# Madness

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/madness/6666>\
**Category:** CSG1998\
**Created:** [December 19, 1998, 12:04pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/madness/6666 "1998-12-19T12:04:44Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_Gregory8](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Bruce\_Gregory8](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Gregory8)\
**Post date:** [December 19, 1998, 12:04pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/madness/6666/1 "1998-12-19T12:04:44Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Gregory (981219.0700 EDT)]

Rick Marken (981218.1910)

> Tim Carey (981219.0645) --
> 
> I'm sorry Tim. I'm having trouble keeping my mind on CSGNet.  
> I'm watching with moderate dismay as our wise Republican leaders  
> impeach President Clinton for not knowing that "sexual relations"  
> includes "blow job".

It makes Nazi Germany seem a lot more plausible doesn't it? The ability of  
"intelligent" people to convince themselves that absolute absurdities are  
true and that they have no choice but to act in the way they are acting  
\_may\_ not be our undoing, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Ireland looks a lot more attractive.

Bruce Gregory

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/R_Marken)\
**Post date:** [December 19, 1998, 4:48pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/madness/6666/2 "1998-12-19T16:48:00Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (981219.0850)]

Bruce Gregory (981219.0700 EDT)

> It makes Nazi Germany seem a lot more plausible doesn't it?

It sure does.

But they're not killing anyone (except abortion providers) yet  
so maybe those of us who believe that abortions should still be  
done in fetid rooms with coat hangers can just sit back and  
laugh along with Chris;-) Hitler was a great comedy act too (see  
Chaplin's Great Dictator) if you weren't a Jew, a homosexual  
or a gypsy -- which, let's face it, is most of us;-)

I've been trying to figure out what these impeachers are  
controlling for; what makes Clinton such a HUGH disturbance to  
them. Of course, they all must be controlling for slightly  
different perceptions. But my current hypothesis is that they  
are all controlling for a very similar perception; what I would  
call a "religious" perspective on life. They want to perceive a  
world in which "truth" is absolute and it comes through words, like  
those in the Bible, the Koran or Mein Kampf. Since they want truth  
to come from words, it's a terrible disturbance if you \_say\_ something  
that seems like an untruth to them. That is why they consider telling  
the "truth" under "oath" to be such a big deal. They are a very  
\_verbal\_ group.

This is kind of a scary perspective to those of us who want to perceive  
a world where truth comes from testing empirical observation against  
models; ie. we want to see truth (or, at least, as close as we can  
get to it) coming from science. We're the one's who were upset  
because the empirical evidence of OJ's guilt was dismissed in  
favor of concerns about the the "lies" told by Mark Fuhrman. The  
OJ jury and the House Republicans are cut from the same cloth  
(controlling for the same perception: truth based on words).

I think Clinton is basically in camp that wants to se a scientific  
approach to truth. He has all the symptoms; he is thoughtful, non-  
dogmatic, negotiable, conciliatory and relatively empirical. Such  
people appear horribly relativistic to the verbal truth types;  
ergo, actions on their part to remove the disturbance.

So what we are seeing (according to my hypothesis) is a bunch of  
religious zealots controlling for seeing a religious approach to  
truth. Surprisingly, I think the majority of the American public  
(not exactly a bunch of Nobel laurerates) are controlling their  
perception of "verbal truth" at a reference that is a lot closer  
to Clinton's than to that of the Republicans.

But just in case, I think I will look into moving to a country  
where reason and civility still seem to prevail.

Best

Rick

> **···**
>
> --  
> Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313  
> Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net  
> [http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/](http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Marc\_Abrams5](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@Marc\_Abrams5](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Marc_Abrams5)\
**Post date:** [December 19, 1998, 8:42pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/madness/6666/3 "1998-12-19T20:42:27Z")

</div>

> From [Marc Abrams (981219.1458)]

> [From Rick Marken (981219.0850)]
> 
> Bruce Gregory (981219.0700 EDT)
> 
> > It makes Nazi Germany seem a lot more plausible doesn't it?
> 
> It sure does.

Pleeeeeze !!. A little over dramatic aren't we.

I normally would not have responded to this post, but maybe coming out of  
the hospital again for the 3rd time in 3 weeks, ( I am OK, but still  
unkowing as to the cause of these episodes ) my perspective ( cynacism is  
probably a better word ) on the system ( i.e. the people who willingly go  
along with the rules ) has been taking a beating.

> But they're not killing anyone (except abortion providers) yet  
> so maybe those of us who believe that abortions should still be  
> done in fetid rooms with coat hangers can just sit back and  
> laugh along with Chris;-) Hitler was a great comedy act too (see  
> Chaplin's Great Dictator) if you weren't a Jew, a homosexual  
> or a gypsy -- which, let's face it, is most of us;-)

What are you controlling for? Not that I really care. But you seem to be  
just as "vocal" and "wordy" as any of those other folks. What makes your  
words any better or more important?

> I've been trying to figure out what these impeachers are  
> controlling for; what makes Clinton such a HUGH disturbance to  
> them. Of course, they all must be controlling for slightly  
> different perceptions. But my current hypothesis is that they  
> are all controlling for a very similar perception; what I would  
> call a "religious" perspective on life. They want to perceive a  
> world in which "truth" is absolute and it comes through words, \>like those

in the Bible, the Koran or Mein Kampf. Since they want \>truth to come from  
words, it's a terrible disturbance if you \_say\_ \>something that seems like  
an untruth to them. That is why they \>consider telling the "truth" under  
"oath" to be such a big deal. \>They are a very \_verbal\_ group.

And exactly how are you diffrent then "them"?. The only known truth resides  
in a joystick, huh?

> This is kind of a scary perspective to those of us who want to \>perceive a

world where truth comes from testing empirical \>observation against models;  
ie. we want to see truth (or, at least, as close as we can get to it)  
coming from science.

Whose "empirical observations" ? and whose "models"?

> We're the one's who were upset  
> because the empirical evidence of OJ's guilt was dismissed in  
> favor of concerns about the the "lies" told by Mark Fuhrman. The  
> OJ jury and the House Republicans are cut from the same cloth  
> (controlling for the same perception: truth based on words).

Your misunderstanding a \_big\_ part of our legal system. The "law"  
determines ( usually ) who is brought to trial. The jury \_determines\_ who  
is guilty. The law only becomes enforcable if a jury is willing to convict.  
That's the reason many crimes are not brought to trial or are plea  
bargained. Finding the "truth" is not what our trial system is about.  
"Winning" is what it's about.

> I think Clinton is basically in camp that wants to se a scientific

Clinton is an asshole who made some pretty \_stupid\_ choices and judgements.  
The fact that he cost many people hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal  
fees and made Monica Lewinsky a star is beyond belief. He should have, and  
could have avoided all of this with a little truthfulness. Is the crime  
trivial? No. because he accussed of \_lying\_ and \_obstructing justice\_.  
Whether the \_reasons\_ are Monica Lewinski or Watergate are \_besides\_ the  
point.

> approach to truth. He has all the symptoms; he is thoughtful, non-  
> dogmatic, negotiable, conciliatory and relatively empirical. Such  
> people appear horribly relativistic to the verbal truth types;  
> ergo, actions on their part to remove the disturbance.

I don't agree with your assesment, and neither do a number of other people

> So what we are seeing (according to my hypothesis) is a bunch of  
> religious zealots controlling for seeing a religious approach to  
> truth.

Do you see yourself the same way?, You should.

> Surprisingly, I think the majority of the American public  
> (not exactly a bunch of Nobel laurerates)

Glad we have people like you to set us straight.

> are controlling their  
> perception of "verbal truth" at a reference that is a lot closer  
> to Clinton's than to that of the Republicans.

Evidently, not enough. But we will see ( if there is a trial in the Senate  
). I hope there is no trial. J hope this all goes away. It does not take  
away though, from the fact, that Clinton is an Asshole.

> But just in case, I think I will look into moving to a country  
> where reason and civility still seem to prevail.

And where might that be?

Marc

> **···**
>
> At 08:48 AM 12/19/98 -0800, you wrote:

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_Gregory8](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Bruce\_Gregory8](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Gregory8)\
**Post date:** [December 19, 1998, 8:53pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/madness/6666/4 "1998-12-19T20:53:01Z")

</div>

> From [Bruce Gregory 9981219.1550 EDT)]

Marc Abrams (981219.1458)]

> What are you controlling for? Not that I really care. But you seem to be  
> just as "vocal" and "wordy" as any of those other folks. What makes your  
> words any better or more important?

As James Carville so eloquently put it, "We're right, they're wrong."  
Simple, no?

> And exactly how are you diffrent then "them"?. The only known  
> truth resides  
> in a joystick, huh?

Let's not be crude...

> Clinton is an asshole who made some pretty \_stupid\_ choices and  
> judgements.

He always speaks very highly of you...

> The fact that he cost many people hundreds of thousands of  
> dollars in legal  
> fees and made Monica Lewinsky a star is beyond belief. He should have, and  
> could have avoided all of this with a little truthfulness. Is the crime  
> trivial? No. because he accussed of \_lying\_ and \_obstructing justice\_.  
> Whether the \_reasons\_ are Monica Lewinski or Watergate are \_besides\_ the  
> point.

A politician lie? I'm shocked. Shocked. Impeachment is too good him. I say  
let's get a rope and string him up right now before he taints the political  
process even more.

I'm glad your heart is OK. Have you thought about having your head examined?  
Just a thought...

Bruce Gregory

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/R_Marken)\
**Post date:** [December 19, 1998, 10:24pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/madness/6666/5 "1998-12-19T22:24:16Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (981219.1430)]

Me:

> Since they want truth to come from words, it's a terrible  
> disturbance if you \_say\_ something that seems like an untruth  
> to them. That is why they consider telling the "truth" under  
> "oath" to be such a big deal. They are a very \_verbal\_ group.

Marc Abrams (981219.1458) --

> And exactly how are you diffrent then "them"?.

As I said in my post, my "truth" comes from comparing models  
to observations. Lying under oath, especially about one's own  
activities, is not (from my point of view) a bad thing. In fact,  
the law even recognizes the mischief that can be done by forcing  
people to testify about their own activities under oath; that's  
why we have the 5th amendment (which Bill didn't avail himself  
of for political reasons) and rules about what constitutes perjury.  
These rules are part of the "rule of law" that the Republicans  
say that Clinton acted above; in fact, Clinton acted within these  
rules; he took advantage of the rule of law to defend himself  
against malicious intrusions into his privacy).

I don't like it when people bear false witness against \_other\_  
people; that can be bad because you may be hurting someone else  
with your lies. But I expect people to lie about their own  
activities, especially their sexual behavior. Nobody is hurt by  
such lies, unless there was some promise of fidelity. I think  
Hillary has a right to be upset at Bill's lies but certainly not  
Ken Starr or the House of Representatives (unless Bill told them  
that he wouldn't have sex with anyone but them; did he?).

> The only known truth resides in a joystick, huh?

Not quite. The only known truth (about behavior, anyway) comes  
from comparing the data you get from people using a joystick  
to models of that behavior.

> Clinton is an asshole

Perceptual aspects of Clinton must deviate significantly from  
your references for those perceptions. I would really like to  
know why you think Clinton is an asshole. I am really interested  
why so many people seem to think Clinton's such a bad guy. He seems  
like a really good guy to me. I don't agree with all his policies  
but he seems so obviously a good person. What is it about him  
that creates so much error for you?

> The fact that he cost many people hundreds of thousands of  
> dollars in legal fees and made Monica Lewinsky a star is beyond  
> belief.

Wasn't it Ken Starr, Linda Tripp and the media who did all that.  
I think Bill was trying to keep a private, consensual affair  
private.

> Is the crime trivial? No. because he accussed of \_lying\_ and  
> \_obstructing justice\_.

That's the accusation. I don't see that he committed \_any\_  
crime (is it a crime to interpret "sexual relations" to mean  
only "intercourse"? Is it a crime to question whether some layman  
should be able to interrogate your secret service agents when you  
happen to be president of the US?). And if you just must think  
these are crimes, are these really non-trivial? And if non-  
trivial, are they \_impeachable\_? Even if they are crimes, couldn't  
the plaintiffs wait until Bill was a private citizen? Paula Jones  
managed to put off her harassment suit for quite some time until  
she just, finally, had to sue Bill -- coincidentally when he became  
President of the US.

It seem to me that we are dealing with a hatred of Clinton that  
is remarkable -- a hatred you seem to share. I'm really curious  
about why this hatred exists. What are you controlling for that  
makes Bill such a big disturbance? I mean, if Clinton is "bad"  
then what is Starr? Hyde? Livingston? Gingrich? Marken? Is there  
anyone out there in government whom you consider "good"? If so,  
who is it and why are they good and Clinton an asshole?

Best

Rick

> **···**
>
> --
> 
> Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313  
> Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net  
> [http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/](http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Marc\_Abrams5](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@Marc\_Abrams5](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Marc_Abrams5)\
**Post date:** [December 20, 1998, 1:05am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/madness/6666/6 "1998-12-20T01:05:57Z")

</div>

> From [Marc Abrams (981219.1956)]

> > From [Bruce Gregory 9981219.1550 EDT)]
> 
> Marc Abrams (981219.1458)]
> 
> > What are you controlling for? Not that I really care. But you seem to be  
> > just as "vocal" and "wordy" as any of those other folks. What makes your  
> > words any better or more important?
> 
> As James Carville so eloquently put it, "We're right, they're wrong."  
> Simple, no?

Can't argue with that. 🙂

> > And exactly how are you diffrent then "them"?. The only known  
> > truth resides  
> > in a joystick, huh?
> 
> Let's not be crude...

OK

> > Clinton is an asshole who made some pretty \_stupid\_ choices and  
> > judgements.
> 
> He always speaks very highly of you...

I \_absolutely\_ love that line. Thanks for the laugh i needed it 🙂

> > The fact that he cost many people hundreds of thousands of  
> > dollars in legal  
> > fees and made Monica Lewinsky a star is beyond belief. He should have, and  
> > could have avoided all of this with a little truthfulness. Is the crime  
> > trivial? No. because he accussed of \_lying\_ and \_obstructing justice\_.  
> > Whether the \_reasons\_ are Monica Lewinski or Watergate are \_besides\_ the  
> > point.
> 
> A politician lie? I'm shocked. Shocked. Impeachment is too good him. I say  
> let's get a rope and string him up right now before he taints the political  
> process even more.

Now your talkin 🙂

> I'm glad your heart is OK. Have you thought about having your head examined?  
> Just a thought...

With this being the last of a number of good points I thank you for your  
wit, wisdom and general good sense.

Marc

> **···**
>
> At 03:53 PM 12/19/98 -0500, you wrote:

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Marc\_Abrams5](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@Marc\_Abrams5](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Marc_Abrams5)\
**Post date:** [December 20, 1998, 2:35am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/madness/6666/7 "1998-12-20T02:35:45Z")

</div>

> From [Marc Abrams (981219.2009)]

Rick, this isn't PCT'ish so if you want to respond to this post I think we  
should continue it privately.

> [From Rick Marken (981219.1430)]

> As I said in my post, my "truth" comes from comparing models  
> to observations. Lying under oath, especially about one's own  
> activities, is not (from my point of view) a bad thing.

I think lying is not a particularly good thing to do under \_any\_  
circumstances.

> In fact, the law even recognizes the mischief that can be done by \>forcing

people to testify about their own activities under oath; \>that's why we  
have the 5th amendment (which Bill didn't avail himself

Testifying is \_one\_ thing. Telling the truth \_while\_ testifying is another.  
Maybe he should have utilized the 5th, Politically that would have been a  
disaster, but not nearly as bad or stupid ( mostly stupid ) as lying about  
such a bullshity thing. You would like to think that he would show better  
judgement.

> of for political reasons) and rules about what constitutes \>perjury.  
> These rules are part of the "rule of law" that the Republicans  
> say that Clinton acted above; in fact, Clinton acted within these  
> rules; he took advantage of the rule of law to defend himself  
> against malicious intrusions into his privacy).

Wrong. He \_lied\_. It was a dumb thing to do.

> I don't like it when people bear false witness against \_other\_  
> people; that can be bad because you may be hurting someone else  
> with your lies. But I expect people to lie about their own  
> activities, especially their sexual behavior. Nobody is hurt by  
> such lies, unless there was some promise of fidelity. I think  
> Hillary has a right to be upset at Bill's lies but certainly not  
> Ken Starr or the House of Representatives (unless Bill told them  
> that he wouldn't have sex with anyone but them; did he?).

What about all of his friends who had to pay for legal counsel because of  
his lack of forthrightness. \_What\_ he lied about was nonsense. \_Why\_ did he  
lie? I think it was simply a lack of good judgement and a real bad choice.

> > The only known truth resides in a joystick, huh?
> 
> Not quite. The only known truth (about behavior, anyway) comes  
> from comparing the data you get from people using a joystick  
> to models of that behavior.

I hope it doesn't end there.

> > Clinton is an asshole
> 
> Perceptual aspects of Clinton must deviate significantly from  
> your references for those perceptions. I would really like to  
> know why you think Clinton is an asshole. I am really interested  
> why so many people seem to think Clinton's such a bad guy.

Clinton is not a "bad" guy. I don't think he is any better or worse then  
any of us. I believe he had some major lapses in judgement. No one cares  
about his sex life. But I \_do\_ care about his ability to tell the truth and  
own up to what he does. If he did that early on ( like he should have )  
Millions of dollares would not have been wasted and any number of people  
would not have been put through the meat grinder. I am \_not\_ condoning the  
way Ken Starr investigated this. That's a different story. When I call  
Clinton an Asshole it is because \_he\_ could have avoided \_all\_ this  
silliness. Not because I think he's a "bad" person.

> He seems  
> like a really good guy to me. I don't agree with all his policies  
> but he seems so obviously a good person. What is it about him  
> that creates so much error for you?

His lack of judgement number 1 and his continuous lies. Two qualities I  
prefer our President did not have in huge quantities.

> > The fact that he cost many people hundreds of thousands of  
> > dollars in legal fees and made Monica Lewinsky a star is beyond  
> > belief.
> 
> Wasn't it Ken Starr, Linda Tripp and the media who did all that.  
> I think Bill was trying to keep a private, consensual affair  
> private.

Rick, the \_facts\_ are that he \_lied\_ about it. He could have just as easily  
said, "It's none of your business" or declare the 5th. But instead he  
\_choose\_ ( in the purest PCT sense 🙂 ) to lie about it. To try and  
decieve people about it. ( isn't that what lying is all about ) \_Bad\_ lack  
of judgement. Why lie about such petty things. Granted, the initial hit  
would have been a biggy, but I think it would have been \_quickly\_ forgotten

> > Is the crime trivial? No. because he accussed of \_lying\_ and  
> > \_obstructing justice\_.
> 
> That's the accusation. I don't see that he committed \_any\_  
> crime (is it a crime to interpret "sexual relations" to mean  
> only "intercourse"?

If that's your position, don't go ranting on about OJ. Seems \_your\_ the one  
playing with the truth through the use of words.

> Is it a crime to question whether some layman  
> should be able to interrogate your secret service agents when you  
> happen to be president of the US?).

Again, Starr's tactics are a \_different\_ matter. Clinton \_lied\_. He lied  
about something that was pretty petty ( not to Hillary i suspect )\_That\_  
was his crime ( at least one of them ) He lied, when he had other  
alternatives. Kinda sad. I think he has been, by and large a good President  
and has done a good job. Makes you wonder why people control \_what\_ they do.

> And if you just must think these are crimes, are these really

non-\>trivial? And if non- trivial, are they \_impeachable\_?

Clinton is \_accused\_ of \_two\_ crimes. Lying and obstructing justice. He has  
not been accussed of any other crimes.

> Even if they are crimes, couldn't  
> the plaintiffs wait until Bill was a private citizen? Paula Jones  
> managed to put off her harassment suit for quite some time until  
> she just, finally, had to sue Bill -- coincidentally when he became  
> President of the US.

What has Paula Jones got to do with this? Clinton lied. Not once but many  
times.

> It seem to me that we are dealing with a hatred of Clinton that  
> is remarkable -- a hatred you seem to share.

Hatred? Your \_way\_ off base. I don't hate him. I don't even dislike him. I  
think he did a couple of pretty stupid things. Did he "deserve" to be  
dragged through the mud? No. But he \_could\_ have avoided it by being more  
forthright and honest about the whole thing from the very begining. I think  
he is an asshole because he brought a whole lot of crap on his friends and  
family and really had no reaon to do so. \_He\_ made the mountain out of the  
mole hill.

> I'm really curious about why this hatred exists.

It doesn't.

> What are you controlling for that makes Bill such a big \>disturbance?

I guess the thing that irks me the most about what he did was his seemingly  
\_total\_ lack of regard for \_others\_ close to him and the effects his lies  
had on them. In trying to protect himself he exposed his family and friends  
to a "brutal" and bizarre onslaught, that \_could\_ have been avoided if he  
was more forthright. Rick, it's not about the sex. it's about the  
deception. If he is annd was willing to decieve on such trivial bullshit,  
how reliable is he on other more important issues. The \_perception\_ of  
\_credability\_ is important.

> I mean, if Clinton is "bad"

Why do you think people think Clinton is "bad"? I think many more people  
share my view. I think the whole thing is really very sad.

> then what is Starr? Hyde? Livingston? Gingrich? Marken? Is there  
> anyone out there in government whom you consider "good"? If so,  
> who is it and why are they good and Clinton an asshole?

I don't view people as "good" and/or "bad". All of us have been assholes at  
certain times in our lives. One definition I have of an asshole is someone  
who has total disregard for the effects their controlling has on others,  
even when they are made aware of the unintended side effects. I don't  
"hate" assholes. I really feel sorry for them. People who are wrapped up so  
tightly in their own little world, trying to "protect" whatever it is they  
think someone is trying to do them out of.

Marc

> **···**
>
> At 02:24 PM 12/19/98 -0800, you wrote:

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dick\_Robertson](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/2acd7d/32.png) [@Dick\_Robertson](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Dick_Robertson)\
**Post date:** [December 20, 1998, 1:15pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/madness/6666/8 "1998-12-20T13:15:52Z")

</div>

[From Dick Robertson,981220.0707CST]

Richard Marken wrote:

> [From Rick Marken (981219.0850)]  
> Bruce Gregory (981219.0700 EDT)

> > It makes Nazi Germany seem a lot more plausible doesn’t it?

> It sure does.

> I’ve been trying to figure out what these impeachers are
> 
> controlling for; what makes Clinton such a HUGH disturbance to
> 
> them.

Molly Ivins claimed it is because he tried to tax the rich.

> Of course, they all must be controlling for slightly
> 
> different perceptions. But my current hypothesis is that they
> 
> are all controlling for a very similar perception; what I would
> 
> call a “religious” perspective on life. They want to perceive a
> 
> world in which “truth” is absolute and it comes through words, like
> 
> those in the Bible, the Koran or Mein Kampf. Since they want truth
> 
> to come from words, it’s a terrible disturbance if you _say_ something
> 
> that seems like an untruth to them. That is why they consider telling
> 
> the “truth” under “oath” to be such a big deal. They are a very
> 
> _verbal_ group.  
> Of course none of the Republicans who have been revealed to have had some  
> hanky pancky have said, “But we didn’t lie under oath.” Could that  
> be because nobody put them under oath?  
> This is kind of a scary perspective to those of us  
> who want to perceive
> 
> a world where truth comes from testing empirical observation against
> 
> models; ie. we want to see truth  
> I think Clinton is basically in camp that wants to se a scientifi(or,  
> at least, as close as we can get to it) coming from science.

> So what we are seeing (according to my hypothesis) is a bunch of
> 
> religious zealots controlling for seeing a religious approach to
> 
> truth. Surprisingly, I think the majority of the American public
> 
> (not exactly a bunch of Nobel laurerates) are controlling their
> 
> perception of “verbal truth” at a reference that is a lot closer
> 
> to Clinton’s than to that of the Republicans.

I guess that is possible. But don’t we still need an explanation  
for why it was OK for Reagan and Bush to lie to the American people about  
Iran-Contra. Or, were they never under oath?

> But just in case, I think I will look into moving  
> to a country
> 
> where reason and civility still seem to prevail.  
> Got any ideas?

> **···**
>
> > Best, Dick R.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/R_Marken)\
**Post date:** [December 20, 1998, 7:50pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/madness/6666/9 "1998-12-20T19:50:44Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (981220.1200)]

Marc Abrams (981219.2009)--

> Rick, this isn't PCT'ish so if you want to respond to this  
> post I think we should continue it privately.

I think it's very PCTish (everything people do is PCTish).

> I think lying is not a particularly good thing to do under \_any\_  
> circumstances.

You mean you cannot think of a scenatio where you would perceive  
lying as precisely the \_right\_ thing to do? For me its easy;  
I would lie to a Nazi who asked if I were a Jew; I would lie to  
a Nazi about someone else I knew to be a homosexual. In a  
hierarchical control system you \_have to\_ vary the reference  
for lower level perceptions (like the perception of honesty) to  
control for higher level perceptions (like the perception of  
principles like protecting the innocent). Hierarchical control  
theory shows that the desire for absolutes (the state of some  
perception is always the \_only\_ right one) is inconsistent with  
one's own human nature.

> Testifying is \_one\_ thing. Telling the truth \_while\_ testifying  
> is another.

Ok. It's wrong to tell a lie while testifying under oath. But how  
wrong is it? Is it as wrong as asking the question? In my judgement  
the wrong of asking a person an irrelevant question about their  
sex life (knowing that the person would probably lie to control  
for not admitting to an embarassing -- but irrelevant -- fact) is  
far worse than the wrong of actually telling the lie. Perhaps  
there is nothing that you would mind admitting to under oath;  
but I think many people can see that the questions asked of  
Clinton were simply attempts to control his behavior -- get him  
impeached -- by getting him to tell what could be officially seen  
as a lie, knowing he would do this to protect himself from  
embarassment.

After many years of investigating the details of Clinton's  
financial and political life the only "crime" they could find  
that Clinton committed was one he was \_entrapped\_ into commutting;  
a crime so minor as to be laughable. But it can be called a  
"lie" and the right wing has always been saying that Clinton's a  
liar so now they finally had him in his great lie -- about a minor\  
sexual dalliance that he didn't even initiate.

I realized this morning that the analogy to what has happened is  
in Hugo's novel Les Miserables; Jean Valjean commits the most  
minor of "crimes" -- he steals bread for his hungry family --  
and is hunted down for this crime for the rest of his life by Javert,  
who is an absolutist like Starr. To Javert, theft is theft and  
that's it. So Javert hunts Jean Valjean, whom I see as very similar  
to Clinton -- a good man doing good works who is tainted for the  
rest of his life by the most minor of indiscretions.

Like Clinton relative to Starr, Hyde and Co. Jean Valjean is 100  
times the person Javert is; indeed, this is probably one why  
Clinton's enemies hate him so; it's just raw jealousy; Clinton is  
better looking, smarter, sexier, funnier and kinder than his  
enemies. This must drives absolutists like Javert and Starr nuts!

> What about all of his friends who had to pay for legal counsel  
> because of his lack of forthrightness.

I don't know about this. What friends had to pay for legal counsel  
because he didn't admit to a sexual irrelevancy?

> Clinton is not a "bad" guy. I don't think he is any better or  
> worse then any of us. I believe he had some major lapses in  
> judgement. No one cares about his sex life. But I \_do\_ care  
> about his ability to tell the truth and own up to what he does.

Why? Why do you care so much about lying? Clinton says he  
wants the minimum wage increased. If he's lying he won't work  
to get that to happen and he's no better than a truthful Republican  
who doesn't want it raised. Who cares? It's what people \_do\_ that  
matters. I might be disappointed if he ran for office saying  
he would raise the minimum wage and he didn't; but even then the  
lying wouldn't be the big deal; it would be the action that matters.

> I am \_not\_ condoning the way Ken Starr investigated this.

I should hope not. This is a man who actively tried to control  
the behavior of another person through the process of sexual  
McCarthyism. He has wasted tons of time and effort on nothing  
other than trying to destroy another person -- for what?? To  
protect the country from a guy who will lie about having  
consensual sex; or to protect the country from a guy who might  
be telling the truth about raising the minimum wage?

> That's a different story.

I think it's the only story. Clinton did nothing very wrong;  
a minor offense (like Valjean's). Starr and his right wing  
cronies are vicious, violent, conflict crazed meanies who  
could have done much more for the country by spending their  
time and money whacking off for the last 6 months while listening  
to the Tripp tapes.

> Clinton an Asshole it is because \_he\_ could have avoided \_all\_  
> this silliness. Not because I think he's a "bad" person.

Yes. And the Hollywood 10 could have avoided all that silliness  
if they had just admitted that they had been members of the  
Communist Party. The best are always pulled down by the worst;  
and it's always in the same way; through the use of absolutist  
morality. That's why we love Les Miserables so much; in that one,  
the envious oppressor (Javert) finally sees what a creep he is a  
kills himself.

> His lack of judgement number 1 and his continuous lies. Two  
> qualities I prefer our President did not have in huge quantities.

This guy has been President for 6 years and seems to have shown  
pretty good judgment; and I don't know of any lies he's told  
except the one about a minor sex tryst. I think you are really  
listening to the bad guys too much. And they are bad guys becuase  
they are control freaks.The absolutists want to control the  
President (get him out of office) and they want to control  
other people (make them behave the way they think is moral).  
The people who are fighting Clinton are the people who really  
could use a solid grounding in PCT -- either that or they should  
get an audio version of Les Miserable and listen to it on the  
way to work each day.

> Why lie about such petty things.

Why ask about such petty things? Unless you are trying to  
control someone else's behavior in order to hurt them.

Me:

> I don't see that he committed \_any\_ crime (is it a crime to  
> interpret "sexual relations" to mean only "intercourse"?

Marc:

> If that's your position, don't go ranting on about OJ.

What? The same thing applies to the OJ case. Mark Fuhrman was  
shown to have "lied" about having used the N-word in the last  
10 years. This "crime" became more important than the actual  
crime -- OJ killing two people. Like Clinton's "lie", Furhman's  
lie was neither material nor important -- except to people  
who cared about racial epithets. Like Fuhrman's lies, Clinton's  
"lies" are being used as a diversion from the real crime  
that is taking place -- which is the attempted overthrough of  
the president of the US. In the OJ case, the "lies" subtrefuge was  
used by people on the political left; in the Clinton case it's  
being used by people on the right. This is not a right/left  
problem; this is a control problem. It's people using McCarthyism  
to control other people in order to achieve their own goals --  
freeing OJ or overthowing the government.

> Again, Starr's tactics are a \_different\_ matter. Clinton \_lied\_.

Starr's tactics are the \_only\_ matter for me. Clinton's "lies" are  
\_nothing\_ compared to what Starr did.

> Clinton lied. Not once but many times.

Did he really? What is a lie, Marc? Is it so clear? Suppose you  
ask me "Are you Jewish?" and I answered "no", would that be a  
lie? I think it would not. I don't practice Judaism; I don't  
much care for any organized religion; I'm not Jewish. But  
if I said "yes" that would \_also\_ not be a lie. I am cultually  
Jewish; I would be considered a Jew by Hitler; etc. See the problem  
with this verbal approach to truth? What constitutes a \_lie\_ is  
not always easy to say. Poeple who are preoccupied with "lying"  
are preoccupied with something other than the truth; they are  
preoccupied (I believe) with controlling other people. And I  
think that preoccupation is the root of all the problems in the  
world. Starr and Mr. Hyde are prime examples of how people would  
\_not\_ behave if they understood PCT.

> Rick, it's not about the sex. it's about the deception.

Yes, I know. And who the hell cares about deception expect 1)  
people (like Hilary) who may have negotiated a contract with  
the would-be deceiver that he not do the behavior that is the  
subject of the deception or 2) people who want to control the  
behavior of the would-be deciever.

> If he is annd was willing to decieve on such trivial bullshit,  
> how reliable is he on other more important issues.

Just the same as everyone else. Deceiving isn't a "trait"; it's  
a means of control. Everybody does it at one time or another?

> One definition I have of an asshole is someone who has total  
> disregard for the effects their controlling has on others,  
> even when they are made aware of the unintended side effects.

Well, to me an asshole is a person like Starr who acts to control  
another person to acheive his own ends. No one can know the  
actual side effects of their actions; they can't adjust their  
own controlling for the benefit of others. But people can control  
their own controlling; or they can lower the gain on it. PCT  
shows that they \_must\_ learn how to do this if they want to  
get along together in groups. Controlling one's own inclination  
to control other people -- especially when those other people  
are not interfering with your own ability to control -- is what  
is known as \_common decency\_. This is what Starr, Hyde and  
the rest have not yet mastered; they have not learned how \_not\_  
to achieve their ends by controlling other people; they have not  
learned to negociate and conciliate; they have not learned the  
essential lesson of PCT (which should be the lesson of the season):  
common decency or "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

Best

Rick

> **···**
>
> --  
> Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313  
> Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net  
> [http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/](http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_Gregory8](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Bruce\_Gregory8](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Gregory8)\
**Post date:** [December 20, 1998, 8:57pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/madness/6666/10 "1998-12-20T20:57:48Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Gregory (981220.1555 EDT)]

Rick Marken (981220.1200)

> This is what Starr, Hyde and  
> the rest have not yet mastered; they have not learned how \_not\_  
> to achieve their ends by controlling other people; they have not  
> learned to negotiate and conciliate; they have not learned the  
> essential lesson of PCT (which should be the lesson of the season):  
> common decency or "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

I think you know that I make it a rule never to disagree with you, but I  
think the lesson might better be "don't do unto others unless they invite  
you to."

Bruce Gregory

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Marc\_Abrams5](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@Marc\_Abrams5](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Marc_Abrams5)\
**Post date:** [December 20, 1998, 9:16pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/madness/6666/11 "1998-12-20T21:16:04Z")

</div>

> From [Marc Abrams (981220.1607)]

> > From [Bruce Gregory (981220.1200 EDT)]
> 
> Just one PCT point. You are assuming that you know \>what Clinton was

controlling for and what he was \>ignoring.

Not at all. I don't care what he was or is controlling for when he lies and  
decieves.

> Absent the Test, this is simply a conjecture. A \>conjecture is a license

to conduct a test, not a \>replacement for the results of a test.

So? \_Why\_ he did what he did is way beyond me and I really could care less.  
I wouldn't waste 3 seconds trying to figure ot why he did what he did.

Marc

> **···**
>
> At 11:59 AM 12/20/98 -0500, you wrote:

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/R_Marken)\
**Post date:** [December 20, 1998, 9:32pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/madness/6666/12 "1998-12-20T21:32:29Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (981220.1335)]

Bruce Gregory (981220.1555 EDT)

> I think the lesson might better be "don't do unto others unless  
> they invite you to."

Yes. I agree. Monica and Bill followed this rule; Starr et al  
didn't.

Though, again, as with all rules, I can think of exceptions.  
I'm not going to wait until the rapist invites me to haul his  
sorry ass away from his victim; he's going to get coerced by me,  
big time;-)

Best

Rick

> **···**
>
> --  
> Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313  
> Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net  
> [http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/](http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Marc\_Abrams5](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@Marc\_Abrams5](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Marc_Abrams5)\
**Post date:** [December 20, 1998, 10:18pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/madness/6666/13 "1998-12-20T22:18:27Z")

</div>

> From [Marc Abrams (981220.1712)]

> [From Rick Marken (981220.1200)]

> I think it's very PCTish (everything people do is PCTish).

With this statement I agree. Everything else in your post is pure  
conjecture and personal views. All of which you are certainly entitled to.  
I just don't happen to agree with most of them.

Marc

> **···**
>
> At 11:50 AM 12/20/98 -0800, you wrote:

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_Gregory8](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Bruce\_Gregory8](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Gregory8)\
**Post date:** [December 20, 1998, 10:29pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/madness/6666/14 "1998-12-20T22:29:09Z")

</div>

> From [Bruce Gregory 9981220.1730 EDT)]

Marc Abrams (981220.1607)

> So? \_Why\_ he did what he did is way beyond me and I really could  
> care less.  
> I wouldn't waste 3 seconds trying to figure out why he did what he did.

No, but you'll spend considerably more than three seconds excoriating him  
for what you think is beneath you to try to understand. Sounds to me like  
you might be controlling for self-righteousness.

Bruce Gregory

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/R_Marken)\
**Post date:** [December 20, 1998, 10:51pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/madness/6666/15 "1998-12-20T22:51:08Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (981220.1450)]

Me:

> I think it's very PCTish (everything people do is PCTish).

Marc Abrams (981220.1712) --

> With this statement I agree. Everything else in your post is pure  
> conjecture and personal views. All of which you are certainly  
> entitled to. I just don't happen to agree with most of them.

PCT consists of "pure conjecture and personal views" that are  
checked against relevant observations. The fact that the relevant  
observations match the predictions of the pure conjecture-based  
PCT model gives us some confidence that these conjectures are  
correct.

Which were the pure conjectures and personal views of mine with  
which you happen to disagree? What are the relevant observations  
that lead you to this disagreement? Or do you disagree with  
my conjectures for the same reason that many people disagree with  
PCT: because it conflicts with their assumptions about the way  
things \_must\_ be.

Best

Rick

> **···**
>
> ---  
> Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313  
> Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net  
> [http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/](http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Marc\_Abrams5](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@Marc\_Abrams5](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Marc_Abrams5)\
**Post date:** [December 21, 1998, 2:55am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/madness/6666/16 "1998-12-21T02:55:09Z")

</div>

> From [Marc Abrams (981220.2144)]

> > From [Bruce Gregory 9981220.1730 EDT)]

> No, but you'll spend considerably more than three seconds excoriating him

I tried not to. It was not my intent.

> for what you think is beneath you to try to understand.

Your version of the test? Are you certain that that is what i think? Does  
it matter? I don't think so. If it did you might have taken the time to ask.

> Sounds to me like  
> you might be controlling for self-righteousness.

Are you saying this while looking in a mirror?

Marc

> **···**
>
> At 05:29 PM 12/20/98 -0500, you wrote:

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Marc\_Abrams5](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@Marc\_Abrams5](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Marc_Abrams5)\
**Post date:** [December 21, 1998, 3:32am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/madness/6666/17 "1998-12-21T03:32:01Z")

</div>

> From [Marc Abrams (981220.2216)]

> [From Rick Marken (981220.1450)]

> PCT consists of "pure conjecture and personal views" \>that are checked

against relevant observations.

Wow !! You mean you check your conjectures against actions that you see and  
immediately attribute the actions to your conjectures. Ha HA HA HA HA

> The fact that the relevant observations match the \>predictions of the pure

conjecture-based

> PCT model gives us some confidence that these \>conjectures are correct.

Oh really. and what PCT model are you refering to in this case? You really  
are a very funny guy.

> Which were the pure conjectures and personal views of \>mine with which you

happen to disagree? What are the \>relevant observations that lead you to  
this \>disagreement? Or do you disagree with

> my conjectures for the same reason that many people \>disagree with PCT:

because it conflicts with their \>assumptions about the way things \_must\_ be.

Ha HA HA HA, Rick I must bow out at his point. You have unbelievable  
insight. You got me pegged. HA HA HA HA

God, am I glad we have people like you around to save us poor souls. HA HA  
HA HA

Marc

> **···**
>
> At 02:51 PM 12/20/98 -0800, you wrote:

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/R_Marken)\
**Post date:** [December 21, 1998, 6:25am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/madness/6666/18 "1998-12-21T06:25:53Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (981220.2225)]

Marc Abrams (981220.2216) --

> God, am I glad we have people like you around to save us  
> poor souls. HA HA HA HA

Well, according to the latest polls you've got one hell of  
a lot of people like me around. So poor, Clinton hating  
souls like you can, indeed, be saved. Clinton's approval  
rating just went to 73%!!!

Best

Rick

> **···**
>
> ---  
> Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313  
> Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net  
> [http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/](http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Chris\_Cherpas](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Chris\_Cherpas](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Chris_Cherpas)\
**Post date:** [December 21, 1998, 6:55am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/madness/6666/19 "1998-12-21T06:55:41Z")

</div>

[From Chris Cherpas (981220.2250 PT)]

Rick Marken (981219.0850)--

> ...so maybe those of us who believe that abortions should  
> still be done in fetid rooms with coat hangers can just sit  
> back and laugh along with Chris;-)

I'm not sure why Chris' laughter should be joined by that of  
believers in amateur abortions, but, who knows? Maybe I could  
earn some extra cash warming up audiences for the next Pat Boone  
tour.

Anti-Chris

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_Gregory](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Bruce\_Gregory](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Gregory)\
**Post date:** [December 21, 1998, 2:31pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/madness/6666/20 "1998-12-21T14:31:44Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Gregory (981221.0930 EDT)]

Marc Abrams (981220.2144)

> Your version of the test? Are you certain that that is what i  
> think? Does  
> it matter? I don't think so. If it did you might have taken  
> the time to ask.

Forgive me. I thought you had already explained in considerable detail  
what you thought and why. Were there some crucial points you omitted for  
some reason?

> \>Sounds to me like  
> \>you might be controlling for self-righteousness.
> 
> Are you saying this while looking in a mirror?

I try to ask myself this question regularly. I find it a useful  
discipline.

Bruce Gregory

[Next page](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/madness/6666.md?page=2)