[From Hank Folson (971216)]
i.kurtzer (971216.0100)
what i see Mark as trying to do is applying PCT to his work. That is, >rather
than talk about it. No rub to Hank or others to who this is >clearly incidental
to their professional interests.
Clearly incidental? I am a living control system, as are all my suppliers and
customers. How can PCT be incidental to my (or anyone else's) professional
interests?
Sincerely, Hank Folson
[From Bruce Gregory (971217.0510 EST)]
Hank Folson (971216)
i.kurtzer (971216.0100)
what i see Mark as trying to do is applying PCT to his work. That is,
rather
than talk about it. No rub to Hank or others to who this is >clearly
incidental
to their professional interests.
Clearly incidental? I am a living control system, as are all my suppliers and
customers. How can PCT be incidental to my (or anyone else's) professional
interests?
I agree. In fact, some of my best friends are living control systems...
Bruce
i.kurtzer (971117.0000)
I mean incidental not in the existential case. In the existential sense QM
would be unincidental to a psychologist since the person is founded on matter.
However, I take it for granted that the micro-structure of the aperion is not
going to help solve marriage problems. And so with PCT. I am trying to say
that for those persons within the life science community..please get off your
asses and start applying this to your work..if it is indeed compelling. So the
message with intended only to not badger persons to where it did not enter
there profession outside of existential incidentalnesssness.
i.