From [Marc Abrams (2005.02.11.0233)]
In a message dated 2/10/2005 11:11:46 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, marken@MINDREADINGS.COM writes:
[From Rick *** [THE FALLACY KING***]Marken (2005.02.10.2010)]
Well, you are right about my having no idea how to get adherents, but
that’s never been a problem because I’ve never sought any. Right now
I’m much more interested in figuring out how to get rid of rather than
get adherents. I apparently have no idea how to do that either.
NO Rick, as usual, and again you are not quite on target and you make some very interesting claims.
In point in fact, you are EXTREMELY adapt at getting rid of potential adherents to PCT. The true believers here just ignore your ignorance and tolerate your presence. Some of the lurkers smirk, and enjoy the bashing you get at times.
In fact if you were as successful in gaining adherents as you were in losing them you would be a very happy individual.
If you were to compare your effort to that of the growth of say the GDP, you would be considered to be in the Great Depression here. Maybe a call to your economic icon, 'ol Franklin D, might give you some useful insights.
But please don’t worry about me. I expressed a desire to get Bill’s support for my effort because I feel what I am doing is COMPATABLE to PCT.
I AM _NOT, and I repeat NOT, doing PCT. In fact what I have been attempting to do is actually gain some adherents to some sanity and a potentially useful and interesting attempt at a control model of human behavior and cognition that actually represents a HUMAN, and not a computer program.
And to my surprise, I have actually been able to enlist the aid of a few on this list.
That is not to say that they are about to either give up their CSGnet affiliation, nor their strong PCT beliefs. I just think they feel, a bit of fresh air might be useful for their purposes.
And in closing, you say;
Well, you are right about my having no idea how to get adherents, but
that’s never been a problem because I’ve never sought any.
This of course is a lie. You write papers, give lectures and converse with me for a few different reasons. One of them is to try and INFLUENCE the thoughts of others. It’s not a sin. We all do it when we argue and advocate a position. In fact it’s one of the reasons we do in fact argue.
It is THE main reason CSGnet exists. we ‘exchange’ ideas for the purpose of gaining the support of others for those ideas, otherwise thought of as adherence.
Powers may not want to sell, but that is the ONLY way his message will ever be heard and the sooner he actually comes to grips with this little bit of truth, the better off he will be
If it didn’t matter to us we would not be disturbed (in PCT speak, no error would occur) and we would not engage in any exchange.
In the parlance of PCT, we engage in arguments at times because we are ‘disturbed’ enough to either want to reduce ‘error’ in ourselves or in others we feel are involved in wrong-headed thinking and that we can both influence and ‘help’ either ourselves or others in the process if we could only somehow ‘win’ the argument.
This of course means we are ‘disturbed’ at times not by what is actually happening to us directly, but what we think we see happening to others. This of course could be and often is pure speculation.
Of course the other person might actually have some other ideas, but that generally has never been an impediment to the true believer interested in converting the masses to their way of thinking.
THIS is the accepted method of communicating on CSGnet, and for the most part a losing proposition.
To advocate without inquiry is the worst kind of exchange and will always lead to disaster. Chris Argyris has spent a lifetime studying this phenomenon.
It shows NO regard and respect for the beliefs of others and as such the feelings get reciprocated.
I stay here not to mimic or hurt but for scholarship. Mine though, NOT yours. I have found the CSGnet archives a gold mine for my study of argumentation and the fallacies associated with it. And as you have seen in recent days, I am having a blast picking apart weak and poorly presented arguments.
You may not like it, but it is in fact scholarship for me, and at this time the only scholarship available here because Martin Taylor, David Wolsk, and Brian Dagostino have been the only folks who have had the decency to try and address some of the actual questions I have had without the need for resorting to strawman, red herring fallacies and ad hominem attacks Not at all what you would hope for on CSGnet from the supposed ‘leadership’.
Do you really think my questions about PCT, the MOL, communication on CSGnet, deductive reasoning, and trying to gain adherents to PCT were done by me from a position of hate and disdain?
If not, then why the personal attacks, and if you did think so, why bother giving me credibility by responding to my claims in manner that made you look small?
BTW, do you really think the lack of responses by others on CSGnet is a sign of support for your position?
I don’t think so. I think most folks here would absolutely LOVE to trash me and my arguments, IF they could. They may not like my language and they probably hate my attitude, but they can’t deny the facts I have presented and frankly, the way you and Bill responded to me has not been a pretty site, nor have you gained much respect with your extremely weak attacks.