no because Grinder has never shyed away from explaining why other forms of therapy are unuseful, problamatic or unethical. You don't really believe that he holds no significant opinions about things that aren't tradmarked NLP.  I mean, I understand that you are implicitly pointing out that the primary thrust of his book is about changing NLP, but it obviously extends far beyond what is formally characterized as such.  Look at the wide range of conversations that this book has generated and read how many areas outside of NLP he touches on in making his points. He clearly doesn't reserve his opinions to only NLP.  I have my pet theory as to why he hasn't commented on Erickson, but I'll gather more information. NOt that it matters, but it's just interesting to me.  Also, he hails erickson therapuetically. I've never read him criticize milton.  And since john says that the ethical principal only should be applied to the therapeutic realm.... Kate