I really hope that the Copulins product based on the novel Androtics approach/formula (see MHarris’ posts below), when it finally does come out, gives as close results as the results from the ‘real thing’ we just saw above.
MHarris (July 2, 2006):
“…Instead, we’ll be taking another approach entirely to copulins shortly…”
MHarris (August 1, 2006):
“…There’s another approach I discussed with you, and we’re going down that road instead. It requires far more research and investment. It’s the longer, but better, road.”
MHarris (August 9, 2006):
“…Our new blend in the making takes a different approach, and should have even more sillage.”
MHarris (August 11, 2006):
"…Hehe.
Well, it’s not fish sauce. This is not based on traditional copulin formulary, which indeed smells quite bit like either fish sauce… or worse, a woman “at that time of month”.
I want our new approach to smell like a real, healthy women. Preferably the scent a woman gives off near ovulation, not the other time of the month.
It’s not on our normal timeline since we’re not working on this internally, and none of the normal outside people we work with are involved with it. I have one of the world’s few heterosexual, woman-loving ________s on the case.
It may take quite awhile. I’ll do a status check soon, but I really don’t want to rush it.
You know we’re a bit slow sometimes. That’s because I’ve never been in a rush to have something to sell. To me, it’s only fair to sell something when there’s something worth selling. Does that make sense?
I’m not a huge fan of Plato’s work overall (too many justifications for lies & evil in some of his work), but he has some good points sometimes. Here’s a good quote from him:
“Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something.”
- Plato
We can rewrite that to something like…
“Wise businesses sell because they have something worth selling; bad businesses, because they have to sell something”
Make sense?"
MHarris (December 5, 2006):
"Ail, I understand what you’re saying, and I fully and completely understand the importance of copulins to the ladies here.
While Copulins aren’t the only sexual element for women (pheromones count, too!), you know first hand that even bad mixes of copulins have shown themselves to be extremely sexual in some contexts. Natural copulins also have a history of being used through the ages to create sexual results with a high degree of certainty. (and I preferably prefer the latter blend of copulins! )
So copulins are important. I’m not saying, and have never said they’re not. They’re certainly something interesting to develop, which why we’re investing significatly to have a new breed of copulins developed by a chemosensory artist skilled at replicating natural scents.
However, that’s not yet done. As you know, product development takes years. The development of completely new copulin formulary isn’t something that happens overnight.
Copulin formulation today (whether EW, what Pherone sells, or what we have) is all based on a formula found in a study that was made more than 20 years ago. It’s inelegant compared to the art of pheromone science we’ve achieve. It’s ugly, dark ages type stuff compared to what we do with human pheromones.
For this reason, I don’t wish to include today’s substandard breed copulin formulary in any of my test mixes that test novel pheromones and/or new pheromone ratios. Unless it’s a well worn mix, what I want to test just the pheromones. The part that we have the most control over. The part we understand the part. The part we can with elegance and grace.
We can do a test with copulins added to a well tested pheromone mix at the very the end. This will achieve better results, faster.
Keep in mind that our pheromones (especially the newer ones and experimentals) cost a fortune to create, whereas current copulin formulary currently doesn’t. You can make a gallon of current style copulins for what it costs to make a single full size experimental mixes that use some of the more cutting edge molecules. If a superior pheromone blend and substandard copulins clash when blended together in one bottle, that’s a lot of money down the drain.
Worse, keep in mind that testing too many unknowns costs us excessive time. Time that could’ve been spent getting usable data. Wasting time upsets me far more than wasting money. As wise men have been known to say – “I can always make more money, but I can’t make more time!”
For these reasons, I’m just going to go what we know works first, with as few variables (wildcards) as possible.
You should understand that at least 3 of the DHC mixes shouldn’t have failed. There were a few others that were more experimental, but 3 were based on successful mixes women were using anyway, without copulins. The only wildcard that introduced different results were the copulins to already successful TAH based mixes. I added them because of forum member requests. Yet most of the mixes designed to match those cries for mixes that include copulins were met will ill favor. Too many variables! Impossible to debug.
So, to summarize, we’ll test what we’re best at – pheromone only mixes. Then, if a mix succeeds, we’ll add copulins sometime down the line… preferably our new revolutionary formula that will take copulins into the 21st century.
Please understand… This is a testing strategy, not a rail against copulins. As they say, the best way to do things sometimes is “one step at a time”.
Warmly,
Michael"