Sorry Bryan, I hate to going back on my word, even to you, but when I see an injustice I feel I must respond.

Bruce Gregory and I have been in communication privately for years and I have EVERY one of the pieces of correspondence to prove it.

We have also spent a considerable amount of time on the phone.

Bruce doesn’t like my politics and that is just tough shit on him, but like most on this list, as long as you don’t have to examine your own set of beliefs things go swimmingly.

I signed off this list but maintained a personal interest in the QT thread and Ely can verify that, so when I went to read the latest in the archives lo and behold there was Gregory introducing ‘APCT’.

Interesting that this was PRECISELY what I was talking about quite rationally before the roof caved in completely.

I am not claiming anything here except the idea’s Gregory has, have been influenced and shaped by conversations we have had on this very subject. I also want it on the record that he could just as easily have presented this very thing in response to me, except he chose to attack me and then asking me to leave CSGnet.

Why not simply start a new ‘APCT’ thread instead of sneakily introducing this into a QT thread that has little to do with this topic?

I find Powers response to him interesting as well.

Any reason he could not have responded to me that way?

Sure is, he didn’t want to.

What a bunch of intellectually dishonest phony’s.

Don’t worry Bryan, as soon as I see this was posted I’m signing off again, but I

I’m a relative newcomer to this list and did not much care for the acrimony displayed recently but it strikes me that ‘APCT’ is what Marc Abrams was trying to discuss here, wasn’t it? From my perspective it seems pretty clear he seemed to be arguing for the ‘why’ of purpose rather then the ‘what’ that PCT seems to have focused on.

[From Bruce Gregory (2005.0328.1847)]

As I see it, the Observer is a “patch” to PCT in order to develop a theory of human experience rather than simply a theory of human performance. Let’s call PCT and its augmentations such as the observer and the explanation of
emotions as Augmented PCT or APCT. There is nothing wrong with APCT,
but it is important to keep in mind that all the experiments performed
to date support PCT, not APCT.

I don’t expect anyone to adopt my use of the term APCT, and this
communication is not intended to be critical of PCT or APCT.