NJ, re (1): I am not sure what Robert Dilts' interpretation of the events surrounding his work are, so I can't speak to that. I do, however, think he is capable of making mistakes ;-) I also don't believe he holds the title "Dr." but please correct me if I am wrong. re (6): Can't speak for Sarah, but speaking for myself regarding the 4 ways in which one might conclude that non-local events have occured when, in actuality, they haven't... I think that each and every one of them is a possibility and that there are others as well... Additionally, one could conclude that any one of the items (2) through (5) have occured erroneously when any other item of said group "actually" happened. Such is the world of possibility. A more interesting question to me is, "How can one eliminate making these kinds of errors of discrimination?" re (7): I definitely do not think that an argument from analogy would suffice to draw conclusions regarding the existence of non-local events in therapy. Particularly with respect to the content of my previous post. I am not sure what kind of "likeness" you mean when you say, "if the analogy claimed likeness between therapy and quantum effects" but I don't personally believe that there is any kind of likeness that would be sufficient to draw such a conclusion. I am using the word sufficient here in the formal sense. I do think that creating these types of analogies, although not sufficient for drawing conclusions, is useful for creating working hypotheses that can then be tested through experience. Very useful indeed... Hope I have answered your questions sufficiently for your purposes. If not, let me know. Bye for now, Todd