2010年4月29日 星期四
2010年4月25日 星期日
修女也性侵 愛爾蘭教會醜聞無人聞問
(法新社)2010年4月26日 星期一 17:20
（法新社都 柏林 26日電） 愛爾蘭 天主教會性侵醜聞曝光，動搖教會根本。1名率先挺身而出的受害者，至今仍能憶起童年時代受虐的驚恐心情。
陶艾爾（Paddy Doyle）4歲被送到教會學校，自此受到嚴重侵害，直到38歲才有辦法跟人談起過去的恐怖經驗。
他接受法新社訪問，被問到為何普遍發生在愛爾蘭各地的這些虐待情況得以持續如此之久，他回憶道：「若透露任何一點事情，都會受到嚴厲懲罰。」
當年陶艾爾的母親因為癌症過世，父親接著又在他和2歲妹妹面前上吊身亡。愛爾蘭司法制度在1955年認定他「沒有適當監護人」。他被送到如今惡名昭彰的聖邁可孤兒院（St Michael's Industrial School），受到嚴重虐待和性侵。
他說：「他們是殘忍的施虐者，我們作夢都沒想過要說出去。你可能會因此沒飯吃，或是斷絕和其他孩子的互動。」
「因此你只能逆來順受。所有的孩子都未滿10歲，情況真的很糟。」
回想起天主教會在愛爾蘭的全盛時期，他說：「大家都噤聲不語。整個國家都是宗教掛帥：學校、醫院，有些人甚至說政府也是如此。」
「教會統管一切，幾乎決定所有事情。當時沒有非天主教經營的學校。」
「事實上，在20年前，若是學校董事會成員沒有教會人士，就無法開辦。」
陶艾爾隨即罹患1種叫做肌張力障礙（dystonia）的嚴重神經障礙疾病。他被送到多所教會醫院，接受他所謂的「手術實驗」。
他說：「我走著進去，出來時坐著輪椅。」他的雙腿再也沒有恢復行走能力。
當陶艾爾終於感到有能力揭露發生在自己身上的事情時，他擔心別人會怎麼反應。他回憶道：「我坐在電腦前面，跟它說：『我想要告訴你一些事』，它沒有回答。」
最終他將所有苦痛磨難寫成The God Squad一書。
他聯繫的第1家出版商「說這本書很棒，但是要出版太冒險了」，但另1家獨立書商願意冒險，此書在1990年正式問世。
最初反應很平淡。他說：「大家都充耳不聞。愛爾蘭人心理上不想相信。」
人們似乎更有不相信的理由，因為陶艾爾在書中披露的侵害者並非男人，而是經營學校的修女。
他說：「很多人不敢相信女人也會施虐。」
陶艾爾的書不僅大賣，他還在書中教導受虐者如何克服恐懼。
政府隨後展開一系列調查，1950到1970年代許多教會機構有不同程度的施虐情形，教會也同謀掩蓋事實的整起真相才得以水落石出。（譯者：中央社戴雅真）990426
2010年4月23日 星期五
劉錡
http://the-sun.on.cc/cnt/news/20100423/photo/0423-00412-002p1g1.jpg
被告劉錡（左）還押候判。(資料圖片）
利誘12歲女童「執屋」非法性交
【本報訊】有二十三次案底中年漢，在公園向十二歲女童及其同伴自稱是三合會會員，並表示付錢請女童回家替他「執屋」，期間他與女童性交，女童事後不再理他，他反申索「掟煲費」。女童無奈叫十三歲女友人陪同再到他家，被告卻趁女童煮飯時強姦其友人。被告昨於高院承認強姦等四罪，還押至下月二十日判刑。
五十四歲被告劉錡，靠綜援維生，案底涉及毒品、三合會及搶劫等。他承認的四罪包括一項自稱三合會會員、兩項與未滿十三歲的事主C非法性交，及一項強姦事主W。
事主反被索「掟煲費」
案情指，被告去年六月十二日在安蔭邨球場遇上兩名讀中一的女事主C及W及其同伴，被告自稱是三合會會員，控制色情事業，並稱可給C三百元，要她當晚替其安蔭邨住所「執屋」。C執拾至凌晨，被告則看色情電影，期間二人兩次非法性交，被告事後只付C七十元。
C事後不再理會被告，被告卻反索「掟煲費」及命令C上門。C在同月十五日於W陪同下上門，被告命C煮飯，然後強姦W，事後更要W為他清潔身體。C在廚房聽到W的呼救聲，暗中發短訊着朋友報警，警方上門拘捕被告。 案件編號：HCCC 373/09
2010年4月8日 星期四
南非發現190萬年前人類骨骼化石印證進化論
2010-04-09
科學家在南非發現一百九十萬年前的人類骨骼化石，研究後認為這兩具化石的體型特徵處於古猿和現代人類的過渡階段，印證達爾文的進化論，有助解開人類進化之謎。
南非斯泰克方丹化石遺址有人類搖籃之稱，零八年八月在這裡出土的兩具人類骨骼化石是一男一女，估計男的是八至九歲的少年，女的大約是三十歲的成年人，但同樣只有一點二七米高，即大約高於一道門的門鎖位一點，生活在一百七十八萬至一百九十五萬年前，科學家估計他們差不多同時死亡，埋了在雪崩沉積物下面亦是至今發現保存得最完整的原始人類骸骨。
科學家將其所屬物種命名為南方古猿源泉種，特別的地方是跟古猿的身體特徵有很多相似的地方，少年男子的頭骨有猿和人的混合特徵，例如頭部很小，大腦只是比南方古猿大一點，還有突出的鼻子、凹陷的顴骨，相對較小的臼齒。另外他們的手臂較長和彎曲顯示善於爬樹，亦開始有站直起來行路的能力，甚至懂得奔跑。
以上種種的特徵印證了達爾文的進化論，即是人類是由猿慢慢進化，由在地下爬行至站起來用雙腳走路，腦部增大，演化成現代有智慧的人類。這兩副人類骸骨正正處於三百九十萬年前的南方古猿和現代人類的過渡階段，亦填補了人類進化史的空白。
不過，有古人類學家質疑靠一具還在發育的少年骸骨推論整個人類進化過程，理論基礎可能不夠穩妥。
2010年4月3日 星期六
用 NLP 洗腦 - NLP 內容
3. NLP 研究語言如何影響我們的行為。
語言影響我們如何思考，行動，反應，感受。例如，一位行政人員在明天之前要做一個非常重要的決定。但他對這個決定信心不是很大，在他的大腦內無意識地出現類似的說話:"真係唔知點做" "真系唔係咁容易"! 事實上，他習慣地透過這些說話使他大腦內的神經網絡封閉。透過 NLP 的訓練，他建立了完全不同的內向溝通程式，他會自然地問自己 "我需要知道什麼資料才能做這個決定"? "可以有什麼不同的選擇?" "如果這個決定最終導致失敗，會出現在什麼地方等......" 這些問題能夠開啟他大腦內新的神經網絡，使他更快找出答案。我們透過五官眼，耳，鼻，舌，身，攝取外界訊息，NLP 學者發現人類透過大腦內的心智模式 (Mental Model) ，把信念，價值，規條進行刪減，扭曲，一般化等程序而成為我們描述外界事物的語言。故此，受過訓練的 NLP 執行師能夠從對方的說話了解他的心智模式，從而有效進行輔導影響別人，改變對方信念。
NLP 提供系統化的語言工具達致上述效果包括:
a. 檢定語言模式 (Meta Model)
是 NLP 最重要的技巧之一，是由 NLP 創始人李察‧賓達拉 (Richard Bandler) 和約翰，葛瑞德(John Grinder) 在 1975年發展出來的一套語言技巧。他們透過模仿完形治療法 (Gestalt Therapy) 創始人費茲士.波爾士 (Fritz Perls) 及家庭治療大師 (Family Therapy) 維珍尼亞沙維雅 (Virginia Satir) 在治療過程當中的發問方式從受導者口中得悉對方的內心世界的運作。同時他們有另外一套的發問方式，令受導者重組他們的心智模式，從而改變對方的心態及行為。運用檢定語言模式在自己身上面，能夠使思考更清晰，有效地修正自己的心智模式，從而更容易解決問題消除困擾。
b. 巧妙回應話術 (Sleight of mouth)
這套語言技巧是由 NLP University Dr. Robert Dilts 發展出來的。他發現人類歷史中出現的偉大領袖，智者，包括耶穌，甘地，馬克思等，均能透過語言展現出非凡的說服能力，改變世界的固有信念。Dr. Robert Dilts 發現他們都有一些共通的語言模式。他透過觀察及模仿整理出一套獨特的語言技巧，能夠在短時間之內改變對方的信念。大大加強說服能力。
c. 其他語言技巧包括米爾頓語言模式(Milton Model)， 換框法(Reframming)，正面詞語(Positive Wordings)等。
4. NLP 的前提假設
NLP的理論及技巧建築在以下的前題假設(NLP Presupppositions)上 :
1. 沒有兩個人是一樣的。
No two persons are the same.
2. 一個人不能控制另外一個人。
One person cannot change another person.
3. 有效用比有道理更重要。
Usefulness is more important.
4. 只有由感官經驗塑造出來的世界，沒有絕對的真實世界。
The map is not the territory.
5. 溝通的意義決定於對方的回應。
The meaning of communication is the response one
gets.
6. 重複舊的做法，只會得到舊的結果。
Repeating the same behavior will repeat the same result.
7. 凡事必有至少三個解決方法。
There are at least three solutions to every situation.
8. 每人都選擇給自己最佳利益的行為。
Every one chooses the best behavior at the moment.
9. 每人都已經具備使自己成功快樂的資源。
Every one already possesses all the resources needed.
10. 在任何一個系統裡，最靈活的部份便是最能影響大局的部份。
In any system, the most flexible person has the control.
11. 沒有挫敗，只有回應訊息。
There is no failure, only feedback.
12. 動機和情緒總不會錯，只是行為沒有效果而已。
Intentions and emotions are never wrong, only the behavior has not been effective.
13. 有選擇總比沒有選擇好。
Choice is better than no choice.
14. (心靈焦點的力量) 你所注視的地方會給予能量, 無論這個地方是負面或者是正面。
(The law of mind focus) Where your mind focus, where you give energy.
Extract from : wikipedia
Neuro-linguistic programming
NLP originated when Richard Bandler, a student at University of California, Santa Cruz, was listening to and selecting portions of taped therapy sessions of the late Gestalt therapist Fritz Perls as a project for Robert Spitzer.[17][18] Bandler believed he recognized particular word and sentence structures which facilitated the acceptance of Perls' therapeutic suggestions. Bandler took this idea to one of his university lecturers, John Grinder, a linguist. Together they studied Perls's utterances on tape and observed a second therapist Virginia Satir to produce what they termed the meta model, a model for gathering information and challenging a client's language and underlying thinking.[19]
The meta model was presented in 1975 in two volumes, The Structure of Magic I: A Book About Language and Therapy and The Structure of Magic II: A Book About Communication and Change, in which the authors expressed their belief that the therapeutic "magic" as performed in therapy by Perls and Satir, and by performers in any complex human activity, had structure that could be learned by others given the appropriate models. They believed that implicit in the behavior of Perls and Satir was the ability to challenge distortion, generalization and deletion in a client's language. The linguistic aspects were based in part on previous work by Grinder using Noam Chomsky's transformational grammar.[20]
Challenging linguistic distortions, specifying generalizations, and recovery of deleted information in the client utterances, the surface structure, was supposed to yield a more complete representation of the underlying deep structure, and to have therapeutic benefit.[21] They drew ideas from Gregory Bateson and Alfred Korzybski, particularly about human modeling and ideas associated with their expression, "the map is not the territory".[22][23]
Satir and Bateson each agreed to write a preface to Bandler and Grinder's first book. Bateson also introduced the pair to Milton Erickson who became their third model. Erickson also wrote a preface to Bandler and Grinder's two-volume book series based on their observations of Erickson working with clients, Patterns of the Hypnotic Techniques of Milton H. Erickson, Volumes I & II.[24] These volumes also focused on the language patterns and some non-verbal patterns that Bandler and Grinder believed they observed in Erickson. While the meta model is intentionally specific, the Milton model was described as "artfully vague" and metaphoric; the inverse of the meta model. It was used in combination with the meta model as a softener, to induce trance, and to deliver indirect therapeutic suggestion. In addition to the first two models, Bandler, Grinder and a group of students who joined them during the early period of development of NLP, proposed other models and techniques, such as anchoring, reframing, submodalities, perceptual positions, and representational systems.
At the time, the human potential movement was developing into an industry; at the centre of this growth was the Esalen Institute at Big Sur, California. Perls had led numerous Gestalt therapy seminars at Esalen. Satir was an early leader and Bateson was a guest teacher. Bandler and Grinder claimed that in addition to being a therapeutic method, NLP was also a study of communication, and by the late 1970s Grinder and Bandler were marketing it as a business tool, claiming that "if any human being can do anything, so can you". After 150 students paid $1,000 each for a ten-day workshop in Santa Cruz, California, Bandler and Grinder gave up academic writing and produced popular books from seminar transcripts, such as Frogs into Princes, which sold more than 270,000 copies. According to court documents, Bandler's NLP business made more than $800,000 in 1980.[19]
[edit] Applications
[edit] Psychotherapeutic
The early books about NLP had a psychotherapeutic focus especially given that the early models were psychotherapists. As an approach to psychotherapy, NLP shares similar core assumptions and foundations in common with some contemporary brief and systemic practices,[25][26][27] such as solution focused brief therapy.[28][29] NLP has also been acknowledged as having influenced these practices[27][30] with its reframing techniques[31][32] which seeks to achieve behaviour change by shifting its context or meaning,[33] for example, by finding the positive connotation of a thought or behaviour.
The two main therapeutic uses of NLP are: (1) use as an adjunct by therapists[34] practicing in other therapeutic disciplines, and (2) as a specific therapy called Neurolinguistic Psychotherapy[35] which is recognized by the United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy[36] with accreditation governed at first by the Association for Neuro Linguistic Programming[37] and more recently by its daughter organization the Neuro Linguistic Psychotherapy and Counselling Association.[38]
[edit] Other uses
While the original goals of neuro-linguistic programming were therapeutic, the patterns have also been adapted for use outside psychotherapy for interpersonal communications and persuasion including business communication, management training,[39] sales,[40] sports,[41] and interpersonal influence,[42] used for coaching, team building, public speaking, negotiation,[43] and communication. The UK Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development includes a number of NLP courses including an application of NLP to coaching in its 2010 training programme.[44] A range of books have been published related to the application of NLP to coaching.[45]
[edit] Criticism and controversy
[edit] Empirical validity
In the early 1980s, NLP was hailed as an important advance in psychotherapy and counseling,[46] and attracted some interest in counseling research and clinical psychology. In the mid-1980s, reviews in The Journal of Counseling Psychology[47] and by the National Research Council (1988; NRC) committee[42] found little or no empirical basis for the claims about preferred representational systems (PRS) or assumptions of NLP. In an article published in 2005, psychologist Grant Devilly stated that at the time it was introduced, NLP was heralded as a breakthrough in therapy, and advertisements for training workshops, videos and books began to appear in trade magazines. The workshops provided certification. However, controlled studies shed such a poor light on the practice, and those promoting the intervention made such extreme and changeable claims that researchers began to question the wisdom of researching the area further.[46]
The experimental research that does exist was mostly done in the 1980s and 1990s, and on the whole was unsupportive of the central assumptions and core models of NLP.[citation needed] It consisted of laboratory experimentation testing Bandler and Grinder's hypotheses[48] that a person's preferred sensory mode of thinking can be revealed by observing eye movement cues and sensory predicates in language use.[43] A research review conducted by Christopher Sharpley which focused on preferred representational systems, in 1984,[49] followed by another review in 1987 in response to a critique published by Einspruch and Forman,[50] concluded that there was little evidence for its usefulness as an effective counseling tool. Reviewing the literature in 1988, Michael Heap also concluded that objective and fair investigations had shown no support for NLP claims about "preferred representational systems".[14]
A research committee[42] working for the United States National Research Council led by Daniel Druckman came to two conclusions. First, the committee "found little if any" evidence to support NLP's assumptions or to indicate that it is effective as a strategy for social influence. "It assumes that by tracking another's eye movements and language, an NLP trainer can shape the person's thoughts, feelings, and opinions (Dilts, 1983[51]). There is no scientific support for these assumptions."[52] Secondly, the committee members "were impressed with the modeling approach used to develop the technique. The technique was developed from careful observations of the way three master psychotherapists conducted their sessions, emphasizing imitation of verbal and nonverbal behaviors... This then led the committee to take up the topic of expert modeling in the second phase of its work."(Druckman, 2004)[52] Von Bergen et al. (1997) state that "the most telling commentary on NLP may be that the latest revision of his text on enhancing human performance, Druckman (Druckman & Bjork 1991) omitted all reference to Neurolinguistic Programming."[53] These studies, in particular Sharpley's literature review, marked a decline in empirical research of NLP, and particularly in matching sensory predicates and its use in counsellor-client relationship in counseling psychology.
NLP practitioners and academics Tosey and Mathison have argued that the experimental approach is not always appropriate for researching NLP, instead proposing that NLP should be researched phenomenologically.[54][55] Gareth Roderique-Davies (2009) stated that "Phenomenological research is free from hypotheses, pre-conceptions and assumptions, and seeks to describe rather than explain. Given the claims made by proponents of NLP, this adds little to the credibility debate and would produce reports concerning the experience from the perspective of the individual rather than confirmation of the claimed efficacy. The fact remains that NLP proponents make specific claims about how NLP works and what it can do and this compels providing evidence to substantiate these claims." He argued that the proposal to conduct phenomenology research using NLP modeling "constitutes an admission that NLP does not have an evidence base and that NLP practitioners are seeking a post-hoc credibility."[56]
[edit] Scientific criticism
See also: NLP and science
Michael Corballis (1999) stated that "NLP is a thoroughly fake title, designed to give the impression of scientific respectability".[57] NLP adapted many scientific sounding terms, such as eye accessing cues, metamodeling, micromodeling, metaprogramming, neurological levels, presuppositions, representational systems, and submodalities, which Barry Beyerstein wrote was intended to obfuscate and to give the impression of a scientific discipline.[58] According to Canadian skeptic Beyerstein (1995) "though it claims neuroscience in its pedigree, NLP's outmoded view of the relationship between cognitive style and brain function ultimately boils down to crude analogies."[59] According to Efran and Lukens (1990), claiming that "original interest in NLP turned to disillusionment after the research and now it is rarely even mentioned in psychotherapy"(p. 122).[60]
Heap states that generalizations about the mind and behavior, such as those purported by NLP proponents, can only be arrived at through prolonged, systematic, and meticulous investigation of human subjects using empirical procedures. Heap (1988) stated "There is just no other way of doing this". In general, authors in the field of NLP have rarely expressed an interest in providing a coherent theory; instead, they often state their primary aim in modeling "what works". They also claim there is ample evidence for NLP as an eclectic approach drawing from existing "cognitive-behavioral approaches, Gestalt therapy, hypnotherapy, family therapy, and brief therapy.[61]
John Grinder offers a counterexample arguing in retrospect that the meta-model, for example, drew from his expertise in transformational grammar and empirical work in collaboration with Bandler between 1973 and 1975.[23] Tosey and Mathison state "the pragmatic and often anti-theoretical stance by the founders has left a legacy of little engagement between practitioner and academic communities".[43][62]
Norcross et al. (2006) conducted a Delphi poll of American doctoral-level mental health professionals and academics in psychology and psychotherapy in which 73.3% of respondents reported that they were familiar with NLP as an approach and, on average, rated NLP for the treatment of mental and behavioral disorders between possibly and probably discredited. The ratings given by psychologists from the cognitive and behavioral orientations were significantly less favourable towards NLP than those from the humanistic and psychodynamic orientations.[63] A follow-up study by Norcross et al. (2008) found that NLP for the treatment of drug addiction was rated as among the top ten most discredited of the interventions included in the study.[64]
[edit] Intellectual property disputes
In the 1980s, shortly after publishing Neuro-Linguistic Programming: Volume I[65] with Robert Dilts and Judith Delozier, Grinder and Bandler fell out. Amidst acrimony and intellectual property lawsuits, the NLP brand was adopted by other training organizations.[42] Some time afterwards, John Grinder collaborated with various people to develop a form of NLP called the New Code of NLP which claimed to restore a whole mind-body systemic approach to NLP[23][66] Richard Bandler also published new processes based on submodalities and Ericksonian hypnosis.[67]
In July 1996, after many years of legal controversy, Bandler filed a lawsuit against John Grinder and others, claiming retrospective sole ownership of NLP, and also the sole right to use the term under trademark.[68][69] At the same time, Tony Clarkson (a UK practitioner) successfully asked the UK High Court to revoke Bandler's UK registered trademark of "NLP", in order to clarify legally that "NLP" was a generic term rather than intellectual property.[70]
Despite the NLP community's being splintered, most NLP material acknowledges the early work of co-founders Bandler and Grinder, as well as the development group that surrounded them in the 1970s. In June 2001, the lawsuits were settled with Bandler and Grinder agreeing to be known as co-founders of NLP.[citation needed]
[edit] Practitioner standards
Since 1978, a 20-day NLP practitioner certification program had been in existence for training therapists to apply NLP as an adjunct to their professional qualifications. As NLP evolved, and the applications began to be extended beyond therapy, new ways of training were developed and the course structures and design changed. Course lengths and style vary from institute to institute. In the 1990s, following attempts to put NLP on a regulated footing in the UK, other governments began certifying NLP courses and providers; for example, in Australia, a Graduate Certificate in Neuro-linguistic programming is accredited under the Australian Qualifications Framework.[71] However, NLP continues to be an open field of training with no "official" best practice. With different authors, individual trainers and practitioners having developed their own methods, concepts and labels, often branding them as "NLP",[72] the training standards and quality differ greatly.[73] The multiplicity and general lack of controls has led to difficulty discerning the comparative level of competence, skill and attitude in different NLP trainings. According to Peter Schütz, the length of training in Europe varies from 2–3 days for the hobbyist to 35–40 days over at least nine months to achieve a professional level of competence.[73]
In Europe, the European NLP therapy association has been promoting its training in line with European therapy standards.
In 2001, neuro-linguistic psychotherapy, a derivative of NLP, was recognized by the United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy as an experimental constructivist form of psychotherapy.[74]
Today, there are many competing organisations offering varying forms of NLP training and certification in what can be a lucrative business. The Guardian reported that in 2006 that a seven day course by Paul McKenna's company for 600 delegates produced £1m of revenue.[75] Many variants of the practice are found in seminars, workshops, books and audio programs in the form of exercises and principles intended to influence behavioral and emotional change in self and others. There is great variation in the depth and breadth of training and standards of practitioners, and some disagreement between those in the field about which patterns are, or are not, "NLP".[47][76]
語言影響我們如何思考，行動，反應，感受。例如，一位行政人員在明天之前要做一個非常重要的決定。但他對這個決定信心不是很大，在他的大腦內無意識地出現類似的說話:"真係唔知點做" "真系唔係咁容易"! 事實上，他習慣地透過這些說話使他大腦內的神經網絡封閉。透過 NLP 的訓練，他建立了完全不同的內向溝通程式，他會自然地問自己 "我需要知道什麼資料才能做這個決定"? "可以有什麼不同的選擇?" "如果這個決定最終導致失敗，會出現在什麼地方等......" 這些問題能夠開啟他大腦內新的神經網絡，使他更快找出答案。我們透過五官眼，耳，鼻，舌，身，攝取外界訊息，NLP 學者發現人類透過大腦內的心智模式 (Mental Model) ，把信念，價值，規條進行刪減，扭曲，一般化等程序而成為我們描述外界事物的語言。故此，受過訓練的 NLP 執行師能夠從對方的說話了解他的心智模式，從而有效進行輔導影響別人，改變對方信念。
NLP 提供系統化的語言工具達致上述效果包括:
a. 檢定語言模式 (Meta Model)
是 NLP 最重要的技巧之一，是由 NLP 創始人李察‧賓達拉 (Richard Bandler) 和約翰，葛瑞德(John Grinder) 在 1975年發展出來的一套語言技巧。他們透過模仿完形治療法 (Gestalt Therapy) 創始人費茲士.波爾士 (Fritz Perls) 及家庭治療大師 (Family Therapy) 維珍尼亞沙維雅 (Virginia Satir) 在治療過程當中的發問方式從受導者口中得悉對方的內心世界的運作。同時他們有另外一套的發問方式，令受導者重組他們的心智模式，從而改變對方的心態及行為。運用檢定語言模式在自己身上面，能夠使思考更清晰，有效地修正自己的心智模式，從而更容易解決問題消除困擾。
b. 巧妙回應話術 (Sleight of mouth)
這套語言技巧是由 NLP University Dr. Robert Dilts 發展出來的。他發現人類歷史中出現的偉大領袖，智者，包括耶穌，甘地，馬克思等，均能透過語言展現出非凡的說服能力，改變世界的固有信念。Dr. Robert Dilts 發現他們都有一些共通的語言模式。他透過觀察及模仿整理出一套獨特的語言技巧，能夠在短時間之內改變對方的信念。大大加強說服能力。
c. 其他語言技巧包括米爾頓語言模式(Milton Model)， 換框法(Reframming)，正面詞語(Positive Wordings)等。
4. NLP 的前提假設
NLP的理論及技巧建築在以下的前題假設(NLP Presupppositions)上 :
1. 沒有兩個人是一樣的。
No two persons are the same.
2. 一個人不能控制另外一個人。
One person cannot change another person.
3. 有效用比有道理更重要。
Usefulness is more important.
4. 只有由感官經驗塑造出來的世界，沒有絕對的真實世界。
The map is not the territory.
5. 溝通的意義決定於對方的回應。
The meaning of communication is the response one
gets.
6. 重複舊的做法，只會得到舊的結果。
Repeating the same behavior will repeat the same result.
7. 凡事必有至少三個解決方法。
There are at least three solutions to every situation.
8. 每人都選擇給自己最佳利益的行為。
Every one chooses the best behavior at the moment.
9. 每人都已經具備使自己成功快樂的資源。
Every one already possesses all the resources needed.
10. 在任何一個系統裡，最靈活的部份便是最能影響大局的部份。
In any system, the most flexible person has the control.
11. 沒有挫敗，只有回應訊息。
There is no failure, only feedback.
12. 動機和情緒總不會錯，只是行為沒有效果而已。
Intentions and emotions are never wrong, only the behavior has not been effective.
13. 有選擇總比沒有選擇好。
Choice is better than no choice.
14. (心靈焦點的力量) 你所注視的地方會給予能量, 無論這個地方是負面或者是正面。
(The law of mind focus) Where your mind focus, where you give energy.
Extract from : wikipedia
Neuro-linguistic programming
NLP originated when Richard Bandler, a student at University of California, Santa Cruz, was listening to and selecting portions of taped therapy sessions of the late Gestalt therapist Fritz Perls as a project for Robert Spitzer.[17][18] Bandler believed he recognized particular word and sentence structures which facilitated the acceptance of Perls' therapeutic suggestions. Bandler took this idea to one of his university lecturers, John Grinder, a linguist. Together they studied Perls's utterances on tape and observed a second therapist Virginia Satir to produce what they termed the meta model, a model for gathering information and challenging a client's language and underlying thinking.[19]
The meta model was presented in 1975 in two volumes, The Structure of Magic I: A Book About Language and Therapy and The Structure of Magic II: A Book About Communication and Change, in which the authors expressed their belief that the therapeutic "magic" as performed in therapy by Perls and Satir, and by performers in any complex human activity, had structure that could be learned by others given the appropriate models. They believed that implicit in the behavior of Perls and Satir was the ability to challenge distortion, generalization and deletion in a client's language. The linguistic aspects were based in part on previous work by Grinder using Noam Chomsky's transformational grammar.[20]
Challenging linguistic distortions, specifying generalizations, and recovery of deleted information in the client utterances, the surface structure, was supposed to yield a more complete representation of the underlying deep structure, and to have therapeutic benefit.[21] They drew ideas from Gregory Bateson and Alfred Korzybski, particularly about human modeling and ideas associated with their expression, "the map is not the territory".[22][23]
Satir and Bateson each agreed to write a preface to Bandler and Grinder's first book. Bateson also introduced the pair to Milton Erickson who became their third model. Erickson also wrote a preface to Bandler and Grinder's two-volume book series based on their observations of Erickson working with clients, Patterns of the Hypnotic Techniques of Milton H. Erickson, Volumes I & II.[24] These volumes also focused on the language patterns and some non-verbal patterns that Bandler and Grinder believed they observed in Erickson. While the meta model is intentionally specific, the Milton model was described as "artfully vague" and metaphoric; the inverse of the meta model. It was used in combination with the meta model as a softener, to induce trance, and to deliver indirect therapeutic suggestion. In addition to the first two models, Bandler, Grinder and a group of students who joined them during the early period of development of NLP, proposed other models and techniques, such as anchoring, reframing, submodalities, perceptual positions, and representational systems.
At the time, the human potential movement was developing into an industry; at the centre of this growth was the Esalen Institute at Big Sur, California. Perls had led numerous Gestalt therapy seminars at Esalen. Satir was an early leader and Bateson was a guest teacher. Bandler and Grinder claimed that in addition to being a therapeutic method, NLP was also a study of communication, and by the late 1970s Grinder and Bandler were marketing it as a business tool, claiming that "if any human being can do anything, so can you". After 150 students paid $1,000 each for a ten-day workshop in Santa Cruz, California, Bandler and Grinder gave up academic writing and produced popular books from seminar transcripts, such as Frogs into Princes, which sold more than 270,000 copies. According to court documents, Bandler's NLP business made more than $800,000 in 1980.[19]
[edit] Applications
[edit] Psychotherapeutic
The early books about NLP had a psychotherapeutic focus especially given that the early models were psychotherapists. As an approach to psychotherapy, NLP shares similar core assumptions and foundations in common with some contemporary brief and systemic practices,[25][26][27] such as solution focused brief therapy.[28][29] NLP has also been acknowledged as having influenced these practices[27][30] with its reframing techniques[31][32] which seeks to achieve behaviour change by shifting its context or meaning,[33] for example, by finding the positive connotation of a thought or behaviour.
The two main therapeutic uses of NLP are: (1) use as an adjunct by therapists[34] practicing in other therapeutic disciplines, and (2) as a specific therapy called Neurolinguistic Psychotherapy[35] which is recognized by the United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy[36] with accreditation governed at first by the Association for Neuro Linguistic Programming[37] and more recently by its daughter organization the Neuro Linguistic Psychotherapy and Counselling Association.[38]
[edit] Other uses
While the original goals of neuro-linguistic programming were therapeutic, the patterns have also been adapted for use outside psychotherapy for interpersonal communications and persuasion including business communication, management training,[39] sales,[40] sports,[41] and interpersonal influence,[42] used for coaching, team building, public speaking, negotiation,[43] and communication. The UK Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development includes a number of NLP courses including an application of NLP to coaching in its 2010 training programme.[44] A range of books have been published related to the application of NLP to coaching.[45]
[edit] Criticism and controversy
[edit] Empirical validity
In the early 1980s, NLP was hailed as an important advance in psychotherapy and counseling,[46] and attracted some interest in counseling research and clinical psychology. In the mid-1980s, reviews in The Journal of Counseling Psychology[47] and by the National Research Council (1988; NRC) committee[42] found little or no empirical basis for the claims about preferred representational systems (PRS) or assumptions of NLP. In an article published in 2005, psychologist Grant Devilly stated that at the time it was introduced, NLP was heralded as a breakthrough in therapy, and advertisements for training workshops, videos and books began to appear in trade magazines. The workshops provided certification. However, controlled studies shed such a poor light on the practice, and those promoting the intervention made such extreme and changeable claims that researchers began to question the wisdom of researching the area further.[46]
The experimental research that does exist was mostly done in the 1980s and 1990s, and on the whole was unsupportive of the central assumptions and core models of NLP.[citation needed] It consisted of laboratory experimentation testing Bandler and Grinder's hypotheses[48] that a person's preferred sensory mode of thinking can be revealed by observing eye movement cues and sensory predicates in language use.[43] A research review conducted by Christopher Sharpley which focused on preferred representational systems, in 1984,[49] followed by another review in 1987 in response to a critique published by Einspruch and Forman,[50] concluded that there was little evidence for its usefulness as an effective counseling tool. Reviewing the literature in 1988, Michael Heap also concluded that objective and fair investigations had shown no support for NLP claims about "preferred representational systems".[14]
A research committee[42] working for the United States National Research Council led by Daniel Druckman came to two conclusions. First, the committee "found little if any" evidence to support NLP's assumptions or to indicate that it is effective as a strategy for social influence. "It assumes that by tracking another's eye movements and language, an NLP trainer can shape the person's thoughts, feelings, and opinions (Dilts, 1983[51]). There is no scientific support for these assumptions."[52] Secondly, the committee members "were impressed with the modeling approach used to develop the technique. The technique was developed from careful observations of the way three master psychotherapists conducted their sessions, emphasizing imitation of verbal and nonverbal behaviors... This then led the committee to take up the topic of expert modeling in the second phase of its work."(Druckman, 2004)[52] Von Bergen et al. (1997) state that "the most telling commentary on NLP may be that the latest revision of his text on enhancing human performance, Druckman (Druckman & Bjork 1991) omitted all reference to Neurolinguistic Programming."[53] These studies, in particular Sharpley's literature review, marked a decline in empirical research of NLP, and particularly in matching sensory predicates and its use in counsellor-client relationship in counseling psychology.
NLP practitioners and academics Tosey and Mathison have argued that the experimental approach is not always appropriate for researching NLP, instead proposing that NLP should be researched phenomenologically.[54][55] Gareth Roderique-Davies (2009) stated that "Phenomenological research is free from hypotheses, pre-conceptions and assumptions, and seeks to describe rather than explain. Given the claims made by proponents of NLP, this adds little to the credibility debate and would produce reports concerning the experience from the perspective of the individual rather than confirmation of the claimed efficacy. The fact remains that NLP proponents make specific claims about how NLP works and what it can do and this compels providing evidence to substantiate these claims." He argued that the proposal to conduct phenomenology research using NLP modeling "constitutes an admission that NLP does not have an evidence base and that NLP practitioners are seeking a post-hoc credibility."[56]
[edit] Scientific criticism
See also: NLP and science
Michael Corballis (1999) stated that "NLP is a thoroughly fake title, designed to give the impression of scientific respectability".[57] NLP adapted many scientific sounding terms, such as eye accessing cues, metamodeling, micromodeling, metaprogramming, neurological levels, presuppositions, representational systems, and submodalities, which Barry Beyerstein wrote was intended to obfuscate and to give the impression of a scientific discipline.[58] According to Canadian skeptic Beyerstein (1995) "though it claims neuroscience in its pedigree, NLP's outmoded view of the relationship between cognitive style and brain function ultimately boils down to crude analogies."[59] According to Efran and Lukens (1990), claiming that "original interest in NLP turned to disillusionment after the research and now it is rarely even mentioned in psychotherapy"(p. 122).[60]
Heap states that generalizations about the mind and behavior, such as those purported by NLP proponents, can only be arrived at through prolonged, systematic, and meticulous investigation of human subjects using empirical procedures. Heap (1988) stated "There is just no other way of doing this". In general, authors in the field of NLP have rarely expressed an interest in providing a coherent theory; instead, they often state their primary aim in modeling "what works". They also claim there is ample evidence for NLP as an eclectic approach drawing from existing "cognitive-behavioral approaches, Gestalt therapy, hypnotherapy, family therapy, and brief therapy.[61]
John Grinder offers a counterexample arguing in retrospect that the meta-model, for example, drew from his expertise in transformational grammar and empirical work in collaboration with Bandler between 1973 and 1975.[23] Tosey and Mathison state "the pragmatic and often anti-theoretical stance by the founders has left a legacy of little engagement between practitioner and academic communities".[43][62]
Norcross et al. (2006) conducted a Delphi poll of American doctoral-level mental health professionals and academics in psychology and psychotherapy in which 73.3% of respondents reported that they were familiar with NLP as an approach and, on average, rated NLP for the treatment of mental and behavioral disorders between possibly and probably discredited. The ratings given by psychologists from the cognitive and behavioral orientations were significantly less favourable towards NLP than those from the humanistic and psychodynamic orientations.[63] A follow-up study by Norcross et al. (2008) found that NLP for the treatment of drug addiction was rated as among the top ten most discredited of the interventions included in the study.[64]
[edit] Intellectual property disputes
In the 1980s, shortly after publishing Neuro-Linguistic Programming: Volume I[65] with Robert Dilts and Judith Delozier, Grinder and Bandler fell out. Amidst acrimony and intellectual property lawsuits, the NLP brand was adopted by other training organizations.[42] Some time afterwards, John Grinder collaborated with various people to develop a form of NLP called the New Code of NLP which claimed to restore a whole mind-body systemic approach to NLP[23][66] Richard Bandler also published new processes based on submodalities and Ericksonian hypnosis.[67]
In July 1996, after many years of legal controversy, Bandler filed a lawsuit against John Grinder and others, claiming retrospective sole ownership of NLP, and also the sole right to use the term under trademark.[68][69] At the same time, Tony Clarkson (a UK practitioner) successfully asked the UK High Court to revoke Bandler's UK registered trademark of "NLP", in order to clarify legally that "NLP" was a generic term rather than intellectual property.[70]
Despite the NLP community's being splintered, most NLP material acknowledges the early work of co-founders Bandler and Grinder, as well as the development group that surrounded them in the 1970s. In June 2001, the lawsuits were settled with Bandler and Grinder agreeing to be known as co-founders of NLP.[citation needed]
[edit] Practitioner standards
Since 1978, a 20-day NLP practitioner certification program had been in existence for training therapists to apply NLP as an adjunct to their professional qualifications. As NLP evolved, and the applications began to be extended beyond therapy, new ways of training were developed and the course structures and design changed. Course lengths and style vary from institute to institute. In the 1990s, following attempts to put NLP on a regulated footing in the UK, other governments began certifying NLP courses and providers; for example, in Australia, a Graduate Certificate in Neuro-linguistic programming is accredited under the Australian Qualifications Framework.[71] However, NLP continues to be an open field of training with no "official" best practice. With different authors, individual trainers and practitioners having developed their own methods, concepts and labels, often branding them as "NLP",[72] the training standards and quality differ greatly.[73] The multiplicity and general lack of controls has led to difficulty discerning the comparative level of competence, skill and attitude in different NLP trainings. According to Peter Schütz, the length of training in Europe varies from 2–3 days for the hobbyist to 35–40 days over at least nine months to achieve a professional level of competence.[73]
In Europe, the European NLP therapy association has been promoting its training in line with European therapy standards.
In 2001, neuro-linguistic psychotherapy, a derivative of NLP, was recognized by the United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy as an experimental constructivist form of psychotherapy.[74]
Today, there are many competing organisations offering varying forms of NLP training and certification in what can be a lucrative business. The Guardian reported that in 2006 that a seven day course by Paul McKenna's company for 600 delegates produced £1m of revenue.[75] Many variants of the practice are found in seminars, workshops, books and audio programs in the form of exercises and principles intended to influence behavioral and emotional change in self and others. There is great variation in the depth and breadth of training and standards of practitioners, and some disagreement between those in the field about which patterns are, or are not, "NLP".[47][76]
2010年4月1日 星期四
懷疑偽冒公司「綜藝社群」與「The Purple beauty & Spa」關係
據網收到眾多網友懷疑被騙投訴，本網現發出以下訊息，敬請各位留意！
一間名叫「綜藝社群」的公司，懷疑聯同「The Purple Beauty & Spa」之美容公司聯繫，多名受害者表示該公司將受害者介紹至「The Purple beauty & Spa」，該美容公司又利用以代言人的名義，利誘受害者加入成為其公司代言人，並以豐厚的獎金作招徠。有部份受害者更被該美容公司以分期形式騙取其一筆款 項，期後該公司並沒有替受害者分期。事先，亦沒有向受害者表明需要繳付實際的金額，當該公司完成擦卡的程序，給予受害者簽署時，受害者才知道要繳付的金額 多過與公司事先說明的金額，該美容公司更以催促的手法，要求受害者簽署...
請各位網友注意！現在綜藝社群已將業務轉營至另一間公司，請大家小心留意這公司的行騙公司！本網主估計，「The Purple Beauty & Spa」亦快將改名。
而本網主又估計，「The Purple Beauty & Spa」不只與一間偽冒公司聯繫的，所以請網友小心！偽冒公司可能來來去去也只是同一班人經營。
請各位小心偽冒公司的欺騙手法！
一間名叫「綜藝社群」的公司，懷疑聯同「The Purple Beauty & Spa」之美容公司聯繫，多名受害者表示該公司將受害者介紹至「The Purple beauty & Spa」，該美容公司又利用以代言人的名義，利誘受害者加入成為其公司代言人，並以豐厚的獎金作招徠。有部份受害者更被該美容公司以分期形式騙取其一筆款 項，期後該公司並沒有替受害者分期。事先，亦沒有向受害者表明需要繳付實際的金額，當該公司完成擦卡的程序，給予受害者簽署時，受害者才知道要繳付的金額 多過與公司事先說明的金額，該美容公司更以催促的手法，要求受害者簽署...
請各位網友注意！現在綜藝社群已將業務轉營至另一間公司，請大家小心留意這公司的行騙公司！本網主估計，「The Purple Beauty & Spa」亦快將改名。
而本網主又估計，「The Purple Beauty & Spa」不只與一間偽冒公司聯繫的，所以請網友小心！偽冒公司可能來來去去也只是同一班人經營。
請各位小心偽冒公司的欺騙手法！
偽冒模特兒公司 - 實例
蘋果日報2011年2月17日(三)
想做 Model 變做 Facial模特兒陷阱男女照呃
【本報訊】模特兒公司詐騙新手法，包括口頭聲稱可以分期付款，事實是事主一次過付數千至數萬元購買美容療程；訛稱已接到 2萬多元的廣告合約，卻要求事主先付逾萬元作為影相費。消委會指有關手法屬「蠱惑招數」，希望政府盡快落實規管不良營商手法的條例。
付 16800元拍硬照
20多歲的陳小姐表示，前年有模特兒公司介紹她做美容代言人，見工時美容院職員指該公司是香港十大名牌，並向她推銷美容療程，「佢問我一個月畀唔畀到 800蚊」。她以信用卡付款後才發現支付了 2萬元，療程分 24個月，沒有免息分期，「佢話分期要自己去銀行搞，唔係佢負責」。
代言人合約沒有訂明陳小姐的酬勞，但一年可以做 200次療程，代言人酬勞相等於免費使用療程。合約並暗藏條款，指當事人沒有被高壓銷售。陳小姐做過兩次療程後，仍未有其他模特兒工作，懷疑受騙，向消委會投訴及小額錢債審裁處申請追討，「不過法官話我智商冇問題，簽咗合約就冇得搞」。
另一事主 25歲的李先生去年底收到「著數易」的職員來電，指有一個價值 25,000元的德國護膚品代言人合約適合他，但要求他簽署一張拍攝 500張硬照的合約，並先付款 16,800元。李先生付款後懷疑受騙，打算下周一到小額錢債審裁處申請追討。
先要自資「執靚啲」
據悉，陳小姐面試的模特兒公司叫「綜藝社群」，已被著數易的母公司收購。著數易經理林小姐昨回應本報查詢時表示，自資到美容院「執靚啲」，及自資拍攝硬照是模特兒行業的正常做法。
消委會總幹事劉燕卿表示，去年收到 28宗有關模特兒招聘工作陷阱的投訴，涉及逾 37萬元款項，單一個案最大金額為 38,800元。她指招聘新手法屬蠱惑招數，提醒消費者簽約時要三思。民建聯近兩個月則收到 10宗投訴，涉及近 20萬元款項。
想做 Model 變做 Facial模特兒陷阱男女照呃
【本報訊】模特兒公司詐騙新手法，包括口頭聲稱可以分期付款，事實是事主一次過付數千至數萬元購買美容療程；訛稱已接到 2萬多元的廣告合約，卻要求事主先付逾萬元作為影相費。消委會指有關手法屬「蠱惑招數」，希望政府盡快落實規管不良營商手法的條例。
付 16800元拍硬照
20多歲的陳小姐表示，前年有模特兒公司介紹她做美容代言人，見工時美容院職員指該公司是香港十大名牌，並向她推銷美容療程，「佢問我一個月畀唔畀到 800蚊」。她以信用卡付款後才發現支付了 2萬元，療程分 24個月，沒有免息分期，「佢話分期要自己去銀行搞，唔係佢負責」。
代言人合約沒有訂明陳小姐的酬勞，但一年可以做 200次療程，代言人酬勞相等於免費使用療程。合約並暗藏條款，指當事人沒有被高壓銷售。陳小姐做過兩次療程後，仍未有其他模特兒工作，懷疑受騙，向消委會投訴及小額錢債審裁處申請追討，「不過法官話我智商冇問題，簽咗合約就冇得搞」。
另一事主 25歲的李先生去年底收到「著數易」的職員來電，指有一個價值 25,000元的德國護膚品代言人合約適合他，但要求他簽署一張拍攝 500張硬照的合約，並先付款 16,800元。李先生付款後懷疑受騙，打算下周一到小額錢債審裁處申請追討。
先要自資「執靚啲」
據悉，陳小姐面試的模特兒公司叫「綜藝社群」，已被著數易的母公司收購。著數易經理林小姐昨回應本報查詢時表示，自資到美容院「執靚啲」，及自資拍攝硬照是模特兒行業的正常做法。
消委會總幹事劉燕卿表示，去年收到 28宗有關模特兒招聘工作陷阱的投訴，涉及逾 37萬元款項，單一個案最大金額為 38,800元。她指招聘新手法屬蠱惑招數，提醒消費者簽約時要三思。民建聯近兩個月則收到 10宗投訴，涉及近 20萬元款項。
懷疑偽冒公司「In management model agency」已轉名為「THE NIMO」
由於已有多位受害者聲稱被騙，加上有網友報料一間已納入懷疑偽冒公司「In management model agency」已轉名為「THE NIMO」，該公司之地址及電話不變，其他資料尚在查證中。
懷疑偽冒公司名稱：THE NIMO
根據受害者的資料所得，該公司是以「Sam Fashion and Skin Care」的名義去收取費用（以信用卡形式）
公司網頁：http://www.im-perform.com/、http://thenimo.mysinablog.com/
公司地址：銅鑼灣軒尼詩道建德豐商業大廈1101室
公司電話：2836 0877公司傳真：（有待查證）
採用手法：變種手法一
備註：偽冒公司很慣常轉名，企圖以改頭換面的方式再度行騙，因此請大家小心！該公司之前身為「In management model agency」，本網主懷疑該公司職員通知Yahoo blog管理員去刪除本網主將該公司列入「懷疑偽冒公司」名單的一篇網誌，Yahoo blog管理員表示本網主篇寫的那篇網誌涉及人身攻擊，於是要刪除！本網主很遺憾，偽冒公司職員竟然擾亂yahoo blog管理員的視聽，要求刪去該網頁，以圖掩飾其欺詐行為，再者，本網主亦知道為何他們要刪除該網誌的原因，目的就是因為該公司轉名，不想被網友查到他們原先是「In management model agency」，現轉名為「THE NIMO」。
本網主現發出聲明，公開的全是事實，當中並沒有涉及人身攻擊，完全是踢爆偽冒公司的不法行為，是為保護廣大市民利益著想而設立，如果Yahoo Blog管理員沒經過多重查證，但又對本網誌有任何疑問，請先在刪除前先電郵詢問本網主原因。
懷疑偽冒公司名稱：THE NIMO
根據受害者的資料所得，該公司是以「Sam Fashion and Skin Care」的名義去收取費用（以信用卡形式）
公司網頁：http://www.im-perform.com/、http://thenimo.mysinablog.com/
公司地址：銅鑼灣軒尼詩道建德豐商業大廈1101室
公司電話：2836 0877公司傳真：（有待查證）
採用手法：變種手法一
備註：偽冒公司很慣常轉名，企圖以改頭換面的方式再度行騙，因此請大家小心！該公司之前身為「In management model agency」，本網主懷疑該公司職員通知Yahoo blog管理員去刪除本網主將該公司列入「懷疑偽冒公司」名單的一篇網誌，Yahoo blog管理員表示本網主篇寫的那篇網誌涉及人身攻擊，於是要刪除！本網主很遺憾，偽冒公司職員竟然擾亂yahoo blog管理員的視聽，要求刪去該網頁，以圖掩飾其欺詐行為，再者，本網主亦知道為何他們要刪除該網誌的原因，目的就是因為該公司轉名，不想被網友查到他們原先是「In management model agency」，現轉名為「THE NIMO」。
本網主現發出聲明，公開的全是事實，當中並沒有涉及人身攻擊，完全是踢爆偽冒公司的不法行為，是為保護廣大市民利益著想而設立，如果Yahoo Blog管理員沒經過多重查證，但又對本網誌有任何疑問，請先在刪除前先電郵詢問本網主原因。
曾經遇上一些電話騙案的經歷 - 分享實例
分享曾經遇上一些電話騙案的經歷
我經常接到一些電話訪問來電，他們通常要你答問題，答完問題，隔幾天，他們又致電指你得獎取獎品，這類型騙案，十年不變，我於一個月坐底接幾次這類型電話，而這類型電話十分煩厭，你中途斷線，他們立刻再致電問過，最麻煩是當我工作中，他們又致電叫我答問題，你示意沒有時間，他們其後又可以厚著面皮再致電找你，
我記得有次更離譜，他們問我在那裡工作，我沒有回答他們（他們有本事取到我的電話號碼------但不代表我歡迎他們來電，他們也可以取到我更多個人資料），他們更試過說留了一本書給我，要我上門取書，我說：「咩嘢書嚟？」他們說：「投資嘅書。」我說：「我有錢投資，我就唔駛打工，你俾本投資嘅書我，我都唔識睇，我唔要。」他們說：「你真係唔要，留咗俾你。」我說：「你一係寄俾我，如果你要我上嚟攞，我唔要，你幫我扔掉。」
下列是我這些年來遇到一些電話騙案，與貓貓論壇網友們作出分享。
1）一切從BUFFET CLUB開始------------
我於多年前接到一個BUFFET CLUB電話，當時他們指加入了這個會就得到相等於$13000COUPON，但年費$1288，我事後發覺貨不對辦， 從此之後，電話來電立刻敲響我的警號。
2）衰貪心 險禁錮------------
就是接到所謂訪問電話，先答問題，後指得獎，送上門才知道要付$39800包25年年費，我那時差點被禁錮，逃走更被在場男職員兇，從此以後，我已經一刀切，不做任何電話交易（自電接受，來電謝絕）。
另外，有些貸款、保險、電訊網絡商亦經常致電給我。
貸款------我經常向他們說：「我無爭人錢，我唔需要。」更甚者，我試過接過一個電話「有錢借，借唔借」我說：「借咗唔駛還，淨間借你9蚊，你要我還13蚊，我仲慘。」
保險------我通常指不需要，如果他們再煩，我會自動CUT線。
電訊網絡商------我通常比較有禮貌，但當涉及金錢交易，我是不會於電話內進行，曾經有電話推廣員問我「點解」，我說自己曾經遇上電話騙案，因此，我以後都不會於電話內進行任何交易，再者，自稱電話網絡商職員，但其實屬實，我於電話內很難確定，我就算轉服務月費，我自己會致電熱線做更正。
總之，我們要提高警覺，自強不息，萬一中招，廢柴警察都未必幫到你，我有生之年最蒙羞是衰了街頭騙案，成為我的烙印（我不敢與人分享，因為我不想重提），自此之後，我不會做街頭訪問，也不會將自己個人資料給他們（你呃我唔到）。
下列是我提供貓貓論壇一些防騙錦囊給予網友。
1）前往求職不要帶大量金錢與及銀行咭，見工付款勿做。
2）謝絕任何電話交易。
最後，題外話，我覺得減肥瘦身騙案也猖獗（傳聞被騙肥人會被騙金錢），我最近不知道於網上惹了什麼騙子，經常傳送一些減肥瘦身訊息到我的電子郵箱，幸好我的身體長期FIT爆，無需減肥瘦身，我的電子郵箱已經刪除了這些騙財垃圾電郵。
常見騙術
常見騙術 
香港雖然是個很安全的城市，但市民亦有可能成為犯罪集團或騙徒的目標。他們會利用受害人貪心或無知的弱點，引受害人上釣。以下將介紹一些常見的街頭騙案。但市民必須注意，騙徒在不同的環境可能會使用不同的手法，其手法未必會跟以下介紹的完全相同。
香港雖然是個很安全的城市，但市民亦有可能成為犯罪集團或騙徒的目標。他們會利用受害人貪心或無知的弱點，引受害人上釣。以下將介紹一些常見的街頭騙案。但市民必須注意，騙徒在不同的環境可能會使用不同的手法，其手法未必會跟以下介紹的完全相同。| 街頭行騙手法 |
 彩票騙案 |
| 假金飾 |
| 假玉鐲 |
| 寶藥黨 |
| 假電子零件 |
| 跌錢黨 |
| 祈福黨 |
| 外幣兌換 |
| 借錢黨 |
| 其他行騙手法 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 時光共享計劃 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 項目融資 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 不當銷售– 非訂購貨品 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 尼日利亞人／4-1-9騙案 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 倫敦金 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 偽冒模特兒公司 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 電話行騙 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 層壓式騙局 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 信用卡騙案 | |||||||||||||||||||||
「吸格公司」騙案
|
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)