I'm taking this "off thread" from
http://www.nlpconnections.com/showth...8011#post28011.
Hi Eric,
I was just curious as to why you were making a specific point about Richard Bandler's name on the cover. It seemed almost like a cheap jibe and not what I would expect from you toward Richard.
I have no specific knowledge as to the genesis of the book. I can only go on what I read.
The Author's Note on page vii of the introduction clearly states "All of the material included in this book is based on the work of Richard Bandler...In preparing the text, I have drawn extensively on workshop transcripts in which Richard was teaching the concepts and practices of sub-modality usage." (My library has grown significantly since "Teach Yourself NLP".)
Is that not enough to get his name on the cover?
I never said that Will MacDonald did not make any contribution to the book, nor did I say that he contributed no ideas of his own. You did say that about Richard Bandler though.
I know that if I published the content of some training course that I had attended and just presented the material as my own work then some people might consider that to be unfair and I'm sure that the originator would take issue with me. You yourself recently took issue on this forum with the possibilty that someone didn't attribute a technique to you. To quote, "lead the flock righteously, and be religious about giving credit".
There may be a few books out there with Richard Bandler's name on that might not have a huge contribution from him, and he certainly suggests that there are many without his name on them containing his contributions, but the facts, as they are presented by Meta Publications, would lead me (obviously a right-minded individual!) to believe that his name should be on the front of this particular publication.
I'm sure that, as you were there at the time, you know a lot more than anybody about the genesis of the book. I'm sure that the story is a good one. I'd love to hear it.
I understand that the original thread was on a different subject. I do believe that if someone makes a statement or claim that appears to be incorrect then it should be challenged. I wouldn't be a good little NLPer if I didn't, would I?
Cheers,
Stephen
Stephen Redmond,
The "conversational postulate" effect of your question is: " Will did not make up all - or even any - of the material [in this book]" AND "He, Will based it [the book, the material] on transcripts of Richard's work".
Now, maybe I've got it wrong, and yours is just an innocent enquiry.
But if it isn't .... Do you have any evidence for saying either of those things? Do you have any reason for saying either of those things? Were you anywhere near physically, or close personally, to either Will or Richard at the time of writing (of that book)? Are you privvy to some info that the rest of us ain't got?
In short, "How Do You Know?" (And I more than suggest you apply that to both your postulates.)
I notice from your bio, here, that your library "has grown and grown. Starting with the 'Teach Yourself' NLP book," you say, you "now have a healthy selection of titles by Bandler, O'Connor, James, Andreas, etc," AND that you have done "a one-day intro course with Jamie Smart (Salad) in Hinkley last year," and you have "done my Prac with Owen Fitzpatrick and Brian Colbert this year."
So bully for you. You are not completely innocent.
But I'm not sure you know enough of the genesis of The Insider's Guide to realize just how odd your sharp little question is.
And this thread, BTW, is about Ryan's Q, and not this or that book. You could offer some reply on that score. Something to do with sub-modalities, I think.
Ryan,
I'm drafting a reply to your latest Q here, and to a related Q that you asked in a previous thread - my, you do keep us busy, don't you? - and will add it later.
Eric.
|
