On Apr 6, 2:43Â pm, HellBwat
yahoo.com> wrote:> On Apr 6, 3:06 pm, mstrhypno
earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Show me one post, just one, where there were any legitimate questions
> were asked about the 3D Mind, come on, just one. There have not been
> any, so on rages these ridiculous flame wars. They say I am the top
> poster to these ngs, but then when I am answering ten or more people
> what do you expect? It doesn't take a dee dee dee to figure that one
> out.
>
Tim, over a period of years I have asked legitimate technical
questions about the 3D Mind and haven't gotten anything but BS from
Tom. Usuallty, before the insults start from him, it goes something
like "If you had studied blah, blah, blah as long as I have you would
know. Look it up." Well, unfortunately for Tom, I have studied not
only longer, more in depth and with greater scope than he has and was
in clinical practice for over 10 years after several years in
research. If Tom knew what he was about, then he would have realized
that my questions were structure in a manner that challenged what he
knew, but also provided (if answered correctly) a basis for supporting
the potential effectiveness of the 3D mind using convergent evidence
from established and well formed research in several fields. He
didn't know enough then to see it and doesn't know enough now.
[Snipped]
>
>> However, as you mentioned, if I recall correctly, that strategy did,
>> indeed, seem to backfire for him - and more's the pity because it
>> caused a signal-to-noise ratio that drowned out ANY possibility of a
>> rational discussion on what 3D Mind really is and whether is has good
>> points to offer or not.
>
>> And that's the real shame of the whole thing.
>
It is a pity, but most of it comes from Tom's side of the issue. Tom
isn't interested in any discussion of the subject unless he hears
something suportive or directly validating his position. What you get
under other circumstances, when the vague generalities won't work and
the mere assertions are questioned because the inferences for, if not
belief, then provisional acceptance by reader seem unwarranted is Tom
trying to establish the validity of his position through shear
belicosity. I.e., he tries to bully people into accepting his
statements.
> Start a thread on open and honest debate on the 3D Mind, it can easily
> happen if you just ignore the moron crew, which of course they will
> join in with their usual flame war bullshit.
>
If history as behavior is any indicator of the future, then an open
and honest debate can't happen. Tom has no inherent interest in it,
but he does have a commercial interest in promoting his product as
everything he claims it to be and I suspect he also has a personal
need to be right over and above that. He has identified himself in a
very personal way with the product and a judgment of the product could
be felt as a judgment of him. It really doesn't matter what the basis
for it is, Tom sees it as a zero sum game and that is not the basis
for meaningful discussion or debate regardless of the merits of either
side.
Everything is now the fruit of a poisoned tree.
> The name calling and chest beating only takes place when the cretin
> moron crew shows up, leave out the ss ng, and they never show up. They
> have never made any dispute against the 3D Mind, except that moron
> odorus, where he laid claim the 3D Mind was liken too nlp, but since
> he knows nothing about the 3D Mind, he can't make any legitimate claim
> what so ever. When asked what is the first step in the 3D mind process
> he tried a slick trick to belay that question and said, you have to
> buy it, then asked again what is the first step in the 3D Mind
> PROCESS, he again repeated, to buy it. What is apparent is, he didn't
> know, when he tried to sluff it off a second time, so not knowing that
> the 3D Mind is, he doesn't have any knowledge of it to make any
> comments.
>
These kinds of questions are basically red herrings and don't actually
serve to further the arguement of either side. They are actually
meaningless because they address form when the proper, in fact the
only relevant subject is function. One side, usually Tom's and by
extension, yours, comes up with this non-sequitor nonsense as if it is
pertinent. The other side does it, too. This maybe and probably is
more a matter of undisciplined thinking than a conscious choice of
tactic, but it serves to derail any discussion nevertheless.
> There will not be any other side, because most of them are total
> morons who not only knows nothing about the 3D Mind but nothing about
> the brain science behind it.
>
There really isn't any brain science behind the 3D Mind. It is not
founded on brain science, which is a very large subject by the way.
Brain science for the 3D Mind, however you consider it, is basically
like an aftermarket addon for a car. It's bolted on. Tom's own
explanations about the original development of the 3D Mind support
this and no subsequent statements significanlty modify that.
>> I would have liked to hear such a debate without all of the chest-
>> beating, name-calling (from BOTH sides) and other accusations and
>> would have preferred to hear each side make their claims logically,
>> backing them up with whatever materials they felt best supported their
>> stances on the points they were trying to make and then let the
>> readers go and make up their own minds.
>
> Start a new well, then watch as the screaming monkey's come whacking
> off, hoping for a banana.
>
>
Banana, huh? I really like bananas, but in my retirement profession
as a photographer and a person that likes to play with their food (my
mother never could cure me of that), could I have something along the
lines of a Pomegranite or Star Fruit? I know Pomegranites have been
done before, but there is still room to do something new with them and
Star Fruit are still a frontier for visual exploration.
Okay, everybody put your milk cartons in the wastebasket and go back
to what you were doing until your mothers pick you up and take you
home.
