Agreement with Rick

From [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.03.1613) ]

Purpose: In reflecting on my thread with Rick I came upon a number of
things we do agree on and what it was we did not agree on.

I agree with Rick and "understand" his "view" of the model. His model does
not Conflict with mine. ( notice I used the Technical term meaning for
Conflict here, not a"normative" one ) It is my contention that a) the
_HPCT_ model can be "talked" about (i.e. using different words to describe
_some_ of the same processes and elements) "normatively" but when it is,
disaster usually strikes. the "goal" -> Reference Level comparison comes to
mind. As will be shown shortly by Bill, "goal" does not = Reference Level.
Goal is a term that relates to a _group_ of perceptions of a certain
type. There will be many other Technical definitions made. One of the
problems with my last post was that Bill, upon examining the glossary in
B:CP and trying to define a couple of words realized he needed to make some
subtle but important changes.

Second, I agree 100% that the ultimate "test" of PCT/HPCT knowledge is ones
ability to either model and/or design a possible experiment to gather
data If you don't "know" the model you cannot do either.