Eric Let me offer a way of sorting out what appears to me to be a couple of independent variables that you have conflated: 1. modeling (NLP version) does not have a new code and a classic code version. There is (and always have been) only one version of NLP modeling. It was the one Bandler and I used to create the field of NLP. Now, what has occurred historically, is a slide from this particular form (one relatively explicit version of which Carmen and I offer in Whispering) - in particular, the form that requires the suspension of f2 filters by the modeler until he or she achieves the ability to replicate the behaviors of excellence of the model during unconscious assimilation) - into the standard left-brained (academic) impose your own maps version that is so typical of cognitive modeling. Thus, whether your preferences run to the new code or the classic code, the modeling that is the heart of NLP is the same. 2. You wrote, "4. You mention that it was an aborted attempt, but since I got the result without full suspension of filters, were there more results that I missed out on?" If "the result" was the mastery of a limited set of patterns and you got them - fine. Your question however is key - were there more results that you missed out on? The point here is that you will never know since you didn't continue until replication. Look, as a professional linguist, I could easily have extracted Erickson's verbal patterns - I would guess within a week of effort using both conscious and unconscious filters. I would never have found the analogue marking, the exquisite calibration skills that Erickson had... Hope this clarifies the distinction as well as answers your question. 3. (your 4) Look, Eric - as I have mentioned several times on this website - there are an enormous number of legitimate strategies for learning and discovery: NLP modeling is one of these and is of particular interest in the modeling of human excellence. I am insisting on the distinction - one worth the effort. Learn as you wish - I ask that you simply make the distinction less it be lost. John