You deleted my post here ? ==
This is your talk page so I will not put that other post back up as you have deemed it worthy to censor me on your private page.

Here's a thought. You probably never contemplated that your actions against NLP would one day back fire against you such that your own dream model (and consequence business) will brought down (at best) or reduced (at worst). As I have and am continuing to zealously write to and track down every organisation you have advanced this model to, it stands to reason that you will not be getting any contract renewed. I am operating covertly, so these organisations will be writing back to me, giving me a chance to create doubt (nothing evil, much of it will be what I said to you). 

Why do I reveal my strategy to you?

1. You will find out anyway from different government bodies.

2. There is no fun in not telling you. This whole effort on my part takes an incredible lot of time and I must have fun!

3. I will never do anything evil. Everything I advance is the truth, backed by logic not emotion, in the interests of academic fair play.

You see, you can Not criticise "another model" whilst concurrently advancing a mystic model yourself. Therein lays the problem and fallacy you play with. I would have no problem in you criticising NLP over the years if you were not therefore advancing a equally mystic model ! But [1] Cynefin and [2] your rejection of everything Richard Dawkins (and therefore Darwin) makes you de facto a mystic in the widest terms! As for "2" you believe the lack of "any" evidence is proof positive of a "significant and massive" proposition [that fails every test of existence using science] As for [1] you seriously believe that whereas Nobel Laureates have not figured out and are in argument about Complexity Science, that "you" have figured it out in relation to human interaction and action ! Do you see how laughable this is ? Seriously - you are an intelligent man, you do understand "cognitive bias" , don't you ? You have been sucked into confirmation bias, whilst failing the test of logic. How can "you" know "complexity science" when they do Not even know this well enough at the Santa Fe institute ? You would Never even get an audience there and if you did, they [academics] would tear you apart. Do you agree ?

  chuck