Enough enough enough

CSGnet Archive CSG2004
1

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2004.04.16.1905 CDT)]

Marc,

A point here, pal. My efforts regarding decorum and restraint are not
because I am some shrinking violet, or because I have signed a pact with
some church crowd not to curse. There is a reality here in CSGnet that goes
beyond your petty attempt to show how right you are (this is my impression,
of course I cannot, nor do I want to, know your particular reference
settings).

What we (we=100+ potential contributors) need to represent is a research
group that can be taken seriously. I presume that there is a lot of
backstabbing and power plays in the shadows of a major research org such as
the AERA, ALA, and AMA. But professionally, we have to cut the crap (crap
can be said since it is used on CBS, and it is not one of the 7 dirty words,
hah). We have to be able to demonstrate that we are not intellectually
abusing our intelligence with this petty bickering, bullying and baiting.

So, Marc, when I object to the slander/ad homimem attacks, bullying of
folks, and unjustified posting of scatalogical non-humor, I am only
objecting professionally, with the intent that CSGnet can be respected, and
that PCT will be something I can introduce in a business meeting and not
lose my face because a reader had been shoved a post of Bill Williams, Marc
Abrams, or some other dissembler on this net. If it were my decision, we
would move to a Yahoo! group, where messages would be held up to very clear
standards of decorum and professional courtesy. Seeing as I cannot, and
don't have the time to manage such a group, I will just post this again (and
again and again and again) for the eyes of the folks who seemingly can't get
it.

Marc, Bill W., (anyone else??) just unsubscribe and leave. In spite of the
fact that you say you want to play fair, that you want to appear
professional, your very actions contradict what you keep saying. To others,
I realize that we don't want to control behavior. I understand that. But how
long must we endure the attempts of some to control the inboxes of others. I
assert that you all know the answer to this, but are in denial about what to
do.

--Bryan

···

>From [Marc Abrams (2004.04.16.1237)]

This of course is one mans opinion, but Bill your (Bryan, please look
away) full of shit.

...

Marc

Considering how often throughout history even intelligent people have
been proved to be wrong, it is amazing that there are still people who
are convinced that the only reason anyone could possibly say something
different from what they believe is stupidity or dishonesty.

Being smart is what keeps some people from being intelligent.

Thomas Sowell

2

From[Bill Williams 16 March 2004

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2004.04.16.1905 CDT)]

Bryan adresses himself directly to Marc, but I get some mud slung in my direction too, so I will reply.

Bryan says,

What we (we=100+ potential contributors) need to represent is a research group that can be taken seriously.

This might be your perception of what is needed. In some respects I think I share the idea that it would be desirable for the CSGnet to run in a way that would be creditable and appealing to serious scholars and researchers. The question, however, is how to create the conditions that would facilitate this.

Bryan says,

But professionally, we have to cut the crap (crap
can be said since it is used on CBS, and it is not one of the 7 dirty words,
hah). We have to be able to demonstrate that we are not intellectually
abusing our intelligence with this petty bickering, bullying and baiting.

If you will remember I voted for a moderated list.

Some of people who were unhappy with the conditions you describe on the CSGnet joined to create a discussion forum which would be free of the difficulties that you have described. Recently, when a member became abusive in approximately the way you describe we expelled him.

Now, you go on to describe me as a "dissembler." Ordinarily, this is regarded as a serious charge. But, I guess you don't feel any obligation to do anything more than make a charge. Maybe you don't have time to do so in a manner that is matter-of-fact.

So, you announce an intension to

post this again (and again and again and again) for the eyes of the folks
who seemingly can't get it.

You leave the issue of what "it" is undefined. Who is it that you perceive "Who seemingly can't get it?" Is it Bill Powers who sometimes threatens toi bite me? Is Bill Powers included in the "folks who seemingly can't get it?" Is Rick Marken, among this group for calling Michelle "an ignorant slut?"

But, you tell me, among some others, to

Bill W., (anyone else??) just unsubscribe and leave.

Why should I? What is the purpose of saying stuff like this?

Bryan seems to be adressesing the remainder of the CSGnet community when he says,

In spite of the fact that you say you want to play fair, that you want to appear
professional, your very actions contradict what you keep saying.

Bryan argues that,

I assert that you all know the answer to this, but are in denial about what to
do.

I rather doubt that the CSGnet community either knows the answer the problems that have been experienced, or are in denial in refusing to do what they know must be done. I know for a fact that this is not the case for _all_ the members of the CSGnet community. I happen to be a subscriber and I don't _know_ that the answer actually is the answer that Bryan thinks is the answer. And, I am certainly not in denial about what I am seeking to do.

Rick for instance in a recept post appears to conceade that I may be gaining ground in convincing people that he is among the sources of difficulty on the CSGnet.

In my view it doesn't contribute to a professional immage when Rick Marken quite seriously proposes that the judgment and maturity of a moderator is not an issue. We really don't need pedophiles as police officers. And, it doesn't contribute to a professional immage when Rick calls Michelle an "ignorant slut."

And, I find Bill Powers' paranoid delusions about a conspiracy of all the enomous variety of econmists to deny basic information to him and other people who wish to understand the economy an embarassment. The possiblity that Powers description of the situation is in fact the case not a genuine possiblity. And, in fact it is not at all the case. Bill Powers has some reasons of his own for thinking about the world as he does, but what he thinks in this regard has nothing at all to do with the world as it is.

Bill Williams

3

Bryan and all those to whom Bryan's remarks are directed,
Thank-you for stating it so clearly. I've stopped recommending CSGnet
to colleagues but would like to begin again.
David

···

On Friday, April 16, 2004, at 05:06 PM, Bryan Thalhammer wrote:

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2004.04.16.1905 CDT)]

Marc,

A point here, pal. My efforts regarding decorum and restraint are not
because I am some shrinking violet, or because I have signed a pact
with
some church crowd not to curse. There is a reality here in CSGnet that
goes
beyond your petty attempt to show how right you are (this is my
impression,
of course I cannot, nor do I want to, know your particular reference
settings).

What we (we=100+ potential contributors) need to represent is a
research
group that can be taken seriously. I presume that there is a lot of
backstabbing and power plays in the shadows of a major research org
such as
the AERA, ALA, and AMA. But professionally, we have to cut the crap
(crap
can be said since it is used on CBS, and it is not one of the 7 dirty
words,
hah). We have to be able to demonstrate that we are not intellectually
abusing our intelligence with this petty bickering, bullying and
baiting.

So, Marc, when I object to the slander/ad homimem attacks, bullying of
folks, and unjustified posting of scatalogical non-humor, I am only
objecting professionally, with the intent that CSGnet can be
respected, and
that PCT will be something I can introduce in a business meeting and
not
lose my face because a reader had been shoved a post of Bill Williams,
Marc
Abrams, or some other dissembler on this net. If it were my decision,
we
would move to a Yahoo! group, where messages would be held up to very
clear
standards of decorum and professional courtesy. Seeing as I cannot, and
don't have the time to manage such a group, I will just post this
again (and
again and again and again) for the eyes of the folks who seemingly
can't get
it.

Marc, Bill W., (anyone else??) just unsubscribe and leave. In spite of
the
fact that you say you want to play fair, that you want to appear
professional, your very actions contradict what you keep saying. To
others,
I realize that we don't want to control behavior. I understand that.
But how
long must we endure the attempts of some to control the inboxes of
others. I
assert that you all know the answer to this, but are in denial about
what to
do.

--Bryan

4

[From Rick Marken (2004.04.17.0940)]

Bryan Thalhammer (2004.04.16.1905 CDT) --

I agree with you completely, Bryan. But I don't think it's going to
happen. I think the only reason there is any contention on CSGNet is
because Bill Powers' presence makes CSGNet the "official" PCT
discussion group. If Bill were not here, then the trouble makers
wouldn't be trying to take it over. They could just play in their own
sandbox.

Since Bill is opposed to a moderated list, CSGNet will never become a
professional forum for discussion of PCT. I think this is a mistake on
Bill's part. I think we're throwing away a great opportunity (provided
by the development of the Internet) to have a world-wide forum for
competent (and civil) discussion of a great intellectual achievement.

I'm sure there will still be useful discussions on CSGNet every so
often. But CSGNet as a professional forum for discussion of PCT --
outside of academia, where PCT is rarely taught -- is a dream deferred.
  That's disappointing to me but I don't really need CSGNet for my work
on PCT. The real disappointment is that, because of the persistent
garbage posted to an unmoderated CSGNet, we can't recommend it to
students and colleagues to whom it could be of enormous benefit.

Best regards

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

5

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2004.04.17.1705)]

David,

Bryan and all those to whom Bryan's remarks are directed,
Thank-you for stating it so clearly. I've stopped recommending CSGnet
to colleagues but would like to begin again.
David

You are welcome. My comments, strangely enough, were directed to the
behavior certain others seem to be unable to curtail. This is strange, of
course, because of the topic of our discussion group, that is, controlling
perceptions rather than controlling behavior. There, I have corrected myself
for the moment. :stuck_out_tongue: But the motivation here is that I am (we, you, all
included) not at all attacking any of the perps out there who cannot resist
bullying behavior. I am just saying I am controlling for NOT seeing that
particular behavior in my CSGnet mailbox anymore. I would hope, according to
Clark McPhail's and Kent McClellands writings, that others would reorganize
and align their perceptions according to the standard I am suggesting.

Therefore, I filter Bill W. messages immediately so I don't see them
anymore. I really thought that Marc had smartened up (it seems not to be the
case) and so I will start filtering his posts to the trash too. It is too
bad, I bet he has many good things to contribute, but scatalogical
descriptions and vicious accusations simply don't cut it with me. I have
better things to do, so I will let my computer "post-moderate" these two
into the trash until someone can give me a good reason why I should instruct
my PC to stop post-moderating them. One way would be that I received
evidence that both Bill W. and Marc were "pre-moderating," that is,
reconsidering their posts and not sending stuff that was inappropriate or
offensive. So, folks let me know when these guys start controlling their
perceptions of the CSGnet in a format that somewhat better aligns with the
manner I suggest.

By the way, there IS a CSGnet Yahoo! group now, ready and waiting for anyone
wanting to subscribe. At this time it is only a suggestion for an alternate
forum, not at all a replacement of the current one served by a University of
Illinois LISTSERV. It is set up as a restricted, moderated group, which
means that only members may post messages and view the group's contents, and
that member posts can be either unmoderated *or* moderated, according to
settings controled by the group's "owners" or "moderators." We can discuss
just how this moderation strategy would work later. The bottom line
moderation would be "pre-moderation," where contributors are simply
responsible CSGnet citizens. Failing that, they would be firt moderated by
group owners/moderators, and finally, when repeated notes are seen to be
offensive or disruptive, they would simply be removed-period. But this is
only a suggestion. Here it is:

If you would like to know more about Yahoo! groups, and the structure of
available features, I would be glad to put together a short paper, specific
for the CSGnet community. In brief, a Yahoo! group offers the following
features:

  Home [Page]: Front Page (you all can view this page right now).

The rest of the features are for members only:

  Messages (archive of past messages sent through the distribution list)
  Chat (real-time chat room for you hard core CSGnet chatters)
  Files (a place to store and share specific documents and files)
  Photos (photos of ourselves, events, and PCT related graphics)
  Links (links to different PCT related sites)
  Database (usually a member database, but the flat-files are customizable)
  Polls (voting)
  Members (easy way to send mail or contact a specfic member)
  Calendar (Outlook style way to track events, birthdays, and conferences)

The group is very easy to use, but I would not be opposed to providing
assistance to any or all who made reasonable requests.

Just a suggestion...

--Bryan Thalhammer