| Topic: | Re:Re:Bandler and nested loops |
| Posted by: | Eric Robbie |
| Date/Time: | 15/03/2004 18:40:07 |
|
Hmm. I was on the staff of Richard's trainer's training 1987 thru to 1989 - and I took very accurate notes of Richard's then teaching on nested loops. I also ended up teaching the entire nested loops sequence (over six days) at the 1990 trainer's training I co-taught with Richard. One day I may make them available - but in the meantime, I gotta tell you (a) there's a lot more to it that "Is it five loops or is it four loops?" (b) there's a lot more to it than just looping (c) Richard may have said recently that he doesn't know why it works, but - trust me- he knows exactly (probably didn't want to get into it at that time, with whichever people he was talking to) (d) an awful lot of people in the NLP community say they know 'all about nested loops' and pass themselves off as experts, when IMHO they ain't. What I'm surprised at - being a relative newcomer to this 'thread' stuff - is how so often when one person can't find what they want, they shout 2fraud" or "lousy" - and then some other people - with good heart I guess - say "No, you just don't understand - yet" - but no body wants to take on board that: there may be something truly remarkable here (for example Richard's use lots of different linguistic effect) but (a) for the moment he has chosen not to make them available and that (b) if there are people who have chosen to offer their perception of that stuff (Hall on nested loops, James on nested loops, Uncle Tom Cobbley on ... ) - if there are such people, and their accounts are incomplete, some of the curious and some of those who want to leard don't blame the poor messengers, but end up having a pop at - say - RB himself. Eric Robbie. |