Paul B,

The way you posted your review included very little of an upside to the event. Had you also included some more positives as you did on the second post or less judging and more decribing it would've seem more impartial (less filtering) to me, ie including more of a third position description. And more of a useful review for eveyone who did not attend the event.

(I myself would also add a second position description, ie how would the group seem and responded, had you placed yourself in Eric shoes.

Yet you still dragged Richard into it (judging his judgement which I found completely unnecessary) with the 'ought to get out more' remark which I still say presupposes in that little time you have enough data to decide how good is Eric, plus it presupposes you know everything Eric was doing (which knowing who you train with I know you don't because I also trained with most of them before meeting Richard) and it presupposes you know more than Richard about trainers out there and how to veluate them. (forgetting he even trained long time ago and co-trained with the ones at NLPU).

Again, you are entitled to not like his presenting style and even to not like him (which you already establish is not the case). I've gotten feedback about Eric from my own students (when he has taught down here) and a few don't like his presenting style but all of them realized how smart he is and how much valuable information he was presenting. I think your original review failed to point out an upside that I am pretty sure was there.
And yes I wasn't there and yes maybe I would have notice some thing you mention... I don't buy that 'real Eric' thing because I believe the real Eric or the real Gabe or the real Paul is everything he does including the not so appealing to others times. I don't buy Robert Dilts is just the cheerful guy he acts to be when he teaches or that acting that way is the only useful way of act when teaching.
Plus as Chris Morris pointed out, we were taught by Richard to elicit different states (sometimes not so pleasant ones) at different times to attach them to certain thinking processes or to establish a chain that will later run automatically. I was not there to know if Eric intentionally elicited some of the not so great states you felt. I do know he most likely established and then fired off more than three anchors for specific reasons.... even if those reasons were simply get the group going to start an exercise.

Anyway for Paul as much as for other readers, I think the problem is to expect too much out of so little time. Is the promoters fault? the advertising failing? Is it the costumers fault? I am not sure, maybe a little of all.

We all have filters and it is my own belief that the 'know nothing state' or 'nerk nerk state' (as Epstein and Bandler use to play with it) is a good thing to use when learning something new but even those do not achieve a 100% filter free experience (I think). Therefor I am not saying we all don't walk in to a workshop with filters as Paul did, I was simply pointing out the difference between those who posted things like 'learn from the experience' and the ones who posted 'just to meet people'. Language is a powerful thing in how it reveals to us where other people stand and powerful in affecting (even determining) how the speaker will live an experience.

Oh well... filters and all I am glad you (Paul) added to your review and do hope some day I get to shake your hand because I honestly am not posting to fight with you. You seem to have different ideas than mine but you seem honest in your intention to make NLP available to more people at a higher quality (even if we may not agree on what that quality is).

Have a great week and weekend
Gabe

Gabe,

Chris closed the session saying that Richard regards Eric as one of the top 3 and "you can see why". I couldn't to be honest although he clearly had a lot of experience and knowledge to give - which I've already said...

I was requested to review my experience and I did as objectively as I could. Knowing also that some slight provocation may encourage people to say what their real experience was - which might be more useful to everyone...

I'm not entirely sure why you feel the need to comment Gabe. I'm sure Eric can look after himself. In fact we have already exchanged an email.

Looking forward to a good shake too sometime.

Cheers

Paul

paulrbelcher wrote:

Chris closed the session saying that Richard regards Eric as one of the top 3 and "you can see why".

I've just gone back and listened to the tape and what I actually said was: "Richard Bandler has said that Eric's one of the top three trainers in the world and I hope you have seen why tonight".

I could have put it more elegantly and it's not vastly different to what you said I said, but I think the differences are worth pointing out.

Well Paul,

Maybe Chris should've said "a few of you may be knowledgeable enough and aware enough to notice what the rest didn't and those will know why Richard says what he says"... but it would not be as polite (and Chris is a polite guy) and hoenstly I don't think Chris even knows half of what may be going on. As the guys at Therapeutic Specislist can tell you at one point I made them conscious of 14 anchors I had been using all along and that was just some of them. And that didn't include all the linguistic stuff and surely it didn't included all the energy work.

Yet when you questioned what Richard said YOU never said "I didn't see why" (leaving open the possibility that it was you who wasn't skilled enough to notice that) YOU gave advise to Richard to go out and in it implying he was wrong.

So forget all the explaining answer this... do YOU think you know better than Bandler who is and who is not a good trainer?
I am not asking for your taste (we already know that) since you clearly said Richard ought to get out more so you are comparing your knowledge to his. So do YOU know better than Richard who is and who is not a top trainer? Yes or no?

And are you asking me for my reasons to post with some sort of embedded question?
Or are you just implying that I am only doing it because I think Eric can't look after himself? If so you are way off. Not only I think he can but that has nothing to do with me posting.

If it is the first one fine I'll answer... and since we are stepping into that territory. Why do you feel the need to include the 'Richard ougth to get out more' remark? I mean out of two hours or so was it that important how Chris closed the session?

Maybe we should start questioning every endoresement out there including the comments Dilts and DeLozier made of you and that you have on your site. But maybe that would be stupid. See I got endoresements from Dilts for a book of mine and for something else and I know endoresements are nice but not the truth above all truths. I've gotten endoresements from many other people but those are not be considered truth above all truths.
Eric says I am the most 'Richard-like' trainer (delivering).... Richard says I am the best trainer in latinamerica but surely he has never seen ALL of them. Grinder says the same about Edmundo Velasco and he hasn't seen everyone. Richard's comment about Eric was what he thought to be true but also a nice thing to say as an endoresement.

I feel the need to post for the following reasons: (and I do expect an answer from you to my questions)

1. It mismatched every experience I've had watching Eric and felt it was more a 'anti-bandler' review than an impartial one. (LOYALTY)
2. Your review was as I predicted (I can give you names of guys here in Mexico I talked to about it) and if the outcome was what I predicted it is very likely the reasons for it to be like that are also as I thought (the not willing to learn from, etc) (FAIRNESS)
3. I do sneak my nose where my friends (real close friends) are being critisized, attacked (I didn't felt this one was an attack per se) or even mention. This btw does get me in trouble very once in a while. (LOYALTY-FRIENDSHIP)
4. I am co-training with him many more times in the future and your review on his work will also affect how people might evaluate our programs in the future and how they decide to give us a chance or not. (BUSINESS-FAIRNESS)
5. I like poiting out what messages presuppose and imply and how much more can we get out of apparently simple comments. (TEACHING-POSITIONING)
6. I am on vacations for a few days and was a little bored the other day. (TIME?-BOREDOM?) LOL (laughing out loud)
666. I am from the Bandler camp!

So I've answered... would you be kind enough to answer to my questions?

Have a good day
Gabe

PS - Next week the time-boredom factor will be gone so I might not be as involved in future threads. What a relief!, some might think, LOL.

Gabe you wrote - '4. I am co-training with him many more times in the future and your review on his work will also affect how people might evaluate our programs in the future and how they decide to give us a chance or not. (BUSINESS-FAIRNESS)'

As an interested bystander who wanted to know how the evening went and i appreciated all comments, I just thought I may point out the one comment from you that perhaps you could also see it as - just as off-putting to how people may evaluate your programmes? As an ambassador - you're a little scary!

As a relative newcomer to this forum - my observation of this thread is its been hijacked and turned into something completely different.

I will now duck for cover!

Linda

No offence intended Gabe, I thought this:

I am co-training with him many more times in the future and your review on his work will also affect how people might evaluate our programs in the future and how they decide to give us a chance or not. (BUSINESS-FAIRNESS)

was the rationale behind your defence of Eric, my little map of the World, maybe I'm over cynical?

take care

Stephen

Hi Stephen,

I'm not sure what you meant by your last post. Are you saying that you don't believe that Gabe is aware of why he has posted in this thread? And if so, what are you basing this supposition on exactly?

I ask this because it doesn't match my own calibration of Gabe so I'd love to understand what data points you were using.

(And no, to pre-empt speculation, it's an honest question, I'd like to either know or have my own possible misreading of the meaning of your (Stephen's) post corrected for my own benefit).

Thanks!

Be Well,

Michael Perez

Michael

My reading of Stephen's post was to the effect that Gabe was posting because he saw a possible adverse effect to his forthcoming training ventures with Eric.

Seemed quite clear to me but then I was trained cynical

Cheers

Carl

Hi Carl,

I know that that was *a* reason, as that is what Gabe posted above. Stephen singled it out as 'the rationale' (singular) thereby discounting the other reasons Gabe listed. And therefore my curiosity as to why Stephen selected that one specifically (i.e. why *only* this reason and not the others).

Therefore, perhaps a more clearly phrased version of my question might be, 'based on what specifically did it seem that only one of Gabe's reasons was 'the rationale''? If there were other things going on in that communication that I didn't track or I tracked differently, I'd love to learn from another perspective, which is a rationale behind my question(I say 'a' because I'm a complex sort of fellow...). If it's just a 'gut feeling', I'm OK with that too, I'm just curious.

And again, I'm aware that I might have misread the meaning of Stephen's message and therefore asked for clarification should this be the case.

Is that a bit clearer?

Be Well,

Michael Perez

Perhaps we need a separate forum for reviews of other people's reviews?

Or not.

And what's *that* supposed to mean?

And on a more serious note, if anyone finds it less than useful, I'll withdraw my question to Stephen and stew in my curiosity instead...

Be Well,

Michael Perez

I'm just surprised nobody has mentioned the jelly babies yet.

Rather than judging people by whether they train with Richard Bandler, or whether it's John Grinder or Robert Dilts, or even (*gulp*) all of them - like me - I instead think it's much more telling to notice how people eat their jelly babies. Some munch them whole, others nibble at them, and one scary person (no names mentioned!) bit the head off her jelly baby with such enthusiasm that it worried me rather.

These are the things I think about.

Happy to oblige Michael, I'll try to be 'to the point', for the sake of clarity. I have read a number of posts on NLP Connections where Gabe 'appears' to be aggresive, it's not a negative thing and may be his latin flair, he just comes across aggresive.

I read this thread, in it's entirity, from a genuinely intersted point of view, I have expressed an interest in attending similar events should they be more Northerly located.

Paul expressed how the event was for him and Gabe appeared to aggressively pursue Paul (my map, my take on the World and could well be badly calibrated) for answers and came across overtly defensive of Eric, critical of Paul and things Paul had posted previously.

I thought Gabe was protecting his intersts from the onset, rather than trying to understand why Paul felt the way he did, after all Paul was there and Gabe wasn't, it's possible that Eric could have had an off night and Paul may have picked this up, I don't know this for sure and am only speculating as I wasn't there either.

Gabe has admitted in his last post his reasons for posting and I applaud his honesty, I just felt one point, more than any other, came across in his posts, his rationale, but then it is a mind read after all

Is this classified as a review of a review of a review?

take care

Stephen


ps, I mind read that Gabe is one hell of an energetic trainer

Hi Stephen,

Stephen Salmon wrote:

Happy to oblige Michael

You've satisfied my curiosity, consider yourself thanked...

Be Well,

Michael Perez

Stephen Salmon wrote:

Is this classified as a review of a review of a review?

My mind has looped.

Stephen Salmon wrote:

ps, I mind read that Gabe is one hell of an energetic trainer

You can read some reviews of his last course in London here.

'Not' I think Chris...

And I agree with Linda - debating whether or not I am a better judge than Richard Bandler is irrelevant to the review of my experience of Eric's evening.

Since Gabe is rather insistent on I give an answer to whether or not I am a better judge than Richard. Then my answer has to be: Yes, sometimes. No one is infallible, including me, so that simply has to be my answer.

I withdraw my original remark referring to the reference by Chris. It's not relevant to my review of the evening with Eric which I'll say again I enjoyed and learnt a lot from. My impetuous self couldn't help referring to the closing comments. I withdraw it.

Maybe we should start questioning every endoresement out there including the comments Dilts and DeLozier made of you and that you have on your site.

I think that would a waste of time. Please do take a look though. I would be the first to say that the comments we have on our web site say practically nothing about our training - all they say is that a lot of people have come along and are very happy to say nice things about us. I would much rather people come and see for themselves...

My intention of my original review, other than to thank Chris, was to give an honest and straightforward account of my experience so that people could actually get a sense of what my experience was. It was my experience, filters and all and some people seemed to identify with it. I must confess that my review was at least slightly influenced by my partners experience (a very experienced professional trainer of longer-standing than me by the way). Not only was she completely mis-calibrated but she felt bullied and patronised (her words, not mine) and I could certainly see why.

And Gabe - all publicity is good publicity. I'm sure some people are even more curious than ever to see you and Eric train...

Cheers

Paul

PS. Loved the jelly babies Chris. A lovely touch.

mmmmm.......jelly baby heads

yum

Okay - I've just survived sniper fire in the Forces forum (searching for war veterans!!), so I think I can now take it in here!

Paul - I didn't read anything in your post that was offensive, it was the escalation that came after that, that took it over the top and detracted from your's and other's posts which I really didn't care for, it took the entire focus off Eric Robbie's evening and I feel his evening deserved comment - robust or otherwise without aggressive posturing by another, however - that's just map of the world!!

And Chris - just to let you know - I start with the black Jelly Babies (notice the respect I give them - initial capitals?), then the red then it doesn't matter how they come after that (?)!! I nibble their arms off, then their toes, then their heads........................er............where's everyone gone???? Hel-looooooooooo?

Linda

paulrbelcher wrote:

'Not' I think Chris...

And I agree with Linda - debating whether or not I am a better judge than Richard Bandler is irrelevant to the review of my experience of Eric's evening.

Since Gabe is rather insistent on I give an answer to whether or not I am a better judge than Richard. Then my answer has to be: Yes, sometimes. No one is infallible, including me, so that simply has to be my answer.

I withdraw my original remark referring to the reference by Chris. It's not relevant to my review of the evening with Eric which I'll say again I enjoyed and learnt a lot from. My impetuous self couldn't help referring to the closing comments. I withdraw it.

I think that would a waste of time. Please do take a look though. I would be the first to say that the comments we have on our web site say practically nothing about our training - all they say is that a lot of people have come along and are very happy to say nice things about us. I would much rather people come and see for themselves...

My intention of my original review, other than to thank Chris, was to give an honest and straightforward account of my experience so that people could actually get a sense of what my experience was. It was my experience, filters and all and some people seemed to identify with it. I must confess that my review was at least slightly influenced by my partners experience (a very experienced professional trainer of longer-standing than me by the way). Not only was she completely mis-calibrated but she felt bullied and patronised (her words, not mine) and I could certainly see why.

And Gabe - all publicity is good publicity. I'm sure some people are even more curious than ever to see you and Eric train...

Cheers

Paul

PS. Loved the jelly babies Chris. A lovely touch.

Jelly Babies mmmm makes me think of food gawd damn it!! (AND I’ve just finished working with Paul on marketing his I Can Make you Thin CD’s…I really must get round to listening to it!)

Some of the ‘best’ chefs on the planet have had to tolerate restaurant reviewers coming into their establishment and then writing less than complimentary reviews of the experience.

Responses by the chefs tend to be one of the following three:

• Beat them up.
• Ignore them
• Sue them (no kidding, a case has recently been upheld against a ‘defamatory’ review)

I’ll let you decide which you feel is the most appropriate.

The point is. The reviewers aren’t ‘better chefs’. The reviewers don’t run restaurants. But they still get to review the experience and put it in print regardless. And it’s nice to have that opinion don’t you think?


…It’s a bit like football too isn’t it….ahem…enough of the analogies methinks.

JL

jameslavers wrote:

Some of the ‘best’ chefs on the planet have had to tolerate restaurant reviewers coming into their establishment and then writing less than complimentary reviews of the experience.

As far as I could tell Paul wasn’t reviewing the event on behalf of NLP Today or Anchoring International. It looked to me like a review from a customer as the others were, except those that weren’t there of course. They tend to be worth a lot more to the chef or the trainer I would expect.

I may be wrong and Paul may or not correct me on this or maybe I’ll go order a curry, get a bottle of red and try to get over the fact that I have just spent the day in Wales – the welsh variety that is not the mammal.

Yaki da

John

Kids in the backseat cause accidents, accidents in the backseat cause kids