Just because of a primer?
So, previously to ZPv2 we were all “doomed” to recon just because the titles had a primer?
I’m not saying that we were doomed with that tech.
Saint answered and already said there’s no reason to run V1 when we have V2.
He mentioned recon because of the primer. I’m also sure he spoke about the primer or somewhere else here on the forum talking about it having healing or something in it. I may be wrong but I remember something about that comment.
But it blows my mind why you would run a older V1 tech with an upgraded V2 tech - upgraded because of the primer.
Maybe for experimentation?
Maybe you got results with the primer
And want to know what happens if you mix the 2 versions
But what i find funny are the serious and definitive assertions:
“Don’t ever do this”
This type of claim demands an explanation
1 Like
Experiment if you wish. Don’t come crying when you’ve got recon.
I’m so sorry, it’s pretty obvious why I’d make that claim.
Like I said, if you want recon then go ahead.
1 Like
It’s not obvious.
And don’t use threat.
I’m so sorry but you’re gonna have to quit it with the attitude immediately.
2 Likes
The claim isn’t demanding an explanation. The claim is an inanimate series of words. A person can demand or want an explanation.
Why would you think it’s a threat instead of you thinking that people are just posting honest thoughts?
Grammar humour!
A threat is an honest thought, in this case a non edited honest thought
Getting back to my original question and the reason it was asked was not to spark a debate.
My thought process was that on ZPv1 I did seem to get more of an initial cognitive boost and mood lift. I don’t notice that so much now on ZPv2, but I realise that is of second or no importance to some.
Personally I liked that effect and to a degree prefer to have it.
I’m not going to tell you it improves results.
An idea I had was that the extra recon could have been because of too much of the primer in a stack, with each title having it at the beginning.
So I thought about listening to the title twice. Once in ZPv1 with the primer and the same title in ZPv2 without.
Or at least one title with the standard primer and another one without.
So I really just wanted to know about the interchangeably and backwards compatibility with ZP tech.
This was intended for my own practice and not to make a new guideline or recommendation.
1 Like
How would a person decide to label something a threat rather than thinking they might be very sensitive (and it’s not a threat)?
A sensitive person when cornered can easily threat as a rapid way out.
But the adjective “sensitive” was directed to someone who flagged a commentary, a question i made in another thread.
Now, why you mix my own journal thoughts with assertions made in this thread.
I have made pertinent questions in threads that remain unanswererd, i have a support ticket still unanswered after 7 days or more but you go to my own journal to try to “discipline” me…
He is asking a genuine question and not trying to “discipline” you.
Please stop being excessively sensitive and treat members like RVconsultant with respect, thank you.
1 Like
Let me make this clear. At no point did I threaten you. I’ve never spoken to you prior to this thread. I explained what you asked for and found you evidence.
@Starman : I’m not sure why you seem to think that the only difference ZP1 and ZP2 is the removal of the primer. Yes, they said they removed the primer but do you know if they rescripted the titles in a way that they still do what the primer was supposed to do without it being there? Knowing how this company operates, I highly doubt that they thought:" Hey, let’s remove the primer and boom! we have a new version!".
Maybe running ZP1 and ZP2 together is going to create issues that you don’t know about.
How these subs are made is still a trade secret. I have been here long enough to know that @SaintSovereign and @Fire only say what they need to say about how the subs are scripted. The truth is that no one here knows anything about the scripting methods. Yesterday, a forum member wrote this:
The question is: how do they know? Do they have accurate knowledge of how the tracks are scripted? Or are they just going off of what they read here?
One thing people don’t understand about Sub Club is that it’s a data-driven company. They have more data than we know and they’re always experimenting. I may be wrong but I highly doubt that they simply removed the primer and therefore ZP2 = ZP1 - Primer
I remember that the very first tracks that they released didn’t have affirmations but questions that would prompt the subconscious in finding its own answers. When they moved on from that model, they didn’t announce it publicly. The only reason I know that is because @SaintSovereign alluded to it recently.
In my opinion, there are more differences between ZP1 and ZP2 than just the primer. Basically all these mental gymnastics trying to guess the structure of the track are just a waste of time in my opinion. No one knows anything about these tracks. The best way is still to follow the instructions given by the people who created the subs. That’s just my opinion.
Not sensitive at all
When an Ambassador forum asked me to stop arguing i did it.
Then RV time later took my comment in a sarcastic way
Made allusions to thoughts i made in my personal journal and mix it with a discussion in this thread
Where do you see i’m being disrespectful to him??
Nowhere did I say or imply the primer was the only difference.
True, however this has not been confirmed by the makers, and I was sure I had read somewhere earlier on here that it was OK. Remember when not all titles had been upgraded.
Did we have to wait for the ZPv1 subs to become ZPv2 before we could stack?
1 Like
Nothing else that is said is going to surpass this point.
The rest are just details.
The comment here and the comment on your journal have you in common. The same person, same perspectives.
The journals are mixed. Yet it is the same person: you. You are writing these comments.
I did go to your journal, and I asked you a question, with the hope of you introspecting, and you interpret it as discipline and sarcasm.
How would you know if your interpretations are accurate, or if they are wrong?
So, this is not sarcastic.
You go to my journal and edit a commentary (not an insult), made in an abstract way, not mentioning a name, while other people say what they want in their own journals.
Then you take the adjective i use for an abstract person in my journal and question me about this in another section thread involving another person.
Then you hope it won’t bring about any confusion.