Post: #31

(10-09-2016 8:38 PM)Ekscentra Wrote:  That depends on the success of a number of different projects currently going on which I won't delve into here. I can't give a reasonable time-frame at this point, only that there's little or no possibility this will be happening within the next eight months. That's assuming Shannon and I can come to terms on this project. The ultimate decision rests with him.

I, DrChocolate, hereby declare that I have a massive amount of faith in both of ya's. this could be life changing to many. I rekon u'll do it. Don't rush into it. Take ur time, good things take time. but I have faith. It'll happen. And when it WILL happen, I'll be the first to buy a bottle of each.

Post: #32

shannon Wrote:Panty Scorcher was calculated entirely by the use of a software program I created for myself originally intended to tell me what the optimal pheromone product to use in any given situation was, and the optimal amount to use each time. It proved so effective that I tried calculating some mixes with it, and PS was my first major test of it, calculating whether or not each of more than 18 pheromones should be included or not, and if so, at what concentration. That "calculator" has since evolved through constant usage and refinement into a series of three slightly different predictive computer models that I use to calculate a variety of other things as well, and the models have very high accuracy when used properly. Skeptics are welcome to be skeptical, but I know what this would do in the wrong hands and I will never release my predictive models, so you are welcome to your skepticism if my words to not convince.

No one doubts that a software program can predict models. There are thousands of examples of this in real life. People's skepticism came from the new agey side of it. People can't buy into what they have not experienced for themselves. I've seen far too many "not believable" things to doubt that something like this could exist. Im just jealous I Don't have one for myself. I don't blame Shannon one bit for not releasing it to the public.

Here's to hope this software program and produce more magic!!

Post: #33

(10-09-2016 10:28 PM)SuperJoy Wrote:  People's skepticism came from the new agey side of it.

I'm skeptical because it would be so hard to do. You would have to input a lot of data about each pheromone molecule and you would have to understand how each molecule affects each other molecule.

Do you get all this data from self testing or from the forums? How do you know what reports on the forums are accurate? How do you account for individual variations about the users of the pheromone product?

This seems to be a monumental task.

Post: #34

(10-09-2016 11:46 PM)metaltree Wrote:  I'm skeptical because it would be so hard to do. You would have to input a lot of data about each pheromone molecule and you would have to understand how each molecule affects each other molecule.

Do you get all this data from self testing or from the forums? How do you know what reports on the forums are accurate? How do you account for individual variations about the users of the pheromone product?

This seems to be a monumental task.

Exactly. Panty scorcher has 16 pheromones. I find it hard to believe that the average Joe could come up with such an advanced program.

Post: #35

(10-10-2016 12:20 AM)Blacky Chan Wrote:  Exactly. Panty scorcher has 16 pheromones. I find it hard to believe that the average Joe could come up with such an advanced program.

I can code in Java. If someone wants to give it a shot....I'm here.

If you tell me proportions of molecules to reach effects and what not I can come up with an algorithm that takes input.

Post: #36

You guys missed my point. I was pointing out that he was now calling it a software program when, if I recall correctly, it was closer to numerology or astrology than computer algorithms. Or a combo of numerology and computer based algorithms. That's why people were skeptical of it. You guys are skeptical, which is healthy, of being able to do it with just computer code... now throw in the moon phase and the your placement in the constellation and we lose almost everyone. I agree that it would be difficult to create a computer model of something for the same reasons that Metaltree stated... However, throw some magic in there is it completely possible now.

Im pulling for him...

I've been banned from AD because I stood up for myself. I wouldn't go to their site for money but someone should go reread his posts. For some reason, I remember it not even being digital computer either. In my mind I remember thinking it was an analog computer like an E6B I used in flight school but for 'mones. Can anyone confirm this?

Post: #37

(10-10-2016 9:13 AM)SuperJoy Wrote:  You guys missed my point. I was pointing out that he was now calling it a software program when, if I recall correctly, it was closer to numerology or astrology than computer algorithms. Or a combo of numerology and computer based algorithms. That's why people were skeptical of it. You guys are skeptical, which is healthy, of being able to do it with just computer code... now throw in the moon phase and the your placement in the constellation and we lose almost everyone. I agree that it would be difficult to create a computer model of something for the same reasons that Metaltree stated... However, throw some magic in there is it completely possible now.

Im pulling for him...

I've been banned from AD because I stood up for myself. I wouldn't go to their site for money but someone should go reread his posts. For some reason, I remember it not even being digital computer either. In my mind I remember thinking it was an analog computer like an E6B I used in flight school but for 'mones. Can anyone confirm this?

If I recall correctly, Shannon said that his calculator has nothing to do with astrology. To this day, no one guessed correctly what this calculator is about.

Post: #38

I have to wonder if it's not similar in some way to (classical) fragrance formulation, with a specific threshold as to the number of components used, accounting for their individual potency, supporting components being used in small doses to bolster the primary components of the mix. This is an approach I've taken in formulating more complex mixes - simply using everything in quantity can result in a confused response without a deep understanding of each individual component (both in the context of a mix and on its own).

Post: #39

(10-10-2016 1:11 PM)Ekscentra Wrote:  I have to wonder if it's not similar in some way to (classical) fragrance formulation, with a specific threshold as to the number of components used, accounting for their individual potency, supporting components being used in small doses to bolster the primary components of the mix. This is an approach I've taken in formulating more complex mixes - simply using everything in quantity can result in a confused response without a deep understanding of each individual component (both in the context of a mix and on its own).

I imagine this is like cooking. A little spice brings out or improves the flavors of the primary food. Excess in part or in total volume will ruin the dish.

In this case, the dish is the person. They bring their own flavor, if you will, and the additional pheromones are the spices. If you put a pile of the world's best spices on the best steak, you have an inedible dish that no one will eat. If you bathe in cologne, or pheromones, your target will not sample the dish (you) because it's clearly undesirable.

Post: #40

ok, so my date wears a dress. Her panties burn into oblivion at the dinner table and I discreetly tease the honey under table.
Panty Scorcher...
What can you compare P-S to today; anyone thats tried it? I'm gathering that it has sexual and social qualities to it.