[From Kenny Kitzke (2007.06.21)]
<Bill Powers (2007.06.20.1005) MDT)>
<As to driving the neo-cons out, an equally valid example would be driving the tax-and-spend democrats out. I think it’s best not to give political opinions a free ride on an exposition of PCT – it reduces the scientific material to merely an excuse for expressing a personal opinion about something else. I prefer to keep PCT in the center position. Not that I disagree with your opinions, but they are your own and have no scientific justification. It’s a bit like taking a group picture only to find that someone was grinning at the camera and holding up his latest book for everyone to see.>
I heartedly agree with your sentiment, Bill, about “political opinions” getting a free ride on an exposition of PCT on CSGNET. I perceive Rick as the worst offender.
I don’t read CSGNET to discuss politics. There are plenty of forums where one can do that. This forum’s central purpose is PCT, a scientific explanation of behavior. Sure, republicans and democrats and independents behave differently. We can assess their behavior and guess at what perceptions they are controlling and yak about what we think of their actions or what reference perceptions we think they should have instead.
The focus of such discussions can easily slip from the scientific PCT aspects of the behavior to the political actions and references we prefer, either overtly or as hidden agendas. Political issues are often emotionally charged (preventing terrorism, stopping illegal immigration or the governments role in abortion, homosexuality, constitutional rights, taxation, economics etc.). Such issues can move men to conflict and even violence, revolution or war. They are not functionally or primarily scientific in nature. And while PCT may help us understand the different beliefs and actions, it WILL NOT by itself resolve a single one for other people or the collective society.
There are so many aspects of PCT that still need expansion and testing and clear exposition. Even trying to write a simple explanation of PCT for beginners is fraught with difficulty for our most competent adherents. Rick can and has contributed much to this science. It is greatly appreciated.
Speaking for myself, I am not interested in hearing Rick’s political opinions and rants at all, much less on CSGNET and especially when they entail name-calling and character assassination. Can’t Rick and those who are interested in such discussions and debates with Rick, or anyone else, simply conduct them privately? I have done that with him on various religious topics. Wouldn’t it make CSGNET not only more scientific but more professional and worthy of reading by those wanting to learn about PCT, sans personal political or religious preferences?
I have complained and urged this many times over the years without much “reorganization” taking place on Rick’s part. Perhaps your well-stated preference will be more influential.
See what’s free at AOL.com.