Sammie, Hi there. Stephen here. My comment on description: As with anything, when it gets down to description, as with Steve Andreas WITW, it is easy to get  bogged down." I am commenting on my impression that Steve gets bogged down on what he has read. Please allow me to make perfectly clear that I have not had the pleasure, yet, to meet Steve Andreas. Forgive me if I in any way seemed to write that I have met him. So... By description, if you turn to your copy of WITW, page 41: Model A - Flashlight. Congratulations, you have just purchased a superb EverLite flashlight. The operation of your EverLite is simplicity itself: All you have to do is push the silver strip on the side toward the glass end of the device. Presto! You now have lite even under conditions of absolute darkness. Remember to put the two batteries into the device before attempting to activate the on/off switch. Model B: Flashlight. This mechanism consists of a single circuit connecting a power source (2 or more "C" batteries arranged serially) with an incandescent bulb located at the extreme end of the mechanism. A simple sliding lever when advanced toward the end holding the bulb will complete the circuit and activate the bulb, creating a source of illumination. The point here is this: There are a great number of ways an author can describe something, with two being offered above. How you describe something tends to direct your audience. So you can tagert your audience by the way you offer up a description. Hence the comment, NLP for Dummies. Something we might want to ask J and  C is if they wanted to dumb WITW down or not. My intuition is that the authors of WITW expected their readers to have a certain level of experience and or education. This is in stark contrast to the New Code of NLP seminar where J and C were patient and open to explaining anything that a member of our group wanted clarity on. There are a great number of ways a reader can interpret and evaluate what they read. To not stop and ask the authors, as in the case of the review in question of WITW, to check that you are actually reading what they are writing, can lead to endless interpretations and evaluations. reminds me of religious debates. Both WITW and Steve's review of WITW seem to make perfect sense to me. So far, since I went to the seminar, what I read in WITW, I got, in terms of my understanding of the terms that the authors used are congruent with what I thought that they were saying. SO... If I say that there is an elephant in the refrigerator and you go and look and in fact see that there is an elephant there, we are at some level, hopefully, on common ground. His intentions are mentioned in his reviews. I note here that because it is possible for anyone to appear idiotic in writing if the reader chooses to impose that filter on what they read, forgive me. An imporant note here: We are not privy to the standards that the authors used to edit their book. We do not know what made they stop and say DONE! Only a limited number of people would have read the book before it was finished... The beauty of this is that this is their expression at THIS POINT IN TIME. It is TENTATIVE FOREVER. Open-ended and thankfully so. They are not writing the Book of the Law, the Torah, the Bible, the Koran or anything of the sort. It is clear to me that this is simply the opening volley. Someone please stop me here! Thanks Sammie. Be well all, Stephen