A couple of reflections. Attributions. Hall wrote: "John and Carmen write the following (well I assume it is John and Carmen, that's not always clear in their writings)"    Is Hall trying to overcompensate for his previous mistake in not acknowledging Carmens role in writing Whispering? Or for the fact that he didn't acknowledge the lack in his attribution, but rather persisted writing as if John had written Whispering?    Sure it is not always clear whether John or Carmen is speaking in their writings. This phenomena often occurs in co-written material, as Hall is probably aware of. However it is clear like military soup that John wrote the response to Hall. Why else would the article be called: "Different worlds, by John Grinder, A response to M. Hall's article entitled An answer to John Grinder #1"? Mind Reading M. Hall wrote: "they both present and manifest a tired and bored attitude about the discussion which they invited in the first place" Why did Hall write such a thing? Is he testing his readers abilities to catch mindreads? Is he unaware that he is mindreading? Explicit mapping. Hall also writes: "John and Carmen say that they want from me “an explicit mapping” of the terms I use.  Well, I hate to break the news now, but I have already done that.  I did it first in 1995 with the first publication of Meta-States" This kind of references to an entire body of work, rather than clear and understandable answers are not so great for the innocent bystanders of a debate is that in order to evaluate Halls "explicit mapping" we would have to acquire the book in question, and with no references as to which pages are relevant we would have to guess where what Hall considers to be an "explicit mapping" exists. Grandfather of nlp. Hall scored a rhetorical point by pointing out that: "Hmmmm, first it is news to me that I ever thought that “all of the modeling...” Bandler and Grinder did was already in Korzybski." Modeling Hall offers an interesting critique of Grinders approach to modeling. "By way of contrast, John Grinder seems to focus on kinesthetically based expertise: rock climbing, drumming, dancing, piloting, healing, acting, pistol shooting, and fire walking.  This undoubtedly explains his desire to eliminate the conscious mind’s influence and to use second position for the unconscious uptake stage of modeling." But hold on a second. Is it correct that John focuses (sic!) on kinestethically based expertise? Two immediate counterexamples spring to mind. John modelled Ericksons use of language a long time ago. And Ericksons sensory acuity - which I suppose included visual acuity. Hall continues: "A friend of mine wondered if such modeling could ever deal with the issues in business, economics, politics, communication, etc.  These experiences are not so kinesthetically-based." Well, I would think that most people reading this forum would agree that Johns work with modeling has indeed dealt with communication. Since Carmen and John work as business consultants I would be surprised if this style of modeling does not work in the business context. (Many have also attested to the fact that tools from the nlp-application area are useful in a business context.) From my own personal experience I can also admit that I have at times been extremely surprised by the difference it has made when I have tried to pick up a cognitive skill, and have changed my physiology to that of the person I am trying to steal a competensy from. The reason I am surprised (again and again, even) is that I tend to think that this is just about thinking and abstractions, so how my posture or acture is is irrelevant. This of course is nonsense - perhaps I am just another victim of Descartes split - anyway the way out of this nonsense is to actually vary the physiology variable and experience the difference it makes. Is neurosemantics nlp? Hall also responded to Grinders statement that "I am presently of the opinion that NLP (in all its aspects) has a minimum overlap with Neuro-Semantics.” By claiming that John has not informed himself about Neuro-Semantics, whereas those who have think that it is indeed the next step in NLP, and they iclude hundreds of top people from within the field. This appeal to (mostly unnamed) authority and reference to an entire body of work may serve Halls interests, but for us innocent bystanders it would be more interesting if Hall had actually presented some arguments why his stuff is to be considered part of the field of NLP by explicating the criteria which he thinks makes his stuff NLP. (Of course he may go: "Well, if hundreds of top people within a field thinks something belongs to that field, then it does!" - But that is sort of circular and unenlightening.) Since Hall is responding to whispering and Johns article it would have been extra neat had he tried to show how neuro-semantics relates to the criteria presented in whispering. All the best Thomas