🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1992Dec14.023446.16948@netcom.com> slf@netcom.com (Sharon Fisher) writes:
>georgec@eng.umd.edu (George B. Clark) writes:
>>If you want to create an alt.nlp group, you begin by making a
>>proposal at alt.config, where the newsgroup administrators hang out.
>>However, I doubt there is sufficient interest to justify two groups
>>because alt.hypnosis has too few participants, as is.
>Well, unless you're a newsgroup administrator, we should probably ask
>them rather than just taking your word on it.

I'm a newsgroup administrator, and George has it right on the money.

That doesn't mean you would be prevented from creating alt.nlp
(though you'll probably get suggestions to make the name more
meaningful, like alt.neuro.linguistic.programming), simply that
there is likely to be more resistance to the idea (and therefore
fewer admins actually creating the group, thereby hurting its
propagation) since there's already an alt.hypnosis group which
many would consider sufficient for NLP discussion.

>>alt.hypnosis is an acceptable place for NLP, but people who like
>>NLP should leave room for people who don't. Someone who has been
>>disappointed with NLP should be able to say so without being pecked to
>>death by someone else who preaches NLP for a living, even if their
>>biased opinions are wrong.
>It should be pointed out that, to the best of my knowledge, neither
>Carol nor I make our living through NLP.
>Be that as it may, it is fine to say that you were disappointed with
>NLP.  However, you did not say that.  You said things like it was a
>crock and that people supporting it were only interested in money and
>that it had no value.

He expressed his opinion.  By the same token, yourself and Friday have
been going on at some length about how you think NLP is the bee's knees,
which has just as much demonstrated truth as George's comments--i.e. none.
They are merely differing opinions.  You can talk all you want about
"instant phobia cures", but until I've seen one, I don't have much reason
to believe you.  Nor do I have money that I'm willing to spend
investigating something that may be useless, if not a scam.  I am,
however, quite willing to read and see if there is any further data I
can absorb regarding NLP's worth or lack.

>>Also, the hostility perceived by people who read but don't post is
>>superficial. They see flames, when in reality the people arguing are
>>actually enjoying each other's company. For example, I'd feel badly if
>>my calling Friday a hen actually hurt her feelings.
>What was your goal in calling her a name if not hurting her feelings
>and thereby shutting her up?

What was her goal in accusing me of "hallucinating" her intent, when
it seemed pretty clear that the linguistic structures of her responses
to me were condescending?

I have to agree with George on another point here--the other NLP proponents
I've seen posting here are quite a bit more polite and less preachy sounding
that Friday, and have actually tried to reason with me (hi Dave) about
why I reacted so negatively to Friday's older response to me.  Perhaps
if she had done so, instead of merely painting me with the brush of
poor perception, I would have realized the error of my impression.
As it stands, I have not yet seen any of her posts that significantly
contradict that impression.

I fail to see the worth in going on about George's name-calling when
Friday's condescension is just as clearly an attempt to shut people
up.
-- 
Pete Hartman		       Bradley University	pwh@bradley.bradley.edu
  She says my work is like eating cold oatmeal, day after day, and she's right