Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Archive 7

message: ::Hi Flavius.  I think one thing to mention would be - mechanism of action .  That is something that is left out of NLP.  Of course it is just to get people to do what they say.  Don't ask why!  Some of it has been partially explained though. Dilts does write about left/right eye movement stuff and brain in his encyclopedia.  Its still mind myths though.  So simplistic!  Anyway, both models and theories are supposed to explain mechanisms of action (or there should be literature to do that), but Dilts et al just come up with their false dichotomy because most folk don't know the difference.  Actually most folk just hear a lot of jargon and psychobabble and give it a miss altogether.  I have to admit though, they fooled me for a while (till I looked up NLP in an encyclopedia "a vaguely defined fringe therapy that proposes 10 minute cures".  Cheers DaveRight 03:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Grinder (and I've heard Bandler agree) rejects Descartes "original sin -- the mind-body split" (eg. Turtles all the way down, J Grinder & J Delozier 1986 pp.xx,xxi; Whispering, J Grinder & C Bostic St Clair 2002 ch.3; see also, Proposed distinction for NLP articles by Grinder, Bostic St Calir and Robert Dilts) and similarly rejects Cartesian split (Whispering, Grinder J Grinder & C Bostic St Clair 2002 p.222; Steps to ecology of Mind 2005, T Malloy, J Grinder, C Bostic St Clair p.34). --Comaze 06:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Comaze.  You saved me some work. flavius 09:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Comaze.  I believe DaveRight's mention of lack of mechanism has nothing to do with mind/body split.  The fact is, NLP doesn't satisfactorilly deal with mechanisms of action.  Indeed the refusal to seperate factors can be considered a holistic notion.  The mind/body split could be included in pseudoscience under mantra of holism, and it could also be mentioned under "new age therapies" because it is common with new age notions. Either way it is a simplistic or banal truism - the body influences the mind and mind influences the body. AliceDeGrey 06:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Alice, it's important to document the many (often implicit) assumptions the underlie NLP, even when they patently false or banal. flavius 09:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are right Flavius.  Certainly whitewash is not a good idea. We already have NPOV recommendations to write anything factual even if it is objectionable. HeadleyDown 12:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mind-body split

message: Comaze and all the other fanatics, (especially FT2).  Adding little bits and pieces of non-criticism to the criticism section (actually they are rather large and leading the article towards the 100kb mark) in order to negate it somehow is completely transparently biased behaviour.  You will simply get reverted doing so.  Presently, the article is in the process of re-organization (within each respective section) and as such, we could do without all the sneaking around deleting conclusive criticisms and replacing them with brainless rambles from NLP excuse literature.  Cited or not, those sort of dodgy edits will be booted off the article by me or anyone else with a brain.  Just keep it in line with clarification, rather than deleting criticism, or muddying and clouding issues.  I am not just picking on you Comaze (though you have spent months sneaking around like this).  This also applies to the other desperately unconvincing NLP fanatics. DaveRight 03:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What definition of criticism are you using? It seems to be different to the typical definition used by wikipedians. Criticism is for critical analysis -- this should be neutral and show all points of view, even if are contradictory to your POV.  Your recent reversions are not helpful and seems to expose a bias and selective quoting  and . For example, HeadleyDown and DaveRight in unison remove this statement that is intended to clarify the various points of view about NLP use in cults (especially given that cult requires some comparison to orthodoxy). --Comaze 03:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No Comaze.  I am using the proper definition of criticisms.  You are using the fanatic's version (non criticism and then excuse).  What we have here, is NLP (where all the literature is selfpromotional and full of obscurantisms designed to confuse people) and then we have actual criticisms cited by critics.  The article is presently in need of adjustment for brevity, so your additional excuses are not helping at all.  Considering your rather extreme history with this and related articles you are going to find it extremely hard for your edits to stick.  People know your game, and they will simply revert because you have not changed from the multiple deletion per day for months Comaze.  Only your promotion scheme has changed.  It is extremely funny to watch your transparently zealous activities:)  DaveRight 03:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly is your definition of criticisms? It seems to differ from the typical wikipedian. How do you explain the removal of a statement that clarifies this biased POV, "other christian ministers advocate the use of NLP (eg. use of sensory-based language ) in church services." Other citations were removed at the same time, without discussion or proper comment. --Comaze 03:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Comaze.  You are past your 3revert a day limit.  Regarding your edits: The Christian ministry edit is pure promotion, and as such it is not criticism.  If you want to promote NLP as a religion, do so in the NLP section.  Your edit on metamodel/linguistics is unrelated to what Levelt is talking about. So it should not be there.  You also deleted Dave's edits with no proper explanation. AliceDeGrey 04:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Alice, To my knowledge, I have not exceeded 3RR. You response shows a complete disregard for the citations that I presented with page numbers and references. Please check the references, I'm sure you will find that they are directly related. --Comaze 04:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are extremely biased, Comaze.  I understand that some people can be biased and do neutrally minded editing, but you have just proven that your edits are biased.  I looked up the references and you are presenting unrelated information in order to cloud the issues.  The article should be concise and clear, and you are going the other way.  What's more, Carroll does not even mention the word "universally".  Carroll makes a specific statement, and you want to change it to make it mean something else.  I do not care if you present 1000 citations with page numbers.  Your extreme bias towards promotion is clearly highlighted by your today's devious actions.  AliceDeGrey 04:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's get to the real issue here. You (HeadleyDown, Dave Right, AliceDeGrey) have removed statements exposing a systemic bias between this group of editors. Calling something a cult is pure POV so it needs to be covered from multiple points of view. Normally "cults" requires comparison between existing orthodox. According to wikipedia, scientists resolve this problem by referring to cults as "New Religious Movement" (NRM). The term cult is not well-defined or has multiple conflicting definition depending on who you ask. So if you take the definition of Christian Orthodox or other Orthodox religion then you can quote them. Some Christian ministers use NLP in their services and other apply it in Christian counselling -- these people do not consider NLP techniques to be cult-like. Some strict orthodox organisations may consider using sensory-based language, hypnotic language or other NLP techniques to be cult-like, I don't know -- if this is the case, cite your sources. An NLP modeler may be able to find many language patterns in sermons and christian counselling and maybe even the bible. All these views should be covered. Some proponents of hypnosis describe miracles and such in terms of hypnotic phenomena. You need to be careful when accusing an organisation of having cult characteristics because it depends on who you ask. So, we need to be able to balance the "Cult characteristics" section with a neutral description of all parties concerned. This will require some negotiation. --Comaze 05:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Comaze, it is much simpler than you make out.  The fact is, you have spent months trying to mess up or delete the criticisms.  And you have done so in the most surreptitous ways possible.  You are going to have a very hard time trying to persuade people you are doing something beneficial to the article.  It is just not happening.  The criticisms section is for the criticisms.  According to NPOV a criticism can be placed and cited, and that is how it is.  You are changing cited statements to suit your own agenda.  If you want to balance the cult characteristics that the critics say exist, then do so in the above NLP section (if there is any factual info available).  Otherwise, leave the article alone. Bookmain 05:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Bookmain (AliceDeGrey/HeadleyDown/DaveRight), Well if you do not want me to edit the criticism section, you better start editing it to present all views fairly. An example of this group's bias can be found here and here   (Bookmain/AliceDeGrey/HeadleyDown/DaveRight) is shown to support the views of a Christian opinion (watchman foundation) that states that "NLP is a cult" or "New Age" while not supporting a balancing statement that from a different Christian ministry that advocates the use of NLP techniques in counselling and sermons. Let's stick this to the issues. --Comaze 06:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticisms are there to criticize and clarify

message: Hello all.  I decided to get more active and I added some lit by Yves Winkin, a world class anthropologist from the Sorbonne in France.  He seems to be a highly quotable source.  Camridge 03:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Camridge, how did you establish the reputation of Winkin? Does his reputation hold enough weight to be quoted 9 times without any attempt to balance it with a rebuttal from the proponents view? In this respect I think that your recent edits are biased. --Comaze 03:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Comaze, the article is currently pro and critic oriented and that has solved a great many problems associated with multiple deletions/attacks and so on.  It has also encouraged a greater variety of editors to contribute now that things have settled down. NLP is extremely self-promotional and thus it is quite acceptable to have world view criticisms.  You seem desperate to keep the views to a minimum.  You are suggesting edits that go against the multiple view perspective of wikipedia policy. Are you anti NPOV or just anti French? Camridge 05:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Camridge (with HansAntel) , I am stating directly that your recent edits   are biased and violate NPOV. These are staw man without providing proper context or rebuttal from NLP proponents. Can you please modify your contributions to take into account these objections. --Comaze 06:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Comaze, I have just been looking through your history over the past few months.  You clearly have an agenda to promote NLP and delete all criticisms.  This is entirely biased, and I understand you will probably always lobby for removal of fact.  Considering you will never change this could make the situation hard to handle.  Instead of treating you as a normal unbiased member I feel the best thing to do is not waste any more of my time, so I will simply ignore you.  My edits are perfectly within wikipedia recommendations and I don't need you to tell me how to behave.  Camridge 07:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I object to these edits by Camridge and HansAntel because they contain bias, overgeneralisation, give too much weight to one author, and fail to take into account other points of view (eg. reply or rebuttal). I request that we ask for comment from neutral third party, mediator or arbitration committee. --Comaze 08:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Comaze, mediators are generally very neutral.  You won't like their judgment at all. You never did before.HeadleyDown 11:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: HeadleyDown, You were very quick to dismiss. It would in your best interest to attempt to resolve any content disputes with a neutral third party. --Comaze 22:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Hello Faxx.  Yes I think most people are aware.  But nobody really is that bothered.  Its mostly for proNLPers to list unreasonable complaints about edits that happened during confilicts. Most neutral editors are just getting on with editing and looking for brevity. The problems have mostly been solved already by dividing the sections more clearly.  Regards  HeadleyDown 03:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Looking at those diffs, I would say that some of these statements do generalize far too hastily. If I think NLP is Z and I find person X with career Y who agrees that NLP is Z, I cannot just say "Y's  believe that NLP is Z(citation of Y)" .Voice of AllT|@|ESP 23:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes Flavius, more coverage of Winkin will be useful.  I have had a good read of his article and it does offer more insight.  The cult section needs some brief clarification also.  From my studies I have - Sharpley, Heap, Eisner, Langone, Singer, Winkin, Novopashin, Barrett, Christopher, Helish, Howell, and some others describing NLP as a cult.  Perhaps just a simple list as I have just stated will suffice (eg "Sharpley, Heap, Eisner, Langone, Singer, Winkin, Novopashin, Barrett, Christopher, Helish, Howell, describe NLP as a cult) but supplying the appropriate years to the citation.  Comaze has already proved he has bad faith - its called NLP:)   Regards HeadleyDown 07:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Sharpley, Heap, Eisner, Langone, Singer, Winkin, Novopashin, Barrett, Christopher, Helish, Howell, describe NLP as a cult" with years added would be fine.  flavius 01:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I think that the scientific studies of NLP, critics, psycholinguists', neurologists', and psyschologists' opinions of NLP are enough for criticism. Lets not try to include every type of scientist, especially when such a claim does not have enough citations to be well supported.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 09:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello VoiceOfAll.  My last edit was to create a more concise version of what was there, and I believe we can make simpler statements that include even more experts, but resulting in far more concise passages in general whilst keeping explanations clear.  Certainly there are other authors to corroborate Winkin's statements and I will provide them soon.  I believe the same can be achieved with the above non-critical NLP section, though perhaps I am not the one to do that (without extensive conflicts and reversions etc).  Regards HeadleyDown 11:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Winkin

message: I don't think this sentence accurately reflects Fritz Perls' involvement with Dianetics:
:By the late 1960s, self-help organizations such as EST, Dianetics, and Scientology had become financially successful, receiving attention and promotion from human potential thinkers such as Fritz Perls who during this period, promoted and operated a Dianetics clinic (Clarkson and Mackewn 1993).
I can't find any other source indicating that Perls "promoted and operated a Dianetics clinic" at all, let alone in the late 1960s, and I question whether that statement is a fair representation of Clarkson and Mackewn.
I do not have a copy of that book, but neither the full-text search feature provided by Google (http://print.google.com/print?hl=en&id=dzB8lFoyH8sC) nor the one provided by Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0803984537) yield any results when searching on "Dianetics".
Perls did investigate Dianetics from 1949-50. He wrote the introduction to Winter's 1951 "A Doctor's Report on Dianetics". However, by that time, he had already come to conclusions  that would seem to preclude him taking Dianetics up again in the last years of his life.
:By October, 1950, I had come to the conclusion that I could not agree with all the tenets of dianetics as set forth by the Foundation. I could not, as previously mentioned, support Hubbard's claims regarding the state of "clear." I no longer felt, as I once had, that any intelligent person could (and presumably should) practice dianetics.
(from http://www.xenu.net/archive/fifties/e510000.htm -- note: not a neutral site)
Considering how much critical material on Dianetics and Scientology is published on the Internet, I would expect to find many more references affirming Perls' alleged re-involvement in his later years.
In any case, I would like to suggest that this sentence, in the absence of more solid evidence, be struck from the article or otherwise edited to avoid misrepresenting Perls' investigations into Dianetics. For that matter, I fail to see how that sentence or the following portion of the paragraph that it appears in sheds any light on the nature of NLP.
I would be glad to work on this edit myself, but I'm not sure how -- aside from posting this section to "talk". I am a wikipedia newbie! Thanks. 
Shunpiker 19:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Shunpiker, HD was the editor who originally posted this, later EBlack added this. JPLogan added the "and promotion" in this post. It seems that JPLogan was the first to post it here --Comaze 03:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: DaveRight, I have warned you 5 times to avoid personal remarks. It is really not useful to call someone a fanatic. Do you want to get a neutral 3rd opinion on this? --Comaze 03:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is useful, Comaze.  Everybody should know you spent months deleting criticisms several times a day.  Fanatic, zealot, censor, these are all words that describe your behaviour perfectly.  The small edits you make in between are just a smokescreen.  Your agenda is to promote NLP by removing criticisms and by whitewashing NLP by removing any new age or cultlike fact that places NLP as a fringe wierdo charlatan therapy.  So warn me again, and I will go into more detail about your cultlike smear campaigns, and your sneaky edits.  DaveRight 03:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, once again, Comaze reverts to his normal campaign agenda.  Even after requests from mediator to provide such evidence, Comaze removes it.  I resored the engram reference as it was indeed notable and from a certified NLPer.  AliceDeGrey 03:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: AliceDeGrey, Anyone can post to Media13 so it is not verifiable. Even if it was published from a reputable publisher, who says that author is notable? If the source you post was allowed, anyone could write their own article submit it to media13 and use it as a reference. We need to stick to notable, verifiable sources. You know this already! --Comaze 03:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Comaze, Media13 actually has a vetting policy quite similar to that of a published paper journal.  I suggest you are most definitely the most biased and zealous fanatic on this article.  If anyone want's to join your ranks Comaze, they will definitely be labeled in the same way.  Camridge 03:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I still don't understand why you (Camridge) removed the dubious tags. We have not resolved the matter yet. Also, what do you mean by "even the removal of alleged sockpuppets"? --Comaze 07:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Hello Comaze, I understand the points you are trying to make, and have clarified the article using the term - new age, and rituals.  This makes the article far more consistent and in line with the facts that NLP is sci unsupported, pseudoscientific, connected with the occult, connected with other ritualistic therapies, and helps to explain the placebo aspects of NLP according to science.  I will make the adjustments throughout to help clarify this point. This will also help triangulate facts better with Perls-Dianetics pseudoscience associations. Bookmain 06:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Bookmain, Shunpiker's asked a direct questions. Do we have any evidence that Perls was a proponent of Dianetics, or if he ran a clinic. A direct quote from Perls with page numbers from a reputable publisher would be proof positive. --Comaze 07:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Comaze.  You really are working to your promotional agenda in the most transparent way.  The solution does not require the pasting of "dubious" on everything you do not like the look of.  I can easily rephrase the line in order to solve the problem.  Of course you do not want that.  You simply wish to mark the fact as dubious, or remove it from the article altogether.  Your agenda is blatantly obvious. I will ADD further facts to clarify due to your unreasonable insistence.   Camridge 08:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Camridge. I still find it very difficult to agree with the recent diffs. Although, I find it alot easier when something is attributed to a source even when I am still not convinced that we have agreement on the accuracy, credibility (see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources) or even objectivity. I am not convinced we have taken into account the range of authoritative sources on the subject (eg. Perls himself, or authoritative books on Gestalt). Also assertions of fact should be objectively connected to authoritative sources. --Comaze 09:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Comaze, there are libraries in the world full of the information you claim to seek (but refuse to accept). Again you prove yourself to be here primarily as a censor of criticism. Your track record in that area is clear.  Camridge 09:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Camridge, I'll accept it as long as it is on-topic, accurate, objective, authoritative and verifiable. And scholarly :) I'll check back in a few days. --Comaze 10:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: DaveRight/Camridge - I think your recent edits are biased. Would you like to get a neutral third opinion to settle this? I will need your agreement that whatever the neutral third party says will be binding on all parties. --Comaze 04:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Comaze and DaveRight, and others. I haven't had a chance to be here or catch up yet. I notice NLP is described in the first sentence as a set of "New Age Rituals". The term new age is very broad and in the broadest sense NLP might be seen to fall under the umbrella (along with many other things), certainly as a method for anyone wishing to explore (model) something spiritual - though NLP is not spiritual in and of itself and can be applied to many other fields. Also, NLP has certainly modeled rituals, and behaviours which include rituals. However the description "New Age rituals" is vague and misleading. Could you (Dave or anyone else supporting this claim) tell me in what manner NLP is New Age, and what makes you say NLP is a set of rituals, rather than NLP has modeled some rituals? Thanks GregA 22:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: PERLS, F. "Introduction." In Winter, J.A. A doctor’s report on dianetics: Theory and therapy.New York: Julian Press,1951. flavius 03:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Flavius, In "A Piece of Blue Sky", the only citation to Perls or Gestalt therapy in the bibliography is "PERLS, Fritz et al., Gestalt Therapy, Pelican, London, 1973." To my knowledge Perls does not defend Dianetics in Perls (1973). I also searched "Gestalt Therapy: History, Theory, and Practice" and did not find any matches for dianetics. Can someone retrieve a quote from Perl's introduction (1951). --Comaze 04:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Comaze, look at the first page of chapter 2 of "A Piece of Blue Sky".  Also, when Winter wrote "A Doctor's Report..." he was at that stage supportive of Dianetics and Perls' introduction I read described as supportive. User:Flavius 05:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Comaze.  Perl's fascination, promotion, and practice of dianetics is documented in both of these books.  Author 	Clarkson, Petruska, 1947-
Title 	Fritz Perls / Petruska Clarkson, Jennifer Mackewn.
Publisher 	London : Sage, 1993-   and   -   Naranjo, Claudio. Gestalt therapy : the attitude & practice of an atheoretical experientialism / Claudio Naranjo. Publisher 	Carmarthen : Crown House Pub., 2000.Camridge 05:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perls and Dianetics 

message: Hi all.  I added criticism of energy as promoted in some NLP texts.  Physics does not recognize energy as moving or existing in the positive/negative states that are commonly stated in NLP texts.  This is a common new age myth and can be further clarified in the article.  It may also be related to other pseudosciences such as energy therapies, EMDR, and other such pseudos.  I also noticed there is another common misconception in NLP that considers energy as something that exists out of the body in a kind of aura-chi-directable entity.  As far as it has been measured, no energy exists past the skin of the body.  I think this also needs a mention somewhere.  Camridge 08:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Energy

message: I have expanded the subsection 'Atheoretical Pretence'.  In view of Grinder's grandiose amateur philosophising and the NLP mantra about theory that extends right back to the early literature I have brought some results from epistemology and philosophy of science to bear on the matter.  Bandler and Grinder have been using Fictionlism (a type of Instrumentalism, which is in turn a type of Antirealism) as an evasive tactic since NLPs inception.  B&G make explicit appeals to Fictionalism in their liberal quotations from Vaihinger and in there numerous paraphrasings of Fictionalist doctrine.  Hence, the philosophical critiques of Fictionalism (and Instrumentalism) are entirely relevant.  For those of you with some understanding of epistemology or an interest in the subject this will hopefully be informative.  flavius 14:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Flavius, Your recent contributions need to take into account other point of views: Neutrality. You also seem to make assertions of fact, rather than attributing the assertion to a source (objectivity). --Comaze 22:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Comaze, I disagree.  My recent addition does take into account other points of view:  Vaihinger is cited. Vaihinger is not only cited by B&G but his name is most often associated with Fictionalism.  Vaihinger is considered canonical on the matter of Fictionalism since he's one of the founders of the doctrine.  The citations I have provided (eg. Bunge) do present the Fictionalist case.  I have looked through all of the early NLP literature and some of the more recent literature and can find no answer to the damning rebuttals that Fictionalism has received.  Further, Fictionalism has been consigned to garbage bin of bad ideas.  Fictionalism survives only amongst a relatively small group of Economists that subscribe to Milton Friedman's Fictionalist conception of economic research methodology.  Within economics Friedman's essay "The Methodology of Positive Economics" has received a savaging.  What would comprise a "neutral" presentation of dead epistemological theory that hasn't recovered from the criticisms it has received?   Also, I don't make assertions, all of my premises are well-sourced and my conclusion is a re-iteration of what is established -- in substance -- in the 'Pseudocience' section of the artcle.  B&G ignored or misunderstood the basic tenets of Fictionalism.  Fictionalist's have a strong commitment to empirical testing and/or explanatory power.  Friedman -- for example -- proposes the criterion of value of any theory that is obtained from 'As If'ing to be predictive power, i.e. can the theory predict the behavior of one or more variables in relation to another.  This is a demanding test of a theoretical formulation.  Some Fictionalists justify a theory on the basis of explanatory power or problem resolution capacity where problem resolution is determined using empirical testing in the form of the scientific method.  B&G assume all of the speculative freedoms of Fictionalism without also accpeting the responisbilities.  B&G generally do not attempt to formulate predictive models, when they do formulate predictive models (eg. eye accessing cues) they do not subject them to rigorous empirical testing, and they are not concerned with explanation.  B&G ostensibly claim 'utility' as the sole arbiter of theoretical value yet they are averse to testing their prescriptions to determine whether they are actually meeting their self-imposed criterion.  B&G are properly not even Fictionalists since their theorising remains dissociated from reality, the criterion of utility that they initially appeal to is never honoured in that utility ("that it works") is not established using the best means known of hypothesis testing, namely the scientific method.  I have actually been kind to B&G, a much stronger -- and neutral -- conclusion is possible.  If you contend that I am being biased and unobjective in this instance then you will need to demonstrate that I have misprepresented Fictionalism and B&Gs appeal to it.  flavius 00:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Comaze, I commenced my involvement with this article with the presumption of good faith by all parties concerned.   You are quick to admonish editors for personally oriented behavior yet your behavior reeks of bad faith, your behaviour is intemperate and it can only be addressed at the personal level.  You appear to be engaged in what I can only describe as the Wikipedia version of vexatious litigation.  You reflexively cry "POV", "biased", "not objective" even after we have arrived at a consensus view that there would be a separate criticisms section.  This is out of order and redirects editorial labour away from improving artcile quality to placating your petulant demeanour.  I have more than adequately conveyed the NLP position regarding epistemological theory both in the 'Foundational Assumptions' section and in the 'Atheoretical Pretence' subsection.  I've quoted directly in most cases.  The NLP position on this matter can't be expanded any further because their is nothing further to add.  B&G and Dilts take it for granted that Fictionalism serves as a sound basis for method.  Grinder -- in Whispering -- does the same thing yet in a covert manner.  Grinder and Bostic-St Clair actually smuggle Fictionalism in to their epistemological ruminations, making no explicit mention of it yet relying on it.  Grinder and Bostic-St Clair's folly does not end there: in Whispering they demonstrate an ignorance of inferential statistics and its relationship to the scientific method and collapse statistical methods (inferential and descriptive) into  descriptive statistics and proceeed to pretend to demonstrate the irrelevance of statistical hypothesis testing by way of challenging the relevance of the descritive statistical concept of the mean (which is actually only one type of measure of central tendency rather than definitive of it, which suggests an ignorance even of elementary descriptive statistics).  Given the poverty of such arguments you can't cry foul when no one in the NLP community has bolstered them and they can be refuted simply by juxtaposing factual evidence or fundamental results from established disciplines.  Is there a sound and cogent argument for NLPs rejection of probabilistic hypothesis testing that I have overlooked?  Is there a sound and cogent argument for Fictionalism (actually bastardised Fictionalism) that answers the criticisms that have discredited Fictionalism within established disciplines from the NLP granfalloon that I have overlooked?  No, there are no such arguments, so what then shall I present that will render my recent additions NPOV and objective.  Your predicament is that you have imbibed a doctrine that is entirely without foundation, internally inconsistent and speculative -- which is entirely consistent with post-modernist thought and actually considered a virtue amongst post-modernists -- yet you somehow expect the presentation of (non-existant) emprirical evidence and philosophical justification that will somehow balance a doctrine that is essentially antagonistic to empirical testing and justification.  Your position is untenable.  You are in an epistemological limbo. The only way out that I can see for you -- that will preserve your commitment to NLP and allow you to remain ecelectic and speculative -- is to adopt a strong antirealist position not unlike Robert Anton Wilson, a person familiar to Bandler and many NLPers.  All NLP roads eventually lead to antirealism/constructivism/mysticism: Bandler and Robert Anton Wilson, Grinder and Castaneda, Tad James and Huna, Kenrick Cleveland and Santeria,Ross Jeffries and Magick etc.  This is not coincidental. flavius 01:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Flavius, You present a very strong argument, I need some time to check my sources, review and respond point by point. Firstly, can you comment on Grinder's argument that NLP modeling uses discrete mathematics, "discrete analysis of individual systems" and that this type of mathematics excludes the use of probability. I think that this may be the argument that you have overlooked.  --Comaze 03:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I havevn't overlooked that, I didn't mention it because it is a plain matter that discrete systems are analysed probabilistically in several fields.  Can you give me a reference where Grinder presents that argument so that I can respond to it directly?  If Grinder were correct then the branch of electronics engineering/computer systems engineering of computer system performance analysis would not exist.  Computer systems are exemplars of discrete systems and yes discrete and finite math is used to analyse, model, verify and describe some of their behaviour but continuous and probabilistic methods are used to analyse, model, verify and describe other aspects of their behavior.  Virtual memory system performance and CPU cache performance -- for example -- is determined using probabilistic methods.  The probability distribution called the Poisson Distribution lets us answer such questions as 'What is the likelihood that web server X will receive 100 concurrent requests at time T?'.  Probabilistic methods are used to determine the probability of contention within a computer system for a resource.  Expected time to failure of components and systems is derived from probabilitic methods.  Queuing Theory is used analyse computer network performance, this method is probabilistic and continuous.  Queuing Theory is also used to predict computer system performance.  I can give more examples if you want/need them.  NLP modeling doesn't use discrete maths, it merely expresses banalities as formalisms (predicate logic, automata theory, syntax diagrams, set theory) borrowed from discrete maths to present the aura of depth and sophistication. flavius 06:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks Flavius, I just skimmed Whispering in the Wind and found a few relevant paragraphs relevant to Grinder argument against using statistical probability for certain classes of contexts and possible usefulness in other contexts (eg. for predicting eye movement patterns in groups eg. marketing), see p.78,80,96. I'll look up the rest later tonight. --Comaze 23:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: When you say VAKOG are you referring to the 4-tuple presented Structure of Magic (1975)? --Comaze 05:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  No Comaze, I am talking more specifically about the inappropriatness of presenting NLP as a mathematically supported subject such as physics.  The whole background of NLP is scientifically unsupported, and it has also has proven ineffectiveness (NLP has been falsified quite thoroughly through empirical testing).  Hypnotists and others have criticised NLP for trying to look more convincing by talking about 4tuples and other such pseudoscientific sidetracks.  Hubbard used to do the same kind of thing with his Dianetics subject.  Anything that looks or sounds scientific is easy game for such pretenders.  But it does nothing for wikipedia articles and requires clear thinking and good criticism to clarify the fog that it creates.  Camridge 06:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Epistemology and NLP

message: Comaze.  You have been working against NPOV with a breathtaking impertinence:o  
*Parapragmatics were mentioned by Singer 1999 in her book Crazy Therapies, and they do exist in the literature.  
*NLP does use rituals according to many sources and technically speaking in psychology terms, they are rituals.  
*NLP has spoken about the magical results of supposted magicians from the very beginning.  
*The NLP phobia treatment is called a cure in the majority of cases and critics also use that term.  Your censorship there is pure whitewash.  
*Your own POV is that there is disagreement about energy.  Why do you want to keep writing this in the article?  You are as bad as FT2 and his inconsistency fallacy nonsense.  
*If skeptical debunkers is not POV I don't know what is.  
*YOU removed a whole paragraph of direct quotes from NLP literature about energy because YOU DON"T LIKE IT.  It is completely representitive.  
*You removed the Sala information about scientists also.  
*You are seriously in breach of NPOV guidelines and the only thing to do is to revert your comments and reinforce the information with further corroborating evidence.  This does not suit your agenda to promote NLP at all, but you have left me with no option whatsoever.  I cannot believe you can still be allowed to edit here.  Your main purpose is to lobby for the removal of fact, and when that does not work you just snip it off anyway.  I suggest you start editing somewhere else.  I am so utterly furious with your beastly behaviour I am starting to look like a sunburned and boiled lobster.  I am developing a large high bloodpressure vein across my forehead - its big and pulsating and its getting bigger.  I will revert all your antiNPOV edits.  DaveRight 04:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As a wikipedian I do not care about NLP. I just want it represented accurately. My aim is to keep strictly in line with Wikipedia:Forum_for_Encyclopedic_Standards so we can eventually have this page peer reviewed by fellow wikipedians. --Comaze 04:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I might be an expert in the subject, having trained in all major schools of NLP, but that does not exclude me from thinking critically and stepping into the role of a wikipedian where I can be neutral. If you feel it is going to get personal, then you may contact me via my talk page or email. --Comaze 06:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing Comaze's whitewash

message: While researching for my reply to flavius, I added a whole bunch of citations to the page. While I was doing this I noticed that there is a lack of citations from NLP in the criticism section. It seems that there is a general lack of connection of the criticism to specific aspect of NLP. The "Atheoretic" section in criticism is an excellent counter-example to this. This is the sort of quality I'd like to see throughout the entire document. Wherever possible I have used the earliest references to each fact. Please feel free to check them and provide earlier or more reputable/verifiable/authoratative references when you can find them. --Comaze 11:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I gather that if we improve the references, citations and notes (verifiability) then we can get neutral wikipedian editors to check the facts and weigh in on consensus. Let's all work together to find the highest quality sources available. --Comaze 04:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Comaze, if that means you doing your thing of trying to chuck out references on the basis that they do not promote NLP or that they contain evidence that places NLP as a fringe new age pseudopsychological fad, then I think you are on the wrong path.  Clearly you seem to think there is something very wrong with the references that have been provided at your own insistance.  Currently, the article needs to clarify NLP far more for what it is, and to do it more briefly.  I don't see any unverifiable references in the article as it stands.  Camridge 06:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I made no such suggestion. Let's keep it balanced. The arbitration committee must be meeting soon, I'm sure their recommendations will assist the article. --Comaze 23:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Comaze!  You have made many many many many many such suggestions.  Just take a look through the archives.  You generally delete or object to the words "fringe, new age, pseudo, ritual etc" on sight even though they are used as classifications within psychology manuals, especially in reference to NLP and other such unvalidated pseudosciences.  DaveRight 02:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: DaveRight, If you feel this is getting personal plesae send me a private message or use my talk page. Just a reminder, you were the one who added "quasi-spiritual new age rituals" to the first sentence of NLP; I reverted it. Hopefully we can sort this out through RfC or current arbitration committee. --Comaze 02:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Camridge, RELEVANCY CHALLENGE: How is what you just said getting us to our agreed objectives as wikipedians? --Comaze 03:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: "YOUR BEHAVIOUR IS TEDIOUS AND UNPRODUCTIVE". Camridge, how did you know I made that statement? While I did say that, that is like three or four archives ago, your name was not even around then.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 04:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is just odd...among other paralles, such as writing style/opinions. If this is an alternate account, then I simply encourage you to stick to the main account; I only use sockpuppet labels for trolls or vandals.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 04:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: There has been great speculation as to whether or not two or three users are alike or the same. While writing styles are very similar, I do not believe we are dealing with sockpuppets, but only meatpuppets (See their respective pages). What we mostly have here are users pushing their POV and getting friends involved, so nothing illegal, just not very nice. I honestly think this could use an RfC, as this page just seems to be serving as a smack-talking battlegroun. -Mysekurity(have you seen this?) 02:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Mysekurity, there is evidence of this on some NLP newsgroups.  For example, NLP-mind (egroups) and Mindlist (egroups) both have had friends working together and have tried to recruit more from their own groups - Greg Alexander (GregA) and Andy Bradbury an NLP author (who also vandalized Headley's page) have clearly been working together.  Notice also the only people to vote together are all NLP fanatics (certified and currently practicing with clear vested financial interests in promotion) and they all voted in order to treat the non promotional editors as a single entity or to have them banned.  The amount of blanket deletions these proNLPers have made is scary.  This was always the danger of having a criticisms section - someone is going to come along and delete the whole thing.  But thankfully it is quite easy to resore.   Cheers DaveRight 02:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: DaveRight, do you agree that if we got an RfC that you'd agree to adhere to the decision? Let's resolve these content disputes without making it personal. --Comaze 02:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Comaze, the only reason you want to bring in people from the outside is because they havn't been fortunate enough to witness the farce of your months of antagonistic activities, slurs, unreasonable demands, blanket deletes after mediation, and so on.  Presently, the article is coming along fine.  Your only role here seems to be to retard editing activities and generally anoy editors who are good enough to explain things carefully to you, though your only response is to ignore or deny.  Your smokescreens and subterfuges to direct attention away from your unreasonable behaviour are simply not working.  You want RfC to treat you as a new entity, you want to lock the page to slow things down, you post many objections on other editors pages simply to be objectionable.  You don't fool anyone.  [...] You will be ignored. DaveRight 03:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I definitely see nothing that constitutes any sort of trolling here...not yet at least. Perhaps both sides are rallying/have a few copy accounts, but it is hard to see this as a possible issue on only one side. As Mysekurity said, we must avoid personal attack, this is true even if you think you are right.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 03:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes perhaps trolling is inappropriate.  But Comaze is certainly living upto his agenda to unreasonably accuse, deny and retard progress.  Camridge 04:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meatpuppets 

message: This page has evolved quite a bit. What things would people still like to see fixed?Voice of AllT|@|ESP 05:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: VoiceOfAll.  Your edits to the section "Atheorethical Pretence" amounted to the removal of the explanation of why NLP is a speculative concern and the retention only of the conclusion.  Clearly, you did not understand the material you removed or its significance as a criciism.  Your edits didn't improve the subsection -- they degraded it so I reinstated my original copy retaining only your elimination of the adjectice "vicious". flavius 07:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

text: VoiceOfAll.  I have edited the section which you previously butchered such that it is shorter yet it retains its content, cohesion and intelligebility. flavius 23:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Comaze. It may be a good idea to move the distinct elements of NLP into similar distinct articles and to only provide links to the new pages in the main article, as it was done for example in the german article on this topic | Neurolinguistische_Programmierung. This way the critics regarding effectivity or scientific foundation could be associated to the corresponding elements ( e.G. a study on eye accesing cues to the corresponding article ) while shortening the main article and providing space for a more detailed explanation at the same time. Blauregen 12:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: flavius, I strongly disagree with your interpretation of NPOV. Would you like to get a neutral third opinion on this matter of policy? --Comaze 12:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree Flavius.  The ONLY reason minority is given more weight in this case at the moment is in order to appease the biased NLP promoters to reduce conflict.  Though it feels nonsensical to a large degree it has worked, and now the only conflict is that of Comaze, and it is so insignificant and unsubstantial that it is being ignored to a large extent (though Comaze is trying hard to stir his conflict up look like a war).  Science will get far more weight in time, and of course now that is the direction of movement.  To reduce further conflict from the cultists/devotees it should be done in an incremental way (in my opinion).  This is in order to ignore the large amount of unreasonable objections, but also to catch any reasonable questions from mediators and sensible comments from the passing helpful editors who seem to have been helping tidy up after the last war.  The current movement towards clarity, science, and reason is encouraging, and I am sure we can remove/clarify the fog created by NLPers in good time.  Cheers DaveRight 03:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have said science takes precedence. We do have to make that are criticism is scientific and that we not just putting in as much as we can. Good wording, compound sentences, and abridgement should. I believe that Cambridge and I have trimmed quite a bit of fat lately, so things seem to be going in the tight direction for now. I will though the article again.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 03:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Comaze, I don't think we need any arbitration on this matter.  The NPOV position re pseudoscience is clear.  I propose that we change the opening paragraph to read, "NLP is an agglomeration of disparate principles, techniques and speculations promoted as a means of studying subjective experience, modifying behavior and codifying and reproducing human 'excellence'.  NLP is New Age and quasi-religious, incorporating a faith in unlimited human potential, a commitment to empowerment, an antirealist epistemology and a revolutionary pretence".  This succinctly states the majority/science view which is supposed to take precedence. Science does after all undergird Western civilisation. No science.  No Wikipedia. It would be ultimately incongruous to denigrate science -- by promoting New Age -- on a medium made possible by science.  Don't you agree? flavius 
Yus Flafius.  Other dictionary definitions include; NLP is a vaguely defined fringe therapy that promotes 10 minute phobia cures; a quasi-spiritual change treatment that deals with past lives; a pseudoscientific self help development in the same mould as dianetics and est.  Whenever definitions use 'the study of structure of....' the always say NLP CLAIMS to be.  Because the pretence to being a "study" is an outrageous claim, as is the claim to being "THE" study, and of "the STRUCTURE of subjective experience".  Whatever structure exists in subjective experience, NLPers have completely missed it to the point that they have never studied it.  Your definition above is perfectly clarifying and it most definitely is the scientific explanation of things.  The article will get there, especially when clearer explanation is presented in the article.  Cheers DaveRight 02:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Comaze, your request for RfC on engrams and other such facts is consistent with your complete lack of good faith that you have exhibited throughout the editing and discussion.  You have already removed references that support such facts.  To request for RfC now, on such matters is simply part of your strategy to remove fact that promotes bias towards NLP, as is clear from your agenda. Camridge 07:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Issues 

message: I noticed a couple of bits of sanitization of NLP again.  Comaze and another proNLP editor stated that NLP was not used in the same way as Dianetics and that NLP is not used in the field.  There is also the convenient changing of the title from engrams (even though engrams are all over the passage) to the memory trace.  Lets just take a good look at NLP and start pasting more of the commonly new age concepts back in there without trying to whitewash.  It may be objectionable to NLPers who deny that their subject is flakey but it is a fact after all.  Camridge 08:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In your recent edit you removed this statement which was already agreed upon, "Barrett (2003) says that NLP is not an organisation, but as a philosophy has some characteristics of a religion (p 431)". see diffs. I think needs to go back in. I'd appreciate it if you discussed controversial edits like this before committing them. Let's avoid any "edit wars". --Comaze 01:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Would you like to ask for a neutral third opinion on this? --Comaze 06:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nagging statement ignored.  Camridge 03:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NLPers trying to sanitize NLP again

message: I've been involved in NLP since 1992, and have trained with both co-founders of the field. I've also interacted with a wide range of the biggest names in the field, and I found little in this entire article which bears any resemblance to what a dictionary definition of what NLP is. There is an entire encyclopedia of NLP written by Robert Dilts, who is perhaps the least controversial figure among the different sides within NLP. It's located here . Whole sections of this article cover things I've never even heard discussed in connection to NLP including the cult activities, etc. As someone who's read 80% of the primary scientific research on NLP, the jury is still out, and the research is relatively thin. Only a few of the main topics have been given any experimental study, and even in the case of eye-accessing cues, which most of the research has been devoted to, some studies say it works, and some don't, and in most cases methodology is likely to be the cause of the results, not the theory. This article shouldn't be pro-Bander or pro-Grinder, or pro-NLP, or pro-the critics of NLP. It should simply be a factually accurate article which isn't organized for the purpose of bias, and this I'm afraid sadly is.
:I moved your anonymous slab of text from the top of the page to the bottom where it belongs.  It would be useful if you honoured Wikipedia convention by adding new subsections to the bottom and by signing your contribution using four consecutive tildes [~].  On to the content of your post.  Firstly, if you had actually read the article and referred to the citations you'd see that Dilts and DeLoziers Encuclopedia is referenced extensively (especially by me).  Secondly, there is no "dictionary definition" of what NLP is and if there were what would its relevance be?  Are you suggesting that we know what "art" is and nothing more can be said about aesthetics because it is defined in a dictionary?  Can I rebut a social constructivist by stating that there is a definition of "reality" in the dictionary?  I don't follow what the connection is between your totally unpersuasive boasting (because most of the editors don't esteem Bandler, Grinder, Baffa, La Valle etc.) about being a long-standing and enmeshed member of the NLP granfalloon and what you would find in a hypotherical dictionary definition.  I suspect that you are attempting to communicate that your experience of NLP is inconsistent with the content of the article.  If so then you are attempting to persuade us not with evidence and argumentation but rather with your putative authority and anecdotage.  How then would we reconcile your assertions with contrary assertions?  Thirdly, what exactly is the signficance of what you personally have and haven't "heard discussed in connection to NLP".  Are you proposing that we adopt your knowledge as the criterion for determining truth?  All of the descriptions of NLP are accompanied by citations from primary NLP sources and NLP websites.  Your criticism is vague and general.  What aspect of NLP or expert opinion in the article is mischaracterised, misinterpreted or fabricated?  Fourthly, your're not in a position to declare that "the jury is still out".  Heap (1988), Sharpley (1984), Sharpley (1987), Lilienfeld (2003), Singer & Lalich (1999), Eisner (2000), Lilienfeld et al (2003), Helisch (2004), Williams (2000), Drenth (2003), Salerno (2005), Bertelsen (1987), Druckman and Swets (1988), Beyerstein (1997), Winkin’s (1990), Levelt (1995), Bordlein (2001), Sala et al (1999), Morgan (1993) suggest otherwise.  By what mechanism does your opining negate these expert conclusions?  Fourthly, it is not the case that "the research is relatively thin".  Most of the citations refer to literature reviews that present comprehensive reviews (eg. Shaprpley, 1984, 1987; Druckman & Swets, 1988). What is "thin" is studies that have found support for NLP.  Fifthly, you write that "even in the case of eye-accessing cues, which most of the research has been devoted to, some studies say it works, and some don't, and in most cases methodology is likely to be the cause of the results, not the theory".  Eye accessing cues and PRS have been well investigated and found to be unsupported (Sharpley, 1984; Sharpley, 1987).  It is plainly false to say "some studies say it works, and some don't".  Other areas of NLP have also been investigated and also found to be unsupported by evidence (Druckman & Swets, 1988; Dixon et al, 1986; Baddeley, 1989; Elich et al, 1985; Melvin & Miller, 1988).  On what basis can you claim that "in most cases methodology is likely to be the cause of the results, not the theory"?  So you have a priori knowledge that NLP-predicted eye movements are true and any study which shows otherwise must be methodologically flawed because it conflicts with your a priori knowledge.  The truth of eye accessing cues then is a matter of faith for you.  In any event this is merely for your education.  Experts that know more about cognition, linguistics, psycholinguistics, neurology, and social psychology have conducted studies and reviewed them and decided that NLP is bunkum. Sixthly, you aren't actually after a "factually accurate article".  You have an a priori conception of NLP as theoretically sound and effective.  For you -- as made evident by your remark regarding eye accessing cues -- that NLP is sound and true is axiomatic, it is "first principle".  If an emprical test fails to substantiate an NLP hypothesis that study must -- by logical implication since the correctness of NLP is axiomatic -- be flawed.  If NLP fails a meta-theoretic analysis that analysis -- by logical implication -- must be based on a misundersatnding.  You have a faith based position, NLP satisfies at least a component of your religiosity, it is one of the constants that forms your Weltenschaung, like God for faith-based theists. flavius 03:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Anon.  Welcome to comment.  I think if you go to various NLP newsgroups, you will find Dilts to be quite controversial.  He says all kinds of strange things that NLPers don't like, including adding the logical levels and spirit stuff.  There is also a huge lot of pseudoscience in the encyclopedia he wrote, so he is enormously odd according to scientists.  His description of neurological phenomena is largely erroneous.  There are a great many views about NLP and Wikipedia is designed to include all significant views.  There are things that NLP newsgroups tend not to talk about.  Remember that NLP is very promotional.  So they won't mention NLP cults or cults using NLP because it is generally bad press.  They also will not mention the court cases and litigation from advertising standards bodies.  All cults deny that they are cults, including the likes of Dianetics and other such pseudoscietific psychocults.  They are pretty bad at looking in the mirror though.  The research on NLP shows that it is many things; scientifically unsupported, ineffective, pseudoscientific, principally erroneous and so on according to the literature.  This NLP article reports those findings.  I understand you would want to advocate your own "knowledge" of NLP but really there has been a great deal of research done on this matter by a number of thorough researchers here.  There are people such as yourself who deny the facts, but the facts have been verified many times and corroborated by other research and other researchers such as Platt (2002) who has appeared and given his account of the state of NLP.  If you require further evidence please check out the references yourself.  You will find they are indeed solidly factual.  NLP is in fact pseudoscientific in principle, in theory, in practice, and in excuse.  Cheers DaveRight 02:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Some Anonymous Commentary

message: Hello all. This is not a personal attack, it is advice for reduction of conflict in order the article be further improved. I must point out that Comaze is deliberately stiring up trouble.  He has stopped posting sockpuppet labels on editor's pages (though he refuses to remove them), but his strategy now is to find any excuse to accuse editors of making personal attacks on him and makes multiple complaints on multiple personal pages.   Comaze has just tried to mix criticism with the above NLP section even though the criticisms were seperated from the NLP claims section in order to reduce conflict.  Therefore, Comaze's agenda is to create conflict through antagonism and vexatious litigation.  Solution: Remove his objections from your personal pages, ignore his persistent nagging, revert his conflict stiring actions, and just stay cool.  Cheers DaveRight 02:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see your talk page for a reply. I have already asked you if you want to get an RfC to resolve our content disputes. If you think it is getting too personal send me a email or private message. --Comaze 03:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Comaze, considering your history and persistent troublesome antics, the effort to point out your desire to mess things up for editors is entirely justified.  Ignoring your persistent "tedious and uncooperative" behavior is about the healthiest attitude an editor can adopt. Briefly pointing out your nuisance is also an option.  I believe it would actually be helpful for editors on this article to have standard replies that people could simply paste to you, such as "your unreasonable objection has been ignored" and so on.  This would at least save time.  You have asked so many deliberately obtuse repeat questions, and made so many repeat demands against reason that you take up a considerable portion of the effort wasting parts of the archives.  You certainly don't deserve such careful replies. JPLogan 02:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Comaze! You have reverted to your surreptitious mixing of edits in order to make them harder to correct/revert so you can push your agenda, and even when our mediator VoiceOfAll told you not to do so.  If you do it again, I do not care how seemingly constructive some of the edits seem, I will simply revert your surreptitious editing.  It is completely reasonable for any other editor to revert your nonsense as such.  Your persistent nuisance has been noted.  JPLogan 03:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: JPlogan, I actually asked direct questions about RfC and asked if the editors would accept the opinion of a third party as binding. We need to resolve content disputes if we are going to get a Fact and Reference check. --Comaze 12:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yo Comaze.  Throughout mediation facts have been checked, and it turns out that they were placed in good faith and checked out according to mediators and editors and outside parties.  You continue to find fault in the references because you act in bad faith constantly.  (apart from what I just said) I suggest you be ignored.  DaveRight 03:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Avoid Comaze's Persistent Antagonism and Conflict Promotion: Remove his groundless objections, and stay cool

message: Vote -- Rename the "Engram" section to "Neuro in neuro-linguistic programming" and then provide a paraphrase of all the major views and minor views on this subtopic  Provide your vote below:
*Support --Comaze 23:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: HeadleyDown, the question was put in the spirit of wikipedia to resolve disputes and reach consensus. If you do not agree, then sign it with "object". --Comaze 03:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote: Neuro in NLP?

message: Comaze, ganging up with meatpuppets is certainly not ok.  This has been discussed many times over.  Stop your tedious and unconstructive behaviour. Akulkis, just read the archives properly, and read some science for a change. HeadleyDown 02:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: HeadleyDown, the question was put in the spirit of wikipedia to resolve disputes and reach consensus. If you do not agree, then sign it with "object". --Comaze 03:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes

message: :Akulkis, I've already spent the last 3 weeks warning a group of users to cease with the personal attacks. We don't want to give them any fuel to start back up again. Intentionally misspelling someone's handle or providing personal remarks in edit comments is against wikipedia policy. I realise that you are just new to wikipedia so it will take a little while to get use to it. Just ignore any personal remark and reply to the merits of an argument (or not at all). --Comaze 03:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Akulkis is only a new user here so we must assume good faith. For example, your edit contains an attack, implying that an editor is a NLP promoter implies that the editor is not neutral, which is technically a violation of Wikipedia:assume good faith. I agree that personal remarks in edit comments should be avoided. In Wikipedia technically any personal remark is a personal attack; this includes staw man arguments. Pointing out bias in specific edits is fine but this should be accompanied with a link to the diffs in question rather than making accusation about "promotion". It is then important to other neutral wikipedians in to weigh in on consensus. Any personal remarks directed at specific users, rather than arguing about the merits is a violation of wikipedian policy. The policy states if you think things are getting personal then send a private message or work it out via email. The discussion page is designed for people to work together to reach consensus on a neutral point of view. --Comaze 06:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Comaze, the only people being uncivil here are Akulkis for Fing and Blinding at people, and you for making officious statements while conducting a concerted agenda to remove cited facts.  HeadleyDown 03:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Quit behaving like a pathological liar, and I'll quit treating you as such. Akulkis 12:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Civility

message: The online referenced sources Tippet, Singer, Eisner, Novopashin seem to agree that methods found in NLP are used effectively in various cultlike groups. Shupe & Darnell list NLP in a glossary without referencing it as a cult. None of them refers to NLP as a cult though, and using principles and methods from a discipline does not create equality to it. The contributors may have misread this. Should the sources that aren't available online indeed classify NLP as a cultlike movement it may be helpful to clarify this. Blauregen 12:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've covered this before, but there are some notable counter-examples to the claim that NLP is used by cults. Prof. Charles Figley (Florida State University Traumatology) states that Steven Hassan uses method similar to VK/D and change personal history to help people recover from cult mind control (Figley, Brief Treatments for the Traumatized: A Project of the Green Cross Foundation 2002 p.96). Hassan (1988) himself writes that he studies the original models of NLP (Erickson, Perls, Satir) to help him build a model of how people enter and exit cults successfully. Hassan did some training with Grinder and Bandler in 1980, and actually moved to Santa Cruz to learn directly from John Grinder. He finished this training early to get married and persue a career at helping people leave and recover from cults. Since that time Hassan has developed his own model, how much of his current work is based on NLP is unknown. --Comaze 00:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

text: but we can quote Figley (2000) verbatim. Figley's reputation and tenureship is beyond refute. AND, Hassan latest book (2000) also supports that argument that NLP can be used for cult entry or exit. The use depends entirely on the ethics of the practitioner. --Comaze 04:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello HeadleyDown. Correction partly taken. Sources Tippet, Singer, Eisner, Novopashin seem to agree that methods found in NLP are used regardless of effectivity in various cultlike groups then. Even Novopashin classes NLP in the only referenced source (.. We are also talking about the so-called "psychocults," the ones that have sect-tinged pseudo-psychological training, like "Life Spring," "Violet," neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) groups... as a pseudo-psychological training, not as a cult in itself. The notion that according to User:HeadleyDown a significant but unreferenced body of scientists state that NLP is a cult, without further references is a opinion of HeadleyDown, and hardly bears the so often cited 'weight of science'. For the sake of clarification there should be either a supporting source, or the paragraph should be rephrased to reflect the actual stance of the cited sources.Blauregen 01:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Hi HeadleyDown. The cited statement however is the only one in the source that references NLP at all, and in this context it isn't referenced as a cult. Novopashin does not mention a specific cult or a recognizable group based on NLP as a view of life, but refers to 'nlp groups' in the sense of groups that have a 'sect-tinged pseudo-psychological training'. Wether this is a correct characterisation of NLP is as irrelevant for the question wether your sources support your assertion, as i how it 'looks to you', or what effects it will have on my supposed 'agenda'. Again. Please either rephrase the section - if you deem it needed at all - or reference an actual source that supports the notion that NLP is a psychocult. Blauregen 05:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

text: "Significant" being defined as "anyone who agrees with HeadleyDown -- no matter how much conflict of interest exists between their statements and their other professional and academic work."
Hello editors. Eisner's (notable?) opinions have been distorted in our article. Should they be removed? We say he thinks NLP is a cult, but in fact he makes no such assertion. On p.158 Eisner says, "Both Sharpley and Elich et al. conclude that NLP is akin to a cult ..." So he's merely citing someone else? Right. Furthermore, a citability issue. Eisner's speciality is law and ethics and he runs a malpractice law firm suing psychotherapists from any and all fields. He makes it clear he would have sued Freud if given the chance. I think we should be really hesitant to use him as an authority on any kind of therapeutic opinion. Peace Metta Bubble 02:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Meta Bubble.  Some due dilligence on your part would be useful.  A Google search would have revealed that Eisner has a doctorate in psychology, is a licensed psychologist and has a JD and practices law .  Eisner is not only citable he is eminently citable.  flavius 04:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi again "bordering-uncivil" editors. Eisner does not support the clinical view that NLP is a cult. This is a distortion of fact. Eisner is not citable and he is not an eminent psychotherapist. What's more is that a psychotherapeutic viewpoint (PSYCHO-POV?) has nothing to do with an intelligent approach to critiquing NLP. The point again is our single quote for Eisners opinion (Eisner 2000, p.158), "Both Sharpley and Elich et al. conclude that NLP is akin to a cult ..." The fact is Eisner does not say NLP is a cult. Read that quote again. We have used a completely distorted version of Esiner's opinion and this in unacceptable for an encyclopedia. Peace. Metta Bubble 07:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I also have a copy of Eisner here, Meta Bubble, and your assessment is as erroneous as your last statement that Flavius dealt with.  Compared to the views of NLP authors, Eisner has enormous credibility.  The whole paragraph (that you decided to ommit from quoting here) positively screams that Eisner views NLP's excuses and failure to research as cult like.  This corroborates all the other scientific views that NLP is a cult.  Eisner (PhD Psych and qual psych) goes further, stating that NLP is psychopablum, that the various claims of NLPers are grossly misleading, and that the few confirming studies that NLP has drawn upon are fatally flawed.  This corroborates Lilienfeld, Sharpley and Beyerstein, who know good research when they see it, and state that supporting NLP studies can be explained using other factors than NLP (thus those few supporting studies are flawed).  He states that what remains are guru and placebo effects (that would be weeded out using controlled studies).  He says that NLP authors present a mystical and magical new theory for positive expectations, but only anecdotes are offered.  The factors that Eisner states are all factors showing cult characteristics.  You are reading far too selectively, and similar to FT2 and all the other NLP fans, you are trying your best to remove verified facts.  You are onto a non starter.  Sorry, I also suspect you are a sockpuppet/meatpuppet.  Bookmain 08:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh great. So now we need a section on NLP's uses for exiting cults? This is too funny. Let's just ditch the cult section. It's borderline outside of wikipedia policy anyway. It's certainly against guidelines. Peace. Metta Bubble 07:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi Metta Bubble. I agree there. It should be either ditched completely or, should it have any educational value, be made into a distinct article. It certainly would help the brevity of the core article. Blauregen 01:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Blauregen.  NLP is a fringe practice that requires no more than an article.  The view of NLP as a cult is considerable, especially as there are factually existing NLP cults on cult lists.  Your desire to delete seems to derive from a view-restricting anti-NPOV agenda. HeadleyDown 02:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

text: HeadleyDown. It seems to ignite enough controversy to warrant a deeper discussion even in an encyclopedia. Since we already have distinct articles on various methods and assumptions associated with NLP (see: ), an additional article on the usage of NLP in connection with quasi-religious groups seems only appropriate. This would help the brevity of the core article, since we could replace this section with a link to a more concise discussion of this aspect. As for your 'factually existing NLP cults': I am aware that NLP seems to be used in various quasi-religious groups, but i am not aware of any quasi-religious group that actually has NLP as a central part of their view of life. Could you please elaborate what entries on what cult list you are referring to? Blauregen 05:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cult characteristics

message: ::::Hi Bookmain, I noticed you tried to revert the image back to normal after comaze butchered it yet again.  A copy and paste is required, and of course, Comaze is going to be reported with all his history laid bare, and I will probably post it on his own personal page for all to laugh at also.Camridge 09:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Comaze, your whitewash is noted as is your slur campaign.  You are certainly to be ignored, and I feel great satisfaction in deleting your trashy harrassment from my personal page.  Camridge 09:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Comaze's comments and edits have been consistent from his arrival; Consistently tedious, uncooperative, unproductive, antagonistic, anti-NPOV, anti-brevity, anti-mediation, anti-clarity, anti-science, and he is best ignored.  Camridge 09:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comaze's edits

message: :At the moment there is a problem with the criticism not being connected to any specific aspects of NLP. One solution is to connect the criticism of applications to the application section. I want to move all the criticism of NLP application underneath each application. See here for an example . --Comaze 08:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism of NLP Application

message: 150px|thumbnail|left|Option 1150px|thumbnail|right|Option 2
Also is there any objection to changing the sarcastic "Scientology of Acheivement" image with this one? The question is does anyone have any specific objections to moving the criticism of application to the appropriate section, or to using the second image? I think it is more neutral because it removed the Scientology bias and some of the sarcasm. I think the caption could read, "Don't ask why, ask how" but that can be negotiated. --Comaze 08:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as i can see it's only function aside from optical disaggregation of the page is building an association from NLP to scientology. Since there was no supporting evidence for such a connection,and the only slightly related claims lately refered to Perls and dianetics it does not seem to bring any clarification or new information to the page. This would be equally true for your new version, so it may be best to remove it altogether. Blauregen 10:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Blauregen.  You seem to be in mortal danger of close association with a rather extreme fanatic.  Your suggestions are similar to that of Comaze.  Sorry if that is insulting to you, but that is your behaviour.  HeadleyDown 11:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually the fact that i cannot find any valuable information or clarification in this image does not seem to pose a mortal threat to my health. Maybe i should clarify something. I am not interrested in playing a kind of intellectual 'capture-the-flag' with either of you, nor do i find the dramaqueening of certain users here over every edit especially amusing. I initially came to the subject of NLP because i was interrested in Bandler & Grinders analyisis of the therapeutic techniques of Milton H. Erickson, and extended my knowledge from there.  After watching this article for a few weeks i am honestly fed up with the fact that i can't refer anyone to it, because some of you seem to mistake wikipedia for a kind of intellectual quake-map. Myself i am neither pro- nor counter-NLP, so please forgive if i side with neither of you, but simply try to correct factual errors, obvious misinterpretations and unneeded slur. At the moment, while trying to do this, i find myself mostly in agreement with Comaze. This may or may not change when if find time to go over the pro-nlp-parts of the article. Blauregen 12:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

text: This is amazing.  Not only has Comaze had to resort to mass slurs on personal pages, but he has tried to doctor images in a way that makes them meaningless.  I don't really know Comaze (and really would rather not) but his sort of obsessive censorship behaviour is really freaky and wierdo. You do get some strange people here. DaveRight 06:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Comaze, you are clearly trying to cover up your anti-NPOV behaviour.  Your slurs and doctoring of images has been noted, as has your history of coverup.  Camridge 08:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Well. Since no one pointed out any informational or clarifying value of the image, aside from an alleged but unsupported association of Scientology and NLP, i am going to remove it for the sake of brevity. Blauregen 15:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Scientology of achievement

message: ::This is amazing.  Not only has Comaze had to resort to mass slurs on personal pages, but he has tried to doctor images in a way that makes them meaningless.  I don't really know Comaze (and really would rather not) but his sort of obsessive censorship behaviour is really freaky and wierdo. You do get some strange people here. DaveRight 06:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Comaze, you are clearly trying to cover up your anti-NPOV behaviour.  Your slurs and doctoring of images has been noted, as has your history of coverup.  Camridge 08:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well. Since no one pointed out any informational or clarifying value of the image, aside from an alleged but unsupported association of Scientology and NLP, i am going to remove it for the sake of brevity. Blauregen 15:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Hello all.  Comaze has been trying to provoke people into conflict for months.  He has posted unreasonable objections on multiple editors personal pages for months, has made repeat queries to issues that have been dealt with for months, and places criticisms in areas where they will be hard to deal with without conflict.  Any provocation from long term antagonist Comaze is best dealt with by reversion, or by deleting his irritation on your personal pages.  Keeping conflict to a minimum is important on this article.  HeadleyDown 01:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Headley.  Nice to see things improving.  Yes, Comaze has clearly been trying to confound editing here for a long time.  Since his months long 10*perday reversionfest, stated commitment to a bandler/grinder only viewpoint, and his use of mediation/arbitration to slow things down, he has resorted to the constant accusation of attacks on him, and the repeated denial that questions have been answered.  I think he has stopped making any impact at all.  Ignoring him seems to be working, and the article is in better shape.  Of course, that also means that his meatpuppets get the same treatment.  Such is life. ATB JPLogan 02:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Comaze, your question has been answered already.  Your objection/suggestion is as unreasonable as your months of unsuccessful attempts to delete scientifically based criticism. Camridge 05:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert Comaze's conflict prompting edits

message: Just to help with explanations, I noticed that the sense based notion of human behaviour that NLP uses is extremely convenient (albeit groundless).  If the assumption is taken on, then all you need to do to change behaviour is to alter those internal representations.  It is perfect for use in cults, and for development of hypochondriach/paranoia ritual development.  I noticed this is also connected with NLP assertions that "your mind does not know the difference between real and imagined happenings" and the that this can somehow be transferred to the use of language/magic words, and so on.  I suspect that this can be useful as a line of explanation in the pseudoscience section.  Any further associated suggetions?  Camridge 06:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Camridge, I don't see how this post, 'For example, NLP assumes that all human behaviour is neurological, and all human behaviour is based on the 5 senses, rather than "attitudes" "reason" "emotions" "mind" "morals" or "ego".' add any value to the article. It is not referenced and adds no value to the article. Actually I think the information is false. I don't know of notable author in NLP who says that "all behaviour is neurological" that would be insane. --Comaze 07:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Yeh, Camridge. I reckon a bit of comparison and contrast is in order.  NLP doesn't even bother to find out stuff about the unconscious even though it goes on about unconscious stuff in the lit.  A lot of this could be handled in the pseudo section, but also in the cult section (in comparison with cults for clarificn). Comparison with other pseudos has been achieved to a certain extent, but contrast with clinical psych and other scientifically rigorous methods may be helpful. CHeers DaveRight 06:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: DaveRight, your recent post has misleading edit comments. You actually remove important information about transformational syntax. --Comaze 07:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Senses, input output, programming metaphor, rituals

message: For page that does not have conduct issues and significant content disputes then refactoring would be an option. I'm going to go through my lightly refactor my posts in an attempt to stop the circular arguments. I think that detractors would just get in the way. If we were all getting along then we could refactor any off-topic or repeated contentto help us keep the talk page clean, see Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages. Imagine how good this page would be if we had on topic, minimalistic replies :) Now that is a desired future. I am however going to check all my mosts and remove any personal remarks that I have made, if you see any, please let me know. A simple strikethrough can be used to remove personal remarks or attacks made at anyone. I strongly encouage everyone to go through your posts and refactor and remove any personal attacks. On wikipedia, no personal attacks and avoid personal remarks can be used interchangeably. In fact, any personal comments should also be avoided. Personal attacks can and will be removed, and any attack should brought to the attention of the author. Although it is better if someone else removes it for you or somebody else defends you when being attacked. Let's start supporting each other regardless of content disputes. This discussion page is to discuss weight of various points of view with the aim of presenting a neutral point of view. It is not a place for pushing POV or shouting at each other. I'm going to become less involved in the editing of this page while arbitration is open so as to reduce disputes or chance of any new conflicts arising. --Comaze 09:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Comaze, you go ahead and do some more whitewash, and we can go ahead and ignore you some more.  DaveRight 06:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Comaze, editors here will point out your tedious and unproductive behaviour as long as you continue with your tedious and unproductive behaviour.  Camridge 08:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Comaze, your definition of personal attack does not comply with that of the rational thinking world.  Your accusations of personal attack are simply due to your desire to accuse and slur.  Camridge 09:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refactoring 

message: Comaze, your intense antagonism and tedious, unconstructive nuisance is once again noted.  Camridge 09:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Camridge. Actually the image with the craniology map did not contain more information related to the subject. Without the additional unrelated lines it is easier to interpret and therefore enhances the comprehensibility. What advantages did you perceive in the old image over the new one? Blauregen 11:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Apologies HeadleyDown. The above post was mine. I have no problem with the current picture regarding eye accessing cues. From the archives it seems Bandler no longer considers it an important part of NLP. Bandler & Grinder themselves do not mention specific breathing and head position in this context if i remember correctly, but i understood Dilts did. Since Dilts can be counted as an authoritative source for NLP, and the PRS is still taught in newer books on the subject - although the initial distinction between lead system, representational system and referential system seems to be often disregarded - both can probably be viewed as canonical and should in my opinion stay. Blauregen 11:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Blauregen.  It may seem that B and G don't consider something important any more, however, that is just more evidence for their pseudoscientific flim flam.  But as you say, the info is all over the recent literature despite the gurubabbling excuses.  Camridge 08:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: LIkewise, neither are electrons attached to nuclei by springs considered "something important" in atomic physics any more...I gues that's just "more evidence" that atomic physics is just "pseudoscientific flim flam."  Akulkis 03:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: COMAZE HAS ONCE AGAIN BUTCHERED IMAGES ON THE NLP ARTICLE

message: Not only is Comaze using every sociopathic method he can to cause extra work, conflict, and ungrounded slurs, but he is doing it in an organized way.  His cutting of important information on the images presented that comes directly from NLP books is obviously part of his agenda to whitewash NLP, and his multiple revert habit is simply being focused on adjoining supporting articles to this.  He cannot get his way with deleting facts, so he focusses more on creating conflict.  His activities have been 100% focused towards view-narrowing, fact deleting, anti-NPOV activity, and I strongly believe he should be blocked.  Camridge 09:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Spot the REAL troll.  Just like many other accusations, those who point fingers have three others pointing back at themselves.  Akulkis 15:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Mr Camridge, I have no interest in engaging you on this level. If you want to resolve conflict please respond to my invitation to engage a neutral third opinion. --Comaze 10:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Its extremely unlikely that any mediator or arb will block Comaze. They havn't so far, even though he has cause a ridiculous amount of extra work on this article (reverting his deletions, and explaining easy to grasp concepts over and over again).  Comaze does respond to punishment though, and whenever he posts his unreasonable comments(slur campaign) on your personal page, or deletes something factual from the article, or from one of the images, just stay cool, take your time reverting his censorship/whitewash, and add some more criticism to the article.  There has been a lot taken away already, yet the criticisms could be far harsher and all within NPOV policy.  I found that has already helped to train Comaze to stop his multiple reversion per hour compulsion, and in general it does clarify things on the article also.  It may lead to a bit of extra text, but you could always delete anything that looks like NLPpromotion, in the article, or in the links.  Certainly don't waste time engaging Comaze in lengthy textual explanations.  Do not feed the troll!  Just stay cool and add your clarifications.  Regards HeadleyDown 10:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, Headly, but you're wrong...I came to this page originally as a disinterested observer.  But found the actions and activities of you and your ilk absolutely beyond the pale.  And every other 3rd partydisinterested observer which has come along (Voice of All, MySekurity, etc.) have all noted that you and your cohorts are the ones who consistantly have your facts WRONG, while those who oppose you have been only been corrected on phrasing and placement, but NO errors in factual matters.  I guess that makes YOU the the rediculous one who deserves punishment.  What are you going to do... stomp your wee little feet and hold your breath until your face turns bluuuuuuuuuuuuuuuue??? 15:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, whoeverthisis.  Your comment does nothing for your agenda to remove cited fact.  Wikipedia is about clarifying facts, and the facts present in the article comply with wikipedia policy.  That is why they have remained for so many months during mediation and arbitration. Those facts clarify the state of NLP. It doesn't matter if all sane people leave the article for 6 months and only drooling morons run the article during the intervening periond of temporary insanity.  Any facts that comply with NPOV policy will either remain or return.  Your comments are as futile as any fact deleting actions you wish to persue. And there are more facts to come:) Merry Christmas HeadleyDown 16:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Um HeadleyDown, cited LIES are not cited facts.  So Solly!  Akulkis 16:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Akulkis' flaccid accusation is duly ignored. HeadleyDown 16:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because YOU ignore the fact that you have been REPEATEDLY caught inserting outright lies into the page doesn't mean mean a thing.  The rest of us are onto you you.  When you quit behaving like a pathetic psychopath, I will quit treating you as one.   But not a moment before!  Akulkis 16:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Hi guys, I've joined the Harmonious editing club. I agree with most of their ideas on how to resolve conflict, prevent edit wars  and engage the wider community of wikipedians. I urge you all to check it out. --Comaze 01:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I urge you all to check out the discussion page.  It has a small report on Comaze's many multiple misdeeds.  And a Christmas greeting.  DaveRight 04:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, whatever, sockpuppet.  Akulkis 03:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: COMAZE IS A TROLL;  His antagonistic activity requires blocking

message: There are so many misleading statements in the Criticism section, here is another one that can probably be removed entirely...
::Curent statement: "NLP is highly suggestive-that suggestion plays a leading role in the promotion of alleged memories of childhood sex abuse" .
::This is what the source actually says: "Those who believe in recovered memory therapy (RMT) believe that abreaction of the emotions accompanying the alleged sex abuse experiences is necessary for cure. During this process there is often an aggressive use of hypnosis, including age regression, sodium amytal interviews, guided imagery and suggestive dream interpretation. Most patients undergoing such treatment attend group therapy for survivors of childhood sex abuse and read books about and by survivors. Sometimes unconventional techniques such as psychodrama, channeling and neurolinguistic programming-even primal-scream therapy-are used. Opponents of RMT (recovered memory therapy) believe that such techniques are highly suggestive-that suggestion plays a leading role in the promotion of these alleged memories of childhood sex abuse."
--Comaze 22:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Comaze there. the cited statement was misleading and should stay out. Blauregen 08:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: have no interest in "supersizing" any article. I was just pointing out that this is a misleading statement that needs to be corrected or removed. There are many more but I'm just going to do one at a time, discuss it then make the appropriate changes if necessary. --Comaze 04:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have trimmed that subsection and cut out the nonesense/off-tangents/needless details.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 05:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  misleading statements http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/p991136.html 

message: This article has gotten so much better than before. I dont mind sectional tags, then I know what to look at. But global tags on a long article I keep looking over is a bit bothersome.
A section on the lack of a clear consensus on NLP methods might be useful and has been created.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 19:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tags and a new section

message: Hi All.
Since the non-criticism-part of the article seems already either neutral or contains criticism too we can probably get rid of a few subsections of criticism.
Ethical concerns: This subsection does not apply to the article overall. NLP itself as a collection of methods and principles has no ethical dimension. No sane wikipedian would even think about for example editing the article about nuclear physics with a section "Ethical concerns: Physicists in this field were widely criticised for their contribution to the development of nuclear weapons .... "  A hypothetical section on NLP-based therapy, NLP-based coaching or NLP-based sales tactics might have an ethical dimension. I suggest to discard this subsection and to place the relevant parts under the appropriate subsections of Applications of NLP again, as it is done for example in the article about hypnosis.
Questionable Applications: Can be completely merged with the Applications part. The new age and occult-nonsense from applications could be extracted together with the cult-references into a new section "New Age and religious connotations of NLP".
Cult Characteristics: Since the large majority of sources only mention the use of techniques from NLP together with techniques from hypnotism and similar areas in cult recruiting, and only solitary sources state the  opinion that the promotion of NLP itself has characteristics akin to a cult this seems a little ridiculous. You could as well enter a similar section in the article about chemistry stating it is closely related to terrorism because methods and principles of chemistry are used in the construction of bombs. I propose to add a subsection under Applications instead that mentions this. The opinion that NLP itself has cult characteristics could be either placed under a section "Promotion".
Extraordinary Claims: You get whackos that tell flat lies or phantasize in every kind of sales pitch. This could be summed up under "Promotion" as well.
Pseudoscience/claims to science: Actually there is an article about Pseudoscience. Instead of listing all it's alleged traits here again we can as well leave it at a link to this page and mention that <source> states that NLP is pseudoscientific. And that some proponents of NLP claim a scientific background.
This way we could shorten the article considerably, achieve a proper grouping of criticism to the criticised elements and avoid redundancy.
Any Objections? Blauregen 12:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I should add that NPOV would be a lot easier to achieve if we break the disputed content and wording down into manageable, thematically grouped sections. Blauregen 12:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Blauregen.  Your breaking things down involves regressing the article back to editwars.  The article is improving well.  Your insistence smacks of desperation.  The article is not in any danger of anything.  The facts are secure.  HeadleyDown 16:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have expected that among mature adults a consent is easier to achieve on small and specific subjects than on largely unspecific assertions. I agree though that the premise that i am dealing here with mature adults is a little bit adventurous. As a sidenote: Please stop reinserting the "Scientology_of_Achivement"-Image. It does nothing for the article but carrying a erronous association and taking place. This was discussed days ago and so far no one came up with a believable source for the alleged connection between NLP and Scientology. Blauregen 17:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: About the criticism section.