hi robert,
i agree with what michael wrote. its useless to try to proof to the critics that NC works.
since years the critics are trying to damage the reputation of NC by raising questionable
questions...... no matter what you say..... they come back with new accusations....
just ignore them.
steve

michael andes schrieb:

Hello Robert,
I do appreciate your intent and your offer.  However, I must agree
with Val that such an effort would most likely be wasted.  I have
occasionally brought up the example of Brother Rabbit and the tar
baby--as depicted in the movie "Song of the South" from the 1940's.
The tar baby is a passive, sticky trap just sitting as a lump on a bench.
When the rabbit greets it and get no reaction, he hits it out of
anger and frustration, first with one paw, then a second one, until
he's got all four feet stuck in the tar baby.   I think our collective
energy (those of us doing Neurocare) is best spent just keeping
on keeping on and letting the experiences of our clients tell the story.
Nothing speaks as effectively as concrete, specific examples of success
and genuine transformation.

In Ann Arbor, just yesterday, we held the first meeting of a small Zengar
Neurocare support group for trainers in Michigan.  Pertaining to the
current 'concerns' of the other guys, there has not been a single report
of an adverse reaction or undesireable side effect resulting from ZNC training,
while there is, collectively, YEARS of training experience w. successful, positive
outcomes.  We do know that 'they' can mistakenly train somebody 'up'
when the client should be 'trained down' and, as a result, problems can arise.

I'd rather put my time and energy into celebration, learning, and providing
good training.   It is, in my opinion, a bit of a side-track to get caught up
in defending a position or proving a case that demands no proof.  I prefer to
not cast pearls or try to speak to those who have no ears.  Eventually truth
has a way of prevailing:  perhaps just because it lasts longer than bullpoopy.

Michael Andes,
Ann Arbor, MI  

on 3/10/07 9:38 PM, lawson415 at qeeg@verizon.net wrote:

Hi All

John Thompson invited me join a while ago because he said someone on
this group might be interested in working with me to make a real EEG
data file one could use to do cross validation between NCP data
processing and between other software's processing. The goal would be
to shut people up who complain about alleged inability of ncp to
process EEG accurately.

I do not own ncp nor have I even seen it work. However, I am tired of
the content on other lists where some obsess w/ this software and
waste my time w/ innumerable posts about it.

Here is my offer/request: I have hundreds of EEG recordings. If NCP,
can read pre-recorded data, I am willing to convert some of my EEG
data at c3-c4 to ncp data format if someone will define that format
for me.  Once converted, I would share versions of this file or files,
depending on how ncp works,  in different formats w/ people who have
software that can analyze it. Since people report getting good results
using ncp software, I would hypothesize a significant correlation
between ncp results w/ the data I supply and the results of this same
data analyzed in other software.

My contribution would be the formatted data. I would also be willing
to provide mean, sd and coefficient  of variation info for data in up
to 10 bands when analyzed in other software.

Any takers?

Robert