To Dr. Grinder and Ms. Bostic St Clair In the post this post replies to, you wrote: "nj We find your counsel unrequested, entirely inappropriate and chuck full of model operators that imply a relationship between us that simply doesn't exist." My last post contains exactly one modal operator in the first sentence "If you want to lead NLP professionals to adopt triple description as a systematically-utilized decision-making process, you will (modal operator) have to do more than admonish them with what you wrote in your book. " And a question you may want to ask yourselves is "what would happen if we didn't do more than admonish them to use triple description with what I wrote in our book?"  When I wrote: "If you forsee harm to anyone if NLP professionals implement other recommendations you propose in Part III Chapter 3 of your book 'Whispering In The Wind', you can consider yourself warned that at least one person, myself, believes that NLP professionals will more easily implement other of your recommendations than your recommendation to employ triple description systematically." it was one possible address of my question: "what would happen if the authors didn't do more than admonish NLP Professionals to use triple description with what they wrote in the author's book, assuming the authors keep encouraging people to follow other of the 'Whispering In The Wind' recommendations?"  Here is a different address of that question by me.  Dr. Grinder, you're not responsible for the actions of other users of the NLP technology you co-created.  Neither are, Ms. Bostic St Clair.  But examine the future.  You and Ms. Bostic St Clair can avoid the consequences for others of the innappropriate use of additional, new NLP-modelling modelling-of-process technologies you create if you prevent access by others to technology you think could be misused.  That might have to mean you choose not to participate in the creation of that technology.  That might mean you discourage research overlap of NLP technology you do create with the technology found in other sciences, purposefully staying out of the mainstream of scientific discourse in biology, cognitive science, psychiatry ....  It could not mean that the same consequences you worked to avoid will necessarily not come about.  They might or probably will.  But those consequences won't be consequences you could have avoided bringing about.  You will not have participated in the occurence of those consequences.  Like an Indian leaving village upon realizing what the Sundance ritual entails, an Indian not interested in participating. Suppose you use triple description to help you consider the future.  If all the people you imagine you help seem helped, go second position with the people that new NLP-modelling research hurts in the future.  How might they feel?  What's their life like?  Figuring out how they were hurt is not necessary.  Just take the actions misuse of NLP technology has brought about to date and imagine the results of those actions made more effective and more widespread. What I wrote to you in my prior post to this thread was a direct response to what you wrote in your section about triple description, in part III chapter 3 of your book "Whispering In The Wind".  I claim you have a problem comprehending the context we share, the written content of your book.  My evidence for that claim is your response to me in the post I reply to with this post.  So I propose the following exercise to help you appreciate what I wrote. 1. read pages 357 to 364 of "Whispering In The Wind" out loud like a speech, from "In setting the historical context..." to "...we would accept the responsibility of systematically using triple description." Read as if you are speaking to an attentive audience made up of the readers of this thread.  You authors could try reading those pages of "Whispering In The Wind" to each other, alternatively swapping the role of the attentive audience. 2. Imagine a single person from that audience, with a relatively pleasant, but nonetheless emotional, voice naturally saying all that I wrote in the post that you reply to in the post this post replies to.  One of you authors could role-play me, and try naturally saying what I wrote.  Practice saying what I wrote using different intonations, rhythms, and accents, until you find one that seems like an appropriate direct response from a stranger to what you wrote in that section.  When you role-play the stranger 'nj', act congruently like a stranger to the author speaking from the book "Whispering In The Wind". That's what I imagine you would advise me to do. 3. judge for yourself, do my choice of terms in my earlier post, including my choice of the term 'need', imply that we have a relationship that doesn't exist, when I am only a stranger to you authors, but you spoke to me what you wrote in a particular section of "Whispering In The Wind"?  4.  Now imagine that I have already imagined you speaking what you wrote in the section of "Whispering In The Wind" that I mentioned.  Imagine I did so to better understand the content of that section. To go second position with me, use the information I gave you, that is, that when I wrote my earlier post I was responding to what you wrote on pages 357 - 364 as if it was spoken to me by one or both of you authors. The writing style of your book switches between different levels of assumed familiarity with the needs and life activities of your reading audience.  That's why I gave you specific sentences that bound the section of your book "Whispering In The Wind" to which I responded directly in an earlier post to this thread.  If you do the exercise I suggest, you'll need to read from exactly the section I bounded for you. I've not heard a "Whispering In The Wind" speech of any kind from you, either personally or recorded.  I've not met either of you authors.  If you don't try my exercise, the feelings about me you communicated to me in your prior post may remain the same.  If you don't try my exercise, or don't tell me that you did, I'll wonder if you will dislike reading what I have still to write to this forum. If you do the exercise, afterward, try doing it again, with the contents of this thread.  Substitute "you wrote ...", with "you said...".  I have wanted to show you my respect and admiration for you both in all my posts to this thread.  But I don't hold either of you above me. -nj