Stacey Rober and I enjoyed and long and fruitful relationship - initially as teacher and student and then as co-researchers. I have great admiration for his intelligence - this accounts in part for my frustration with his refusal or inability to respect the process/content distinction that Carmen and I propose identifies the limits of relevancy for determining whether a putative pattern is within NLP or not - I know that he understands this distinction and as Martin recently stated on this website, I have no difficulty with people doing whatever, only that they develop their own names (e.g. NLP) for what they are proposing should they choose to ignore fundamental distinction in the field that Bandler and I created. Note that my one (and only) response to M. Hall took this form - cool, you are doing neuro semantics (whatever that could mean) and not NLP - great, have a nice life, we are operating in different fields. I did not certify Robert - that would have been inappropriate given the closeness of our relationship and indeed, Robert has a very well honed sense talent for, given a proposed pattern, finding the counterexample. I know, I had that reputation in the field of transformational grammar many moons ago. John