Hey Michael, Carmine here

Just what point was I completely off of, and are you sure? Perhaps I was making the very points that I wanted to. Which of us was this not intended for? Really!

Perhaps you do not approve of my methods, I don't really know for sure, yet the last time I checked this was an NLP newsgroup. And one of the very first things I learned about NLP is that the map is not the territory. Not only that, but you can actually pace, step into, mirror, get inside of, or gain insight into someone else's map of the territory. And with that, I would like to invite you to come and play inside of my perceived map of the territory, how I see, feel and hear my own intended point that you have perceived to be 2/3's completely off point.

You know, maybe you are right, perhaps I am personalizing this a bit. But aren't we all operating out of our own personal maps? It just may be the style I chose to write what you perceived to be completely off point that you are at issue with. You see Michael, as I see it, that is if you are willing to step into my shoes for a moment, I have very little love for mediocrity. Especially when it is being evangelized by professional communicators. People who hang out a shingle and profess to teach the very skills they have yet to acquire.

And with that in mind answer me this. If you were to consider fully the following books by Richard Bandler and John Grinder, "Frogs into Princes," "Reframing," "Trance-formations," "Structure of Magic 1 & 2," "Patterns 1 & 2." Add to that "Using your Brain for a Change," "Magic in Action," and "Time for a Change" by Richard Bandler. Plus for good measure "Heart of The Mind" by Connie Rae Andreas, could you honestly say that it isn't just a bit incongruent for a person to say that the words "clinical" and "depression" aren't nominalizations while at the same time offering a training on NLP?

To further offer my intended point, and again from an NLP viewpoint as it is stated in the above books, how do you justify a person who is claiming to be a qualified trainer of NLP saying that some people never experience anything other than depression? Is this not also completely incongruent from an NLP viewpoint as is presented in the above books?

And why the reference to the above books? Because the people who are responsible for the content and process contained in those books are the two primary founders of the field we have come to know as NLP.

Oh! Just one more question. Who is the person who is offering an NLP training who also said that NLP was undefined? NLP may not be complete, and it may very well never be, but if there isn't any definition or set of definitions for the term NeuroLinguistic Programming, what pray tell are the above books written about?

I am not interested in being politically correct. My interest is in being accurate. And according to NLP if you can't put it in a wheel-barrow it needs to be de-nominalized! Dig? What I have written so far is not just my opinion, but this next statement is. If someone is going to call what they are teaching NLP, then what they are teaching should be NLP. Sure, they can use their own style, their own supporting metaphors, that is what makes each of us an individual. But to take a field that was created by someone else, and to ignore the presuppositions that are the backbone, the center, the very core of that field and to say that they are qualified to teach NLP, well that is something else all together. And that something else should have a different name.

That was, and still is, my point. Tell me, was I really 2/3's completely off point? Or was it the way I went about making my point that you that was off point with you?

Sincerely,

Carmine Baffa, Ph.D.