e discussion so far, despite having frequently wandered away from the subject, h as been lively and sometimes interesting.

It would, however, be useful to return t o the original subject. 1. Witkowski begins his introduction to this discussion: The facts collected by me in this article .... But this is immediately misleading. (a) That is to say, the discussion of the rating of various journals is presumab ly accurate. Unfortunately the journal rating issue is also useless since it can easily be demonstrated that articles in the top rated journals are just as like ly to contain fundamental errors as those with lower ratings. (b) It is also true that various CLAIMS are referred to in the article, which ha ve appeared in the various journals. But the claims themselves are NOT factual. Rather they are almost always based on poor research and fundamentally flawed in formation. Like Sharpleys (1984) claim that the concept of preferred representatio nal systems is one of the basic tenets of NLP. 2. He continues: ... certainly outraged many a follower of NLP .... But what has t his got to do with a supposedly serious aerticle in what I gather is Polands lead ing psychological journal? Was it Witkowskis intention to cause outrage amongst fo llower[s] of NLP? If not, even if it is true, it is surely irrelevant? 3. Next it seems we get more of the same: ... which is why today I challenge them all to a duel (a) I challenge them all? (b) to a DUEL? What is the basis for such aggressive language? And is this a genuine challenge? 4. It seems not, for now we come to the heart of the matter: ... write honest cri ticism of my article and release what it in the pages of PPB or in a scientific journal of similar standing. With this condition, in my opinion, Witkowski demonstrates that he most certainl y is NOT interested in an honest and open discussion. On the contrary, it looks (to me) as though he is counting on not finding anyone who will take him up on h is challenge so he can later say: There you are I invited someone to respond to m y article, and no one could. It should also be noted that there is a convention in journals of this kind that any discussion will have just three parts the initial article, the reply, and a concluding article by the original author. Not really much of a duel, you might think. And even less of a debate. In fact it looks quite a lot like what is known over here as stacking the deck, a card players expression meaning creating an unfair advantage. But maybe people arent as easily fooled as Witkowski seems to believe. I read Witkowskis online copy of his article in December 2010 and wrote a detaile d response based on extensive research I have been doing over the last two years into exactly the kind of material he covers in his article. On January 7, 2011 I e-mailed Witkowski to tell him that I had written the artic le and had placed it online but at a hidden URL. I invited him to read the article and send me any criticisms/corrections so that the article could if necessary b e amended before it went public on my website. I have extended the same invitation to more than twenty academics whose work I h

ave already reviewed see http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/nlpfax28.html - inc luding two of the best known critics, Sharpley and Heap. And apart from the two who had died since their work was published, Witkowski is one of only three peop le who have not replied (both Sharpley and Heap did reply, see below). So why is Witkowski not prepared to engage in an honest and open debate? There is no need for it to involve a chat group or forum. He has posted his arti cle on his website. I have posted a response on my website see: http://www.bradb uryac.mistral.co.uk/witkowski.html. All that Witkowski needs to do is to post a reply on his own website and we coul d carry on from there. Apparently he has reasons for not doing this, though he h as yet to explain what they might be. If he is concerned about my credentials, I have a degree in social psychology fr om the University of Sussex and a Master Practitioner Certificate from the Socie ty of NLP. I have been studying NLP and the FoNLP for just over 20 years and hav e used this knowledge, along with my knowledge of psychology for many years, bot h as a tutor and deputy headmaster of a sixth form college, and in a business co ntext as a trainer/training course designer/training manager and technical autho r (in IT) in a large telecomms company. As well as several books and magazine ar ticles on computing-oriented subjects I have also written a book on the use of e lements of the FoNLP in business, based on my own exoerience. This book was firs t published in early 1997 and since then has been translated into about 15 langu ages and went into a fourth edition last year. It may also be worth noting since Witkowski seems to respect the work of Dr Mich ael Heap that when I wrote to Dr Heap about my review of his articles (1988, 198 9) he not only replied but ended up, after an interesting discussion that lasted for several weeks, publishing my article alongside his latest update which appe ared in Heaps own magazine The Skeptical Intelligencer, Vol. 11, December 2008. Pag es 14-27. (See also Dr Heaps comment here: http://www.mheap.com/nlp.html, final p aragraph.) Of course it has been remarked, in a previous entry on this thread, that Dr. Dol inski, the editor of the PPB, has published some rather critical comments on NLP i n the past. Given Dr Heaps willingness to present a balanced view of the subject he certainly still remains skeptical, as far as I know, I am hoping that Dr Golinski will pr ove to be of a similar frame of mind. Because despite the limitation described e arlier I will be, in the near future, submitting a modified version of my online article for inclusion in the PPB. In the meantime Mr Witkowski is welcome to join me in a civilised, open and hone st online debate, if he ever changes his mind.h allenge? What challenge? Your pseudo-outraged comments say more than perhaps you would want them to, Mr. Witkowski. I asked you for your correct title and current status (at the time of writing yo ur article) because I use this information in all of my critiques. (This was a f eature I introduced after I had started creating my critiques, and some of the e arliest articles don t YET have this feature.) Far from this being some kind of insult, as you imply, I was pointing out that y our description of yourself on your website does not provide this information. S imply saying that you once worked at this institution or that doesn t tell me wh ether you were a janitor, a junior faculty member or a senior professor. The fact that you chose to read this as an insult was an "interesting" response

- but completely opposite to that I received from numerous other professors who have published research in this area - including Professor Sharpley, who was pre pared to answer this and several other questions, Dr Heap - who featured in your article - who not only answered several questions but even, after a very friend ly discussion, published a response to his three reviews (1988, 1989, 2008) in h is own magazine. See: http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/respose.html http://www.mheap.com/nlp.html (last full paragraph) You claim you have substantiated Heap s 1988 opinion - yet in a recent UK radio programme that he and I both appeared in he REFUSED to rubbish the FoNLP in the way you have done. He still isn t a supporter of the FoNLP, but at least he is o pen enough to be prepared to take place in a discussion that includes BOTH SIDES OF THE QUESTION. If you are genuinely looking for an open and honest discussion I wonder why you aren t equally open. There is no need for you to take place in any kind of chat group. You can post w hatever you see fit on your website - whenever you want - and I can do the same on mind. Instead you demand that the whole thing nbe limited to the pages of some profess ional journal. So your so-called challenge is NOT really open to all NLPers, onl y those who can put together a full journal article and get it published. And yo u do this despite the fact that you already know that most NLPers, including Joh n Grinder, an ex-university assistant professor who wrote an entire text on Tran sformational Grammar, for example), really couldn t give a damn about academic o pinions or academic journals and therefore won t take the least bit of notice of this pseudo-challenge.. Your second comment, that I have cast doubt on Dr Dolinski s impartiality is equ ally bogus. If you read my posts, here and on Goldenline, you will see that I actually expre ssed the hope that NO MATTER WHAT Dr Dolinski s personal opinion might be, he wo uld chose the same course as Dr Heap and be willing to present both sides of the story. The fact is, as you well know, that academic journals have a protocol that effec tively favours YOU as the original author. That is to say, you write your article, someone else is allowed to write an arti cle in response - and then YOU get the final word, whilst the other author has n o further right to reply. Which gets you out of any possibility of having to defend your highly flawed art icle in any great detail. This can be seen, for example, in the case of Prodfessor Christopher Sharpley wh ere he wrote his 1984 "review", Drs Einspruch and Forman wrote a response (1985) , and Sharpley got the last word (1987). This was despite the fact that to anyone with a genuine knowledge of NLP and the FoNLP could see that Sharpley s second article was even more inaccurate than hi s first. And THAT, I suspect, is why you have imposed your limitation. Nevertheless, I am preparing a response which I trust Dr Dolinski will favour, j ust as Dr Heap favoured my previous article. I do not expect either of you to gi ve the slight support to NLP or any of the NLP-related concepts and techniques.

All I am looking for is a fair hearing. End of story.