Phobic of Phobia Cure
rebtsvi
Interested in your comments on a case I am working on. I am working
with someone who is having their first expose to NLP. Shall we say that
conventional therapy has made them a "good patient". The patient has a
phobia of "X". It fits the traditional model. I elicited all the
necessary submodalities. I showed some tapes of Bandler working with
phobias. Everything seemed fine. However, at the time when it became
time to actually do the phobia cure ... which I have done hundreds of
times ... the client refused to go through the process.
What kinds of secondary gains can you get from having a serious phobia?
Any thoughts? I know I am leaving out some pieces but for the sake of
argument, assume that all the traditional pieces were done. Don't
suggest any anchors or three step dissociation. It's all been done.
Thanks for your comments.
Peter A. Forkes
By keeping the phobia the client has CERTAINTY. The client is afraid that
change may cause them to step outside of their comfort zone.
The chances are that the client is also thinking "as soon as we have been
through this process of curing this phobia in order to make sure the cure
has worked I'm going to experience the phobia"!
Peter
rebtsvi wrote in message <358F27DE...@earthlink.net>...
PStuart
93
rebtsvi writes:
>However, at the time when it became
>time to actually do the phobia cure ... which I have done hundreds of
>times ... the client refused to go through the process.
>What kinds of secondary gains can you get from having a serious phobia?
There's always a "reason" for a phobia... and some unconscious reasons are
deeper and more important than others for the client. It seems to me that you
hit on an ecology issue here... In addition to what you've done toward the
usual phobia cure, you might choose to spend some additional time reframing the
unconscious "reason." This is when that old-style 6-step reframing stuff comes
in handy.... Or, at the risk of an infinite regress, you may want to address
your next session with the client as if it were a phobia, and anchor in some
experiences of comfort, creativity, and learning... Then, when they come in
again, you can point to their present experience as a success, suggesting that
they can deal with other phobias in the same way... and you can utilize those
states towards the usual phobia cure.
93 93/93
Phil
93 93/93
Phil
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil's Magick Page -- http://members.aol.com/rbcfpstu/
Beyond Hypnosis -- http://members.aol.com/rbcfpstu/beyond.htm
Or go to keyword.com and enter "magick" or "hypnosis"
venus uzynski
Teacher,
All I can say is, I feel your frustration... And I find it confining...
Warmest regards,
Venus
Danish Kazi - Editor
rebtsvi wrote:
> However, at the time when it became time to actually do the phobia .
> go through the process. What kinds of secondary gains can you get from
> having a serious phobia?
Obeservation:
The individual seeks attention to themselves.
The individual was used to controling others i.e. perhps was one of the
eldest members of the family or one who "ran" the household or quite the
opposite.
Ask them questions in relation to the first time they felt the way they
did and as you ask them watch/sense the clues/cues that they give.
Nick Rosa
Since you don't know what the secondary gain is, I assume you did not do
six-step reframing. Accordingly, I suggest you do six-step reframing to have
that part of her that has maintained the phobia of "X" report the positive
intention...
Nick
--
Nick Rosa, Ph.D.
Peak Performance Psychology
Integrating Mind & Body for Better Golf
<http://www.PeakPerformancePsych.com>
nr...@email.msn.com
nr...@email.vill.edu
rebtsvi wrote in message <358F27DE...@earthlink.net>...
>Interested in your comments on a case I am working on. I am working
>with someone who is having their first expose to NLP. Shall we say that
>conventional therapy has made them a "good patient". The patient has a
>phobia of "X". It fits the traditional model. I elicited all the
>necessary submodalities. I showed some tapes of Bandler working with
>phobias. Everything seemed fine. However, at the time when it became
>time to actually do the phobia cure ... which I have done hundreds of
>times ... the client refused to go through the process.
>What kinds of secondary gains can you get from having a serious phobia?
E. Keith Lester
You may have encountered a "Meta-State".
A Phobia of a Phobia. So, you will probably
need to address the meta-phobia first.
Our webstore has material on working with
Meta-States and how to address them.
What you would most likely need to do is
to help your client get "confidence, courage,
comfort, security" whatever state she needs
or belief about the Phobia being addressed or
resolved. Once she is able to accept herself
without the phobia or imagine herself without
it she may be able to do the work. Integrating
or developing an image of self free from the
phobia may be difficult at first. It may also
provoke fear. Just not knowing what she will
be like, behave, or what her life will be like
post-phobia makes the client fearful/doubtful.
The Meta-State Model presupposes that "you
can't change something on the same level that
it exists". This is seemingly why dissociation works.
Go to the next level up... the back of the mind
and take a look at yourself "down there" with the
phobia. What resource would it take for you right
now to be able to "accept" yourself free of the
phobia. This brings up the power of acceptance.
If you ask your client to bring acceptance of self
to bear upon the phobia, the question is: is the
phobia an issue anymore or would she be ok with
it? Or, with acceptance and courage can she go
ahead and address the phobia with the phobia cure?
Elvis K. Lester, MA, LMHC, NCC, MAC, NBCCH
LEARN Institute
Check out our WebStore:
http://www.learnusa.com
Email: in...@learnusa.com
1-888-LEARN97
DEPARTMENTS:
Meta-States & Neuro Semantics,
NLP, Neuro-linguistic Programming,
OPTIMIND Trainings,
Practice Building Products
COMING SOON!:
MindSports Department
"Go First! MindFirst!"
rebtsvi <reb...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
rebtsvi
I buy the first comment. The second one does not fit.
Peter A. Forkes wrote:
> By keeping the phobia the client has CERTAINTY. The client is afraid that
> change may cause them to step outside of their comfort zone.
>
> The chances are that the client is also thinking "as soon as we have been
> through this process of curing this phobia in order to make sure the cure
> has worked I'm going to experience the phobia"!
>
> Peter
>
> rebtsvi wrote in message <358F27DE...@earthlink.net>...
rebtsvi
We began with the positive intent. While I believe a six step reframe would be
useful, it would only be so in order to generate alternatives.
Nick Rosa wrote:
> Since you don't know what the secondary gain is, I assume you did not do
> six-step reframing. Accordingly, I suggest you do six-step reframing to have
> that part of her that has maintained the phobia of "X" report the positive
> intention...
>
> Nick
> --
> Nick Rosa, Ph.D.
> Peak Performance Psychology
> Integrating Mind & Body for Better Golf
> <http://www.PeakPerformancePsych.com>
> nr...@email.msn.com
> nr...@email.vill.edu
>
Carmine Baffa
Hmmmm,
There are so many different ways to respond to this, the least of which
would be to support your mind read, or that you could expect anyone not
directly in contact with this person to be able to give you any accurate
feedback about anything regarding this person you are working with. It
doesn't have to be about secondary gain, or primary gain for that matter. It
can be about anything, but the only person who is going to know what the
answers are, is the person you are working with, period.
Now, I do not have enough information, but I am noticing a few things right
off. It's not that this person refuses to go through this process, but
rather that this person is not wanting to go through this process with you.
Like in the lost performitive, you can not say that something will work or
not, if you do not also consider who is doing that something, and how they
are doing it. In my world, it's not whether the client is refusing to get
the help they are paying me to give (and I am assuming that this person is
in some way asking you for help?), but more about what might I be doing that
is causing this response. In NLP, the meaning of your communication is the
response you get. When you do not get the response you want, blaming them is
not the next most useful thing to do. Unless of course that blaming is some
kind of tactical response in which you are calibrating to an outcome, noting
whether what you are doing is working, or not. Then doing something else.
The response you
have been able to generate here that is causing this person to refuse to
move forward is also part of a process. If what you are doing is creating
another result, then do something else. You do not have to use some canned
technique, you can improvise. The outcome in this case is to change a
pattern, and not to demonstrate a strategy you call the phobia cure. The
outcome does not have to be tied to one method. If you do that, then the
focus of you communication can become misdirected. Rather than placing your
focus on the outcome, then discovering how you can get there, you have been
looking for a solution that goes to the level of technique. And, it is never
clear whether a particular technique will work with a particular person whom
is engaging is a process that results in a less than favorable response.
Phobias are not real things. Phobia cures are not real things. They are
words used to describe processes, or things people do, or can do. And, if
you forget that, then you are also going to be limiting your own choices,
and as a result, possibly the choices of the person whom is seeking your
help. If NLP is anything, it is a model of flexibility. How many more ways
can the two of you arrive at the outcomes in which this person is responding
in context with more appropriate choices, and you are responding with
personal success as a professional communicator?
You see, the reason this person is not following you, can be anything, and
it doesn't have to be in line with your hallucination of secondary gain.
Again, it is not about the phobia cure, it's about communication. And, it's
not about communication in and of itself, because in order for commination
to work, there needs to be people. And, that is what this is all about,
People. And, in this case, a particular person whom in you words has learned
to have a less than accepted response to something, in some context. What
you are now calling a phobia. Call it something else. Use the phobia cure on
yourself. And begin discovering how you can change your own behavior until
you begin realizing the responses the two of you are after. That would
better represent what NLP is. Learn how they are doing it the thing they
are no longer wanting to do. Look at how , and what this person is now
doing. Elicit the strategy. When, or with whom do you they do it? How do
they know it is time to do it? Get them to teach you how to do it, step by
step. Forget all of the labels, and focus in on the process. Then, you will
be working with what this person is doing, and not what you think they are
doing. Because anytime you project an inaccurate mind read onto another
person, your are taking a step toward building diss-rapport. And if you
build in enough diss-rapport, you will find yourself not being able to lead
anyone anywhere.......unless of course by force. And it doesn't make sense
to force that which can be gently guided into place. And, when you take the
time to discover exactly how a person is doing a particular thing, step by
step, then you will have what you need so that you can guide them into the
response they are looking to experience in that context. And in a much
larger frame, you will be helping them in making their world a better place.
Look, I am not looking to criticize, or saying what you are doing is wrong.
It is, after all, whether or not what we are doing is serving us, serving
our clients as well as it can. And the truth is, there will always be more
to learn. I am offering a way of seeing NLP, or the use thereof, in a way
that could be more useful for you. I realize that up until now all you have
to go on is your own map of how to use this technology. But, here, now, is
a chance for you to alter that map to include more choices for yourself, and
for those who come to you for assistance. Lately, I have seen many opinions
of what NLP can do, and what it can not. But in truth, NLP can't do a thing.
People do things, and with NLP, they can do more things. You see, NLP, above
all, is a tool for modeling subjective experience. If you can uncover how
someone does something, then you can learn how to do it yourself. So, to me,
NLP is a tool by which I can learn how do to anything that has subjective
experience attached to it. And, when I think of presenting problems, I
realize that it's not that the problem is different in structure from the
other things people are doing that they enjoy, but more along the lines that
people are DOING things that are less than what they would like for
themselves. And, the only reason they are still doing them has to do with
the awesome ability we have for learning things. And it still boils down to
what a person has learned, how they are able to do it, what they actually do
when they do it, and when in fact they find themselves doing it. NLP is a
perfect application for any such classification by which there is a
subjective experience to the thing being done. If you see problems as
problems, and not as something someone has learned to do that they no longer
want to be doing, then you can make changing things hard. But, if you can
accept the presupposition that it is all learned behavior, and that people
are brilliant learners who can learn anything, then you can use NLP to
discover exactly how they are doing what they are now doing, and then easily
change it to something else. And that can be a remedial, or a generative
piece of change work. As far as I am concerned, there isn't anything thing
that has been learned that can't be changed. To me it is all the same thing.
Learning is learning. I do not make separate categories in mind for things
people have learned that they consider to be a problem, and the things they
have learned that they do not see as a problem. If you can get that, then
you can begin discovering you have some marvelous abilities for helping
others change anything. When you look at this person whom you have yet to be
able to help, look at what they are doing from the point of view of how
fantastic it is that they could have learned how to do it in the first
place. And, how fantastic it is that their brain works so well that they are
still able to do after all of these years. Put it into that frame, and you
will take much of the problem away right from the beginning. But, if every
time you are not being effective you should decide to blame, you are not yet
understanding the presuppositions of NLP. Go back and make certain that you
have installed these presups in you thinking. We possess a set of tools that
are truly misunderstood by most of the people teaching them. What we have
with NLP is so much more than what many have come to understand. I have
found very few limits for the use of this technology. And those limits I
have found may not be the limits of the technology, but limits in how I have
been able to apply it. There is a distinction that needs to be made here
that separates the user from the technology. When I was first learning how
to run a car down a drag strip years ago I learned a very valuable lesson. A
group of us built a 65 ford mustang to run well in the quarter mile. I
remember the first time I took it down the drag strip. I remember turning a
brisk 14 second time. I came back to the pits and told the guys that the car
could only do low 14's. The next guy up to run the car was very experienced
with this type of racing. I was not, as it was my first run. He took the car
out and turned a 12 second run. My 14 second run turned out to me about what
I could do with the car, and not what the car could do. It took a few more
runs, but I too was able to get the car into the 12's. The same is true with
NLP. Many of the limits that other people have placed on this technology are
not about what the technology could be used for. But what they could use the
technology for. And, if we can understand that, then rather than close our
minds and say, well, this is all NLP can do. We can remain open to the
possibilities as we continue trying new things. And when I here the
scientific reports of how successful NLP really is, I realize this is only
about the scientists ability to use the technology.
Like I said earlier. You can lose touch with the performitive, because it is
always a matter of who is using what, in how. Experience is not enough in
this case. Because if you do not also alter your map to include new choices
as they come up, you will only be re-experiencing the old. And, in this
case, the old is not working, and it is time to add in something new.
Consider carefully what I have offered, and see how you can make it apply to
what you asked for help with, or not. As the choice to do so, after all,
remains with you.
I have to go now. Take care.
Carmine
rebtsvi
When I posted my request for assistance. I was hoping for useful input. For
approximately the last year, I have watched your name surface in posts. I have
watched you throw mud and watched mud slung at you.
I actually responded to that whole debacle by asking everyone involved to take
it off the newsgroup. It wasn't advancing the cause of NLP at all.
I am told that you are an NLP trainer and many of the responses you have written
have been very interesting. So on the same day that you have discovered that
your toilet flushes in the wrong direction, you have entered this discussion.
I did not find your comments useful or constructive. You have added 2 + 2 and
gotten 356. Do you see anything in my original post in which I blamed my
client?
Where did you see that I claimed in my post that there was secondary gain?
The best line in your answer is when you stated that "I am not looking to
criticize or state that what you did is wrong." - the truth is that this was 99%
of your post.
NLP is about flexibility - as Milton Erickson said, "I invent a new therapy
with every patient that I treat." Clearly, the phobia technique was not
appropriate here. That's why I posted my question.
If you are in fact a trainer of NLP, your teaching technique needs work. Maybe
you should go back and study your "presups" because the meaning of your
communication is the response that you get.
I am thankful to all those who responded to me on the group or privately. Quite
frankly, I am dissappointed in the quality, mind-reading, and errors in your
response.
Carmine, I was expecting better from you.
If you are as talented as some people on the newsgroup write about you, maybe
you will keep this in mind in the future.
If there are any outsiders seeking to start the "Carmine wars" all over again,
please don't. It doesn't further the cause of NLP.
(Rabbi) Tsvi Kilstein Ed.D.
nr...@msn.com
In article <35905D51...@earthlink.net>,
rebtsvi <reb...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> We began with the positive intent. While I believe a six step reframe would
be
> useful, it would only be so in order to generate alternatives.
RIGHT!!! ALTERNATIVES TO THE x PHOBIA THAT WOULD SATISFY THE SECONDARY GAIN.
> Nick Rosa wrote:
>
> > Since you don't know what the secondary gain is, I assume you did not do
> > six-step reframing. Accordingly, I suggest you do six-step reframing to have
> > that part of her that has maintained the phobia of "X" report the positive
> > intention...
> >
> > Nick
> > --
> > Nick Rosa, Ph.D.
> > Peak Performance Psychology
> > Integrating Mind & Body for Better Golf
> > <http://www.PeakPerformancePsych.com>
> > nr...@email.msn.com
> > nr...@email.vill.edu
> >
> > rebtsvi wrote in message <358F27DE...@earthlink.net>...
> > >Interested in your comments on a case I am working on. I am working
> > >with someone who is having their first expose to NLP. Shall we say that
> > >conventional therapy has made them a "good patient". The patient has a
> > >phobia of "X". It fits the traditional model. I elicited all the
> > >necessary submodalities. I showed some tapes of Bandler working with
> > >phobias. Everything seemed fine. However, at the time when it became
> > >time to actually do the phobia cure ... which I have done hundreds of
> > >times ... the client refused to go through the process.
> > >What kinds of secondary gains can you get from having a serious phobia?
> > >Any thoughts? I know I am leaving out some pieces but for the sake of
> > >argument, assume that all the traditional pieces were done. Don't
> > >suggest any anchors or three step dissociation. It's all been done.
> > >Thanks for your comments.
> > >
>
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
rebtsvi
Danish Kazi - Editor wrote:
rebtsvi wrote:
> However, at the time when it became time to actually do the phobia .
> cure ... which I have done hundreds of times ... the client refused to
> go through the process. What kinds of secondary gains can you get from
> having a serious phobia?
> Any thoughts?
Obeservation:
m.h...@bigfoot.com
Hi rebtsvi,
I have the solution:
Your client likes you very much and just loves to be with you. And your client
is intelligent enough to understand that as soon as he/she would change, your
regular meetings would be over.
No more explanations about NLP, no more video-tapes, no more beautiful "cinema
in the head"-scenarios...
Take it as a compliment for your empathy, then continue to take your client's
money and show him/her all the other Bandler-tapes. Sometimes it is the best
therapy to just be with your clients, exspecially if they refuse to do what
you tell them (as Milton Erickson used to say).
On the other hand, it could also be some valuable feedback for you: I mean,
first exposure to NLP or not, the client was exposed to the stimuli of
Bandler doing a phobia cure, and I am sure that you, as a competent therapist
(having done the phobia cure hundreds of times, as you write), prepared all
the way to the technique carefully, you write that you even elicited all the
necessary submodalities and all the traditional pieces, as you write, were
done.
I mean, one couldn't prepare it better, I bet even Bandler couldn't.
If then the client refuses to go through the process, there is only one
possible meaning and thus one possible feedback to you:
Work on your authority.
If you say do it, the client has to do it. If not, you have to work on your
authority.
BTW, I've heard that there are some tapes on authority out there, from
Bandler, of course :) Maybe you could find some really frightening ones and
show them to your client before you ask him/her to go thru the phobia cure
again. This could help, and it would be very individual, too. Milton would
have loved it, I believe.
I hope this helps, let me know how it worked.
Michael :-))
PS: What happened to your study on "Past-Lives" and Erickson's opinion on the
matter? You said you had received a lot of valuable feedback. Do you mind to
share your results in a new thread?
In article <358F27DE...@earthlink.net>,
rebtsvi <reb...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Interested in your comments on a case I am working on. I am working
> with someone who is having their first expose to NLP. Shall we say that
> conventional therapy has made them a "good patient". The patient has a
> phobia of "X". It fits the traditional model. I elicited all the
> necessary submodalities. I showed some tapes of Bandler working with
> phobias. Everything seemed fine. However, at the time when it became
> time to actually do the phobia cure ... which I have done hundreds of
> times ... the client refused to go through the process.
> What kinds of secondary gains can you get from having a serious phobia?
Reb Tsvi
I am really glad you responded. You had so much to offer to add to the
discussion.
For the discussion on past life regression, you can find the discussion on
www.behavior .net.
A lot of people, such have yourself, have contributred greatly to this
discussion.
Thanks for your suggestions.
Tim Keating
So someone offer you a canned diagnosis of what hallucinations they have
about the hallucinations you have and you give them a pat on the head.
Some one offers you information on how you can increase your own
awareness of what is going on in front of you and you shit on them.
Interesting
Tim
BigJiim
>>>Reb Tsvi wrote:
>I am really glad you responded. You had so much to offer
>to add to the discussion. For the discussion on past life regression, you
>can find the discussion on www.behavior .net.
>A lot of people, such have yourself, have contributred greatly to this
>discussion.
>Thanks for your suggestions.>>>>
Tim then wrote;
>So someone offer you a canned diagnosis of what hallucinations they have
>about the hallucinations you have and you give them a pat on the head.
>Some one offers you information on how you can increase your own
>awareness of what is going on in front of you and you shit on them.
>
>Interesting
>
>Tim
Tim, thanks for clarifying some major differences in
perceptions for us all. You put it straight to the point!
One aspect of NLP I've been paying more attention to
lately is the WHY a person says or does what they do.
What reason do they have for saying or doing what
they do? Some call it secondary gain, some call it positive
intentions and some just ask WHY.
If you look at the WHY a person does or says what
they do one may begin to find the intentions of others
in regards to their statements/actions as opposed to the
faults or blames of a behavior. And I know.... the highly
disgarded WHY word in NLP. Banned from our linguistic
planet only to be forgotten for eons.
Asking ourselves WHY this person is saying what
they are saying, sequencing the patterns (sentences
and paragraphs) the way they do, using the predicates
they use and the whole host of other observations
CAN BE BETTER in understanding where that person
is coming from and what map they are using (understanding
their model of the world) than simply just "shooting
from the hip" in communication. And this is not aimed at
you. I've seen far too much blame in communication
on the newsgroups lately that I thought I'd give
my NLP thoughts.
I have a hard time asking why all the time. I find myself
more and more being able to model people (what
Carmine calls real-time modeling) and their maps
of the world faster and faster than I have ever
before by asking the word WHY. Why would they
structure their sentence this way? Why would they give
this or that answer? Whose purpose does it
serve? Only then can I begin to find bits and pieces
of their map that I can then "try on for myself" so I
can first seek to understand and only then to be
understood. It's a difficult task sometimes.
I think we all can realize on a greater basis the power
of "the other person being absolutely correct" in
where their coming from and their map of the world.
When we accept that only then can one begin
to "gently move" other perceptions to cross over to
another map, of whosever choosing.
And here's the funny part now that I'm rambling.....
when you enter another persons model of the
world so completely, everything they do and say
makes perfect sense now. You'll kick yourself in
the ass for having disagreed with them before
because it all makes perfect sense now. Learn
to move in and out of other people's worlds. It all
makes perfect sense now.
enjoy time,
Big Jim
m.h...@bigfoot.com
Hi Tim,
life isn't always fair, is it?
If you, too, want a "pat on the head" from Rebtsvi, I can tell you it is quite
easy to get it and quite easy also to be "shit on", as you put it.
Concerning pats on the head from rebstvi, I even beat Carmine in that
discipline! This is something to be proud of, isn't it?
So, Tim, if you need more info on my opinion how to get pats or being shit on,
just contact me :-))
Stay well,
Michael :-))
Tim Keating <tkea...@shaw.wave.ca> wrote:
>
> So someone offer you a canned diagnosis of what hallucinations they have
> about the hallucinations you have and you give them a pat on the head.
> Some one offers you information on how you can increase your own
> awareness of what is going on in front of you and you shit on them.
>
> Interesting
>
> Tim
>
ada...@hotmail.com
Reb Tszi
I was surprised, and quite saddened, by your reaction to Carmine's post.
From my "observer" point of view, I didn't see all these negative intentions
you attributed to him.
My suggestion is that you use your NLP skills to move from the first aligned
perceptual position (wounded EGO - no blame, it happens to all of us) to
second and third position. Then you will see that behind the mud that your
own transformational process created (see Structure of Magic I), there is, in
Carmine's post, a BIG answer to you as well as to all of us, as to what NLP
is all about.
Kind regards
Naphtali Ringel
In article <3590895E...@earthlink.net>,
rebtsvi
I am really glad you responded. You had so much to offer to add to the
discussion.
A lot of people, such have yourself, have contributred greatly to this
discussion.
Thanks for your suggestions.
venus uzynski
Rabbi Kilstein,
Maybe you've already resolved this phobia issue with your client -- if so, I
apologize for bringing this idea up so late. If not, maybe there's
something in it worth considering.
I was at the library today, just flipping through books, looking for
something interesting while searching for a specific title and dewey decimal
number. (Sort of like when I'm looking up a word in the dictionary and get
distracted by the other ones I don't know.)
Anyway, I skimmed through a little volume (sorry, I didn't write down the
name or author) and came across the story of a woman who was being treated
for a particularly stubborn phobia. I'll tell you right now, the doc didn't
have a solution -- he said they were working on it and she seemed to be
getting better.
But, what really captured my attention were some of the details he threw out
for consideration. And while you could tell he thought there might be some
valuable clues there, he dismissed many of them as being inconsequential.
So, here is what he described. A woman who seemed very together, who knew
exactly what she needed when she came in. She was afraid of heights. And
it did seem to be a *real* phobia (if there is such a thing). As they
talked, the doctor discovered she had been something of a "fraidy cat" as a
kid, and that she was actually petrified of a number of things. Spiders,
almost any kind of bug, snakes. But her fear of heights was getting worse
and worse. In fact, she and her husband had to sell their home because
their bedroom was upstairs and she refused to go up there anymore. It turned
out her fear of heights began on her honeymoon when she and her husband went
to the top of the empire state building.
Anyway, long story short, all the tension and anxiety that went along with
this was taking its toll on the marital relationship. And her husband had
even started hinting he might have an affair to compensate. In fact, the
husband thought she finally went to see the doctor about her fear of heights
to please him. But, as the doctor spent more time with the woman, it turned
out their were other things she was even more frightened of.
In particular, she was afraid she might poison her family by serving them
spoiled food. So she was constantly checking the food, especially the eggs,
and threw everything out after a couple of days. Then she went to the store
and bought more. Needless to say, their food bills were going sky high.
And she was becoming more and more frightened of her own behavior.
Now, the psychologist or psychiatrist, or whatever he was, spent some time
discussing whether this was actually a neurosis or a psychosis. And I'm
sure he was doing the best he could to understand -- inside the parameters
of his own education and training.
Oh, one other thing he commented on was something he actually said to the
client. Something to the extent of, "You almost seem like two different
people." Now, for me, that set off bells. Not alarm bells, but bells of
recognition. Like "bingo!"
You see, I'm not saying his client was a multiple personality or
schyzophrenic or any other such lable like that. I just think his intuition
was probably right on the money -- she was a "self divided" for some
reason. I also think all her other fears, the timing of the onset of her
fear of heights, and the new development of being afraid of poisoning her
family with spoiled eggs and stuff were also significant.
After all this rambling, I guess what I'm saying is that the client was
giving him so much information to explore. And so many things to consider
besides the fear of heights. And I'm thinking maybe some of these other
things needed to be dealt with first. Then maybe she would congruently be
willing to address the fear of heights. Or, who knows? Maybe then it would
just go away all by itself?
Rabbi, I wish you the best of luck with your client. And hope you find
something in here that helps.
Sincerely,
Venus
rebtsvi
Thanks so much for taking the time to respond. Some of the things you have
brought up are food for thought.
What presented as a phobia (and still certainly is) turns out to have a
significant and controling effect on the family.
It's a powerful phobia (like the one you mentioned). The phobia gets people to
do things that they would otherwise not do.
It is a great equalizer.
I studies the family with some tools I learned from Virginia Satir and see the
phobia as the tool that enables the client to gain power in the family and
change "style" - if you will.
I discovered that my client responds a lot better unconsciously than consciously
so Milton and I have a lot of work to do together.
Carmine Baffa
>gotten 356. Do you see anything in my original post in which I blamed my
>client?
>
Yes I do. And, when I use the word blaming as I did here, what I am saying
is, you have been unsuccessful, and you are now looking for what else the
client is doing that is preventing them from being able to go along with
your lead. That, in my book, is blaming them for not doing, even if you are
saying there might be some secondary gain there, you are still saying it is
something they are doing. Now, if you do not find my response useful, then
don't use it. I sure wouldn't expect that you would even take the time to
see through your own need for applying the negative to what I had written
only to find that what I offered to you is a gem. I also do not expect you
to understand the benefit of what I had written to you, even though there
are many who will. I will not get into some fight with you, as you are
always going to be right anyway. Instead of asking yourself what you could
do differently in your own behavior to help this person, or, to use your own
skills to uncover what further this person may need, you say it must be
something the client is doing, and you do one of the most senseless and most
disrespectful thing, you ask people who do not even know this person to tell
you what the secondary gain for this person might be. Like anyone else could
possibly know. And then what? You take the suggestions you may get an try
and impose them on the client? Even if you are doing it without realizing
you are, then that is still the same thing. Just because you are
presupposing secondary gain, doesn't mean that it is there. It could be
anything. And, no matter what it is, the first best approach is to look at
what you can do differently. And, again, the least of which is going to be
asking others to ask what the secondary gain may be for a person they do not
know, in a context in which they have no direct experience.Oh, and it goes
two ways. The response you got was the meaning of you communication too.
But, that is not something to hide behind. Just like you are looking to what
you client is doing that is preventing you from being able to help, you are
looking to blame me for YOUR response to my feedback. It's not like you do
not have a choice, or the responsibility for your own state control. It is
very easy to ignore wisdom. People do it all the time. The notion here is,
look, you are not going to be honoring your client by going elsewhere for
information that is right in front of you face. It is not your clients fault
that you have yet to develop the requisite variety in your own behavior that
would have allowed you to find a way to either gather that information
directly, or, to develop a different way in which you could help the client
change the unwanted response. I offered you another way. I told you to call
it something else. To find another way to go about it. But your feelings got
heart because I did not tell you in the way you would have wanted me to tell
you. But that to is life. You are not always going to be offered feedback
inside of your preferred model. And, it is going to be the time when the
feedback is different from what you had expected are you going to learn
something new. More of the same will give you more of the same. And, if this
is the best you can do in maintaining your own state, then you have no
business messing with other peoples states. But in all, I am familiar with
people kicking and screaming when things don't quite go there way. What you
are doing does not fit inside of the model called NLP. What you are doing is
something you can learn from though. And no, I am not blaming you here, just
like you are not blaming your client. I did my best to offer you something
very useful, another way in which to approach the subject........I failed.
It is that simple, and such is life.
I will not respond any further to you in this topic. Because I know full
well that you are not willing to work anything out. That you are not willing
to learn, at least not from me, and I accept that.
Oh, and I want to say this one more time. What you expected from me, the
more as you call it, to fit for you, would have had to be in line with what
you were already thinking. But, here you are stuck with this client, and you
are looking for what you can do that is useful....well, if I had given you
what you expected, I would not have been offering you much help at all. Why?
Because you needed to do something different. And, that different can not be
found in more of the same. And, if were to go back and allow yourself to get
past your own feelings, putting the needs of the CLIENT first, and re-read
what I had written to you, and use it. Then you will be able to find a way.
And the client will get what they need. And you will have a bit more
flexibility in your behavior. And, the reason I say this, is because I too
at one time thought I could get accurate feedback about a client I was
working with from someone who did not know the person. I was wrong then, as
I really could not. So I learned the hared way. You can too, or you can take
the wisdom of those that have gone before you. Even if that wisdom comes in
packages that are wrapped differently from what you would expect. It's not
about you, and it's not about me. No!!! It is about the person you are
working with. So put your feelings aside, and do what I have suggested, and
see what happens. Learn. Try new ways. Don't just fight for the limitations
you already have. That will not serve your client. That will not serve you.
You can feel attacked. You can feel appreciated. You can feel anything you
want to feel. But this is not about your feelings. It is about another
person whom is asking you for help. Now, help that person by getting past
your own need to treated with kid gloves, and incorporate into your thinking
what I have offered you. And if you do, you will find that you will become
far more successful than you are now. I see where in your world model you
are stuck. It is not you......is what you have been doing. Separate out one
from the other. I am not critiquing you as a person. I am sure you are a
wonderful person. I am instead critiquing what you are doing. And my intent
is golden and sincere.
You have a model you use. And most the time it works. But, it is only a
model, and it is not who you are. If you can allow yourself to step into the
model I am offering you, then you will gain tremendously. And more
importantly from my perspective, so too will your clients. And that is
important. Because when we fail at helping them, they wind up blaming
themselves. That is not the best we can do. We need to constantly change our
maps to include methods of flexibility so that we can keep the promise
alive. Get past yourself for a minute, and think of the client, then follow
my lead. If you honestly do, then you will be able to say if it worked or
not. Then we can go on from there. Because you will never know unless you
test. And, the reality of your feelings is not an accurate test at all, but
a response that is partly about how you perceived what I had written, and
some of past anchors of another time.
Look, you have the wrong person in your mind when you think of me. I do not
post here for any other reason than to share with those the lessons I have
learning using this technology over the years. And I read the ng to see how
others are using this so I can learn from their mistakes and successes. Get
past your initial response, and allow yourself to learn. I have learned a
tremendous amount from Richard Bandler. But, in all, I do not like the man
personally. Not at all. But that would not stop me from learning from him.
Rex had a problem with me because I told him that I did not like Bandler. He
said, you tell me that you do not like him, then I see you posting in the
Ng, and I quote, "Kissing Bandlers ass"------I tried to tell him these are
two different things. No, I do not like him. But yes, I admire what he has
to offer me professionally. He really could not get it. I hope that you can.
Ah, the world of the communicating over the internet.
Enough, I have to go.
Carmine
rebtsvi
Although I did not find your information useful, I do thank you for taking the
time to type up your original post and this follow-up.
I sometimes don't like Richard's style but you know, I've learned a lot from
him. Sometimes, more rarely, I didn't care for the way John taught (or worked
on a case), but I learned a lot from him.
My client has responded wonderfully to hypnosis and is begining to make small
changes.
Thank you again for your suggestions. Since I am going back to re-read your
original, I would suggest you do the same. Your words and tone didn't work for
me.
Carmine Baffa wrote:
> Ah, the world of the communicating over the internet.
>
> Carmine
>
> http://carmine.net
Eddie
rebtsvi wrote in message <358F27DE...@earthlink.net>...
>Interested in your comments on a case I am working on.
Im not a therapist or anything, but your post interested me. I dont have
suggestions for what causes the problem, but offer some questions that occur
to me for what they may be worth.
How would the "good patient" respond to the questions, "What exactly is the
problem you want me to help with? I thought it was this phobia, but maybe I
was wrong. What specifically is the one thing that would make the most
difference if it changed?"
or : "How is that a problem for you? If that were different, would that
solve the problem as you see it? What would have to change for you to feel
the problem was resolved or had gone away?"
or : "Who has a problem with this? You? Your family? Your friends?" You know
what I mean here - that maybe someone else has labeled this person as having
this "phobia problem" and that is not how they themselves see it.
What exactly has happened, what events have actually occured to make this
person feel they have a problem. Can he/she say what they feel is the
problem, when they feel it is a problem, and how it is a problem.
I find sometimes that others do not think their problem is what I would
assume it is.
You know what I mean.
eddie H
Underdog
Howdy Rebtsvi,
rebtsvi wrote:
>
> Although I did not find your information useful, I do thank you for taking the
> time to type up your original post and this follow-up.
>
> I sometimes don't like Richard's style but you know, I've learned a lot from
> him. Sometimes, more rarely, I didn't care for the way John taught (or worked
> on a case), but I learned a lot from him.
>
> My client has responded wonderfully to hypnosis and is begining to make small
> changes.
>
> Thank you again for your suggestions. Since I am going back to re-read your
> original, I would suggest you do the same. Your words and tone didn't work for
> me.
<treading as lightly as I can>
Have you considered that any "tone" you perceive coming from Carmine's
post must, of necessity, be coming from your own mind? Written words do
not have a tone of their own since they are strictly visual input.
Something to consider at any rate......
Thomas
rebtsvi
You mean all that time spending reading Literature trying to figure out the author's
tone was a waste of time? You just blew out my junior and senior years in high
school and all the literature courses I took in college.
Underdog wrote:
> Howdy Rebtsvi,
Kayl...@my-dejanews.com
In article <35932E...@pop.a001.sprintmail.com>,
blu...@pop.a001.sprintmail.com wrote:
>
> <treading as lightly as I can>
>
> Have you considered that any "tone" you perceive coming from Carmine's
> post must, of necessity, be coming from your own mind? Written words do
> not have a tone of their own since they are strictly visual input.
> Something to consider at any rate......
>
> Thomas
>
between the written words, "Sheesh, you sure f*cked up, didn't you?" and "Have
you considered things from this perspective?"
While I concede that if I were delivering either of these lines in your
presence, nonverbal cues could render the first line entirely harmless and
the second the ultimate putdown, I think you understand that written words
convey a "tone", because you led off with "<treading as lightly as I can>"...
Kayleigh
Underdog
Hello Rabbi,
rebtsvi wrote:
>
> You mean all that time spending reading Literature trying to figure out the author's
> tone was a waste of time? You just blew out my junior and senior years in high
> school and all the literature courses I took in college.
>
> Underdog wrote:
>
> > Howdy Rebtsvi,
> >
> > <treading as lightly as I can>
> >
> > Have you considered that any "tone" you perceive coming from Carmine's
> > post must, of necessity, be coming from your own mind? Written words do
> > not have a tone of their own since they are strictly visual input.
> > Something to consider at any rate......
> >
> > Thomas
You are right. I should have known better, from past experience, than to
offer you food for thought. Since, no doubt, everything you read and
studied in high school and college was perceived by you exactly as the
author themselves would have read it aloud, it is foolish of me to point
out that every state one enters when reading is a self created one.
I humbly beseech thee to grant me pardon. My manners and tone were
impertinent and my folly in supposing that you had not already
considered my pitiful offering was reaching far above my station. I
withdraw in abject apology.
Faithfully,your miserable wretch,
Thomas (the doubter)
Underdog
Howdy Kayleigh,
Kayl...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> In article <35932E...@pop.a001.sprintmail.com>,
> blu...@pop.a001.sprintmail.com wrote:
> >
> > <treading as lightly as I can>
> >
> > Have you considered that any "tone" you perceive coming from Carmine's
> > post must, of necessity, be coming from your own mind? Written words do
> > not have a tone of their own since they are strictly visual input.
> > Something to consider at any rate......
> >
> > Thomas
> >
> Please, Thomas, think this through. Don't you perceive a difference in "tone"
> between the written words, "Sheesh, you sure f*cked up, didn't you?" and "Have
> you considered things from this perspective?"
>
> While I concede that if I were delivering either of these lines in your
> presence, nonverbal cues could render the first line entirely harmless and
> the second the ultimate putdown, I think you understand that written words
> convey a "tone", because you led off with "<treading as lightly as I can>"...
>
> Kayleigh
I did think long and hard before posting any reply to the good Rabbi. We
have conversed before and I was unsure of my own ability to suggest
anything he would be interested in actually considering. I have failed
in this regard on several occasions in the past. It seems I just can't
get past my own predjudices regarding the subjective nature of
experience and its relation to whatever reality is. Carmine is far
better than I am at keeping his own hallucinations out of discussions
and trying to offer something useful in the face of determined adherence
to beliefs about what is and is not possible or useful. I am often
amazed at his willingness to explain something even to someone that
perceives him as unlikable.
You are correct. I DO understand that the way words are used in written
form can and is used to convey to the reader a tone or mood or feeling
or viewpoint. The point I was attempting to make, is that even in the
best of all possible worlds, it is still likely that someone, somewhere
is going to interpret them in a way unintended by the author. And even
if the author is successful in conveying to the majority of those who
read his writings, the tone he would like for them understand, not all
of them will do so. And those that do not will not profit much from
reading those words. Now part of my reason for stepping in at this
particular juncture, is that I realize that some people on this
newsgroup, apparently including rebtsvi, disregard information offered
by Carmine because they do not like his style for whatever reason. I
also realize that having heard Carmine speak in person, and having been
totally surprised at my own preconceived ideas about him, I am able to
read his words using a tone I can imagine and have built a model of, for
contextual purposes. And that tone, which is no less a hallucination
than rebtsvi's, since I am not hearing them spoken aloud either, allows
me to glean some very good information from Carmine's post. In other
words, it is useful to me and I think it could be useful to others.
Since the Rabbi is the one in a position where he is attempting to
effect a change to help someone I took the chance that he might benefit
from trying to read Carmine's advice with some flexibility. I was
careful to couch my post in terms that I hoped would not be perceived as
an attack, as you pointed out the difference of. I did not say, in
effect, "F**k you. I think you are way off base." I took pains to soften
my approach to set a tone that I think is reasonable. Please read it
again with that in mind and tell me what you think about how I could
have improved my presentation without abject grovelling. I am always
interested in feedback on my own style and improving it.
I don't think it is good manners to remain silent when I see something
that I think is not right. I do not doubt the Rabbi's good intentions in
trying to help this woman. I also see though, what I believe to be
inflexibilities in his approach that I think limit him in doing what he
sets out to do. I saw that Carmine addressed some of these and maybe
could have remained silent. But, I chose not to because although it is
much more comfortable for many folks to not get involved in order to
spare themselves some grief, I am more interested in someone getting the
help they need. Knowing this about myself, and willing to face the fact
that often I will fail in my attempt, I still think it is worth the
effort to try. I have managed through persistence and willingness to try
something else, made friends of people whom I did not impress initially
as a worthwhile person to know.
I don't believe that I should fail to be true to my own principals
though, in attempting to get along with someone. If I have to "trick"
someone into liking me, it is not worth it. If I have to pretend I do
not see limitations in them, I don't believe it is in my own or their
best interests to pursue any kind of relationship. I do not insist that
anyone else believe the things I do or subscribe to my own limitations.
I do insist that they do not impose the same restriction on me however.
And there are those who perceive an olive branch as a deadly weapon. The
Bible and Torah are full of marvelous stories about misconceiving the
intentions of another. Having made my attempt, I feel good about my own
actions. Having been turned down, I do not feel hurt. I know that it is
not my loss. My only regret is for the woman with the problem. I
sincerely hope she gets the assistance she needs from Rebtsvi. I
honestly think that his good intentions would be much more useful to his
patients or clients or congregation or whatever term is appropriate, if
he were to gain some flexibility in his use of NLP skills. I think
Carmine was attempting to help him there. I wanted to publicly endorse
that. While I do appreciate the other advice given and the possibilities
for things to check with this patient, I think Carmine's was the most
useful, by far, in the long term for someone who will be helping people
change. The old saw about giving someone a fish vs. teaching them to
fish......It takes an extraordinary person to accept learning from
someone they do not like. But, extraordinary people do do that. And they
do it all the time. It is my hope that Rebtsvi is such a person. I fear
though, that he is too enamored of being "right" to do that. And that is
too bad for those he seeks to help heal.
As the father of a four year old, I run into people all the time who
also have small children. You may have seen someone in a parking lot or
store berate their child as stupid or worthless for something they did
to you inadvertently as little kids are wont to do. Maybe bump into you
or fail to notice that they were in your path. Most people, when this
happens, will tell the parent, "that's OK! It's alright." for the sake
of the child. And that makes them feel better, although I suspect they
still feel for what the child will be put through for the rest of their
life, growing up in an environment where they are called hateful things
and treated as malicious for doing what every kid does.
I think it is more useful to tell the parent some kind of story. Maybe
about how I remember how it is to be a little kid and to not be aware of
all the things going on around me like an adult would be. I remember how
when I was just about that age I got yelled at by my parents and just
felt awful! About as worthless as a kid could feel, and I vowed to
always try to protect my child from those same awful feelings. I know
that it is my job to see to it that my kid doesn't have to grow up with
that hurt. And how grateful I am to have had the bad experiences I had
to show me exactly what NOT to do, so that I could feel good about
myself for having protected my child from that. And I can see that you
are the same kind of caring parent.
Now, before I had a kid, it would not have occurred to me to do that. I
would have just gone about my business and forgotten the incident
completely. It is not my responsibility to raise someone elses's kids.
Nor will it always be appreciated. Sometimes, I am sure my
"interference" is resented. But, now, having noticed what is possible, I
can no longer just move on and forget. I hope you can understand what my
example here has in common with what we are talking about.
So I thank you Kayleigh, for taking the time to post to me. I am quite
able to detect your very reasonable tone in your post. And I'm even
pretty sure that my hallucination of it would be a pretty good
approximation of what I would actually hear if you spoke it to me aloud.
But, if you have any inkling that I might find it useful to listen to it
with some other intent, by all means, please let me know and I will
attempt to extract that usefulness as well. I think you probably are an
excellent peacemaker. I just believe that keeping the peace at all
costs, is sometimes too expensive. Be well.
Regards,
Thomas
rebtsvi
Dear Underdog,
I don't have a problem with what you said. I think that you need to tell the National
Association of Teachers of English that what they are teaching disagrees with you.
That's real NLP, get everyone to match you!
Let me know how it goes.
Tom Vizzini
Hi Folks,
Hate to butt in here but Baffa's response to Retbsvi really pissed me off.
I must say that I know a load of crap when I see it. I have been patiently
reading Baffa's posts lately waiting for him to say anything NICE about anyone
but....himself. Well it hasn't happened. I think I have been more than fair
considering the history I have with this "noted trainer" and his past unethical
behavior.
What I witnessed here is awful. Someone wrote for advice and got a load of
shit in return. Great rapport building Baffa.
I applaud those who offered constructive help.
Retbsvi asked a legitimate question. I saw NO blaming ANYWHERE!!! What I did
see was Baffa give a ranting MIND READ for two posts without anything
constructive. I saw NO evidence of the blaming that Baffa was bumbling about.
What I did see was someone asking what they could do to get their client to
move in the direction the CLIENT wanted to go. So Baffa what is the problem???
Are you trying to build an intense phobia of yourself??? Are you trying to build
an intense fear of anyone disagreeing with you???
What I see is the inflexibility of Baffa. His inability to respond in any
useful manner other than a string of repetitive dribbling metaphors that will
supposedly help...unconsciously. But NO concrete help. Lots of blatant unfounded
mind reading though....Baffa you are stuck in your own model and can't seem to
find your way out. Abusing people to make yourself look good won't work anymore.
You have truly stagnated . Hell your metaphors haven't even changed in four
years.
So let me mind read a while Baffa. I think that while watching toilets swirl
backward for a while you had a number of psychotic fits followed by the urge to
vomit. In a fit of depression you picked someone at random and vomited here on
this group.
Shocked by the idea that anyone would view your opinion as anything but from
the mouth of God you spewed again and returned to toilet dreaming of your own
perfection in the swirls of backwards flushing. Maybe you were watching your own
career go down the backwards toilet.
The way you treated this person shows no respect Baffa. A supposed "trainer
" with no respect for others is pathetic. Your behavior really pisses me off. I
am sure that no one will mistake the tone of my post here. So that I am not what
I accuse you of I will offer some constructive feedback for you.
Here is what you did not do in your post to Rebtsvi. You did not pace. You
did not step into the model. You did not get rapport. You did not GATHER any
information. You did not calibrate. You did not lead. You did not use the meta
or Milton models. You did not ask questions.You did not have ANY well formed
outcome. Most of all you were not helpful.
Here is what you did. You mind read. You insulted. You condescended. You
bragged. You screwed up...twice.
Now I understand why you are posting like a mad man here. Getting only 13
people to show up for a training must be embarrassing. Especially when most of
them were those dumb enough to buy packages of training's from you or were those
poor conned interns of yours. Then kicking one out who had the audacity to
question you dropped it to 12. Nice state control by the way... Is this the
"state management system" that you wrote about a while back???? At least you
stopped throwing them through walls! Lucky for them! Well that is quite a drop
in attendance. I guess Karma does exist and you are NOT it.
Well Baffa by now you have guessed that I am back.....and I am pissed. I
will not let you get away with you sideshow antics unchallenged anymore. I will
also not put up with you abusing the people who post here. You will now be
accountable and asked to back up your bullshit. Slamming other trainers in hopes
of picking up a stray gullible students will not be tolerated.
This group is NOT your stage. Make no mistake about that!
Play nice and I will leave you alone.
There is a sucker born every minute and I am sure a few will want to throw
their money at you in hopes of learning....something.
Tom Vizzini
Pissed and loving it!
Rebtsvi wrote
> >gotten 356. Do you see anything in my original post in which I blamed my
> >client?
> >
Matthew Turco
If anyone reading this list is disuaded by any of Mr.Vizzini's
unsubstantiated claims in regard to Carmine Baffa and his trainings, I
invite them to investigate the matter personally.
One should always consider the sourceŠ
Enough said,
Matthew
--
Anakin's Brain website - http://www.anakin.com
- - intelligence, accelerated learning, and more
The Pretender Training Site - http://www.anakin.com/pretend.html
- - the science behind the show, especially the skill of modeling
ro...@seduction.com
In article <35970DE3...@bellsouth.net>,
Tom Vizzini <tviz...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Folks,
>
>
> What I see is the inflexibility of Baffa. His inability to respond in any
> useful manner other than a string of repetitive dribbling metaphors that will
> supposedly help...unconsciously. But NO concrete help. Lots of blatant unfounded
> mind reading though....Baffa you are stuck in your own model and can't seem to
> find your way out. Abusing people to make yourself look good won't work anymore.
Baffa is a living, breathing, MUSEUM quality specimen of what famed writer
A.E. Von Voght calls "the Right Man". This refers NOT to political
orientation, but to the notion that the "Right Man" must ALWAYS be right. He
must NEVER admit to a mistake, an error, a misjudgment. To the Right Man,
being "wrong" is a fate worse than death. He will villify, attack, evade,
circumlocute, weave tales, ANYTHING to avoid saying the simple words, "I
don't know" or "Whoops..I was wrong".
And so Tom, I believe what you are doing here is futile and a waste of
energy. You will never, NEVER, ever, however you may try, get Mr. Baffa to
EVER, EVER admit that he was mistaken, inappropriate, inaccurate,
miscalculating, etc. Anything the "Right Man" tries that clearly does NOT
match his intended outcome gets reframed as "just a test to see how you (or
the group or an individual person) will respond.
Tom, I admire your skill and intelligence. But you can't argue with a
hypnotized subject. Once the suggestions are accepted, it's futile. And
someone who has accepted at a core level, the suggestion/belief that being
wrong, incorrect or less than godlike in anyway might lead to death, severe
pain, or emotional ruin, SIMPLY WILL NOT LISTEN TO FEEDBACK OR ACCEPT
CORRECTION OF ANY KIND.
Being angry with Baffa is entirely futile and shows a lack of understanding
on your part. HE IS DEEPLY HYPNOTIZED BY HIS OWN BULLSHIT AND CAN NEVER,
NEVER BE REACHED. Any "failure" or "fuckup" on his part is instantly reframed
as something he had intended all along! He INTENDED for the police to be
called at his last seminar! He INTENDED to so offend and piss-off the
community here on Usenet and to violate the person who best recruited for his
seminars that his enrollment would drop to 13, and then to 12; 12 has great
significance for a Messianic kind of guy like Baffa.
Tom..seriously...leave Carmine alone. For all his "skill" he is incapable
of changing himself. Treat him as you would a wounded bear; pity him, but
stay out of his reach. And when you respond to him in this forum as you have,
he's reached you. He can drag you down to his level. I stopped months ago as
I realized that. He FEEDS off this. He feels more at home when he can drag
others down to his level of malice; in an odd way, even when the attack is
aimed at him, he finds it comforting.
Leave him be. And Carmine, as you read this, if you read this, I truly,
truly pity you. You will never learn, grow, or change from your mistakes of
the past year, because you can never get past that fear of admitting that you
are a human being; skilled in some ways but also deeply flawed and in serious
need of healing of the deep levels of pain you so obviously keep locked down
and hidden away. I think perhaps you DO find some genuine release in your
moments of genuine compassion that occasionally you do show, unmarred by
Messiah complexes, and egomania. But I think what you need most, Mr. Baffa is
a good, long, hard cry and someone to hold you and let you know it's going to
be ok.
(You may respond and lash out. You may lie and reveal "personal details" as
you see fit, Baffa. All I only see it as now are yelps of pain filtered
through a very complex and deeply wounded mind.)
Sic Transit Carmine Baffa and please LET IT GO Tommy Boy!
Get Laid NOW!
Ask me how!
http://www.seduction.com
> > >gotten 356. Do you see anything in my original post in which I blamed my
> > >client?
> > >
> > Carmine Baffa wrote:
>
> > Yes I do. And, when I use the word blaming as I did here, what I am saying
> > is, you have been unsuccessful, and you are now looking for what else the
> > client is doing that is preventing them from being able to go along with
> > your lead. That, in my book, is blaming them for not doing, even if you are
> > saying there might be some secondary gain there, you are still saying it is
> > something they are doing.
>
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
==Gene Poole==
Hi Tom,
Thank you for your enlightening posting. I have been following this for
years...what a circus.
I must point out that you, in your righteous zeal, have overlooked that you
have 'condemned'
the Baffa for what..._he did NOT say_.
He did not say what you would have said.
Granted, what he DID say was 'off'. Just be careful that you do not fall
into a trap of your own making, by commiting the error which I have pointed
out.
If you want to be effective in your campaign, you cannot afford to make
that error, IMO.
Please correct this oversight in future postings.
Thanks, and please sustain your spirit...
==Gene Poole==
In article <35970DE3...@bellsouth.net>, Tom Vizzini
<tviz...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
#Hi Folks,
#
# Hate to butt in here but Baffa's response to Retbsvi really pissed me off.
#I must say that I know a load of crap when I see it. I have been patiently
#reading Baffa's posts lately waiting for him to say anything NICE about anyone
#but....himself. Well it hasn't happened. I think I have been more than fair
#considering the history I have with this "noted trainer" and his past unethical
#behavior.
#
# What I witnessed here is awful. Someone wrote for advice and got a load of
#shit in return. Great rapport building Baffa.
#
# I applaud those who offered constructive help.
#
# Retbsvi asked a legitimate question. I saw NO blaming ANYWHERE!!! What
I did
#see was Baffa give a ranting MIND READ for two posts without anything
#constructive. I saw NO evidence of the blaming that Baffa was bumbling about.
#
# What I did see was someone asking what they could do to get their client to
#move in the direction the CLIENT wanted to go. So Baffa what is the problem???
#Are you trying to build an intense phobia of yourself??? Are you trying to
build
#an intense fear of anyone disagreeing with you???
#
# What I see is the inflexibility of Baffa. His inability to respond in any
#useful manner other than a string of repetitive dribbling metaphors that will
#supposedly help...unconsciously. But NO concrete help. Lots of blatant
unfounded
#mind reading though....Baffa you are stuck in your own model and can't seem to
#find your way out. Abusing people to make yourself look good won't work
anymore.
#
#You have truly stagnated . Hell your metaphors haven't even changed in four
#years.
#
# So let me mind read a while Baffa. I think that while watching toilets
swirl
#backward for a while you had a number of psychotic fits followed by the urge to
#vomit. In a fit of depression you picked someone at random and vomited here on
#this group.
#
# Shocked by the idea that anyone would view your opinion as anything
but from
#the mouth of God you spewed again and returned to toilet dreaming of your own
#perfection in the swirls of backwards flushing. Maybe you were watching
your own
#career go down the backwards toilet.
#
# The way you treated this person shows no respect Baffa. A supposed "trainer
#" with no respect for others is pathetic. Your behavior really pisses me off. I
#am sure that no one will mistake the tone of my post here. So that I am
not what
#I accuse you of I will offer some constructive feedback for you.
#
# Here is what you did not do in your post to Rebtsvi. You did not pace. You
#did not step into the model. You did not get rapport. You did not GATHER any
#information. You did not calibrate. You did not lead. You did not use the meta
#or Milton models. You did not ask questions.You did not have ANY well formed
#outcome. Most of all you were not helpful.
#
# Here is what you did. You mind read. You insulted. You condescended. You
#bragged. You screwed up...twice.
#
#
# Now I understand why you are posting like a mad man here. Getting only 13
#people to show up for a training must be embarrassing. Especially when most of
#them were those dumb enough to buy packages of training's from you or were
those
#poor conned interns of yours. Then kicking one out who had the audacity to
#question you dropped it to 12. Nice state control by the way... Is this the
#"state management system" that you wrote about a while back???? At least you
#stopped throwing them through walls! Lucky for them! Well that is quite a drop
#in attendance. I guess Karma does exist and you are NOT it.
#
# Well Baffa by now you have guessed that I am back.....and I am pissed. I
#will not let you get away with you sideshow antics unchallenged anymore. I will
#also not put up with you abusing the people who post here. You will now be
#accountable and asked to back up your bullshit. Slamming other trainers in
hopes
#of picking up a stray gullible students will not be tolerated.
#
# This group is NOT your stage. Make no mistake about that!
#
# Play nice and I will leave you alone.
#
# There is a sucker born every minute and I am sure a few will want to throw
#their money at you in hopes of learning....something.
#
#
#Tom Vizzini
#
#Pissed and loving it!
#
#
#
#
#
# Rebtsvi wrote
#
#> >gotten 356. Do you see anything in my original post in which I blamed my
#> >client?
#> >
#> Carmine Baffa wrote:
#
#
#
#> Yes I do. And, when I use the word blaming as I did here, what I am saying
#> is, you have been unsuccessful, and you are now looking for what else the
#> client is doing that is preventing them from being able to go along with
#> your lead. That, in my book, is blaming them for not doing, even if you are
#> saying there might be some secondary gain there, you are still saying it is
#> something they are doing.
--
Primate hardwiring includes its own transcendance
laughter
Carmine Baffa's behavior in this newsgroup has been his most
*effective* advertisement. The message sent out loud and clear is
avoid this trainer in my opinion. With so many good trainers around,
why would you want to train with someone with so many personal
problems? What trainer who has visited this newsgroup has been
reduced to swearing and cursing and smearing other NLP trainers and
people than Carmine?
I'm sure as desperate as Carmine is -- although he throws childlike
fits and says he is never coming back -- that he will continue to
troll frantically for students here to attend his trainings. Let the
buyer be aware. Ask around. Get reviews from people before you
commit.
rebtsvi
Eddie, you may not be a therapist but some of your questions go to the core of
the issue. Some of the questions would be major stop signs for the client.
They are currently unable/unwilling to answer the questions conciously.
Unconsciously, the questions get answered. I will keep your comments in mind.
Thanks.
Micro...@yahoo.com
In article <6n8nfq$nr8$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
ro...@seduction.com wrote:
>
> In article <35970DE3...@bellsouth.net>,
> Tom Vizzini <tviz...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Folks,
> >
> >
> > What I see is the inflexibility of Baffa. His inability to respond in
any
> > useful manner other than a string of repetitive dribbling metaphors that
will
I'm not saying that the posts here about Carmine Baffa are true. I honestly
have no idea one way or the other because I don't know the man personaly. But
the idea of someone being skilled (or even VERY) skilled at NLP and still
having emotional/personal problems like this reminds of a book I heard about
once. I don't remember where I read about it, but it was an autobiography of
a woman who was very skilled in this area and later realized she was still
playing out a lot of her neurotic "patterns" even while using advanced NLP. I
think I may have read about it in a book or article by John Bradshaw (Inner
Child stuff). Just off hand, does anyone recognize the book?
NILMA
Hey Man,
Have you ever trained with him? People have faults and people will always find
fault within people. What's the relationship between some behavior in a
newsgroup and learning what a person has to offer? Behavior is not the ability
nor is it the person.
Personal problems? Are you aware of some personal problems that Carmine is
having and if so please keep it between you and he. And what does that have to
do with the quality of a learning experience?
I've attended a couple of Carmine's trainings and although a few of my
expectations weren't met in a way that was congruent for me at the time, many
more expectations were far surpassed and I came away with some genuine skills
and understandings that have stood the test of time.
My opinion is simply that Carmine is artist in this field.
Regards,
-Joe
============
In article <6n93av$2kc$1...@camel29.mindspring.com>, don'tbo...@reply.com
venus uzynski
Hi Microangelo,
I don't know which book you're talking about, but I *do* have an opinion on the
matter. I think just because someone *knows* NLP, it doesn't mean they go
through life without ever having a problem. We all have problems. Maybe not
*all* the time, but we all do have them. From my point of view, it's just
another symptom of being alive.
Just a thought,
Venus
Micro...@Yahoo.com wrote:
> In article <6n8nfq$nr8$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> ro...@seduction.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <35970DE3...@bellsouth.net>,
> > Tom Vizzini <tviz...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Folks,
> > >
> > >
> > > What I see is the inflexibility of Baffa. His inability to respond in
> any
> > > useful manner other than a string of repetitive dribbling metaphors that
> will
> > > supposedly ......
>
> I'm not saying that the posts here about Carmine Baffa are true. I honestly
> have no idea one way or the other because I don't know the man personaly. But
> the idea of someone being skilled (or even VERY) skilled at NLP and still
> having emotional/personal problems like this reminds of a book I heard about
> once. I don't remember where I read about it, but it was an autobiography of
> a woman who was very skilled in this area and later realized she was still
> playing out a lot of her neurotic "patterns" even while using advanced NLP. I
> think I may have read about it in a book or article by John Bradshaw (Inner
> Child stuff). Just off hand, does anyone recognize the book?
>
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
.
Loren Larsen
laughter wrote:
> Carmine Baffa's behavior in this newsgroup has been his most
> *effective* advertisement. The message sent out loud and clear is
> avoid this trainer in my opinion. With so many good trainers around,
> why would you want to train with someone with so many personal
> problems? What trainer who has visited this newsgroup has been
> reduced to swearing and cursing and smearing other NLP trainers and
> people than Carmine?
>
> I'm sure as desperate as Carmine is -- although he throws childlike
> fits and says he is never coming back -- that he will continue to
> troll frantically for students here to attend his trainings. Let the
> buyer be aware. Ask around. Get reviews from people before you
> commit.
>
An excellent point laughter...
Most of the people I know who have taken trainings with Carmine are
pretty satisfied. Some aren't. That's true of pretty much all
trainers. I've taken trainings with trainers that I now deeply dislike,
Carmine isn't one of them.
Since you seem to be soliciting recommendations, let me once again add
mine. Carmine, in spite of whatever personal problems you may think he
has based on whatever evidence you have for this, has ALWAYS demonstrated
in the three years I've known him complete integrity and respect for me
as a student and as a friend. He has demonstrated this both in and
outside of the training room. I am tremendously pleased with what I've
been able to learn from Carmine and the depth of that knowlede because
even though I haven't trained with him in over a year now, the skills he
taught me continue to develop and be refined, and I continue to have new
realizations and insights that go back to those trainings I took with
him. I think this is the mark of a good trainer.
You are right Laughter, there are a few fine trainers out there, and
people should carefully choose who they will train with. For myself,
there are only about 5-10 trainers that come to mind that I would
consider training from, based on talking to students of these trainers,
reading what they have on the web, etc. The reason I lend my voice to
this discussion is only because I think that Carmine is a superb trainer
AND I think the attacks being made on him here are pretty silly really.
Even Tom's last attack which might be considered credible since he
actually has trained with Carmine (as opposed to yours? Do you even have
a name laughter? Do you have the courage to use it?). Tom is a guy
I have met several times and think he's decent guy, but I think his most
recent attack is unbelievably silly...It's full of bravado which is easy
to do behind a computer screen when the victim is out of the country (is
that a pattern for Tom?), but makes humorous statements like,
-He (speaking of Carmine) didn't use the meta-model or the milton model -
How exactly does one do that?
- He didn't have a well defined outcome -
How would Tom know that? And then he makes a statement like
- He didn't gather any information -
Sounds a little hypocritical to me...And this is just my point, nothing
useful is going to come out of these attacks. I'd prefer to focus on the
fact that in spite of whatever misgivings you or I might have about
presentation, I think it's abundantly clear that Carmine has offered,
over the years, more of real substance of real value about NLP than
anyone else that comes to mind. I save most of the posts here that
I find full of intriguing ideas, things that shift my thinking in new
directions, things that presents new techniques, etc...The majority of
what I have saved is from Carmine. Maybe that's just me, but personally
I wouldn't classify that as just "trolling for students."
My real concern here is not that people train with Carmine, or not, but
that people will stay open enough to talk to Carmine, check out what he's
ACTUALLY saying and what goes behind that, and talk to Carmine's students
and make an informed decision based on the information they themselves
can gather. Then and only then should people be deciding whether or not
they should train with Carmine, or any other trainer. Training costs
money, time, and the wrong training can cost you skill.
I have no interest in debating these issues, nothing will come from that,
but I have felt the need to offer some balance, particularly since I have
some personal experience with what we are talking about.
Loren
m.h...@bigfoot.com
Hi Tom,
I think you are right and I agree with you completely on
... errr
<wait a second>
... no, I think you are wrong....
Well, when I think it over again, I cant't decide.
What a pity, because knowing who the enemy is is so nice!
But I can't decide...
Michael.
In article <35970DE3...@bellsouth.net>,
Tom Vizzini <tviz...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Folks,
>
> Hate to butt in here but Baffa's response to Retbsvi really pissed me off.
> I must say that I know a load of crap when I see it. I have been patiently
> reading Baffa's posts lately waiting for him to say anything NICE about anyone
> but....himself. Well it hasn't happened. I think I have been more than fair
> considering the history I have with this "noted trainer" and his past
unethical
> behavior.
>
> What I witnessed here is awful. Someone wrote for advice and got a load of
> shit in return. Great rapport building Baffa.
>
> I applaud those who offered constructive help.
>
> Retbsvi asked a legitimate question. I saw NO blaming ANYWHERE!!! What I
did
> see was Baffa give a ranting MIND READ for two posts without anything
> constructive. I saw NO evidence of the blaming that Baffa was bumbling about.
>
> What I did see was someone asking what they could do to get their client
to
> move in the direction the CLIENT wanted to go. So Baffa what is the problem???
> Are you trying to build an intense phobia of yourself??? Are you trying to
build
> an intense fear of anyone disagreeing with you???
>
> What I see is the inflexibility of Baffa. His inability to respond in any
> useful manner other than a string of repetitive dribbling metaphors that will
> supposedly help...unconsciously. But NO concrete help. Lots of blatant
unfounded
> mind reading though....Baffa you are stuck in your own model and can't seem to
> find your way out. Abusing people to make yourself look good won't work
anymore.
>
> You have truly stagnated . Hell your metaphors haven't even changed in four
> years.
>
> So let me mind read a while Baffa. I think that while watching toilets
swirl
> backward for a while you had a number of psychotic fits followed by the urge
to
> vomit. In a fit of depression you picked someone at random and vomited here on
> this group.
>
> Shocked by the idea that anyone would view your opinion as anything but
from
> the mouth of God you spewed again and returned to toilet dreaming of your own
> perfection in the swirls of backwards flushing. Maybe you were watching your
own
> career go down the backwards toilet.
>
> The way you treated this person shows no respect Baffa. A supposed
"trainer
> " with no respect for others is pathetic. Your behavior really pisses me off.
I
> am sure that no one will mistake the tone of my post here. So that I am not
what
> I accuse you of I will offer some constructive feedback for you.
>
> Here is what you did not do in your post to Rebtsvi. You did not pace. You
> did not step into the model. You did not get rapport. You did not GATHER any
> information. You did not calibrate. You did not lead. You did not use the meta
> or Milton models. You did not ask questions.You did not have ANY well formed
> outcome. Most of all you were not helpful.
>
> Here is what you did. You mind read. You insulted. You condescended. You
> bragged. You screwed up...twice.
>
> Now I understand why you are posting like a mad man here. Getting only 13
> people to show up for a training must be embarrassing. Especially when most of
> them were those dumb enough to buy packages of training's from you or were
those
> poor conned interns of yours. Then kicking one out who had the audacity to
> question you dropped it to 12. Nice state control by the way... Is this the
> "state management system" that you wrote about a while back???? At least you
> stopped throwing them through walls! Lucky for them! Well that is quite a drop
> in attendance. I guess Karma does exist and you are NOT it.
>
> Well Baffa by now you have guessed that I am back.....and I am pissed. I
> will not let you get away with you sideshow antics unchallenged anymore. I
will
> also not put up with you abusing the people who post here. You will now be
> accountable and asked to back up your bullshit. Slamming other trainers in
hopes
> of picking up a stray gullible students will not be tolerated.
>
> This group is NOT your stage. Make no mistake about that!
>
> Play nice and I will leave you alone.
>
> There is a sucker born every minute and I am sure a few will want to throw
> their money at you in hopes of learning....something.
>
> Tom Vizzini
>
> Pissed and loving it!
>
> Rebtsvi wrote
>
> > >gotten 356. Do you see anything in my original post in which I blamed my
> > >client?
> > >
> > Carmine Baffa wrote:
>
> > Yes I do. And, when I use the word blaming as I did here, what I am saying
> > is, you have been unsuccessful, and you are now looking for what else the
> > client is doing that is preventing them from being able to go along with
> > your lead. That, in my book, is blaming them for not doing, even if you are
> > saying there might be some secondary gain there, you are still saying it is
> > something they are doing.
>
>
S Luckett
On Mon, 29 Jun 1998, Tom Vizzini wrote:
> Hate to butt in here but Baffa's response to Retbsvi really pissed me off.
> I must say that I know a load of crap when I see it. I have been patiently
> reading Baffa's posts lately waiting for him to say anything NICE about anyone
> but....himself.
Whatever turns you on, Tom.
> What I witnessed here is awful. Someone wrote for advice and got a load of
> shit in return. Great rapport building Baffa.
I think they call it 'pacing'.
> What I did see was Baffa give a ranting MIND READ for two posts
> without anything constructive.
How did you know he MIND READ?
Dave.
PS. What's your point?
thefool
shalom Tom and everywody else who's reading this thread..
i must say it was interesting to see to what degree people will go and
how much energy they will spend on "burning" matters ...
Ive noticed not only in this news group but in other newsgroups i
visited in the past that there usually is one (or more) that appear to
love kicking around making people kick them back ...
but by doing so they also make people think .. too bad that those
skills are misused...
i mean , if the same energy that was put on building a bomb was to be
sent on curing deafness or same energy which is put in wars was put
instead on self peace this world would be a much better place to live
in...
sometimes looking from the side you can see things that when you are
inside you miss them ...
and i wonder, (Tom) , if a dog barks and shows its teeth to you , do
you bark back and show your teeth to it ?
another wonder that came in my mind, goes like this ..
1. perception is based on our map of the world and state of mind at
the moment of perceiving. ( fact)
2. people get angry not on what others say/do but on what they thought
about those things that have been said/done
3. the map of the world is also usually based on past experiences...
i.e. prejudgements... (nasty word of prejudice)
4. people form an opinion on someone based on 3 factors... a. what
they heard about that someone, b. what they get from that someone(
i.e. reading their post for example) , c. the state they are at while
perceiving a. and b.
5. based on 4 a person gets to put a frame around another humanbeing,
putting it into 3.
6. based an all the above ... imo if we actually condemn someone , we
need to look deep into ourselves and find why did i got mad ? and why
do I perceive this person as i do ? and can it be that there are other
ways to view this actions of that person ( notice the separation
between actions and person ...! the actions are not the person! )
and just to finish i want to quote one of the last emails I got..
which says..
we need to leave our attachments and leave like nomads cos if we are
no-mad to each and every person which we meet there will be a little
peace here and a little peace there , and if we put all this peaces
together we will get a big huge peace all over the world ...
and wouldn't that be great???
Mik.
.thefool .
.writing from around the world... \\ // .
.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ooO~~~{.}{.}~~~Ooo~~.
. SMILE () .
. and the world will smile back ! \__/ .
. thefo...@hotmail.com .
. http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/1240 .
laughter
Regardless of the totally unbalanced fawning over Baffa that Loren
Larsen engages in, no post by any person could speak louder than the
crap Baffa has posted himself while getting into snits and arguments
and name calling with Rex Sikes, Ross Jeffries, Kevin Hogan, Jonathan
Altfield and a host of others. Baffa's outcome is clear. He cannot
be disagreed with. His inability to disagree gracefully shows NLP
hasn't worked for him very well in the self-esteem department. But
I'm glad I had a chance to see Carmine in action. I learned chronic
reframing is no substitute for dealing with reality and learning from
your mistakes.
DiRGe0513
In article <3599d7c9...@news.clara.net>, thefo...@hotmail.com (thefool)
writes:
>6. based an all the above ... imo if we actually condemn someone , we
>need to look deep into ourselves and find why did i got mad ? and why
>do I perceive this person as i do ? and can it be that there are other
>ways to view this actions of that person ( notice the separation
>between actions and person ...! the actions are not the person! )
Can it ever be that one perception is more useful (graceful, elegant,) than
another?
Can it ever be that our first impression is the most useful one? If not there
is not one single perception that is *most* useful, could our first impression
ever be simply nominal, and thereby equal to some others?
Can it ever be that we could *know* when the first perceptual frame is already
nominal or superior to our health and well being -- to that of our surrounding
social environment?
Would you call this intuition? Instinct? Experience?
When you experience this, is it useful to continue exploration? How would you
make use of that further exploration, when the most useful course of action is
already decreed by our original perception. If, as we question, there simply
is no more useful perception and following course of action, what do we gain by
exploring? What do we gain by delaying our action to explore that which we
already know will not deliver more useful action?
Could it ever be that we need to act first, and explore what can be deemed idle
curiosity later?
Is there ever a time when we must judge our fellow human being?
Is there ever a time when we must punish what is either crime of law or crime
of implicit social contract? Must all wrongs always be treated with something
-- anything -- strictly exclusive of anger and punishment?
Is it ever *right* to respond to anger and violence with non-acceptance?
My mother and I disagree on whether children should ever be strapped ... to
receive corporal punishment ... needless to say, the first time I playfully bit
her, she emitted a loud and scarry vocalization -- then she bit me back. She
makes that claim: I don't remember this, but I no longer bite the hand that
feeds me. Perhaps there's a connection? I could be wrong. She claims she is
right.
Is anger always wrong? Can't anger ever be used constructively?
If anger is used to bind a willfully destructive or injurious person, is that
not constructive and healthy?
There was a case in Columbus Ohio -- the case of the Handcuff Rapist -- the
mother of one of the victims remained angry. Her daughter released her own
anger and pleaded with her mother to seek therapy. Her husband was a police
officer, and begged her to trust the trained authorities and forget her anger.
She would not. She caught the rapist personally, with the backup of her
unwilling husband, who she forced to cooperate. She ended the evil man's reign
of terror, and "more than 60 victims" never went on to become "more than 70".
Her anger was unabiding. Unforgiving. It was a good thing.
" I'm Batman! I am!! I'm Batman!!! "
-- Recent television commercial
" Ever dance with the Devil, by the pale moonlight? "
-- The Joker / Batman, the Movie
" Don't *you* pretend with *me*, young man! You *knew* that hurt! "
-- Mother / Yours, Mine and Ours
Ontology recapitulates Philology
Sic Itur, ad Astra
Loren Larsen
Laughter, you never fail to amuse...I like that, but what I'm really
wondering is if it's possible for you to allow me to disagree with you? Yes
I have spoken of my personal experience with Carmine, I've known him for
three years, how long have you known him? How many hours have you spent
speaking with him one on one? How many hours have you spent having him
explain some of the meaning behind the behavior? How many of his trainings
have you attended?
And without wanting to get into a who knows who better than who, who has
studied with who and who's is bigger than whose, where this really leads is
to ask you if you are open enough to disagree with yourself. Because I'll
say here clearly that there is no one I completely agree with, I've seen
Carmine do and say things here that I truly don't understand, and would not
do and say myself. I have no idea what his intention is...
Now if I said this to you, "I have had disagreements with Carmine in the
past and we have openly discussed issues and can agreeably disagree." THIS
IS TRUE IN MY EXPERIENCE! Are you willing to accept that or do you want to
continue to say that his "outcome is clear (in all contexts)". How many
contexts have you seen him in? Is it an "inability" or simply an inability
to accept less than the best. Maybe you will drop this into your "chronic
reframing" bucket...And as you do you'll have to wonder who is being
inflexible. Think about it, is it possible that the reason my opinion
appears to be "unbalanced fawning to you" is because you are so far
unbalanced yourself? You say that I have engaged in "totally unbalanced
fawning"...I can only apologize for attempting to balance your statements
with my actual experience with the man. If you find that totally unbalanced
I wonder where you are standing?
I don't even know why I bother to write this stuff, because I can say all
day...Yeah you've had some experience that is different than yours, quite
different than yours...And nearly everyone will say, "yes but mine is
accurate."
I've seen it over and over and over again. Once people make up their minds
it's virtually impossible to even let in a hint of difference...
Fine, that's your choice, but if it is your choice please don't come here
and insult our intelligence by pretending that you are some bastion of
flexibility and open-mindedness, because you are not...What you are offering
is YOUR PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. I AM OFFERING MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE! Of
course my personal experience seems like unbalanced fawning because it
apparently is vastly different than yours. Who is right? If you want to
claim that only you are, NLP is not the field for you my friend.
Let me leave you with one last thought, laughter...No that wasn't
it...Consider your experience with Carmine (or anyone else), whatever that
is, and consider what you observed...Did you elicit the responses you
observed or did someone else? If it was someone else, consider the question
of what their outcome was and whether or not they got it. If you were
directly eliciting behavior, did you get your outcome? My point is simply
this, I've seen a lot of people whining and moaning, in this thread and
others, about how so and so did X and that means that that person is Y. How
about this revolutionary notion, "If you don't get the response you want,
stop your whining and moaning, take some responsibility, and try something
else." Or you could just say the person is "sick", "broken", "psychotic",
or something else...If you find that useful, fine...but that is basically
what's going on here as I see it.
Again, what I've offered here laughter is my personal experience, it's
unbalanced to the extent that it is only my experience. What you suggested
in your original post was that people check out the experience people have
had with a particular trainer before training with that person (or did I
miss the point? You only wanted opinions offered that agreed with you?). I
have offered my experience as an attempt to balance your statements and
those of others which while certainly true for them are a partial
description. I'm deeply deeply sorry for you if you are unable to find some
way of accepting my description as either part of your reality or as a
multiple description, and yes there can be more than one. I do find it
likely based on what you've written that you will find some way to ascribe
some intention to what I've written other than what I've intended, that
seems to be part of life, particularly here in this newsgroup...Oh well,
reader beware.
I must say I've enjoyed this discussion, I'm continually surprised,
delighted, amused, and shocked at some of what people say, often even
myself. I would like to suggest that rather than delving further into the
pit of personality attacks, that we move to a level that might be more
useful. Maybe someone has a great strategy for breaking down
generalizations! Or how about building a state that is open to new,
possibly more accurate and useful information! Oh the possibilities are
endless when we take the time to look!
For those who've endured this nonsense this far, let me suggest some
exercises for us all.
1) Consider some person that you have collected information about 2nd hand,
perhaps a celebrity you have read about, and evaluate the conclusions you
have about that person or things you think you know about them.
Notice how certain you feel about those conclusions. Then try to
objectively quantify your actual evidence for your conclusions. Adjust your
certainty accordingly.
2) Consider some person that you have AN experience with and formed some
general set of opinions that are true about that person. First, notice your
conclusions. Then re-experience the experiences you had that formed those
opinions from 1st, 2nd, and 3rd positions. I think that if you do this well
you can usually discover the other person's positive intentions (if you can
assume they have any), or discover that you just don't know. If you have a
hard time operating from any of these positions, maybe you need to consider
gathering additional information before continuing and certainly before
re-forming any of those old generalizations.
3) Consider a time or times when you have read about someone or met someone,
and then later, through some medium received conflicting, ambiguous
information. Consider fully everything you have read about that person,
read written by that person, seen the person say, etc. Consider all this
information and you can at first leave it separate so that you truly
maintain multiple descriptions of the person. Remember the first
information isn't always the best, it might be, it might not be, and it
almost certainly isn't the most complete.
I know these are pretty basic exercises and yet I'm seeing so many people
not utilizing multiple descriptions, not being willing to act as if their
perception isn't reality, their mind-reads aren't what the other person is
really thinking. I'm thinking of an experience I had last night with
someone that I had formed certain opinions about, and now I'm finding myself
having to completely re-evaluate all of that. I was partially correct, and
yet I missing so so much. My new information came when I had the
opportunity to observe this person in a context I had never experience them
in, and they had gifts I had never thought they possessed...I confess that I
failed to look for the best and I had written this person off as hopeless
and unable to change, and now have to admit I had no clue what I was talking
about. I was quite shocked by the whole experience...Just when you think
you know a person, BAM, it all changes. And maybe that is why I'm taking so
much time to write all this.
Laughter, let me just qualify here, that what I'm writing is both to you and
a larger audience. I could care less what you think of Carmine Baffa, I am
only hoping that you can drop the B.S. about how clearly right you are about
what other people are thinking, feeling, and who they are. You, I, and
everyone else have no real clue about other people in general. We will
continually be surprised if we can stay open enough. I hope that you will
at least consider the perspective I offer, not as true, but as possible, not
because what I say about Carmine or anyone else is all that important, only
that staying open to new information in general is important.
More later,
Loren
laughter wrote in message <6nelu8$q5m$1...@samsara0.mindspring.com>...
DiRGe0513
In article <6nf2n9$k...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>, "Loren Larsen"
<l...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>Laughter, you never fail to amuse...I like that, but what I'm really
>wondering is if it's possible for you to allow me to disagree with you?
< Lotsa stuff snipped >
Well, nice of you to ask his permission before using the right-of-way, I
suppose, but then your disagreement merely seems to be that
A> while you don't dispute *his* experiences with Carmine, and
B> you alow as how there's plenty of evidence of it here and on DeJaNews to be
explored supporting it ... then ...
C> ... since *your* experiences with Carmine include *none* of the betrayal,
childishness, verbal violence, demeaning gestures and other socially
inappropriate behaviour others have either witnessed or suffered, then his
behaviour must not need questioning.
In otherwords, he never hurt *you*, so what the hell do you care that he's hurt
others, and will they please satisfy you and shut up about it?
I decline to be even curious about what your personal response would be if --
and -- arguably -- when -- you *do* have this experience. I'm pretty sure I
can predict it with some accuracy, you see. However, I'm certain *whatever* it
is, it will *not* include apprecition for hearing others dismiss your pain and
your experience of hurt and betrayal.
Telling the victim their experience is inconsequential is only one step away
from blaming them for their own victimization.
" He's a good man, with a fine career ahead of him ... besides, he's never
treated *me* in a (criminal/sexist/racist/personally harmful) way. You should
overlook this, and try to get along. Do you want to let your little
misunderstanding ruin a fine man? That would be destructive of you. Let it
drop. "
Ok, that's a plan. An old one.
Sounds like the Tailhook incident.
Sounds like the plan Dr. Smith had on Lost in Space.
Sounds like a bankrupt moral philosophy.
I think I understand your world-view, its false and self-interested moralism,
as you've given it to us in your rather longish post. Forgive me for not
repeating it in it's entirety; it would be a misuse of bandwidth. I feel I
have put myself there, and seen the problem through your eyes, as you see it.
I understand and from what I understand you have my pity.
Believe me ... I know you want nothing to do with it, but there it is, you have
it anyway. My pity for you.
... and before you say something like it, let me be the first to agree:
Richard Nixon was a *fine* foreign diplomat ... but he was a *rotten* domestic
president ...
... *and* he was a crook.
" Have you forgotten I saved your life, Major West?
Without me you'd all be *smashed* to bits in that meteor shower! "
-- Dr. Smith / "The Reluctant Stowaway" / Lost in Space
" Oh! The pain! "
-- Dr. Smith / Lost in Space
" What, exactly, are you a Doctor *in*, Smith? "
-- Maj. Don West / "There were Giants in the Earth" / Lost in Space
Loren Larsen
In response to yet another nameless, faceless one,
I must confess I am not much surprised with this response...My entire post was
about balance...I think you will find it hard, at least I find it hard to find any
evidence that I was dismissing laughter or anyone else's experience. I wasn't.
In fact I accept it as valid, another description, one set of experiences which I
have not had personally...My objection to what is being written by so many is the
generalizations being derived from their experiences. I can understand the
evidences for their experiences, but I can't understand the generalizations being
made, because as generalizations I personally have counter-examples.
The debate here seems to be about who is being unreasonable...To me it is
unreasonable to not accept the experience of others as possibly valid. I got
involved in this because laughter first posted a number of generalizations about
Carmine, then suggested that people look at the personal experiences people have
had with trainers. I posted for two reasons: 1) To offer my personal
counter-examples to the generalizations he was offering and 2) To say, "Hey not
everyone is having these kinds of experiences. You can train with Carmine, have
fun, learn a lot, and be respected as a human being." It has happened with me,
and continues to happen so far as I know with people who have taken trainings more
recently.
The point about balance is to put these things in their proper place and make
decisions accordingly. You based on what you know, apparently wouldn't train with
Carmine and apparently laughter wouldn't either...I've had a very different
experience and I would train with him again. In fact what I'm saying here is
quite in line with what 'laughter' was originally suggesting we do, get feedback
from real people when considering who to train with. That's what I'm offering.
What's the problem here? Can we just disagree and let it be? I'd really prefer
to move in a more useful direction, one perhaps of moving beyond generalizations
about people, accepting multiple viewpoints, gathering actual solid information
and testing it before jumping to conclusions about people's world views, etc. You
have chosen to ignore that part of what I wrote and focus again on silly
personality issues. And you seem to be suggesting that I am saying "forget all
that bad stuff you have heard." FAR FAR FROM IT and I don't disregard it
either...I'm saying put it in perspective, get multiple points of view and stay
open to new information, consider the source, allow people to change and grow,
look for the best while protecting yourself as you feel that you need to, and move
on.
Since neither of us are saying anything new here, let's move on to something more
interesting...
Loren
DiRGe0513 wrote:
> In article <6nf2n9$k...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>, "Loren Larsen"
> <l...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
> >Laughter, you never fail to amuse...I like that, but what I'm really
> >wondering is if it's possible for you to allow me to disagree with you?
>
> < Lotsa stuff snipped >
>
<Pontificating nonsense snipped>
DiRGe0513
In article <359BF2F7...@raleigh.ibm.com>, Loren Larsen
<lla...@raleigh.ibm.com> writes:
><< Lotsa preamble snipped >>
>
>What's the problem here? Can we just disagree and let it be?
That's exactly what's been going on here.
>I'd
>really prefer to move in a more useful direction, one perhaps of
>moving beyond generalizations about people, accepting multiple
>viewpoints, gathering actual solid information and testing it before
>jumping to conclusions about people's world views, etc.
I'm sure you're not meaning to say you want to move beyond gathering actual
solid information and testing it before jumping to concusions about people's
world views ...
... but, indeed, people have not been offering weak information about Carmine
and his world-views ... nor have you been particularly shy about comming
forward with your own ... but I do think that you're not quite saying what you
truthfully mean to say when you say what you said.
>You have chosen to ignore that part of what I wrote and focus again on >silly
personality issues.
No, I addressed that quite concicely in my previous post. Perhaps with too
much berevity for your taste, but there *is* little to argue about the
foundation of the evidence ... poor Carmine has, in his occasional but
noteworthy tantrums the past several months, spewn forth a considerable amount
of hard evidence that doesn't bear much cross examination. Please re-read.
No, we can and should move on to the question of what that evidence *means*.
On the contrary, you have chosen to ignore the question of *why* we should look
at the evidence, and then come to no conclusions. What? Should we just sit
here, like bumps on a log when one of our members is behaving in ways so
boorish that we wouldn't tollerate it from a child?
The existence of said evidence has been fully debated and is left unchallenged.
So as for moving on ...
>And you seem to be suggesting that I am saying "forget all that bad >stuff you
have heard." FAR FAR FROM IT and I don't disregard it
>either...I'm saying put it in perspective,
I believe, in fact, you will find on re-reading that it *was* your perspective
I was discussing and contrasting. Please go back and read that again.
>get multiple points of view
Reconsider the evidence?
>and stay open to new information,
Will there be more evidence, or more points of perspective?
>consider the source,
"Consider the source" ... isn't that a bit like saying "(I move we dismiss the
evidence because) it comes from a(n invalid) source!"? Sounds like you're
asking us to forget it to me ....
I hear deletions in your suggestion.
>allow people to change and grow,
" Forgive and *forget* ", is being suggested by you, perhaps?
Hm ... what about amends? Isn't that important to forgiveness?
Does forgiveness mean the perpetrator will never recommit?
Shouldn't that possibility be remembered?
What, exactly, is somebody doing that prevents Carmine from change and growth?
Those bad boys! They really oughta stop!
Indeed, something *MUST* be stopping Carmine from change and growth, because
**** as the very existence of this thread show **** Carmine has continued in
unproductive (for him) and undesirable (for the majority of his audience) is
*** most recently *** unchanged; all signs of growth retarded.
Ummmm ... are you suggesting that Carmine is *trying* to change and grow???
Now, *THAT* would be news! A lot of his former enemies would be both willing
and trustworthy to bury the hatchet and work together with him if that were the
case! What do you think people can do to help, beyond vowing secrecy and
silence about his continuing faux pas? Isn't silence about a problem and
covering it up called *enabling*??? Why should we grant an exception? Isn't
there some more useful way to help Carmine than that traditionally desirable
but counterproductive modality?
Do you speak for him or yourself in asking for help for him?
>look for the best while protecting yourself as you feel that you need to, >and
move on.
... Thus overlook the bad, and move on -- forget about its existence?
You say "protection" as if people *do* need to be protected from things ...
like maybe Carmine, for example. Say! What makes you think people haven't
been *doing* that? Please expound on this question if you have the
inclination.
>Since neither of us are saying anything new here, let's move on to >something
more interesting..
>
>Loren
I understand. Something is stopping you from moving on ...
... something is stopping Carmine from change and growth.
You're right. That's been said before!
(Although I found the recent inclusion of AE VanVogt's "Right Man Hypothesis by
one contributor refreshing and new! ... And I fully intend to follow up,
granting I have the time.)
Well! Good luck with your quest, then.
We can and should move on to the question of what that evidence *means*. Feel
free to join in, when you are able.
Loren Larsen
I must first congratulate you for taking my response to this thread way beyond
mere laughter to rolling on the floor funny. This is some good stuff here AND you
have taken this multiple perspectives thing really far. I mean I hadn't even
considered someone could come to your conclusions based on what I wrote...I think
this is fascinating.
DiRGe0513 wrote:
> In article <359BF2F7...@raleigh.ibm.com>, Loren Larsen
> <lla...@raleigh.ibm.com> writes:
>
> ><< Lotsa preamble snipped >>
> >
> >What's the problem here? Can we just disagree and let it be?
>
> That's exactly what's been going on here.
Good, then I'll agree to let this be my last post on this subject.
>
>
> >I'd
> >really prefer to move in a more useful direction, one perhaps of
> >moving beyond generalizations about people, accepting multiple
> >viewpoints, gathering actual solid information and testing it before
> >jumping to conclusions about people's world views, etc.
>
> I'm sure you're not meaning to say you want to move beyond gathering actual
> solid information and testing it before jumping to concusions about people's
> world views ...
Well you seem to have jumped to many many conclusions here in your post, did you
do it immediately or did you gather actual solid information first?
> ... but, indeed, people have not been offering weak information about Carmine
> and his world-views ... nor have you been particularly shy about comming
> forward with your own ... but I do think that you're not quite saying what you
> truthfully mean to say when you say what you said.
I don't think there is a very subtle difference between offering personal
experience and offering general conclusions about a person based on that personal
experience as if it's god's truth.
>
>
> >You have chosen to ignore that part of what I wrote and focus again on >silly
> personality issues.
>
> No, I addressed that quite concicely in my previous post. Perhaps with too
> much berevity for your taste, but there *is* little to argue about the
> foundation of the evidence ... poor Carmine has, in his occasional but
> noteworthy tantrums the past several months, spewn forth a considerable amount
> of hard evidence that doesn't bear much cross examination. Please re-read.
> No, we can and should move on to the question of what that evidence *means*.
>
> On the contrary, you have chosen to ignore the question of *why* we should look
> at the evidence, and then come to no conclusions. What? Should we just sit
> here, like bumps on a log when one of our members is behaving in ways so
> boorish that we wouldn't tollerate it from a child?
Would you agree that there are plenty of other ways of looking at this? Consider
this, rather than simply classifying the behavior as, X or Y (in your case X and Y
would be boorish and childish). Could you at least begin by observing the
behavior in context with regard to outcome? Maybe you have done that, maybe not.
Myself I would prefer to take what is offered, see what I can learn from it, and
discard the rest. And for me, Carmine has offered and continues to offer much
that I can learn from. Has there been anything in his posts that you could learn
from?
You act as if it is your God given right to draw conclusions...And it is, but is
it really the most useful thing to do here? Apparently my point is being lost
here on you so I won't bother to go back and repeat it other than to ask you how
open you can be to new information after draing a conclusion? I think you have
proven my point quite nicely and I thank you.
> The existence of said evidence has been fully debated and is left unchallenged.
> So as for moving on ...
You'll find what you are looking for...There is evidence of almost anything you
want to find. I can easily look at the same evidence and find an incredible
quanity of useful information about NLP, the attitude and methodology behind it,
etc. If I were to draw conclusions looking at only that I would say Carmine is
incredibly gifted in this field, and I should get my butt down there and take some
trainings with the guy.
>
>
> >And you seem to be suggesting that I am saying "forget all that bad >stuff you
> have heard." FAR FAR FROM IT and I don't disregard it
> >either...I'm saying put it in perspective,
>
> I believe, in fact, you will find on re-reading that it *was* your perspective
> I was discussing and contrasting. Please go back and read that again.
Sorry I lost you here. What did you think I was talking about?
> >get multiple points of view
>
> Reconsider the evidence?
What do you mean by reconsider? What I mean is that there is evidence of a lot of
stuff. You could look at the evidence as that Carmine contributes to the group
more than almost anyone else or you could say he's always picking fights with
other trainers. You could look at the evidence that there are people who have
trained with Carmine and wouldn't train with him again and you could look at the
evidence that there are many people who would say he's an absolute artist in the
field and one of the best trainers in the world. It depends on who you talk to
and what you are trying to get your evidence to support. Since you have said
about that you want to draw conclusions, my experience says that you are probably
only gathering evidence to support your conclusions. Your decision has been
made. That's fine, it's a choice I can respect, but also please allow me to stay
open to gather more information. And yes at some point you need to use the
information you have gathered so you can take action. For example, there's a
training with Carmine coming up, based on all that I know do I go or not? Then
make a decision based on what you know while still staying open to new
information. It's not necessary to conclude and he's "He's a jerk. I'll never
train with him."
> >and stay open to new information,
>
> Will there be more evidence, or more points of perspective?
Do you even doubt that there will be? Name something you could think about that
there isn't more information about, and that all perspectives have been explored?
Sheez, even now they are continuing to come up with new stuff about Kennedy's
assasination. They are re-writing greek and roman History as new information
becomes available? Do you really think YOU have even a smattering of all the
information available on this subject or anything else?
> >consider the source,
>
> "Consider the source" ... isn't that a bit like saying "(I move we dismiss the
> evidence because) it comes from a(n invalid) source!"? Sounds like you're
> asking us to forget it to me ....
Take a jump back...All I'm asking you to consider if is all sources are reliable?
Do you seriously want to debate this point too?
> I hear deletions in your suggestion.
I hear deletions in evey suggestion.
> >allow people to change and grow,
>
> " Forgive and *forget* ", is being suggested by you, perhaps?
Actually I think that's you suggesting that. What I said was "allow people to
change and grow." Maybe you don't believe it, but it happens. It's harder to see
when you jump to conclusions about people right off the bad...You tend to only
gather evidence that supports the conclusion.
> Hm ... what about amends? Isn't that important to forgiveness?
> Does forgiveness mean the perpetrator will never recommit?
> Shouldn't that possibility be remembered?
I don't know, you brought it up.
> What, exactly, is somebody doing that prevents Carmine from change and growth?
> Those bad boys! They really oughta stop!
Again these are your words, your conclusions, not what I wrote.
> Indeed, something *MUST* be stopping Carmine from change and growth, because
> **** as the very existence of this thread show **** Carmine has continued in
> unproductive (for him) and undesirable (for the majority of his audience) is
> *** most recently *** unchanged; all signs of growth retarded.
Again I'm sure you can find evidence for this conclusion. Not offering this as
truth, but since you seem to have a difficult time even being certain that there
are multiple perspectives on this let me offer you one...Not as THE PERSPECTIVE,
only as ONE more alternative to how you seem to be thinking about this.
"Carmine has continually challenged mediocrity in this newsgroup. When limiting
beliefs have been offered, they have been challenged. When people who should know
better come here and use language and metaphor that is not empowering, he has
challenged it. When people have sought a
quick fix technique, Carmine has challenged them to embrace the attitude and
methodology of NLP and to treat people as individuals rather than subjects to run
some process on. And sometimes his technique is harsh, yes, but you have to ask
yourself. What's the outcome? Is it enough to just say, "I disagree, but I'll be
nice and tolerant so that you continue to offer this limiting nonsense to people,
particularly all the people new to NLP." Instead Carmine has said, I'm going to
try and offer the very best, represent NLP as a field of excellence. We as NLPers
should know how to use language, metaphor elegantly. We should be able to put
aside limiting beliefs, and at least in this context of NLP, assume that anything
is possible.".....
I could go on and on, but this is one view that is very different than yours
AND most importantly I could very easily go back and provide you mountains of
evidence from Carmine's previous postings over the past three years that would
support this view. Does that perspective tell the whole story? No, no more than
yours does. I can see your perspective and I can see this one, and a dozen others
on the subject. They can all be supported by the "evidence" and yet none of them
alone tell the whole story. Even all of them together are a weak approximation of
the whole story.
And let me offer one more personal counter-example for you. During one period of
time, I attended 3 trainings in a 3 month period with Carmine. From the first
training to the third training it was not the same man. His ability to train, to
influence, to use metaphor, to use nested loops and non-verbal communication
CHANGED dramatically during that time. It became more elegant and refined..
I was constantly amazed at the new refinements he was making. These are mainly
behavioral changes I'm describing, maybe it doesn't address what you are
suggesting. I offer this as yet another perspective that you can consider. You
can integrate it, leave it as a separate but alternate description, or discard it
as nonsense all together. And of course you can factor in my outcomes if you
think you know them, my reliability, etc. I doubt you have enough information
based on this to do that, but then again I've been surprised before.
> Ummmm ... are you suggesting that Carmine is *trying* to change and grow???
> Now, *THAT* would be news! A lot of his former enemies would be both willing
> and trustworthy to bury the hatchet and work together with him if that were the
> case! What do you think people can do to help, beyond vowing secrecy and
> silence about his continuing faux pas? Isn't silence about a problem and
> covering it up called *enabling*??? Why should we grant an exception? Isn't
> there some more useful way to help Carmine than that traditionally desirable
> but counterproductive modality?
I'll just ignore this. I have never said much of what you are attributing to me
here. Since you are so into evidence, please go back and from what I wrote show
where I said we should be silent about anything. All I've done here is said,
Here's my experience, it's different than much of what is being said, consider it
too. Are you having trouble holding onto multiple descriptions? Does a new
description have to erase the old one? Does finding something nice to say about
something mean the person is perfect?
> Do you speak for him or yourself in asking for help for him?
I said, "people can grow and change." That's all I said. The rest is again your
additions and translation of what I said and does not in any way reflect my
thinking. Are you intending to distort what I'm saying so drastically or do you
just not know you are doing it?
> >look for the best while protecting yourself as you feel that you need to, >and
> move on.
>
> ... Thus overlook the bad, and move on -- forget about its existence?
If you say so, I really would never advocate that.
> You say "protection" as if people *do* need to be protected from things ...
> like maybe Carmine, for example. Say! What makes you think people haven't
> been *doing* that? Please expound on this question if you have the
> inclination.
I was thinking specifically more of another trainer took a training with. He
installed so much nonsense I could hardly do anything useful with the skills I had
learned previously. It took me several months, no probably more like 6 months to
fully filter out a lot of what I accepted. Partly it was my fault because I went
in with the intention of swallowing fully this trainer and his skills. I found
out I had a lot to learn about filtering out the junk. Most of it turned out to
be junk. I went in knowing what I was doing, most people didn't. Most of those
people are still walking around with that nonsense as part o their world view.
Does that clarify what I meant?
> >Since neither of us are saying anything new here, let's move on to >something
> more interesting..
> >
> >Loren
>
> I understand. Something is stopping you from moving on ...
No, you don't understand, but since you have concluded that you do, there's
probably little arguing that will help.
> ... something is stopping Carmine from change and growth.
How would you or I know?
> We can and should move on to the question of what that evidence *means*. Feel
> free to join in, when you are able.
The evidence doesn't MEAN anything outside of a context. Do you want to determine
here publicly if Carmine is a great guy or not a great guy? No amount of evidence
collected in this medium is ever going to determine that. Do you want to
determine if you should take a training from Carmine, buy one of his products?
Maybe you have enough evidence, but your criteria, your interpretation, the
meaning you take from the information available is personal to you and specific to
your purposes.
In fact I believe you have already made your conclusions. Unless I misunderstood,
you made it pretty clear what the evidence means to you. Further discussion with
you is probably pointless. Not only that, with each post I make you continue to
attempt to distort my words to support your point of view. It's tiresome and
non-productive. I'm satisfied with what I've offered. People who are able to
stay open and can read this nonsense at least have something to think about, and
can weigh my experiences against the other stuff that is being written here. Why
don't you let other people come to their own conclusions based on the "evidence."
If you have some personal experience that hasn't already been brought forward here
with Carmine or some other training, or some book, or product, why don't you share
that AS INFORMATION and allow others to decide what it means to them?
Take care of yourself,
Loren
Patrick E. Merlevede, M.Sc
laughter wrote:
>
> Carmine Baffa's behavior in this newsgroup has been his most
> *effective* advertisement. The message sent out loud and clear is
> avoid this trainer in my opinion.
Well, don't underestimate the power of bad publicity.
1) Maybe people will want to check out how bad he really is!
2) There is a saying: "better bad publicity than no publicity"
3) And then there is the effect of negative wording: When considering to
"not follow a training", your brain has to start considering following
is
Patrick E.C.Merlevede, M.Sc
Tel: +32 (75) 87.08.52 -- e-mail: Patr...@compuserve.com
(knowledge of NLP up to trainer's level)
--------------------------
Visit Merl's World on NLP!
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PatrickM/nlp_home.htm
- NLP books (over 90 reviews of NLP books + a set of related books);
- NLP trainers (over 250 institutes - WORLDWIDE, including links!);
- a FAQ on NLP (started in 1994 on CompuServe).
Visit the site of NLP in Belgium!
http://nlpbelgium.home.ml.org
-this site contains some material I use for an NLP introduction
(Mainly in Dutch (ready) - French & English still need translation
)
NEW! The site of "7 lessons in emotional intelligence"
English opening on 5 July 1998 - French opening on 14 July 1998
http://7EQ.home.ml.org
Matthew Turco
Šand while I was sitting there, I began wondering if "any" abstract,
quasi-intellectual argument could ever be "won", or do the participants
just get so lost in their undefinable nominalizations that they eventually
forget what the original intention was. Perhaps only then do they allow
themselves to get on with their livesŠ
nm...@panam1.panam.edu
this summer 2nd semester and i would like to know if i could count on you
people for advice thanks nora
PStuart
nora writes:
You can count on us for advice, as well as many other things... whether it
will be useful advice is another story. ;)
93 93/93
Phil
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Paradigm Shift! -- http://members.aol.com/para93/
Phil's Magick Page -- http://members.aol.com/rbcfpstu/
Or go to keyword.com and enter "magick", "hypnosis", or "paradigm"
Andy Nonymous
Turco) wrote:
>Šand while I was sitting there, I began wondering if "any" abstract,
>quasi-intellectual argument could ever be "won", or do the participants
>just get so lost in their undefinable nominalizations that they eventually
>forget what the original intention was. Perhaps only then do they allow
>themselves to get on with their livesŠ
That's pretty good. You just described every Usenet debate I've ever
seen! Pre-flame, anyway, since every heated Usenet debate must ignite
into a seething flame-fest before it dies (yes, and later arises from
its ashes and starts again). ;)
ro...@seduction.com
ana...@dur.mindspring.com (Matthew Turco) wrote:
>
> Sand while I was sitting there, I began wondering if "any" abstract,
> quasi-intellectual argument could ever be "won",
Wouldn't that depend on how you define "won"? If the argument causes another
to see things in a way different from how they came in, then maybe there is a
"victor". Mostly Usenet arguments are dick-waving, chest-thumping,
gorilla-dust- throwing.
> Matthew
>
> --
> Anakin's Brain website - http://www.anakin.com
> - - intelligence, accelerated learning, and more
> The Pretender Training Site - http://www.anakin.com/pretend.html
> - - the science behind the show, especially the skill of modeling
>
v...@monad.net
back when the American Medical Association was struggling with
hypnosis as a "medical" treatment di a study on the dangers of
hypnosis.
They reported that they found no dangers from hypnosis save one.
Sometimes hypnosis exaggerated negative qualitites in the
personality of the *hypnotist*.
Regards,
Michael
DiRGe0513
>This thread reminds me of a story a colleague told. Apparently,
>back when the American Medical Association was struggling with
>hypnosis as a "medical" treatment di a study on the dangers of
>hypnosis.
>
>They reported that they found no dangers from hypnosis save one.
>Sometimes hypnosis exaggerated negative qualitites in the
>personality of the *hypnotist*.
>
>Regards,
>
>Michael
Hee, hee!
Now *THAT'S* a contribution!!!
I think you just made the only lasting one for weeks or more, here, Mike!
Two spirals up!
ro...@seduction.com
Loren Larsen <lla...@raleigh.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> I posted for two reasons: 1) To offer my personal
> counter-examples to the generalizations he was offering and 2) To say, "Hey not
> everyone is having these kinds of experiences. You can train with Carmine, have
> fun, learn a lot, and be respected as a human being." It has happened with me,
> and continues to happen so far as I know with people who have taken trainings more
> recently.
>
>
God, why am I getting myself sucked back into this?
1. Loren; have you considered that people's behavior can change and detiorate
over time? That what might have been merely a trickle of dirt when you trained
with this person, has now become a thunderous avalanche as more and more once
close supporters DEFECT from his camp, ALL of them telling some very nasty
horror stories?
2. Take the analogy(and I mean ANALOGY! I am NOT, for the record, accusing
Baffa of any such thing..this is a METAPHOR ONLY!) of a child-molesting
parent. He might, for whatever reasons, leave a certain child intact. Does
that mean the child's view that "daddy" is innocent and the other kids ought
to shut up, is a clear one?
3. In his most recent training, THE COPS HAD TO BE CALLED FOR CHRISTS SAKE!
The students of mine who once trained with him have ALL dropped out, with one
exception, because they've come to see the guy as he truly is.
4. His own closest supporter, the person who did his marketing for him, LEFT
his camp in disgust.
Maybe where there's smoke, there is fire?
I find it intellectually dishonest of you to continue to refuse to even
CONSIDER the possibility that what I and other's have said about Baffa even
possibly MIGHT be true. It's just too difficult for you and would create too
much dissonance in your mind for you to handle. It's just easier for you to
shut your eyes and completely deny all of it, without realizing that MAYBE
the person we are discussing has detiorated over time as his own personal
issues press against his ability to teach and accurately see the results he
gets or doesn't get for his students?
ro...@seduction.com
Loren Larsen <lla...@raleigh.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Would you agree that there are plenty of other ways of looking at this?
I guess so. If someone at the party, whips out his dick, pisses in the punch
bowl, fucks the dog, and craps on the floor, we might not HAVE to say he's an
outta control asshole. Maybe he planned it all along to subtly test and
callibrate our responses to pattern-breaking behavior.
Then again, maybe he's just an asshole.
Consider
> this, rather than simply classifying the behavior as, X or Y (in your case X and Y
> would be boorish and childish). Could you at least begin by observing the
> behavior in context with regard to outcome?
Ha ha. Maybe the only outcome is for the maniac to vent. And the maniac has
got YOU so bamboozled that you seek a higher meaning in every fart, belch and
eructation the maniac produces. Which makes HIM a maniac, but you a f_ _ l.
Maybe you have done that, maybe not.
> Myself I would prefer to take what is offered, see what I can learn from it, and
> discard the rest. And for me, Carmine has offered and continues to offer much
> that I can learn from. Has there been anything in his posts that you could learn
> from?
It's a leap to assume that because a person can make good posts, that he
therefore knows how to train or can be trusted to do so. The skill-sets are
NOT the same in any way, shape or form. C'mon, Larsen. ....this is such a
HUGE howler in logic that you've got to admit it.
>
> You act as if it is your God given right to draw conclusions...And it is, but is
> it really the most useful thing to do here?
It sure ain't useful for Baffa, which seems to be your outcome: what serves
Baffa best? How can we give folks THAT and ONLY that interpretation and blame
them if they try to have any other?
>
> You'll find what you are looking for...There is evidence of almost anything you
> want to find. I can easily look at the same evidence and find an incredible
> quanity of useful information about NLP, the attitude and methodology behind it,
> etc. If I were to draw conclusions looking at only that I would say Carmine is
> incredibly gifted in this field, and I should get my butt down there and take some
> trainings with the guy.
Someone can make intelligent posts and that proves they know how to train? At
best it proves they can write good articles, or re-write/plagiarize from other
sources. What it in the WORLD does it prove about their ability to train?
Can you say, "cognitive dissonance"???????
>
> >
> >
> You could look at the evidence that there are people who have
> trained with Carmine and wouldn't train with him again and you could look at the
> evidence that there are many people who would say he's an absolute artist in the
> field and one of the best trainers in the world. It depends on who you talk to
Indeed, yes it does. It does....and isn't it interesting that those with the
most NLP experience, e.g. Rex, me, Vizzini, etc. all universally PAN the
guy?(Oh..I see..we have a monetary axe to grind. Well, considering that I
send TONS of business to Rex, John Lavalle and Bandler and do NOT train or
certify in NLP, so therefore am not in competition with Baffa......)
>
> Sheez, even now they are continuing to come up with new stuff about Kennedy's
> assasination. They are re-writing greek and roman History as new information
> becomes available? Do you really think YOU have even a smattering of all the
> information available on this subject or anything else?
Wow! What a reframe! So..because we aren't sure about Kennedy's
assasination, we can ignore the evidence of our own senses about what is
going on with Baffa....wow....what a great, co-dependent enabler you'd make
for a drunk or drug-abuser!
DADDY isn't really drunk and beating us because we don't know who killed
Kennedy!
>
>
> Actually I think that's you suggesting that. What I said was "allow people to
> change and grow." Maybe you don't believe it, but it happens. It's harder to see
> when you jump to conclusions about people right off the bad...You tend to only
> gather evidence that supports the conclusion.
Absolutely! Some folks grow IN THE WRONG DIRECTION! Maybe you OUGHT to go
take a training, Loren, and see where Baffa is at today as opposed to when
YOU trained with him?
IF he's so hot these days, why did the hotel he was in have to call the
cops on him in his last training in Atlanta? Sounds like a person outta
control to me.....but I'm sure he was just testing his outcome...to see how
fast the police could get there.
You see, once the Guru has tricked you into finding a higher meaning for
even the LOWEST behavior, it means you'll only see behavior as "higher" no
matter HOW scummy he acts. This is a classic street-con game, Loren, and
Baffa has pulled it on you!
>
> "Carmine has continually challenged mediocrity in this newsgroup. When limiting
> beliefs have been offered, they have been challenged. When people who should know
> better come here and use language and metaphor that is not empowering, he has
> challenged it. When people have sought a
> quick fix technique, Carmine has challenged them to embrace the attitude and
> methodology of NLP and to treat people as individuals rather than subjects to run
> some process on. And sometimes his technique is harsh, yes, but you have to ask
> yourself. What's the outcome? Is it enough to just say, "I disagree, but I'll be
> nice and tolerant so that you continue to offer this limiting nonsense to people,
> particularly all the people new to NLP." Instead Carmine has said, I'm going to
> try and offer the very best, represent NLP as a field of excellence. We as NLPers
> should know how to use language, metaphor elegantly. We should be able to put
> aside limiting beliefs, and at least in this context of NLP, assume that anything
> is possible.".....
Ha ha ha! Man, has he got you conned! Loren..your mind is really tied up in
a tight little package! You need to read "The Guru Papers: Masks of
Authoritarian Power." You'll find Baffa and his cons on every page!
>
> His ability to train, to
> influence, to use metaphor, to use nested loops and non-verbal communication
> CHANGED dramatically during that time. It became more elegant and refined..
> I was constantly amazed at the new refinements he was making. These are mainly
> behavioral ch
Hmmm.well, maybe he's changed in THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION? Possible, yes?
Loren....give me your address and I will GIFT you with a copy of the Guru
Papers...my treat. You really need to read it. No strings attached. Email me
with it, please and I will FED EX you my own personal copy and go and by
myself a new one...
The bottom line about Baffa is, he can NEVER see himself as being wrong. The
sad thing is he's tricked you into seeing him in the SAME way. This book will
explain the mechanism in such detail that even YOU will not be able to deny
it.
Get laid NOW!
ask me how!
http://www.seduction.com
"Seeing more deeply is no guarantee against one's mind becoming concomitantly
more clever at fooling itself"...the Guru Papers
Nancy Lebovitz
> Tom Vizzini <tviz...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Folks,
>>
>>
>> useful manner other than a string of repetitive dribbling metaphors that will
>> supposedly help...unconsciously. But NO concrete help. Lots of blatant unfounded
>> mind reading though....Baffa you are stuck in your own model and can't seem to
>> find your way out. Abusing people to make yourself look good won't work anymore.
>
>A.E. Von Voght calls "the Right Man". This refers NOT to political
>orientation, but to the notion that the "Right Man" must ALWAYS be right. He
>must NEVER admit to a mistake, an error, a misjudgment. To the Right Man,
>being "wrong" is a fate worse than death. He will villify, attack, evade,
>circumlocute, weave tales, ANYTHING to avoid saying the simple words, "I
>don't know" or "Whoops..I was wrong".
>
And his paragraphs are much too long, especially for Usenet.
> And so Tom, I believe what you are doing here is futile and a waste of
>energy. You will never, NEVER, ever, however you may try, get Mr. Baffa to
>EVER, EVER admit that he was mistaken, inappropriate, inaccurate,
>miscalculating, etc. Anything the "Right Man" tries that clearly does NOT
>match his intended outcome gets reframed as "just a test to see how you (or
>the group or an individual person) will respond.
>
Nonetheless, I recommend leaving the possibility open that Baffa might
change.
--
Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)
May '98 calligraphic button catalogue available by email!