Hi, Todd. Thank you for your feedback regarding my items (2) through (5).  You wrote: (1) How can one eliminate making these kinds of errors of discrimination? and my answer is: (2) one shouldn't. A practical experiment by which one would make the attempt, an experiment such as secretly putting video cameras on the significant others of Systemic NLP therapees, would probably enhance the credibility of arguments for nonlocal therapeutic change, whatever the outcome of the experiment. If, in fact, systemic NLP has been purposely designed by Mr. Dilts, so that it's practitioners provide (known-by-Mr. Dilts-to-be) false statements of theory, then shame on him.  If nonlocal therapeutic change is what he likens the results of his therapeutic work to, then, OK.  I think that he's not applying good critical thinking, but..., I doubt that he's reading this, but..., here goes, "That's just my thought on what you brought to bear on your analysis of the changes your therapy produced, and it's not intended as a nasty way to condemn your work.  You probably do effective therapy work, I really think so, so let the record show that I think so." Maybe Mr. Dilts creates a special context for some communications with his audiences, a context in which his audience can and does comfortably question the content of Mr. Dilts' communication of his personal beliefs.  If he does create that context, then I think sharing whatever the heck he thinks, with whatever audience, is ethical for him to do.  So, I'm making a  distinction between the effectiveness of Mr. Dilts therapy work, and any additional beliefs, beliefs about why his therapy works, that his therapees might leave his office with. -nj