`Hello FT2.  The section of Sharpley's article you present below is unrepresentative of Sharpley.  Not only have you misrepresented his overall tone, but you have taken a small section of an argument that he presents in the paper to support your desire to promote NLP.  Now, as you very well know, Sharpley concluded at the end of the paragraph you have partially represented, that NLP had been relegated.    At the end of the paper, Sharpley says that the research does not in any way support the ridiculous claims of NLP.  He put it in negative terms.  Not only that but the statement that you present is higly inconclusive and totally unfit for an encyclopedia.  He uses words like, may, perhaps, etc.  He makes a statement about psychoanalysis being hard to test.   But as you know, he believes the tenets of NLP to be perfectly testable.  If you wish to take a word out of a critical paper such as ``good`` and state that Smith thinks NLP is good, when in fact Smith said that NLP is good for nothing, then you have misrepresented that article.     `