so you don’t want to climb down/up your ladder! 
I’m sorry, I just found that funny.
That’s fine if it works for you, but please don’t preach the WBTB method as being done “after only waking for 10 minutes”
because here is research that proves it’s best when performed with 1 hour of wakefulness.
DreamAddict,
I agree totally with all you said there. The sleep/wake/back to bed method has been around for a long time and is a very specific method. It has been misinterpreted on this forum (and others). Different interpretations of it can only lead to confusion.
I believe that (maybe) all this confusion was created by someone who was using the MILD method (which of course involves waking briefly between REM periods and then reinforcing your intention in a specific way as you go back to sleep).
However, many users of this forum seem determined to continue using the Sleep/wake/back to bed “phrase” to describe any period of brief awakening.
I think that the only way around this is to do what we suggested earlier and call one method the"Sleep/wake/back to bed" method and the other the “Sleep/wake /back to sleep” method…
It seems to be the only way to avoid confusion on this forum.
Again I insist: WBTS (as you’de like me to call it 
) is not required for MILD. It is optional. Why do you think it’s compulsory? Even the Lucidity Institute says on its website…
R3m0t,
Sorry but you’re wrong again. The distinction is very simple. One method involves waking very briefly, the other doesn’t.
I think that the method you know as the sleep/wake/back to bed method is a simple misuse of the MILD technique ie: when using MILD you need to wake briefly between REM periods in order to reinforce your intention in a very specific way.
However, the SLEEP/WAKE/BACK to bed method has been around for quite some time - much longer than this forum for instance. This is why you should avoid the miss-use of these terms, it only leads to confusion.
Get on side R3m0t, we’re all working for the same end aren’t we - more lucid dreams!
LEAVE r3m0t ALoNE!!!
konnaart,
don’t be silly. we’re all working for a common end here ( and arguments are part of the proccess ). What’s your take on things?..
nickspry and DreamAddict have both convinced me. Perhaps we should change the names of the techniques to differentiate them from each other.
So, we will have the WBTB which is Labarge’s technique. Then WBTS which is where you stay up as long or as little as you please. Does anyone think this will make things more clear? Or do you think it will make people more confused?
It is not a matter of laziness (at least not on my part anyway). I just found that for me WBTS works better than WBTB. However, I should also point out that I do WBTS / WILD not MILD and that could well be the difference. Though, there are times where I fail with WILD and still have MILD like lucid dreams. So, I believe that WBTS / MILD does work as well. Which method is superior? I think that will vary from person to person like any other induction technique.
Again you say it! I repeat, waking up in the night is not required for MILD. Wait a moment… why has everybody been saying MILD ought to be used before falling asleep? This is insane; I give up!
Don’t worry about konnart, we just joke between us now. Soon I will unleash the secret weapon I have planned for the last… I mean, we’re friends now.
milod789: WBTS ought to be as little as you like, not as long as you like. If the times overlap then the distiction would be whether or not you literally get out of bed, which in my opinion would be quite pointless. (See my previous post in this thread explaining why staying in bed is, for me, infinitely superior).
my take on things is that my name is spelled with two N’s and one R…
konnart,…not konaart…but we can thank r3m0t for the confusion on it’s spelling.
And also, im for anything that put’s R three m zero T to the boiling point…but be easy on him so he will have mercy on me when he unleashes his secret weapon… 
r3m0t,
The MILD method does involve waking briefly betweem REM periods. The method was devised by Stephen Laberge during his work at Stanford university. Just read chapter 3 of his last book “Exploring the world of lucid dreaming”. It explains the method in-depth. I presume you’re now going to tell me he didn’t invent the method. (if you are, please take it up with him in person, I’m sure he’d be more than willing to provide you with the proof). What you are basing your argument on are false interpretations of this method which have now become commonly used on this and other forums. If you haven’t read the book, please read it.
I’m not interested in scoring points here. I just want the right interpretations of these methods to be used in order to avoid confusion.
Nick.
That is where I have to disagree with you. The MILD method does not require Brief awakenings. There are plenty of people who do MILD at bed time, WBTS, and of course the WBTB all with great success.I can agree with you on differentiating between the two methods but, I can not agree that MILD requires the WBTB method. On this you are wrong. Labarge does not say that in his book.
I agree. I must not have been paying attention when I typed that.
I also agree with that as well. I have tried the staying up for an hour and 1/2 then going back to sleep often with no results. However, the WBTS (staying up for only a few minutes or even seconds)method for me became a very powerful technique.
And I thought MILD required WBTS… 
Even if it is only long enough to think: “Hey, it was a funny dream, the next one gonna be lucid…” With an alternative technique (mini-WBTB), when you get up for fifteen minutes to be sure you were awake…
No MILD does not require WBTS or WBTB however, you can greatly increase your chances by using WBTB or WBTS.
OK r3m0t and others,
I can see we’re not really going to agree on the use of the MILD method, so maybe we should agree to disagree?
However if we could agree on the use of the two seperate terms (WBTB and WBTS) I really think that this could help to clarify the differences ( as percieved by the different parties) between the methods and help to avoid confusion.
It’s a simple compromise and everyone would benefit from it.
What do you reckon?
Nick.
OK, you can keep believing and I’ll keep believing. 
Differentiating short and long WBTB is fine with me. We’ll need to make a sort of announcement briefly describing why we thought it should be made. With luck it’ll be adopted. If not, well, we’ll have to carry on using our “good enough” terminology (which has done us quite well for a few years 
).
Personally, I can say that I wasn’t too confused as a beginner about the difference between WBTB and MILD or WILD, I mean the breif but accurate descriptions come with a mouse-over. I find WBTB most useful when I get up and either read this site, or write down ideas about lucid dreaming, like goals and stuff. Anyway, I don’t think there is a problem with acronyms for this stuff, since it is described in greater detail in other places.
Although I’ve only just skimmed this topic through, I don’t see why it matters. I think that we are just nit picking and that more methods only serve to create confusion and undesided desitions for newbies.
When you lucid dream, you MUST vary the method to suit YOU. Basic methods should be told as they are, but then variations given afterwards. Maybe with new acronyms, as suggested here.
People should be made aware that it has variations. WILD is a perfect example for this. There are so many WILD variants.
No, where does it say to get out of bed 
It should be WGOOBGBTBGTS! (Wake Get Out Of Bed Go Back To Bed Go To Sleep) 
Lol.
I agree here as well. Stop being over critical about r3m0t. This obsession of trying to make r3m0t look as though he is wrong is silly. Opinions cannot be wrong. I also think that creating a new topic was only ment to attract the forum’s attension unesssasarly. Although, I am not here to judge.
I think that a new acronym should be made, but I don’t think many people will use it.
No, it’s just as worthy as any other thread.
There seems to be a confusion here between variations and methods. Two methods, obviously, should be basically different (unlike two variations). However, where exactly to draw the line is a personal opinion (affected by the people we talk to). For example, people used to call (before my time, or maybe on alt.dreams.lucid) MILD, reality checks, lucid living all DILD - dream induced lucid dream. After all, when these techniques are successful you have a lucid dream stemming from a non-lucid one, unlike WILD. There is no “DILD technique”. (Happily, I don’t see this acronym used much now. I think it is a pointless distinction.)
Well, funnily enough there is no “WILD technique”. Yet people’s occasional attempts to seperate it into CILD (counting) etc have apparently failed. I wonder why?
No, I think you’re the one being paranoid here. (What an unusual occurence!)
Opinions cannot be… hmm. Whatever. 
It already has, sort of. They already aren’t, sort of. So are people going to push for it to be in the acronyms list, etc, or not? Is somebody going to write a press release about it or not? (Don’t ask me; I’m not interested.)
Yes. Maybe such a line should be voted upon.
As I said, I am not here to judge Certainly, although I did judge it’s not my job
Paraniod! Maybe 
Although my first impressions of this topic were that people were taking sides and arguing against each other. I don’t think it is fair to regard people’s own opinions as “wrong.” Maybe that’s just my opinion Lol.
By all means, make a new acronym. Maybe their should be variation and method boundary guidelines too.