Thanks Todd, I'm eating it up. I would expect Grinder to come down at least equally as hard on Erickson as he does on Dilts.  In my office I have the "collected papers of MHE" and, my gosh, almost any page I open to I can find a grand example of Erickson introducing gobs of content to his client.  Yes, erickson was always attending to process as well and utilizing process, but if you follow the strict requirments of WITW, ethical behavior in therapy would not include to introduction of such content.  I agree that you don't have to introduce your content as a therapist and it is very wise to do so only with much circumspection.  At the same time, even doing content-free (as if that really exists) therapy is loaded with content.  I think it is very very important to keep in mind what Dr. Grinder and Mrs. St. Claire say about content/process; it is merely a question of puncuation in that process is content from a higher level, and, as content it reflects the biases/perspectives/contexts of he/she who introduces it.  Even a format like six-step reframing that allows you to work with a problem without knowing the name of the problem and without knowing the way it is being addressed by the unconscious is EXTREMELY content loaded.  A theraputic process like six-step reframing could only have come out of a very specific historical/cultural/intellectual/etc. context.  As such, by simply having a person 'run through' such a process you introduce and embed them in the presuppostions which the process contains.  Of course, they won't walk out consciously and be able to write an essay on those presuppositions, but that is not the point. It's like walking into another culture; everything takes on a new shift in meaning, even the simple acts of everyday life are somehow changed even if you can't articulate it intellectually.  When JOhn Doe walks in your room and ten minutes later he is watching his fingers rise up and down as you talk to his unconcsious about postive intentions and finding solutions, John Doe is experincing your content.  But all of that is just ramble, don't worry about it. What do you think of Erickson's work when he would slam the client with various content? I don't think it's fair to say it is different because Erickson didn't always actually believe the content he introduced.  Plus, the authors of WITW would not care what is 'believed' by the practioner; they use language itself as the main way of determining the content/process distinction in therapy, as far as I can tell.  If I say, "How is your shame doing today" that's content to WITW, but if I say, "How is your experience doing" that's process. But remember, it's process only in relation to not mentioning a member of the class of 'experience'. I agree with your clear distinctions in the context of dependence. Thanks for making them. And because I don't have my book on me, I'm wondering if anybody can tell me if the authors explain why the ethics criteran does not apply to sales or medicine. I can't imagine the reason it doesn't apply to medicine would be because Dr's are 'experts' in that field and so should be allowed to introduce a content filled treatment, but I'd like to know how they motivate that distinction. My grief work could be viewed as cars I've developed.  If people want a car I think it's ok to sell it to them as long as you do so in an ethical manner.  If people want my grief model I think the same. But I'd love to know why it's unethical for me to share a content filled grief model with an interested party.  MAtt