Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

→

Hi VoiceOfAll. A more accurate label would be pro-censorship or anti-censorship. Alternatively, pro-NPOV or anti-NPOV, anti-whitewash or pro-Whitewash, anti-spam pro-spam. It is not a matter of certain NLPers being unbelievably thick and cretinous any more. Nobody would be so stupid after so many repeat explanations at their own insistance. They are simply being deliberately deviant, conflict forming, and antagonistic to NPOV policy. HeadleyDown 04:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting to see Comaze is still demonstrating his cultish fanaticism. When deleting out of hand does not work, he goes back to formless NLP bullshit. Comaze, when are you going to revert to the groundless accusation strategy? I think you should model Akulkis. He does "fanatical ranting" really well, so the rant would be an interesting "tweak" on your prior strategy. Or you could go the FT2 way and claim wikipedia sainthood while stating your success was due to NLP being "really powerful", then indulge yourself to a few paragraphs of selective editing and posting your own opinion on the article. Whether Comaze, and the other NLPsuckers are thick as bacon bagels, or just hoping that everyone else is, I reckon we shouldn't spend so much time expaining stuff to them. Not more than 5 times per point anyhow. Cheers DaveRight 03:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy with NLP fanatics trying to look like they can do something useful. Some of us have actually been to libraries to provide evidence for self-evident facts about NLP to cater for the unreasonable demands of NLP zealots. Its time NLPers did some work, even if it is minor and menial, and even if they do try to unsuccessfully delete facts in the process. HeadleyDown 16:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy with NLP fanatics trying to look like they can do something useful. Some of us have actually been to libraries to provide evidence for self-evident facts about NLP to cater for the unreasonable demands of NLP zealots. Its time NLPers did some work, even if it is minor and menial, and even if they do try to unsuccessfully delete facts in the processHeadleyDown 01:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Converting is the keyword isn't it Comaze! You want to convert it to NLPdrooling ferocious resolve fanaticism. This is going to be interesting, especially when regardless of anybody else's edits, the article will be reverted to fact no matter what. So much for the deluded champions of commercial bullshit. HeadleyDown 13:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)