`  :Headley.  :#you are assuming there is a problem related to disagreement within NLP.  :#you are calling groups within NLP tribes or sects, and people representing them ``shamen``, please don't hype your view, how about a little rationality?. :#I'm glad to see that you do consider a web search valid for inferring some general trends (which contradicts what you said earlier when it showed no support for Engrams), and there are certainly lots of different trainings - I'm VERY interested in what you consider key differences in what they teach (and I'm sure it would help the article) - because from what I've read they share a great amount of core teachings (principles, presuppositions, approaches, processes), though they often apply it in different ways.  :#yes there are also disagreements, it's a weakness of the field that I agree wholeheartedly with - some groups probably make wild claims (though no-one has found a link to show it yet - except via secondary sources), others are quite academic, and training quality varies.  :#there are no non-promotional editors at present (except perhaps Voice-Of-All?) - you are promoting against NLP probably more strongly that we're promoting for NLP, and :#the research often focuses on a wild claim... it would be a shame not to represent what NLP groups claim in common (plus noting differences) ... instead just working with the pieces that have been researched so far... people wouldn't realise that PRS is a small component, nor that it is not taught as researched )  :   `