Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
#35174 02/23/03 05:10 PM
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 12
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 12
longtimereader,

I know I know... I'm sure you feel like you contribute enough to the board to deserve a little liberty so you can retort, but it only takes away from your credibility in my book.


No credibility lost from my vantage point.






#35175 02/23/03 05:53 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 92
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 92
to be honest, until i read that post stateing that he had just now read the book, i thought he was an experienced Phreader. I was kinda shocked....

And the truth comes out...






#35176 02/23/03 07:13 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 410
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 410
Hmmmm again.






#35177 02/24/03 12:47 AM
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 637
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 637
I think Alex has every right to complain.

Alex's insight into the learning process is incredibly interesting, and comes from his personal experience and studying. This means a couple things:

1) Intending to say that someone else's work is your own is plagiarism. This includes paraphrasing their ideas without proper credit. If someone plagiarized me, I would be upset, AND I would have a right to complain.

2) If Alex had the intention of communicating his ideas or articles to the forum, and didn't because someone else posted it as their own work, then we, the audience, are getting second rate, filtered information from a second source, rather than a clear and well-structured article from the true creator. This means that Alex's intentions of HELPING an audience are diminished because someone else wants to appear knowledgable.

3) The biggest one of all: If Alex is compiling this information in the hopes of creating a study guide or a book that would enter the market as a learning resource, and DIDN'T want it posted on the forum because he wished to market this resource, then someone is destroying a tangible financial asset that belongs to Alex.

Chang Liu, nothing personal, but if this is true (and I don't see why Alex would lie), then just stop doing it.

Alex, no credibility lost in my eyes either, despite what LongTimeReader may believe.

-Ramon http://razor.ramon.com






#35178 02/25/03 06:05 AM
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 14
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 14
While I don't post much, I read fairly frequently.

I simply want to reiterate that no credibility is lost by AlexK in my view either.






#35179 02/25/03 02:43 AM
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2

razordu30 -
1. "Plagiarism" - Come on! If the truth really be known almost anything and everything (aside from personal anecdotes) that's posted on here is either directly from the book, the tapes or the seminar. Yes, everything. These aren't _our_ original ideas. They're the ideas of Paul the 79 people that he cites in his bibliography. We add value through our experiences, NOT by repeating what's stated in the book.

2. "Watered down version" - We're not getting a watered down version of AlexK's. In fact, simply look at most of his posts and you'll realise that although they're helpful, they're also redundant. This isn't his fault, being that the same questions keep popping up, but to be honest he's not posting _new_ info most of the time. Just the same info repeatedly. In fact, he understands this and sometimes refers back to posts previously made.

3. "Tangible Financial Asset" - This one is a stretch. If AlexK had these plans then he should let people know it and ask them to behave accordingly. You don't give out your 'secret' recipe to strangers then act shocked that they tell someone.

AlexK, nothing personal, and maybe JJWjr, razordu30 and kmc12345 are right. Your credibility as pertaining to your ability to PR probably hasn't been damaged. More bluntly and obviously less diplomaticly - your response was childish and I was suprised that it came from you after reading it.

Chang Liu - I hope you're satisfied. Obviously you don't understand what you're talking about and yet you've pulled the wool over some people's eyes thanks to AlexK's help.

------
As for mathematician's issue with laziness and being tired. The key is finding out _when_ is the right time for you to study and focus on important tasks.

Some people are mentally sharper and alert in the morning just after waking up. Others are at their peak at 11:00 at night. If you're a morning person make sure that you schedules classes, study sessions, or meetings to coincide with that cycle.

The key is being self aware, noticing these patterns in your daily life and adjusting your behaviors/actions accordingly. This applies to anything that you do.

For the record, no that wasn't an original thought. I've picked that little tidbit of advice up from various resources.






#35180 02/25/03 04:54 AM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,150
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,150
I know about Chang Liu. AlexK has every right to say what he said, because it's the truth. Chang Liu did repeat one of my posts, and while AlexK is giving out the same information over and over, people are also asking the SAME EXACT QUESTIONS. And the same answers always seem to help them.

Even Dana, you'll find, can get repetitive, in the advice that he gives to PhotoReading beginners. All I can say, though, is - it works! What's your point if it's redundant in your opinion? If it works, it works! I repeat myself in my posts, too. I do it because there's really not too much of another way to do it.

Given the limited information about people that you're given simply by a small amount of text on a public forum, it's hard to make accurate judgements as to what special advice may be right for them.

I'm sorry, but I stand by AlexK.

And it's FUNNY how Chang Liu edited, and practically deleted all of his post that AlexK commented on, and it shows that he edited it.

It's also funny how LongTimeReader is a junior member. Just curious...

[This message has been edited by youngprer (edited February 24, 2003).]






#35181 02/25/03 08:23 AM
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 637
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 637
Hooray for retorts!

"If the truth really be known almost anything and everything (aside from personal anecdotes) that's posted on here is either directly from the book, the tapes or the seminar."

That's true. Alex's subjective advice to mathematician about getting tapes instead of buying the hypnosis book, his opinion against using shortcuts, and the martial arts belt analogy are all on Tape 7A of the photoreading learning series. Scheele says, "By the way, if you use the handle Mathematician on the message board, and you ever come across a book entitled 'The Secrets of Hypnosis', be sure to get a paraliminal instead."

You're right, I totally forgot that. It's right after the part where he says, "LongTimeReader hasn't read the board very well, and doesn't realize most of the posts are from personal experience, and deal with advice, not paraphrasing my system."

"We add value through our experiences, NOT by repeating what's stated in the book."

Right again. Alex added value through his experience. You're picking up!

"We're not getting a watered down version of AlexK's. In fact, simply look at most of his posts and you'll realise that although they're helpful, they're also redundant."

What does redundancy and watering down of a message have to do with each other? One is from AlexK's personal experience, the other is paraphrased from AlexK's personal experience. One person understands what he's saying, the other is filtering what they've heard. One is unique, the other is watered down. What are you talking about?

"If AlexK had these plans then he should let people know it and ask them to behave accordingly."

This is true. From now on, whenever anybody from the forum asks my advice on a topic I may eventually write about, I will have them electrically sign a confidentiality agreement, discuss the terms of our conversation and their litigious aspects, as well as have them initial, in several places, a contract which makes clear in legalise what both parties would consider copyright infringement. That, or I'll say you're an idiot, and continue helping people, trusting they won't be jerks about it.

"Your credibility as pertaining to your ability to PR probably hasn't been damaged."

That's right. This is the part of the post where you admit you're obviously wrong since so many of us are siding with Alex on this on.

"More bluntly and obviously less diplomaticly - your response was childish and I was suprised that it came from you after reading it."

Actually, getting peeved that you helped someone out after that same person takes your advice and pretends its his own would get any person upset. I don't think anybody here but you thinks it was childish.

For the record, no that wasn't an original thought. I've picked that little tidbit of advice up from various resources.

That was childish. Also, it differs from Alex's advice to Mathematician which was subjective, and yours, which, as you say, is based on various resources. Alex's was an original opinion. Yours wasn't.

"Chang Liu - I hope you're satisfied. Obviously you don't understand what you're talking about and yet you've pulled the wool over some people's eyes thanks to AlexK's help."

This is EXACTLY what I mean by watering down. The experienced people (for the record) noticed the advice wasn't really that great, and the people who aren't experienced trusted that he WAS, and received advice that would have been better given by the original person.

No matter how you slice it, Chang took Alex's advice, and posted it on the forum as his own. Despite all semantics, this is what he did: it's at the very least an underhanded thing to do, and I, for one, totally sympathize with Alex on this. I'm sure most people agree, except for you, which is probably in some way related to the concept that most of us have already concluded that you are probably Chang.

I still have my reservations, since you make more sense than he does.

Oh, and before you mount what will inevitably be a response, keep in mind I have no shame in being childish in an internet flame. It's nothing personal. Oh wait, it is.

Thumbing his nose at you,
-Ramon http://razor.ramon.com









#35182 02/25/03 10:33 AM
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 51
Member
OP Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 51
I have not lost faith in photoreading and thankyou Alex, i will consider getting the
Get Around To It paraliminal... and maybe personal genius(have memory supercharger).


"Your baggage seems to be your constant thinking about it. With depleted energy what's the one thing you instinctively do? That's right, nothing!" Good point lol


Thankyou all for replying.







#35183 02/25/03 11:03 AM
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 637
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 637
Thanks for getting us back on track, Mathematician =).

Oh, btw, I bought that self-hypnosis book.

Sorry, but I hated it. =(

However, I have experience with NLP, read User's Manual for the Brain, and I've seen hypnotism done a couple times already. For me, there was no new info. Save the cash, and if you're really interested in this stuff, I would save up for "The User's Manual for the Brain" or just look around the internet for info on hypnotism.

I should also note the thing I was most looking for in this document (yes, I call it a document, and not a book, or even an e-book; 34 pages is not a book, especially if it's still a word document when I download it), was a lot of scripts. This did not have what I was looking for.

If you're in it for self-improvement, I'm going to agree with Alex on this one; don't bother with that web page, because all it does (after $20 bucks, I might add) is get you on your way to possibly making a paraliminal that will most likely bite the big one, when you could just buy the New Behavior Generator from LSC, which, albeit more than $20, is much better for the application you described.

So yeah, I feel like I just got ripped off, basically. =)

-Ramon http://razor.ramon.com

PS - Just to clarify, I'm not blaming you for posting the link; I knew I was risking $20 and made the decision to buy it myself. I just realized it may have sounded like I was blaming you, and I'm totally not.
PPS - I tried to e-mail you (mathematician) and it bounced back...please e-mail me at razor@ramon.com; I just wanna talk to you about something.

[This message has been edited by razordu30 (edited February 25, 2003).]






Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

Moderated by  Patrick O'Neil 

Link Copied to Clipboard
©, Learning Strategies Corporation, All Rights Reserved
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 5.6.40 Page Time: 0.060s Queries: 34 (0.017s) Memory: 3.2544 MB (Peak: 3.5983 MB) Data Comp: Off Server Time: 2024-05-05 05:05:11 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS