tapes,
videos, DVDs, training courses, seminars, and one on one sessions with
NLP trainers and Master Trainers before stumbling across Essential
Skills.
And how I absolutely believe that what Tom and Kim teach beats anything
else I've ever tried hands down.
It's all there in the public archives.
Anyone can read those and *very* quickly determine for themselves that
I have my own views and opinions and that I'm the real deal.
On the other hand you have yet to provide *any* evidence that Tom and
Kim can not do what they claim, or any evidence that I'm in collusion
with Tom in some way.
Read my posts on the ES list over the last 3 years and then tell me
what you think.
DBC
<ph...@getresults.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1140514603.3...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Tom Vizzini
<mstr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1140505894....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Sorry, Tom, but I came away from this example with an entriely
> different view of the demonstration - that being that the demonstrator
> didn't have the sense to tell the subject to stay in the chair!
Wow...Am I the only one having fun.
1. Fall out of the chair was a suggestion I gave
2. Then I gave the suggestion NOT to fall and sit comfortably.
The idea of the demonstration was to show how powerful trance can be.
AMAZINGLY...no one died.
LOL
Tom Vizzini
"DBC" <d...@dbc.com> wrote in message news:dteeg7$d0l$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> hook, line an sinker.
> you guys have become so transparent.
Translation...You have nothing intelligent to say so you pretent you got the
outcome you wanted.
How old are you?
Tom Vizzini
"DBC" <d...@dbc.com> wrote in message news:dtf3o4$kr6$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> did he...well there you have it.
Huh?...Have what?
Here we have a post from a guy who was in the room and that is all you have
to say......
WAIT.....I had to search but now I remember how you are Duncan.
Geeze what a waste of my time.
Sorry folks I did not realize....I will not waste any more bandwidth
reeponding to him. suggest no one else do either.
ph...@getresults.co.nz
Better yet - Steve's health actually improved. The pain in his
shoulder *completely* disappeared as a result of the hypnotic
suggestion you gave him to grow and improve muscle tissue. It hasn't
bothered him at all for over a week now.
Completely gone.
Tom Vizzini
<ph...@getresults.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1140545315.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Yep....funny how that got overlooked :)
>
mstrhypno
ph...@getresults.co.nz wrote:
> mstr...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> > The thing I noticed that struck me the strongest about this
> > demonstration was the inability of the demonstrator to cope with a very
> > common situation of someone who becomes so relaxed in trance that they
> > fall out of their chair and possibly injure themselves. At least as
> > the demonstration was described in the post, this was something that
> > the demonstrator should have addressed, directly and failed in even
> > recognizing as a potential problem.
>
>
> Steve wasn't just relaxed. If you paid attention to what Tom said he
> gave Steve the command that his head was being pulled to the floor - of
> course he was going to fall out of the chair.
Okay, WHY did he have to hit the floor at all, then? WHY expose
someone to that kind of possible injury at all? It seems a bit
dangerous both for Steve as the subject and for Tom from a liability
standpoint, if nothing else. Again, I question the common sense of it.
Still no answer on that point, either.
>
> Maybe it happened a bit faster than Tom expected :)
And that points to a lack of preparedness on the safety side, as I
noted.
>
> But hey, I sort of managed to hold Steve up so he didn't hit the ground
> too hard and he was just fine.
"Didn't hit the ground too hard..." and you are qualified to judge that
how, exactly? Are you a medical doctor? No offense, but subcutaneous
hemotomas can occur and can be dangerous DAYS after the initial
accident that caused them, so think again.
>
> Yes, maybe the demonstration could have been done a little more safely
> - for example, if I'd had some warning about what was about to happen
> with Steve so I could put the webcam down and catch him properly as he
> fell over.
Again, the lack of planning for the subject's safety has just been
admitted to. Thanks.
>
> But, that doesn't take away from the fact that it was an extremely
> effective demonstration of state elicitations and trance.
And a demonstration of how NOT to safely manage that subject while he
was IN trance.
Thanks for admitting that.
You gentlemen might want to attend MY course on Safety for Stage
Hypnotists and Lecturers at the National Guild of Hypnotists convention
this August. It's free with the convention registration after all and
I cover this exact situation, in detail, in the workshop.
Just FYI.
mstrhypno
It's been a distracted afternoon. Lots going on in the office.
My apologies.
Tom Vizzini
"mstrhypno" <mstr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1140555131.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Okay, WHY did he have to hit the floor at all, then?
Because I told him to
WHY expose
> someone to that kind of possible injury at all?
Was there a risk?
It seems a bit
> dangerous both for Steve as the subject and for Tom from a liability
> standpoint, if nothing else. Again, I question the common sense of it.
> Still no answer on that point, either.
None is needed. I have no fear about liability or for Steve's safety. That
is because I know what I am doing. I don't live in fear Lee. I can't
understand whay you do.
> >
> > Maybe it happened a bit faster than Tom expected :)
>
> And that points to a lack of preparedness on the safety side, as I
> noted.
Nah.....you are missing the point. The fact is that the result was
unexpected. Also, I healthy 21 year old in good physical condition os not
going to get hurt sliding off of a chair. If you WATCH instead of react you
will see that his fall was gentle and controlled. There was never any
danger.
> >
> > But hey, I sort of managed to hold Steve up so he didn't hit the ground
> > too hard and he was just fine.
>
> "Didn't hit the ground too hard..." and you are qualified to judge that
> how, exactly? Are you a medical doctor? No offense, but subcutaneous
> hemotomas can occur and can be dangerous DAYS after the initial
> accident that caused them, so think again.
Are you any of these? Were you there? Geeze Lee you cannot be this big of a
whimp. Are you a doctor Lee?
> >
> > Yes, maybe the demonstration could have been done a little more safely
> > - for example, if I'd had some warning about what was about to happen
> > with Steve so I could put the webcam down and catch him properly as he
> > fell over.
>
> Again, the lack of planning for the subject's safety has just been
> admitted to. Thanks.
By whom? The reality is that there was no damage. There was never any risk
of damage.
>
> You gentlemen might want to attend MY course on Safety for Stage
> Hypnotists and Lecturers at the National Guild of Hypnotists convention
> this August. It's free with the convention registration after all and
> I cover this exact situation, in detail, in the workshop.
I have a course for you. How not to live in constant fear.
You points are imagined and you reject the reality of the situation to fit
with you fantasy disaster scenario.
Bottom life. Subject completely safe. Subject healed of back injury. Total
time...7 minutes.
Tom Vizzini
>
> It's been a distracted afternoon. Lots going on in the office.
Well Lee by your standards you are being very unsafe. If you get distracted
you could fall out of your chair and die!
mstrhypno
Tom, for the record, as well as being a professional hypnotist, I am
also an insurance professional. I have seen claims arise from falls
that were far less "safe" than the one on your demonstration wind up
costing the defendant in the resulting legal action tens of thousands
of dollars.
Not in one instance, but in quite a few.
I don't live in fear, I live in the real world where people actually
resort to legal action when someone exposes them to posible injury that
could EASILY have been avoided.
His fall was not "controlled," as you have just admitted as his
reaction was "unexpected," as noted by your confederate in his post.
In court, an attorney for the Plaintiff would have a slam dunk against
you.
Have a nice day.
ph...@getresults.co.nz
>Tom, for the record, as well as being a professional hypnotist, I am
>also an insurance professional. I have seen claims arise from falls
>that were far less "safe" than the one on your demonstration wind up
>costing the defendant in the resulting legal action tens of thousands
>of dollars.
Oh for goodness sake.
I was there. I was the one holding the camera. I know better than
anyone else what happened. Tom is absolutely right. Steve fell off
the chair slowly and in a way that was very unlikely to hurt him. And
I was partially supporting him on the way down.
Plus, Steve was in trance - not braindead. He unconsciously reacted to
slow his own fall as you can see from his position on the ground. His
right hand was up near his face because he instintively put it out to
protect himself.
Anyway, this is all irrelevant. The manner in which the demonstration
was undertaken does not take away at all from the effectiveness of
demonstrating trance and anchored states.
Even in the very unlikely event that Steve had hurt himself, there was
no danger of law suits or any other legal rubbish. Steve is in New
Zealand at the moment and we have an Accident Compensation Corporation
government department that was specifically set up to cover accidents
and prevent irrelevant and frivolous legal action.
Not every country is as yet as law suit trigger happy as the USA.
I was reading an article on a plane a couple of weeks ago about a horse
riding camp here in New Zealand. One of the key points the article
made was comparing the differences between similar horse riding camps
in the USA. It pointed out that in the USA you can go n horse treks
but it's absolutely forbidden to have the horse move faster than a
walk. No trotting allowed - you're instantly expelled from the camp.
Certainly no galloping or sprints.
The camp here in New Zealand trains the riders up and then let's them
take responsibility for themselves. They do their best to ensure
safety, but it is also up to the rider to take responsibility for
themselves.
Steve was fine. Even if he had ended up with a bump on his head he
would have laughed about it - it's all part of the fun. He willingly
chose to be a trance subject and took responsibility for it.
You know, like how people used to take responsibility for their own
choices and actions in the "old days" before everyone sued each other
in the USA.
So how about we get back to the effectiveness of the demonstration
instead of yabbering about Steve's safety which he WAS taking
responsibility for.
ph...@getresults.co.nz
> how, exactly? Are you a medical doctor? No offense, but subcutaneous
> hemotomas can occur and can be dangerous DAYS after the initial
> accident that caused them, so think again.
So do you think you're more qualified than me to make that analysis
when I was there and you weren't?
Are you a medical doctor? If so, are you qualified to make a diagnosis
from a low resolution web cam stream?
What about Steve? Does he get any say in how he felt about it?
Or would you recommend that his opinion is irrevant given the possible
physical damage he may have suffered which may not show up for days?
>You gentlemen might want to attend MY course on Safety for Stage
>Hypnotists and Lecturers at the National Guild of Hypnotists convention
>this August. It's free with the convention registration after all and
>I cover this exact situation, in detail, in the workshop.
You cover trance subjects not taking responsibility for their choice to
take part in a demonstration?
Nah. Steve will continue to take responsibility for his own decisions.
And let me tell you - if you're concerned about Steve's safety in that
video, you're going to be horrified about the other things he's
choosing to do while on holiday in New Zealand.
Land-yachting at 50 mph down 90 Mile Beach. Body boarding at the
beach. Snorkling 300 metres off shore. Climbing cliffs.
I'd have him comment on self responsibility himself but we just put him
on a bus this morning to go to Queenstown so he can go jet boating,
bungy-jumping, sky-diving, river rafting and all sorts of other things.
Should we call him up and tell him he has to stop making such dangerous
decisions for himself and that he should attend some seminars first?
What has any of this to do with discussing the effectiveness of the
demonstration itself?
ph...@getresults.co.nz
Well. You surprised me there.
I had expected at least at tiny bit of a rational reponse.
Tom Vizzini
>
> >
> His fall was not "controlled," as you have just admitted as his
> reaction was "unexpected," as noted by your confederate in his post.
>
> In court, an attorney for the Plaintiff would have a slam dunk against
> you.
opinions vary. Evem a complete idiot know the difference between
'unexepected' and 'uncontrolled'
I disagree with you and that is where it is going to stand.
Tom
DBC
have.
"Tom Vizzini" <T...@essential-skills.com> wrote in message
news:-t6dnQX8meA...@adelphia.com...
DBC
yet he refers to himself as if he was tom......who is UnKa..... seems like
essentialskills have an effective (or not so...) publicity campaign.
<ph...@getresults.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1140510007.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
DBC
you guys need to get a new act.
<ph...@getresults.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1140574028.3...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
DBC
"Tom Vizzini" <T...@essential-skills.com> wrote in message
news:AKmdnRPIU5d...@adelphia.com...
DBC
how do you know what medical conditions he has or not? how do you know what
is safe for him?
"Tom Vizzini" <T...@essential-skills.com> wrote in message
news:UbadnX9UxP4...@adelphia.com...
DBC
<ph...@getresults.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1140545315.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
DBC
anymore.
"Tom Vizzini" <T...@essential-skills.com> wrote in message
news:Fo-dnUag-ah...@adelphia.com...
DBC
<ph...@getresults.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1140506225.8...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Theatrics huh?
>
> So let see if I have this right.
>
> Tom organises his monthly *live* web seminar with around 20 people
> attending.
>
> Steve and I (the person he's staying with in New Zealand at the moment)
> get up at 7am to be at the web seminar.
>
> The seminar starts with Tom leading everyone through the 5 steps of how
> to elicit and deepen trance states in others. He guides us step by
> step giving example and questions interactively.
>
> Then, after teaching us the basics Tom wants to give everyone a live
> demonstration to show them how the skill is put into practice.
>
> But you're saying that Tom can't actually do what he teaches right?
>
> So instead he's decided to fool everyone. He secretly contacted Steve
> and myself a few days before the web seminar and bribed us into doing a
> demonstration faking Steve going into trance.
>
> He taught Steve how to look like he was anchored to the red rubber duck
> so that when Steve saw it he'd instantly relax and start laughing.
>
> I guess Tom warned me to mess up holding the web-cam so that the
> footage was shaky.
>
> He obviously trained Steve in how to make the unconcious slightly
> jerking sort of motion that people in hypnotic trances exhibit because
> he knew that nobody would be fooled if Steve's movements were too
> smooth and fluid.
>
> Then I suppose he warned me about pretending to be shocked when Steve
> was given the command to place his head on the floor. So I
> pretended to try and stop Steve falling off the chair with one hand
> while holding the webcam with the other.
>
> And after a few seconds, as I'd been instructed to, I feigned being
> unable to hold Steve up with one hand and letting him "slip" so he face
> planted on the floor.
>
> Of course Steve was trained to fall in a manner so that he lay in a
> "trance" in what was a very strange position - still half on the chair
> with his forehead on the ground. It would be too obvious that he was
> faking if he fell into a nice position on the floor.
>
> And then after the first round, Tom pretends to bring Steve out of
> trance before making him do it all over again.
>
> Is that how it works?
>
> Now, of course to make this all appear real so that he wouldn't be
> caught out, Tom made sure Steve was at the New York Essential Skills
> seminar almost a year earlier.
>
> At that seminar in front of almost 40 people, Tom, Kim and a few others
> pretended to set the original anchor on Steve, knowing that a year
> later they would have 40 witnesses ready to defend Tom's post on
> alt.p.nlp as real.
>
> So now not only has Tom fooled everyone watching at the web seminar,
> but he also has 40 witnesses to provide testimony that the orignal
> trance anchor was set around a year earlier in just a couple of
> minutes. Even better because of his forward thinking, Tom can now
> claim that an anchor set way back then on Steve still works today!
>
> Wow. Not only has Tom "proven" through devious means that he can teach
> step by step trance induction - he's also "proven" through devious
> means that he can teach anchoring in an incredibly powerful way.
>
> Damn Tom is clever. The incredible amount of work he's had to go to
> train Steve and myself to put on a good show and arrange "witnesses"
> just to fool 20 or so people in an online seminar.
>
> You're right - it must be theatrics... right? .... right?
>
> Or....
>
> Maybe it was actually real.
>
> Maybe Steve really is anchored to go into trance when he sees that red
> rubber duck and hears it squeak.
>
> Maybe I really did get a shock and almost dropped the webcam because I
> wasn't expecting Steve to fall off the chair.
>
> Maybe when I posted the email that started this thread to the Essential
> Skills mailing list the next day describing the experience, it was
> real.
>
> Maybe the posts Steve and I have made since to the Essential Skills
> mailing list as we've been practicing the Essential Skills anchoring
> and rapport skills have also been real.
>
> Maybe the hundreds of other posts Steve, myself and many others have
> made on the Essential Skills mailing list over the last 3 years talking
> about the Essential Skills Tom and Kim teach and the incredible results
> we're getting are real.
>
> Maybe you could buy one of Tom and Kim's products and try them for
> yourself to see if they work as promised.
>
> Given they come with a 100% no questions asked money back guarantee
> it's not like you're going to lose anything by trying.
>
> Well, except maybe the belief that these skills don't work as Tom
> claims.
>
> Only you can decide that. But it would be nice in the meantime if you
> actually have some evidence to base your claims on if you decide to
> cast doubt.
>
DBC
<ph...@getresults.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1140570915....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
terran...@yahoo.com
obviously not watched the video.
Tom Vizzini
<terran...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140614767.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> There is a lot of armchair quarterbacking going on from people who have
> obviously not watched the video.
I agree :)
Even those who have seem to have a bias that does not al,low them to enjoy
it.
>
ph...@getresults.co.nz
> and where were you exactly ? this was a webcast ? cracks appearing!
Wow.
Did you just remove any and all doubt that you're an idiot or what?
You've just shown everyone that you're not reading my replies or you
would clearly know:
1) Steve is on holiday in New Zealand with ME.
2) I was holding the webcam and pointing at Steve during the
demonstration
3) I've stated both of these facts several times in different posts.
How are you going to take part in a discussion if you're not even
reading the articles?
Or is your intention not to take part but simply to criticise and
malign others?
ph...@getresults.co.nz
> yet he refers to himself as if he was tom......who is UnKa..... seems like
>essentialskills have an effective (or not so...) publicity campaign.
You do know how quoting works, right?
That the two ">>"'s show the quoted text from the original person (Tom)
and that one ">" shows quoted text from my reply?
There's nothing in the quoted text to suggest I was referring to myself
as Tom at all.
And yes - there is an effective publicity campaign for Essential
Skills.
It's because there are many, many Essential Skills customers who have
achieved such incredible results with the ES skills that they are happy
to tell other people about their experiences.
ph...@getresults.co.nz
">>" == lines by Tom
">" == lines by me.
Read it again.
Cameron
Either they hacked into my head, or you have someone here who isn't an
advocate of the 3-d mind.... I rather wish they didn't spam this group with
barely concealed advertisments, and abuse about NLP, and yeah they do come
out seeming creapy wierd similar to me too. But they've got you on this one.
If it is one person playing multiple roles, they're at least staying in role
each time.
Given in the webcast they have at least a subject, a camera person and
Tom...
It might be a small self referential world they live in, but there is more
than one body there.
Ask them about the scientific validity of their belief system (if you want a
flame war)
Or why they are such calm rational people and stoop to insults so often.
Of why their patron "brain scientist" hasn't refered to them publically at
all (or at least not that I can locate or Tom will e-mail me.)
But I do think you could re read those posts and find that, in this case at
least, you're the troll.
The respect for safty post was your last one that I could agree with.
<flips own long fluro hair over my inch high shoulder and bounces away
singing in a high squeaky voice>
<ph...@getresults.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1140634141....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
ph...@getresults.co.nz
> barely concealed advertisments, and abuse about NLP, and yeah they do come
> out seeming creapy wierd similar to me too. But they've got you on this one.
> If it is one person playing multiple roles, they're at least staying in role
> each time.
You know Cameron, for someone who's all about the "scientific facts"
you aren't showing any initative in researching your own information.
With 5 minutes of reading on the Essential Skills newsgroup you would
know who am I, where I am located in the world. You'd also know that
I've had a significant amount of experience with NLP and and after
investing a great deal of time and money I've clearly decided that the
Essential Skills developed by Tom and Kim beat anything else I've seen
hands down.
I'm simply an extremely satisfied customer.
All of this could be established if you were prepared to spend just a
few minutes of your time. Instead you seem far more comfortable
throwing around generalisations about anyone who believes in 3D Mind.
And instead of expecting Tom to provide experts carrying mountains of
scientific evidence that you may or may not even understand, why not
invest $70, buy 3D Mind and try it for yourself. At least then you'd
be far more informed on how the process works and you can post back
here why it doesn't work.
Who knows.... you might actually get a shock and find that Tom's
"claims" about the product are true.
John
>> I rather wish they didn't spam this group with
>> barely concealed advertisments, and abuse about NLP, and yeah they do come
>> out seeming creapy wierd similar to me too. But they've got you on this one.
>> If it is one person playing multiple roles, they're at least staying in role
>> each time.
>
>You know Cameron, for someone who's all about the "scientific facts"
>you aren't showing any initative in researching your own information.
>
>With 5 minutes of reading on the Essential Skills newsgroup you would
>know who am I, where I am located in the world. You'd also know that
>I've had a significant amount of experience with NLP and and after
>investing a great deal of time and money I've clearly decided that the
>Essential Skills developed by Tom and Kim beat anything else I've seen
>hands down.
>
>I'm simply an extremely satisfied customer.
>
>All of this could be established if you were prepared to spend just a
>few minutes of your time. Instead you seem far more comfortable
>throwing around generalisations about anyone who believes in 3D Mind.
>
>And instead of expecting Tom to provide experts carrying mountains of
>scientific evidence that you may or may not even understand, why not
>invest $70, buy 3D Mind and try it for yourself.
No, the onus is on you guys to substantiate your claims. If there is
such a mountain we have seen none of it here or even references on
where to look.
Tom and Unka have mentioned a number of times that the 3D has a
scientific validity. No one that I can recall has argued about the
results of using the 3D mind. As you quite rightly say anyone can
purchase the product and try it for themselves. That is not in
question here.
Now people usually claim a scientific background to their product to
provide it with some form or legitimacy. Tooth paste manufactures have
be doing this for years. I presume that was the case here. No one
forced them to do this. It was their choice. Having made the claim, a
straightforward request was then made to provide the scientific
evidence that was available so that we could see it. If a scientific
background is claimed I guess it was also assumed that a scientific
approach and method was used to provide evidence that others can
validate.
There are many people out there who claim things that are not true in
order to sell their product. I am sure you do not want to be
associated with them. So if there is no scientific basis then perhaps
you should say so once and for all so we can move on. That doesn't
mean the product is no good.
If it is simply a good product that works well when you use then
great, just say so (once would be fine) and don't make further claims
that you cannot substantiate. This will only bring yourselves and the
product into disrepute when perhaps it doesn't deserve it.
--
John
Tom Vizzini
"John" <yhqwasgo@d8mklotfu> wrote in message
news:gn2rv19b0j0tf8ha0...@4ax.com...
> On 23 Feb 2006 00:53:01 -0800, ph...@getresults.co.nz wrote:
>
> No, the onus is on you guys to substantiate your claims. If there is
> such a mountain we have seen none of it here or even references on
> where to look.
Ir has been done time and time again.
> No one that I can recall has argued about the
> results of using the 3D mind.
Isn't that interesting? Since the results are undeniable you decide ti find
another means of attack.
> Now people usually claim a scientific background to their product to
> provide it with some form or legitimacy. Tooth paste manufactures have
> be doing this for years.
Are you completely nuts. Are you saying that all I have to do is say that 4
out of 5 scientists surveyed validate the 3D Mind? Then never have to give
you a name of those scientists?
Geeze you will believe a toothpaste ad but not the guys name or even several
books that you were given that support the underlying theory of the 3D Mind?
I presume that was the case here. No one
> forced them to do this. It was their choice. Having made the claim, a
> straightforward request was then made to provide the scientific
> evidence that was available so that we could see it. If a scientific
> background is claimed I guess it was also assumed that a scientific
> approach and method was used to provide evidence that others can
> validate.
It has all been done.
>
> If it is simply a good product that works well when you use then
> great, just say so (once would be fine) and don't make further claims
> that you cannot substantiate. This will only bring yourselves and the
> product into disrepute when perhaps it doesn't deserve it.
Ahhh....Bullshit. You just don't want to believe what has been offered.
>
> --
> John
>
terran...@yahoo.com
ph...@getresults.co.nz wrote:
> With 5 minutes of reading on the Essential Skills newsgroup you would
> know who am I, where I am located in the world. You'd also know that
> I've had a significant amount of experience with NLP and and after
> investing a great deal of time and money I've clearly decided that the
> Essential Skills developed by Tom and Kim beat anything else I've seen
> hands down.
Isn't there also a 3D Brain newsgroup that Tom's Neuroscientist has
that discusses the science behind 3D Mind?
Tom Vizzini
<terran...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140703419.2...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Isn't there also a 3D Brain newsgroup that Tom's Neuroscientist has
> that discusses the science behind 3D Mind?
Yes there is. But that information has also been ignored for some strange
reason
>
John
<T...@essential-skills.com> wrote:
>This is getting more ridiculus with each post.
What is ridiculous is your reluctance to respond with anything
tangible
>"John" <yhqwasgo@d8mklotfu> wrote in message
>news:gn2rv19b0j0tf8ha0...@4ax.com...
>> On 23 Feb 2006 00:53:01 -0800, ph...@getresults.co.nz wrote:
>>
>> No, the onus is on you guys to substantiate your claims. If there is
>> such a mountain we have seen none of it here or even references on
>> where to look.
>
>Ir has been done time and time again.
Point me to a single post that has clear verifiable scientific
evidence.
>> No one that I can recall has argued about the
>> results of using the 3D mind.
>
>Isn't that interesting? Since the results are undeniable you decide ti find
>another means of attack.
ANOTHER MEANS OF ATTACK? Point me to a single post where I or anyone
else has attacked the results you obtain.
>> Now people usually claim a scientific background to their product to
>> provide it with some form or legitimacy. Tooth paste manufactures have
>> be doing this for years.
>
>Are you completely nuts. Are you saying that all I have to do is say that 4
>out of 5 scientists surveyed validate the 3D Mind? Then never have to give
>you a name of those scientists?
Gawd almighty. It really has to be spelt out for you doesn't it?
NO I am not saying that. What I am saying is that if a toothpaste
manufacture claims to have scientific proof that their product will
also make your dick grow by 50% then I should be able to go to them to
verify THEIR scientifically produced evidence. If they can't or refuse
to show me then I can go to the advertising authorities and claim that
their ads are misleading or untruthful. Happens all the time in the
UK. Mars had to stop saying that their chocolate bar helps you to
work, rest and play, simply because they couldn't prove it.
>Geeze you will believe a toothpaste ad but not the guys name or even several
>books that you were given that support the underlying theory of the 3D Mind?
Where did I say I believed a toothpaste ad? Do you actually read these
posts before screaming at your PC with the next response?
Do those books mention how the 3D mind derives from the underlying
theory.
I apologise unreservedly if that was the case. Give me a reference and
I will look it up, come back here and confirm it to the group.
If you are right I will have no problem saying so.
> I presume that was the case here. No one
>> forced them to do this. It was their choice. Having made the claim, a
>> straightforward request was then made to provide the scientific
>> evidence that was available so that we could see it. If a scientific
>> background is claimed I guess it was also assumed that a scientific
>> approach and method was used to provide evidence that others can
>> validate.
>
>It has all been done.
The last I remember was that Unka said he was busy and would post the
results later but he then got the hump with Cameron and never bothered
unless I missed the post on my newsfeed. Perhaps someone else could
confirm this. I can get missing post back.
>> If it is simply a good product that works well when you use then
>> great, just say so (once would be fine) and don't make further claims
>> that you cannot substantiate. This will only bring yourselves and the
>> product into disrepute when perhaps it doesn't deserve it.
>
>Ahhh....Bullshit. You just don't want to believe what has been offered.
All that's been offered is a load of stomach churning testimonials.
That is not my preferred convincer strategy.
--
John
John
I can't see it on my news feed. Does it have another name?
--
John
Tom Vizzini
3db...@yahoogroups.com
"John" <yhqwasgo@d8mklotfu> wrote in message
news:rvjrv191nucbmdk63...@4ax.com...
Tom Vizzini
"John" <yhqwasgo@d8mklotfu> wrote in message
> On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 08:52:45 -0500, "Tom Vizzini"
> <T...@essential-skills.com> wrote:
>
> >This is getting more ridiculus with each post.
>
> What is ridiculous is your reluctance to respond with anything
> tangible
It has been done time and time again. Unak gave you several books. I have
steered you to the 3dbrain group time and time again.
At least admit that you have an agenda. You have one outlook that you refuse
to change.
My agenda is clear. To show that NLP is outdate, complex, clunky and based
on very old information.
Lets take one Bandler example. He 'claims' that playing events backwards in
your mind 'flattens ' the neural pathways. I see no demand for scientific
verification of that.
There is no scientific verification of eye accessing cues. On the contrary
there is much evidnce that they do not exist.
>
>
> >"John" <yhqwasgo@d8mklotfu> wrote in message
> >news:gn2rv19b0j0tf8ha0...@4ax.com...
> >> On 23 Feb 2006 00:53:01 -0800, ph...@getresults.co.nz wrote:
> >>
> >> No, the onus is on you guys to substantiate your claims. If there is
> >> such a mountain we have seen none of it here or even references on
> >> where to look.
> >
> >Ir has been done time and time again.
>
> Point me to a single post that has clear verifiable scientific
> evidence.
Nope....I have used my time to write them I cannot control you inability to
read them.
>
>
> >> No one that I can recall has argued about the
> >> results of using the 3D mind.
> >
> >Isn't that interesting? Since the results are undeniable you decide ti
find
> >another means of attack.
>
> ANOTHER MEANS OF ATTACK? Point me to a single post where I or anyone
> else has attacked the results you obtain.
Exactly...so you attack the scientific backround because you have no other
form of attack.
>
>
> >> Now people usually claim a scientific background to their product to
> >> provide it with some form or legitimacy. Tooth paste manufactures have
> >> be doing this for years.
> >
> >Are you completely nuts. Are you saying that all I have to do is say that
4
> >out of 5 scientists surveyed validate the 3D Mind? Then never have to
give
> >you a name of those scientists?
>
> Gawd almighty. It really has to be spelt out for you doesn't it?
>
> NO I am not saying that. What I am saying is that if a toothpaste
> manufacture claims to have scientific proof that their product will
> also make your dick grow by 50% then I should be able to go to them to
> verify THEIR scientifically produced evidence. If they can't or refuse
> to show me then I can go to the advertising authorities and claim that
> their ads are misleading or untruthful. Happens all the time in the
> UK. Mars had to stop saying that their chocolate bar helps you to
> work, rest and play, simply because they couldn't prove it.
All been done....stop being lazy and do the reasearch. Educate yourself.
>
>
> >Geeze you will believe a toothpaste ad but not the guys name or even
several
> >books that you were given that support the underlying theory of the 3D
Mind?
>
> Where did I say I believed a toothpaste ad? Do you actually read these
> posts before screaming at your PC with the next response?
>
> Do those books mention how the 3D mind derives from the underlying
> theory.
>
> I apologise unreservedly if that was the case. Give me a reference and
> I will look it up, come back here and confirm it to the group.
Been done several times. Stop being lazy. Unka suggested Molecules of
Emotion no less than 5 times. Do you have it yet?
>
> All that's been offered is a load of stomach churning testimonials.
> That is not my preferred convincer strategy.
So what? I understand...Real people getting REAL results mean nothing to
you. You would prefer a scintific theory that gets no results at all.
You convincer strategy sucks
>
> --
> John
>
John
<T...@essential-skills.com> wrote:
>
>"John" <yhqwasgo@d8mklotfu> wrote in message
>news:qcjrv1l6qu1bhegjn...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 08:52:45 -0500, "Tom Vizzini"
>> <T...@essential-skills.com> wrote:
>>
>> >This is getting more ridiculus with each post.
>>
>> What is ridiculous is your reluctance to respond with anything
>> tangible
>
>It has been done time and time again. Unak gave you several books. I have
>steered you to the 3dbrain group time and time again.
>
>At least admit that you have an agenda. You have one outlook that you refuse
>to change.
What, just because I won't say that NLP is crap and 3D Mind is the
best thing sinced sliced bread. That's all very Stalinist.
>My agenda is clear. To show that NLP is outdate, complex, clunky and based
>on very old information.
>
>Lets take one Bandler example. He 'claims' that playing events backwards in
>your mind 'flattens ' the neural pathways. I see no demand for scientific
>verification of that.
Bandler has not said that on this newsgroup as far as I know. If he
did I would challenge him.
>There is no scientific verification of eye accessing cues.
I agree but then we are not claiming that there is.
>On the contrary there is much evidnce that they do not exist.
I have had results doing this just like you do with the 3D mind. What
more do I need? What's good enough for you....
>> >"John" <yhqwasgo@d8mklotfu> wrote in message
>> >news:gn2rv19b0j0tf8ha0...@4ax.com...
>> >> On 23 Feb 2006 00:53:01 -0800, ph...@getresults.co.nz wrote:
>> >>
>> >> No, the onus is on you guys to substantiate your claims. If there is
>> >> such a mountain we have seen none of it here or even references on
>> >> where to look.
>> >
>> >Ir has been done time and time again.
>>
>> Point me to a single post that has clear verifiable scientific
>> evidence.
>
>Nope....I have used my time to write them I cannot control you inability to
>read them.
Fair enough.
>> >> No one that I can recall has argued about the
>> >> results of using the 3D mind.
>> >
>> >Isn't that interesting? Since the results are undeniable you decide ti
>find
>> >another means of attack.
>>
>> ANOTHER MEANS OF ATTACK? Point me to a single post where I or anyone
>> else has attacked the results you obtain.
>
>Exactly...so you attack the scientific backround because you have no other
>form of attack.
Do you have any idea how the English Language works? If no one has
attacked your results then this cannot be another form of attack.
How can we attack something we have yet to see?
Show us the scientific evidence and if it deserves challenge then
maybe someone here might challenge it. After all there are mountains
of it apparently. Finding a little shouldn't be difficult.
>> >> Now people usually claim a scientific background to their product to
>> >> provide it with some form or legitimacy. Tooth paste manufactures have
>> >> be doing this for years.
>> >
>> >Are you completely nuts. Are you saying that all I have to do is say that
>4
>> >out of 5 scientists surveyed validate the 3D Mind? Then never have to
>give
>> >you a name of those scientists?
>>
>> Gawd almighty. It really has to be spelt out for you doesn't it?
>>
>> NO I am not saying that. What I am saying is that if a toothpaste
>> manufacture claims to have scientific proof that their product will
>> also make your dick grow by 50% then I should be able to go to them to
>> verify THEIR scientifically produced evidence. If they can't or refuse
>> to show me then I can go to the advertising authorities and claim that
>> their ads are misleading or untruthful. Happens all the time in the
>> UK. Mars had to stop saying that their chocolate bar helps you to
>> work, rest and play, simply because they couldn't prove it.
>
>All been done....stop being lazy and do the reasearch. Educate yourself.
Fair enough. You're the one making the claim, not me.
>> >Geeze you will believe a toothpaste ad but not the guys name or even
>several
>> >books that you were given that support the underlying theory of the 3D
>Mind?
>>
>> Where did I say I believed a toothpaste ad? Do you actually read these
>> posts before screaming at your PC with the next response?
>>
>> Do those books mention how the 3D mind derives from the underlying
>> theory.
>>
>> I apologise unreservedly if that was the case. Give me a reference and
>> I will look it up, come back here and confirm it to the group.
>
>Been done several times. Stop being lazy. Unka suggested Molecules of
>Emotion no less than 5 times. Do you have it yet?
Fair enough. You're the one making the claim, not me.
>> All that's been offered is a load of stomach churning testimonials.
>> That is not my preferred convincer strategy.
>
>So what? I understand...Real people getting REAL results mean nothing to
>you. You would prefer a scintific theory that gets no results at all.
>
>You convincer strategy sucks
So what you are saying is that a good convincer strategy would be for
me to accept any testimonial that anyone gives me and then act upon
it? No thanks.
No, I am more than happy with seeing results for myself. Have seen
them at many seminars and had some stuff done on myself that was
permanent (does 8 years count). In fact I probably prefer that to
scientific proof.
It's simply that I hate it when people continually throw testimonials
at me together with un-validated scientific claims..
--
John
Tom Vizzini
"John" <yhqwasgo@d8mklotfu> wrote in message
> >
> >At least admit that you have an agenda. You have one outlook that you
refuse
> >to change.
>
> What, just because I won't say that NLP is crap and 3D Mind is the
> best thing sinced sliced bread. That's all very Stalinist.
This is the kind of stupidity and then invalidate any opinion you could
possibly have. You refuse to admit you have an agenda. I am very open in
admitting that I have an agenda.
> >Lets take one Bandler example. He 'claims' that playing events backwards
in
> >your mind 'flattens ' the neural pathways. I see no demand for scientific
> >verification of that.
>
> Bandler has not said that on this newsgroup as far as I know. If he
> did I would challenge him.
Bullshit. It doesn't matter where Bandler said it. The fact is that you
have not challenge it and seem to accept it. That's a pretty obvious double
standard.
>
>
> >There is no scientific verification of eye accessing cues.
>
> I agree but then we are not claiming that there is.
>
> >On the contrary there is much evidnce that they do not exist.
>
> I have had results doing this just like you do with the 3D mind. What
> more do I need? What's good enough for you....
Who is this "we"? But to the contrary eye accessing cues are presented as
being a scientific fact. It is presented as how the brain accesses. That
is a statement of fact. I even in the face of contrary scientific evidence
that "fact" is still presented.
On the other hand there are several scientific theories that back up exactly
what we have presented with the 3-D Mind. I will last you one more time.
Have you read any of the books that Tim suggested? Have you looked at the
3-D brain list on Yahoo?
I can already answered these things because I know you haven't. You won't.
If you do it will challenge your fragile reality and you will have to face
up to the fact that you're not as smart as you think you are and might
actually be as stupid as I think you are.
> >
> >Exactly...so you attack the scientific backround because you have no
other
> >form of attack.
>
> Do you have any idea how the English Language works? If no one has
> attacked your results then this cannot be another form of attack.
>
> How can we attack something we have yet to see?
You have given examples time and time again. I cannot give you a complete
course in neuroscience. I suggest you educate yourself. In the course of
educating yourself if you find contrary evidence to what I have presented
feel free to jump in.
What your attack is against his me because you don't like me. There is no
possible way that I could care less about that.
Your attack is also against a process that actually works quite well and can
be learned in less than an hour instead of three weeks and $15,000 followed
by years of practice to try to understand the complexity of NLP.
Your agenda is to defend NLP against all contrary models. You don't like me
because I point out the flaws. You stick your head in the sand and pretend
they are not there. That is your choice but just because you cannot see
them with your head in the sand doesn't make them not real.
>
> Show us the scientific evidence and if it deserves challenge then
> maybe someone here might challenge it. After all there are mountains
> of it apparently. Finding a little shouldn't be difficult.
Been there, done that. You can be standing right next to a mountain but if
your head is buried you will not see it. Time and time again you have been
given examples of places to go to find this information for yourself and you
refuse.
> >
> >All been done....stop being lazy and do the reasearch. Educate yourself.
>
> Fair enough. You're the one making the claim, not me.
Then get off your lazy ass and prove me wrong. You refuse to educate
yourself. I could give you solid proof, and have through explanation, and
you still would not understand it because you're ignorant on this subject.
There is absolutely no way that you could intelligently even discuss this
topic. There is no way you could possibly even understand what I was saying
if I chose to try to explain it to you.
> >
> >Been done several times. Stop being lazy. Unka suggested Molecules of
> >Emotion no less than 5 times. Do you have it yet?
>
> Fair enough. You're the one making the claim, not me.
You're a complete idiot. You just admitted that you're actually to lazy to
do any research for yourself and there is a waste of time responding to.
You're not followed up any leads. You're basically a lazy ass.
> >
> >You convincer strategy sucks
>
> So what you are saying is that a good convincer strategy would be for
> me to accept any testimonial that anyone gives me and then act upon
> it? No thanks.
Don't redefine what I said. I said that you're convincer strategy sucks.
Based upon you're convincer strategy you would have to have scientific
studies before you bought a microwave oven. You would not take the Word of
your neighbor who said his microwave oven works just fine.
On the other hand I insist upon testimonial before I will buy anything. I'm
currently looking to buy a GPS system for my car. The very first thing I do
is look up the reviews of the GPS system that I'm considering buying. Even
when I go to a movie the very first thing I do is go to the customer reviews
of the movie to see what real people thought about it.
>
> No, I am more than happy with seeing results for myself. Have seen
> them at many seminars and had some stuff done on myself that was
> permanent (does 8 years count). In fact I probably prefer that to
> scientific proof.
>
> It's simply that I hate it when people continually throw testimonials
> at me together with un-validated scientific claims..
Again.. you are too lazy to use the information given. Any more would be
wasted on you.
>
> --
> John
>
John
<T...@essential-skills.com> wrote:
I don't think I have seen so much drivel, mind reading and abuse in a
single post for a while.
I guess the books you/Unka mentioned don't have any references to 3D
mind after all.
A yahoo group is not a newsgroup, and I am in the process of joining,
we'll see what's there.
As for the rest it's not worth a reply.
--
John
Tom Vizzini
"John" <yhqwasgo@d8mklotfu> wrote in message
> On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 12:44:39 -0500, "Tom Vizzini"
> <T...@essential-skills.com> wrote:
>
> I don't think I have seen so much drivel, mind reading and abuse in a
> single post for a while.
Abuse??? You have constantly called me a liar. Is that not abuse.
Educate yourself.
>
> I guess the books you/Unka mentioned don't have any references to 3D
> mind after all.
Lazy and ignorant? How can any intelligent person come to that conclusion
without one bit of research?
>
> A yahoo group is not a newsgroup, and I am in the process of joining,
> we'll see what's there.
Huh? What the hell could that possibly have to do with anything. The 3dbrain
YAHOO group was very clear.
>
> As for the rest it's not worth a reply.
No...the rest you are not able to reply to.... there is a difference
Cameron
procedure.
I'll make mine clear, before going into troll land and bitching about how I
percieve your communication so far. Give me these three things, I lie down
shut up and send you $70.
1) A public comment of support from your "brain scientist"
2) An outline of the neurophysiology that you have supporting your beliefs
at a level more detailed than the best I've seen so far "There is a
squiggly part at the top of the brain" or even an acceptance that you are
using your understanding of the functioning of the mind as a metaphor rather
than a scientific validation.
3) Evidence that you have respect for others, by at least placing AD: in
front of posts that are obviously advertising. Phil seems the only e-mail
adress that associated with 3-d mind that produces less than 50% spam.
Cameron
I say, you have not put up anything to refute!
( a vague wish that I use "science" to demolish a theory that you do not
state doesn't count)
From where I am sitting you ask me to take 3-dmind on faith, a handfull of
testomonials, and your torrent of abuse of dissenting points of view. (not
bad? from a group founded round a non reactive principle!)
The 3-d mind list is open as lifetime support to those who have brought the
product?
<and not to those of us who wont kiss the guru's ring (and send him $70)>
('ve seen this posted,<not the ring bit> asked this of Tom, and got told
I'ld have to find another way of refuting him)
Ater pointing out that no one by the name of his doctor is working at the
university Unk said he was working at, but there is a security guard by that
name, aparently.
The Dr in question has not posted anything that I can find or that Tom
bothers pointing me to where
^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
he says _anything_ about 3-d mind)
GIVE US A LINK YOU DODGY ASSHOLE!
(assumption that you are a dodgy asshole based on your
unwillingness/inability to give us a link already)
Find a reference! You have said you are working with him continueously and
he validates your work in the scientific arena. Sounds like he respects you
enough that he'll go put something on a website asscoiated with him tomorow
just to support your glorious technology!
At the moment his public slience is deafening me.
He (the Dr) is an American public figure, intrested parties could consider a
surgical srtike here, given that Dr Ken is being associated with the 3-d
mind, and the 3-d mind crew is behaving like school children in a public
forum, there (might?/is) be a legal case to be answered.
<turns to the 3-d crew, shoot me down here, please! with a link!! not with
abuse and assertions>
Tom, you say you make your agenda clear, I have not heard you mention what
you do with the $70 that you get for each DVD. You think I think that's not
part of your agenda?
What do you do for an honest living? How much of your income is derived from
the fact that you take the time to be involved in flame wars in
alt.psychology.nlp abusing NLP while aparently selling an almost entirely
deriveitive technology?
Come to think of it.
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 3-D MIND AND NLP?
you guys dont care about anything in the past
have a squiggly part at the top of your brain
and use a lot of NLP terms/techniques/processes.
You are cheaper, and offer lifetime support.
anything I have missed?
And I'me writing this post, more to get it off my chest than out of any hope
of a real reply.
<shrugs on asbestos raincoat for intevitable (and prehaps well deserved)
falming in response.>
What would the world be like if the 3-d mind technology was powerfull enough
to let you be able to let this one go?.
UnKa
I am your father Luke, come to the dark side, also tell your mother she
wasn't that good of a fuck. I could have paid three dollars and got a
decent blow job from your sister.
Who is DBC...Dumb Bitch Cunt???
If flaming is what you want, then flaming is what you got.
UnKa
>how do you know what medical conditions he has or not? how do you know what
>is safe for him?
Blow me you fuck wad, you weren't there so you don't know any details,
if all you got to say is stupid shit like this, why do you post. I see
your not arguing about the skills, but some petty side tracking thing
to get people off focus of what really happened, why so you can post
your crappy shit under another name, which sock puppet are you?
UnKa
If you want scientific validity, the get on a plane, fly to Atlanta,
I'll pick you up, we will go out to Tom's house and he will show you
the video of his nueroscientist explaining the 3-D Mind and how is it
an actual representation of the brain model and how change works.
If you want proof, come get it. I've already refered you and others to
three people, all nueroscientists. The first being the neuroscientist
on tape explaining the 3-D Mind.
But first you have to know what and how the 3-D Mind works.
Then the books to read are.
Molecules of Emotion by Candance Pert
Her main topic is about peptide's and how they work to produce
emotions, which once read you would understand more about how the 3-D
Mind works on the bio-physical level.
Then read The emotional Brain by Joseph Ledoux
He goes into emotions and about opposites and how they affect one
another. Strongly supporting the 3-D Mind Model.
Those folks who wrote those books know nothing of Tom and Kim or even
the 3-D Mind, yet their work supports the foundations of the 3-D Mind
Model.
All their work is based on science, scientific fact, read what they
have published.
That is good enough for now but if that is not enough fact for you then
let me know and I'll refer you to yet many more books on the brain and
emotions.
But Hell, what do I know, I only read a few books and am a high school
drop out.
So if you want to diddle, then diddle, other wise the facts are laid
out before you, if you wish to not pursue that course, then the
education you will not get will indeed be a huge loss for you.
UnKa
Why are you posting? I proposed a contest to you, your skills which
you have so much more education, against my skills, which I've only
read a few books.
You ran, complaining that you don't see clients and blah blah blah.
Funny how foggy your memory is when something is called into question,
what it really says about you is,
A. You really know nothing
B. You know something but are afraid of being shown up because you lack
the skills to change yourself.
C. Both of the above.
Cameron, you keep spouting yet show nothing, your a clueless wind bag.
I'd bet you wouldn't even know how to change a light bulb.
Write us a post and show off some of that education you got.
Show us where you validated NLP
Show us anything but the fact that your a fucking moronic dick.
Write something, anything of value that you know for a fact works
Cameron
> I'll pick you up, we will go out to Tom's house and he will show you
> the video of his nueroscientist explaining the 3-D Mind and how is it
> an actual representation of the brain model and how change works.
> If you want proof, come get it. I've already refered you and others to
> three people, all nueroscientists. The first being the neuroscientist
> on tape explaining the 3-D Mind.
Send me the cash, I'll see the vid, and I'll testify!
Failing that make it available on the net and we can all see it.
Why do you believe I (or John or anyone else) should spend their money
investigation your vague calims?
> But first you have to know what and how the 3-D Mind works.
>
> Then the books to read are.
>
> Molecules of Emotion by Candance Pert
Concrete citation <thank you>
Does it mention 3-d mind?
Or should I buy a coppy just to see what you think supports your belief
system <see above>
> Then read The emotional Brain by Joseph Ledoux
> He goes into emotions and about opposites and how they affect one
> another. Strongly supporting the 3-D Mind Model.
In text or in your belief system?
> Those folks who wrote those books know nothing of Tom and Kim or even
> the 3-D Mind, yet their work supports the foundations of the 3-D Mind
> Model.
Ah, Ignore the above two comments, read below.
Some people wrote books? (yes/no maybe?)
You believe these books support your belief system (yes/no maybe?)
They say they do (no!)
I should believe that they do? (maybe)
> All their work is based on science, scientific fact, read what they
> have published.
Unk, you have demonstrated and accepted your ignorance of science (yes/no
maybe?)
Why do you tell us that you can tell what scientifically supports your
belief system?
> That is good enough for now but if that is not enough fact for you then
> let me know and I'll refer you to yet many more books on the brain and
> emotions.
I'll refer you to an entire libarary that supports my 4-d mind.
Will you believe me? (yes/no/Maybe?)
Why should I believe you?
> But Hell, what do I know, I only read a few books and am a high school
> drop out.
Get over your self abuse in this context, I havent read anyopne saying that
you are a pig ignorant asshole because you havent graduated from something.
Just because of the way you behave.
and when my behaviour comes within a standard deviation of yours I say that
about my own behaviour.
> So if you want to diddle, then diddle, other wise the facts are laid
> out before you, if you wish to not pursue that course, then the
> education you will not get will indeed be a huge loss for you.
Lay them down! please!
Give us these facts so that we can either guide you out of your false belief
or come to accept the higher wisdom you posess.
Till then I've got a much better education on the streets than in a class,
and you have more years than me. Why do you assert you have such a great,
non reactive technology, and then fail to back it?
It could be that you are shy?
It could be that you are gullable?
It could be you have nothing?
I dont know.
I dont stand for much, but you have chosen to stand for the 3-d mind?
Why? <in trems of real people who really support your belief system, not
fellow zellots or a book that says what you think but will not tell us.>
Cameron
"UnKa" <monste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140756245.0...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> Dear Cameron:
>
> Why are you posting? I proposed a contest to you, your skills which
> you have so much more education, against my skills, which I've only
> read a few books.
> You ran, complaining that you don't see clients and blah blah blah.
Not complaining asserting!
You see I know my ignorance, you claim to have something much better.
And we all have to pay your guru to see it.
Try posting something?
And by the way, have you taken the time out to call the gentleman in
question and cured all his problems, or is it only me who is supposed to
perform?
Do you have nothing but empty promises? or will you take your own challenge?
> Show us where you validated NLP
I did not, but the inspiritive website (as posted here twice already) has
some valid scientific research on it.
What'ya got?
Tom Vizzini
"Cameron" <cbrow...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:43fe6a93$0$3043$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> You say the evidence is irrefutable (the results that you get)
>
> I say, you have not put up anything to refute!
>
> ( a vague wish that I use "science" to demolish a theory that you do not
> state doesn't count)
Well somebody missed their meds today....
Again as I have told you seversl times. All the info is there. All the
research has been done. All you have to do to find it is not be so lazy.
Just as I have told John, What I ave offered is beyond you ability to
understand anyway. I am not going to give youa course in brain chemistry. If
you want to learn that then you will have to do so on your own time.
I have spent the last two years studying brain chemistry and reaciton inside
the physical brain.
What you are missing is this.
I aready creates the 3D mind Model several years before I met Ken. He
approached me and with the addition of his model of the brain I have refined
the 3D Mind to work 10 times better than before.
So what Ken offeres is not just some doctor agreeing with us. It is a model
that has been applied and has worked.
>
> From where I am sitting you ask me to take 3-dmind on faith, a handfull of
> testomonials, and your torrent of abuse of dissenting points of view. (not
> bad? from a group founded round a non reactive principle!)
I don't ask you to do anything. I don't know you or care about you.
>
> The 3-d mind list is open as lifetime support to those who have brought
the
> product?
Yep.
> <and not to those of us who wont kiss the guru's ring (and send him $70)>
The reason is simple. I would end up with people like you who are ignorant
of the process and want convinced. Instead I have a group who are improving
their lives.
>
> Ater pointing out that no one by the name of his doctor is working at the
> university Unk said he was working at, but there is a security guard by
that
> name, aparently.
>
> The Dr in question has not posted anything that I can find or that Tom
> bothers pointing me to where
> ^^^^^^^
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> he says _anything_ about 3-d mind)
>
> GIVE US A LINK YOU DODGY ASSHOLE!
Nope....There is no link to anything Ken has said about the 3D mind. I have
in on video. It is a 3 hour presentation It will be released with the new
version of the 3D Mind in a few months.
>
> At the moment his public slience is deafening me.
You are a complete buffon. You wrote me privately and I gae you links to
verify.
>
> What do you do for an honest living?
Help people improve their lives.
How much of your income is derived from
> the fact that you take the time to be involved in flame wars in
> alt.psychology.nlp abusing NLP while aparently selling an almost entirely
> deriveitive technology?
3D Mind is nothing like NLP. I have been over that extensively. Search this
groups archives to find the posts.
>
> What would the world be like if the 3-d mind technology was powerfull
enough
> to let you be able to let this one go?.
It is powerful enough to let me have a choice. I choose to let you rant on.
Each of your posts gets nuttier. Keep up the good work.
Tom
--
Tom Vizzini
Real Skills for the Real World
www.essential-skills.com
New Gold Members Area www.essential-skills.com/content.php?cid=1056
3D Mind www.essential-skills.com/content.php?cid=1043
Tom Vizzini
> People, my self included have complained about your shitty evidence
> procedure.
>
> I'll make mine clear, before going into troll land and bitching about how
I
> percieve your communication so far. Give me these three things, I lie
down
> shut up and send you $70.
>
>
>
> 1) A public comment of support from your "brain scientist"
Been done......look in the 3Dbrain Yahoo group.
>
> 2) An outline of the neurophysiology that you have supporting your beliefs
> at a level more detailed than the best I've seen so far "There is a
> squiggly part at the top of the brain" or even an acceptance that you are
> using your understanding of the functioning of the mind as a metaphor
rather
> than a scientific validation.
Been done...go to 3D-Mind.com
>
> 3) Evidence that you have respect for others, by at least placing AD: in
> front of posts that are obviously advertising. Phil seems the only e-mail
> adress that associated with 3-d mind that produces less than 50% spam.
I have no respect for you.
Cameron
>> 1) A public comment of support from your "brain scientist"
>
> Been done......look in the 3Dbrain Yahoo group.
The one that I have to give you $70 to be part of?
Prehaps you could point me to a link that I dont have to feed your finance
or ego to see?
Prehaps there is a link that _HE_ put up supporting you?
I mean I can put up a yahoo group, charge you $70 to access it and then
write a testmonial from Jesus christ himself on it.
You'ld be some sort of fool if you sent me the money and beleived?
>>
>> 2) An outline of the neurophysiology that you have supporting your
>> beliefs
>> at a level more detailed than the best I've seen so far "There is a
>> squiggly part at the top of the brain" or even an acceptance that you are
>> using your understanding of the functioning of the mind as a metaphor
> rather
>> than a scientific validation.
>
> Been done...go to 3D-Mind.com
That'ld be the "essential skills website"?
url's are easy enough to cut and paste.
>
>>
>> 3) Evidence that you have respect for others, by at least placing AD: in
>> front of posts that are obviously advertising. Phil seems the only e-mail
>> adress that associated with 3-d mind that produces less than 50% spam.
>
> I have no respect for you.
Or the group or your own public image.
bard...@yahoo.com
Cameron schreef:
> >> 1) A public comment of support from your "brain scientist"
> >
> > Been done......look in the 3Dbrain Yahoo group.
>
> The one that I have to give you $70 to be part of?
>
> Prehaps you could point me to a link that I dont have to feed your finance
> or ego to see?
>
> Prehaps there is a link that _HE_ put up supporting you?
>
> I mean I can put up a yahoo group, charge you $70 to access it and then
> write a testmonial from Jesus christ himself on it.
>
> You'ld be some sort of fool if you sent me the money and beleived?
>
>
Geezes dumbhead.
If you where paying attention for just one second, you'll notice that
the 3Dbrain and the 3Dmind list are two different list. Now go do a
fucking search. and you'll find all the brain stuff you want to know.
.... for free ... geezes what a moron
Cameron
<bard...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140819472....@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> Cameron schreef:
Yes my dear unidentified friend?
>> >> 1) A public comment of support from your "brain scientist"
>> >
>> > Been done......look in the 3Dbrain Yahoo group.
Where? there are 1400+ posts there and in Dr Ken's own words.
(I am presuming he is the one calling himself Neo?)
>get a life rather than wasting your time wiping your sorry ass on what has
>degenerated into a very >sorry list...
>> Prehaps there is a link that _HE_ put up supporting you?
Something more authoritive than your own internal list would be nice here.
Failing that why would I drag my way through 1400 posts when your leading
academic light calls it a very sory list?
>> I mean I can put up a yahoo group, and then
>> write a testmonial from Jesus christ himself on it.
>>
>> You'ld be some sort of fool if you beleived?
> Geezes dumbhead.
Yes o polite one?
> If you where paying attention for just one second, you'll notice that
> the 3Dbrain and the 3Dmind list are two different list. Now go do a
> fucking search. and you'll find all the brain stuff you want to know.
> .... for free ... geezes what a moron
Another quote from your Dr Ken?
"and as an anesthesiologist besides making big bucks, I actually get some
research done...maybe not the really precise stuff you PhD students do that
is too valuable and too hard for a working MD to understand to have clinical
relevance...but just a bit...lol..In fact even from here I can smell
your breath as your ass talks...it smells worse than the animal lab I worked
in"
Would I be right in assuming his profesional qualifications are as an
anesthesiologist? not a "brain reasearcher?" and not so much cutting edge as
Tom has stated but rather contemptous of those who are on the cutting edge?
And the coment from the person who was discussing (getting into a flame war)
with Dr Ken.
> Ken wishes us to believe in 3dbrain, an idea he believes is
> scientific. Requesting him to produce scientific papers that support
> it, it doesn't get any simpler than that, does it?
Which posts specifically actually support the 3dbrain/mind whatever? From
what I've seen so far I just wasted half an hour scanning through the same
sort of abuse that goes on here.
But then as you abley and often point out I am a moron, you'll have to help
me through this terrible misunderstanding.
Ronald St-Maurice
"Cameron" <cbrow...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:43ff99a1$0$15789$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
DBC
didnt take too long but it happened.
oh the predicatbility of UnKa....just not fun anymore
"UnKa" <monste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140753215.9...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Tom Vizzini
>
> >> 1) A public comment of support from your "brain scientist"
> >
> > Been done......look in the 3Dbrain Yahoo group.
>
> The one that I have to give you $70 to be part of?
OK here is a perfect example of you lack of ability to understand the
simplest of concepts. The 3D-MIND group is the group fro our customers. The
3d-BRAIN group is actually Ken's group.
Again I have already sent you this information. A simple google search would
yield plenty of information and articles by Ken.
Your just too lazy to make any effort other than blowing off steam here on
this list.
> > I have no respect for you.
>
> Or the group or your own public image.
No.....I have no respect for you.
TO have my respect you would have to make an effort to educate yourself and
then make intelligent points. The truth is that you have done nothing more
than bluster around on this list like a child demanding to get his own way.
Do the simple research and get back to me when you have enough knowledge to
discuss the subject.
>
>
>
Tom Vizzini
>
> Something more authoritive than your own internal list would be nice here.
> Failing that why would I drag my way through 1400 posts
To prove your not a dumb ass.
Hey I run into peple like you all the time. You are to lazy to learn
anything on your own and to stuck in your one thing you think you know to
see anything else.
Like most people with weak minds you think you already know everything.
you want to know.
> > .... for free ... geezes what a moron
>
> Another quote from your Dr Ken?
>
> "and as an anesthesiologist besides making big bucks, I actually get some
> research done...maybe not the really precise stuff you PhD students do
that
> is too valuable and too hard for a working MD to understand to have
clinical
> relevance...but just a bit...lol..In fact even from here I can smell
> your breath as your ass talks...it smells worse than the animal lab I
worked
> in"
>
> Would I be right in assuming his profesional qualifications are as an
> anesthesiologist? not a "brain reasearcher?" and not so much cutting edge
as Tom has stated but rather contemptous of those who are on the cutting
edge?
Albert Einstien was a patent clerk. Thw Wright brothers were bicycle
builders. Ken has been studying the effects of brain chemistry for 25 years.
He has given hundreds of lectures and written a book on how food efffect
brain chemistry and your performance.
>
> Which posts specifically actually support the 3dbrain/mind whatever?
They are there....keep reading or will you continue to take paragraphs out
of context of the psts or threads to try to make you point.
From
> what I've seen so far I just wasted half an hour scanning through the same
> sort of abuse that goes on here.
Gee a whole half hour? Here read this. I am sure it is something thast you
will not even come close to being able to understand but it is the type of
thing that you will pass on in your bias search. Here are various articles
from Ken that I have put together in one to give you an idea of the 3D BRAIN
model and how thw 3D MIND works differently that NLP.
"Tom and Kim have developed a system that they firmly believe from their
experience with many live people is better than anything NLP and most
psychotherapeutic approaches offer. It's particularly interesting since
there are those who question them because they arent psychiatrists or
psychologists and yet Sigmund Freud was a neurologist at a time when people
knew very little about the brain, and wrote most of his huge body of work
based on his experience with 18 famous patients.
I also know they take a very personal interest in anyone wishing to learn it
and to benefit from it. I've seen them take lots of personal time with lots
of people. It has been clear to me that their intent is to help people. When
i've said that some have said 'they're making good money on all
this'...psychiatrists in manhattan command 450 an hour to prescribe SSRI's
and accuse people of 'not wanting to get better because of unconscious
resistance'.
All current research is in overwhelming support of there being various
structural components of the brain that oversee very very specific areas of
function. Just do a search on the word "amygdala" on the scientific american
website and you'll find some interesting and readable articles on that tiny
structure alone and its role in fear, phobias, and social interpretation.
The brain is a massively parallel processing machine that bears no
resemblance to the linear single processor computer system most people are
using. If you put about 10 billion processors in parallel you might start
approximating a model you could talk about as being similar. It does not run
'software' or 'programs'...in fact that is where much of the failure in NLP
lies...in thinking you can 'reprogram' someone without acknowledging
specific structural elements and how many neuronal connections in parallel
must change in structure before change in certain habits of thinking can
occur.
Within each brain cell exists a fine network of protein filaments called
microtubules. The network is possibly as complex as an entire brain within
each cell. Each of these tubules is made up of beads of protein. Within each
bead is a site that water could possible be trapped in a special quantum
state in one of it's electrons of its hydrogen atoms...if that is the case
and since all microtubules are from similar origin, it might be that all
brains are connected in some way via a quantum dimension...called quantum
entanglement. Stuart Hameroff at U of Arizona has done a lot of work on
this. However the work lacks any actual direct demonstration of quantum
entanglement between nerve cells at a distance...it is highly
intriguing...it has been espoused by some heavy hitters in the world of
science including Roger Penrose, the mathematician who came up with the
original equations to prove black holes exist in space. As far as taking the
step to schizophrenia or parkinsons, it is another step in this theoretical
direction...all very plausible but not proven. The theoretical way this
might apply to 3d mind is that by making the choice to recreate your brain
state, you are connecting with literally a different 'set of brain states in
the universe' however it is highly theoretical and speculative...
This is very very interesting because the limbic system, the so-called
'reptile brain', from where these 4F's originate has within it the
hippocampus. The hippocampus encodes memory (refer if available to my
lecture given at the NYC seminar)...but regarding this...most
importantly...the strongest memories encoded...in fact the original purpose
that the hippocampus evolved for was LOCATION and position within that
location ( I use the example of thinking of a restaurant you've been to at
least 3 times in the last 5 years, and I bet regardless of what you can't
remember about when you went there the last 3 times, you'll remember where
you sat each time...ie LOCATION)...so any of the drivers in this system are
designed to force the animal (in this case you), to MOVE...ie CHANGE
LOCATION or POSITION...so this test is quite validated by established
neurological models!
There are many models of the brain used to aid in conceptualization of this
very complex structure, that is more like a bunch of different smaller
organs acting in concert than a single mass of neurojelly inside the head.
The parts of the concept of the 4F's as used in 3dmind work for that model
although a vast oversimplification of what really goes on as these different
processes are distributed into different areas of this so-called 'reptile
brain'. For instance when i discuss serotonin, i talk about it as if it has
one general effect on the higher brain, however in reality there are at
least 5 serotonin receptor subtypes, each with important and subtle
differences in the way they react to serotonin. Bob Sapolsky (of 'zebras')
is a brilliant researcher who's work actually led to research i did at the
NIH so there is a lot of similarity. He's been kind of a
mentor-at-a-distance for me. As far as dividing up the brain, it is really a
semantic thing. There are components that have been remarkably preserved in
structure through evolution such that for instance parts of the brainstem
and limbic system that mediate the so-called '4 F's' are amazingly similar
between a human and an alligator, amazingly similar.
As I see it, there is a vicious circle in play here. We are desperately
seeking solutions, whilst living in the reptilian mind.. So, how can we come
up with creative/adaptive solutions.. we can't.. so we worry more, which
puts us further into the reptilian mentality and further away from the
creative/adaptive solutions..
What's interesting nonetheless, is that one can deconstruct some of these
in a functional way to understand how in a lot of ways we still function at
a reptile level, especially when we ditch our higher cortex and spend our
time and thoughts in the reactive layer of the brain...it's like wasting all
these extra neurons we've been given. This becomes especially true when it
comes to looking at drivers...when we are in a maladaptive autopilot
behavior, we're often not that much different from a dumb pissed off
alligator. Resource states that we use to replace those negative drivers
come from the higher, 'creative adaptive' layers of the cortex..."
>
> But then as you abley and often point out I am a moron, you'll have to
help
> me through this terrible misunderstanding.
There you have it. Good luck. I won't have time to play with you for
another week so in that time....educate yourself.
terran...@yahoo.com
out for us.
Terry
phill_coxon
>The one that I have to give you $70 to be part of?
No, the one that any person with a reasonable level of intelligence can
see is free to join.
>Prehaps you could point me to a link that I dont have to feed your finance
>or ego to see?
Oh, you mean like the 3D Brain group?
John
wrote:
....and where did you appear from all of a sudden?
--
John
Cameron
"Tom Vizzini" <T...@essential-skills.com> wrote in message
news:-Mmdna_VLLF...@adelphia.com...
>
> "Cameron" <cbrow...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:43ff99a1$0$15789$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
>>
>> Something more authoritive than your own internal list would be nice
>> here.
>> Failing that why would I drag my way through 1400 posts
> To prove your not a dumb ass.
(then you have failed to provide something more authoritive?)
And reading proves you are not a dumb ass when the leading light calls it
in Dr Ken's own words.
(I am presuming he is the one calling himself Neo?)
>get a life rather than wasting your time wiping your sorry ass on what has
>degenerated into a very >sorry list...
Yeah, <nods>, that'ld be clever of me.
Got any other lists that the owner has given up on that I can trawl hoping
for enlightenment.
> Hey I run into peple like you all the time. You are to lazy to learn
> anything on your own and to stuck in your one thing you think you know to
> see anything else.
So remind me again of your academic training?
(I'll give a dollar to the laziest beggar)
And what is the one thing that I have stuck in my head, (or are you still
running your stuck thought that anyone who does not swallow your line is a
NLP zellot?)
> Like most people with weak minds you think you already know everything.
I presume your assertion of my weakness of mind comes from the fact that I
have be silenced by your stream of abuse?
Or maybe it's only a strong mind (like unk's for example?) that can accept
your re-badged NLP?
>> Would I be right in assuming his profesional qualifications are as an
>> anesthesiologist? not a "brain reasearcher?" and not so much cutting edge
> as Tom has stated but rather contemptous of those who are on the cutting
> edge?
>
> Albert Einstien was a patent clerk. Thw Wright brothers were bicycle
> builders. Ken has been studying the effects of brain chemistry for 25
> years.
> He has given hundreds of lectures and written a book on how food efffect
> brain chemistry and your performance.
You dont have a good quote bank do you, that's the 4th time you've played
that sound bite that I have seen (3 here and 1 on the 4-d mind list)
>> Which posts specifically actually support the 3dbrain/mind whatever?
>
> They are there....keep reading or will you continue to take paragraphs out
> of context of the psts or threads to try to make you point.
If I offered you that "the definate proof that you are a fool is in the
libary of congress, no I wont tell you where you are an even bigger fool if
you dont runoff now and read it all"
You'ld recognise the isomorphism? (same shit different context)
> "Tom and Kim have developed a system that they firmly believe from their
> experience with many live people is better than anything NLP and most
> psychotherapeutic approaches offer. It's particularly interesting since
> there are those who question them because they arent psychiatrists or
> psychologists and yet Sigmund Freud was a neurologist at a time when
> people
> knew very little about the brain, and wrote most of his huge body of work
> based on his experience with 18 famous patients.
So you firmly believe in this. Gee Thanks for telling me that I would never
have guessed on my own.
Newton knew less than Einstien, by virtue of having come along much earlier
he is still considered to be a contributer to the field.
Seems me to be an apologistic positino here for your own lack of
qualifications or training.
you are comparing yoruself to Einsitien and Frued?
And have wasted how much time arguing this on the internet over the laast 10
years?
> I also know they take a very personal interest in anyone wishing to learn
> it
> and to benefit from it. I've seen them take lots of personal time with
> lots
> of people. It has been clear to me that their intent is to help people.
> When
> i've said that some have said 'they're making good money on all
> this'...psychiatrists in manhattan command 450 an hour to prescribe SSRI's
> and accuse people of 'not wanting to get better because of unconscious
> resistance'.
Takes a lot of personal attention to run a cult too.
and no, I havent suggested that money is your "prime" motivator, I believe
it is yoru ego that drives you, the need for praise or failing that
attention.
> All current research is in overwhelming support of there being various
> structural components of the brain that oversee very very specific areas
> of
> function.
This is true, how does it support any claim that yoru work is unique or
valid?
>Just do a search on the word "amygdala" on the scientific american
> website and you'll find some interesting and readable articles on that
> tiny
> structure alone and its role in fear, phobias, and social interpretation.
> The brain is a massively parallel processing machine that bears no
> resemblance to the linear single processor computer system most people are
> using. If you put about 10 billion processors in parallel you might start
> approximating a model you could talk about as being similar.
Dude, I've got my psychology text books right here in my study.
I dont need to google to refresh my memory of basic neuronatomy.
And 10 billion is a fairly precice number, "processors" is a hoplesly vague
comment, between them there is an apposition of opposites.
Have you ever read "straight and crooked thinking" by thouless?
OR "Inevitable illusions" (by an italian gentleman who's name eludes me at
the moment)
It does not run
> 'software' or 'programs'...in fact that is where much of the failure in
> NLP
> lies...in thinking you can 'reprogram' someone without acknowledging
> specific structural elements and how many neuronal connections in parallel
> must change in structure before change in certain habits of thinking can
> occur.
Dude, I've got my psychology text books right here in my study.
Besides you are still mistaking me for a NLP'er.
I have studied psychology. I have been trained in nlp, I have avoided using
it for a long time and am just re examining it.
You seem to implicitly assume (one of those weak mind fixed idea things?)
that anyone who does not praise and accept you hates you personally is
stupid and is a NLP zellot.
(not like I'me the first person you've had this issue with is it.)
> Within each brain cell exists a fine network of protein filaments called
> microtubules. The network is possibly as complex as an entire brain within
> each cell. Each of these tubules is made up of beads of protein. Within
> each
> bead is a site that water could possible be trapped in a special quantum
> state in one of it's electrons of its hydrogen atoms...
Can I have a citation on the "special" quantum state? or is it just a cool
sounding phrase to impress people.
Do you know of what you speak, is it backed up outside your belief system,
or should I accept all of yoru words on faith.
if that is the case
> and since all microtubules are from similar origin, it might be that all
> brains are connected in some way via a quantum dimension...called quantum
> entanglement. Stuart Hameroff at U of Arizona has done a lot of work on
> this. However the work lacks any actual direct demonstration of quantum
> entanglement between nerve cells at a distance...it is highly
> intriguing...it has been espoused by some heavy hitters in the world of
> science including Roger Penrose, the mathematician who came up with the
> original equations to prove black holes exist in space.
I am aware of the concept, what I lack is the linkage to anything you have.
As far as taking the
> step to schizophrenia or parkinsons, it is another step in this
> theoretical
> direction...all very plausible but not proven.
Allright, I think we hit pay dirt here.
We have something we agree on.
Tell me that your model is "plausible" given scientific thought, and I wont
demand proof.
The theoretical way this
> might apply to 3d mind is that by making the choice to recreate your brain
> state, you are connecting with literally a different 'set of brain states
> in
> the universe' however it is highly theoretical and speculative...
That doesn't stop it being a posibally valid and usefull model.
OH, these are DR ken's words not yours? or a prepared document not day to
day internet postings.
Either would explain the totally different level of precision of language.
Only takes a few dozen wesal words to take the sting out of most of what
I've had to say on this subject.
If you dont say it's proven.
I cant demand proof.
>> But then as you abley and often point out I am a moron, you'll have to
> help
>> me through this terrible misunderstanding.
>
> There you have it. Good luck. I won't have time to play with you for
> another week so in that time....educate yourself.
Thank you, that text didn't violate the spirit of science, offer to fuck my
grandmother, make comments of my fathers genetalia or (apart from you
introductory comments) imply, no state, it's a mental failing on my behalf
to not belive in your assertions.
I'me in danger of relighting my candle of hope that a discussion of the
subject rather than the participants is possible.
Bad taste .sig for the week
____________________
Argueing on the internet is like competing in the special olympics, even if
you win you are still a spastic.
_______________________
Cameron
"phill_coxon" <ph...@getresults.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1140896133.8...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>get a life rather than wasting your time wiping your sorry ass on what has
>degenerated into a very >sorry list...
Not sure why I didn't look there earlier... seems like two lines sums it up
well.
Cameron
"John" <yhqwasgo@d8mklotfu> wrote in message
Coule just be the (hopefully flase) model that I am running that these folks
done come here to discuss NLP at all, but rather to pick fights with
NLP'ers, confirm their belief that the 3-d (whatever) is opposed by ignorant
fanatics and thus must have even more validity than they initally assumed.
Sort of like the Jehova witnesses coming to your door, it's not like they
actually score conversions but they do get pinned down into their faith by
public display.
That model however does explain why Tom takes the semi reasonable role, Unk
flames everyone with gutter abuse and insane chalanges and then the rotating
band of other e-mail adresses pop up and dissapear in rapid rotation.
Comenting as they pass through on the poor level of others communication
without having read the context that it occured in.
____________________
Nothing noble or good has ever arisen without opposition.
L.Ron.Hubbard, Founder of the Church of Scientology.
(used to compare himself to Einstien too)
_____________________________
Phil looks like one of the new New Zeland office people.
phill_coxon
I've been here for a while responding to posts.
What relevance does that have to the fact that Cameron got his facts
wrong when thinking he had to pay $70 to access the 3D Brain group?
phill_coxon
> flames everyone with gutter abuse and insane chalanges and then the rotating
> band of other e-mail adresses pop up and dissapear in rapid rotation.
Here's the funny thing. You seem to be implying again that I'm somehow
in collusion with Tom, an employee or otherwise biased person.
You've yet to consider that I'm simply an extremely satisifed customer.
I've told you to go to the Essential Skills mailing list archive and
read up on my history. Have you done it?
All the proof of who I am is there if you want to find it.
> Phil looks like one of the new New Zeland office people.
lol. Well at least you seem to have accepted the fact that I'm really
in New Zealand now.
But come on... one of the New Zealand office people?
Have you googled for "3D Mind" and "New Zealand"? Or "Essential
Skills" and "New Zealand"?
Did you find any evidence at all that suggested there's a New Zealand
office for Essential Skills?
Or are you just making up stuff?
Have you even considered the possibility that I'm simply a happy
customer that endorses Essential Skills because it works better than
anything else I've tried?
Have you done what I've suggested several times - searched on the
Essential Skills mailing list public archive for proof that I'm a real
person? That I'm simply a happy ES customer? That I tried a heap of
other NLP related courses, tapes, dvds, trainings, one on one sessions
before I stumbled onto the Essential Skills website by accident?
All the facts about me are there waiting for you in an unchangable,
public archive open to anyone.
If you expect others to provide you "facts" then would you at least
stick to posting what you know for is true instead of making stuff up
yourself?
UnKa
Go fuck yourself, if you want it come get it, I am not going to pay for
your education, ask mom and dad for the money since your so lame you
can't get it yourself. They have paid for most of your life so why not
get them to pop for this one too.
UnKa
Same thing.
>You see I know my ignorance,
Now that is the first time you said something that makes sense.>
>you claim to have something much better.
The difference is, I am willing to put my money where my mouth is, all
you can do is duck. pose and get out of the way.
>And by the way, have you taken the time out to call the gentleman in
>question and cured all his problems, or is it only me who is supposed to
>perform?
Did you? No, not only you were supposed to perform, I was to go after
you, I offered to let you go first so when you so miserably failed, so
I could show this NG, who knows what. Who gets results and who is just
a blow hard.
Everyone now knows why you won't take the challenge, because in your
own words, your ignorant. The money you folks spent on college and NLP
would have been put to better use if it had been spent on crack and
hookers. ( Then you'd have something in common with Richard )
Cameron
> >Not complaining asserting!
>
> Same thing.
>
>>You see I know my ignorance,
>
> Now that is the first time you said something that makes sense.>
Actually, it is a comment that I have made repeatedly.
Remember that Big World little brain comment?
In the face of reality we are all ignorant, it's only the zellots who dont
notice.
>>you claim to have something much better.
>
> The difference is, I am willing to put my money where my mouth is, all
> you can do is duck. pose and get out of the way.
So you will take your own pepsi chalange.
Good.
>>And by the way, have you taken the time out to call the gentleman in
>>question and cured all his problems, or is it only me who is supposed to
>>perform?
>
> Did you? No, not only you were supposed to perform, I was to go after
> you, I offered to let you go first so when you so miserably failed, so
> I could show this NG, who knows what. Who gets results and who is just
> a blow hard.
Get the results, then blow where you will.
I have pointed out repeatedly that another human being is not a plaything to
drag ito this squable.
I wont, you have the skills aparently, anti up.
John
wrote:
My threads go back to October 2004 and I don't sse you responding. Did
you use another name?
Just curious that's all.
--
John
John
<T...@essential-skills.com> wrote:
>
>"Cameron" <cbrow...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>news:43ff99a1$0$15789$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
>>
>> Something more authoritive than your own internal list would be nice here.
>> Failing that why would I drag my way through 1400 posts
>
>
>To prove your not a dumb ass.
>
>Hey I run into peple like you all the time. You are to lazy to learn
>anything on your own and to stuck in your one thing you think you know to
>see anything else.
>
>Like most people with weak minds you think you already know everything.
<snip lots of stuff about Tom, Kim and the brain in general>
All very good stuff on the brain but that is not what this issue is
about. I still fail to see the linage to the 3D Mind apart from this -
"The theoretical way this might apply to 3d mind is….."
This is NOT proof to my lazy, unintelligent mind. If someone can point
this out to me how this proves the 3D process I would grateful.
If it is not there then fair enough, just say so and lets move on.
--
John
phill_coxon
> My threads go back to October 2004 and I don't sse you responding. Did
> you use another name?
I've been posting to usenet news on and off since 1998 from a number of
email addresses over the years. What's your point specifically John?
John
wrote:
Just wondered why you appeared out of nowhere to join in the debate
but you seem to have answered it in another thread.
News of what's going on here seems to have spread far and wide.
--
John
Tom Vizzini
Point two from Camoron.> Dude, I've got my psychology text books right here
in my study.
Yep that does explain a lot. Al you have are outdated college books while
Ken gives lectures and is up to date on the latest research QUOTED in what
he wrote.
Poitn three From Camoron >>It's particularly interesting since
> > there are those who question them because they arent psychiatrists or
> > psychologists and yet Sigmund Freud was a neurologist at a time when
> > people
> > knew very little about the brain, and wrote most of his huge body of
work
> > based on his experience with 18 famous patients.
>
> So you firmly believe in this. Gee Thanks for telling me that I would
never
> have guessed on my own.
Denial of well documented facts
Point four from Camoron > Takes a lot of personal attention to run a cult
too.
> and no, I havent suggested that money is your "prime" motivator, I believe
> it is yoru ego that drives you, the need for praise or failing that
> attention.
Unfounded accusation of cults and money motivation. Hey I do this mor money.
I am not ashamed of that but.....if it was my prime motivator I would be
charging much more that 70 bucks.
Point five, From Camoron > OH, these are DR ken's words not yours?
Sudden realization of what was clearly stated at the beginning of the
article.
So in the spirit of science I offer you this. The scintific method comes up
with a theory and then tries to prove it invalid. Prove what is stated is
invalid.
Or.....debate me LIVE in our video chat room with facts to prove me wrong.
We will set up a time and invite everyone here to watch.
You can have a chance to make me look like a fool to everyone here. Up to
the challenge? Maybe Phill and Bart and Steve and Unka can all be there.
There is room for 40 people.
Tom
Tom Vizzini
in our video chat room on our site. Then you can meet Phill face to face and
debate him as well.
You have the opportunity to make me look like a fool. You will have the
opportunity to call Phill a liar to his face.......Up for it?
"John" <yhqwasgo@d8mklotfu> wrote in message
news:qst302tr2fli0mdr7...@4ax.com...
Hans Jager
Hans
"Tom Vizzini" <T...@essential-skills.com> schreef in bericht
news:-9GdnVRBeLJ...@adelphia.com...
John
<T...@essential-skills.com> wrote:
>John I will Give you the same invitation as I gave Camoron. Debate me live
>in our video chat room on our site. Then you can meet Phill face to face and
>debate him as well.
>
>You have the opportunity to make me look like a fool. You will have the
>opportunity to call Phill a liar to his face.......Up for it?
This is the problem of believing that everyone thinks as you do.
My motivation for the things I write here definitely do not require
that I make anyone look like a fool.
The questions are real for me and if they go unanswered here why
should that be any different in a room full of your lackeys.
I have not called Phil a liar here so why should I want to call him a
liar to his face.
Stop playing games and just come up with the proof or say it doesn't
exist and let that be and end to it.
Tom, your tactics here are beginning to make you look like a troll
which I have never believed your were.
--
John
Cameron
> Point one.Cameron cannot figure out that what I posted was from Ken.
Prehaps you shoul dbe more clear, I did ask for clarification not abuse.
> Point two from Camoron.> Dude, I've got my psychology text books right
> here
> in my study.
>
> Yep that does explain a lot. Al you have are outdated college books while
> Ken gives lectures and is up to date on the latest research QUOTED in what
> he wrote.
Only the mad and the bored are following this thread anymore.
(weren't you going to be too busy this week to play?)
> So in the spirit of science I offer you this. The scintific method comes
> up
> with a theory and then tries to prove it invalid. Prove what is stated is
> invalid.
State something goit! then supply evidence then it's worth refuting. Till
then you are asking me to "scientifically" refute something that had no
basis in science.
I'll give it a go after you have done the yard work in your house.
__________
Argueing on the internet is like running in the special olympics, even if
you win, you are still a spastic
___________
Tom Vizzini
"John" <yhqwasgo@d8mklotfu> wrote in message
>
> All very good stuff on the brain but that is not what this issue is
> about. I still fail to see the linage to the 3D Mind apart from this -
That is because in all the time I have been explaining this....You were not
looking for linkage.
>
> "The theoretical way this might apply to 3d mind is..."
>
> This is NOT proof to my lazy, unintelligent mind. If someone can point
> this out to me how this proves the 3D process I would grateful.
OK ....A Good brain theory is based upon what we actually know about the
physical brain and can observe. The interplay of dopamine and sertitonin are
scientifically provable. The role of acetocholine is scientifically
provable. A good model of how the brain works that is based on that
scientifically provable interplay has a scientific basis.
Thngs like driver states corospond directly to associated neural connetions
in the brain. The way seratonin and dopamine operate the primal brain area
and the creative adaptive area are directly related to how the physical
brain accesses.
Neural connection is the seratonin driven part of the brain are all
interconnected and can cross access resorces but....do not generate any
movement. Someone access primarily this part of the brain might be very
creative but not ever do anything with it.
The connections in the reactive primal area of the brain are more vertical
and not very interconnected. The tend to react to 4 emotion drives. Fight,
flight, fear and fornicate. People who access primarily this part of the
brain make emotional based decisions that are all reactions. You have seen
this type of person abruptly change jobs, relationships and even religion
over and over. The are the out of the frying pan and into the fire, type of
personality. Lots of movement but very little thought.
Over firing of the reactive layer of the brain depletes the seratonin
available. So people making reactive decisions tend to make even more
reactive decision through time. This part of the brain thrives on novelty.
So drinking is ok for a while but then cocaine might be better then herion.
Verbal abuse leads to physical abuse because it is more novel. Drama of one
sort lead to even more dramatic behavior.
A brain that is out of balance in this way physically is also out of balance
mentally. That is why psychiatrists give seritonin boosters or inhibitors to
treat patients. It is in hopes of balancing the brain chemistry through
medication.
The 3D Mind balances the brain through a model designed to balance the brain
without medication. The use of Ken's model of the brain has helped us
understand the brain in a way that helped us vastly improve the results we
were able to get.
The idea is a balanced mind that can create and move. That is how what you
read has to do with the 3D Mind.
>
> If it is not there then fair enough, just say so and lets move on.
So it is there.
Maybe we can move past the " I don't believe you because I don't want to"
stage and into application.
If not then I am done.
Tom Vizzini
>
> "Tom Vizzini" <T...@essential-skills.com> wrote in message
> news:PPydndZGrvtwZ5zZ...@adelphia.com...
> > Point one.Cameron cannot figure out that what I posted was from Ken.
>
> Prehaps you shoul dbe more clear, I did ask for clarification not abuse.
Where was the abuse Camoron. Could it come from you ill informed pig headed
accusations?
>
> Only the mad and the bored are following this thread anymore.
>
> (weren't you going to be too busy this week to play?)\
Yeah but That doesn't mean I have to let you lie and distort unchecked.
> State something goit! then supply evidence then it's worth refuting. Till
> then you are asking me to "scientifically" refute something that had no
> basis in science.
Educate yourself. The basics of the model and the brain theory it is based
on is available to read at either www.3D-Mind.com or
www.essential-skills.com Pick any aspect and refute it using science.
>
> I'll give it a go after you have done the yard work in your house.
Wait Camoron.....What about my CHALLENGE TO YOU? If you are as smart as you
say then you should have no problem making a fool out of me. Put your voice
and face on the screen and show everyone how smart you are. I will even let
you use your psychology text book for help.
You know Camoron. You made some real good points about the NLP hype and
marketing. Almost all the NLP trainers have run from this group specifically
because people were holding their feet to the fire on the claims they made.
I think that is telling.
Then you set your sites on me. You thought you had someone who would roll
over and play nice. I am not that kind of guy. I have CHOICE in who I am
nice to. If you act like an ass then I am going to treat you like an ass.
If you ever get around to asking a question, hell I might answer it for you.
If you want to know why I post testimonials here. It is to poke my finger at
the NLP pricks. I went down the NLP trail in hopes of miracles that these
trainers promised. I even when to see Dick Bandler several times. The only
thing I learned was that there was a sucker born ever minute and I was one
of them.
All I have seen most of these people learn was the Dick Bandler smirk of
arrogance. Hell I had a guy do it just the other dayy. I walk into a place
and a guy mentions he knows NLP. Then I ask him about anchoring. He knows
nothing of it. I ask about eye accessing cues. He klnows nothing of it. This
goes on and I wonder what this guy has been learning. Then he leaned back
and gave me the all knowing smirk.
One more guy with a tiny penis who was looking for magic special knowledge
and thought he had finally found something that made him better than other
people.....and he could smirk.
That is why we set out to create something that was easy to learn, powerful
and reliably generated results without having to become a super master
trainer of anything.
The real world result has been that people that have no experience with NLP,
hypnosis or anything else are able to learn the basics of 3D Mind and get
results in about an hour.
Quick story. A couple came to our New York Seminar 2 years ago and had
extensive NLP training. After all the years of training the man stated that
this was his last seminar. Nothing he had spent all that time learning had
worked. If we did not get results he was giving up.
That was 2 years ago and he is not a 3D Mind practitioner and will be here
next week for the Masters of Anchoring Bootcamp.
He FINALLY got results.
I hear this time after time.
Now finally we have something that delivers what NLP promised and you can do
it on yourself. You can learn it for 70 dollars. This is nothing compared to
the 350 dollars for other programs that you get from peple who will never
respond to your email or give you free updates. NO...if they improve
anything than you have to pay for a NEW product!
We offer a tremdous value for only 70 dollars BUT...because I make money I
am bad. Fuck you. You have no clue how many poeple I help for free every
week while psychiatrists are charging 400 dollars an hour for 17 years and
getting little if any results. I could make a lot more by having people pay
5000 dollars a problem and never teach them anything. Nope I turn it down
all the time.
My job is to teach people to help themselves. To do that I still have to pay
the bills. If that concept is beyond you I suggest you get out of school and
get a real job.
Now I have you. You don't care about effectiveness. You just want to find a
reason to bitch. Then you whine about abuse. Well I am not going to put up
with a dumb ass. I used to think that I had to be nice to people whose only
goal was to toss shit. Well the 3D Mind cured me of that so I can be an
asshole to people like you with no regret .
What are you like? You are someone who is a keyboard jockey. You have done
nothing. You have created nothing. You know little. You complain a LOT! You
are insanely lazy. You demand proof over and over but are not even willing
to do a google search to find the name of a doctor.
Now I think I have made myself pretty clear. If you are going to act like an
ass then don't complain of your treatment. At least educate yourself enough
to understand the most simple of concepts.
Now I am off for a week presenting a seminar. While I am gone please
educate. Then I will offer my challenge to you again. Public debate on video
conference for anyone here to join. You cna make fool out of me and back
up all your accusations about Ken, Me , Phill and Unka.
John
<T...@essential-skills.com> wrote:
...and I think I am about done for the time being too.
Heaven knows what you thought was being requested of you if you didn't
realise that you were being asked to demonstrate how the 3D-Mind
product is based on science or from what you are referring to, the 3D
Brain. You have published paragraph after paragraph about brain
chemistry and neuroscience, great stuff but nothing to do with the 3D
Mind except in your head.
Finally you get to the key point, an explanation of how all of this
was used to develop your product and what do we get -
"The 3D Mind balances the brain through a model designed to balance
the brain without medication. The use of Ken's model of the brain has
helped us understand the brain in a way that helped us vastly improve
the results we were able to get."
Good, now tell us "HOW" you did that and we might be getting
somewhere.
"The idea is a balanced mind that can create and move. That is how
what you read has to do with the 3D Mind."
That statement could apply to anything you or I wanted it to.
I think you have painted yourself into a corner here. It seems to me
that the only way you are going to prove this is by explaining HOW
your "model" was "designed" and HOW Ken's model SPECIFICALLY helped
you to improve the model, neither of which I suspect you would be
willing to do for fear of giving away secrets.
I also assume that there is no published experimental evidence or data
carried out under controlled conditions to back up whatever theories
of the brain you used in your product or how they were implemented.
Never mind.
Hope you had a good seminar and lets move on.
I have asked Phil to explain how the 3D-Mind product turns a reactive
situation into a proactive response for an individual. That seem to be
about application, perhaps the two of you would like to contribute to
that subject and bring some sort of normality back to this NLP
newsgroup.
--
John
Cameron
>
> "Cameron" <cbrow...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:440245f8$0$21135$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>
>> "Tom Vizzini" <T...@essential-skills.com> wrote in message
>> news:PPydndZGrvtwZ5zZ...@adelphia.com...
>> > Point one.Cameron cannot figure out that what I posted was from Ken.
>>
>> Prehaps you shoul dbe more clear, I did ask for clarification not abuse.
>
> Where was the abuse Camoron. Could it come from you ill informed pig
> headed
> accusations?
So point one above was the answer to my question?
I asked for clarification if that was your writing or Ken's writing, you
respond with.
>> > Point one.Cameron cannot figure out that what I posted was from Ken.
I'me sorry your expression is so elegant that I cant manage to retrive the
answer from that statement, it's looks like a derisive comment to me. And
failing that ill informed and pig headed sounds, well less than polite?
> Educate yourself. The basics of the model and the brain theory it is based
> on is available to read at either www.3D-Mind.com or
> www.essential-skills.com Pick any aspect and refute it using science.
Oh this dance again. I've been to the sites, they dont state anying aything
other than sales pitches or testamonials that I can find.
Being your sites you'll be able to find something scientific that can be
disputed no?
At the moment, as I commented in the last post before you sniped it, asking
me to refute your sales pitch with "science" is just as sensible as me
telling you I will after you have done the yard work _INSIDE_ your house.
Refutation is part of the scientific model, to get there youhave to have a
hypothisis and an experiment that gathers data and then publish some
results. At this point peer review and refutation is posssible.
If flychman and ponds (sp!) just said "We have discovered cold fusion" as
they did in their initalpress release, it's an irrefutable claim because
scientifically it says nothing. Over the time after that bold statemet they
were exposed as Frauds or sloppy scientists at best. The published the
backing for their claim, it wasn't repeatable and the were not heard of much
again.
>>
>> I'll give it a go after you have done the yard work in your house.
>
> Wait Camoron.....What about my CHALLENGE TO YOU? If you are as smart as
> you
> say then you should have no problem making a fool out of me. Put your
> voice
> and face on the screen and show everyone how smart you are. I will even
> let
> you use your psychology text book for help.
Very kind of you, tell you what though, I'll let youuse your training wheels
for a bit longer. Stay coherent and dont use any phrases like "pig headed
ignorance" for a week and I'll consider wasting the bandwith on you.
> You know Camoron. You made some real good points about the NLP hype and
> marketing. Almost all the NLP trainers have run from this group
> specifically
> because people were holding their feet to the fire on the claims they
> made.
> I think that is telling.
And you are still here and think those comments cant possibly apply to you.
You have this good/evil 3-d mind /nlp thing going ?
> Then you set your sites on me. You thought you had someone who would roll
> over and play nice. I am not that kind of guy. I have CHOICE in who I am
> nice to. If you act like an ass then I am going to treat you like an ass.
Funny, that's the way I viewed you, except given that I saw UNK celebrating
that you guys had driven NLP trainers from a NLP list, I never expected you
to be nice, I just hoped for a while.
> If you ever get around to asking a question, hell I might answer it for
> you.
Do you believe there is scientific evidence for any of your claims?
Do you think you have the grasp of the scientific method to have a
reasonable answer to any of these questions?
What, if any, is the scientific evidence behind the 3-d mind!
What research has been done?
What was the methodology?
Do you retract your earlier claims that there is such a thing if you cant
answer those questions?
> If you want to know why I post testimonials here. It is to poke my finger
> at
> the NLP pricks. I went down the NLP trail in hopes of miracles that these
> trainers promised. I even when to see Dick Bandler several times. The only
> thing I learned was that there was a sucker born ever minute and I was one
> of them.
Ok, there is another question, have you infected everyone in the 3-d mind
community with tourettes or is it mainly you and unk who use petty word
games to abuse others. Personally it is heartening to see, like most people
if someone responds to me with a stream of abuse I check my own position.
Seeing that you abuse everyone I'me fairly confident that it's yoruproblem
not mine.
> All I have seen most of these people learn was the Dick Bandler smirk of
> arrogance. Hell I had a guy do it just the other dayy. I walk into a place
> and a guy mentions he knows NLP. Then I ask him about anchoring. He knows
> nothing of it. I ask about eye accessing cues. He klnows nothing of it.
> This
> goes on and I wonder what this guy has been learning. Then he leaned back
> and gave me the all knowing smirk.
I agree, and remember that turn of phrase about people who live in glass
houses?
you compare your self to Einstien and Freud, and call others arrogant?
Hitler had no scientific backing for his belief systems, and he got results.
L.Ron. Hubbard has a lot more followers than your technology has with more
glowing testomonials.
just something to abuse me about so you dont have to consider it. heck dont
bother responding at all, just snip it out and go for somethign else
instead.
> One more guy with a tiny penis who was looking for magic special knowledge
> and thought he had finally found something that made him better than other
> people.....and he could smirk.
You dont suffer from that at all do you. not just well hung you know you
have the special magical knowledge that makes you better.
> That is why we set out to create something that was easy to learn,
> powerful
> and reliably generated results without having to become a super master
> trainer of anything.
And instead you produce something that turns up here and argues like a
school child.
If find it hard to beleive that as the head of 3-d mind, you want us to
beleive that someone who stoops as low as you can help others stand up
straight.
> Now I am off for a week presenting a seminar. While I am gone please
> educate. Then I will offer my challenge to you again. Public debate on
> video
> conference for anyone here to join. You cna make fool out of me and back
> up all your accusations about Ken, Me , Phill and Unka.
I'me accusing you of being reactive (well Phill actually seems to have been
able to ask questions and then not respond to the answers with rude words)
abusive petty debators who respond to dissent from your belief system with
abuse.
The evidence is in most of your posts and the 3d-brain group.
I accuse of you offering to help people with your model and suggesting
specifically that it helps people become non reactive, while remaingin
reactive yourself.
I accuse you of driving NLP people out of alt.psychology.nlp (it's one of
unk's proud claims)
I accuse you of saying that you have scientific validation without aparently
having a clue about science.
And you promised me a couple of days ago that you were off for a week.
please go this time, I'ld rather spend my tiem online putting something
positive into this group rather than waving a red flag at you so you dont
have the time to abuse anyone else.