The only objection to it is this: NLP is the art of finding out what works, so obvious (and often clumsy) swish patterns and fiddling with submodalities and all that frankly ‘magical’ part might not work unless they slip under the radar. So change up your strategy, try blunt honesty or humour, weave in some nuanced hypnotic language, whatever you do, continually change your approach and you’ll likely reach a valid conclusion.

NLP is a self-pfulfilling proficiency.

Its bullshit but often times if you believe something will work, then it will. So it becomes not bullshit.

The problem with me is that I feel like I’m TOO SMART for this stuff. I wish I could be stupid and gullible because then it may very well be able to help me with things. But I know its bullshit so it doesn’t work on me.

So on some people it works and on others it doesn’t. Thats what makes it hard to study and causes debate.

I was wondering if you accept guest post for your blog. If you do, I would like to submit a few. I’m a recent college graduate, with an English major, looking to build out my portfolio. I can write on a wide variety of topics and am sure you would be happy with the quality. Please email me back if you are interested. Thank you for your time.

- Kathleen Hubert
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002374243662

But I still disagree. Well, I do and I don’t. After you’ve answered what makes you sure OBL did 9/11, I’ll ask you what you think about holocaust deniers.

Even more befuddling is this: “I didn’t say that they did the right thing.” followed by this: “I don’t think there’s any problem in saying that yes, the US got this one right.””

Read it again.

I said that I don’t think there’s a problem in SAYING the US got it right. As in, articulating the rightness of the action is not, in an of itself, wrong, due to the moral ambiguity of the problem as I outlined above. I accept that there are a variety of positions, based on one’s own moral judgement and the complexity of the situation, and one of them is that the US made the correct decision. Articulating that is not some sort of horrible thing. Which is the same thing I meant by the differentiation between the rightness of the action, and the rightness of calling the action right. Simply that there are a different set of questions and criteria are applied to whether the action was right, and whether calling the action right was right- the two things are no the same.

Surely if you’re saying it’s right to say that something is right, you’re also implicitly saying you agree with it.

Even more befuddling is this: “I didn’t say that they did the right thing.” followed by this: “I don’t think there’s any problem in saying that yes, the US got this one right.”

If there is, as you claim, a subtle distinction, point it out to me. Maybe use a metaphor? It sounds like: “I’m not saying [Osama/Obama/Bush/Gaddafi/Hitler] did the right thing, but if you said he did the right thing, I’d say you said the right thing.”

Truther claim: I didn’t say he didn’t do it, I expressed my doubts at the official story. If, as you assert: “the notion that a court would have ruled that Al Qaeda was not responsible for 9-11 is fantasy” please explain how you come to this conclusion. Remember, in the case of murder, you require a ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ verdict.

Osama has never confessed to committing the crime, and there is no physical evidence tying him to the hijackers nor the scene of the crime. There is no eyewitness testimony, nor any clear motive given beyond ‘He hates our freedom’. I have doubts that are entirely reasonable.

But simpler: What is YOUR evidence that he did do it? I would really like you to address that point.

Once you’ve convinced me that he was responsible to the point of unbending certainty, I will happily grant you the fact that Pakistan’s ISI are not the folk to want to be colluding with if you’re planning on doing some sophisticated SWAT shit.