HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP)
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 13:53:59 GMT

In article <db!nat-.friday@netcom.com>, friday@netcom.com (Carol Anne Ogdin) writes in part:
|> 
|> NLP, in fact, is quite in agreement with your contention.  The single
|> fundamental tenet of NLP is "actively engage in NOT knowing."  That
|> is, to observe, with as few preconceptions as possible, and to learn
|> from the stimuli provided.  There is no intrinsic assumption about
|> linguistic models, although the NLP "meta-model" is a useful (albeit
|> imperfect) tool to help understand most people's casual utterances.
Hmm.  I don't know many cognitive psychologists that would say that
this "observing without preconceptions" is likely, as "stimuli" (especially
linguistic stimuli) are highly mediated by all sorts of pre-existing 
cognitive whatevers.  Zen masters might say this, but not psychologists.  

In fact, as you indicate in the next sentence, NLP actually provides 
a complicated set of preconceptions that you are trained to use.  Which 
probably explains the "need" for the training--so you can pick up the
mental set.   By the way, Yyour claims to the contrary, NLP is chock 
full to the brim with assumptions about linguistic models, much of 
which is highly doubtful, as was well stated by Walker.

|> 
|> >         Now, some of the claims of NLP ...
|> 
|> What claims, specifically, do you mean?
|> 
|> >         ... can be attributed to
|> 
|> Attributed by whom?
|> 
|> 	----To the uninitiated in NLP:  In the four lines, above,
|> 	   I am applying the NLP "meta-model" to elicit further
|> 		  information based on the meta-model notions of the
|> 		  DELETION of specificity on "claims", and the "lost
|> 		  performative" of attribution.
|> 	   ----You can find more details in Chapter 4 of "The Structure
|> 		  of Magic"
Your gonna be in trouble if you start playing  semantic games with
a trained linguist!  (I mean A. W., not me.)  I notice the clever 
gamesmanship of ignoring the fairly apparent intention of the writer 
in favor of a counter attack at the relatively trivial level of syntactic 
ambiguity (with the added spice of some fancy NLP terminology).  As 
you note, "The Structure of Magic" is full of this sort of facile, junk, 
linguistic analysis.  Who cares?

---

  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
From: lyn@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Myself)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Benign magic spells (empathy?)
Date: 20 Aug 1992 11:33:38 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

ba@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (B.A. Davis-Howe) writes:

>tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:

>>Hi there.  I was wondering if anyone could recommend a good spell book which
>>does not so much deal with the tired chestnuts of love and money but deals
>>with some nifty benign social engineering... to wit...

>>I am looking for an empathy spell that, when cast, causes the person cast
>>upon (person A) to be the recipient of feelings and impressions of a person B 
>>whose "type" person A looks on very negatively.  The goal here is tolerance
>>making.  I intend to use this on myself and other people toward that goal.
>>I will experiment first on myself to make sure the spell is benign.

>>No flames, pleez... I know a lot of you out there think all this stuff is a
>>lot of hooey.  But then, what are you doing reading this newsgroup?  :-)

>Well, my experience is that external actions work by triggering internal
>states--so, spells are sort of Macros for the mind :-).  Spells are useful, but
>only after having internalised their patterns of reaction.  I would suggest that
>you focus on being *very* tolerant--very *consciously* tolerant--in this 
>situation, paying very close attention to what it feels like to feel tolerant
>and what it feels like to feel intolerant.  Choose to radiate tolerance around
>the persons you want to have this effect on.  Continue to choose it every few
>minutes when you are in their presences.  When you know what it feels like,
>create a symbol, word, image, whatever strikes your fancy that represents the
>state of tolerance.  Create your own spell using this symbol, etc.  Then, when
>you are with these people, you can activate the projection of tolerance using
>the Macro--the spell-trigger.  

>Is this clear to people? Sound useful?

>              Merry meet, merry part, merry meet again,
>                               Br'anArthur

>Queer, Peculiar, and Wyrd! :-)

	This sounds almost exactly like one of the methods that I use
occasionaly, with some differences that I am not sure how to put into words,
but are minor anyway. It has to do with the symbol being a focus, and not
a trigger, so that you focus on the symbol and concentrate on the desired
effect, and they reinforce each other ion a sort of 'feedback loop'. This may
be totally out there, but it is the best way I can describe it.

	new .sig :) !
-- 
This was brought to you by Myself(lyn@matt.ksu.ksu.edu) who is all things here.
Head of Synergy Systems, a non-official group of aspiring hackers creating and
distributing software for the common good. Head office:Terra, Sol system. We
Flames accepted-and returned with interest and intelligence compounded.
From: amanda@INTERCON.COM (Amanda Walker)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Tree of Life (English) and Unicursal Hexagram
Date: 21 Aug 92 05:25:05 GMT

Tagi@cup.portal.com (Tagi Mordred Nagashiva) writes:
> In creating a new Gematria system (english), I sought to
> recreate the Tree of Life paths to allow for 26 in number.

Interesting.  Your new paths themselves have some interesting aspects, and 
they add a bunch of new "wings" (triangles made up of 3 paths and 3 sephiroth 
each), some of which could be quite intriguing (Gevurah-Chesed-Yesod struck 
me immediately, for example).  However, they also multiply correspondences 
and associations quite a bit, and it would take me quite a bit of work to 
work out the major implications of adding these four paths.

Now all you need to do is work out the Tagi Tarot to go with it :).


Peace,

Amanda
From: friday@netcom.com (Carol Anne Ogdin)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: [amanda@intercon.com: Re: Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP)]
Date: 20 Aug 92 15:23:36 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In <1992Aug20.015429.11852@samba.oit.unc.edu> shava@hermes.oit.unc.edu (Shava Nerad Averett) writes:
>My objections to NLP are esthetic, personally.  I have a problem separating
>the NLP folks I've met (with one exception) from the marketeering types
>who buy 1/2 hour slots on UHF to tell people how to give them money to 
>learn to make more money than they could possibly need.  Frogs_Into_Princes
>is one of the most amazingly trite self-help books I've read. 

>There are some really interesting ideas in NLP.  I don't have any idea if
Gad, me too!  There are some real weirdos who've been through NLP, and
then I get tarred by the same brush (of course, there are those who consider
friday most weird, too, and attempt to dissociate!).

Of course, there's Tony Robbins who _does_ buy UHF time and tries to link
NLP with fire-walking...not one of my heros, either.

"Frogs into Princes" is a very poorly written book.  Basically, Richard
Bandler doesn't write, but he does great f2f work.  The book "Frogs into
Princes" is a (poorly, as I said) edited transcript from a bunch of
seminars where Richard did demonstrations in front of an audience (showing
them an example of what he was about to assign them as an exercise).

As I said to Tagi in another posting, above, the problem with the digital
medium (books, papers, on-line) is the paucity of analog information that
can be conveyed.  Richard's videotapes are much more useful than the books
for that reason.

>Shava Nerad Averett				shava_averett@unc.edu


-- 
---   ---   ---   ---   ---   ---   ---   ---   ---   ---   ---   ---
    - Friday -                   "If a miracle happens in your vicinity--
      friday@well.sf.ca.us                            take credit for it!"
      (Carol Anne Ogdin)
Newsgroups: alt.magick

>[stuff deleted]
>>...I much prefer to present
>>the world with the lowest possible expectations, and occasionally exceed 
>>them ;-)
>> 
>>Colin 
>
>Exactly.  So why call something magick when it could just as 
>easily be called effective behavior?

>- Peggy -
>----------

I'm not sure whether the point is being addressed to me or the world at large;
if at me, then I also have problems with the use of the word `magic(k)', and
it is a convenient word to use in contexts where no-one wants to argue
about its meaning, and an awful word to use when there is any doubt what
it means.

I don't know whether magic can just as easily be called `effective behaviour'.
You could wear a phenomenological hat and look at magicians as phenomena - 
you have found a strange colony of animals in a jungle and you observe
and catalogue their behaviours, you compare and contrast their behaviours
with other colonies in the vicinity, the `neuro-linguistic programmers',
the `EST/Forumites', the `Silva Mind Controllers', the `Dale Carnegie
Positive Thinkers', the `how to acquire personal power management consultants',
and so on. Who knows, you might conclude (phenomenologically) that magic
is just another variation of something dubbed 'effective behaviour'.
	On the other hand, you might be interested in the interior 
experience of being a magician, and conclude something different. In my
notes on kabbalah I tried to avoid this kind of problem by saying that
magic could be used as a label for distinguishing between the modes of
causality appropriate to `normal consciousness', and the modes of
causality appropriate to various abnormal states of consciousness. I realise
that this still begs several questions.

Colin

"I have serious doubts about the use of this word in this context....in
fact, I have serious doubts about the use of all words in all contexts."
                                                  Douglas Donleavy


Newsgroups: alt.magick
From: ba@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (B.A. Davis-Howe)
Subject: Re: Unity
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 16:35:20 GMT

krikket@meltdown.chi.il.us (D. 'krikket' Krick) writes:

>I disagree with you on this one...  A "Meta-Magic" CAN be made.  The "things
>that work" (or the "magical strings" you pull, as I've used on alt.pagan) don't
>change.  Merely the methods you pull on those strings.

Krikket, we get back to the same arguement here.  Spirits are not the same as 
visualisations, for example.  Your statement claims that all the practitioners
who are having experience of real independent non-corporeal beings are just
plain wrong.  Either that, or everyone else is wrong.  Totems are not the same
as auras.  What is the reality?  If there is only one force in magic, as you
have claimed three times now, what is that force?  And how do you know this?
And why are all those other people lying?  Or how are they so easily deceived?
I don't think you are thinking sufficiently about the implications of your 
assertion.  If I am misunderstanding you, then explain *exactly* what you mean, 
and how all of these different things can be fit into this Meta-Magic you are
talking about.

              Merry meet, merry part, merry meet again,
                               Br'anArthur

Queer, Peculiar, and Wyrd! :-)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
From: dantonio@magick.enet.dec.com (David D'Antonio)
Subject: Re: "do[ing] stuff" (was Re: Is Magick worth the effort??)
Reply-To: dantonio@flashy.tay2.dec.com
Organization: None to speak of...
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 20:21:48 GMT


In article <9208111627.AA29202@pioneer.uspto.gov>, plord@pioneer.uspto.gov (Paul Lord) writes:
[...]
|>then: Not to open Pandora's box, but...
|>
|>Bell's theorem?

Perhaps I just don't understand Bell's Theorem, but it doesn't seem to
require anything to violate causality.

|>As far as "proof" is possible in mathematics/physics, Alain Aspect's 1982
|>experiments wrt this theorem pretty much proved that there IS a method
|>for two widely separated events to be in "instantaneous" communication, or
|>rather, that they can exchange information without energy.  In other words,
|>phrases like "cause and effect" and words like "coincidence" become somewhat
|>questionable. 

How does BT (Bell's Theorem) cause phrases like 'cause and effect' to
become questionable? What it DOES do it call into question Einstein's
'No information can be transfered faster than the speed of Light'
statement.

|>Paul Lord / Pope Festering Meme 	

DDA

--
dantonio@magick.tay2.dec.com -or- dantonio@sword1.enet.dec.com
  I've tried to dance with what life had to hand me
    My partner's been pleasure, my partner's been pain
				-Stevie Nicks
From: friday@netcom.com (Carol Anne Ogdin)
Subject: Re: [amanda@intercon.com: Re: Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP)]
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 02:21:02 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In <9208172110.AA05715@bailey.cpac.washington.edu> joshua@CPAC.WASHINGTON.EDU (Joshua Geller) writes:
J

>amanda sent me this, and I post it with pleasure:

>I can clarify it some: NLP is crackpot psycholinguistics with a strong does 
>of perfectly standard conditioning and self-hypnosis training thrown in.  It 
>is uniformly detested by everyone I've ever met with any amount of 
>professional background in either linguistics or psychology.  Even the 
>authors of the sources they cite think they're crackpots.


>Amanda Walker <amanda@intercon.com>

I don't know your qualifications, Amanda, but as a Master Practitioner
and Trainer of NLP, I judge your opinions as devoid of facts.  NLP is
a clever collection of other techniques, with some very useful additions
and some extremely clever syntesis by Richard Bandler.

I've previously posted a description of NLP, and a book list I think people
can read to form their own opinions.  You'll find there why, IMO, it
is better to learn these techniques through experience than strictly from
books.

If you would like to cite some specific "crackpot" notions of NLP, I'd
be happy to let you know whether they're part of NLP or not.






-- 
---   ---   ---   ---   ---   ---   ---   ---   ---   ---   ---   ---
    - Friday -                   "If a miracle happens in your vicinity--
      friday@well.sf.ca.us                            take credit for it!"
      (Carol Anne Ogdin)
-- 
---   ---   ---   ---   ---   ---   ---   ---   ---   ---   ---   ---
    - Friday -                   "If a miracle happens in your vicinity--
      friday@well.sf.ca.us                            take credit for it!"
      (Carol Anne Ogdin)
From: friday@netcom.com (Carol Anne Ogdin)
Subject: Re: Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP)
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 02:26:43 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 


No, Amanda, it isn't my responsibility to justify NLP, or to "explain
what's new."  I offered you a challenge, from the perspective of experience,
qualifications and knowledge.  Hurling words without substance cuts no
ice with me.

I'd be happy to reiterate my challenge:  If you'll quote something you
believe to be inappropriate, I can tell you whether, in my experience it
is part of NLP.

In re (another posting): "somebody was accused of murder."  Yes, in 1988,
Richard Bandler was accused of murder in Santa Cruz California.  He was
acquitted in the ensuring trial; the jury was out for 40 minutes.  I was
responsible for the fund-raising effort for Richard's defense.  However,
I have no idea what his personal fact of Richard's life has to do with
his ability to invent the entire pattern of submodalities, and in particular
the so-called "swish" pattern.  I _know_ that one didn't come from other
sources, because we know precisely when and how it was invented.

-- 
---   ---   ---   ---   ---   ---   ---   ---   ---   ---   ---   ---
    - Friday -                   "If a miracle happens in your vicinity--
      friday@well.sf.ca.us                            take credit for it!"
      (Carol Anne Ogdin)
From: pjh@eng.cam.ac.uk (Philippa Hogben)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Puns
Date: 13 Aug 92 11:07:40 GMT
Organization: cam.eng

bf455@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bonita Kale) writes:


>References: <pjh.713553682@nessi> <1992Aug9.111448.16487@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> <24668@castle.ed.ac.uk>


>In a previous article, pjh@eng.cam.ac.uk (Philippa Hogben) says:
>>
>>I was having a discussion on what would have happened had Jesus turned
>>up now rather than ~2000 years ago. Somebody suggested that he would
>>have been excecuted by the electric chair rather than crucifixion. I
>>replied by saying that it would be more difficult nowadays on trumped
>>up charges and was amazed to be greeted by groans. This, I would
>>claim, _was_ a pun that wasn't intended - I didn't even realise what I
>>had said until somebody repeated it for me.


>I know I should know, but I don't--why is that a pun?

>Bonita Kale

It was the play on the word "charges" - electric charges versus
criminal charges.

Philippa
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: bf455@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bonita Kale)
Subject: Re: Asses
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 10:43:29 GMT




In a previous article, scjones@thor.sdrc.com (Larry Jones) says:

>In article <1992Aug12.133244.25505@dg-rtp.dg.com>, cochran@spam.rtp.dg.com (A. Jing Hippy) writes:
>> Oh, and off the subject, thank you *so* much for spelling "piqued" properly.
>> I get so weary of reading about people who have had their curiosity "peeked"
>> or "peaked".
>
>Don't let it get you down, it's a mute point, anyway.



I, too, hate to hear about someone whose "interest was peaked," but I've
assumed it's the result of letting the computers do -all- the
spell-checking.  Do you think actual, live copy editors are letting it slip
by?  It's pretty extreme, after all. 

Bonita Kale
Xref: sparky alt.usage.english:6596 sci.lang:6536
From: mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,sci.lang
Subject: Re: Can I axe you a question?
Summary: Calling it "laziness" is unexplanatory
Date: 19 Aug 92 03:47:46 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <1992Aug18.223433.10095@math.ucla.edu> alex@phobos.math.ucla.edu (Alex Langley) writes:

[someone writes:]
>>I really have to wonder if the "axe" in Black English Vernacular is really
>>derived from _acsian_ or if it's just laziness in pronouncing "ask."
>
>I doubt it's laziness, just a widespread case of metathesis.  

Anyhow, calling it "laziness" does not explain _why_ it's "easier" to
pronounce "axe" than "ask".  The linguistic question here is why
speakers would find one of them easier than the other.
-- 
+ Michael Covington - Artificial Intelligence Programs - U of Georgia - USA 
+ Unless otherwise noted, these are private opinions, not official statements.
+ VOTE NO GEORGIA LOTTERY - don't tie education to an unpredictable income.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: and - or - but
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 23:01:38 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.211626.6941@ac.dal.ca> asuncion@ac.dal.ca writes:

>People who begin sentences with "And", "But", or "Or" should be slapped silly
>by an English teacher. NEVER BEGIN A SENTENCE WITH and, or, but!

"And did those feet in ancient times walk upon England's mountains
green?"

OOF!  POW!  WHAM!  Take that, William Blake.  And a few more for the
next three sentences, all parallelisms to the first.

Sorry, but it sounds as though an English teacher slapped you *very*
silly.  Great speakers and writers, and others too, have begun sentences
with any of these words for as long as there has been an English
language.  The King James Version probably has 500 sentences beginning
with "And" or "But."

"And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of
these is charity."  -- I Cor., XIII,12.

"But the very hairs of your head are numbered."  -- Matt. X,30.

"Or let the merry bells ring round..." (Milton, "L'Allegro")

Roger
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Usage: 'goes' for 'said'
Date: 21 Aug 92 14:08:11 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

And then there are the more educated folks who conjugate "goes" correctly
into the past tense:  "So he went, 'Wanna go to the mall?' And I, like,
_freaked_ because he's, you know, a total _babe_, and I went 'Yeah, sure,
OK" because I figure _she's_ not gonna be there, right, you know who I
mean..."


-- 
Lauren Crawford  //  crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu

Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things.
            -- J. Danforth Quayle  
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: dks@athena.mit.edu (dks)
Subject: Re: Guesstimates
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 18:10:37 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.195820.16142@nessie.mcc.ac.uk>,
segr@nessie.mcc.ac.uk (Simon Read) writes:
>I don't know the origin of the word, but I suppose the origin
>is the obvious one.

Well, yes, but I asked about usage, not origin.


>The questions this begs are:
>1. Is there a name for this kind of formation?

'Lewis Carroll' called them "portmanteau words."  Others have extended
his term to cover phrases, paragraphs, even musical passages.  I once
used it to describe an algorithm, but no one had any clue what I meant
and I didn't feel like explaining so it hasn't caught on.


>2. What other's are there out there?

E.g.:
	portmanteau	= porte + manteau	ask a.u.f.
	smog		= smoke + fog		ask any Angeleno
	malapropism	= mal + a propos 	ask Sheridan
	slithy		= lithe + slimy		ask 'Lewis Carroll'


Dhanesh

[This post is dedicated to all animals that write letters.]
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Less versus Fewer... time to give up?
Date: 13 Aug 92 09:30:07 GMT
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
In-reply-to: cla04@seq1.keele.ac.uk's message of 12 Aug 92 21:00:16 GMT

In article <3775@keele.keele.ac.uk>, cla04@seq1.keele.ac.uk (A.T. Fear) writes:

> From article <Bsvv1C.EwF@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, by shair@barolo.cso.uiuc.edu (Bob Shair):

>> Is it time to give up on the distinction between "less" and "fewer?"
>> Statements such as this one sound wrong to me:     

>> The PS/2 8511 Color Display has far less components than the IBM      
>> 8512, contributing to higher reliability for the customer.

> It doesn't just sound wrong Bob, it *is* wrong. No, we shouldn't give up
> these things. Sloppy language produces sloppy thinking and that [...]

...leads to such as IBM products.
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA