Pages: 12Next
Current Page: 1 of 2
Compassionate Communication
Posted by: Bradbavarde ()
Date: February 07, 2010 04:43AM

lately, I have been bomarded with e-mails and now a request for donations via the post for a group called compassionate communication. Does anyone have any info on this group? They apprently hold large seminars for enhancing peaceful interactions among people.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Compassionate Communication
Posted by: corboy ()
Date: February 07, 2010 11:13AM

If this is the group founded by Marshall Rosenberg, it seems to have a good reputation.

If its a non profit, it would be odd if you were being innundated by emails for them.

Find out who is sending the e-mails. It may be someone other than the group you mention.

(If the group sending those emails to you has genuine respect for your wishes, they will demonstrate this by honoring your request that you not be sent any more e-mails. That would prove they're abiding by their own principles--by respecting your 'no' as 'no'.)

However, it is my opinion, grounded in 10 years spent in gandhian based peace groups, that nonviolent empathy based communication methods work only when all parties are mature and honest. And only work when, above all, no one has a hidden, manipulative agenda.

If you try to use nonviolent communication (whether its Rosenberg's method or someone elses) to deal with someone who lacks empathy, is manipulative, or is a high pressure sales person or recruiter and has not told you they plan to get you to buy something (hidden agenda), nonviolent ideology, that assumes all cards are on the table, and that all intentions are 'good' will put you at a grievous disadvantage.

In another discussion thread, The Anticult said that being polite and reasonable does not work when someone sees you as a mere object upon which to direct high pressure sales/recruitment tactics.

Here's a website that gives food for thought.


Some years ago, I was phoned by a sales rep for my internet service provider. The person wanted to sell me an upgrade.

I treated the sales rep as a person, knew he or she probably worked on a salary plus bonus system, and because I wasnt going to buy anything, was determined to be to the point and not waste the sales reps time.

So I replied, nicely, that I was happy with what I had and didnt want to change it.

My assumption was that the sales rep would respect my wishes, cross me off the list, be glad I had not wasted his time, then he'd go on to the next phone number.

Instead, the sales rep asked, 'What is holding you back?'

My polite refusal was not heard. Instead, my refusal was treated as an prompt, as a signal for the sales rep to try another strategy.

I suspected that the sales rep had been taught this as some form of verbal judo via a sales technique course, either company sponsored, or perhaps through private study.

I considered this disrespectful and decided to make it clearthat this was going to alienate at least one customer. So I bellowed into the phone,

'Nothing is holding me back. When I am ready to upgrade, I will choose to call you!!!'

Then I whammed down the receiver.

(Looking back, I wish I'd thought to say, 'Dont use that sales technique stuff on me. It is creepy and it is disrespectful of your customers.')

If I'd not done that, the sales rep woudlve had me keep talking and found ways to use the 'yes set' method and wear me down.

(You can use this yes yes yes method to put someone into a trance. Read these URLs)


I would refuse to take any nonviolent communication course unless the instructor can
tell you how to discern whether you are dealing with a person who is in good faith,
versus someone who sees you as an entity to hack into.

In the latter case, a commitment to nonviolent education will set you up to be screwed, blued and tattooed.

If someone is playing a game using a marked deck, run th eother way. Dont stay in the game--or the conversational equivalent therof.

All this is my opinion. But..I stand by it.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/07/2010 11:28AM by corboy.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Compassionate Communication
Posted by: Bradbavarde ()
Date: February 07, 2010 11:54AM

Thanks for the great response. After doing some research, I was placed on the mailing list through someone I know and trust. Although I am not going to be taking any workshops, everything seems above board with this group

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Compassionate Communication
Posted by: corboy ()
Date: February 09, 2010 12:45AM

Thanks Brad.

It sounds like your pal had a good time with CC and got all fired up. I do the same when I find a great place to eat--you wanna tell everyone.

Still, a person may adore sushi and think their new sushi place is the greatest there is. But...not all of us are into sushi and that doesnt mean we are bad persons for saying 'not interested.'

For entertainment, I can offer a few more campfire tales of odd things that can happen in various good cause groups.

Another thing that can happen is that someone may get into a decent organization, and access and then mis use their membership list.

Sometimes this is innocent. There may be an untrained newbie at a CC office who is not following protocol and is pushing CC at people and naively violating internal guidelines by doing so. Sometimes folks who are new, excited, and all fired up, may proslytize.

Or, it may happen happen is that a decent organization fails to do a thorough background check, has someone who slips in under the wire, works for them just long enough to get access to their membership list, and then sells that list to someone else.

Around 1990/92, I crossed paths with a clever and troubled woman, who it turned out, was a problem drinker/serial crook. What made her brilliant was she targeted nice
people who were in good cause groups--groups of the kind that try to practice nonviolent communication and who operate by trust and honor system.

This lady wangled use of an apartment owned by one peace group, started attending our local Society of Friends (aka Quaker) meeting, and worked at yet another good cause group, that, in those far off and innocent days, was well funded.

She was so good at what she did that she could merely describe her hardships and, by her putting herself in these social groups, WE would offer her money. She'd learned to pick exactly the right social environment to swim in.

Upshot was, she stole the membership list from Good Cause Group #1, and ran up a humongous phone bill, which she didnt pay.

I was one of the nice people who gave her a serious sum of money, because I attended the Friends meeting where she cleverly circulated and told her hard luck story.

She embezzled tens of thousands of dollars from Good Cause Group #2 and after promising to turn herself in to the court, she skipped town. The judge issued a no bail warrant. Several members of the Friends meeting had been up with her all night comforting her before her ordeal in court the next day and were made to look like
utter fools when she pulled that shit.

I am not saying that this is how you wound up on the mailing list for a reputable organization.

But...I offer this as an example of how some groups of very kind people can be easily infiltrated and ripped off by opportunists, unless the group already knows how to run security checks and tests first to see who is OK vs who is manipulative.

Note: Another brilliant crook posed as someone active in Alcoholics Anonymous. A friend of mine who attended Codependents Anonymous said this guy showed up wearing a badge identifying him as a participant in an AA convention that was in town. He appeared at her CODA meeting.

It took several weeks before the members got troubled, compared stories and realized that the guy was 1) pandhandling them in corners during break 2) he was seen moments later, drinking cheap wine and laughing with the shit pants bums down at the
street corner. 3) He had conned another member into letting him sleep in a shed in her yard.

It takes a fricking genius to know how to select the right social setting to run a con.

Good hearted altruistic people who state right up front that they're into nonviolent communication need to be aware that some folks (a few, but important nonetheless) may see 'nonviolent' as a signal meaning 'soft target'.

Many years ago, Women Who Love Too Much was a popular title, and some of that material was valuable for everyone, regardless of gender.

What I remembered was a line in that book that went something like this: If you signal that you are willing to suffer, including to suffer for a good cause, that sends a powerful and attractive signal to an active addict, alcoholic or abuser.

People like that know that most persons cannot put up with thier stuff. Unconsciously, they are LOOKING for someone who is willing to put up with hardship.

Yet another tale from my foolish youth:

We had a peace group that set up a communal household. If you said you were an activist, you were free to spend the night. Total trust, total honor system, no background check.

Result: One guy showed up, saying he was a peace activist. Turned out he had a hobby of taking speed and stole a bunch of quite valuable items from the household.

Another guy appeared, saying he was from a fashionably oppressed group. He tried to proposition various women and had trouble understanding the word No. He crawled into one womans bed one night and her screams woke the house up.

Here is the hoot: When the rest of the household wanted to kick him out, another women got weird and contrarian and said Mr Roaming Hands needed healing and the peace house was the best place for him. After more arguing, the rest of the household
abandoned consensus method and kicked him out.

All you need is one member of a group to get peculiar and contrarian as that one woman did and that can block consensus decision making--even in a situation where
everyone else in the group wants to eject an intrusive creepeziod.

In that instance the household in crisis, and with high stakes, ditched its consensus ideology, reverted to majority vote/Roberts Rules of Order and 86d Mr Freehands.

Happy trails and dont forget to run background checks. It doesnt mean you're cynical, it means you're experienced and no ones fool.

And make sure more than one person signs off on cash withdrawals.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/09/2010 12:55AM by corboy.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Compassionate Communication
Posted by: skeptic ()
Date: February 11, 2010 12:06PM

I would refuse to take any nonviolent communication course unless the instructor can
tell you how to discern whether you are dealing with a person who is in good faith,
versus someone who sees you as an entity to hack into.

In the latter case, a commitment to nonviolent education will set you up to be screwed, blued and tattooed.

If someone is playing a game using a marked deck, run th eother way. Dont stay in the game--or the conversational equivalent therof.

All this is my opinion. But..I stand by it.

You are so right about the danger of using this kind of communication with someone who is not mature and honest, who has a hidden, manipulative agenda. Yours is an excellent post. I wish I'd known about this when I spent $$ on a couple sessions in an attempt to resolve a conflict with just the kind of person with whom this method will not work. Several years after the sessions I learned about conscienceless, ruthless people, and only then did I understand why the sessions were a waste of my time and money. I emailed the guy who facilitated the futile sessions, and he replied, "I have no insights to offer at this time about the more general question of NVC and people who demonstrate such behaviors" It amazed me. Do the nonviolent (compassionate) communication folks not know about the kinds of people with whom this method will not work? I learned too late. Thank you for your post.


Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/11/2010 12:07PM by skeptic.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Compassionate Communication
Posted by: Bradbavarde ()
Date: February 11, 2010 12:18PM

Thanks corboy for your interesting recounting of abuse in this area. It really is ashame that idividuals can operate on such a level. How sad also, that people with sound intentions think that non-violent communication methods will actually work with these creeps. Is it naiveté or studpidity?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Compassionate Communication
Posted by: corboy ()
Date: February 12, 2010 12:16AM

Dear Skeptic and Brad:

Have a look at this website. Its on workplace bullying. I think it gives insight
into a sector of the population for which Skeptic's trainer professed to have no insight.


Section Three lists qualities that serial bullies find irresistable.
Take a close look at that section--though dont forget the other material, either.

Then, ask how closely this matches up with persons committed to peace, social justice--and committed to teaching and learning nonviolent communication.

I would see nonviolent communication as just one tool among many.

Use it--but expect a competant trainer to know and to acknowledge that there are situations where nonviolent communication can be used against you by persons in bad faith--which means knowing when you are in a situation where you must stop using that method.

If nonviolent communication is taught as one method among many, with no grand world view that you must buy into, fine. If taught as one tool among many, you should be taught to recognize what persons and groups can be negotiated with using nonviolent commication and when to recognize you are not with that kind of group or person, and when to abandon use of nonviolent commication and better protect yourself by using a different model, including when necessary support from an attorney who cheerfully and competantly utilizes the adversarial model.

Here's a problem. If you are also taught a total world view along with the nonviolent communication, and if this total world view refuses to acknowledge the presence of persons who are in bad faith, then that world view, plus the nonviolent communication, will leave you only able to work with persons who play by that same rule book. You will be left defenseless in relation to persons in bad faith.

(Now, if a group is upfront and says that death, economic disadvantage, and being ripped off by crooks who take advantage of your nonviolent commitment and even see you as a mark because of your beliefs--if the training group admits these really
are the prices one pays to live nonviolently in a violent world, and says this UP FRONT--at least you can decide for yourself if you want to live this way--or impose this burden on your family. A group that teaches that martyrdom is part of the deal at least acknowledges the presences of bullies and violent people who aint going to change. This martyrdom career works best if you are single and celibate, BTW. )

Worse, you may attract persons in bad faith. Like that gal who serially ripped off that cluster of good cause entities and who was shrewd enough to make the rounds of the local Quaker meetings.

Imagine running a casino and its management refusing to entertain the possiblity that someone will try to sneak in packs of marked cards or utilize other ways to game the system.

Ive heard that in Vegas, casinos ban persons who have been ID'd as subverting the house odds.

The person who said he or she had no insights to offer about persons capable and willing to exploit nonviolent communication is the equivalent of a casino manager who fails to imagine that cardsharps are out there.

Am I cynical?

No. I am experienced.

I trusted ideology more than what my gut radar was trying to tell me, and allowed some unpleasant people to get into my head--and I had to pay the therapy bills to regain access to my gut instincts.


How sad also, that people with sound intentions think that non-violent communication methods will actually work with these creeps. Is it naiveté or studpidity?

Not being able to get into anyone's head and directly see motives or what assumptions are at work, I dont know if in some cases this is naivete or stupidity.

There may be a special hazard if a person, especially one who is committed to nonviolent communication (no matter what ideology is behind the methodology used) actually defines him or herself in these terms:

'I am a compassionate person.'
'I am a forgiving person.'

First, why the need to define one's identity that way? Thats actually an area of attachment.

Two, if you define yourself in that way--a serial bully or manipulator can use this against you.


Two comments continuing discussion on World Wide Happiness site.


The dialogue centers on whether the hurtful leadee can change.


Let us look again at the list of qualifications that a bully finds irresistable, especially if that person is a serial bully.


Once the target is gone, there's a period of between 2-14 days, then a new target is selected and the process starts again (bullying is an obsessive compulsive behaviour and serial bullies seem unable to survive without a target on to whom they can project their inadequacy and incompetence whilst blaming them for the bully's own failings)

Corboy asks: does this resemble the profile of someone who can be inspired to change by forgivness?

The qualities of kindness and forgivenesss manifested by the persons in the World Wide Happiness discussion show up on the list of qualities that, according to the British bullying website, make you an attractive target for a serial bully-.

Qualities that make you an attractive target for a serial bully are not qualities that inspire such a person to stop being a bully!

(again, this is a tiny excerpt of a larger list)


3) Personal qualities that bullies find irresistible
Targets of bullying usually have these qualities:

honesty and integrity (which bullies despise)

you're trustworthy, trusting, conscientious, loyal and dependable

a well-developed integrity which you're unwilling to compromise

you're always willing to go that extra mile and expect others to do the same

imaginative, creative, innovative

idealistic, optimistic, always working for improvement and betterment of self, family, the employer, and the world

ability to think long term and to see the bigger picture

sensitivity (this is a constellation of values to be cherished including empathy, concern for others, respect, tolerance etc)

slow to anger

helpful, always willing to share knowledge and experience

giving and selfless

difficulty saying no

diligent, industrious


strong sense of honour

an inability to value oneself whilst attributing greater importance and validity to other people's opinions of oneself (eg through tests, exams, appraisals, manager's feedback, etc)

low propensity to violence (ie you prefer to resolve conflict through dialogue rather than through violence or legal action)

a strong forgiving streak (which the bully exploits and manipulates to dissuade you from taking grievance and legal action)

a desire to always think well of others

being incorruptible, having high moral standards which you are unwilling to compromise

high expectations of those in authority* and a dislike of incompetent people in positions of power who abuse power (Anyone who honors the guru role will have some of this)

a tendency to self-deprecation, indecisiveness, deference and approval seeking

('Approval seeking, as in giving a damn what color or level you occupy on Ken Wilber's classification scheme. Corboy)

low assertiveness

quick to apologise when accused, even if not guilty (this is a useful technique for defusing an aggressive customer or potential road rage incident)

a strong sense of fair play and a desire to always be reasonable*
(Bullies pretend to be reasonable, often when in public but show their primitive side in private, as soon as they figure no authority figure is looking. They are driven by personal needs which are unreasonable. A favorite bully tactic is to get all sweet and reasonable suggest you are the one being crazy if you start setting limits or want to end the relationship. Corboy. )

high coping skills under stress, especially when the injury to health becomes apparent
a tendency to internalise anger rather than express it

and here is what the bullying site describes as target selection by the bully.

Does this look like a pattern that can be solved through reason or by forgiveness?

The typical sequence of events is:
the target is selected using the criteria above, then bullied for months, perhaps years
eventually, the target asserts their right not to be bullied, perhaps by filing a complaint with personnel

personnel dept interview the bully, who uses their Jekyll and Hyde nature, compulsive lying, and charm to tell the opposite story (charm has a motive - deception)
it's one word against another with no witnesses and no evidence, so personnel take the word of the senior employee - serial bullies excel at deception and evasion of accountability

the personnel department are hoodwinked by the bully into getting rid of the target - serial bullies are adept at encouraging conflict between people who might otherwise pool negative information about them

I would add another feature to the list of characteristics that serial bullies find attractive in a potential target:

The person who defines his or her own identity as forgiving or compassionate.

("I am a forgiving person. I am a compassionate person")

A great way to get trained in this kind of identity is growing up in a family where there is ongoing disfunction and one of the kids, in this case you, gets selected to be the forgiving, capable person who puts up with hurtful crazy behavior in others. You are trained to make endless allowances for some other family member's behavior and are put in this enabling/forgiving/obligatory compassion role before you are old enough to

* Have sufficient autonomy to decide if you want that role or not.

*The persons who put you in that role are your parents or caregivers and you
are little and depend on them for your survival so you dont have any ability
to protest or exit the role when its too much for you to bear

* You lose touch with whether that role is too much for you to bear by stifling your
actual feelings and by getting praised for how forgiving and compassionate you are, when you dont even have a choice to do otherwise but put up with stuff beyond your
age capacity.

* You are put in this obligatory forgiviness role and are praised for it before you are even old enough to have conscious thought.

You equate your sense of self and worth with ablity to rationalize and even celebrate
horrid frightening behavior by persons who have parental role and authority.

Result is, you can emerge as a very nice and wonderful person, but with qualities that also make you an attractive target for serial bullies and a long term servant to serial bullies, unless you can find a way to get conscious of this.

You guys should take a look at this article which I have been posting all over the place on It helped me understand a lot of things I went through.

This is from an article on workplace bullying. All of it is worth reading, but, with your interest in nonviolent communication in mind, pay close attention to section 3, qualities that bullies find irresistable.


In my opinion, the take home lesson is that there is a small but lamentably important sector of the population that naive nonviolence trainers fail to take into account--those persons who are serial bullies and who are quite prepared to exploit the nonviolent model and who if they are hard cases, would actually be attracted to persons who have a commitment to nonviolence communication.

BTW in cases of divorce, there are times when they recommend mediation.

Mediation is fine if all parties are in good faith and are mature and grounded people, despite the pain of the situation.

But if one of the parties is in bad faith, mediation does not work.

Go to the site, go visit the divorce forum and do a search on 'mediation'
and see what comes up.

PS I have not been divorced but have read and heard some war stories.

Will tell you one thing that eventually annoyed me in peacenik circles.

If you raised some misgiving, such as what to do if attacked in a dark alley, you'd be told some story about what a hero in the peace movement did.

Or they quote you Gandhi, or Dorothy Day, or Martin Luther King, or the Berrigans.

Later on, I decided that this was similar to the use of thought stopping cliches--tell a story about some saint who is dead and unquestionable.

Again, for a different take on Gandhi, please get a copy of Arthur Koestlers Lotus and the Robot. It is not one of his better known books. But he gives some intimate family background on MK Gandhi. There was emotional violence in that household.

Miller's biography of Dorothy Day has, sprinkled through it, some unsettling information
about the sufferings of both Dorothy Days own daughter and the man she married, as they tried to follow the early Catholic Worker teachings on living on the land--and no birth control. Years later, Dorothy Days daughter refused interviews. Her own marriage
broke down under the strain, because the hardships of living on the farm and having
a large number of little kids (no birth control) exhausted the daughter and especially her husband, who eventually left the family.

All I see, and this is my own opinion, and no one needs to follow it---all I see is this:

If any one is committed to nonviolent communication, whether it is old school Ghandian satyagraha, or a newer model, and that trainer refuses to consider that there do exist persons who are manipulative and in bad faith--I would say take it as a signal to get out and hire someone tough enough to be your advocate when dealing with
with a bad faith, slippery person---someone like an attorney who is on your side,
handles all the filings before the deadlines and knows how to deal with manipulative people and plug up all the rat holes.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/12/2010 12:33AM by corboy.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Compassionate Communication
Posted by: corboy ()
Date: February 12, 2010 12:28AM

PS: If you are up to it, Skeptic, you might consider e-mailing the bullying website
to the trainer who professed to have no insights.

Might be nice if you could get your money back.

It might be fun to suggest that this kind of nonviolence training could be setting people up to become bully-fodder, and might actually entrench dysfunctional behaviors learned
as a child who grew up enabling drunks, addicts, or abusers.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Compassionate Communication
Posted by: skeptic ()
Date: February 16, 2010 01:06AM

Hi Corboy,

Good idea to email the bullying info to the trainer. It's been a long time since I did the sessions. I did them in 2003, but it wasn't until 2005 when I started figuring out the characteristics of the other person in the conflict. I emailed the trainer in 2005, but got no reply. I emailed again in 2006. Still, no reply. Uncannily, in 2008 I inadvertently emailed an email I had in my draft folder, and then got a reply! By then I had given up. In his reply in 2008 he also wrote: "I don't at the moment remember our sessions [. . . ] but I regret in any way my work with you was not helpful or even seemed unsafe. I value your feedback and what you have come to learn about such issues and I will integrate it into my thinking and awareness."

I guess I could email the bully webpage at this late date. I don't know if the guy is still with the organization. Also, the bully webpage is one of the things I found that started alerting me to the problem with the person I was dealing with. I went on to read "Without Conscience" and "The Sociopath Next Door". I had never dealt with such people before. I am all too aware of them now!

Thanks again, and you make EXCELLENT points. If I do email the trainer, I'd like to send your comments!


P.S. I just checked and he has a webpage:

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2010 01:08AM by skeptic.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Compassionate Communication
Posted by: corboy ()
Date: March 20, 2010 10:17PM

This from a thread discussion on advanced covert sales tech


From The Anticult


Yes, the language in these threads can be direct and blunt, but its important to be direct and blunt, to cut through the mountain of bullshit and misdirection in this area.


Where specifically in these threads, has there ever been a "conspiracy" around every corner? Why say such a thing?
On the contrary, conspiracy theories are universally debunked. Where in the James Ray case has there been a conspiracy theory?
Why say such a thing, about threads that contain important information that is not contained anywhere else?
There are more FACTS in some of these threads, than in EVERY book ever written by an LGAT Guru in their entire career. Example being Byron Katie, and many others.

posters here have been on the other side of the fence, and have seen these guys in action first hand.
Blunt direct and even harsh language is essential. The flowerly or overly neutral objective language found in mainstream journalism, is not going to cut it, and certainly won't help real people deal with what is going on. Of course it has its place, but its very superficial.
And even taking the strict Skeptic Carl Sagan approach is very helpful, but its not enough.
When dealing with advanced covert persuasion, there is never going to be complete information, and there is only so much time to analyze information, and so much of it is disinformation.
So a person has to make as accurate judgements as possible, with incomplete information, sometimes when they are up to their neck in it.
To break through the deep programming contained in many of these covert persuasion methods, it takes some blunt, forceful, and harsh language. That is deliberate, to cut through the bullshit.

I have placed this quotation from Anticult in the Compassionate Communication thread for the following reason:

My concern is if someone who does not know about these methods of covert persuasion, a good kind person, becomes committed to Compassionate Communication and its methods, they may be naked and unable to protect their own 'boundaries should they ever cross paths with anyone who uses covert techniques of persuasion, because if someone becomes deeply committed to Compassionate
Communication and even sees it as a personal spiritual practice, rather than as one tool among many for communication--such a person might have assertiveness
trained out of them, the way some drugs may compromise healthy immune system function and leave a person more vulnerable to opportunistic infections.

If you do this google Byron Katsearch you see some areas where there is an overlap between the worlds of some famous technicians of covert persuasion and those interested in varieties of nonviolent communication

Nonviolent Communication was created by Marshall B Rosenberg


Study the photograph of the cover of Marshall B Rosenberg's 'Non-Violent Communication a Language of Life'

The endorsers are William Ury and Arun Gandhi, but also include Deepak Chopra
John Gray, Jack Canfield and Anthony Robbins

Note: Ury has written a manual on how to say no in a positive way, which means his book on how to reach agreement is balanced with a book on how to set boundaries.

Arun Gandhi has worked hard for many years in conflict resolution using MK Gandhi's methods.

Let us run Google on some other names.

Anthony Robbins--maybe there is an obscure peace activist by that name.

But Google, maybe through a technical glitch brought up this


Jack Canfield


John Gray (unless there is an obscure peace activist who duplicates that same name)


and some combinate in various ways NVC with other methods


But followers appear to be cross fertilizing and they may be producing some interesting overlap.

If, after you commit yourself to living by the principles of nonviolent communication are you going to be able to even THINK in terms of the kind of covert persuasion methodology discussed for us by buffman and The Anticult.

Especially if a trusted friend urges you to cross breed nonviolent communication by attending a workshop by someone who uses LGAT methods?

I put this into the ordinarly google search slot this morning.

"certified facilitator" "byron katie" NVC rosenberg

Read the citations



Results 1 - 8 of about 8 for "certified facilitator" "byron katie" NVC rosenberg. (0.21 seconds)

NVC & TW3 04.20.08Marshall Rosenberg's language of compassion, to help you bring more clarity ...
Carol L. Skolnick, M.A., Certified Facilitator of The Work of Byron Katie ...
[] - - Cached - Similar pages

Inquiry and EmpathyNVC Santa Cruz presents: Inquiry and Empathy. The Work of Byron Katie meets ...
Rosenberg's language of compassion, to help you bring more clarity into your ...
[] - - Cached - Similar pages

State of Grace DocumentBecome a Certified Facilitator Teach the concept to others .... NVC — Non-
Violent Communication/Compassionate Communication ...
[] - 59k - Cached - Similar pages

FF Brochure 2010_Final with tweaks.inddNVC, Marshall Rosenberg, to Findhorn. Income related price: £695 / £895 / £1045
...... Kathy White is a certified facilitator of. The Work of Byron Katie™. ...
[] - - Cached - Similar pages

The Work of Byron Katie Forum: The Work 101 -- For The Purpose of ...I have been compiling stuff on The Work of Byron Katie for quite some time and
wanted to put it .... I attended one NVC meeting and found it deeply moving. ...
[] - 37k - Cached - Similar pages

Esalen catalog 09aNVC was developed by Dr. Marshall. Rosenberg over a period of thirty years.
...... Kathy Harris is a certified facilitator of. The Work of Byron Katie, ...
[] - Similar pages

Whole Person Calendar - March 2009MIND ON PAPER: An Afternoon of Practicing The Work of Byron Katie®, presented by
Susan Balsam, Certified Facilitator of The Work®, a simple, stress-reducing ...
[] - Similar pages

Whole Person Calendar - February 2009Geared to those who have attended at least one of the Basic NVC workshops with
...... THE WORK OF BYRON KATIE®, with certified facilitator Hanna Levinson, ...
[] - Similar pages

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/20/2010 10:26PM by corboy.

Options: ReplyQuote
Pages: 12Next
Current Page: 1 of 2

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
This forum powered by Phorum.