Rapport is tougher than I thought
sy...@postmaster.co.uk
been blown away. Firstly, because it was total logic and I don't know
why I never thought of it before, but also because it's left me
bewildered where to start.
I want to start building rapport with people (and mainly women)- I
know that's currently my main weakness. However, there's just so much
involved. Mirroring, pacing, matching, leading, not to mention the
Milton Model and the differences in language.
Then, there's anchoring, which I've found easy to do on myself, but
I'm guessing doing it to others is a different kettle of fish.
I just don't know where I should begin. Can anyone give me advice?
I've started this week listening carefully to voice tone. Should I
build on this week by week, adding eye movements, gestures etc?
How have you all developed your rapport skills? Have you made a study
plan, etc?
I am certain of one thing though. My newly found knowledge of NLP has
made me more sensually aware and makes me remember that in difficult
situations I have many choices. So, even if I haven't yet developed
rapport skills I'm guessing that's a pretty good start....
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
John
>I've just finished reading "Introduction to NLP" by O'Connor and I've
>been blown away. Firstly, because it was total logic and I don't know
>why I never thought of it before, but also because it's left me
>bewildered where to start.
>
>I want to start building rapport with people (and mainly women)- I
>know that's currently my main weakness. However, there's just so much
>involved. Mirroring, pacing, matching, leading, not to mention the
>Milton Model and the differences in language.
Sounds like you know loads of stuff already and practicing with what
you already know will keep you going for quite some time I should
think. I'm not sure there is a generic "best" plan although there will
be for you. However it really is hard to go wrong with what ever you
do if you just practice what you have learned already - try something,
check what happens and then modify what you did depending on what
result was.
I am also struck by something else though. People sometimes talk about
using rapport skills as you have but there seems to be something
missing.
The definition for rapport I use here is meeting people at their map
of world. To do this requires not only skills but a desire to it.
Apart from the NLP type skills you mention remember there are also
some basics like (really) listening to what others say, taking an
interest in what they do and not judging what you hear, amongst
others.
For instance, when you meet someone, for the first time or otherwise,
there will be something about them that is unique or unusual, there
hair or a piece of jewellery or clothing or something they have said
or done. Notice it and then remark on it saying how effective it is.
Is this manipulation ? No, not if you believe it and that's the trick
- doing it with integrity.
Using the skills you mention will then have a context and your reason
for improving your rapport with others will be achieved whatever it
may be
I hope these words are as clear on the screen as they in my head.
This stuff blows me away too, good Luck
John
Elvis Lester
Re: Rapport
Remember that almost any knowledge you can gain from or with someone can be
used to build rapport. Their Ideas, intentions, identity/identities, values,
beliefs, thoughts, questions, answers, sayings, doings, viewings, point of
view, concepts, principles, statements, stories, skills, stratgies,
reference experiences, emotions/feelings, sensations,
comments/verbalizations, interpretations, evaluations, judgments, and much
more. These are the primary things I focus on and elicit information about
intentionally. Of course there's much more you can pace, garner -
physiologically, psycho-logically. Remember, people have their own
"psycho-logic" that you can identify and utilize to communicate with them.
You just have to get up and get into them to really "see" them, really
"hear" them, really "feel" THEM. Don't forget that the person is in an
ongoing stream of processing, that they are continuing to process and do
things in their mind. You can track this very well if you have a model to do
so. That is what the IVIBES(tm) model is all about. Tracking your and theirs
to communicate, to achieve a communion of sorts.
The spirit of inquiry and observation is key to gaining the information that
you can use to work with and pace/lead/match/mismatch/etc. the other person.
I think that a key skill is to be neutral, receptive, present and
alert/uptime, out, getting information. It is as if you are "with" that
person only and they are the center of your attention. You make deep contact
with them in order to "get to know" them. You slow time down a bit and
really make the effort to catch their vibes.
People know when you are really listening, paying attention, valuing them.
Don't they? It is a special kind of attention. Focused, Intentional,
Responsive, Energized, Deliberate, Uptime, Present - I call this FIRED
UP!(tm) I do training just on this to get people to use these skills in
concert and make a much larger impact on what they do.
Get FIRED UP! Make contact with self first and then go and do what you know
how to!
Elvis Keith Lester, MA, LMHC, NCC
ExecuLearn(r)
http://www.execulearn.biz
"John" <jo...@hitmail.con> wrote in message
news:3de8aa20...@news.btopenworld.com...
Ca...@nowhere.net
Here is an easy andpowerful way to gain rapport with anyone.
Ask your subject a question about something, anything that interests
them that will put them into a good state. Now, here's the important
part, immediately after you ask them the question watch what they do
with their facil features and body language before answering. Bite
their lip, scrunch their nose ,blink, drum their fingers scratch their
face, etc....
Once you have established what these things are start doing them
yourself and feed them back to your subject.
Works like a charm.
smilingstar
you wrote:
> The definition for rapport I use here is meeting people at their map
> of world. To do this requires not only skills but a desire to it.
>
Could you expand on what it means to meet people at their map? I've read
that one of the presuppositions is that 'people operate from their map of
the world' and I've always thought about it in regards to the metamodel. So
how specifically do you apply it to gain rapport??
Namaste
/S
Patrick Galvin
I learned rapport from the "Rapport God". I decided that he was a
totally superficial flake. I then learned that the women that I am
interested in dating can also spot totally superficial flakes from a
mile away.
So now instead of trying to get people to like me, I've decided I just
don't give a shit if anyone likes me. By the way, I really don't like
the "Rapport God" or any of his comrades!
Tom Vizzini
>
> I want to start building rapport with people (and mainly women)- I
> know that's currently my main weakness. However, there's just so much
> involved. Mirroring, pacing, matching, leading, not to mention the
> Milton Model and the differences in language.
This is the main problem with classic rapport building skills. Your
attention is so split that you can barely respond to a converstation.
As far as I am concerned, everything you mentioned above is a waste of time.
Thet way I teach rapport, Mirroring is a RESULT of already having rapport.
Mirroring is a lousy way to attempt to get rapport.
The reason is that as far as I am concerned...it doesn't work. You are using
your conscious mind to do something that is best turned over to your
unconscious mind.
Here are my thoughts on this. Matching and mirroring are signs that rapport
exists but not a very good way to get rapport. Using matching and mirroring
is like shoving exhaust fumes back into the tailpipe of a car and expecting
the engine to run. It just won't work.
Add to that. How many things can you track? One person once suggested that
you can blink when they blink. That is just stupid. Have you ever blinked
consciously. It is a very slow process. How about posture. Well if you are
used to moving and standing like woman then that might work with women.
Here is the difference. When I am in deep rapport with someone I notice that
I am standing similar to them but it is a RESULT of rapport not HOW to get
it. It comes from stepping completely into their reality not from mimicking
their body movements or breathing.
I have challenged anyone to pace my breathing in a conversation
and as of yet not one person has been able to do it. It is great theory and
if you have a client in a chair hypnotizing them, you might get a result of
some type. But in the real world in real conversation I have never been able
to get a good connection compared to the other stuff I do.
Deep rapport comes from really being able to see the world through their
eyes. It has four levels that you can easily identify.
1. Do you feel more comfortable
2. Do they feel more comfortable
3. Sensing the states they are in.
4. Nonverbally shifting those states.
Matching and mirroring may actually accomplish the first level. That is a
giant step for a lot of people and should not be ignored. It does not do the
second step very well and almost never gets the last two levels.
So here is something you can do. When you look at someone you want rapport,
stop for a moment and really get a feeling for them. Get a sense of who they
are and what state they are in. Imagine really stepping into that reality
and looking at the world thought it for a while. As you do focus your energy
and attention on them and imagine that you are connected to them. Notice how
that feeling in your body and notice any nonverbal responses from them. This
is all before you even say hello.
Then walk up to them and notice how the conversation goes. How do you feel?
Do they seem comfortable? What feelings do you sense from them? There is a
difference between really connecting with people and matching or mimicking
them. Go play and see if you can feel the difference.
Now I know that several people here are going to scream because I am
suggesting that mirroring does not work. What I can say is that I used to do
it that way and it is a lot of work. It does not compare to what I am able
to do now. That is my personal experience and no matter how much you scream
you cannot invalidate it :)
When you take this to the next level it allows you to model people very
easily. You can track the states they go through without extensive
interviewing. Besides most of the time they are not aware of their own
states so they can't tell you even if they wanted to.
I would say the biggest key to all of this is a playful attitude when going
out to practice. If you are the type of person who is very serious about
this, it will not work. Relax and have some fun with it.
..........................
The Golden Bubble Technique. It is part of the Magical Rapport skills
we teach. You can achive rapport with people in moments BEFORE you even talk
to them. Even BEFORE they see you!
Here is a quick run down:
MAGICAL RAPPORT AND THE SECRET OF THE GOLDEN BUBBLE
Well so far we have seen the things that we want you to begin to be able to
track but there is another level that moves all these skills to another
level. We call this Magical Rapport. So what is the difference? Well when
using Magical Rapport we are training the unconscious mind to connect to and
influence others.
What are the advantages of this? Well it allows you to focus you attention
of actual communication rather than on trying to mirror behavior. All the
things we mentioned above will be a product of already having rapport rather
than a process to get there.
There are four levels of skill that you will notice as you continue your
learning.
1 You will feel more comfortable talking to people. This alone will get you
tremendous results. Other people can sense your comfort level. If you are
not comfortable they are not going to be comfortable either.
2 You will notice that other people automatically feel comfortable with you
and actually gravitate to you. Complete strangers will tell you their life
story and open up far beyond what they would with other people.
3 You will begin to sense the state that other people are in before you even
talk to them. This also will give you the ability to adjust what you are
going to say and sense when you are headed in the right direction.
4 You will be able to shift the states of other people without saying a
word. When in rapport you will be able to feedback the state you are in and
accelerate them at will. This is the highest level of the skill and while
many of you will be able to do this immediately other will require some
practice.
Here are the basic steps that will be the map for you to follow as you
practice in the coming weeks.
1 Set you agenda aside
2 Decide on your intent
3 Build the visualization
4 Clear your mind and step out of yourself and into the person you want
rapport with
5 Make unconscious adjustments
6 Use Golden Bubble to intensify connection.
Yes this is basic and it is not ALL of what goes on but I think it will help
you remember.
Go play,
Tom
--
Tom Vizzini
http://www.Essential-Skills.com
Real Skills for the Real World
Advanced Rapport Mastery-The Secrets of Accelerated Magical Rapport Video
http://www.essential-skills.com/AdvancedRapport.htm
3 Dimensional Mind videos now available
http://www.essential-skills.com/3dmind.htm
Tom Vizzini
This is a different subject so I will write another post :)
<sy...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
news:do6huush1c80gbh44...@4ax.com...
>
> Then, there's anchoring, which I've found easy to do on myself, but
> I'm guessing doing it to others is a different kettle of fish.
Not at all. If you do not have rapport you are going to have a difficult
time anchor good states. You can anchor really bad states though :)
Here are the secrets of anchoring,
1 Calibrate to where they are now so that you can see when you get them
moving in the direction you want. You need to calibrate before you do
ANYTHING else.
2 Ellicit that state. That means that you can use one of the 4 types of
sneaky elicitation questions that will conversationally get them into the
state you want. Elicitation is very important and is truly an art form. A
clumsy elicitation will get weak results. You do not need the milton model
or meta model to elicit states. BTW using the phrase 'Think of a time when
you felt X" is the most worthless elicitation on the planet. I specifically
ban in from our seminars. The reason is simple. It has no movement to it. If
you think of a 'time', it is frozen in time. It is ONLY one experience to
make a state out of. It has no support of OTHER times. Terrible elicitation.
3 Set the anchor. This is a whole subject that can go on for hours. I never
touch anyone to anchor them. At the same time I set the anchor in no less
than 3 ways at a time. The key is setting the anchor during the acceleration
of the state. Thsi is not the way that most poeple teach anchoring. Most
have you amp the state up to a peak and then anchor. In my experience that
is a waste of time. You will get a peak state but it will have no momentum.
4 Turn the anchor into a sliding anchor that varies the intensity of the
state. You want MORE than just an on/off switch. You want total control of
the anchor. That means having the ability to turn up the state as well as
turn it down or take it away.
WE have a video demo on our site that shows Kim anchoring some poor guy to
three states CONVERSATIONALLY.
Then she stacks all three states and make one powerfull state built out his
CORE VALUES and.....attaches it to her :)
http://www.essential-skills.com/condiment_anchoring_demo.htm
It is loads of fun but to get the most out of it REALLY listen to how she is
eliciting the states. When he does not respond to one way, she backs off and
uses another direction to get the states. Also when he is not having hte
response she wants she keeps digging until she gets it.
To learn some of the best REAL WORLD anchoring stuff out there get our video
sets
Artful Anchoring
Advanced Anchoring and other Sneaky Stuff
http://essential-skills.com/PRODUCTS.html
Most of all, relax and have fun. You don't have to know it all right away.
Go play,
SoldierSvejk
All you and your buds are doing is trying to HYPE YOUR MEDIOCRE
VIDEOS. I have lots of fun reading your pseudo intellectual posts. I
look foward to your nasty remarks disguised as being glib and FUN.
Have fun!:)
SoldierSvejk
Kim as well cause I love petite babes. Its not the sneaky anchoring
pseudo condoments its that the guy is on the spot, being videoed and
she's a babe and his unconsious is having fun and responding based on
that. OF course I'm sure you have lots of peole that think you know
what you are talking about and rave about your teachings BUT Jerry
Falwell, Faith healers etc. always have a percentage of people that
these "techniques" HELP even in an amazing way. If this stuff was
really for real and not mostly placebo or statistcal sucess you'd be a
multmillionaire in no time. ARE YOU? If not Why not since you not
only can anchor but can MAGICALLY FORM RAPPORT? Have fun~~~
David Gould
>I've just finished reading "Introduction to NLP" by O'Connor and I've
>been blown away. Firstly, because it was total logic and I don't know
>why I never thought of it before, but also because it's left me
>bewildered where to start.
Yeah, I really dislike that book.
>I want to start building rapport with people (and mainly women)- I
>know that's currently my main weakness. However, there's just so much
>involved. Mirroring, pacing, matching, leading, not to mention the
>Milton Model and the differences in language.
Forget all that until you have some idea how to use them.
What does somebody have to do to get in rapport with you?
>Then, there's anchoring, which I've found easy to do on myself, but
>I'm guessing doing it to others is a different kettle of fish.
Doing it _with_ others might be easier.
David Gould
<T...@essential-skills.com> wrote:
>As far as I am concerned, everything you mentioned above is a waste of time.
>Thet way I teach rapport, Mirroring is a RESULT of already having rapport.
So is what you describe as the Golden Bubble ;)
>Mirroring is a lousy way to attempt to get rapport.
>
>The reason is that as far as I am concerned...it doesn't work. You are using
>your conscious mind to do something that is best turned over to your
>unconscious mind.
Absolutely.
>Here is the difference. When I am in deep rapport with someone I notice that
>I am standing similar to them but it is a RESULT of rapport not HOW to get
>it. It comes from stepping completely into their reality not from mimicking
>their body movements or breathing.
Exactly how do you want to be perceived within their reality?
For those reading from ASF, this might also be better done
unconsciously. Because at their _conscious_ level, you might them to
think that you don't particularly care about their reality.
>I have challenged anyone to pace my breathing in a conversation
>and as of yet not one person has been able to do it. It is great theory and
>if you have a client in a chair hypnotizing them, you might get a result of
>some type. But in the real world in real conversation I have never been able
>to get a good connection compared to the other stuff I do.
It works better outside of conversation.
>Deep rapport comes from really being able to see the world through their
>eyes. It has four levels that you can easily identify.
>
>1. Do you feel more comfortable
>
>2. Do they feel more comfortable
>
>3. Sensing the states they are in.
>
>4. Nonverbally shifting those states.
Good stuff here.
Patrick Galvin
> <sy...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:do6huush1c80gbh44...@4ax.com...
>
> >
> > I want to start building rapport with people (and mainly women)- I
> > know that's currently my main weakness. However, there's just so much
> > involved. Mirroring, pacing, matching, leading, not to mention the
> > Milton Model and the differences in language.
>
Tommy finds it very difficult to get other people to like him. I
really don't like him and his comrades and I don't care what he thinks
about me.
Patrick Galvin
> This is a different subject so I will write another post :)
>
> <sy...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:do6huush1c80gbh44...@4ax.com...
>
> >
> > Then, there's anchoring, which I've found easy to do on myself, but
> > I'm guessing doing it to others is a different kettle of fish.
>
I have always found it easier to use the pre-existing anchors that
mentally healthy women already have. I really didn't learn anything
from the thousands of dollars I spent on NLP or hypnosis.
spamo_@yahoo.com impending
>
> I have always found it easier to use the pre-existing anchors that
> mentally healthy women already have.
please explain...ive never heard of pre existing anchors before...
Peter Lee
Peter
"Tom Vizzini" <T...@essential-skills.com> 撰寫於郵件
news:DUKG9.5199$ov6.2...@news2.news.adelphia.net...
James Petry
news:gdLG9.5203$ov6.2...@news2.news.adelphia.net...
Tom, many thanks for those notes. Very useful.
Best Regards,
James
--
"Be excellent to each other", Bill & Ted
David Gould
<T...@essential-skills.com> wrote:
>Not at all. If you do not have rapport you are going to have a difficult
>time anchor good states. You can anchor really bad states though :)
Anchoring is simply a way to generate a predictable response.
What kinds of rapport have allowed you to get predictable responses in
hindsight?
>Here are the secrets of anchoring,
>
>1 Calibrate to where they are now so that you can see when you get them
>moving in the direction you want. You need to calibrate before you do
>ANYTHING else.
Not sure I agree here. There are other reasons to calibrate to their
current state, but as Jonathan Altfeld has pointed out, you really only
need to calibrate to state transitions ie changes in physiology etc.
>Elicitation is very important and is truly an art form.
One of the drills we do in our practice group is to write down names of
states on paper, put them into a hat and take turns eliciting them. You
get very good very quickly.
>3 Set the anchor. This is a whole subject that can go on for hours. I never
>touch anyone to anchor them. At the same time I set the anchor in no less
>than 3 ways at a time. The key is setting the anchor during the acceleration
>of the state. Thsi is not the way that most poeple teach anchoring. Most
>have you amp the state up to a peak and then anchor. In my experience that
>is a waste of time. You will get a peak state but it will have no momentum.
There are advantages to both but if you must use a static ie non-sliding
anchor, AND you can only do it once, anchor somewhere between the
fastest acceleration and the peak.
>4 Turn the anchor into a sliding anchor that varies the intensity of the
>state. You want MORE than just an on/off switch. You want total control of
>the anchor. That means having the ability to turn up the state as well as
>turn it down or take it away.
Anchoring is simply associating a desired response to a set of changing
submodalities that YOU CAN EASILY CONTROL. Those submodalities should
give some idea of how to set a sliding anchor.
J Rapson
> "Tom Vizzini" <T...@essential-skills.com> wrote in message news:<gdLG9.5203$ov6.2...@news2.news.adelphia.net>...
> > This is a different subject so I will write another post :)
> >
> > <sy...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:do6huush1c80gbh44...@4ax.com...
> >
> > >
> > > Then, there's anchoring, which I've found easy to do on myself, but
> > > I'm guessing doing it to others is a different kettle of fish.
> >
>
> I have always found it easier to use the pre-existing anchors that
> mentally healthy women already have. I really didn't learn anything
> from the thousands of dollars I spent on NLP or hypnosis.
>
considering that you've never even attended NLP Practitioner TRaining,
I'd say you're hardly qualified to speak of the topic. that NLP chip
on your shoulder is really pushing you into overdrive. perhaps you
should just stick to that church you mentioned in another thread.
Jim R
Jim R
Tom Vizzini
"Peter Lee" <ccomme...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ashrvt$8j...@imsp212.netvigator.com...
> I find the following post from Tom a very interesting Thesis on Rapport.
>
> Peter
Thanks Peter :) It is more than a thesis. It actually has been taught and
works.
Have fun
Tom Vizzini
OK David I am going to try one time to respond to you. Maybe instead if just
mismatching you will actually read the full response.
"David Gould" <da...@deep-trance.com> wrote in message
news:ud4puu0rr3tc84qas...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 02 Dec 2002 15:44:12 GMT, "Tom Vizzini"
> <T...@essential-skills.com> wrote:
>
> >Not at all. If you do not have rapport you are going to have a difficult
> >time anchor good states. You can anchor really bad states though :)
>
> Anchoring is simply a way to generate a predictable response.
>
> What kinds of rapport have allowed you to get predictable responses in
> hindsight?
Rapport...get it? It is a simple concept. What kinds? The kind that is
rapport. The simple concept of having rapport to anchor responses is easy to
understand.
>
> >Here are the secrets of anchoring,
> >
> >1 Calibrate to where they are now so that you can see when you get them
> >moving in the direction you want. You need to calibrate before you do
> >ANYTHING else.
>
> Not sure I agree here. There are other reasons to calibrate to their
> current state, but as Jonathan Altfeld has pointed out, you really only
> need to calibrate to state transitions ie changes in physiology etc.
Well I am sure that I disagree with that. If you do not calibrate to where
they are then you have no clue of the direction they are headed. It is more
than just changes in physiology. If that is all you are trained to see then
you are missing a lot.
>
> >Elicitation is very important and is truly an art form.
>
> One of the drills we do in our practice group is to write down names of
> states on paper, put them into a hat and take turns eliciting them. You
> get very good very quickly.
You are really missing the point. it is not just eliciting a state out of a
hat. It is knowing the 4 type of questions that activate the brain to move
into those states.
>
> >3 Set the anchor. This is a whole subject that can go on for hours. I
never
> >touch anyone to anchor them. At the same time I set the anchor in no less
> >than 3 ways at a time. The key is setting the anchor during the
acceleration
> >of the state. Thsi is not the way that most poeple teach anchoring. Most
> >have you amp the state up to a peak and then anchor. In my experience
that
> >is a waste of time. You will get a peak state but it will have no
momentum.
>
> There are advantages to both but if you must use a static ie non-sliding
> anchor, AND you can only do it once, anchor somewhere between the
> fastest acceleration and the peak.
Totally wrong. If you are anchoring the fastest acceleration you no longer
have acceleration. You just have a steady speed. You also have to really amp
up states. That is a big waste of time.
>
> >4 Turn the anchor into a sliding anchor that varies the intensity of the
> >state. You want MORE than just an on/off switch. You want total control
of
> >the anchor. That means having the ability to turn up the state as well as
> >turn it down or take it away.
>
> Anchoring is simply associating a desired response to a set of changing
> submodalities that YOU CAN EASILY CONTROL. Those submodalities should
> give some idea of how to set a sliding anchor.
You are missing a giant chunk. But that is your choice.
Tom Vizzini
"SoldierSvejk" <egg...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4416a5d2.02120...@posting.google.com...
> If anyone beleives this pseudo manure...First off I'd be anchored by
> Kim as well cause I love petite babes. Its not the sneaky anchoring
> pseudo condoments its that the guy is on the spot, being videoed and
> she's a babe and his unconsious is having fun and responding based on
> that.
What a dork. Tell you what Einstein. Look real close and explain the
reactions of the two guys in the backround. You know, the one NOT on the
spot.
If this stuff was
> really for real and not mostly placebo or statistcal sucess you'd be a
> multmillionaire in no time. ARE YOU? If not Why not since you not
> only can anchor but can MAGICALLY FORM RAPPORT?
Yes I am making a bunch of money. Proof of the skills. Any other questions?
Michael DeBusk
> Yes I am making a bunch of money. Proof of the skills. Any other
> questions?
I once heard (I think it was) comedian Chris Rock handle a heckler:
"Shut up, man, or I'll crush you with my wallet."
--
Same old web page, new location: http://home.earthlink.net/~debu4335/
David Gould
<T...@essential-skills.com> wrote:
>OK David I am going to try one time to respond to you. Maybe instead if just
>mismatching you will actually read the full response.
No problemo.
>> What kinds of rapport have allowed you to get predictable responses in
>> hindsight?
>
>Rapport...get it? It is a simple concept. What kinds? The kind that is
>rapport. The simple concept of having rapport to anchor responses is easy to
>understand.
My question is aimed at the NLP newsgroup. Personally, I can
distinguish hundreds of kinds of rapport. There is rapport based on
comfort, rapport based on leadership, conscious rapport, unconscious
rapport etc and you can start denominalising these. Each differently
affects your ability to anchor someone else.
>> Not sure I agree here. There are other reasons to calibrate to their
>> current state, but as Jonathan Altfeld has pointed out, you really only
>> need to calibrate to state transitions ie changes in physiology etc.
>
>Well I am sure that I disagree with that. If you do not calibrate to where
>they are then you have no clue of the direction they are headed.
That seems like junko logic to me. Of course, to notice a state
transition, you are noticing a direction, but you don't need to know
where they've been, only where they're going.
>It is more than just changes in physiology. If that is all you are trained to see then
>you are missing a lot.
AFAIK, all our senses are based on news of difference. There is more
than physiology, hence the word "etc." ;)
>You are really missing the point. it is not just eliciting a state out of a
>hat. It is knowing the 4 type of questions that activate the brain to move
>into those states.
Tom, if you expect us to believe this, you'll have to give us some
evidence.
>> There are advantages to both but if you must use a static ie non-sliding
>> anchor, AND you can only do it once, anchor somewhere between the
>> fastest acceleration and the peak.
>
>Totally wrong. If you are anchoring the fastest acceleration you no longer
>have acceleration. You just have a steady speed.
Huh?
>> Anchoring is simply associating a desired response to a set of changing
>> submodalities that YOU CAN EASILY CONTROL. Those submodalities should
>> give some idea of how to set a sliding anchor.
>
>You are missing a giant chunk. But that is your choice.
I'm open to anything new. Which chunk are you talking about?
Patrick Galvin
Rapport is much easier than you ever thought. Perhaps some Rapport God
brainwashed you into thinking it was difficult in order to sell you
several thousands of dollars worth of NLP seminars.
jayroni
Why do you waste so much of yours and everybody else's time posting
here? Its the same rant from you over and over gain isn't it?
matthew sutton
relationships all of your life. Forget the player techniques for a moment
and think of all your friends, girlfriends, family members etc.. YOU built
relationships with them, YOU won their confidence, YOU occupy a space in
their hearts.
The trick here is to be able to do this wherever, whenever and with whomever
you choose - this is where PUA techniques help, but they're only a catalist
to unleash the personality that already has value with others. Don't make it
hard on yourself; you've won people over before and you'll do it again!
Seemingly, you know where to take it from there.
Matt
in article do6huush1c80gbh44...@4ax.com, sy...@postmaster.co.uk
at sy...@postmaster.co.uk wrote on 30/11/02 11:09 am:
Patrick Galvin
I DON'T CARE IF YOU LIKE ME OR NOT!!!
matthew sutton <ma...@valcoprinters.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<BA13E2C6.59E1%ma...@valcoprinters.demon.co.uk>...
Rex Sikes
those who have ben around for years could know. Those new to the arena - like
those offering the 'stuff' don't know they are reinventing the wheel either.
More fluff.
Tom Vizzini wrote:
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Dates fill fast so book Rex Now!!! Call 262-790-1993
http://www.AmazingRex.com
Rex Sikes World's First Motivational Mind Reader - Corporate Speaker
Expert in persuasion & influence, specialist in non-verbal communication and
intuition.
"Mystery is the fundamental emotion that stands at
the cradle of true art and true science." Albert Einstein
Rex Sikes
rapport skills that are dissed in this post. Marketing to differentiate - but
no actual difference.
Tom Vizzini wrote:
--
Rex Sikes
Tom Vizzini wrote:
--
Tom Vizzini
Hi Rex,
"Rex Sikes" <r...@amazingrex.com> wrote in message
news:3df5376d$0$1426$272e...@news.execpc.com...
> Interestingly most of all this is and has already been taught as the
classic
> rapport skills that are dissed in this post. Marketing to differentiate -
but
> no actual difference.
You never really got it did you. Rex it is easy to say but apparently you
were not teaching it. It is easy to drop in and criticize but where were you
when the questions needed answering? Most who have actually learned the
skills know what the difference is. But again you never really got that
part.
So old ex NLP trainers just say it is marketing. I am not going to get into
a pissing match with you Rex but I must say your post seems like bitter sour
grapes from someone who washed out. Maybe if you understood the value of how
things are taught and what the real difference is, you might have had more
that only ONE full paying customer at you final training. Of course you had
one that paid half and a third that was there for free. Yep a gigantic 3
person seminar. I wonder, was it poor marketing that caused that or your
ego.
Get a life Rex.
Vapor rub
The level of ignorance displayed by Rex here is staggering. Oh well, I
guess that partially explains why he's out of business. Gotta pay some
attention to that pesty OUTSIDE reality every once in a while!
VR
"Tom Vizzini" <T...@essential-skills.com> wrote in
news:useJ9.1194$uV4.7...@news2.news.adelphia.net:
Adam Sargant
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.422 / Virus Database: 237 - Release Date: 21/11/2002
Rex Sikes
boring.
Say something original just once. MArketing is great but be original just once.
You state so many misfacts and make false statementsyou need someone to call
you on it.
You demean the business with your silly behavior and rants. I tired of you long
ago.
Just trying to keep the record straight.
I left the business to pursue another aspect of my business that I kept
sepatate from the NLP community. I left becasue I wished to and the time was
right. You wouldn't know any thing about me because you assume so much. Rectal
canal vision is your folly.
You market well. You learned that. As far as your nlp ideas and rants - they
have been done for years before you claimed to originate them. You just can't
see it. So you will conitnue to attrack newbies who don't know any better but
your reputation from those who have been in the field more than the couple
years you have been selling is very weak. Just trying to call it as it is Tom.
You always do your little nasty in your private forum, talking about others,
and misrepresnting things - so I wanted to tell you to your face - grow up and
stop swiping everything from everyone else. I haven't seen an original thought
from you since you started posting here.
First it was carmine's rants you parroted, then someone else's. You still
haven't found your own voice. Too bad with the aggressive way you market you
might actually offer something of value some day. You act like carmine. That
you learned well. Your online presence is the same -
yadayayayayaydayaydy you know I'm right - most see you for who and what you
are.
Get a clue to what's out there before you try to repakage it as yours. That
means learn first - then try to innovate. It is silly to claim authorship when
it's there already - but you wouldn't know that because you never did the leg
work.
Get some legs.
Tom Vizzini wrote:
--
Vapor rub
> Rectal canal vision is your folly.
LOL! Another fine example of Rex's rapport skills.
And as far as originality goes, I've never seen an orignal thought out of
Rex. His Attitude Activator "borrowed" a huge chunk of script from
Bandler's personal enhancement series. For the most part he didn't even
bother to change the words around, even a little! I'd be so embarrassed if
I put out a product like that.
VR
Ross
> From: Rex Sikes <r...@amazingrex.com>
> Organization: Rex Sikes Productions, Inc.
> Reply-To: r...@amazingrex.com
> Newsgroups: alt.psychology.nlp,alt.seduction.fast
> Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 18:41:59 -0600
> Subject: Re: Rapport is tougher than I thought
>
> Interestingly most of all this is and has already been taught as the classic
> rapport skills that are dissed in this post. Marketing to differentiate - but
> no actual difference.
>
> Tom Vizzini wrote:
>
>
Incorrect.
Traditional NLP teaches that rapport is the RESULT of using techniques like
matching and mirroring, whereas Tom is turning it around and saying that
matching and mirroring are the results of BEING in rapport.
Ross
> From: Rex Sikes <r...@amazingrex.com>
> Organization: Rex Sikes Productions, Inc.
> Reply-To: r...@amazingrex.com
> Newsgroups: alt.psychology.nlp,alt.seduction.fast
> Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 10:28:17 -0600
> Subject: Re: Rapport is tougher than I thought
>
> G
> You market well. You learned that. As far as your nlp ideas and rants - they
> have been done for years before you claimed to originate them. You just can't
> see it. So you will conitnue to attrack newbies who don't know any better but
> your reputation from those who have been in the field more than the couple
> years you have been selling is very weak. Just trying to call it as it is Tom.
I've found Tom's approaches to rapport, anchoring and especially the 3-D
mind are more real world effective than I have seen taught by anyone, and I
must say that also includes, Rex, for whom I still have great respect.
It is simply a matter of what works in the real world. Period. Full stop.
It does NOT work too well in the real world to try to build a peak state and
THEN touch anchor. You can do it, to be sure, but it is alot of work.
It's better to anchor a small state AS LONG as it is on the way up..as long
as it is accelerating..and then turn it up later. Just one thing I learned
from Tom.
It's also FAR better to anchor without touching..again, something I learned
from Tom. No doubt others have taught non-touch anchoring, the difference is
blasting through the "peak state" myth as well as being able to ask
questions that ACCELERATE a response, rather than elicit a one time memory
that may not have much juice, because it is static.
I say it again: What Tom and Kim teach about anchoring IS innovative and
far more effective than anything I've learned from anyone else.
And his 3-D mind stuff is VERY original, very powerful, and better than
anything I've seen elsewhere, including anything I've learned from Rex,
Bandler, etc etc. If this means I'm burning bridges, SO BE IT. I gotta
speak out and say what I think.
>
>
>
> First it was carmine's rants you parroted, then someone else's. You still
> haven't found your own voice. Too bad with the aggressive way you market you
> might actually offer something of value some day. You act like carmine. That
> you learned well. Your online presence is the same -
And what is this personal attack? Where is the the substance or learning?
How is this worthy of YOU, Rex?
>
> yadayayayayaydayaydy you know I'm right - most see you for who and what you
> are.
>
> Get a clue to what's out there before you try to repakage it as yours. That
> means learn first - then try to innovate. It is silly to claim authorship when
> it's there already - but you wouldn't know that because you never did the leg
> work.
Rex, it is NONSENSE to claim Tom is stealing from you, IF that is what
you are implying. I trained with you, and I've trained with Tom. I SEE NO
CONNECTION. I think you are way off base here and I have to call you on it.
Where have you seen 3-D Mind before? Show me..please..if anything, it
resembles, SOME elements of ritual magick. But nothing in NLP.
law...@pecos.invalid
> Incorrect.
I took my first NLP course around 1980 from John Grinder, and he said
that matching and mirroring get rapport BECAUSE they are what people
do unconsciously to show rapport, we are just showing it consciously.
The other person perceives it as rapport.
I took my second NLP course around 1981 from Richard Bandler, and he
said much the same thing.
I took my third and fourth NLP trainings from Rex in 1998 and 1999, and
he said the same thing, only he added that a good way to get rapport
is to get in synch with the other person's state. He also said that
you can go to restaurants and other public places and watch people
interact. You can watch them unconsciously match and mirror each other.
In other words, REX was teaching that matching and mirroring are
the RESULT of rapport not just what can cause it. Rex was certainly
teaching this before Tom was teaching at all.
Kurt
law...@pecos.invalid
> It does NOT work too well in the real world to try to build a peak state and
> THEN touch anchor. You can do it, to be sure, but it is alot of work.
I've not encountered any difficulty with doing it that way.
> It's better to anchor a small state AS LONG as it is on the way up..as long
> as it is accelerating..and then turn it up later. Just one thing I learned
> from Tom.
I learned it first from John Grinder about 22 years ago in his Frogs seminar.
I learned to raise my arm while questioning witnesses as a sort of sliding
anchor.
> It's also FAR better to anchor without touching..again, something I learned
> from Tom.
I also learned this from Grinder first. We were talking about anchoring
jurors' states. He suggested it was best to anchor in a modality that
was not their favorite, such as using sound for visual jurors. That
was 22 years ago.
> No doubt others have taught non-touch anchoring, the difference is
> blasting through the "peak state" myth as well as being able to ask
> questions that ACCELERATE a response, rather than elicit a one time memory
> that may not have much juice, because it is static.
Who ever said you should elicit a "one time memory?" I always have been
taught to elicit states, which are processes. Maybe you just don't know
how to do anchoring.
> And his 3-D mind stuff is VERY original, very powerful, and better than
> anything I've seen elsewhere, including anything I've learned from Rex,
> Bandler, etc etc. If this means I'm burning bridges, SO BE IT. I gotta
> speak out and say what I think.
I don't know anything about 3d mind. What's it supposed to do that I
don't already know how to do?
Kurt
Tom Vizzini
Hi Rex,
I am not going to get into a pissing match with you. Let's be clear about
one thing.
You attacked me and my point of view. You attacked me and my observations.
In other words you can't cry about the response when you elicited it.....
The facts come from a student from your final 3 seminars.
If you want to debate the issue then lest play. If you want to simply make
accusations and name call then you are free to continue to act like a child.
As far as who I act like, I act like me. I am not going to put up with
someone who is just name calling and venting bitterness.
As far as my response to you. You suggested I was doing nothing but
marketing. I was illustrating that you knew nothing about marketing since
the total attendance of you final 3 seminars together you had 23 students.
That FACT is from someone who attended all three seminars. My point is that
you wouldn't recognize marketing is it smacked you in the head.
As far as repackaging. Repackaging is MUCH different that simply making
things easy and understandable rather than complex. That is why taking 14
days to learn 3 days of material is BAD marketing. We make things simple to
use and easy to understand.
As far as my essential skills yahoo group. Well it is the most active
nlp/hypnosis based group on the net. So 2800 people around the world
disagree with your assessment.
What is really AMAZING REX is that you are so bitter. Your unwarranted
attacks have been noticed by others here as uncharacteristacally bitter.
Only you know what your motivation is.
Tom Vizzini
Hi Kurt,
<law...@pecos.invalid> wrote in message
news:uveloij...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> I took my first NLP course around 1980 from John Grinder, and he said
> that matching and mirroring get rapport
> I took my third and fourth NLP trainings from Rex in 1998 and 1999, and
> he said the same thing, only he added that a good way to get rapport
> is to get in synch with the other person's state.
>In other words, REX was teaching that matching and mirroring are
>the RESULT of rapport not just what can cause it.
I am not sure how your first two statements fit with your third statement.
They are all mirroring.
This is in contrast to the way that I teach rapport. I will say this again.
Matching and mirroring are a lousy way to get rapport no matter what you are
matching and mirroring. That means their physiology or their state. That is
the point.
Rapport comes from a connection. That is the bottom line. That connection is
driven by the energy of the mind. That is why we can teach people to get
rapport with people who cannot even see them. It is not from the other
person unconsciously noticing anything. It is not from mimicking.
Have fun
Tom Vizzini
Results speak for themselves Rex. These are not newbies. They are well
trained people looking for Real World Skills. You are jus a bitter ex
competitor. In that frame, your comments make more sense.
"Rex Sikes" <r...@amazingrex.com> wrote in message news:3df61537$0$1425
>
> You market well. You learned that. As far as your nlp ideas and rants -
they
> have been done for years before you claimed to originate them. You just
can't
> see it. So you will conitnue to attrack newbies who don't know any better
but
> your reputation from those who have been in the field more than the couple
> years you have been selling is very weak. Just trying to call it as it is
Tom.
I've spent over 20 years researching and applying tools and techniques for
changing subconscious patterns that can block us from getting what we want
in business and life. I have certifications in hypnosis and handwriting
analysis. I've read the books and been to the seminars from the top
self-help gurus of today. I've also had the benefit of studying and applying
peak performance techniques from the United States Military. The
Essential-Skills Advanced Master's Seminars ranks among the very best
programs I have ever attended. I would attend any training the
Essential-Skills Group presents and give them my highest recommendation.
Nuff said.
I not only learned new tools for influencing people I also experienced
powerful personal changes during the seminar. Just 48 hours after the
seminar, using the tools I learned, I have already added a new client to my
business and easily and effortlessly initiated and started relationships
with people that beforehand I was had been hesitant to approach.
Jona McKee, LT. Colonel, USA (Ret)
Business and Personal Coach
I went to the Essential Skills London seminar expecting to see a new
perspective and a few new distinctions. How wrong could I be. Tom and Kim
just shook my world. I can safely say that I learnt more about NLP on the
three-day seminar than I have on any other course, and had great fun in the
process. This is a 'must go' seminar.
Rintu Basu rintu...@ntlworld.com
Certified NLP Trainer
Then the Advanced Semnar:
Real skills for the real world...Beyond NLP...Take the standard and the
advanced course and you will be using skills that put most NLP Trainers and
Master Practitioners to shame. If you want to talk results I came of the
course to land £1500 for three days work and a month later together with a
business partner secured another £18000 of business. Was it easy???Yes...Did
I use stuff from the course???Yes...Will NLP Trainers and Master
Practitioners learn stuff from these two courses???I am both and I have
learnt loads from Tom and Kim. Take an open mind, willingness to learn and a
huge sense of fun and playfulness and I promise you that you will be looking
forwards to an even brighter and more successful future.
Rintu Basu
NLP Trainer and Master Practitioner
Accelerated Success Trainings
Kims advanced rapport was startling powerful , theyv'e keyed up the
origional ideas and expanded them so much, and it can be learnt so easily
and quickly
My friend Edd came along , he's been 'trying to learn NLP' for a number of
years, he has a problem with visualisation, Tom talked to him for two
minutes, now I 've known Edd for 10 years ' he feels' all night long 'he
saw ' what Tom was saying and finally understood what visualisation is!
He's on Holiday for the seminar, however, he was so excited on the way home
he wants to book for next years essential skills now!
I,ve been to Michael Breen, I've met Eric Robbie, I've sat with Michael
Hall..I learn with Tom & Kim! Don't sit on the fence, their semiar, has
changed my life, go just go!
Tom, at first I thought the 3 D mind was weird. Matter a fact I was
ready to ask for a refund until I just simply tried it.
I'm amazed that I have eliminated a very bad habit that has always
been a part of my life.
The structure of what you teach is so simple. I just had to get my
self out of the way and actually DO IT!
Your teaching style is Fun and Entertaining and when I had questions
you responded fast and actually cared and made sure I got it!
I got my money's worth this would of probably cost me hundreds of
dollars going to a traditional pychologist.
Again thanks to your commitment to teaching and the great way you do
business in today's age is very rare.
Thanks Again,
Jeffrey C. Carfagna
Let me add my comments to the others that have been raving aboiut the
Essential Skills Seminar last weekend. Attending the Essential Skills
seminar in Chicago was one of the best things I have done in years. I have
been reading books and email threads for over 10 years, and really didn't
have a clue - until now. It's all changed.
Everything I had read came alive in three short days. Tom and Kim are
fabulous teachers and great fun to watch. And Uncle Timmy was always there
to help out when we practiced on one another. I now grok what I knew
vaguely.
I learned so much it makes my head spin. The skills they teach are
incredible - calibration, golden bubble, smurfing, sneaky anchors, trance
work, intent, states and more. Best of all, I learned to have fun with all
of this stuff - and I have been playing since I came back. I am astonished
at how well it works.
The office has become a wonderful playground. Golden bubbles here, smurfs
there and a few pattern interrupts for fun. Wow. Haven't had this much fun
in a long, long time. And, here's the kicker, thanks to a trance Tom put me,
I really enjoy talking to large groups of people now. (Before Tom's magic
trance, I would have preferred plucking out my pubic hairs one at a time to
getting up in front of a group of people.) I spoke in front of 40 people
last night, connecting with each one - and the response was terrific. I
loved it.
All I can tell you is that I had an incredible time, learned much
more than I ever imagined and it keeps on building. Can't wait for the
Masters class.
Paul paul...@yahoo.com
Happy Thanksgiving Everyone!!
TOM....You R-E-A-L-L-Y went and done it this time....I had my
girlfiend run the "3d Mind" process on me tonight...just based on the
info written in the posts......All I've got to say Is H*** S***!!
I studied NLP and Meta-States just to learn how to create state
shifts easily and quickly and powerfully like this...and OMG....so
much fun!!
I can see this opening up a whole new approach to persuasion....maybe
even a whole new paradigm.
I have never experienced anything change a state this fast and so
easy.
I want more....will you be dedicating a training with 3DM for
different applications.
Powerful S***!
Thanks Tom........V vinc...@yahoo.com
..........................
It is about the results that people get not about the opinions of one
competitor that count.
Rex Sikes
one has to do is be familiar with what is out there. Tom obviously is not.
Ross wrote:
--
Rex Sikes
Sell the actual steak not the sizzle. I am simply tired of seeing Tom claim
authorship for so many things not his.
Investigate - you and he and w you will see what I mean. Having been in the field
for many years it is simple. Being relatively new as Tom is - he doesn't know.
Someday he may be a great provider. Nowadays he just offers what everyone else
does. He only claims that it is different. That's his marketing. But is approaches
even his words come from others. Just be honest and give credit. That would
demonstrate integrity.
When I call him on it in his rapport post - instead of going for rapport - he
attacks back. So I baited him - but he demonstrates his caliber. He demonstrates
his knowledge and use of the stuff. Face it - he can sell it - but can he actually
use it on line or in life - sadly he his his own worse enemy.
Not me - even if he thinks he is. Just clean up the act. Get honest. Get clean.
Practice learn and grow old in the field and then maybe he will find his own way.
Right now its imitation.
Apparently you - who I consider a friend and immensely respect - can't see that.
perhaps your just too close. Perhaps I am too far away. But this wouldn't be the
first time either of us could be wrong about someone.
All I would hope for Tom is that he would develop his own. Stop the degrading
internet behavior, get his facts correct and stop spreading falsehoods about others
(yes including me). When I provoked him he had every opportunity to respond in kind
- which he did - with petty incorrect attacks. He could have demonstrated his
skill, his knowledge and risen above what is everyday behavior for him. Sorry I
pointed it out publicly - but he had every opportunity to demonstrate his
integrity, his skill, his understanding - only he reverts to typical Tom.
I wondered how soon you would jump in. Hope you can see my point. As always I will
evaluate and consider what you say since he is your friend. I only ask the same of
you. And if we both discover we disagree then you will still remain my friend and
we will maintain a difference of opinion.
But please understand - my love for NLP and all the people who have worked hard to
offer something and contribute their works. When someone is completely ignorant of
the field they market in - perhaps they should be called on it.
Best wishes,
Rex
Rex Sikes
Tom Vizzini wrote:
--
Rex Sikes
Ross wrote:
> > From: Rex Sikes <r...@amazingrex.com>
> > Organization: Rex Sikes Productions, Inc.
> > Reply-To: r...@amazingrex.com
> > Newsgroups: alt.psychology.nlp,alt.seduction.fast
> > Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 10:28:17 -0600
> > Subject: Re: Rapport is tougher than I thought
> >
> > G
> > You market well. You learned that. As far as your nlp ideas and rants - they
> > have been done for years before you claimed to originate them. You just can't
> > see it. So you will conitnue to attrack newbies who don't know any better but
> > your reputation from those who have been in the field more than the couple
> > years you have been selling is very weak. Just trying to call it as it is Tom.
>
> I've found Tom's approaches to rapport, anchoring and especially the 3-D
> mind are more real world effective than I have seen taught by anyone, and I
> must say that also includes, Rex, for whom I still have great respect.
>
> It is simply a matter of what works in the real world. Period. Full stop.
>
> It does NOT work too well in the real world to try to build a peak state and
> THEN touch anchor. You can do it, to be sure, but it is alot of work.
Of course you can. And you can anchor a small state and build on it as it moves in
the direction. This is the basis of anchoring and chaining. It has been done on the
floor for goodness sakes. This is stuff we all taught in early early days.
The difficulty with building a peak state first is some people arn't able to easily
access them - so you guide them into it. Nothing novel - but proabably under taught
in many cases.
There is nothing anywhere that it is inherently better to physically anchor. That
is only done to tecah people how to better calibrate. Any and all anchors outside
of conscious are better. In one or allsystems. Eye accessing cues, anchoring is a
way of getting the attention off the pracitioner and onto the subject. To pay
attention.
>
>
> It's better to anchor a small state AS LONG as it is on the way up..as long
> as it is accelerating..and then turn it up later. Just one thing I learned
Already address it - also the basis of sliding anchors. Very very old thinking -
useful, practical but I have taught it as have others. It is in my tapes for
goodness sakes. In my website emails for years.
>
> from Tom.
>
> It's also FAR better to anchor without touching..again, something I learned
> from Tom. No doubt others have taught non-touch anchoring, the difference is
> blasting through the "peak state" myth as well as being able to ask
> questions that ACCELERATE a response, rather than elicit a one time memory
> that may not have much juice, because it is static.
Well vague description is hard to address - but no there is nothing inherently
taught in NLP about 1 time peak states - that is only a misunderstaning of the
appraoch and the methods. Enhancing and accelerating work is the function of
questions and anchoring responses. No one ever anchors once - calibration and
elicitation is an on going process - as is rapport - not one time static events. To
think of them that way is inferior - and yet it can be useful to think of them as
one time events. however, I am not aware of anyone actually in my circles of NLP
trainers and providers who would consider them as you state them. So I am curious
about the understanding and depth of knowledge being discussed here.
Certainly Bandler or Dilts who Tom has most likey spent time with has addressed
these notions either consicously or covertly - most likely both. But the are
simple, begingin baby step notions every thing you mention so far.
The niton that rapport comes from matching and mirroring yes is probably sometimes
presented that way in books. However - it was from the study of rapport that
matching and mirroring were discovered. And continue to be every so often.
Rapport - a blanket of care and compassion and attention creates rapport. Interest
creates rapport.
You obviously are not familar with my work since you spent 3 or 4 days in one of my
programs back in what 93.
I address it as a matter of the rule or reciprisity - you go first they will
Th bubble technique is an ancient technique to create harmony been around since
recorded history. I used that in the early 70's psychic development classes and
later in practioner and trainer training. Nothing new or novel there.
Since Tom hasn't been around and hasn't studied with many different people he
wouldn't know this. So he reinvents the wheel calls it his own and disses everyone
else. And you join in with him. huh????
>
>
> I say it again: What Tom and Kim teach about anchoring IS innovative and
> far more effective than anything I've learned from anyone else.
Well, apparently that is the case. But the question is why don't you know it comesd
from elsewhere prior to Tom learning it.
And to give him the benefit of the doubt, perhaps he puts some of his own words to
it now and then and that makes it seem original.
>
>
> And his 3-D mind stuff is VERY original, very powerful, and better than
> anything I've seen elsewhere, including anything I've learned from Rex,
> Bandler, etc etc. If this means I'm burning bridges, SO BE IT. I gotta
> speak out and say what I think.
> >
Yesh - like what he didn't also study dhe. PALEEEASE. When was the last time you
were in someone else's training?No disrespect meant - just an honest question. I
did exactly what you are doing - I had to speak out. I have spoken out when I don't
have an NLP business so there should be no sour grapes. No one scan say I am pissed
becasue he is taking customers. I DON"TA CARE!!! He can have them all - but he owes
them something. HE owes them the best training he can give them. AND HE AIN"T THERE
YET no matter how much he thinks or you think he is. He doesn't even know what he
is claiming. So I couldn't be silent any longer in fairness to the listeners. Let
them research and decide. If ater research they still want to go to Tom - so be it.
If they find that what I am saying proves correct and they evaluate their options
so be it.
He may some day become a first rate provider of NLP - but instead of all the ego -
he should spend his time learning. He can even provide while he is learning - just
add some honesty and integrity into the mix. Add some credit to the others who
develop the work he uses (and uses without knowing it is others) and he would be a
lot better. Market aggressively scream you are the best - but then actually be the
best - not a clone who rides the coat tails of everyone else while claiming to have
developed their work.
I hope you understand - in defense of your friend - I am defending mine. I am also
defending NLP a field he knows very little about. And surprisingly - he, it turns
out, isn't the only one.I do hope you understand - I don't expect Tom too. That is
sad.
Rex Sikes
already.
Tom Vizzini wrote:
--
Rex Sikes
been said and done before.
Nothing new in your own explanation, All been done by others.
Tom Vizzini wrote:
--
Vapor rub
VR
Rex Sikes <r...@amazingrex.com> wrote in
news:3df79853$0$1447$272e...@news.execpc.com:
Patrick Galvin
sy...@postmaster.co.uk wrote in message news:<do6huush1c80gbh44...@4ax.com>...
> I've just finished reading "Introduction to NLP" by O'Connor and I've
> been blown away. Firstly, because it was total logic and I don't know
> why I never thought of it before, but also because it's left me
> bewildered where to start.
>
> I want to start building rapport with people (and mainly women)- I
> know that's currently my main weakness. However, there's just so much
> involved. Mirroring, pacing, matching, leading, not to mention the
> Milton Model and the differences in language.
>
> Then, there's anchoring, which I've found easy to do on myself, but
> I'm guessing doing it to others is a different kettle of fish.
>
Patrick Galvin
David Gould
premise.
Tom, if you are going to market yourself here (and I personally am happy
for you to do that), you are going to have to justify it on merit.
Neither you, me, Ross, Kurt nor even Rex are the last word in NLP. That
must come from each reader.
But only you and Ross are trying to sell anything here..
And because of that, you will be called to justify what you write to at
least the same degree that the rest of us are.
On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 16:08:16 GMT, "Tom Vizzini"
<T...@essential-skills.com> wrote:
>> I took my first NLP course around 1980 from John Grinder, and he said
>> that matching and mirroring get rapport
>
>> I took my third and fourth NLP trainings from Rex in 1998 and 1999, and
>> he said the same thing, only he added that a good way to get rapport
>> is to get in synch with the other person's state.
>
>>In other words, REX was teaching that matching and mirroring are
>>the RESULT of rapport not just what can cause it.
>
>I am not sure how your first two statements fit with your third statement.
You deleted a chunk of what Kurt wrote preceding that third statement:
K>He [Rex] also said that
K>you can go to restaurants and other public places and watch people
K>interact. You can watch them unconsciously match and mirror each
K>other.
>They are all mirroring.
They are indeed.
>This is in contrast to the way that I teach rapport. I will say this again.
>Matching and mirroring are a lousy way to get rapport no matter what you are
>matching and mirroring. That means their physiology or their state. That is
>the point.
Now, Tom, I know you don't mean this.
In the past you have written that mirroring and matching consciously,
and that matching breathing of someone speaking are inferior ways of
getting rapport - both of which I agree with you.
But if you do not match or mirror anything, you will probably not get
rapport.
>Rapport comes from a connection. That is the bottom line. That connection is
>driven by the energy of the mind.
There is a fine line between anchoring a process of creating that
connection (an article on my website gives step-by-step instructions for
this) and a masturbatory fantasy. You can learn the difference through
drills but I'm not sure it can be taught otherwise.
Vapor rub
> Th bubble technique is an ancient technique to create harmony been
> around since recorded history. I used that in the early 70's psychic
> development classes and later in practioner and trainer training.
> Nothing new or novel there.
>
> Since Tom hasn't been around and hasn't studied with many different
> people he wouldn't know this. So he reinvents the wheel calls it his
> own and disses everyone else. And you join in with him. huh????
>
This shows your ignorance of what Kim and Tom teach. The bubble is
basically training wheels, one in several steps. Once you get the hang of
it, you can simply gain rapport (step in) pretty much with intent alone.
You obviously are not familiar with Tom's work. If you spent some time
researching the material you might learn something. Where else has
simple, one step rapport been taught before??
>>
>> And his 3-D mind stuff is VERY original, very powerful, and better
>> than
>> anything I've seen elsewhere, including anything I've learned from
>> Rex, Bandler, etc etc. If this means I'm burning bridges, SO BE IT.
>> I gotta speak out and say what I think.
>> >
>
> Yesh - like what he didn't also study dhe. PALEEEASE.
The 3D mind alreayd existed in DHE? Maybe Tom's friend John Lavalle can
voice his opinion on that...
> He may some day become a first rate provider of NLP -
That is actually a compliment.
If he was a first rate provider of NLP he'd be teaching eye acessing
cues, 6 step reframes etc.. All the nonsense in the book, and by the
book. NLP is frozen in time. To call Tom a first rate provider of NLP
would be an insult. Even Bandler moved on. Tom is a first rate provider
only of stuff that works quickly and effectively.
> but instead of
> all the ego - he should spend his time learning.
You're picking the worst leverage point for this argument. What
specifically does Tom need to learn?
VR
Patrick Galvin
REX PSYKES PSYCOLOGIE AUF DER GERMANISCH!!!
REX PSYKED AUF DER UNTERMENSCHEN!!!
REX PSYKED AUF DER UNTERMENSCHEN!!!
REX PSYCHED AUF DER UNTERMENSCHEN!!!
WWWIII
THIS TIME IT IS DIFFERENT!!!
BANK ROLL YOUR OWN INNER REVOLUTION!!!
ENIGMA, MYSTERY, RIDDLE, WHO AM I??? I STILL DON'T KNOW!!!
EVEN QUEEN ANNE COULDN"T FIND ME IN AN EMERGENCY!!!
NEVE SPELLED BACKWARDS MEANS OPEN SEASON ON GIFTED FELONS!!!
WAR IS HELL.
HARI KARI TOLD YOU SO.
STEVE STONE IS AVAILABLE IN AN EMERGENCY!!!
WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU MEAN I DON'T KNOW HOW TO THROW A KNUCKLEBALL!!!
THE POWERFUL WAR LORD IS STILL TAKING A HIT FOR THE GIFTED FELON!!!
WHAT TIME IS IT??? KRYSTAL NACHT ODER KRIS KRINGLE ODER PAUL KRAUSE???
IS IT STILL A FREE COUNTRY!!!
HOW DO WE COUNT THE DEAD??? ASK SAINT NICK NOLTE!!! HE IS CRAZY OR
FELONIOUS DRUNK!!!
I JUST MIGHT BE AVAILABLE IN AN EMERGENCY!!!
WAR LORDS ALWAYS BEAT CRAZY FELONS!!!
CAN WE COUNT THE DEAD BACKWARDS!!!
FIGURE IT OUT YOURSELF!!!
I AIN'T GOT TIME FOR IDIOT PREDICATE CALCULUS!!!
I HOPE JESUS WAS UNCORRUPTABLE!!!
DID JESUS HAVE SUICIDE PREVENTION OR JUST ANOTHER KAMIKAZE!!!
I STILL DON'T KNOW WHAT TIME IT IS???
HOW CAN YOU SUE A FELONIOUS DRUNK!!! THEIR ARE BUGS IN EVERY SYSTEM!!!
POLITICAL HANGOVER!!! CHEAP TRICK!!! BUDHHA CON!!! REALLY KRAZY
WISDOM!!! I TOLD YOU SO!!! OPEN SEASON NOW OR SHUT THE FUCK UP NOW!!!
DOES THE REALLY NASTY DRILL SEARGENT FROM HELL LOVE YOUR CHILDREN
NOW!!! SHUT THE FUCK UP I AINT GOT TIME TO BLEED!!! FIND ANOTHER JUST
CAUSE!!! DO YOU STILL HATE YOUR GRANDCHILDREN NOW!!!
CHARACTER ASS, VILLAGE IDIOT, FELONIOUS DRUNK, KUT YOUR KNEES OFF???
KUT YOUR BALLS OFF, IMAGINARY OR REAL!!! DO YOUR OWN PREDICATE
CALCULUS IN THE TENTH DIMENSION MY MINE FIELD ONLY OPERATES IN 4
DIMENSIONS!!! CAN YOU SUE THE DYSLEXIC PSYCHIC FROM HELL!!! GET OFF MY
PLANET KNOW!!! FEED THE POOR EAT THE RICH, ONLY CANNIBALS BELIEVE IN
THE FOOD CHAIN!!! QUEEN ANNE TOLD ME TO INTERVIEW MY OWN VAMPIRE!!!
CHEAP TRASHY NOVELS ARE INFINITELY RECYCYLABLE!!!
IS THIS A FELONY OR JUST ANOTHER DRUNK ON THE INTERNET!!!
QUEEN ANNE TOLD ME KRAZY RABBIT WAS A CLAY TARGET FOR MY 12 GAUGE
DOUBLE BARRELED SHOTGUN!!!
MIND VIRUS DICK TOLD ME TO SHUT THE FUCK UP NOW!!!
LISA MCPHERSON WAS MY HIGH SCHOOL MASTURBATION MATERIAL!!!
SHE AINT INFINITELY RECYCLABLE!!!
FOLLOW THE YELLOW BRICK ROAD!!!
ALL THE WAY UP!!! HOW HIGH IS TOO HIGH!!!
TAKE THIS KOUNTRY BACK INCH BY BLOODY INCH MOTHER FUCKER!!! NOW!!!
HOMELAND DEFENSE??? FELONIOUS FRONTAL ASSAULT!!! ARE THE INMATES
RUNNING THE ASYLUM!!!
ARE THEIR BULLET HOLES IN YOUR BRILLIANT PEBBLES??? GIFTED ATHLETES
SOMETIMES DON'T WEAR ALUMINUM CUPS ALWAYSS!!!
DO THE ELDERLY SOMETIMES FALL ASLEEP DRIVING GOD-INTOXICATED SLED
SS!!!
45000 AUTOMOBILES KILL MORE THAN YOU EVER IMAGINED!!!
BLOW OUT YOUR OWN BATTERIES AND THEN THROW THEM AT MAGGOTS!!!
DID SOME ONE SLIP ACID INTO MY WATER AND THEN DRIVE ME HOME!!!
HOW WAS I SUPPOSED WE HAVE ZERO TOLERANCE FOR INFINITE STUPIDITY!!!
MAYBE SOME LSD WAS PUT IN THE MARIJUANA THE Kindergarten CopSS
BURNED!!!
WHY DO POSTAL WORKERS ALWAYS GO POSTAL IN A MEDICAL EMERGENCY!!!
BILL BROWN WAS A WEDGE BUSTER!!!
KLEINSASSER WAS EVEN MORE GIFTED!!!
HOW WAS I SUPPOSED TO KNOW!!!
A 2ND ROUND DRAFT PICK FROM A SLAB OF PRIME BEEF!!! TROPHY, RAW MEAT,
CIVIL WAR OR INNER REVOLUTION??? MAGGOTS ARE REALLY ATTRACTED TO RAW
MEAT!!! SHOULD WE SAVE THE MAGGOTS OR THE PRIME BEEF!!! KRAZY RABBIT
DOESN'T KARE NOW EITHER!!!
FREE AGENT FREE SAFETY WEAK SIDE LINEBACKER
LAWRENCE TAYLOR WAS A SLAB OF PRIME BEEF FOR THE INFORMATION
MAGGOTS!!!
ALWAYS SAVE YOUR SPORTS TROPHYS!!!
NEVE ALSO LOVES HER GRANDMOTHER!!!
WOULD NEVE RUN OVER HER GRANDMOTHER IN A GOD INTOXICATED SLED!!!
EVEN STEPHEN EAGLE BULL T FELONIOUS FRONTAL ASSAULT NOW!!! U2 DAS
BOAT!!!
KEEP IT A SECRET??? WHO WAS ROSS PEROT!!! WHO WAS KISSINGER!!! KISS
YOUR OWN ASSHOLE MAGGOT!!! I AIN'T GOT TIME TO BLEED FOR A JUST KAUSE
YOURSELF NOW!!!
JENNIFER LOVE HEWITT LOVES NEVE'S GRAND CHILDREN!!!
KAN BILL KLINTON FOLLOW HIS GOLDEN ROD ALL THE WAY BACK TO ARKANSAS!!!
KAN JENNIFER LOVE HEWITT FIGURE OUT THE YIELD CURVE IF SHE'S ON HER
LUNAR ECLIPSE!!!
DID NAZI PROPAGANDA EXIST BEFORE YOU EVEN HEARD ABOUT WWII???
WHAT IF YOU NEVER HEARD ABOUT THE PROPAGANDA BEFORE WWIII???
WHAT IF SWASTIKAS LAST FOREVER!!!
WHAT IF INNER AUDITORS FROM HELL LAST FOREVER ALSO!!!
IS ETERNITY STILL A PRECIOUS GIFT OR NEVER AGAIN!!!
HEAVEN OR HELL??? PLACE ALL YOUR MARBLES ON BRILLIANT PEBBLES!!!
SUPPORT YOUR OWN INNER REVOLUTION!!!
THE FRENCH DID IT!!!
THE NASTY NAZI'S DID IT!!!
1812 IS THAT YOUR SMART CARD!!!
KAIN AND ABLE!!!
SODOM AND GOMORRAH!!!
SUPPORT THE JUST CAUSE!!!
Rex Sikes <r...@amazingrex.com> wrote in message news:<3df79853$0$1447$272e...@news.execpc.com>...
Elvis Lester
Is the mind not more than 3-D?
Is it not minimally 4-D?
Space-time-matter and what arises out of that, emerges, what we 'make
emerge'.
Wasn't DHE about design/eliciting/installing/utilizing the so-called 3D
nature of mind?
I think I got that on day 1, first hour or so...
80+ years ago Korzybski taught 4-D in the 20's.
What am I missing here?
Elves
"Vapor rub" <n...@home.com> wrote in message
news:Xns92E1C18762147no...@216.168.3.44...
Philip®_<Phil@®.©>
yes, that is what things look like on the surface
but can you see through them to the deeper levels
--
Adam Sargant
place
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.422 / Virus Database: 237 - Release Date: 23/11/2002
Philip®_<Phil@®.©>
By all means do so. My Kill File is also well tended. It has some 50
odd filter conditions set. Good killfiles make good newsgroups.
--
law...@pecos.invalid
> Hi Kurt,
> <law...@pecos.invalid> wrote in message
> news:uveloij...@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> I took my first NLP course around 1980 from John Grinder, and he said
>> that matching and mirroring get rapport
>> I took my third and fourth NLP trainings from Rex in 1998 and 1999, and
>> he said the same thing, only he added that a good way to get rapport
>> is to get in synch with the other person's state.
>>In other words, REX was teaching that matching and mirroring are
>>the RESULT of rapport not just what can cause it.
> I am not sure how your first two statements fit with your third statement.
> They are all mirroring.
Why did you edit the text of what I said to completely change the meaning?
Are you getting that desperate already? Not a good idea in a newsgroup
where I can respond and people can go back to my original post and see
for themsleves.
> Rapport comes from a connection. That is the bottom line. That connection is
> driven by the energy of the mind. That is why we can teach people to get
> rapport with people who cannot even see them. It is not from the other
> person unconsciously noticing anything. It is not from mimicking.
"connection" and "energy of the mind" have no meaning to me in this
context, but if course it is not what you call it but what you teach
that defines how you teach rapport, and I have never taken your course
so I don't know what you teach. I do feel strongly from my personal
perspective that based on the training I have received from others
and from my own explorations, I am as qualified to come up with "new"
ways to get rapport as you are. I suppose people who have no creativity
or explorative attitude may need you to tell them what to do, but then
those kind of people probably won't ever actually do anything with what
you teach them anyway.
Kurt
Vapor rub
news:FUSJ9.19433$Db4.5...@twister.tampabay.rr.com:
> How do you define 3-D?
> Is the mind not more than 3-D?
> Is it not minimally 4-D?
> Space-time-matter and what arises out of that, emerges, what we
> 'make
> emerge'.
>
> Wasn't DHE about design/eliciting/installing/utilizing the so-called
> 3D nature of mind?
> I think I got that on day 1, first hour or so...
>
> 80+ years ago Korzybski taught 4-D in the 20's.
> What am I missing here?
>
Hi Elvis,
You're missing quite a bit. The 3D Mind is Tom's streamlined model for
quick quick behavior/state change. (The fourth dimension is used at the
end.) Ross took someone who was a daily nail bitter for 20 years and
easily wiped it out in about 3 minutes. No long scripts, tapping,
affirmations, closed eyes, sick step reframes, eye accessing cues, etc.
That's a VERY small example, the potential applications for this model
are staggering. There was some great threads about it on Mindlist and of
course the Essential Skills group a few weeks back. Some of the NLP
purists had quite a paradigm shift!
But you should be warned: he doesn't use the word metastate once! :>
VR
Ross
> From: Rex Sikes <r...@amazingrex.com>
> Organization: Rex Sikes Productions, Inc.
> Reply-To: r...@amazingrex.com
> Newsgroups: alt.psychology.nlp,alt.seduction.fast
> Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 14:31:50 -0600
> Subject: Re: Rapport is tougher than I thought
>
>
>
> Ross wrote:
>
> Of course you can. And you can anchor a small state and build on it as it
> moves in
> the direction. This is the basis of anchoring and chaining. It has been done
> on the
> floor for goodness sakes. This is stuff we all taught in early early days.
> The difficulty with building a peak state first is some people arn't able to
> easily
> access them - so you guide them into it. Nothing novel - but proabably under
> taught
> in many cases.
We could get into these technical issues, but frankly, this is my LAST
response. I have tons of work to do from a 3 day Jay Abraham marketing
seminar, so I must keep this brief.
What I have seen Tom do(and Kim) with non-touch, sliding anchors that
amplify states that start out small is very, VERY cool, very real world
workable, and to put it bluntly, it has increased my SEDUCTION ABILITY
greatly. I can only report what I have experienced.
Whether that makes Tom an original genius(which he doesn't claim) is
irrelevant: I simply believe that in 3 days they pack in more real-world,
persuasive NLP tools for street use than any other training I've attended
WITH THE POSSIBLE EXCEPTION OF MY OWN. They don't emphasize language..that
is my ball-park.
I don't care if it is "new"-the refinements make it work better. FULL STOP.
I don't care if this year's Saab 9-5 is "new" in the sense that an
automobile was never previously invented, but the refinements make it a
better car, almost a different car than a 1976 Saab.
Kim and Tom have refined workable NLP to the street level for non-verbal
persuasion in the same way I have refined the language pattern
applications(and added in some other things as well).
Now, that is not arguable, as far as I am concerned. If you want to learn
the non-verbal persuasive tools of NLP, you are far better off going to them
for 3 days then taking some 16 day training. My opinion, to which I am
entitled. IT matches the experience of MANY of their students who HAVE been
to previous long, standard "NLP" trainings and have stated over and over
that Tom and Kim were the first to make it understandable, usable and
workable IN THE REAL WORLD.
Point. Set. Match.
>
>
> Already address it - also the basis of sliding anchors. Very very old thinking
> -
> useful, practical but I have taught it as have others. It is in my tapes for
> goodness sakes. In my website emails for years.
There is always some meat and some fat in a steak. I don't want days of fat
to get to a bit of meat, to use an analogy. And the stuff they use with
anchoring objects in the physical environment is great.
More to the point, the concepts they emphasize: that anchoring is as much
about focus, INTENT, and one's own state as it is about nonsense like peak
states and "precise touch"...the emphasis is great.
>
>>
>> >
> The niton that rapport comes from matching and mirroring yes is probably
> sometimes
> presented that way in books. However - it was from the study of rapport that
> matching and mirroring were discovered. And continue to be every so often.
> Rapport - a blanket of care and compassion and attention creates rapport.
> Interest
> creates rapport.
Care and compassion do NOT always create rapport. That's just incorrect. S
>
> You obviously are not familar with my work since you spent 3 or 4 days in one
> of my
> programs back in what 93.
> I address it as a matter of the rule or reciprisity - you go first they will
No, not what I am talking about.
>
> Th bubble technique is an ancient technique to create harmony been around
> since
> recorded history. I used that in the early 70's psychic development classes
> and
> later in practioner and trainer training. Nothing new or novel there.
His application is unique.
>
> Since Tom hasn't been around and hasn't studied with many different people he
> wouldn't know this. So he reinvents the wheel calls it his own and disses
> everyone
> else. And you join in with him. huh????
Oh Jesus..so it is the length of time in a field that establishes
what....perhaps how soaked in the prejudices of that field one has become.
Rex, I think you are just being ridiculous.
>
>>
>>
>> I say it again: What Tom and Kim teach about anchoring IS innovative and
>> far more effective than anything I've learned from anyone else.
>
> Well, apparently that is the case. But the question is why don't you know it
> comesd
> from elsewhere prior to Tom learning it.
> And to give him the benefit of the doubt, perhaps he puts some of his own
> words to
> it now and then and that makes it seem original.
Never mind. You are being condescending, and I've had quite enough of it.
>
>>
>>
>> And his 3-D mind stuff is VERY original, very powerful, and better than
>> anything I've seen elsewhere, including anything I've learned from Rex,
>> Bandler, etc etc. If this means I'm burning bridges, SO BE IT. I gotta
>> speak out and say what I think.
>>>
>
> Yesh - like what he didn't also study dhe. PALEEEASE. When was the last time
> you
> were in someone else's training?No disrespect meant - just an honest question.
> I
> did exactly what you are doing - I had to speak out. I have spoken out when I
> don't
> have an NLP business so there should be no sour grapes. No one scan say I am
> pissed
> becasue he is taking customers. I DON"TA CARE!!! He can have them all - but he
> owes
> them something. HE owes them the best training he can give them. AND HE AIN"T
> THERE
> YET no matter how much he thinks or you think he is.
What condescending crap to assume that Rex Sikes is going to say when
someone else is ready. Geez, you are as bad as you ever said Bandler was.
He doesn't even know what
> he
> is claiming. So I couldn't be silent any longer in fairness to the listeners.
> Let
> them research and decide. If ater research they still want to go to Tom - so
> be it.
> If they find that what I am saying proves correct and they evaluate their
> options
> so be it.
Bullshit. You have a personal dislike of Tom, claiming elsewhere he's stolen
his work from you. As you claimed to me that Bandler took DHE from you.
Geez...get off this nonsense, Sikes. Go enjoy your kids and your peforming
career and stop this crap. It is SOOO beneath the person I once thought you
were.
>
> He may some day become a first rate provider of NLP - but instead of all the
> ego -
> he should spend his time learning. He can even provide while he is learning -
> just
> add some honesty and integrity into the mix. Add some credit to the others who
> develop the work he uses (and uses without knowing it is others) and he would
> be a
> lot better. Market aggressively scream you are the best - but then actually be
> the
> best - not a clone who rides the coat tails of everyone else while claiming to
> have
> developed their work.
Yeah, Rex, he stole it all from you. Geez.
>
> I hope you understand - in defense of your friend - I am defending mine. I am
> also
> defending NLP a field he knows very little about. And surprisingly - he, it
> turns
> out, isn't the only one.I do hope you understand - I don't expect Tom too.
> That is
> sad.
I understand your condescension smells like bitter cat-shit mixed with
days old rotting fish, left in the sun.
You are no long worthy of my responses, attention or time. Go away, Rex.
And lose my number..I don't wish to take your calls.
Rex Sikes
an old notion. where have you been?
Yes, tom may someday be a first rate trainer if he applies himself. 3d mind
has been around prior to dhe. So what?
LaValle could pribably verify that too. As could Eric Robie. As could I.
You really don't know what NLP is do you? Only what you have heard and
quoted. Oh well that speaks volumes too.
Vapor rub wrote:
--
Rex Sikes
anecdotal stories of quick or easy success. I think that is wonderful.
Still meaningless though. And I guess you won't be able to wrap your mind
around these concepts will you? Neither apparently is tom able to
understand why I am not impressed - and why most people in the field of nlp
at best laugh him off as a minor nuisance.
I too in the start of my business was brash and made stupid mistakes. I
spent years very close to and was considered the premiere modeler of a very
top nlp innovator. Years modeling in person, by video, codifying. I spent
time helping develop dhe along with eric robie and others - probably no
ones are better qualified to talk about that subject than eric and i - and
I have spent years unlearning what I modeled in favor of something more
useful and rewarding.
I rarely feel the need to stand up to another provider - except when I see
abuses. Not that long ago there was someone on this forum who was almost
universally disliked for his tactics, someone who left but whose presence
remains here in another person - for the same reason's I mentioned -
modeling. When we model something less than glorious we should have the
good sense at some time to spend time undoing it. Hopefully we have friends
who don't just support us on the internet but can look at us and tell us
when we need to become aware.
The point is - if someone is going to call something brand new while
offering ancient materials that have been offered by others previously one
should at some point develop the good taste to recognize that those who
have been around longer have seen these providers come and go. We have
witnessed the claims, made them ourselves, made the mistakes but have
hopefully matured in the field. I myself called some of NLP dinosaur nlp
back in the late 80's and early 90's - so I know how easy it is to do that.
I also know that as one grows up one can compare and contrast, one develops
a different perspective from the newbie perspective and can better see how
things fit and don't fit.
Much of dhe I found in other books that came from the 30's and 40's and
50's and 60's all the while it was being touted as new stuff. We need to
expand our vision not narrow it. especially a provider - otherwise others
will and can see clean through him or her. The only ones that can't or
won't are those who haven't been exposed to other notions already out
there. The newbies. And it is unfair to sell them something it isn't. It is
unfair to claim things which aren't accurate. I think it is unfair to
deliberately deceive - though I don't think tom intends to deliberately
deceive I just think he is uniformed, too new, too brash, not unlike many
of us at his stage of development. I call him on it and he is offended.
Well I understand that I probably would be too.
Hopefully instead he will take it as a sign to study and develop so he does
emerge as a better provider. He may be adequate but he is misinforming,
making grandiose claims which are inaccurate and behaving as he has all
along - he has established a presence through attack, screaming and
claiming - sometimes he has offered useful advice and sometimes it is just
wild bs. Most of the time it is simple product placement in the guise of
help.
As I said he is not unlikeable. And I do like Ross, and Kim. I would like
to like Tom better, but I'd rather see him really clean up his act. Since
he can market - let him market something really admirable, something
truthful, something that does work beyond the claims and positioning. Let
him drop the need to be so great, so different, the first in the universe
etc. etc.. and let him develop and grow his skills in a respectable
fashion. THat would be super cool. Right now it is probably and adequate
training with lot's of misinformation - if his posting over the years is
any indication. That is a directly modeled talent he managed to acquire
from elsewhere which he has yet to recognize and clean up.
But then none of this probably means anything to you or makes sense to you,
so...
Vapor rub wrote:
--
Rex Sikes
took dhe from me.
You miss the point and are spreading falsehood too which I am not interested in
getting into. You keep claiming I say he stole it from me - that is not what I am
saying - again you are wrong and mis-stating. What I am saying is - he is
misrepresenting others work, ableit unintentionally or otherwise - and you stand in
defense of him. That does shock me.
I understand you runing to the aid of a friend but now you are just helping
perpertuate lies. And the fact that you sign off in typical fashion is not
something that bothers me. Perhaps losing a friend I enjoyed as much as I enjoyed
you will bother me,
but you have been this way since I have known you and I always just chalked it up
to ross being ross. So there too is nothing new.
Be well in defense of your friend. You have chosen
Thanks I will enjoy my kids and performing - it is more rewarding that this. I only
jumped in becasue to be silent was worse than upsetting the apple cart. Meanwhile -
those who know - can see too.
Bye!
Elvis Lester
How many of you think that Rex is RIGHT ON here?
Elvis Keith Lester
> I spent years very close to and was considered the premiere modeler of a
very
> top nlp innovator.... - and I have spent years unlearning what I modeled
in favor of something
> more useful and rewarding.
>
>> When we model something less than glorious we should have the
> good sense at some time to spend time undoing it. Hopefully we have
friends
> who don't just support us on the internet but can look at us and tell us
> when we need to become aware.
>
> The point is - if someone is going to call something brand new while
> offering ancient materials that have been offered by others previously one
> should at some point develop the good taste to recognize that those who
> have been around longer have seen these providers come and go. We have
> witnessed the claims, made them ourselves, made the mistakes but have
> hopefully matured in the field. >
> We need to
Vapor rub
>
> You really don't know what NLP is do you? Only what you have heard and
> quoted.
Is that kinda like the way you "quoted" (cough! cough!) a big chunk of
Bandler's Personal Enhancement Series script on your Attitude Activator CD?
VR
Tommy James
Tom,
You should at least TRY to make it look as though Vapor Rub and
yourself are two different people.
Vapor rub
news:3dfa1e36...@news.chartertn.net:
Is this the best you can do Rex?
VR
Robert
> Again Tom you can do better than cite your testimonials. Come on fess up
> already.
I think NLP is a very great tool.
I find value in NLP and it`s metodhology.
At least I think Tom V do understand NLP and its waste implications.
if he however market NLP or his own stuff I think thats up to him.
He dont claim to do NLP and certify in NLP which seperate his product
and service as from bandler and whoever certify in NLP.
I certify in NLP with Bandlers orginazation since I went trough my
training there.
I also have build a NLP model in swedish language which is new at
least in sweden and also it seems in the world.
That would mean it would be the first model in NLP for a bit of time
then?
If Tom dismiss NLP?
I dont think so.
If he did he would dismiss his own stuff also, which would be funny.
He found a nisch and he seems to do well and also has a very active
newslist which works very well. I like to contribute and I even ask
from time to time Tom V:s opinion of things.
I think the american way, sorry but the cultural bias some of you guys
show are hilarious from an outsider of english language and also
cultural differences.
I think i understand NLP what the power is into the metodhology.
I can be full of shit also in that regard however I am not afraid to
point out that Tom V do something unique.
Which isnt NLP as it is known.
I am developing new stuff myself and exploring avenues which I hope
will bring something to NLP where people can do and know stuff on
levels previously unheard.
In another newslist I asked Michael Hall some questions which he
disregarded and couldnt answer.
Rex, you do have good intentions, I can at least notice that you have
a strong sense of self and that you back it up rigoursly.
I think it is good that people express what they think and feel about
others materials since that get a good ground for feedback and also
get people thinking and not going into sheep mode.
Accepting things as they are - I think many have a big problem with.
Just an observation.
If breaking down NLP into the bits where things starts, we find
anchoring and state.
We find 2 digitals and one analogue.
Thats about it what NLP can be made up of.
/Robert
www.svensknlp.nu
Adam Sargant
news:627ff765.02121...@posting.google.com...
> If breaking down NLP into the bits where things starts, we find
> anchoring and state.
> We find 2 digitals and one analogue.
> Thats about it what NLP can be made up of.
Ah, you have the mind of of an elegant mathematician my friend <G>
Nice to see someone bring it all back to NLP and so exquisitely too:-)
Adam
--
"Do not read a book merely from your own imagination -
try and put yourself in the place of the author, and,
if possible, get behind his ideas" Charles Platt
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.427 / Virus Database: 240 - Release Date: 07/12/2002
drakotom
> trained people looking for Real World Skills. You are jus a bitter ex
> competitor. In that frame, your comments make more sense.
ex competitor? You both have/had different products (speaking about
main line of products), different target groups. Nowhere near to being
competitor.
That puts even more sense, back there where it is.