Bill Williams

CSGnet Archive CSG2004
1

From [Marc Abrams (2004.08.21.0201)]

I was not going to post this stuff but thought differently after some
reflection.

Bill W, I'm not trying to embarrass you but I gotta say what I gotta say.

Bill Powers and Rick Marken have made some real questionable decisions over
the years in turning people off. I think Bill and Rick have hit an all time
high in hubris and dumbness all at the same time with this past 'economic'
thread.

Not once in the last two months have I heard either Bill or Rick ask Bill
Williams what _HE_ wanted out of the economic thread. Let me try and explain
the reason why I think Bill Williams treated both Bill and Rick like crap
and _justifiably_ so.

Bill Powers was so consumed with justifying the work of his dad that he
dissed the _one_ person that I know of who actually has the knowledge to
move PCT to a different level.

He did this by continually trying to push his dad's work, and ignoring the
_current_ work Bill is doing. Bill Powers and Rick Marken don't have a clue
in hell about the significance of the work Bill is doing because _AS USUAL_
they really don't care.

Even if 'leakage' is a phenomenon, what does it mean? Powers has less
knowledge about the field of economics then he does about human physiology.
If Bill Powers were serious about a 'Test Bed' Bill Williams would be and
should be guiding the effort with the help and support of anyone interested.
Did anyone ask Bill what he might do _instead_ of a test bed, or better yet
what his opinion might be on the best way to look at economics through
control theory. Nope.

Meanwhile, Rick is consumed with putting together a Don Quixotic effort to
'model' the economy.

All the while Bill Williams is the _ONLY_ person in this exchange who knows
_BOTH_ economics _AND_ control and these two self-centered idiots want him
to help them with an economic model. HUH!!!! Do what? Teach them Economics
101?

If he didn't get some comic relief out of all it he would have probably put
a knot on his head from banging it against t the wall

Is this list about science or personal agenda's? Give me a break.

These have been _my_ thought alone. Bill Williams knew nothing of my
intentions, and if he did, he might have either said I was mistaken or don't
post it. I didn't do it for Bill Williams, I did it for myself. PCT is too
damned important to sink into an abyss of personal agenda's. Isn't it about
time we tried _USING_ all the resources we have available to us for the good
of all (PCT) rather than the benefit of a few. Economics tells us that
discrimination has a _very_ high cost to those who use it. CSGnet has been a
great example of this in practice. All this nonsense that went on with the
economics thread involved a whole lot more than some cheap name calling.

Wise up guys. When you start putting the welfare of the theory of PCT in
front of your own personal agenda's PCT might have a fighting chance of
morphing into something others might want.

Marc Abrams

2

from Mary Powers 2004.08.24

To Gary Cziko - the CSGnet Webmaster:

This is a request to block access to CSGnet for Bill Williams.

I believe that Bill Williams' behavior over the past many months justifies
this action.

I know others agree with me that he has abused his access to the net by his
unceasing attacks on others and his many libelous remarks.

An occasional outburst of this sort can and has been tolerated. This does
not mean that an incessant stream of them has to be tolerated also.

Bill Williams has responded to comments like these in the past by claiming
that he is saying such things all in good fun and that the subjects of his
jibes can't take a joke.

It has not been a joke. However, Bill Williams' victims are not my concern.
They can ignore, tolerate, hit back - whatever suits them.

My concern is CSGnet. It has been a very long time since anyone I know in
CSG has recommended, or would recommend, CSGnet to anyone showing an
interest in PCT. The domination of the net by Bill Williams' posts (30 in
three days, this past week), the tone of those posts, the lack of content
having anything to do with PCT - all combine to make CSGnet essentially
useless as a means of communicating about PCT.

There have been worthwhile posts by others, but they are buried in the
swamp, and it is too much to ask a newcomer, or even some not so new, to
wade through the muck to find them.

What is the point of continuing CSGnet in these circumstances? I don't want
to see it discontinued, but I am sure I am not alone in wanting something
done about the present situation. I don't know what Bill Williams' motives
are for behaving as he has been doing, but the consequence is the
destruction of CSGnet, which for all I know is the result he intends.

I hate seeing CSGnet highjacked by a single individual and I believe that I
am far from alone in this. Please put a stop to it.

Mary P.

3

From [Marc Abrams (2004.08.24.1533)]

from Mary Powers 2004.08.24

To Gary Cziko - the CSGnet Webmaster:

This is a request to block access to CSGnet for Bill Williams.

I believe that Bill Williams' behavior over the past many months justifies
this action.

Mary, I think you are making a _HUGE_ mistake here. I for one do not condone
the behavior Bill has exhibited at times, but to throw out the baby with the
bath water here is a mistake.

If you're so concerned with CSGnet why not find out what it might take for
Bill P. to speak to everyone who actually _wants_ to participate but might
disagree with his point of view. Or is this list in existence for the sole
purpose of joining the 'church'?

Bill Williams may be a reason new people won't come on, just as Rick Marken
might be a reason why many don't stay. _NEITHER_ reason is sufficient to
kick either one off the net.

As I said in my post; I believe Bill Williams' bluster, although
unfortunate, might be understood in terms of his frustration toward being
regarded as someone, who because he was, and is, unwilling to support a
point of view (leakage) in _his_ field of expertise, was belittled by both
Bill and Rick. Mary, there are _many_ ways to belittle someone. One way is
to tell that person that they do not know what they are talking about and
that you will find someone who does. Enter Professor Brun. Why hasn't she
come onto CSGnet? Don't tell me; Bill Williams, right?

Like Bill P I think Bill Williams is one very angry puppy.

Mary, you are a very dear sweet soul, why not try mending rather then
ripping apart. Please give this request a second thought.

Marc

4

[From Bruce Nevin (2004.08.24 17:14 EDT)]

My concern is CSGnet. It has been a very long time since anyone I know in
CSG has recommended, or would recommend, CSGnet to anyone showing an
interest in PCT. The domination of the net by Bill Williams' posts (30 in
three days, this past week), the tone of those posts, the lack of content
having anything to do with PCT - all combine to make CSGnet essentially
useless as a means of communicating about PCT.

I agree that a number of people have expressed reluctance to refer
newcomers to CSGnet due to embarrassment about the quality of discourse on it.

Embarrassment involves inability to control some variables according to
what one perceives to be others' references for those variables. Obviously
there is another control loop as well, else it would not matter how those
others perceive matters and failure to control would not matter.
(Perception of others' references is imagined, of course, and can be
imagined whether or not the others are actually perceived to be present.)

Your proposal quoted above depends upon a guess as to what those people are
embarrassed about, that is, of what they are controlling. Since many of
these expressions of embarrassment and reluctance long preceded Bill
Williams's campaign of calculated vituperation, it is not at all clear that
merely refusing him access is effective means to improve their control and
reduce their embarrassment.

BTW, I disagree that Bill Williams' posts of the past three days are devoid
of content that is relevant to PCT.

         /Bruce Nevin

···

At 12:52 PM 8/24/2004 -0600, Mary Powers wrote:

5

From [Marc Abrams (2004.08.24.1926)]

Well said Bruce, even if I couldn't actually pronounce all the words you
used. :slight_smile:

[From Bruce Nevin (2004.08.24 17:14 EDT)]

Williams's campaign of calculated vituperation, it is not at all clear
that...

Not only am I getting an education in control, I am picking up some neat
vocabulary as well. :slight_smile:

http://www.vituperation.com/bp.php?page=/pages/main.html

Check it out. I think we could all take something away from this site. :slight_smile:

Thanks Bruce, your posts are informative, insightful and for me wonderfully
educational :slight_smile:

Marc

6

From Mary Powers 2004.08.25

I agree that a number of people have expressed reluctance to refer
newcomers to CSGnet due to embarrassment about the quality of discourse on it.

My concern is with irrelevance and vituperation, not quality.

Embarrassment involves inability to control some variables according to
what one perceives to be others' references for those variables. Obviously
there is another control loop as well, else it would not matter how those
others perceive matters and failure to control would not matter.
(Perception of others' references is imagined, of course, and can be
imagined whether or not the others are actually perceived to be present.)

I think you are assuming that embarrassment is the key. I don't agree.

Your proposal quoted above depends upon a guess as to what those people are
embarrassed about, that is, of what they are controlling. Since many of
these expressions of embarrassment and reluctance long preceded Bill
Williams's campaign of calculated vituperation, it is not at all clear that
merely refusing him access is effective means to improve their control and
reduce their embarrassment.

I take it that you have been embarrassed by the quality of the net for a
long time. Again, I am talking about irrelevance and vituperation.

BTW, I disagree that Bill Williams' posts of the past three days are devoid
of content that is relevant to PCT.

That is not what I said, although my sentence structure may be a bit
ambiguous. I said

"The domination of the net by Bill Williams' posts (30 in three days, this
past week), the tone of those posts, the lack of content having anything to
do with PCT - all combine to make CSGnet essentially useless as a means of
communicating about PCT."

The paranthetical remark is an expansion of the the first phrase about
domination, and does not refer to tone or content. Aww Bruce, you read
harder stuff than this all the time (and write it) :wink:

Mary P.

···

At 03:15 PM 8/24/2004, you (Bruce Nevin)wrote:

7

From [Marc Abrams (2004.08.25.1257)]

Vituperation aside, (I _love_ using big new words. :-)) Mary says;

From Mary Powers 2004.08.25

"The domination of the net by Bill Williams' posts (30 in three days, this
past week), the tone of those posts, the lack of content having anything
to
do with PCT - all combine to make CSGnet essentially useless as a means of
communicating about PCT."

Mary, maybe you can answer these few questions for me. I have been on CSGnet
for over 10 years now and as such I have seen many people come and many go,
including me a few times. :slight_smile:

Please tell me what subjects are, and which are not, relevant for proper
discussion on CSGnet?

Can you please tell me what aspects of current PCT/HPCT are, or are not
relevant throughout Bill's published works and what is appropriate for
discussion on CSGnet?

Is Bill the only person who gets to decide what PCT is or is not?

If so, how does anyone know what PCT is during any period of time. It would
not be unusual for Bill to have some new ideas and new data over time. How
does anyone know when it becomes part of the theory?

If not Bill, then who or what determines this?

And finally, what subjects would you like to see discussed here on CSGnet?

Mary, I think one of the _real_ big problems with CSGnet is that Bill P
wants others here, including people like Bill Williams and Bruce Nevin to
work hard in testing _HIS_ ideas. Bill P is not interested in helping _THEM_
test _THEIR_ ideas, and he has said so emphatically at times. PCT tells us
that _all_ people have agenda's (references) and will not tolerate error.

This, in my opinion, is why people don't stay on CSGnet and why it has been
so very difficult to get and keep advocates of the theory.

If you take a look at the record (CSGnet archives) you will see a very sad
pattern. People, who from the viewpoint of Marken and Powers never 'got'
PCT, but in reality it was Marken and Powers who never really got their own
theory. Their total lack of regard and respect for the work that others have
done in their respective fields, and what these folks wanted to accomplish
in the future (their agendas), came back to bite them in the tush big time.

Yeah, I know the whole routine and mantra. You must abandon your old ideas
before you can even begin to see the new ones. _HORSEFEATHERS_. (I'm trying
to clean up my act :-))

You can _only_ see new ideas in light of what you _ALREADY_ know. You are
only able to understand something within the context of _some_ bigger
picture.

Telling people that their ideas are worthless and not worth exploring will
_not_ win you many friends, but _will_ influence them and could make you a
bunch of 'enemies'. It takes some thought to figure out how _NOT_ to make it
into a zero-sum game, but that takes some real effort and most importantly
some respect for what the other person is doing and trying to accomplish, so
you yourself feel it's worth your while. Over the years you guys have simply
gotten back what you have given.

It's all in the economics.

This is a big reason I feel PCT and CSGnet has had, and will continue to
have a difficult time gaining advocates when their own agendas are not being
met. This is also the reason why the threads on CSGnet always revolve around
Bill P's participation and soon dissipate when he leaves them. It has been
an extremely rare experience to have an extended thread on CSGnet without
either Bill Powers or Rick Marken (as carriers of the flame) involved. Until
I hear differently from Mary I would say this shows a strong bent on
attempted indoctrination for an anointed rather than open scientific
discussion. Right

I really don't have a problem with this. Just please let me know what the
ground rules are _UPFRONT_.

Mary, your answers would be greatly appreciated. I do not ask them
rhetorically, nor to bait or mock you. I would like some help in trying to
understand what it is you are interested in accomplishing here on CSGnet,
and how you feel that is best accomplished.

It makes it so much easier for everyone if your cards are on the table.

Marc

8

From [Marc Abrams (2004.09.10.1154)]

I have temporarily signed onto CSGnet to rlay some bad news. I found out this morning that

Bill Williams will be losing a foot to diabetes.

He was in a diabetic coma, which he has come out of, and they are waiting for his white blood count and blood sugar to come down before they operate.

I am in touch with his doctor and will relay any new info as I get it.

Bill has no family and he will need a lot of support. I would hope that regardless of the animosity that was present on this list you folks will find it in your hearts to reach out and give Bill the support he needs

Marc

9

Marc,

Thanks for informing me. As a diabetic myself, this is double bad news. I will pray for Bill Williams. I will try to write him and comfort him.

I am at my son's home near Charlottesville, VA. Having a little trouble using his computer, so I hope this gets through.

Kenny

10

From [Marc Abrams (2004.09.10.1337)]

Ken,

I too am a diabetic and I unfortuantely had a gangrene large toe due to an infection I did not feel because of neuropathy. Thankfully the toe was saved, and I spent 8 months in a cast until it just recently healed. Not a whole lot of fun.

Please take care of yourself, Diabetes is a very cruel disease.

I hope you’re feeling well and doing ok with your other health issues

I’ll let you know where and how he can be reached.

Marc

11

From [Marc Abrams (2004.09.11.1516)]

Folks,

I am going to try and give Bill a bit of a helping hand with the hope of
helping him recover from this very painful experience. If anyone is
interested in contributing to this effort please contact me privately and I
will be more than happy to give you the details.

I'll be posting contact info shortly and he should be hospitalized for about
two weeks.

Marc

12

[From Bruce Nevin (2004.09.30 23:21 EDT)]

I am pleased to report that Bill will be moving tomorrow into a large
dorm/apartment building on campus instead of going back to his old place.

As Marc recounted previously, a neglected diabetic condition led to
amputation of a gangrenous foot. He has been getting used to a prosthesis.

I had great difficulty reaching him at the Truman Medical Center. Patient
Information turned out mostly to be impatient misinformation. When I first
called several weeks ago they told me that he had gone home, when he had
only been moved from the ICU to a private room. Then I did reach him and
had a good conversation one afternoon. When I returned a week or so later
from a trip I was unable to reach him. When finally I reached his room a
stranger answered who knew nothing about him. Then Patient Information
again told he had been released and had gone home. I have no home phone
number and he's not in the directory. But my helpful contact at the KCMU
economics department (Admins rule the world!) said that he had been moved
to Truman East for additional rehab and will be moving out to his new
apartment tomorrow. Given his background in public health administration
(and his temperament) this must have been a very interesting experience for
all concerned.

Whatever feelings you associate with various past experiences as you
remember them, I am sure you join me in wishing him well.

        /Bruce

13

[From Bill Powers (2004.10.01.2250 MDT)]

Bruce Nevin (2004.09.30 23:21 EDT)]

Whatever feelings you associate with various past experiences as you
remember them, I am sure you join me in wishing him well.

The irony is that Bill had been taking much better care of himself,
exercizing, losing weight, and looking better than at any time since I met
him. He had dropped some hints about a medical condition, but this crisis
came as a complete surprise to me, and probably to him. I do wish him a
full recovery and a return to his life of the mind, in which a foot is a
long way away.

Best,

Bill P.

14

From Dick Robertson, 2004.10.02.1230CDT

···

From: Bruce Nevin bnevin@CISCO.COM

Date: Friday, October 1, 2004 10:21 pm

Subject: Bill Williams

[From Bruce Nevin (2004.09.30 23:21 EDT)]

I am pleased to report that Bill will be moving tomorrow into a large
dorm/apartment building on campus instead of going back to his old
place.
As Marc recounted previously, a neglected diabetic condition led to
amputation of a gangrenous foot. He has been getting used to a
prosthesis.

Whatever feelings you associate with various past experiences as you
remember them, I am sure you join me in wishing him well.

Yes.

Best,

Dick R

15

From [Marc Abrams (2004.12.24.0004)]

Although Bill Williams and I did not speak during the final month of his life, I was certain that one day when I had my facts together Bill and I would reconcile.

We had differing views on economics and on how one might proceed with getting one’s ideas known.

Bill firmly believed that control was the key to economic thought. I agreed whole heartedly. Where we differed was on how to get the word out about it.

Looking back now, the differences seem so silly and I’m crushed that the one person who would have any idea about where I was going with this stuff is now gone. I’m not suggesting he would have agreed with me. I’m suggesting he would have understood where I wanted to go.

I believe Bill and I wanted to go in different directions and for different purposes. There was not much I could do to help him get where he wanted to go, but he could have helped me a great deal.

It was Bill who unwittingly turned me onto economics, and in subsequent conversations with him on the phone and through e-mail, he guided me through an initial maze of readings that helped me a great deal in getting started and on the road.

It was Bill who I first communicated my ‘Epiphany’ to and he listened with great interest as I laid out how I thought control and economics were related and he agreed with me. Bill was always more interested in Macro economics and I in Micro. Two distinctly different animals.

Bill was a maverick and an independent soul. What you saw in the end from Bill was frustration.

I was fortunate enough to be able to read some of Bill’s chapters to his unfinished book, and I am going to dedicate my work in control to the memory of William Williams. I believe his desire to provide a means for economists to have a viable, usable ‘utility’ theory based on control will come to pass, and I’m going to try like hell to make it happen in his name.

Bill spent his entire life trying to put this book together, and it was this one dream that gave him solace and peace. I’m sorry he will not be here to possibly see his dream come true.

I miss ya wild Bill, rest in peace bud.

Darth