| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ReReRe:Correct me if I am right or wrong.. |
| Posted by: | Loiusea Marnie |
| Date/Time: | 31/10/2002 14:27:12 |
|
I just read Hall's post. My question to M Hall, is why bother posting here, if that's the best you can do? Anyone can see that Hall is way out of his depth academically in the discussion he is perusing with John Grinder. Hall is like a child arguing with his teacher about the quality of his homework. At best this dialogue Hall is pushing is very entertaining for the rest of us. BTW. I would suspect Grinder and Bandler and many others explored the domain and structure of states about states. I also suspect that Bandler and Grinder didn’t see the value in perusing research into states about states. They had more important things to do. All Hall did was NAME a process that already existed. Both Grinder and Bandler agree that Meta States as presented by Hall does not really fit with NLP. Maybe the best course of action for Hall is to take the feedback from John Grinder and come out and say he (MH) is not operating in the world of NLP. Then John Grinder and Richard Bandler will not have to concern themselves with such rubbish -that Hall writes such as they (JG and RB) nearly discovered Meta States. Wake up Michael, wake Meta States people, there is a world out there and your are so in your meta, meta, meta, meta state, you’re missing it. Louisea BTW Seeing it’s Halloween, I would suggest Michael Hall employs a Ghost………….writer. Perhaps his work might make sense then |