Is it? How?
Well before the events under discussion I began seeing Tony in a different light. It was a while after I attended the Mastery seminar. During that time, several things became apparent.
After Robbins, I became curious about where he learned all that stuff and started eating up all the NLP I could get my hands on and went to a number of seminars.
Tony is good for making a big noise and getting people introduced to NLP. A lot of people graduate beyond him to other things.
As for being constructive in this conversation: take a look at Tony if you want, but there is much more and better out there.
It was interesting for me to hear from Stephen Gilligan that Milton Erickson had his reservations about Grinder and Bandler's approach. Gilligan gave NLP quite a scathing critique at the NLP Master Practitioner I attended. I found it incredibly stimulating. As a result I moved away from NLP and towards all sorts of other interesting directions.
Now I sort of balance on the fence between approaches. I see NLP as useful, but not the end all be all I used to believe it was.
*shrug*
I think pointing out some of Tony's obvious flaws might save some people the time and disappointment. Just go to the source and cut out the middle-man. I feel that this is a constructive thing.
[This message has been edited by babayada (edited January 20, 2005).]
