![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 28 to 52 of 62. Go back in thread:
Posted by Neil Slade on August 23, 2007, at 23:56:20
In reply to Re: Clicking the Amygdala?!?!? » Neil Slade, posted by FredPotter on August 23, 2007, at 23:22:01
OtherwiseIt terms of the 10% brain idea- not mine, and I think I do a nice job of clarifying exactly what that really means-- and I do it using a lecture by Nobel laureate Sir John Eccles, whom I think had a pretty good idea of brain potential-
http://www.neilslade.com/Papers/how.html
The idea that we use 10% of our brain is a common folksy observation-- see the page above.
Per your logic, however, we don't use ourour appendix either, and it- as well as the container is still around. As far dormant brain humans-- well, all you have to do is travel to Washington DC and that takes care of your argument. :-)
Posted by Larry Hoover on August 24, 2007, at 8:56:01
In reply to Re: Clicking the Amygdala?!?!? » Neil Slade, posted by FredPotter on August 23, 2007, at 23:22:01
> >Carl Sagan has pointed out that in every brain, >your fantastic one included, there are more >combinations of connections than there are >protons and neutrons in the universe.
>
> Imagine each neuron connection. It will contain at least 1 proton and 1 neutron. So much for the Carl Sagan pronouncement - did he really say that? It's absolute nonsense as we can now see.Sagan's comment is absolutely correct. Note he said combinations. Just consider how many combinations of three can be made from a set of ten. Then add in combinations of two and four and....do the same for the networks in our brain, with thousands of connections, and billions on billions of cells.
Lar
Posted by elanor roosevelt on August 24, 2007, at 10:19:16
In reply to Weather Control, posted by Neil Slade on December 6, 2003, at 0:04:42
what about having a "babe" selling your highly scientific method?
hello out there
can't we have a "someone selling stuff" alert?
Posted by Neil Slade on August 24, 2007, at 12:19:54
In reply to Re: Weather Control, posted by elanor roosevelt on August 24, 2007, at 10:19:16
?
You mean my picture of Briana on my web page?
She was my piano student for 11 years, and I found that it helped people see the link to the part of my site where I sell my books.
I don't pretend to be a dry textbook site, any more than Carl Sagan turned down his pretend spaceship in his Cosmos series.
For years I consistently got emails- "How can I buy your text books?" I finally cured it with Briana's photo-- and I never again got one of those emails.
Posted by FredPotter on August 26, 2007, at 16:02:01
In reply to Re: Clicking the Amygdala?!?!? » FredPotter, posted by Larry Hoover on August 24, 2007, at 8:56:01
Well read Larry. I missed the would combinations. You are of course quite right. Grains of sand on beaches is a bit irrelevant given we've just established that the number is greater than all hadrons Fred
Posted by Neil Slade on March 8, 2008, at 9:47:16
In reply to Clicking the Amygdala?!?!?, posted by Susan on April 1, 2000, at 23:34:45
I recently posted an update to my "How Much Brain Do You Actually Use" page as a current response to a new book by Sam Wang "Welcome To Your Brain".
It's a somewhat conventional, albeit useful look at the brain in 2008, and I appreciate anything that helps people examine their mind motor-- however, I do differ from Dr. Wang in regards to his "myth busting" claim that we use "all of our brain all of the time", which is really not supported by either data, research, or plain old common sense (admittedly in short supply).
See
http://www.neilslade.com/Papers/welcometoyourbrain2.htmlThanks,
Neil
Posted by Newbee on March 13, 2008, at 20:09:40
In reply to Clicking the Amygdala?!?!?, posted by Susan on April 1, 2000, at 23:34:45
I have to disagree. My Amygdala is working overtime due to insufficient sleep. There was an article last October showing this. Google Sleep deprivation and Amygdala.
Posted by Yoder on February 6, 2010, at 16:25:01
In reply to Re: Clicking the Amygdala?!?!?, posted by Neil Slade on March 8, 2008, at 9:47:16
This is all so much mumbo-jumbo. None of this has been substantiated, and all of the so called "Research Reports" were fabricated...how do I know? I was there.
The various Research Reports were fabricated by TD Lingo in an attempt to sell the science community on what he was doing...running an outdoor camp that promised "natural consciousness expansion." All of the "case studies" are also fabrications. I was associated with Lingo in some capacity or another for over 20 years. I met him in 1972. Some of the techniques he used, ie, self-therapy, were interesting and had their merits, but they died when Lingo died.
"Amygdala clicking" and "multiple orgasms" were gimmicks that Lingo would use to interest people in his work, and when they bit he would work tirelessly to close the deal...the deal being attending his summer camp. I know this because he appointed me the "head of marketing" for awhile...I was an abysmal failure by my own admission.
As stated, Art Bell is not science. Bell is to science, what Glen Beck is to politics. Slade also is not a scientist, but a music teacher by training. I have read some of his "science" writings and they lack the discipline required in scientific research, there are never any control groups, and they are replete with cliches and non-sequiturs. Many of the papers he throws out are merely rewrites of Lingo's work. You must realize that it was all done for marketing a wilderness program, that was trying to capitalize upon the consciousness expansion interests of the 60/70's. I will say that Lingo did have some validity with his self-therapy techniques, but for some reason Slade ignores this in his body of work.
Slade calls Lingo a "behaviorist." Lingo was a chemist by training, and formed his own and often refuted behavioral theories by reading "Psychology Today." He never did any research in the field of psychology.
Slade makes reference to Eccles above. This lecture was attended by TD Lingo, and Lingo is the one who took the notes. There is no evidence that Eccles said what Lingo/Slade say he said. I know that Lingo would often ask loaded questions, and then twist the response to match his needs. It would be more appropriate to say that Lingo wrote what he thought he heard or wanted to hear, and Slade merely passes it along. Lingo based the majority of his claims on a book by Woolridge, "The Machinery of the Brain" and "Psychology Today." I actually turned Lingo on to a lot of neurology since that is what I studied as an undergrad in the 70's. Lingo accepted what fit his theory, and rejected what did not. More importantly, the scientific community rejected ever paper that he ever submitted.
Cloud dissolving ...where is the science? As mentioned above, much of what he describes can be described with simple science and meteorological mechanisms. (I am a mathematician/scientist by training...BS and MS)
The bottom line is that if you really need some self-help, then go to a reputable organization such as the Self Realization Fellowship or a psychologist. If you want to see clouds disappear or form, then lay on your back and watch them do their natural thing. If you want miracles, then join the Catholic Church or ingest some Peyote. Just make sure you use common sense in all of your dealings.
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 7, 2010, at 11:40:36
In reply to Re: Clicking the Amygdala?!?!?, posted by Yoder on February 6, 2010, at 16:25:01
> his "science" writings ... are replete with cliches and non-sequiturs. Many of the papers he throws out are merely rewrites of Lingo's work.
Welcome to Babble. Please don't post anything here that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
But please don't take this personally, either, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person, and I'm sorry if this hurts you.
More information about posting policies and tips on alternative ways to express oneself, including a link to a nice post by Dinah on I-statements, are in the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Yoder on February 7, 2010, at 14:03:04
In reply to Re: please be civil » Yoder, posted by Dr. Bob on February 7, 2010, at 11:40:36
My bad. No offense taken.
Posted by Deneb on February 7, 2010, at 16:19:54
In reply to Re: Clicking the Amygdala?!?!?, posted by Yoder on February 6, 2010, at 16:25:01
Hello Yoder!
Welcome to Psycho-Babble! Thanks for the information.
Deneb
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 7, 2010, at 18:24:34
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by Yoder on February 7, 2010, at 14:03:04
Posted by Dashiki on February 8, 2010, at 18:06:25
In reply to Re: Clicking the Amygdala?!?!?, posted by Cam W. on April 2, 2000, at 3:22:43
Exactly! I agree Cam W!
This is a document Neil Slade Demanded to be removed from Sarlo Muesling's Guru Ratings Positive Partizan Feedback! Makes me wander why! Original page is (now gone) -- http://www.globalserve.net/~sarlo/Flingo.htm)
More on TD Lingo
I've been a student of consciousness expansion and spirituality for over 35 years, and have taken more than 100 workshops, trainings, and classes in consciousness development, starting at the age of 19 with T. D. Lingo. I was one of his early "experiments." Lingo was an amazing teacher, a true hidden genius. Nutty as hell, in some ways, but certifiably brilliant in many others. [Neil Slade is not considered by any of Lingo's students "his successor," but rather an egoist who is using Lingo's materials (unauthorized) to promote himself. Nothing surprising there.]* Lingo did not expect to die, so his estate was a mess, and although he promised to pass his amazing school property (250 acres of prime Colorado mountain property, log cabins, pump well, wind generator-driven printing press) to one or another of his students, it ended up in the hands of his adopted drug addicted son (long abandoned), who sold it for $3M to developers.* Too bad, because Lingo lived in basic poverty, struggling to become known, although his unique and quirky writing style and manner turned almost everybody off.
I have the only (to my knowledge) complete version of his 100-lesson workbook*, which I'm trying to get the legal right to publish. He was democratic in the extreme, stressing self-therapy, brain self-control, and self-empowerment all the way. He stated clearly that he didn't want to be a guru, but of course, at some level he wanted people to buy his point of view whole hog and work for him for free. We disagreed on that point (and many others) many times, but I studied with him for four years, and consider him to be my first TRUE teacher. He released me from the bonds of my historical programming, and freed me to explore on my own. He had a great heart, and was generous with many people, but also had a harsh and angry streak when people weren't generous to him in kind. He lost students about as fast as he got them. He was an original -- and his death was a real tragedy. I hope to write a book about him one day.
~ Lion Goodman,
Everyday Awakening.comeverything is fair in love and war - but stealing is NOT Holy!
-D
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 9, 2010, at 10:59:38
In reply to Re: Clicking the Amygdala?!?!?, posted by Dashiki on February 8, 2010, at 18:06:25
> Neil Slade is not considered by any of Lingo's students "his successor," but rather an egoist who is using Lingo's materials (unauthorized) to promote himself.
Welcome to Babble. Please don't post anything here that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
But please don't take this personally, either, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person, and I'm sorry if this hurts you.
More information about posting policies and tips on alternative ways to express oneself, including a link to a nice post by Dinah on I-statements, are in the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Other follow-ups should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Alternative.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 11, 2010, at 8:31:45
In reply to Redirect and please be civil » Dashiki, posted by Dr. Bob on February 9, 2010, at 10:59:38
> Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration.
Here's a link:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20091103/msgs/936686.html
That'll be considered a new thread, so if you'd like to be notified by email of follow-ups to it, you'll need to request that there. Thanks,
Bob
Posted by NeilGSlade on January 10, 2012, at 11:15:14
In reply to Re: Clicking the Amygdala?!?!?, posted by Yoder on February 6, 2010, at 16:25:01
It's been a couple of years since "Yoder" posted this anonymous message, and I felt it was time for a response putting his comments in perspective.
Given that Yoder's comments are "anonymous" (although not at all to me, see below), I will provide only a single new rebuttal on this thread, and almost certainly the only new one I will provide, as I am aware of long anonymous forum members will continue to provide false information in a feigned "discussion", and I really have no time for that. If anyone is interested in a full and DOCUMENTED history of TD Lingo (TDL) and his life and work, please go to this page http://www.neilslade.com/art/Brain/history.html "Real History of TDL and The Dormant Brain Lab"
1) "Yoder"'s real identity was known at this time because of personal correspondence sent to me by another anonymous poster here "Dashiki", who is also identified by real name. His identity is further by the content and self-reference commentary left by Yoder easily crossed referenced with his other online commentary.In this private correspondence which was shared with me by one of his online "friends", Yoder admits is doings here, as well as other web mischief, and he uses his real name in the correspondence.
I knew Yoder in many capacities at the brain lab, and his identity is no secret at all, and any of the old staff at the lab knows exactly who this person is, and why he carries a grudge.
I will not reveal his full name here, just because my intent is not to damage anyone's reputation or put their professional career at jeopardy- and also because although Dr. Bob allows unsubstantiated commentary and personal attack by anonymous posts, he allows people to remain anonymous online and will XXX out any real use of his name here. A curious double standard in my opinion, but its Dr. Bob's forum...
2) Yoder is in fact a math and computer teacher in a Colorado Public school system, (also referred somewhat in his comments here).
I read his comment here with amusement: "(I am a mathematician/scientist by training...BS and MS)" BS is right. He is a high school math teacher and runs the computer lab. If that is scientist, well then, I'm an astronaut because I look up at stars.
One reason that Yoder will not be self-identified is because he is aware that by revealing his real name, that lets out an entire can of worms- including what he has revealed through his signed correspondence about quite mischievous and in fact illegal activity online in his attempts to discredit myself, and the detrimental effect that would have on his job, his reputation, and perhaps his pension. I've already had to deal with this by notifying local law enforcement and Yoder's superiors at his work place, who put a quick end to that activity of Yoder, so, I prefer to not stir the pot any further, unless legally necessary.
3. Yoder's personal vendetta against myself stems from the fact that after Lingo died, I continued my work as I had done in partnership with Lingo from 1982-1993. And, I was quite successful at it, not only being able to support myself entirely from my publications on brain education, but also because I developed a good reputation for my work. This is documented on my web site "Real History of The Dormant Brain Lab" freely accessible online.
Yoder temporarily teamed up with a few of TD's former students after the lab director's death in 1993, with the intent of doing something with all of the intellectual legacy. They even formed a legal partnership of their own with the remaining new president of TD's non-profit corp, who remains my friend.
But all of this good intention fell to dust within a few short years, and not only was the legal corp dissolved, but Yoder nor anyone else did anything in the way of continuing the work, which left the job solely for me to continue as I had done uninterrupted since 1982.
Except for one bit of mischief.
Yoder had his buddy L.G. (See Real History of Brain Lab page) obtain from me missing portions of one of TDL's manuscripts. A year later, with Yoder's secretive assistance, L.G. made a claim of copyright ownership of the book, in an attempt to obtain a publishing deal for himself, as owner of the book. Of course, the Lingo Estate (surviving relatives) immediately put a stop to that-- and this didn't set very well with either L.G. or Yoder, who then began bashing me online as you see here as some kind of retribution. You see, not only had the president of the non-profit legal corp made sure I had, and could do whatever I wanted with all of the intellectual property, but Lingo's estate had further given me legal permission to continue to publish a few choice manuscripts.
4. This alone set the tone for Yoder's discontent, because he never achieved either the kind of public recognition I had done, nor had received either the public or private approval of TD Lingo. The record of this is clear, again as clearly demonstrated in the published correspondence from Lingo to Yoder, seen in the web page "Real History of The Dormant Brain Lab" and there identified by the first letter of his real first name, "R".
Again, I'm not out to get the fellow fired, but that is whom I refer to on that page of documents.
5. What followed was a series of threatening emails, my newsletter forum abuse, and the eventually revealed plans to try to ruin my email service by Yoder as well as a stated plan to "hack into Slade's computer and steal his mailing list".
6. Yoder, was in fact a great disappointment to to TDL, whom among other things, eventually accused Yoder of plagiarism. One might dismiss this as rumor- except for the fact that a little bit of detective work online shows that Yoder continues to plagiarise a great deal of work on his web site, including wholesale reproduction of TDL's own work- with no proper credit given, inferring the the author of the work is none other than the web site owner himself. Hardly honest.
(It might be noted that after I made TDL's accusations of Yoder's continuing plagiarism, he finally begin giving proper author credit to SOME of the vast number of documents he copied and pasted on his own site.)
7. And that web site of his is the most curious aspect of all of Yoder's negativity and wrath. Despite the carefully sculpted anti-commentary here, Yoder, under his real name, continues to publish with glowing sentiment, reams and reams of TDL's old manuscripts and writings on his web site. And this is easily enough found, and the clarity of whom Yoder is, is easily discerned from those web pages by cross checking the comments here and there.
Why? Either he has calmed down and really believes in the stuff, or perhaps he knows that it drives web traffic to his site, where he sells musical instruments and conducts his other business.
The record is unmistakable, in spite of Yoder's complaints about TDL here, finally, finally in 2005, a full twelve years after TDL's death Yoder began to publish documents of Lingo's in his possession when my success at popularizing Lingo's work was apparent. This is documented in the Internet Archive of Yoder's web site. Hey why not? I was getting 3000 visitors a day to my site, why not ride on my and TDL's coat tails- while anonymously bash him here, in a misguided attempt to get under my fingernails?
7. Yoder states here (not on his site of course) that "There is no evidence that Eccles said what Lingo/Slade say he said." But there is in fact ample evidence. All one needs to do is read the books and articles by John Eccles, and his feelings about the brain, and his opinion about the "infinite untapped potential of the brain" is well documented and known by anyone who has read at any depth the writings of John Eccles, which apparently Yoder has not. See Eccles, "How the Self Controls Its Brain" Berlin/New York: Springer, 1994., or perhaps an interesting third party paper such as http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_05_2_giroldini.pdf
In fact, the lecture from which Lingo derives his quote, "The brain indicates its powers are endless", which itself is copied copiously all over the web at this point, , is a lecture that many people attended besides Lingo. Several supply information about the talk that Lingo himself never revealed, such as the actual title of the talk. Lingo's quote is derived from The Brain-Mind Problem, delivered by Sir John Eccles at the University of Colorado on July 31, 1974.
8. Finally we turn to the work of TD Lingo himself, which Yoder anonymously makes a weak attempt to destabilize and minimalism here --
(Really, can we ever trust anonymous sources?
That's why I always use my real and full name in online commentary.)Lingo was not a member of the academic aristocracy, nor did he ever pretend as much. He was an independent thinker, teacher, and researcher. Certainly in a greater capacity as a scientist than Yoder would claim to be.
But he did have these degrees: Ph.B. B.Sci., M.A.
from the University of Chicago and other institutions.Lingo spent the last 35 years of his life researching human brain and behavior, not only from massive printed material and publications, easily seen lining the walls of his home (see photos http://www.neilslade.com/art/Brain/brainrev2.html ) but clearly indicated in his work and writing, which would have been impossible without a thorough knowledge of the field.
The assertion by Yoder that "formed his own and often refuted behavioral theories by reading "Psychology Today" is patently absurd, although I am sure it is something that Lingo read among all of the other literature.
Lingo had a thorough knowledge of brain anatomy, and current understandings of neruophysiology, however gained, and this is reflected in his books, abstracts, and papers.
More importantly, he formed original concepts that looked at brain function in a unique way, and this is what he taught to his students over decades.
Lingo corresponded with hundreds of individuals throughout the world, as well as had hundreds of individuals took part in his educational facility and summer "brain school" camp for 35 years, where people studied their own selves, their own behavior, and their own brain- in a living functional state within their own craniums.
If being a teacher, an entertainer, a writer, someone with an intimate scientific knowledge of brain function, and an observer of human beings over the course of a lifetime doesn't qualify one to form an opinion of brain function and behavior, as Lingo did- then nothing does.
-Neil Slade, January 2012
www.NeilSlade.com
Posted by bwakedanca on February 27, 2012, at 1:56:56
In reply to Re: Clicking the Amygdala?!?!?, posted by NeilGSlade on January 10, 2012, at 11:15:14
¡esto es rico!
What qualifies a person to have an opinion is having enough brain cells to formulate an opinion. The most deluded mental patient is qualified to form an opinion. Thoughtful people are more interested in how well qualified is an opinion.
The more detailed and specific an opinion, the more carefully thoughtful people scrutinize an opinion. The further one's opinion deviates from accepted findings of researchers whose work has built on the findings of other researchers working in a specialized field, the more likely thoughtful people are to doubt the merits of the novel opinion.
Likewise, the more a proponent of an opinion represents a novel opinion as accepted by career specialists in a field when aspects of the novel opinion significantly deviate from accepted opinions, the more likely thoughtful people are to question the qualification of the novel opinion.
In marketing, it is not uncommon to see references to numbers of people who engaged in some experience. It's a form of social proof. That's a far different matter than scientific proof. Marketers at times seek to establish credibility by asserting that others find value in a product, service or viewpoint. Marketers proffer social proof as an alternative to scientific proof. It's an appeal to the numbers -- argumentum ad pupulum -- a form of fallacy.
An appeal to numbers is different than an assertion that "most scientists agree" on a matter when the latter assertion is presented in the context of valid reasons that most scientists agree. The latter suggests the work has been verified, the former implies verification is unnecessary.
Of course, asserting a fact such as that most scientists agree the brain has billions and billions of potential pathways does not verify an unrelated claim, such as a claim that we only use 10 percent of our brain. We might use less than 10 percent of the highway at any given moment but there is a reason for that space between vehicles. We use it in the next instant.
In the 1970s, hundreds of people throughout the world took part in many summer experiences intended to develop various personal skills. The same thing happened in the 1980s, and 1990s. In fact, in the 1770s, hundreds of people throughout the world took part in summer experiences intended to develop various aspects of their lives. That doesn't mean any one of those summer experiences accomplished any purpose for which it was promoted. In one case, a leader of popular self-enrichment experiences who was well liked and who appeared in popular psychology magazines later led a group suicide among followers who believed a space ship was waiting for them.
Opinions among the academic community about why people participate in novel self-enrichment experiences often cite a need for approval of an authority figure. Leaders of self-enrichment exercises often flatter participants, telling them they have unusual powers if only they tap into some novel experience. That doesn't qualify the opinions of people who lead summer self-enrichment experiences. The relationships are sometimes mutual, with leaders offering participants benefit of bold, albeit improbable promises that encourage participants to shower the leader with acceptance, praise and affection.
Especially in today's world of print-on-demand imprints anyone with a few hundred dollars and a manuscript can hire, if getting something in print and getting people to enjoy reading a text that promises great personal benefit were all it took to make truth, we would indeed live in a fantastically amazing majicalicious world. We could simply write entertaining books about how to solve every disease in the world by snapping our fingers, and -- voila -- no more disease, no more hunger, no more need for an unfortunate death at the end of a long and sometimes difficult life. Anyone who continues to suffer from disease and die obviously hasn't read enough of our books or bought enough of our DVDs. Do you feel the love?
Nor does income a person derives from self-published books validate the contents of those books - not unless truth is something we vote on rather than something that can be repeatedly tested. Even if truth were a matter of popular vote, one author's income wouldn't be enough to win the election - not when the book stores are full of titles well-financed publishers have accepted and produced through a review process that involves scrutiny by learned editors. The election would go to those authors whose books have appeared on the best-sellers list. Truth by those terms would be told by those who have made so much money they have no need to defend their reputation against critics at an anonymous online mental health forum.
Looking back through this 12-year-old thread, one item caught my eye. A claim that 20 million minds were involved in an experiment does not comport with facts about radio audiences. Talker Magazine's estimates of Arbitron reports say Coast to Coast at one time had three million weekly listeners in a typical week. Three million some time during a week is not 20 million at one moment.
It was an overnight radio show, maybe four hours long, so there was a lot of time for people to tune in. The average radio listener tunes in to about 20 minutes of a show. As an overnight show, it attracted a wide audience by nature of the fact that there were fewer alternatives during those hours than during daytime hours when more stations were on the hour. The audience included truck drivers, graveyard shift workers and insomniacs.
Three million listeners during any week doesn't mean that three million people were listening at any one time. Those listeners could've tuned in to any one of 100 20-minute segments during five nights of a four hour show. Much less does it mean that a significant portion of those who were listening at one moment were active participants in a mental activity suggested by a host and his guest.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20031202/msgs/287058.html
People caught in a lie often react in anger, masking their fear of exposure behind angry attacks against those who question the integrity of their claims. Sometimes people get angry because they so believe their otherwise untrue statements, they genuinely feel angry -- as a wrongly accused person tends to be. That's just my opinion about how people in general react when they're confronted with untruthful statements they've made.
It's also my opinion that when a person discusses whether another is qualified to offer an opinion rather than discusses the opinion at hand, chances are the opinion is not one that can easily be substantiated, or the person arguing against the person is not skilled at formulating valid opinions, or both.
Posted by Yoder on April 1, 2012, at 18:49:55
In reply to Re: click this, posted by bwakedanca on February 27, 2012, at 1:56:56
@bwakedanca: A very well written post and to the point. Thanks.
Neil: Wow, the Universe works in strange and mysterious ways. I was actually looking up something in a book I am reading prior to doing my taxes and I ran into what I thought was a forum thread that died years ago. Who would have thunk? I would have thought that all of this was water under the bridge. Evidently not. That being said, then it is only right that I give my view of things and help set straight the various untrue remarks you have made, for reasons that bwakedanca states. I must say though that I really wonder what would drive an individual to bring up a dead-thread, and re-stir an entropic situation from years past? I was struck by the idea that you seem obsessed with justifying not only your existence, but the work of Lingo and what you are doing in life. Let the work justify itself, and let the actions justify the individual.
First, I use the same login name on all forums not for fear of being "found out," but simply because in the early days of BB's we used "handles" and this is one that I have used for years. I also use it in honor of a friend who passed on. This is a concept that I first learned from Lingo. Back then we called it a "medicine name," and mine was Thunderhawk. Can't say that I really knew the full names of many folks who made their way through Lingo's place, but I did learn to work with them and trust them, and I fail to see where maintaining any sense of anonymity has anything to do with trust.
First, Neil did not know me in the capacity at the brain lab that he suggests. In fact, I have maybe met him two or three times at most. Accordingly, he knows little about me and what he does know is mostly heresy. The "old staff" he refers to is a female who I worked with for years at Lingo's, and have not had any correspondence with for decades now--there maybe a second female who I met only when Lingo died. I am curious what this grudge is that I carry, but I certainly will not loose any sleep trying to figure it out. I carry no grudge towards Lingo per se, but I do call out those who misrepresent themselves and the work of Lingo. Well, I did. To be honest, I no longer care about this level of triviality. Life is short, and time is better spent giving to others and being amongst loved ones. We live and learn.
2) Neil denigrates my academic training due to the simple fact that I choose to be an educator. The facts are that I was involved in Fetal Alcohol Syndrome studies in the 70's, perfected a cannulation technique used to inject various chemicals directly into a rat's brain, etc. This I did while per suing my BS at Washington State University. While pursuing my Master's degree I was primarily interested in Artificial Intelligence and building computer models on how the brain processes information and how the individual Self is a unique entity composed of a physical self, intellectual self, emotional self, and spiritual self (this involved statistical analysis and probability theory.) I eventually received a MS in Applied Mathematics. So, that was my training. Was I wrong to say "I am a mathematician/scientist by training...BS and MS" It is somewhat disheartening that people think so lowly of us educators. I should add that I spent many years working with high-risk adolescents, and I should also make another correction. I did not "run" a computer lab, but was a computer science, multimedia, digital audio, and game design instructor who used a computer lab and taught at both high school and college levels.
3) I have no personal vendetta towards Neil. But, if untrue remarks are going to be directed towards me then I will do whatever is necessary to right the wrong. Personally, I don't really care what type of work relationship Neil had with Lingo. The "Real History of The Dormant Brain Lab" would not survive the rigors of academic scrutiny. It is a very biased interpretation, and does not present all of the information that is available. Information that is denigrating towards both parties is omitted in order to cast a favorable light on one. Lingo, had a love-hate relationship with everyone he knew. I could just as easily scan and post letters from Lingo that talk very unfavorably about Neil, but what is the point? There is too much hate/entropy in the world alreadywhy re-divert it my way?
When I teamed up with others in an attempt to do something with the intellectual property, I in fact did do a considerable amount of work on my own and in contacting others, etc. I did not "quit"(as implied) to leave Neil the only one left to "do the work." The primary reason why I do not subscribe to Neil's "work" is not out of jealously, but because I feel that he is leaving out some major components in Lingo's work and is not representing it accurately and I have stated this to Neil. There were three primary tools used to attain the various states of cosmic consciousness that Lingo taught. They were: 1) Self-Therapy, 2) Meditation, and 3) Community Service. All of the other things he talked about like "moving forward into the frontal lobes," "amygdala clicking," "multiple orgasm," etc., etc., etc., were secondary results/tools used in per suing the aforementioned, but used more to market the concept than anything else.
I never conspired with LG to obtain missing portions of the "manuscript." Echoes of Indiana Jones! Furthermore, "with Yoder's secretive assistance" is just not true. As I remember it, the disagreement was over "whether the material" should be given to the public at no chargethis is where I have always stood, or if one entity should be in sole possession of it and do with it what they want. Furthermore, when I posted the material on my site I DID put a copyright on it to protect the integrity of the material. I have never made a penny off of any of TD's work, nor do I ever intend to. I have also received permission from Lingo's estate to print, and disseminate certain materials, so your attestant of the same means what?
4) Yoder's discontent. I am not jealous of what you have attained in life (I have no idea what you have "attained" in life), nor do I care what Lingo has said or not said about me--like I said before, he has done it with everyone. I have three lovely daughters (one graduates from Colorado College this year and was invited to attend the London School of Modern Dance, at Kent University, UK. There were three openings, and she was one selected.) I have another daughter attending Bowdoin, and have another still at home. I have been happily married for over 25 years, have supported a family, purchased a home, and am now retired. More importantly, I am happy and feel that I have given much to the world and will continue to do so. So, why should I care about what was said of me decades ago or what someone who I barely know says--unless it is a false claim towards me.
"Again, I'm not out to get the fellow fired, but that is whom I refer to on that page of documents." Feelings of guilt? Let me explain. Back when all of this was going down is when Neil conspired with a person who we both knew mutually. He got this young man to turn spy on me, and to forward to Neil all of the emails that the young man and I had exchanged. (The fellow is no longer a "friend of Neil's and has apologized profusely for what he did to me. I hear from him a few times a year, but all of this no longer concerns me.) Is this a contradiction? No, I just want to bring out the truth.
Anyway, this guy played like he wanted to get at Neil--he latter told me he did this per Neil's instructions. I jokingly said "hack into Slade's computer and steal his email addresses and go from there" or something to that effect. Personally, I have never had the desire to hack into other peoples accounts or the time, nor do I have the tools to do such if I wanted to. When I code, I write programs and that is all. So, this guy is sucking all of this information from me and I naively told him of my medical history. Neil promptly took this information and posted it on various forums, including this one. He would post a list of my meds, and follow it with claims of my being an addict. It was interesting, because when I shared my medical information with the young man I told him that I was declared "permanently and totally disabled with 100% service connection" by the VA, and became disabled while earning my Combat Infantryman's Badge. In other words, had I not been in the Army carrying a M-16, my body would be great. Neil neglected to state this, but only posted info on my meds and continually falsely claimed that I was an addict. Another time he called my home and left a message on my answering machine. The message traumatized my youngest daughter and gave her nightmareshe was going on how I was involved in some conspiracy and brought up "murder/killing." This in itself was pretty bad in my book, but the big one came when I told the young spy guy that I was going up to Denver to take one of my daughter's to a college fair. This information was soon passed on to Neil. At this point in time, Neil saw fit to call my place of employment (he doesn't want to get me fired? It is guilt.) When he called he wanted to speak to the principal, but they would not let him speak to the principal and transferred him to the school police officer. The cop called me in after the weekend and said this guy Neil Slade called. He said: "The guy feared for his life that you were going to go to his place of residence and beat him and possibly kill him." I latter found out that Neil told him I abused drugsgreat thing to say about a teacher to one of his peers. I was personally shocked to say the least. I talked to the cop, found out my legal rights, and then wrote Neil an email saying that if he did not stand down that I would get a restraining order against him. That was the last I heard of Neil, or about any of this and have basically put it out of my life until now. I will admit that the cop and I got a good laugh since I am a small, frail person, pushing 60, and he knew that I was disabled.
6) Plagiarism. Yes, Lingo accused me of such but when I explained to him that what I was sending him were technical notes from a couple of books then he accepted what I was doing. Though I will admit that I should have informed him of my methods in the beginning, but I did notso arrest me! Regarding my web site, it is a Creative Commons site and this is stated on every page. All of the material posted is either in the Creative Commons or I have either paid or asked for permission to use the material. I always give people credit, or try to, and link back to their site. Regarding the work of Lingo's I do not have my name on any of his work. In fact, I just looked up several of the different pages of Lingo's work and his name appears on place or another on the pages. Some of the material is mine, and either has my name or no name. Some of the material is work the TD and I did together and has no name in most cases. You inferring is incorrect, and your "hardly honest" claim is baseless. There has to be intent, and I have no intent to get any credit for any of the material. I could pull all of it, but then it would only be available at one or two sites that want to monopolize it and sell it. Again, what is the real reason/motive for making these claims?
7) Check your facts. I do not sell musical instruments, unless it is one of my personal guitars or something, and I do not conduct any business from my site. Your implications are non-sequiturs. We all calm down with age, wisdom, and knowledge. I believe in the validity of most of TDs stuff, it is the mis-presentation of it that I have found issue with in the past. I also do not need to ride on "your coattails," as I have not seen what I would perceive as a success. I get from 1500-2000 hits a day, and very few are looking a Lingo material. Most of the hits on that page are going to my problem solving stuff.part of my Thesis. Seriously "in a misguided attempt to get under my fingernails?" Neil, there are more important things in life and greater priorities than to try and pull down others. No offense, but I have not given you a second thought in years and I do not find your web site the least bit appealing, nor am I jealous of your work. Maybe things are not going well on your end? I don't know, but rest assured that I am not stealing your web trafficI target DIYers, Let the readers judge: www.co-bw.com
Neil, you know you angered me when you were doing the cyber bully thing, threatening me, and calling my place of employment. In response, I wrote a paragraph or two, maybe three or four, that tore many people apart and posted it for two days on my sitein the deep recesses of the file management system I might add. It was catharsis. Obviously you have not checked things out in ages. I knew that the young fellow would go to you and that you would pull it down. Stay current and up-to-date, lest you be left behindthis train rolls faaasst! Yes, I am very familiar with Eccles, McCollough, Weiner, etc.and other classics of neural networking. That was all part of what I was studying in college. Again, what is the point?
Why should someone mis-trust an anonymous source any less than the claims of a person with a name, but one that has never been met? Well, even if you meet themthink Madoof.
I find it interesting that you are working so hard trying to fit the image of Lingo into a neat little persona/legitimate package. There are reasons why things are what they are. I know what I know, saw what I saw, and heard what I heard. You say: "Lingo was not a member of the academic aristocracy, nor did he ever pretend as much. He was an independent thinker, teacher, and researcher. Certainly in a greater capacity as a scientist than Yoder would claim to be." Ironically, you denigrate me for being a teacher. You know nothing of my independent/creative though processes, yet imply I do not possess such. You say Lingo was a "researcher." Yes, he read a lot of scientific material, a lot of which I sent him over the years, but he did not do research in the traditional sense and this can be misleading to some. Yes, those 35 years of camp. I spent about ten to twelve years up their with Lingo. Sorry, the Psychology Today remark was so offensivehowever true it was.
Yes, with experience/knowledge we all are qualified to from an opinion about any subject. The hard part is in accepting criticism of the claims, and when not agreeing with the criticism we may receive we must behave in a civil and non-threatening manner--or at least learn how. I think Lingo would agree with me here.
Peace be with you.
Posted by Bubba81 on August 16, 2012, at 9:50:50
In reply to Re: click this, posted by Yoder on April 1, 2012, at 18:49:55
> A funny thing happened when I got a yen to google TD (aka lingohunnie) to see where his work went, as I check out brain science in general. I found this ongoing feud regarding claims of legitimacy and competing narratives which bleeds into the websites, and is certainly in evidence in this thread.
Ironically, what's not in evidence is that any transcendence is goin' on. The volume of detail and animus devoted to this is exhausting.
For Slade, it does appear that his very identity (not to mention livelihood) is at stake. I thought we needed to subliminate our egos to get to the sweet spot. You don't have to be Jung to notice that the poor fellow is amazed at himself, and it's troubling that he lays claim to Lingo's legacy for fun and profit.
I'm not sure who did what to who and when, but
I appreciated being able to download a free and clean BINC from the Superconsciousness website, as my copy is pretty frayed. I'll skip Neil's "original" wares, lest I get even a little touched by the Bad Karma this cat must be accumulating from his me me me marketing-- instead of the transcendant wisdom he peddles.Don't know what Lingo would make of all this. More useful will be to re-read his wild work, try to "get the airplane off the ground," and remember a true origninal in the process.
Paz
@bwakedanca: A very well written post and to the point. Thanks.
>
> Neil: Wow, the Universe works in strange and mysterious ways. I was actually looking up something in a book I am reading prior to doing my taxes and I ran into what I thought was a forum thread that died years ago. Who would have thunk? I would have thought that all of this was water under the bridge. Evidently not. That being said, then it is only right that I give my view of things and help set straight the various untrue remarks you have made, for reasons that bwakedanca states. I must say though that I really wonder what would drive an individual to bring up a dead-thread, and re-stir an entropic situation from years past? I was struck by the idea that you seem obsessed with justifying not only your existence, but the work of Lingo and what you are doing in life. Let the work justify itself, and let the actions justify the individual.
>
> First, I use the same login name on all forums not for fear of being "found out," but simply because in the early days of BB's we used "handles" and this is one that I have used for years. I also use it in honor of a friend who passed on. This is a concept that I first learned from Lingo. Back then we called it a "medicine name," and mine was Thunderhawk. Can't say that I really knew the full names of many folks who made their way through Lingo's place, but I did learn to work with them and trust them, and I fail to see where maintaining any sense of anonymity has anything to do with trust.
>
> First, Neil did not know me in the capacity at the brain lab that he suggests. In fact, I have maybe met him two or three times at most. Accordingly, he knows little about me and what he does know is mostly heresy. The "old staff" he refers to is a female who I worked with for years at Lingo's, and have not had any correspondence with for decades now--there maybe a second female who I met only when Lingo died. I am curious what this grudge is that I carry, but I certainly will not loose any sleep trying to figure it out. I carry no grudge towards Lingo per se, but I do call out those who misrepresent themselves and the work of Lingo. Well, I did. To be honest, I no longer care about this level of triviality. Life is short, and time is better spent giving to others and being amongst loved ones. We live and learn.
>
> 2) Neil denigrates my academic training due to the simple fact that I choose to be an educator. The facts are that I was involved in Fetal Alcohol Syndrome studies in the 70's, perfected a cannulation technique used to inject various chemicals directly into a rat's brain, etc. This I did while per suing my BS at Washington State University. While pursuing my Master's degree I was primarily interested in Artificial Intelligence and building computer models on how the brain processes information and how the individual Self is a unique entity composed of a physical self, intellectual self, emotional self, and spiritual self (this involved statistical analysis and probability theory.) I eventually received a MS in Applied Mathematics. So, that was my training. Was I wrong to say "I am a mathematician/scientist by training...BS and MS" It is somewhat disheartening that people think so lowly of us educators. I should add that I spent many years working with high-risk adolescents, and I should also make another correction. I did not "run" a computer lab, but was a computer science, multimedia, digital audio, and game design instructor who used a computer lab and taught at both high school and college levels.
>
> 3) I have no personal vendetta towards Neil. But, if untrue remarks are going to be directed towards me then I will do whatever is necessary to right the wrong. Personally, I don't really care what type of work relationship Neil had with Lingo. The "Real History of The Dormant Brain Lab" would not survive the rigors of academic scrutiny. It is a very biased interpretation, and does not present all of the information that is available. Information that is denigrating towards both parties is omitted in order to cast a favorable light on one. Lingo, had a love-hate relationship with everyone he knew. I could just as easily scan and post letters from Lingo that talk very unfavorably about Neil, but what is the point? There is too much hate/entropy in the world alreadywhy re-divert it my way?
>
> When I teamed up with others in an attempt to do something with the intellectual property, I in fact did do a considerable amount of work on my own and in contacting others, etc. I did not "quit"(as implied) to leave Neil the only one left to "do the work." The primary reason why I do not subscribe to Neil's "work" is not out of jealously, but because I feel that he is leaving out some major components in Lingo's work and is not representing it accurately and I have stated this to Neil. There were three primary tools used to attain the various states of cosmic consciousness that Lingo taught. They were: 1) Self-Therapy, 2) Meditation, and 3) Community Service. All of the other things he talked about like "moving forward into the frontal lobes," "amygdala clicking," "multiple orgasm," etc., etc., etc., were secondary results/tools used in per suing the aforementioned, but used more to market the concept than anything else.
>
> I never conspired with LG to obtain missing portions of the "manuscript." Echoes of Indiana Jones! Furthermore, "with Yoder's secretive assistance" is just not true. As I remember it, the disagreement was over "whether the material" should be given to the public at no chargethis is where I have always stood, or if one entity should be in sole possession of it and do with it what they want. Furthermore, when I posted the material on my site I DID put a copyright on it to protect the integrity of the material. I have never made a penny off of any of TD's work, nor do I ever intend to. I have also received permission from Lingo's estate to print, and disseminate certain materials, so your attestant of the same means what?
>
> 4) Yoder's discontent. I am not jealous of what you have attained in life (I have no idea what you have "attained" in life), nor do I care what Lingo has said or not said about me--like I said before, he has done it with everyone. I have three lovely daughters (one graduates from Colorado College this year and was invited to attend the London School of Modern Dance, at Kent University, UK. There were three openings, and she was one selected.) I have another daughter attending Bowdoin, and have another still at home. I have been happily married for over 25 years, have supported a family, purchased a home, and am now retired. More importantly, I am happy and feel that I have given much to the world and will continue to do so. So, why should I care about what was said of me decades ago or what someone who I barely know says--unless it is a false claim towards me.
>
> "Again, I'm not out to get the fellow fired, but that is whom I refer to on that page of documents." Feelings of guilt? Let me explain. Back when all of this was going down is when Neil conspired with a person who we both knew mutually. He got this young man to turn spy on me, and to forward to Neil all of the emails that the young man and I had exchanged. (The fellow is no longer a "friend of Neil's and has apologized profusely for what he did to me. I hear from him a few times a year, but all of this no longer concerns me.) Is this a contradiction? No, I just want to bring out the truth.
>
> Anyway, this guy played like he wanted to get at Neil--he latter told me he did this per Neil's instructions. I jokingly said "hack into Slade's computer and steal his email addresses and go from there" or something to that effect. Personally, I have never had the desire to hack into other peoples accounts or the time, nor do I have the tools to do such if I wanted to. When I code, I write programs and that is all. So, this guy is sucking all of this information from me and I naively told him of my medical history. Neil promptly took this information and posted it on various forums, including this one. He would post a list of my meds, and follow it with claims of my being an addict. It was interesting, because when I shared my medical information with the young man I told him that I was declared "permanently and totally disabled with 100% service connection" by the VA, and became disabled while earning my Combat Infantryman's Badge. In other words, had I not been in the Army carrying a M-16, my body would be great. Neil neglected to state this, but only posted info on my meds and continually falsely claimed that I was an addict. Another time he called my home and left a message on my answering machine. The message traumatized my youngest daughter and gave her nightmareshe was going on how I was involved in some conspiracy and brought up "murder/killing." This in itself was pretty bad in my book, but the big one came when I told the young spy guy that I was going up to Denver to take one of my daughter's to a college fair. This information was soon passed on to Neil. At this point in time, Neil saw fit to call my place of employment (he doesn't want to get me fired? It is guilt.) When he called he wanted to speak to the principal, but they would not let him speak to the principal and transferred him to the school police officer. The cop called me in after the weekend and said this guy Neil Slade called. He said: "The guy feared for his life that you were going to go to his place of residence and beat him and possibly kill him." I latter found out that Neil told him I abused drugsgreat thing to say about a teacher to one of his peers. I was personally shocked to say the least. I talked to the cop, found out my legal rights, and then wrote Neil an email saying that if he did not stand down that I would get a restraining order against him. That was the last I heard of Neil, or about any of this and have basically put it out of my life until now. I will admit that the cop and I got a good laugh since I am a small, frail person, pushing 60, and he knew that I was disabled.
>
> 6) Plagiarism. Yes, Lingo accused me of such but when I explained to him that what I was sending him were technical notes from a couple of books then he accepted what I was doing. Though I will admit that I should have informed him of my methods in the beginning, but I did notso arrest me! Regarding my web site, it is a Creative Commons site and this is stated on every page. All of the material posted is either in the Creative Commons or I have either paid or asked for permission to use the material. I always give people credit, or try to, and link back to their site. Regarding the work of Lingo's I do not have my name on any of his work. In fact, I just looked up several of the different pages of Lingo's work and his name appears on place or another on the pages. Some of the material is mine, and either has my name or no name. Some of the material is work the TD and I did together and has no name in most cases. You inferring is incorrect, and your "hardly honest" claim is baseless. There has to be intent, and I have no intent to get any credit for any of the material. I could pull all of it, but then it would only be available at one or two sites that want to monopolize it and sell it. Again, what is the real reason/motive for making these claims?
>
> 7) Check your facts. I do not sell musical instruments, unless it is one of my personal guitars or something, and I do not conduct any business from my site. Your implications are non-sequiturs. We all calm down with age, wisdom, and knowledge. I believe in the validity of most of TDs stuff, it is the mis-presentation of it that I have found issue with in the past. I also do not need to ride on "your coattails," as I have not seen what I would perceive as a success. I get from 1500-2000 hits a day, and very few are looking a Lingo material. Most of the hits on that page are going to my problem solving stuff.part of my Thesis. Seriously "in a misguided attempt to get under my fingernails?" Neil, there are more important things in life and greater priorities than to try and pull down others. No offense, but I have not given you a second thought in years and I do not find your web site the least bit appealing, nor am I jealous of your work. Maybe things are not going well on your end? I don't know, but rest assured that I am not stealing your web trafficI target DIYers, Let the readers judge: www.co-bw.com
>
> Neil, you know you angered me when you were doing the cyber bully thing, threatening me, and calling my place of employment. In response, I wrote a paragraph or two, maybe three or four, that tore many people apart and posted it for two days on my sitein the deep recesses of the file management system I might add. It was catharsis. Obviously you have not checked things out in ages. I knew that the young fellow would go to you and that you would pull it down. Stay current and up-to-date, lest you be left behindthis train rolls faaasst! Yes, I am very familiar with Eccles, McCollough, Weiner, etc.and other classics of neural networking. That was all part of what I was studying in college. Again, what is the point?
>
> Why should someone mis-trust an anonymous source any less than the claims of a person with a name, but one that has never been met? Well, even if you meet themthink Madoof.
>
> I find it interesting that you are working so hard trying to fit the image of Lingo into a neat little persona/legitimate package. There are reasons why things are what they are. I know what I know, saw what I saw, and heard what I heard. You say: "Lingo was not a member of the academic aristocracy, nor did he ever pretend as much. He was an independent thinker, teacher, and researcher. Certainly in a greater capacity as a scientist than Yoder would claim to be." Ironically, you denigrate me for being a teacher. You know nothing of my independent/creative though processes, yet imply I do not possess such. You say Lingo was a "researcher." Yes, he read a lot of scientific material, a lot of which I sent him over the years, but he did not do research in the traditional sense and this can be misleading to some. Yes, those 35 years of camp. I spent about ten to twelve years up their with Lingo. Sorry, the Psychology Today remark was so offensivehowever true it was.
>
> Yes, with experience/knowledge we all are qualified to from an opinion about any subject. The hard part is in accepting criticism of the claims, and when not agreeing with the criticism we may receive we must behave in a civil and non-threatening manner--or at least learn how. I think Lingo would agree with me here.
>
> Peace be with you.
>
Posted by Neil Slade on February 3, 2013, at 11:13:17
In reply to Re: click this » Yoder, posted by Bubba81 on August 16, 2012, at 9:50:50
I couldn't have provided a better example than all of the anonymous posts on this thread, as to what Lingo himself described so well as in his letter to "R" on
http://www.neilslade.com/art/Brain/history.html
as he put, "ALL of you non-transcenders"Good job boys. Keep it up. I need say nothing.
You paint the perfect picture.
Posted by schleprock on February 3, 2013, at 22:19:43
In reply to Re: Clicking the Amygdala?!?!?, posted by Neil Slade on February 3, 2013, at 11:13:17
Would any of you happen to know if Lou Pilder is affiliated with the Church of Scientology?
And, in your own opinions, exactly how dangerous are mind-altering drugs?
Posted by Neil Slade on February 5, 2013, at 1:12:27
In reply to Re: click this, posted by Yoder on April 1, 2012, at 18:49:55
My curiosity was stirred by the continuing personal denial of reality, and the denial of so many things by Yoder- who for obvious reasons cannot use his real name in conjunction with his actions, and mis-truths he spreads here or anywhere else.
I have all the records permanently stored in my office.
As previously stated, I had to take necessary actions and contacted the authorities when Yoder's actions were revealed to me, in his own words, in his own email communications by a third party that he trusted with such communications.
Such plans, shown below, are quite remarkable, coming from a trusted teacher in the public schools who runs a computer lab. These are two such examples. I continue to keep all in my archives if I ever need such proof in court.
If someone will engage in personal and professional attack by writing lies and mistruths- such has been done in this thread- then I will protect my reputation by whatever means necessary. Here, reproducing email communications. I have the originals with all of the headers.
So it is revealed: who here lies, and who here tells the truth:
From: r---------@msn.com (This is Yoder)
To: emotions_er@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: SNAKEEEEE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 16:50:35 -0600Hey, I loaded about 15 mega bytes of files and sent them to slade fifty times or more. I tried to sent to you, but they did not go through. Do the same, send him huge files.....it will clog his account. Have your friends do the same. I also blocked him from my account.
r--------@msn.com
(street address hidden here)
Colorado Springs, CO 80919
719.xxx.xxxxx (phone hidden here)
Homepage
And Another example:
From: R---------- < r---------@msn.com> (Yoder)
To: N-------< infinity_er@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 3:54:01 AM
Subject: RE: [Your Great Brain Adventure Interspecies InTELLigenceLove? Lingo had everyone read "The Meaning of Love" by Eric Fromm. Good book and had a lot of good stuff to say. Love does not always involve sex, nor does most sex involve any love. Love hits you like a brick between the eyes...real hard. You feel emotional about everything...it is something that really cannot be explained...simply because Love is God, God is Love, and Love is infinite...neither of these terms are definable. The hippie generation had a quick fix to Love...LSD. Problem was that it was only temporary, but it did open the door for many things to come.
I didn't mean to imply that you were lying. Sometimes you say things about Slade, and I am not sure if you are joking and being sarcastic....I do the same...we all do. That is one of the problems with the digital domain...it is hard...impossible...to pick up on things like sarcasm, jokes, etc. I know there is a way to snag a BBC, and I will slowly start looking for the way. He uses Winblows, so his box is open to hacking...I just want his address book.
Idea...let's come up with a bogus account and user name. I will write him and do some lobbying. I will use a program that will block my IP address, and I will try to do it this Christmas.
Adios my friend,
r--------@msn.com (Yoder)
(street address hidden here)
Colorado Springs, CO 80919
719.xxx.xxxxx (phone hidden here)
HomepageSo what are we all to make of this?
Yoder is a liar. And at the ripe old age of 58, yet. He tries to clean up his reputation here- albeit anonymous--- and then counter-attacks with continued character assassination towards me, as has He cannot live with the real truth, so he makes up his own and paints a livable picture of the past- which cleans up his own actions, too painful to look at, even years later.
But this is not reality. The reality is in his own writing.
Lingo knew this, as did other members of the brain lab staff, as probably have many others over the years.
Yoder will continue to claim innocence and "Peace" to his dying days.
Fine. Let the record stand.
Neil Slade
Posted by Neil Slade on February 5, 2013, at 1:12:30
In reply to Re: click this » Yoder, posted by Bubba81 on August 16, 2012, at 9:50:50
My curiosity was stirred by the continuing personal denial of reality, and the denial of so many things by Yoder- who for obvious reasons cannot use his real name in conjunction with his actions, and mis-truths he spreads here or anywhere else. So I did a little archive digging here after my short rebuttal previous.
I have all the records permanently stored in my office.
As previously stated in my rebuttal Jan 2012 http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20120108/msgs/1006889.html, I had to take necessary actions and contacted the authorities when Yoder's actions were revealed to me, in his own words, in his own email communications by a third party that he trusted with such communications.
Such plans, shown below, are quite remarkable, coming from a trusted teacher in the public schools who runs a computer lab. These are two such examples. I continue to keep all in my archives if I ever need such proof.
If someone will engage in personal and professional attack by writing lies and mistruths- such has been done in this thread- then I will protect my reputation by whatever means necessary. That's reasonable, but its certainly not because my business or reputation is "threatened". Here, reproducing email communications. I have the originals with all of the headers.
Quite contrary to the absurd speculation pronounced here, my "reputation" and business is hardly threatened by lies here or elsewhere, certainly not be persons who cannot even sign their names. What goes on in this lowly thread cannot matter to hardly a soul. Such a notion is completely laughable. Really fellows. Are you that drunk with self-importance? Come on, get a real job.
But let us get down to the brass tacks...
So it is revealed: who here lies, and who here tells the truth:
********************************
From: r---------@msn.com (This is Yoder)
To: emotions_er@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: SNAKEEEEE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 16:50:35 -0600Hey, I loaded about 15 mega bytes of files and sent them to slade fifty times or more. I tried to sent to you, but they did not go through. Do the same, send him huge files.....it will clog his account. Have your friends do the same. I also blocked him from my account.
r--------@msn.com
(street address hidden here)
Colorado Springs, CO 80919
719.xxx.xxxxx (phone hidden here)
Homepage
And Another example:
From: R---------- < r---------@msn.com> (Yoder)
To: N-------< infinity_er@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 3:54:01 AM
Subject: RE: [Your Great Brain Adventure Interspecies InTELLigenceLove? Lingo had everyone read "The Meaning of Love" by Eric Fromm. Good book and had a lot of good stuff to say. Love does not always involve sex, nor does most sex involve any love. Love hits you like a brick between the eyes...real hard. You feel emotional about everything...it is something that really cannot be explained...simply because Love is God, God is Love, and Love is infinite...neither of these terms are definable. The hippie generation had a quick fix to Love...LSD. Problem was that it was only temporary, but it did open the door for many things to come.
I didn't mean to imply that you were lying. Sometimes you say things about Slade, and I am not sure if you are joking and being sarcastic....I do the same...we all do. That is one of the problems with the digital domain...it is hard...impossible...to pick up on things like sarcasm, jokes, etc. I know there is a way to snag a BBC, and I will slowly start looking for the way. He uses Winblows, so his box is open to hacking...I just want his address book.
Idea...let's come up with a bogus account and user name. I will write him and do some lobbying. I will use a program that will block my IP address, and I will try to do it this Christmas.
Adios my friend,
r--------@msn.com (Yoder)
(street address hidden here)
Colorado Springs, CO 80919
719.xxx.xxxxx (phone hidden here)
Homepage
*****************************************
So what are we all to make of this?Yoder talks fiction. But as Lingo said, "you cannot lie to yourself".
Yoder has produced a continued fantasy on this thread, and at the ripe old age of 58, yet. He tries to clean up his reputation here- albeit anonymous--- and then counter-attacks with continued character assassination towards me, as Yoder and his friends (few they may be in number) cannot live with the real truth.
Yoder creates in his own mind- then types out his own You-Niverse, and paints a livable picture of the past- which cleans up his own actions, too painful to look at, even years later.
But this is not reality. The reality is in his own writing.
Lingo knew this, as did other members of the brain lab staff, as probably have many others over the years- and as I had finally learned myself about him.
Yoder will continue to claim innocence and "Peace" to his dying days.
Some people never change.Fine. Let the record stand.
At least I supply references and proof when I make a claim, as I do on http://www.neilslade.com/art/Brain/history.htmlIt should be a good lesson for us all to witness and to continue to learn from.
Neil Slade
www.BrainRadar.com
Posted by schleprock on February 6, 2013, at 13:11:24
In reply to Re: Clicking the Amygdala?!?!?, posted by Neil Slade on February 5, 2013, at 1:12:30
Neil, are you planning to eliminate Yoder... you know, psychically? Like will him to have a heart attack, or something. Are you planning to use the thoughts of the members on this network to accomplish this?
Posted by ADecker on February 6, 2013, at 15:46:55
In reply to Clicking the Amygdala?!?!?, posted by Susan on April 1, 2000, at 23:34:45
Mercy. I recently downloaded the PDF version of Lingo's "Self Transcendence Workbook" (from 'Yoder's website) and was on the verge of sticking a bucket on my head and getting right on with it. But now I'm here to confess and cry out loud! If these two - Yoder & Slade - worked with Lingo during the formation of this method, had contact with and were influenced by him...I'm frankly dismayed and discouraged about the prospects of what is offered by this work.
Has anyone reading this used the workbook?
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.