Dear Michael, Somebody else (was it susan?) already pointed out today that J Rose was very clear that his question of ethics and NLP related to the scientific methodology upon which NLP rests.  You mention that he doesn't mention NLP or ethics in this article, but why should he?  He is setting a frame in which he want to pursue a discussion. He explicitly stated that his article delt with the history of a scientific methodolgy and that this history and method will be related to his future post.  Why the rush?  Isn't it ok for us to set up frames, especially when we state directly that we are setting up a frame for future comments?  Why would you impose that he must use certain words in his framing of his future comments? I personally don't mind if it takes him 5 days to get back to his ideas on ethics because I appreciate that he set up a frame.  Would it really have made a difference for you if he used certain words in his framing of an idea.  Not to get petty, but it wouldn't be hard to find many posts by Dr. Grinder in which he frames contexts of information without referring directly to the exact topic (and why should he?) which began the conversation.  I have never been upset when Dr. Grinder does this, and not with J Rose did in this instance.  Wendella