# Choosing a New CSGNet

**URL:** http://discourse.iapct.org/t/choosing-a-new-csgnet/2532
**Category:** CSG2014
**Created:** [April 3, 2014, 5:20pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/choosing-a-new-csgnet/2532 "2014-04-03T17:20:47Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/rsmarken/32/3553_2.png) [@rsmarken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/rsmarken)
#### Post date: [April 8, 2014, 5:26pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/choosing-a-new-csgnet/2532/21 "2014-04-08T17:26:37Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (2014.04.08.1030)]

> **···**
>
> > Matti Kolu (2014.04.07.1845 CET)
> > 
> > MK: Is there enough agreement among the forum proponents of what the
> > 
> > overall purpose of the forum should be? The interests and experience
> > 
> > levels of the participants on this mailing list are widely divergent.
> > 
> > Can these interests be accommodated under a single, shared banner?
> 
> RM: I’m going back to my original position, which I believe was the same as Bill Powers: CSGNet should remain as the go to site for information about and discussion of PCT. When Bill Powers was alive CSGNet was unquestionably the official “gold standard” PCT site. I think, in honor of the the legacy of Bill Powers if nothing else, CSGNet should remain the “official” PCT site. I know that Bill considered the fact that people with widely divergent interests and experience levels come to CSGNet to be a feature rather than a bug.
> 
> RM: The only reason I suggested considering a new forum for CSGNet was in order to make it more accessible to people who discover PCT and want to learn more about it. But I think that problem is solved, from my point of view, by including clear pointers at PCT “portal” sites (like [PCTweb.org](http://PCTweb.org)) to where people can subscribe to CSGNet.
> 
> RM: So I am set on keeping CSGNet as it is. It’s the only site I will use for discussions of PCT. I find having lots of alternative sites to be distracting and kind of a waste of time. Of course, there is nothing to stop anyone who wants to from setting up their own PCT related discussion forums, like ECACS. But I think those other sites kind of dilute things, for me anayway. CSGNet may not be as fancy as other forums but I personally find that it allows for more substantive discussions, perhaps because it lets me focus on the ideas more than the bells and whistles of the forum itself.
> 
> RM: So that’s where I stand. Let’s just keep CSGNet as it is and try to get more people, especially students, involved by making it more accessible via portals like [PCTWeb.org](http://PCTWeb.org),
> 
> Best
> 
> Rick
> 
> > I
> > 
> > suspect that people who get their introduction to PCT from a text such
> > 
> > as “Introduction to Modern Psychology” would be very hesitant to join
> > 
> > a forum such as ECACS. It is too intimidating. (Largely by design?)
> > 
> > I shudder every time “mission statements” are brought up, but it seems
> > 
> > to me that the hard stuff lies in figuring out the objectives of the
> > 
> > potential forum, and in reaching some kind of shared understanding of
> > 
> > who the readers and members should be. Building a community without a
> > 
> > some kind of shared mission (or worldview) is hard. In comparison to
> > 
> > the social stuff, choosing an adequate software platform is trivial.
> > 
> > Matti
> 
> –  
> Richard S. Marken PhD  
> [www.mindreadings.com](http://www.mindreadings.com)  
> It is difficult to get a man to [understand](http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Understand) something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. – Upton Sinclair

[Previous page](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/choosing-a-new-csgnet/2532.md?page=1)