Eidectic memory reprocessing EMR

[Dreamweaver]

I have just read a recent copy of Access, the ABH and ABNLP journel. The artical on EMR. Please, give me a break, this is nothing more than another variation on the fast phobia cure. and another rip off of Richard Bandler's technology without giving him due respect and credit.
There is nothing new in this. I myself have used this "variation" many times without having to resort to the ego polishing of believing I have invented something new.
Allow me to quote.. "EMR is based on memory information processing theory, current neuro science research and studies with survivors diagnosed with PTSD"
Rubbish. it was stolen from Bandler.

This is only my second post, I wonder if I'll be permitted to keep pointing out
other "truths" in the future.:mad:

[skip]

Dreamweaver,

Why would you presuppose that you would be not allowed to post further?

Is that often your experience?

If you will check the archives you will find this has been discussed at length.

skip

[Terry]

To add to Skip's comment, exactly what "truth" is it that you are expounding upon? I haven't read the magazine you reffer to, and have no intention of purchasing it to satisfy a very minor curiosity.......On the other hand, since you feel it important to post, you might at least make it clear to the rest of us why you have this concern......I believe Bandler and the rest are all capable of defending their findings against those who would steal from them, but at the same time, once you teach something, it is common practise for pupils to feel free to expound and expand on what they have learned, or perhaps teach it in some manner they feel makes it simpler to learn.....This is not theft, and nothing to get you knicker in a knot about.Terry

[Dreamweaver]

Well, that just about sums up most of what is going on regarding so called new discoveries, first of all create something that has already been created, give it another name and put a copyright symbol next to it. Then convince yourself that its been made up bu you.
There is nothing wrong with advancing existing technologies but for christs sake give credit where its due.
If this does not make sense to you then you must be one of the people who've convinced themselves that they are also co-devolopers of NLP.

Skip, my "presupposition" that I may not be allowed to post or that the post might be removed comes from reading the agreement before joining this forum.

You ask if it is often my experience, the answer is no, but then again there's always a first time.

[skip]

Dreamweaver,

I asked because of your statement of expectation, presumably to innoculate you against any such action, AND the provocative way you chose to start out your two posts.

Sometimes people want their 'maiden speech' to be a good one instead of a 'brazen hussy' of one.

Be that as it may, it would still be of some benifit to you to take advantage of the archives, that way you would know that what you thought might be a controversial position was actually the general consensus, on this topic.

skip

[Dreamweaver]

Skip, I haven't yet looked at the archives and will be doing so, still, If this forum is to represent all opinions then my post is a valid one.

[skip]

True.

I havent rendered an opinion on the validity of your post. Merely on the presentation, and the better understanding you will acru when you avail yourself of the resource of the archives.

You will discover in the archives what I think of your position. :)

welcome,

skip

[Dreamweaver]

Skip, give me a clue, how do I find what you are writing about...I have looked in archives and can only find this thread.

[skip]

Check out a thread "Who is right" in the NLP section./

skip

[Merlin]

Dreamweaver,

What's your point?
I know you don't like the article, but so what?
Why do you come here to say so?

[Unregistered]

Dreamweaver,

If you are reffering to EMDR - eye-movement-desensitization-reprocessing, the one who claims to have "discovered" or "invented" the thing, is a former staff-member at John Grinders company in mid´80ties.

b@cause