Hal to Bill on explaining the theory

I am getting worn out, trying to hint that if reading one book of
yours, Bill P., and building thence from what people say here, isn't
enough to get a full statement of your theory and model, it should be
no surprise that my model of the distinction between violent and
democratic interaction takes a book to describe, and even then remains
to be explained further. Meanwhile, I have tried to describe it
briefly this way and that, message after message.

As to models representing definitions of situations rather than
reality itself, many are the "hard" scientists who have agreed with me
(or taught me so)--most recently the molecular biologist, Marti
Crouch, I mentioned having spoken with yesterday.

A thought on achieving control: My failure to understand manifests
itself in behavior just the same as your failure. I don't know that
you're wrong that I don't understand what I am talking about, but your
saying so flatly doesn't mean I am the wrong or misunderstanding one
either.

Any model of behavior can be made to account for all behavior. I'm
not saying you cannot model interactive phenomena describing. I'm
just suggesting your models don't account for the interaction, which
for me, as one little for instance, distinguishes what comes out as a
chat over someone's request for money on the street from a mugging.
My model accounts for the transition that occurs when Rabin and Arafat
switch from failing to recognize one another to accommodation, as
another for instance. My model as another for instance leads me to
predict that in a culture in which adults make a point of engaging
children in conversation at adult party dinner tables, incarceration
rates will be lower than where adults instead ignore or talk about the
children.

Are you really trying to figure out what I'm saying, Bill, or just
trying to dismiss my problems as not yours? l&p hal