Forum Message

Topic: Re:Re:Hall's Answers to Grinder
Posted by: Gene Bryson
Date/Time: 06/09/2002 16:36:33

Ok folks...this is what you all are saying...


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.


Entire Thread

TopicDate PostedPosted By
Hall's Answers to Grinder05/09/2002 03:01:13L. Michael Hall, Ph.D.
     Re Re:Hall's Answers to Grinder05/09/2002 03:35:38kc
     Re:Hall's Answers to Grinder05/09/2002 08:47:42nj
     Re:Hall's Answers to Grinder05/09/2002 23:14:28Michael Carroll
          Re:Re:Hall's Answers to Grinder06/09/2002 05:13:45Pam
               Re:Re:Re:Hall's Answers to Grinder06/09/2002 12:36:33Louisea Marnie
          Re:Re:Hall's Answers to Grinder06/09/2002 16:36:33Gene Bryson
               Re:Re:Re:Hall's Answers to Grinder07/09/2002 01:33:27Michael Carroll
                    My kung fu is better than your Kung fu07/09/2002 17:50:59Zaphod
                         rErErErErErErErEre::my kung fu is better than your kung fu14/09/2002 12:57:00b.b.
               Re:Re:Re:Hall's Answers to Grinder07/09/2002 01:43:49Pam
               Re:Re:Re:ReReReReReReReReReReReReReReReReReHall's Answers to Grinder07/09/2002 16:22:22The Black Phantom
          Re:Re:Hall's Answers to Grinder06/09/2002 19:17:55L. Michael Hall, Ph.D.
               Re:Re:Re:Hall's Answers to Grinder07/09/2002 02:12:53Jesse
                    Re:Re:Re:Re:Hall's Answers to Grinder07/09/2002 03:48:13Pam
               Re:Re:Re:Hall's Answers to Grinder07/09/2002 03:24:00Michael Carroll
                    Re:Re:Re:Re:Hall's Answers to Grinder07/09/2002 03:55:08Pam
               Re:Re:Re:Hall's Answers to Grinder08/09/2002 02:47:13Jesse
     Re:Hall's Answers to Grinder07/09/2002 06:11:33Loren Larsen
          Re:Re:Hall's Answers to Grinder08/09/2002 08:04:55Robert

Forum Home