Please be relevant- Michael H
Late last night I made a post, specifying forum etiquette for staying relevant in these discussions. Mr Hall you were the next person to make a post and have totally ignored the recommendations I made. In your post you state about all the wonderful applications of meta states, please use what ever techniques, tools, strategies you have at your disposal to stay relevant in the forum.
Whispering is 381 pages in length. A couple of paragraphs refer to meta states and there are two requests for you from the authors.† You have come to come forward and have now made 4 replies.† John has made a detailed reply to you† in which he states explicitly that he has no desire to enter dialogue further with you. It's now time to acknowledge that this topic is complete as far as this forum is concerned. Thatís it Michael.† It's finished, you milked it for what its worth, and milk it you did.
This forum gets significantly higher numbers of posts each day than the one you set up on your site. That statistic speaks for itself. But this forum is not about you continually justifying to Carmen Bostic St Clair and her co - author the validity of your work.
So now I am going to repeat myself especially for you.† Below is the criteria of what constitutes of relevant and welcome post in this forum. If you continue to post here, do so using the guidelines below, and let go of the Hallís reply to Grinder story, or soon we will be on volume 999† and still have no valid content.
There is absolutely no need to reply to this post or continue with this thread.
Be relevant Michael H
RELEVANT POSTINGS ON WHISPERING IN THE WIND FORUM
Please make sure your post falls into one of the following categories.
3. New Code
4. Proposed Solutions to Puzzles and Recommendations
5. Origins and Definitions
A new category is unfolding at the moment about NLP Pattern database design.
To use a topic John and Carmen refer to a lot in NLP I will define the above topics as different logical types of NLP discussion that occur in this forum. With the exception to a M Hall thread, the majority fit into the categories above. What contributors have not done is specify the category they are making their posts in. In a lot of cases contributors unleash their questions usually to John and the posts contain several of the above categories or logical type. When other people join the thread, they do so in the category (logical type) that interests them and so the thread fragments. To solve this, I would urge contributors to specify the category that best describes their post and that when people reply they do so in the same category.
So a relevant post is one that
1. Has a category from the list I have stated, specified in the first line of the post and preferably in the title as well.
2. The contents of the post cleanly fits the category that describes it.
3. If quoting some work conducted by another developer/modeller/ researcher Ė references specifically the book or web site that research can be found on.
By contrast a post that is not relevant or welcome is one
1. In any way does not meet the criteria for relevant posts.
2. That just rubbishes another personís post with no specific argument to support disagreement.
3.† Calls for more action in the forum or NLP field, but specifies no action or solution† in the post itself.
When this forum was set up John and Carmen specified they wanted a forum that was accessible to all and forum that had no membership criteria. All are welcome here, there is no extensive log in protocol, itís easy to post here.† John and Carmen request I am hands off as web master, and makes only minimal interventions. So itís all very easy for people to be heard and make a CONTRIBUTION. Because of web technology itís even quite easy to interact with the co creator of NLP. John and Carmen have made enormous efforts in making detailed replies to people. John made detailed reply to you,Michael there is enormous value in the feedback he has given you, I would read and listen to the feedback and let go of what ever need you have to engage John and Carmen in discussion, when they have no wish for dialogue.†
For the forums sake, please stay relevant!!!!!
|Response to John's
|L. Michael Hall, Ph.D.
|Re:Response to John's
|Zhi Zhi Chien
|Re:Re:Response to John's
|ReReReReRe:Re:Re:Response to Michaels response
|ReReReReReReReReReRe: In response to Michaels response
|Re:ReReReReReReReReReRe: In response to Michaels response
|Re:Response to John's