But I like doing that stuff! You are the one who don't, so its ok for me, right?
That and the thread keeps getting bumped I think, so that newbies can read it.
But I like doing that stuff! You are the one who don't, so its ok for me, right?
That and the thread keeps getting bumped I think, so that newbies can read it.
the thing is is that he calls other methods "weak and ineffective" yet them, it pisses us off because he is not giving credit to the people that actually invented them, rather he is pretty much calling them stupid when millions of people have had success with their techniquesQuote:
Originally Posted by TheUncanny
and he doesn't say he is giving his version, he says it's his own technique :facepalm:
Hi W
U wrote:
the thing is that he calls other methods "weak and ineffective" yet then, it pisses us off because he is not giving credit to the people that actually invented them, rather he is pretty much calling them stupid when millions of people have had success with their techniques
and he doesn't say he is giving his version, he says it's his own technique
Well W
I cut into my home work time to get out my printed out PDF's to see if Nick ever acknowledged any one. I was surprised to find only one. Here it is
In part 5 of nine, page 16
"Bruce Mien has written several excellent books using this method, all of which I recommend.
His first four books are accounts of his nonphysical explorations.
His 5th book called 'The Afterlife Knowledge Guidebook' is more 'how to' oriented.
I've read them all and recommend them to anyone else who's seriously interested in nonphysical exploration.
W
In this Part 5 there are 25 pages. Each page has a "slide" (graph or picture) then text. This 16th "slide" is a photograph of Bruce Moen's book titled "The Afterlife Knowledge Guidebook".
I got to get back to my assignment. It is due to ne handed up at 4pm to day and it is already 12:30 pm now, here in. Adelaide, South Australia.
I have only seen one of his videos ("how to have OBEs") but I haven't actually ever heard him say that other techniques are weak and ineffective. Even if he did, maybe that's just his opinion of those techniques. Surely if he feels those techniques are weak and ineffective, he has the right to voice that opinion. Maybe other techniques did not work for him, or the people he knew. If the technique he uses does work for him, as well as other people who were not having success with other methods, it wouldn't be that unreasonable to see why Nick might feel that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by WLLPEREGOY
And for him saying this is his technique -- again, I have never actually heard him say "By the way, I came up with this technique completely on my own, I invented everything about this technique myself"...have you?
If Nick were to say something like "Here's my technique...", that could mean many things. Perhaps by "my technique" he simply means "the technique I use". Perhaps he means "the technique I have made by mixing and matching other various techniques I have learned about". In both cases, it would be accurate to say "my" technique, and yet, neither one implies fraud. After all, if someone were to ask you what your technique for lucid dreaming is, how would you respond? Wouldn't you simply explain the technique that works for you, even though it's a technique you didn't come up with yourself? Does that make you a fraud? What If I have technique that is composed of many different techniques other people came up with, but is combined in a unique way, would it actually be fraudulent to say that it's "my" technique?
There are many different interpretations you could have, but it's almost like everyone is trying to assume the worst about Nick.
I hear you, but what I was simply doing was showing you the same exit door that you so courteously showed to the other members in here. You're more than welcome to voice your pro-nickmatt opinions, but don't tell others to basically eff off for voicing their own. I agree with you about the rest of this thread though.. after the OP left, this thread basically became garbage.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheUncanny
I may have been a little curt, sorry about that. And it's not so much about me being pro-mattnick, as I have said before I have only see one of his videos. It's more just that I feel sorry for the guy for getting so much heat from this thread, and that I don't feel it's warranted. It was enough to where I felt like I should chime in to help balance-out the conversation. This was especially the case from all of the positive things I have heard about how well his technique works, not only on the saltcube website, but also here (as I'm sure you can testify to).
My first LD was successful because of Stop, Drop and Roll. I don't like how that guy sells his stuff and how 12 videos could be put into one and I hate his "I am clever" voice with a lot of TOTALLY unnecessary graphics in his videos, but he helpped and that's ok. ;D
Hi obama649;1608816, Jeff777 and WLLPEREGOY.Quote:
Originally Posted by obama6493
(Thanking for this post: Jeff777 and WLLPEREGOY).Quote:
Originally Posted by obama6493
Soon after I joined Saltcube back in 2008 and got Lucidilogy 101, Nick asked for my opinion of his Lucidilogy 101.
I was angry and rude.
I told him he was ugly and that I got so depressed and angry with the download that I told "it" to shut-up cos I couldn't keep up.
Nick thanked and rewarded me for my feed back.
Anyway
Yesterday, W, when your post interrupted my year 12, philosophy and psychology homework time, I got out my Lucidilogy 102 printouts, cos, I wanted to see for myself if Nick really did not give acknowledgments to those who inspired his work.
I haven't looked at the printouts in yonks.
Now, I remember that I was having success, when I first got 102. I wasn't getting much out of the videos cos I still felt that I couldn't keep up. Just like I couldn't keep up with the 101 video's.
But
I would toddler down to Maccas for breaky. I would sit out in the courtyard and read a part of the printouts and follow the instructions.
And they happened (!!!)
You see, I get easily overwhelmed when a "teacher" is talking-at-me, (even at my evening-classes where I do year 12 psychology and philosophy). But if I can just have a print-out of the lesson and get away by myself, alone, ... well ... everything starts to make sense.
Nick's 102 is in 9 parts (in 9 video downloads). Each video down-load has a full transcript, (pdf).
Only yesterday, WLLPEREGOY, did the penny drop.
I can now see why there is sooo many annoying and confusing illustrations and graphs flashing by in the vids. The vids are based on his print-outs, (not the other way round).
I like the printouts, they work for me.
The printouts read like a picture-book. There is a picture in the top half of each page and some written explanation in the second half of the page.
And there is only one illustration per page.
Infact ...
I remember now ...
After working with the printouts, I either posted on saltcube or private emailed Nick about how I liked his PDF layout cos I could slowdown, relax, and absorb just one page at a time.
Then, close my eyes, and follow the instructions from just that one page.
While sitting at MacDonalds, having breakfast.
Hi W
I am looking at part 2 of Lucidilogy 102 to see if you and others are right when you accuse my Nick Newport of not acknowledging those who inspired him. Implying other people are idiots. And making-up complicated new words to explain simple, well known LD/OBE concepts.
Here goes:
Part 2 of nine is called the mental geography map.
Slide 3 (page 3) yes Nick might be running other (un-named) authors down when he writes:
"The location where you visualize something has a big impact on the results you get from the visualization. Most books tell you to visualize one thing or another without really telling you how or where to imagine it.
Slide 6 (page 6)
Nick acknowledges Robert Monroe.
"Robert Monroe wrote about observing '3D Blackness' in your closed eyelids when you reach a decent trance."
And
"The Eyelid Blackness is One Form of Robert Monroe's '3D Blackness'".
Slide 19 (page 19) yes, here is Nick making up new words and phrases:
"This is really important so I'm giving it a big fancy name
Like, "The Fundamental Theorem of Sleep Paralysis".
This is the
"Principle of Indirect Visualization" which states (...)
Ok, I accept the evidence, folks, he, Nick, unabashed, made-up those terms, (words and phrases) in part 2.
I'll be back if I find more as I read through the other 7 parts.
Hi W
I have just finished Part 4, of 102 called "The O.B.E. Blueprint & The Visualization Construction Toolkit".
Slide 34 (page 34)
And yes, Nick may be running-down other authors with this statement.
"Now that you have the toolkit, you can check visualizations you've seen in other books and see if they're missing any parts.
Then you can add what's missing and make them much more effective.
2 things Debrajane
1. for the love of god can you just call me will or WLLPEREGOY
2.http://images2.memegenerator.net/Ima...hill-Out-Lemur
you don't need to post 4 things to argue against my post
Ok Billy
I Love, Love, Love that Lovely pic.
And I like U.
agh billy is like my least favortie name but u can call me that :)
Hi billy
I like the the pic and love U
I total luv u 2 billybabe <3 <3 <3
MWAH! :loveyou:
*rolls eyes*
whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.Quote:
Originally Posted by debrajane
Lois, this is not my Batman glass.
ha, classic!
Welp, I guess it's time I hit the ol' dusty trail...
I don't understand the last two posts.
I don't understand any of your posts. But I'll try ;)
hahaaa........Quote:
Originally Posted by Raspberry
^well, that's certainly one way to kill a joke. :facepalm:
Cool story bro?Quote:
Originally Posted by debrajane
There is no way someone can be this new to the internet...
I'm pretty sure that this thread has turned into the following things
1. Debrajane making no sense
2. Aquanina making funny responses
3. Raspberry also making funny responses
4. The occaisoinal on topic post that causes a short arguement
5. Debrajane saying something weird back
6. 2 and 3
XD
(no offense intended)
Agreed :lol: