Ulic wrote, "Would it be possible for John and Michael to at least agree on specific criteria for measuring that efficacy and effectiveness?" Well if they agree on specific criteria it would be like, J.G, specific sensory, M.H, well lets go up and talk about it. Those who find the difference between those models can appriciate the relationship in what NLP actually offers. I made a language question model that works in swedish language which give a different set of representations than what the metamodel does. That model isnt so much about clarifying sensory specific data which the client has no access or little acess to the actual event that was dervied from those events. My model are doing something new which I was aiming for when doing the work I have done the last 8 years to master modeling and to make new patterns and models. There isnt any conflict in this matters since John Grinder has state what his intentions has been all along. M. Hall has tryied in his writings to notice what he calls meta-states do something new which ate NLP. In his words outframe NLP. Now, if you accept that reality which M. Hall offers then things become that way. Any paranoia will be based on there own enforced hallucinations. Now if you then outframe which actually means that you dosnt accept the reality offered by M. Hall then what happens? Try, the metamodel on that. /Robert