[mypetmeatball]

I see on here quite a bit that people are annoyed with Tim Gearty’s repeated use of the word “again”. The funny thing is that I barely noticed until other people mentioned it — now I can’t get it out of my head!

Yes it’s annoying and people think he just has speaking issues, but maybe it’s by design. In psychology and neuro-linguistic programming there is a concept called “anchoring”:

Quote:

How does NLP anchoring work? (

Ever heard of Russian physiologist & psychologist Ivan Pavlov? He is most well known for his findings on human and animal conditioning. While doing a research on dogs’ digestion, he discovered this phenomenon. When it came to meal time, Pavlov would use bells to call his dogs to the food. After repeating this numerous times, he found that even without any food, the dogs would salivate from hearing the sound of the bell.

By doing so, Pavlov associated the ringing sound of the bell to food. And the numerous repetitions have conditioned the dogs to respond to the ringing bell just like how they respond to food.

This is how NLP anchoring works. By conditioning responses to unique NLP anchors, we are able to deliberately get into specific states just by triggering the unique NLP anchor. Just like Pavlov’s dogs.

So NLP anchors are really a stimulus for us to get into whatever states we want. Similarly as Pavlov uses the ringing bell sound to act as a stimulus, with NLP anchoring, we can set certain anchors to act as the stimulus to certain states. And after many repetitions, the association between the NLP anchor and the state will be conditioned.

[…]

Number of repetitions – Naturally the more repetitions you make, the more conditioned the anchor becomes. So make sure you do enough repetitions to make it conditioned.

(Learn NLP anchoring techniques,wwww.self-improvement-mentor.com)

I can’t help but wonder. He comes off as a really bright guy; I find it hard to believe that it’s because his vocabulary is limited. Thoughts?

[Anonymous]

Hey guys, new member here. I just stumbled upon this forum after beginning my CPA journey in Colorado. Much like everyone else has said above, the, again, repetition of the, again didn't really annoy me until I realized everyone else noticed it! Now it's, again, all I hear!

Although, with how long Gearty has been doing these lectures, I'm sure he has repeated the same things over and over again for 20 years. So for him, it is just repetition of, again, the same topics.

[Anonymous]

Hey guys, new member here. I just stumbled upon this forum after beginning my CPA journey in Colorado. Much like everyone else has said above, the, again, repetition of the, again didn't really annoy me until I realized everyone else noticed it! Now it's, again, all I hear!

Although, with how long Gearty has been doing these lectures, I'm sure he has repeated the same things over and over again for 20 years. So for him, it is just repetition of, again, the same topics.

[kcosgrove1]

Gearty annoyed the crud out of me. I would pray that Olinto would be instructing the next session. Gearty was boring, annoying, and did have to highlight WAY too much. I found myself losing focus during his lectures. Olinto was much more interesting and I didn't feel like any time was wasted. He should instruct more IMO.

BEC - 68, 75 (2/3/14)
AUD - 75 (11/30/12)
REG - 73, 75 (10/8/12)
FAR - 78 (8/31/13)

DONE!!! Waiting for License!!

[kcosgrove1]

Gearty annoyed the crud out of me. I would pray that Olinto would be instructing the next session. Gearty was boring, annoying, and did have to highlight WAY too much. I found myself losing focus during his lectures. Olinto was much more interesting and I didn't feel like any time was wasted. He should instruct more IMO.

BEC - 68, 75 (2/3/14)
AUD - 75 (11/30/12)
REG - 73, 75 (10/8/12)
FAR - 78 (8/31/13)

DONE!!! Waiting for License!!

[Anonymous]

I heard him speak live when he was at our company plugging Becker review materials several months back and he used ‘again' consistently while speaking so I think it's just a pause for him like “um” as others have stated.

I preferred Peter Olinto in the lectures as well.

3CPA

[Anonymous]

I heard him speak live when he was at our company plugging Becker review materials several months back and he used ‘again' consistently while speaking so I think it's just a pause for him like “um” as others have stated.

I preferred Peter Olinto in the lectures as well.

3CPA

[Kenada]

I'm Ron Burgundy? – you should you tube Rogers for AUD – he made it very interesting and gave you real life examples. Loved him for AUD.

FAR 05/27/14; 786/110 - Done !

[Kenada]

I'm Ron Burgundy? – you should you tube Rogers for AUD – he made it very interesting and gave you real life examples. Loved him for AUD.

FAR 05/27/14; 786/110 - Done !

[g.rosen]

In preparing for my last round of the exam, FAR, I recorded some Gearty-isms on my cell phone and because it's been a while since I've added to this discussion, and because I've enjoyed just enough libations, I'm ready to share. Here's one for you from the FAR lecture:

“and then the net, again would be again, you have items here so again you have net assets available for benefits.”

That makes perfect sense, right? No wonder I had to take FAR twice before I passed! The beauty of Gearty's genius is that by creating “verbal turmoil”, he allows us to make the decision about whether or not we choose to understand. By complicating lectures just enough, he allows (and dare I say requires) candidates who hope to pass the exam the freedom to realize that each candidate is truly responsible for his/her destiny and if that destiny is a passing score, he/she must understand the material and not rely on lectures alone.

✓ AUD: (02/12/13) 71 | (05/31/13) 80
✓ REG: (05/13/13) 75
✓ BEC: (08/06/13) 80 - Unwilling participant in the "Server Upgrade" debacle
✓ FAR: (08/31/13) 65 | (12/06/13) 75 - Beat the Cali Education Requirement
✓ PETH: (12/25/13) 86 | (12/26/13) 92
✓ CA CPA: (02/13/14)

[g.rosen]

In preparing for my last round of the exam, FAR, I recorded some Gearty-isms on my cell phone and because it's been a while since I've added to this discussion, and because I've enjoyed just enough libations, I'm ready to share. Here's one for you from the FAR lecture:

“and then the net, again would be again, you have items here so again you have net assets available for benefits.”

That makes perfect sense, right? No wonder I had to take FAR twice before I passed! The beauty of Gearty's genius is that by creating “verbal turmoil”, he allows us to make the decision about whether or not we choose to understand. By complicating lectures just enough, he allows (and dare I say requires) candidates who hope to pass the exam the freedom to realize that each candidate is truly responsible for his/her destiny and if that destiny is a passing score, he/she must understand the material and not rely on lectures alone.

✓ AUD: (02/12/13) 71 | (05/31/13) 80
✓ REG: (05/13/13) 75
✓ BEC: (08/06/13) 80 - Unwilling participant in the "Server Upgrade" debacle
✓ FAR: (08/31/13) 65 | (12/06/13) 75 - Beat the Cali Education Requirement
✓ PETH: (12/25/13) 86 | (12/26/13) 92
✓ CA CPA: (02/13/14)

[g.rosen]

And here is one of my personal favorites (certainly worthy of my effort to record):

“Now to emphasize that, let's put down in the margin – vouchers, not accounts payable. Vouchers, again so you're going to put not, not, again vouchers or accounts payable. Not vouchers or accounts payable. Again, it was expenditured and then put in brackets, already in expenditures. So you're not including the vouchers accounts payable, again, it's already in the expenditures.”

That one was even harder to punctuate than the first. The concept, however, makes perfect sense to me…

✓ AUD: (02/12/13) 71 | (05/31/13) 80
✓ REG: (05/13/13) 75
✓ BEC: (08/06/13) 80 - Unwilling participant in the "Server Upgrade" debacle
✓ FAR: (08/31/13) 65 | (12/06/13) 75 - Beat the Cali Education Requirement
✓ PETH: (12/25/13) 86 | (12/26/13) 92
✓ CA CPA: (02/13/14)

[g.rosen]

And here is one of my personal favorites (certainly worthy of my effort to record):

“Now to emphasize that, let's put down in the margin – vouchers, not accounts payable. Vouchers, again so you're going to put not, not, again vouchers or accounts payable. Not vouchers or accounts payable. Again, it was expenditured and then put in brackets, already in expenditures. So you're not including the vouchers accounts payable, again, it's already in the expenditures.”

That one was even harder to punctuate than the first. The concept, however, makes perfect sense to me…

✓ AUD: (02/12/13) 71 | (05/31/13) 80
✓ REG: (05/13/13) 75
✓ BEC: (08/06/13) 80 - Unwilling participant in the "Server Upgrade" debacle
✓ FAR: (08/31/13) 65 | (12/06/13) 75 - Beat the Cali Education Requirement
✓ PETH: (12/25/13) 86 | (12/26/13) 92
✓ CA CPA: (02/13/14)

[Anonymous]

How many hours would it save if they edited out all of his “agains”? By the way they have a new person doing part of the AUD lectures and he's phenomenal!!

[Anonymous]

How many hours would it save if they edited out all of his “agains”? By the way they have a new person doing part of the AUD lectures and he's phenomenal!!

[SlyCoug]

Tim absolutely drove me nuts with his repetition of “again.” It broke my heart when I got to AUD (my final exam) and Peter Olinto was nowhere to be seen.

REG (7/1/13) 94
FAR (8/2/13) 98
BEC (8/23/13) 97
AUD (10/4/13) 99

Ethics (1/14/14) 100

I'm free!!

[Author]

Replies