J Rose, I appreciated your essay quite a bit! I disagree with Dr. Grinder that the content of your essay is unrelated to his book, however I agree with him to the extent that he is suggesting that you are 'pushing it'.  But I think I understand: for you it was probably easy to paste your essay onto the site before you took the necessary time to compose your thoughts.  I do hope you tie together your ideas on ethics with your facinating essay.  Your essay brought up some new ideas for me in regards to the formalizations of NLP; my experience is congruent with your message that the more formal a model becomes, the less meaningful it is, yet it is more percise.  I respect Dr. Grinders work because he always does a nice job of balancing the rigor of abstractions with concrete experience.  But this is not my experience in regards to how he talks about NLP and ethics.  A long time ago I was working with a client who was seriously considering suicide.  I was doing the work content free.  Boy, that was a huge mistake for me.  Because even though suicide appeared extremely congruent with certain aspects of his inner model, if I hadn't opened up the conversation to content, I could have easily missed some major processes that were going on.  Anyway, please disregard Dr. Grinder's suggestion that your post was not relevent.  I wonder why he chose this post in particular to point this out when so many others are much further off topic. I don't think it could be the length of your post- Unless there is some OCD going on in terms of having to finish what he starts reading. Please make another post soon in which you tie together the ideas of he essay with your concerns for NLP ethics as articulated in the book. Best Wishes, Pam