[From: Bruce Nevin (Thu 930429 16:16:37)]

[ Powers (930422.1315) ] --

Sorry the paper was so bad. Bummer. But to keep the record
straight, I didn't recommend it, I only passed along information
about it, as received. Given the percentages reflected e.g. in
your recent trip through the journals, should I stop doing this?

[Gary Cziko 930420.2008 GMT] (and many others) --

Another pernicious ambiguity, like that with "information". The
word "guilt" in the legal sense means a socially defined status,
as in [Rick Marken (930420.1900)] ``legal conditions for guilt (I
think they are called mens rea?) ... it must be shown that the
result was intended and 2) that the person who produced the
result knew that it was "wrong".'' In another sense it is a
remembered perception not matching a reference perception, as in
[Bill Powers (930420.1900)] ``Isn't guilt wishing you hadn't done
something you've already done? If that's what it is, then guilt
certainly exists. But in people who don't wish they hadn't done
something, there is no guilt. You can't put it into them.''

As to something being wrong, that's another problem altogether.
We've only begun to poke at the notion of PCT ethics.

        Bruce Nevin