Phantasypublishing LLC

The  Dialogue guideline  links below transfer to specific participant roles in  Towards a New Order of Meeting Participation Note that the  Transpose  links below each transfer to the corresponding item in the  Strategic Briefing for Satan (which links back here). Promote a wide variety of new initiatives, clearly establishing their relationship to complementary approaches, especially those that oppose them. Question assumptions regarding production of more goods, concepts and people, or alternatively their incorporation or entrainment by such initiatives.Advantages: Highlights any implications of irresponsibility on the part of "developers" or researchers -- and draws attention to longer-term impacts and wider effects. Facilitates healthy social and environmental processes, including their coexistence with some that may, if necessary, be seen as "outdated" or "unproven". Reduces the possibility of undermining existing initiatives with a track recor

One of the biggest challenges in science writing when discussing unproven or implausible therapies and products is that people tend to trust their own personal perceptions more than any other source of information. We tend to go by what we've experienced ourselves, rather than by what other people say they've experienced. Consequently, people are rarely moved by the results of testing and experimentation if the results contradict their own experience. "I know it works," they tend to say, "because it worked for me." And so often this gets projected back onto me: Because I have not tried the product myself, but only reported the results of testing, I should not comment on it. "Don't knock it until you've tried it," I am told. Today I'm going to explain exactly why it is not only appropriate to avoid a personal experience — as the best experimenters do — but it's actually a better way to learn about something. Today I say "Don'