|Topic:||Re:Re:Hall's Answers to Grinder|
|Posted by:||Gene Bryson|
Ok folks...this is what you all are saying...|
NO MENTION OF ST.CLAIRE = CRITICISM OF HALL'S ENTIRE EPISTIMOLOGY??
You want to talk about deletions...then please explain how you connected those two things. I have my own criticisms of Hall's work, but I also have my own criticisms of WITW.
If John and Carmen poorly punctuated some sentences, placed the chapters in an order which I didn't like, etc. then my personal preference is only that - personal. But that doesn't change my view of their overall work.
To attack Michael Hall's total work because Hall accidentally or otherwise left out Grinder co-author Carmen Bostic St.Clair in one article on his personal/commercial website is a gross misgeneralization and contains a bigger deletion than Hall's error.
Listen to yourselves. You pride yourself in being persons who are open-minded which is why some of you entered the realm of NLP. However, you then show your bias, prejudice and tunnel-vision by criticizing someone else's viewpoint for not being in line with your own. And, the only entry point for your criticism is a very small error.
Maybe Hall wasn't responding St.Claire. Maybe he was only responding to Grinder. Have you considered that for a moment?
I am not a pupil of Hall or Grinder or anyone, I am a student of life and excellence. My presupposition is that I can learn excellence from everyone; even the ability of how NOT to be critical.
In defense of Hall, at least he has published multiple books and explored during the last 20 years. Other than a paltry few, Grinder has not. (Which I have missed - seeing how good this one is). Whether Hall is right or wrong, he still puts forth an open mind and curiousity about expanding the cognitive domain of NLP. In criticism of Hall, he truly should slow down and take time to edit and proof read more of his material before he makes it available to the public.
I, for one, am disappointed in your attacks on Hall. Even from an academic standpoint. None of you have made a salient point on a real presuppositional issue in Hall's work.
You sound like a bunch of bullys on a playground.
|Topic||Date Posted||Posted By|
|Hall's Answers to Grinder||05/09/2002 03:01:13||L. Michael Hall, Ph.D.|
|Re Re:Hall's Answers to Grinder||05/09/2002 03:35:38||kc|
|Re:Hall's Answers to Grinder||05/09/2002 08:47:42||nj|
|Re:Hall's Answers to Grinder||05/09/2002 23:14:28||Michael Carroll|
|Re:Re:Hall's Answers to Grinder||06/09/2002 05:13:45||Pam|
|Re:Re:Re:Hall's Answers to Grinder||06/09/2002 12:36:33||Louisea Marnie|
|Re:Re:Hall's Answers to Grinder||06/09/2002 16:36:33||Gene Bryson|
|Re:Re:Re:Hall's Answers to Grinder||07/09/2002 01:33:27||Michael Carroll|
|My kung fu is better than your Kung fu||07/09/2002 17:50:59||Zaphod|
|rErErErErErErErEre::my kung fu is better than your kung fu||14/09/2002 12:57:00||b.b.|
|Re:Re:Re:Hall's Answers to Grinder||07/09/2002 01:43:49||Pam|
|Re:Re:Re:ReReReReReReReReReReReReReReReReReHall's Answers to Grinder||07/09/2002 16:22:22||The Black Phantom|
|Re:Re:Hall's Answers to Grinder||06/09/2002 19:17:55||L. Michael Hall, Ph.D.|
|Re:Re:Re:Hall's Answers to Grinder||07/09/2002 02:12:53||Jesse|
|Re:Re:Re:Re:Hall's Answers to Grinder||07/09/2002 03:48:13||Pam|
|Re:Re:Re:Hall's Answers to Grinder||07/09/2002 03:24:00||Michael Carroll|
|Re:Re:Re:Re:Hall's Answers to Grinder||07/09/2002 03:55:08||Pam|
|Re:Re:Re:Hall's Answers to Grinder||08/09/2002 02:47:13||Jesse|
|Re:Hall's Answers to Grinder||07/09/2002 06:11:33||Loren Larsen|
|Re:Re:Hall's Answers to Grinder||08/09/2002 08:04:55||Robert|