Richard Bandler's credibility
Timothy Hughes
the murder trial of Richard Bandler. I felt totally
amazed that I had never heard about this trial
before: I have been deeply interested in Bandler's
work since 1996. In fact, two of his books, TIME
FOR A CHANGE and TRANSFORMATIONS, are among my very
favorite self-help books.
After reading this article my faith in this man is
total shattered. I see him in a completely different
light. How could a man who teaches what Richard
teaches be using bags of cocaine, abusing alcohol,
smoking cigarettes, and gaining so much weight? That
makes no sense to me at all. Then, there is all
the lying. It says in the article that he is not a
doctor. They claim Bandler excuses this by saying it
was not himself but his promotors who spread that
lie. However, I have a lecture sold by his private
company which introduces him as Dr. Richard Bandler.
I feel like I have to be extremely skeptical of
Bandler and his work. I realize this trial and article
are probably both old news to the rest of you, but I
just heard about it yesterday. Please let me know
your thoughts about Bandler's character, credibility,
and the merit of his work.
MegaDude
advertises that he has a Ph.d to help his marketing.
And I believe he probably killed the woman mentioned in the Mother
Jones article, but it was a difficult case for the prosecutor to make.
Both men at the scene of the murder "looked" guilty. Ultimately, the
jury couldn't decide who pulled the trigger.
Yes, Bandler has been addicted to cocaine. I met one of the NLP
trainers that helped him break his addiction and they told me about
it..
Yes, he's been pretty overweight in the past. I don't think he is
anymore, but there are a number of NLP trainers who are overweight.
That aside (if you're able) you'll have to judge Richard Bandler's
work on its own merits.
Name one great person in history that didn't have his faults?
Please.... name one. Many "great" and wonderful people have
horrific faults.
Your concern is justified. But in the end, you'll have to judge the
work of "Dr." Bandler on its own.
synergi
Timothy, I'll toss out my advice.
If you are looking for a guru, look somewhere other than the field of NLP.
If you are looking for personal change and empowerment, be a healthy
skeptic. Try out what NLP has to offer, and evaluate whether it works or
not.
That is the only evaluation that counts.
And Bandler should not be a part of the equation, in my opinion.
If you decide you aren't ready to get past Bandler, then just remember that
a lot of what you have learned from him was distilled from modeling people
like Milton Erickson.
Maybe you will find Mr. Purple PJ's more appropriate a character. In which
case go read "A Teaching Seminar with Milton Erickson" and remark to
yourself how similar he acts to that deviant Bandler in certain ways. Then
remember that he was a "real" Doctor, and a professional, so it's ok to
change what you want with what you learn.
Myself, I just boycott Ford cars cause Henry Ford (the dead one) was an
asshole.
All the best,
Syn
P.S. Not really. Asshole or not, he done good.
--
"Imagine, if you will, that I am an idiot.
Then, imagine that I am also a Congressman.
But, alas, I repeat myself."
-- Mark Twain
Michael DeBusk
> I don't believe Bandler's Ph.d is legit.
Based on what specific evidence?
> And I believe he probably killed the woman mentioned in the Mother
> Jones article, but it was a difficult case for the prosecutor to make.
Based on what specific evidence?
> Both men at the scene of the murder "looked" guilty.
How, exactly, does one "look" guilty?
> Yes, he's been pretty overweight in the past. I don't think he is
> anymore, but there are a number of NLP trainers who are overweight.
He's a rather "normal" build now.
> Name one great person in history that didn't have his faults?
> Please.... name one. Many "great" and wonderful people have
> horrific faults.
Seems to me someone who didn't have any faults wouldn't be very
credible.
> Your concern is justified.
How so?
--
Use the munged address below to reply:
debu4335[40h]eclipsetel[2Eh]com
Michael DeBusk
> I recently read an old Mother Jones article on
> the murder trial of Richard Bandler.
Keep in mind that magazines, even Mother Jones, are not in business to
publish the truth. They're in business to sell ad space and magazines.
They print what people will buy, not what matters. Remember how much
press Bill Clinton's blowjob got. Was that news? Did it matter? No and
No. But did it SELL? You bet it did. So it got press.
The article is filled with baseless innuendo, just enough fact to make
you want to believe the bullshit. Richard was accused of murder. He was
found Not Guilty by a jury of his peers. The End.
Of course, there are always people who bound in here and claim they know
Richard "got away with murder". My response is a simple one: show me the
evidence. Show me the PROOF that Richard murdered anyone. Nobody can do
it. But Richard taught classes for attorneys on how to persuade juries,
they say. Yeah? So what happens when both the defense and the
prosecution attends the same class?
Without fail, those people want to equate being suspected with being
guilty. So I just suspect them of being assholes.
Did Richard kill her? I imagine he's the only one alive who knows for
certain. I have no way of knowing, and neither does ANYONE else. And
since I'm in the USA, where people are (at least in theory) presumed
innocent until proven guilty, I will presume he is innocent.
> I felt totally amazed that I had never heard about this
> trial before: I have been deeply interested in Bandler's
> work since 1996. In fact, two of his books, TIME FOR A
> CHANGE and TRANSFORMATIONS, are among my very favorite
> self-help books.
Those books have not changed since you read that piece of sophistry on
the web.
> After reading this article my faith in this man is
> total shattered.
So you've chosen to believe something you read on a website... you've
chosen to take it at face value, and assume that everything they implied
is true. How little it takes to impress you.
> I see him in a completely different light.
> How could a man who teaches what Richard
> teaches be using bags of cocaine, abusing alcohol,
> smoking cigarettes, and gaining so much weight?
So... he made choices you don't agree with, and that makes him a bad
person. He made choices back then you wouldn't make now but you didn't
know that, and went on to create a field which you credit highly, and
then you learn about those choices, you pretend that undoes everything
the man has accomplished since then.
Have you ever used caffeine or sugar or alcohol or nicotine? Drugs.
Legal, sure, but cocaine was legal once and now it isn't, so legality
doesn't make it "bad" or "good". As Phil pointed out the LAST time this
damned thread rolled through, if the government ever outlaws sugar or
tobacco, we'll all go down in history as the greatest drug abusers of
all time.
Big fat hairy deal, he used to get messed up. Most of the greatest
inventions and discoveries in history were made by people who were on
drugs or in some other kind of altered state... including the machine
you're using to read this message. The developers of microprocessors
admit (off the record, of course) to using LSD and being able to shrink
their perceptions down to microscopic levels to "see" the thing work.
Even Edison took advantage of a phenomenon commonly known as "sleep
deprivation psychosis" and Freud (without whom psychology would still
likely be considered as "fringe" as astrology and palmistry) was as
hooked on cocaine as anybody ever was.
> Then, there is all the lying.
I can't manage to wrap my mind around the idea that you're swallowing
all the shit you read in that stupid article. He says "X" and they say
"not X" and you automatically accuse HIM of lying. Why not accuse the
author of the article of lying while you're at it?
> It says in the article that he is not a doctor.
Oh, well, then, if it says so in the article it MUST be true!
Christ.
I asked a close friend and business associate of Richard's about that. I
won't bring his name into this because he doesn't read the newsgroup. He
told me Richard has three doctoral degrees, two of them being honorary,
and he doesn't know what discipline the third one is in. It's not
something that matters, as there are no university degrees in NLP and
NLP is what Richard teaches. I would imagine Richard likes using the
honorific "Dr." for the same two reasons most people who have a
doctorate in something like it: he worked for it, and it DOES make him
more marketable.
Keep in mind, at the same time, that the article is OLD NEWS. It's
possible that he wasn't a doctor of anything back then, but has since
finished post-graduate work. People can do that. Did he? I don't know.
Didn't he? Do YOU know?
> I feel like I have to be extremely skeptical of
> Bandler and his work.
That's something Bandler himself wants you to do. He's said it plainly
at the begining of all three trainings I've attended where he's
taught... don't take his word for anything, because everything he'll
tell you is a lie. Take the learnings and apply them in your real life,
use them, and if they work, keep them... if they don't, do something
else.
> Please let me know your thoughts about Bandler's
> character, credibility, and the merit of his work.
The merit of Bandler's work is without question. I have no doubt that
much of it comes from his learning from his own mistakes. Nothing truly
wonderful comes from corporation-funded laboratory research where
everybody wears white coats and works around the clock and never goes
out and has fun and gets laid.
Richard's credibility is, to me, the highest possible: he's "been there
and done that," never theorizing but always practicing. I learned
growing up in a Baptist church that the most interesting and effective
ministers tended to have been people no self-respecting Baptist would
ever take seriously. Mistakes? Make as many as you can.
Bandler's character... if anyone here knows him personally well enough
to comment on it, they might speak up. I know only the characters he
plays in the training room, and they're all compelling. Just take it as
a given that the people whose article you're taking at face value don't
know him at all.
Michael DeBusk
> Shouldn't we have a FAQ for this by now? <grin>
There is one. I can't recall the URL, though.
> If you are looking for a guru, look somewhere other than the field of NLP.
Absolutely. It's far too bothersome to discover that one's hero has been
HUMAN all along.
I remember beating my dad at arm-wrestling. It was a weird feeling.
> And Bandler should not be a part of the equation, in my opinion.
Amen.
> If you decide you aren't ready to get past Bandler, then just remember
> that a lot of what you have learned from him was distilled from modeling
> people like Milton Erickson.
Yeah, there's a model citizen. ;)
> Myself, I just boycott Ford cars cause Henry Ford (the dead one)
> was an asshole.
Did you know more millionares drive Ford F-150 pickups than any other
vehicle? ;)
nick kemp
true (well known publication?) and after all its not as if RB had anything
to do with the creation, demonstration and development of NLP or DHE is it?
Definately best for him to look elsewhere me thinks
(:
Nick
(wholly incredible and pleased to be so)
"Don't follow leaders, watch the parking meters...)
Bob Dylan
"Michael DeBusk" <m_de...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:3B3C1A55...@eclipsetel.com...
MegaDude
>MegaDude wrote:
>
>> I don't believe Bandler's Ph.d is legit.
>Based on what specific evidence?
Based on talking to NLP trainers and Bandler's own words to the Mother
Jones interviewers that he doesn't. have a real Ph.d..
Why? Do you have evidence he has a Ph.d from an accredited
university? Which one? You are disputing this based on what specific
evidence?
>> And I believe he probably killed the woman mentioned in the Mother
>> Jones article, but it was a difficult case for the prosecutor to make.
>
>Based on what specific evidence?
Based on the fact he was there when she was killed. There were only
two people there. He had the murdered girl's blood on his clothes.
He had a gun. Based on his actions before, during and after the
murder by his own words.
>
>> Both men at the scene of the murder "looked" guilty.
>
>How, exactly, does one "look" guilty?
Hmmm, both men at the scene of a murder. Bandler had the murdered
girl's blood on him. Bandler owned a gun. Bandler was there when she
was killed. Bandler didn't call the police or do anything to help
her. Hmmmm, possible suspect????????? Draw your own conclusions.
I'm not saying I know he did it. I said I think he did it. I don't
think he did it on purpose.
>>
>Seems to me someone who didn't have any faults wouldn't be very
>credible.
I don't think such a person exists.
>
>> Your concern is justified.
>
>How so?
I'm not directing this comment only at Richard Bandler.
It's smart to do a little research on your teachers before you let
them into your head. Do they walk their talk?
Is the product they're selling genuinely helpful, or is it simply an
attempt to suck the greenbacks out of your wallet?
It's a pertinent question.
Does Scientology or est ring any bells for you?
Jehovah's Witnesses? There are plenty of people out there selling a
philosophy or a religion or a way to run your life successfully.
I knew a lot of negative stuff about Richard Bandler before I began
purchasing his materials, but the work he's done got enough positive
reviews that I studied NLP and found it beneficial.
I would like to do a training with him in the future. I think his
work speaks for itself. It helped me in a number of aspects and so my
feelings about Bandler and his work are positive despite his past
problems. Who doesn't have problems?
synergi
>> Myself, I just boycott Ford cars cause Henry Ford
>> (the dead one) was an asshole.
>
> Did you know more millionares drive Ford F-150 pickups
> than any other vehicle? ;)
A sure sign that the apocolypse is upon us.
My neighbor recently imported an eco-wreck hybrid-car from Europe. The
dealer told him that they lost a bundle of cash on every one, but it was OK
because the government subsidized it. He also said that virtually no one
was buying the things because of the eco-crap, but there was a huge demand
from rich folks who wanted an "oddity" piece for future collector value.
I think if I sneezed too hard around that tin box it'd break into a thousand
pieces.
Yes. I think the end is upon us.
All the best,
Syn (who is going to test drive a gas guzzling, obnoxiously loud, black on
black 68 camaro RS/SS convertible today - gimme steel baby)
Michael DeBusk
> My neighbor recently imported an eco-wreck hybrid-car from Europe.
Ugh.
> I think if I sneezed too hard around that tin box it'd break into a thousand
> pieces.
Worth a try! ;)
> Syn (who is going to test drive a gas guzzling, obnoxiously loud, black
> on black 68 camaro RS/SS convertible today - gimme steel baby)
Oooo... if you buy it, bring it to the next training we attend together.
:)
Michael DeBusk
> >Based on what specific evidence?
>
> Based on talking to NLP trainers
Trainers who work closely with Richard, or those who compete with the
Society?
> and Bandler's own words to the Mother Jones interviewers
Again... old stuff. Every doctor had a time in his life when he wasn't a
doctor. That doesn't prove he isn't one now.
> Why? Do you have evidence he has a Ph.d from an accredited
> university? Which one? You are disputing this based on what specific
> evidence?
My conversation with a specific person who would know for certain.
> Based on the fact he was there when she was killed. There were only
> two people there.
Circumstantial. Not evidence at all. How do YOU know there were only two
people there... were you one of them?
> He had the murdered girl's blood on his clothes.
I've had murdered people's blood on my clothes too, but I've never
murdered anyone. (Well, he was probably murdered. I didn't get to follow
the case beyond my limited involvement.)
> He had a gun.
Lots of people have guns and have never murdered anyone.
> Based on his actions before, during and after the
> murder by his own words.
The only words that provide evidence that he killed anyone would be the
words "I did it."
> Hmmm, both men at the scene of a murder. Bandler had the murdered
> girl's blood on him. Bandler owned a gun. Bandler was there when she
> was killed. Bandler didn't call the police or do anything to help
> her. Hmmmm, possible suspect????????? Draw your own conclusions.
EVERYBODY is a suspect when ANYBODY is murdered, at first. The vast
majority of people are eliminated quickly from suspicion by the
immediate evidence... for example, it's obvious I didn't do it because I
was a small child in Maryland at the time.
Owning a gun and being there do not equal guilt. They certainly
constitute enough suspicion to get past a grand jury, but that's as far
as that goes.
There is more than one reason why someone wouldn't call the cops or try
to help. Maybe he was fucked up on coke at the time, maybe he was
post-traumatic, who knows.
> I'm not saying I know he did it. I said I think he did it.
Fine and dandy. I think OJ did it (not the prostitute, OJ's wife.) There
was enough evidence to find OJ liable in civil court. Bandler never went
to civil trial. So there's just no way of knowing.
> I don't think he did it on purpose.
If it's true that he did it but not on purpose, then it wasn't murder
but manslaughter. He was tried for murder and found not guilty.
> >Seems to me someone who didn't have any faults wouldn't be very
> >credible.
>
> I don't think such a person exists.
And if they did, would we know how to find them? ;)
> It's smart to do a little research on your teachers before you let
> them into your head. Do they walk their talk?
> Is the product they're selling genuinely helpful, or is it simply an
> attempt to suck the greenbacks out of your wallet?
As far as Richard walking his talk, I can't recall anything I've heard
him say that would indicate he doesn't. I've never heard him say "don't
use drugs" or "don't party hard" or "don't drink alcohol" or anything
like that. I've consistently heard him teach that we should make choices
and change them if we find they don't work for us. Seems to me he's done
that.
> I would like to do a training with him in the future. I think his
> work speaks for itself. It helped me in a number of aspects and so my
> feelings about Bandler and his work are positive despite his past
> problems. Who doesn't have problems?
An excellent view, I think. Because it agrees with mine. ;)
PStuart
>The only words that provide evidence that he killed anyone would be the
>words "I did it."
And he has said just the opposite. I once heard him say, "I was set up. Why
would I ever kill anyone? I could just freeze their minds instead." Or words to
that effect. I had no reason to doubt him.
93 93/93
Phil
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pan's Tarot - http://members.aol.com/panstarot/
Phil's Magick Page -- http://members.aol.com/pstuart/
MegaDude
>> I would like to do a training with him in the future. I think his
>> work speaks for itself. It helped me in a number of aspects and so my
>> feelings about Bandler and his work are positive despite his past
>> problems. Who doesn't have problems?
>
>An excellent view, I think. Because it agrees with mine. ;)
>
LOL! Reminds me of my favorite bumpersticker:
"We'll get along fine as soon as you realize I'm God!"
Michael DeBusk
> And he has said just the opposite. I once heard him say, "I was set up.
> Why would I ever kill anyone? I could just freeze their minds instead."
> Or words to that effect. I had no reason to doubt him.
Wait for it... someone's gotta say "EVERY murderer claims he was set
up!!!"
(What are people who WERE set up supposed to say, I wonder...)
Michael DeBusk
> LOL! Reminds me of my favorite bumpersticker:
>
> "We'll get along fine as soon as you realize I'm God!"
And that reminds me of mine:
"Thank God I'm Agnostic!" :)
Larry D. Hols
Michael DeBusk wrote:
>
> Wait for it... someone's gotta say "EVERY murderer claims he was set
> up!!!"
Not true. Those who are guilty most often talk about technicalities in trials.
> (What are people who WERE set up supposed to say, I wonder...)
Other folks say it for them. We have an inmate who was railroaded into
prison, and the county folks are dragging ass on processing papers for
his appeal, for it's almost certain he'll be freed. I just wonder how
much he'll settle for in the law suit for the wrongful imprisonment.
Larry
Michael DeBusk
> Those who are guilty most often talk about technicalities in trials.
I suppose they're becoming more astute.
> Other folks say it for them. We have an inmate who was railroaded into
> prison, and the county folks are dragging ass on processing papers for
> his appeal, for it's almost certain he'll be freed. I just wonder how
> much he'll settle for in the law suit for the wrongful imprisonment.
Don't they understand that it'll go easier on them if they admit their
mistake?
Larry D. Hols
Michael DeBusk wrote:
>
> Don't they understand that it'll go easier on them if they admit their
> mistake?
The local sheriff's son is the most likely culprit, from the reports
I've seen, so there's a strong local sentiment to keep it all covered.
Meanwhile, we have an inmate in our prison we know shouldn't be there.
Larry
Stever Robbins
I have also attached a copy of my response to a similar question a few
months ago.
>It says in the article that he is not a doctor.
He has two honorary doctorates at this point, and has for several
years [according to conversations with him and with John LaValle, his
co-trainer]. He used to be introduced as Dr. Bandler by his promotors,
even before he had his doctorates. I don't know whether or not he
personally misrepresented himself before actually receiving the
degrees.
>Please let me know >your thoughts about Bandler's character, credibility, and the merit of his work.
Character. Richard is a very unorthodox man. I've known him for about
ten years, so my personal association with him is completely AFTER the
trial. I've found that he is fiercely loyal, and has an extreme temper
when he perceives that someone has somehow breached that loyalty.
Sometimes his perceptions of a breach differs from theirs, and I've
seen him scare people away to the extent that they don't ever approach
him to try to work things out. He doesn't approach them, either, and
the situation deteriorates.
One example is all the flaming about his license agreement that you
must sign to take his trainer's training. People have gone ballistic
about how obnoxious and onorous it is. I called him up and said,
"Richard, I want to offer a course...here's the specifics...your
royalty structure doesn't make business sense, can we work something
out?" We did. It took about 30 seconds, or maybe a minute to find a
mutually agreeable solution. So I've found him approachable.
One of the striking things about his workshops is that once you can
get past all the profanity, if you listen closely, you'll find you've
rarely encountered such a strong, consistent, set of presuppositions
about the inherent worth of human beings. He ridicules their behavior
and their silly beliefs and actions, but his basic attitude seems to
be that they're good people who adopted the wrong
attitude/beliefs/skills.
He's one of the few NLP trainers I've heard who always comes back to
turning cynicism/frustration/upset into understanding and fun. And I
respect that.
Business-wise, I think Richard's intentions are great, but I would
stay away from actual partnerships with him. He doesn't really plan,
money or time, and business is all about planning both. I've noted
from the outside that almost everyone who does business with him ends
up in the midst of some kind of misunderstanding, so I have been
careful to keep my association with him on a friendship level.
Credibility. This is an interesting one. He purposely exaggerates in
his work, in part to elicit strong states in people--part of his
training method is state elicitation. I think the core facts are often
true, even when they sound outrageous. There are many stories I've
heard him tell that I doubted were even remotely true and figured were
pure metaphor. Yet one by one, I've met people who confirmed his
story. And recently I was watching a bunch of NLP Comprehensive
viedotapes with Richard, was listening to him tell a story, and
realized with a surprise that he was talking about *ME* when I'd been
a demonstration subject for him some years before.
He exaggerates, yes. Does he lie? If so, I doubt it's more than the
license any author takes to tell a good story.
Merit of his work. Top notch. I've trained with Richard, John Grinder,
Robert Dilts, Todd Epstein, Linda Sommer, Joe Yeager, Max Steinbeck,
Judith DeLozier, and met many of the NLP Comprehensive trainers who
date back to the 1st and 2nd generation of NLPers. His ability to
utilize NLP in practice is so far above any of the others's that I'm
convinced he's the most accomplished *practitioner* of the technology.
Whether he is the primary "developer" or not is hard to say. My
understanding is that originally, Richard figured out how to DO stuff,
but it was John Grinder who watched Richard and coded Richard's
behavior into teachable chunks.
In my own dealings with Richard, I've found that he can do amazing
things, but has real difficulty explaining things didactically. His
explanations often turn into nested stories and installations that
might give you the abilities you're asking him about, but won't
necessarily answer your question in a way that you understand what he
means. To some degree, I think this is simply part of how he operates.
I think he picks up these abilities, and does his best to model what
he's doing so he can teach it.
Hope this helps,
Stever
P.S. Please direct personal replies via the web:
http://www.nlp.org/email.cgi. The FROM: address on this message is a
junkmail address.
On 20 Feb 2001 16:06:27 GMT, in alt.psychology.nlp you wrote:
>As to speculation that Bandler was "guilty" of something but "NLPed" the trial
>to get off... that can only be speculation.
The article states that the trial was heavily attended by NLPers. If
Richard somehow "NLP"d his way out of being found guilty, I would
imagine that at least one of the NLP trainers present would have
picked up on a technique or two, and I've never heard so much as a
rumor that any direct witness detected him using any fancy NLP
patterns.
More to the point, however, when he is influencing an audience using
NLP in a training seminar, he spends hours inducing states. It
requires the audience's undivided attention as well as his in order
for him to have an impact. Unless California courtrooms are very, very
different from Massachusetts courtrooms, it's hard to believe he would
have been given the free reign to indulge in state elicitation for
more than one or two sentences at a time. [And the Mother Jones
article seems to say that if anything, his behavior was pretty subdued
at the trial.]
At this point, I doubt it's worth arguing about. It was 20 years ago,
and we'll never know what happened. If the article is accurate,
Richard was doing so drugs and alcohol at that point in his life that
*he* may not know exactly what happened.
If you find his seminars and information useful, then by all means
attend. Your chances of getting killed at one are probably similar to
your chances of being hit by a plane while crossing the street. And
your chances of learning something are considerably higher.
Namaste,
Stever
Stever Robbins
(MegaDude) wrote:
>I'm not directing this comment only at Richard Bandler.
>It's smart to do a little research on your teachers before you let
>them into your head. Do they walk their talk?
>Is the product they're selling genuinely helpful, or is it simply an
>attempt to suck the greenbacks out of your wallet?
>It's a pertinent question.
It is, indeed. Unfortunately, it's hard to know what answers to be
satisfied with. As a member of the Harvard Business School curriculum
design team, I've worked directly with some of the world's leading
experts on leadership, team building, and interpersonal skills. They
have plenty of degrees.
Do they walk their talk? Rarely.
Are their products helpful [here I include their books, lectures,
etc.]? Sometimes. But not consistently. And they, themselves, revise
their theories every few years.
>Who doesn't have problems?
Indeed. I recently found out a lot of biographical stuff about Isaac
Newton, who had long been one of my heros. Let's just say that he was
a really smart guy, who had a number of, um, non-redeeming qualities
as a human being.
I'm also an MIT alum, and one thing I can say about genius is that it
rarely coexists with great people skills, great introspection, the
ability to walk one's talk, etc. The ability to make powerful
distinctions about the world and about people in no way implies the
ability to use those distinctions in a meaningful way. Just because
you can design a car doesn't mean you can drive one. They're different
skills.
- Stever
P.S. If you wish to reply personally, please go to
http://www.nlp.org/email.cgi. Just replying to this message goes to my
junkmail inbox.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stever Robbins stev...@eudoramail.com
[To contact me directly, go to http://www.nlp.com/email.cgi.
The email address posted is for SPAM and I rarely check it.]
Accept no substitutes! http://www.verstek.com/stever/
"You're only young once, but you can be immature forever."
Stever Robbins
>And he has said just the opposite. I once heard him say, "I was set up. Why
>would I ever kill anyone? I could just freeze their minds instead." Or words to
>that effect. I had no reason to doubt him.
He's told me he was set up, too. I forget the details. Frankly, it's
not something I even *want* to know much about.
Wyatt Woodsmall remarked about the time of the trial, "The method
wasn't Richard's style, anyway. If he wanted to kill someone, he'd
squirt them in the face with a squirtgun full of DMSO and cayenne
pepper."
I kind of agree. He just isn't a point-blank kind of guy.
But in any event, is it really useful for all of us to sit around
hypothesizing about a thirteen-plus year old event that NONE of us
have any direct experience or data on?
One of the tenants of NLP is to base your actions (at least in an NLP
context) on direct, verifiable experience. I have nothing to add to
this discussion except my personal reactions to reading the Mother
Jones article, etc.
While you might be interested in my reactions [and I've posted them
several times in the last decade and a half], the topic gets really
old. Our opinions are just that: our opinions. What happened,
happened. None of us are likely to know the truth. If, as it's
claimed, Richard was totally drugged out at the time, it may be that
even HE doesn't really know what happened.
So let's discuss something else where we can argue over opinions based
on incomplete, inconsistent, third-hand reports.
What do y'all think of global warming? Do you drive an SUV?
- Stever
--
To reply to this message via personal e-mail, please go to
http://www.nlp.org/email.cgi. Replying to the FROM: address
will just send to my junkmail inbox.
nick kemp
Nick Kemp
"Stever Robbins" <junk...@verstek.com> wrote in message
news:hvgujt0mmgomiulio...@4ax.com...
Michael DeBusk
> The local sheriff's son is the most likely culprit, from the reports
> I've seen, so there's a strong local sentiment to keep it all covered.
If you know about it, surely others do. What's the press doing?
Michael DeBusk
> not something I even *want* to know much about.
Absolutely. The available answers have been repeatedly presented. The
unavailable answers are... well, unavailable.
> Wyatt Woodsmall remarked about the time of the trial, "The method
> wasn't Richard's style, anyway. If he wanted to kill someone, he'd
> squirt them in the face with a squirtgun full of DMSO and cayenne
> pepper."
Good point. :)
> the topic gets really old.
No kidding, it does...
> None of us are likely to know the truth. If, as it's claimed,
> Richard was totally drugged out at the time, it may be that
> even HE doesn't really know what happened.
I hope you aren't referring to me. I didn't *claim* he was drugged out
at the time... just offering another possible explanation that fit with
the arguments and didn't implicate Richard in the act.
> What do y'all think of global warming?
My part of the globe is pretty damned hot.
> Do you drive an SUV?
I thought about getting a new Explorer. I drive an ugly paint-peeling
eleven-year-old Dodge Dakota. With gas prices skyrocketing and that old
truck still geting over 20 MPG, plus the fact that it's paid for (and
has been for a long time) and passes emissions testing and still runs
well, I decided I'd just drive what I have until it won't go anymore.
I'm a cheapskate when it comes to such things. :)
Michael DeBusk
> Indeed. I recently found out a lot of biographical stuff about Isaac
> Newton, who had long been one of my heros. Let's just say that he was
> a really smart guy, who had a number of, um, non-redeeming qualities
> as a human being.
You mean Henry Phillips might have to add another verse to his song, "On
The Shoulders Of Freaks"? ;)
Michael DeBusk
> I have also attached a copy of my response to a similar question a
> few months ago.
I think we now have the one thing with which we can answer what I have
learned to call "The Night of the Living Thread." Soon as Google/Deja
has it available, I'm snagging the URL.
> One of the striking things about his workshops is that once you can
> get past all the profanity, if you listen closely, you'll find you've
> rarely encountered such a strong, consistent, set of presuppositions
> about the inherent worth of human beings.
Well said, Stever.
Larry D. Hols
Michael DeBusk wrote:
>
> If you know about it, surely others do. What's the press doing?
I'm not certain. I don't live in that county. We got information from
his case file and some original media reports. I don't know what the
local press is doing in that county; I've not seen coverage in regional
papers (although I've not looked closely).
Some of the interesting points: a DNA match that can't even establish
whether the provider was human or not, let alone a specific individual;
verified improprieties in the testing process; the judge refused to
certify as an expert the man from whom the tester learned the procedures
and who has long been used as an expert on DNA testing by the courts;
the eyewitness testimony speaks of a man 6'3 to 6'4" while the inmate is
5'8" (and the sheriff's son is 6'4")--that sort of thing.
It adds a bit of leaven to the task of supervising inmates when we know
that at least some of our boys are innocent of the charges that landed
them with us.
Larry
Michael DeBusk
> a DNA match that can't even establish whether the provider was human
> or not, let alone a specific individual;
Mrs. O'Leary's cow is now a suspect.
> the judge refused to certify as an expert the man from whom the
> tester learned the procedures and who has long been used as an
> expert on DNA testing by the courts;
Time to move it out of that county.
> It adds a bit of leaven to the task of supervising inmates when we know
> that at least some of our boys are innocent of the charges that landed
> them with us.
It's good to know there are officers with that attitude.
PStuart
>> If you know about it, surely others do. What's the press doing?
Cooperating with their drinking buddies, the law enforcement officials.
Michael DeBusk
> >> If you know about it, surely others do. What's the press doing?
>
> Cooperating with their drinking buddies, the law enforcement officials.
I guess things are different where I come from. Around here, the press
delights in publishing things that make the cops look human.
tor...@attglobal.net
will reach a level of maturity where the words are more important
than the man. When (and a big IF) this happens, abuse in the
name of organized religion will decrease, Bandler's murder charges
will cease to occupy our time uselessly, and we'll all wear
'feety-jammies'
with duckies and bunnies on them :-)
Really, if you take away the hero, things become less misleading.
It's too bad people need heros...but alas most do.
Timothy Hughes wrote:
> I recently read an old Mother Jones article on
> the murder trial of Richard Bandler. I felt totally
> amazed that I had never heard about this trial
> before: I have been deeply interested in Bandler's
> work since 1996. In fact, two of his books, TIME
> FOR A CHANGE and TRANSFORMATIONS, are among my very
> favorite self-help books.
>
> After reading this article my faith in this man is
> total shattered. I see him in a completely different
> light. How could a man who teaches what Richard
> teaches be using bags of cocaine, abusing alcohol,
> smoking cigarettes, and gaining so much weight? That
> makes no sense to me at all. Then, there is all
> the lying. It says in the article that he is not a
> doctor. They claim Bandler excuses this by saying it
> was not himself but his promotors who spread that
> lie. However, I have a lecture sold by his private
> company which introduces him as Dr. Richard Bandler.
>
> I feel like I have to be extremely skeptical of
> Bandler and his work. I realize this trial and article
> are probably both old news to the rest of you, but I
> just heard about it yesterday. Please let me know
Rod
>>
>> If you find his seminars and information useful, then by all means
>> attend. Your chances of getting killed at one are probably similar to
>> your chances of being hit by a plane while crossing the street. And
>> your chances of learning something are considerably higher.
>>
>> Namaste,
>>
>> Stever
>>
JESUS! what if i have an infintecimal fear of weird
possibilities...particularly bizzarre plane attacks when i'm learning and
walking
oh god, oh god..i going to blackou.....
.............................................
the other thing stevers is..like how many times does somebodie really get
close to deep shit..
someone that looked alot like my *brother* once throw a drunk out of a bar
and onto the street..the drunk spun around and fell forward to saftey just
before a cab smashed him violently to death...(he lived)
in a world where everybodies dies..death is common to us all
simple relations can border dangerously on the bizzarre
credibility and death will not make great partners in Judgement
the choice is for us to use our own judgements so we don't face that of
others
and the theres this other thing a bout stones..and whos first,
Rpd.
>
Rod
-
> Really, if you take away the hero, things become less misleading.
> It's too bad people need heros...but alas most do.
my dad once helped save a family in a canoe accident (I SAW THIS MYSELF AS
A BOY) and as a teen he helped save THE REST of his party from a snowmobile
accident where they lost one of the girlfriends they where with throu the
ice..
we don't need HEROs..you're right
but they happen...
and i'm greatful for them
Rpd.
now if you talk'n about Deifing people then yeah..
buddha kept tell'n them he wasn't a god...then look what happened
Rod
----------
>> I recently read an old Mother Jones article on
>> the murder trial of Richard Bandler. I felt totally
>> amazed that I had never heard about this trial
>> before: I have been deeply interested in Bandler's
>> work since 1996. In fact, two of his books, TIME
>> FOR A CHANGE and TRANSFORMATIONS, are among my very
>> favorite self-help books.
>>
>> After reading this article my faith in this man is
>> total shattered. I see him in a completely different
>> light.
WHooooooooo..first off, i just read that So called article
and let me assure you it was conceived and designed to give you that doubt
it's very clever in is timing and placement of ideas.
manipulation is far more than just NLP techniuques
so sort out the pictures in your own mind
the facts are there for you...to create whatever light you choose
just make sure you're the one chooseing
you are in control of your own mind.
Rpd.
and true faith can never be shattered..
and..it's my thought that it's not for humans in the first place
unless it's in yourself.
rogers...@gmail.com
Likewise, McKenna is more a shadow of Bandler, he ain't no Bandler. (Makes you wonder how amazing Ericsson must have been).
It's a matter of fact he stood trial. I'd say he did it. His title "Dr" comes and goes but I'd bet the farm he hasn't gained it by working for it. He was a heavy coke user. He did once put a gun to someone's head. Many of the wonderful stories he tells never happened - they are pure fiction. He's still fat.
However, having spent two weeks in a small room with about 30 other people, eight hours a day, I'd say he was a genius. I watched him do things that seemed to be impossible. At one point he hypnotised everyone in the room, slowly and gradually, and they didn't notice. He is a unique, powerful and scary man. But he and be kind and gentle. I've never seen anyone else working in NLP achieve 5% of what he can do. His use of language is astonishingly powerful.
One big problem with NLP is that he is NLP. Just him. Sure, you can study , train etc. but I just can't see anyone else who will ever be as good as him. It's would be like training to be Einstein.
He's not a young man, very rarely appears on TV or allows his sessions to be recorded or filmed. Currently I gather he's not generally well, and certainly not at the height of his powers. But when he's gone, something very special will be lost.
Without him there would be no NLP. Sure, when he arrives at the Pearly Gates, a situation will develop. He has done some very bad things.
I haven't killed anyone, but haven't been a saint myself. And If your reading this, you'll be ashamed also of some bad stuff you might have done.
Personally, I take the view of not caring about all the bad stuff, because it's so massively outweighed by what he's achieved. Millions of people have become better, kinder, more thoughtful, richer because of what this one man has done.
And that I feel is what we should remember. As the man says, the great thing about the past is that it's over. It's gone. We'll never really know the exact true story - but what does that matter? What difference would it make? Bandler is what he is because, of all he's done, as are we all. Maybe there would be no NLP if he'd been a saint?
On Friday, 29 June 2001 01:38:10 UTC+1, Timothy Hughes wrote:
> I recently read an old Mother Jones article on
> the murder trial of Richard Bandler. I felt totally
> amazed that I had never heard about this trial
> before: I have been deeply interested in Bandler's
> work since 1996. In fact, two of his books, TIME
> FOR A CHANGE and TRANSFORMATIONS, are among my very
> favorite self-help books.
>
> After reading this article my faith in this man is
> total shattered. I see him in a completely different
Paul Murphy
of NLP. You have neglected to give any credit to John Grinder. Grinder
created the modeling techniques that are the heart of NLP. Grinder is a
Phd linguist, and also created the Meta Model. He has used the NLP
skills to become, among other things, successful in business, a
powerful change worker, a competent rock climber, drummer and acrobatic
pilot. In other words, he has taken the skills of NLP to become adept
at whatever interests him. It takes him about a week to become fluent
in a new language. He's a fascinating human being, and if you should
have the rare chance to train with him, I highly recommend it.
Much of the Bandler legend is crap, justified as teaching metaphors.
For instance, the childhood in rough neighborhoods with violence and
gang activity common couldn't be further from the truth. He and I went
to the same high school, Fremont Union in Sunnyvale in the 1960's. This
school was in a nice neighborhood, with a lot of the parents employed
by Lockheed, Hewlett-Packard and the like. THough not called the
Silicon Valley yet, this was the time it was beginning. A lot of the
employment was in the science/technology field. I never saw any gang
activity in the area served by Fremont Union High School.
Bandler's Phd comes from a mail-order diploma mill.
Bandler's trainings in recent years gave been primarily a stand-up
comedy routine. Allegedly, he is doing unconscious training all the
time. Many videos of him exist. As far as I can see, there is little
evidence of this. Erickson did a lot of unconscious training, and, if
you know what to look for, you can see it happening. In his case, it
was likely to be specific lessons directed at specific individuals.
Incidentally, when asked what he thought about the NLP model of his
work, Erickson said. "Those boys from California think they've got me
in a nutshell, but all they have is the shell." Fortunately, getting a
chunk of Erickson was enough to build a career on. Jay Haley, Bill
O'Hanlon, Stephen Gilligan, Steven Langton and Ernest Rossi each got a
different chunk of Erickson, and each has done quite nicely. But nobody
got ALL of Erickson.
I trained with Bandler a couple of months before the murder detailed in
the Mother Jones article. We had the high school connection, and I used
that to spend some time with him outside of the training… the first
night. I chose to not continue that effort. His life was in the
toilet. I provided instruments for him to jam. He wasn't able to play
anything. I never saw any sign of drug use, but alcohol abuse was the
dominant part of the experience. He was not able to get rapport with
people to get what he wanted, and got thrown out of the hotel bar. The
training wasn't worth much. Robert Dilts had to step in and bail him
out frequently. Killing people was a constant thread of his
conversation. He claimed to have killed a teacher and a football coach
while attending Fremont. Both were still alive.
Bandler straightened himself out quite a bit after the trial. If he
puts his mind to it, he is a talented hypnotist. If you can get him off
the comic act, he has things to teach. His contribution of timelines
and submodalities are very significant. But take his stories with a
grain of salt.
Paul
soul...@gmail.com
It was the best investment I ever made in myself. It was also the most enjoyable 2 weeks if my 62-years! He had an awful childhood, which likely pushed him into the field of self-help. He was famous for having a bad temper, but I have observed him mellow over the yI have not been able to determine whether Bandler has a Phd. I took a 2-week training with him in '91, and at $2750,
It was the best investment I ever made in myself. It was also the most enjoyable 2 weeks if my 62-years! He had an awful childhood, which likely pushed him into the field of self-help. He was famous for having a bad temper, but I have observed him mellow over the years. He was acquired of murder after less than 6 hours deliberation, even though it was his gun that killed the victim . Let's go with the "innocent until proven guilty" standard. This is America! Most who really know him can't use any other word for him than "genius". He keeps a rather low profile for someone of his abilities. ears. He was acquitted of murder after less than 6 hours deliberation, even though it was his gun that killed the victim. It is generally believed that his friend was the killer, though I do my believe he was convicted. Let's go with the "innocent until proven guilty" standard. This is America! Most who really know him can't use any other word for him than "genius". He keeps a rather low profile for someone of his abilities.