235:. Neotech is notable. By the way, it's not a scam. It's a philosophy. Some of the stuff may sound far out and the marketing techniques from the publisher sound scamish but that's intentional. They try to make the philosophy sound magical and mystical in order to lure in mystics looking for an authority to tell them how to have easy wealth and happiness. But what they are actually trying to do is transform them into non-mystics. They teach that the individual has to be his own authority and there is nothing that can get them wealth and happiness but hard work and making your own decisions instead of waiting for someone to show you the way. Or worse yet, waiting for death in order to have immortal life and bliss. That is the whole point of the philosophy, to eliminate mystics. From reading around on the net it looks like the publisher even buys mailing lists for subscribers to Christian magazines in order to turn them off to mysticism because they know they are an easy target as people looking for external guidance over their lives.
138:
a mail order scam or not, but it is a succesful mail order scam if so, and historically relevant in that case, i.e. one of the first 'internet' marketed ideologies. Sometimes I can't tell if it's tongue in cheek or not, as some of their arguments lead to the quite rational and reasonable to the quite bizarre, but this is a personal assesment and my vote is not dependent upon mine or any personal view of what Neo Tech is.
156:
137:
Neo tech is certainly acceptable as a notable internet meme, there are quite a few adherents, websites, etc etc, which mention Neo-tech. It is appropiate for this reason, however, to keep a third party point of view regarding Neo-Tech and I suggest a strong clean-up. I can't vouch for Neo Tech being
187:
I agree the best thing to do is to have a major clean-up of the article, however I'm worried that there may be no one who's up for the task -- seems what's needed is someone who knows Neo-Tech inside out
152:
73:
neo tech is a scam sent through the mail and this article promotes it this article should be deleted fully and forever never to plauge wikipedia again
119:
17:
89:
192:
isn't predisposed to or against Neo-Tech. In case such a clean-up isn't feasible, I propose to move it somewhere under
239:
227:
200:
179:
126:
108:
61:
254:
36:
253:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
101:
224:
123:
85:
67:
213:
77:
164:
172:
81:
160:
147:
per above. Also here are the search engine hits that show that this is used. (search terms were,
220:
209:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
236:
193:
49:
208:, unfortunately. Being impossible to clean up is not grounds for deletion, and it's a
168:
139:
105:
118:
Note: There was a previous AfD of this article, under a previous title, at
197:
247:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
185:
Zap if no one cleans up. In case that's not allowed, just zap.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
257:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
120:Knowledge:Votes for deletion/Neo-Tech
7:
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
274:
240:20:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
62:23:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
228:21:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
201:11:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
180:20:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
127:23:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
109:13:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
250:Please do not modify it.
100:This AfD nomination was
32:Please do not modify it.
48:, but tag for cleanup.
149:"Neo-Tech" philosophy
92:) 20:06, 28 July 2006
68:Neo-Tech (philosophy)
104:. It is listed now.
135:Clean up and Keep
94:
80:comment added by
265:
252:
218:
145:Keep and Cleanup
124:Antaeus Feldspar
93:
74:
59:
54:
34:
273:
272:
268:
267:
266:
264:
263:
262:
261:
255:deletion review
248:
216:
194:Neo-Objectivism
75:
71:
55:
50:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
271:
269:
260:
259:
243:
242:
230:
203:
182:
163:and ask.com =
142:
140:User:Tumbleman
131:
130:
114:
113:
112:
111:
70:
65:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
270:
258:
256:
251:
245:
244:
241:
238:
234:
231:
229:
226:
222:
215:
214:WP:Verifiable
211:
207:
204:
202:
199:
195:
191:
186:
183:
181:
177:
176:
170:
166:
162:
158:
154:
150:
146:
143:
141:
136:
133:
132:
129:
128:
125:
121:
116:
115:
110:
107:
103:
99:
98:
97:
96:
95:
91:
87:
83:
79:
69:
66:
64:
63:
60:
58:
53:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
249:
246:
232:
221:Arthur Rubin
205:
189:
184:
174:
148:
144:
134:
117:
76:— Preceding
72:
56:
51:
45:
43:
31:
28:
237:JoeMystical
173:ask me for
151:) google =
210:WP:Notable
155:, yahoo =
102:incomplete
159:, MSN =
90:contribs
82:Grogyboy
78:unsigned
106:DumbBOT
225:(talk)
153:15,500
219:. —
169:Eagle
165:2,900
161:4,702
157:4,500
122:. --
57:Chimp
52:alpha
16:<
233:Keep
217:scam
206:Keep
175:help
167:.——
86:talk
46:keep
223:|
190:and
212:,
198:Bi
196:.
178:)
88:•
171:(
84:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.