You wrote: "you wrote me privately, expressing your surprise that I in fact do respond to you publicly in this website, perhaps you would care to reveal how it was that you were surprised that I did respond to you." First notice that in the mail to Michael Carroll you are referring to I said to my defence to an unjust accusation: "I even posted John outside the forum, through you in person to thank him for answering and saying how much I appreciated that." Michael has read that mail, given it was addressed to him, asking to forward it to you. I had no plans to reveal more about that mail (or other mails), given I experienced how sensitive that is for you.  Of course, if you think it's useful to reveal more, I have no problem to do so.  As you know, I believe in free flow of information and there is little that will stop me from doing so.  Maybe it will help to clarify to the readers how much our maps of the world differ.  So, I'm ready to reveal why I was surprised.  For one, we concluded in April 2000 that we have clearly different beliefs when it comes to free flow of information.  I believe, in a scientific tradition, that any information should be shared as widely and freely as possible, and when I used these rights to disseminate information about the history of NLP I had written down based on your answers to my questions during one of your workshops, you said you didn't want to have to do anything with me anymore and called me an "asshole" behind my back (even after April 2000).  As we discussed in 2000, I still don't understand that from my map of the world, given that before I disseminated that information, you knew this would be spread out and even had a chance to correct the information and delete anything you didn't want to be mentioned.  So, compared to those events, my first surprise was that you finally started to discuss NLP history in "Whispering" (which I applaud, since I think this history should be recorded using whatever means available).  Seeing "Whispering" and this website in turn motivated me to try this forum (being "persistent") and that was followed by more surprise, experiencing that apparently the statement: "I don't want to have to do anything with Patrick anymore" had "expired" (or didn't apply in the context of this forum), for which I'm really grateful for as long it lasts.  Apart from that surprise, my current interpretation is that you still do not agree with my belief that "History should be recorded in as much detail as possible and that information should be accessible" (or at least, you do not see why that would be of more use than reading the horoscope). With these observations in mind, I still hope to get the permission I asked for (again in a private e-mail) to quote (in the context of my PhD) your replies you wrote to mails I posted in this forum. What I learned from the exchanges on this forum?  Well, for one I know I still have a lot of homework to do and got some challenges I still need to address.  Thank yuo for that.  Secondly, it makes clear to me that (1) as far you are concerned meta-programs are probably not part of NLP and (2) as far as I know at this moment, you played no relevant role in their discovery.  With the current information, I can't make the bridge to meta-programs from th exercise you cited, and neither can any NLP trainer I asked.  (Still, it is possible that you played a role in another way, given there is still a "pending" remark that I should check Bandler's video tapes for a staement mentioning a "rather well known NLP trainer" challenging Richard Bandler and Leslie Cameron to address the structure of patterns that didn't vary over time", which might refer to you).  Apart from that, it made me think about a public statement made at the NLP Leadership conference in 1997 saying "the current state NLP was in was a good reflection of the attitude of both of its founders and how that 'infected' NLP".  (I think it is "compatible" with your characterlogical description in whispering p121-122).  My belief is indeed that NLP could have been part of cognitive psychology and should have been.  My corollary is that you probably were the main factor blocking that integration, having lost all interest in staying part of the Academic Community. That being said, I'm curious for your reply to this mail and I’ll be grateful for any chance to discuss “what is NLP and what isn’t" with you, even if in a Batesonion tradition i belive that one should be able to suit around a table to discuss differences, without having to agree... Patrick www.merlevede.biz