I am very much enjoying your book, Whispering In The Wind (WITW).  Thank you for attempting to bring more specificity to so much of the mish-mash we call NLP.  Right now I am trying to understand what you have written in the first paragraph of WITW p. 229 You write: (1)The non-verbal patterning modeled, however, had no comparable initial stable code to utilize, as was the case in the verbal patterning.  (2)What seems to be a useful and accurate representation is that Bandler and Grinder arrived at a partial list of design variables inductively.  (3)This occurred in a process akin to the kind of unconscious assimilation of patterning, their deployment during imitation and the unconscious editing that spontaneously occurred (as described in the detail in the modeling of Perls in the Contexts of Discovery).  (4)Further their extensive experiences in the application of the patterning and the design demands in the training context led naturally to a deep appreciation of the variables common to the patterns, partially explicit and partially tacit.  To me, the pronoun “This” at the beginning of the third sentence, is ambiguous to the point that I can’t tell what you are trying to say.  To what does it refer:  “The non-verbal patterning…” from sentence 1? the “…useful and accurate representation” from sentence 2. the “… partial list of design variables” from sentence 2. After I understand to what the word “this” refers, I am still uncertain what the rest of the sentence means.  Does the pronoun “their” later in the sentence refer to the “process” from earlier in sentence 3?  I assume not since there implies plural and process is singular.  Does it refer to Bandler and Grinder from sentence 2?  Or the “…partial list…” from sentence 2.  I suppose that a partial list might be considered to be plural?  Are you listing three ways that this (whatever this is) occurred? For example,  “This occurred in:” a) a process akin to the kind of unconscious assimilation of patterning b) their deployment during imitation, and c) the unconscious editing that spontaneously occurred. Perhaps it is my lack of mental capacity but parts of this work seem unduly difficult to parse.  Is it just me?  Do you use a professional editor to edit your works?  It seems like it might be helpful. Anyway, please help me understand what this paragraph means.  What point are you trying to make here? I know that from early on there were some NLPers who at certain times intentionally used confusion to build response potential.  Also, sometimes in the spirit of full utilization of whatever was happening in the moment they would say things like, it is good you are confused as it means you are about to learn something important.  I presume that is not what you are doing here but if it is, I would like to understand why this information is actually more important than other points made in the book.  Keith W Fail Austin, Texas