From [Marc Abrams (2005.02.14.1244)]
In a message dated 2/14/2005 12:24:09 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, bryanth@SOLTEC.NET writes:
[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.02.13.1230 EST)]
Now you are playing the sensitive one, ;-). Gosh! Please be patient as I gather
the resources to answer you. But, seriously, like the story of the boy who cried
wolf, I don’t trust you, no more or less than Bill Powers, Rick Marken, or
anyone else for whom the gloves come off, admittedly trusts you. It is sad, but
your “salesmanship” of PCT has been packaged in such a ascerbic, vile, and
tantrum-laden stream of insults ad hominems and poorly-directed argumentation,
that by your representation alone, PCTnet has been greatly harmed.
IF, you actually felt all this to be true, why bother with me?
I know you are not a masochist, so why ‘expose’ yourself to harm if you felt the bad outweighed the good?
What I’m getting at here is that apparently, even though you have a very difficult time with my use of the English language at times, and you certainly don’t like the way I deal with the nonsense I get from Powers and Marken, at least some of things I have said make a bit of sense and it might be worth pursuing.
If I am correct in this assumption, and I’m sure you will tell me if I’m not, then getting yourself crazed over every ‘slight’ you perceive I make against Powers and Marken will hinder us from doing any business.
That is, what I have to say to each of them is NOT directed at YOU. When you treat me with the SAME contempt they do, I will then treat you the same way. You get respect, when you give it. It is really that simple. With all that said lets move on to your post
So, you play the game at my speed, and let your play-nice face be the rule
rather than the exception.
NO, my friend, We play at a MUTUALLY AGRREABLE speed or NOT at all.
I will give you one preview about my reactions here. I am not at all personally
outraged, embarrassed, or any other words that can be scratched together to
describe how I control my perception of the CSGnet.
Why start with excuses, or justifications, there is no need to. As far as I’m concerned YOU & I are starting from square 1.
I am focusing on how your
posts mould the words we see in each post, that is the CSGnet wordstream, or the
artifact of the group’s mutual controlling of their perceptions.
Why? Of what significance is this to PCT?
Rather, I am PROFESSIONALLY concerned about the manner of your contributions
(see below) and how your ill-mannered contributions (see previous Abrams posts
for the most part, except this interesting bit below) may prove to be a
dis-incentive to others accepting the PCT explanation of human behavior.
Again, you may be concerned, but what does that have to do with me, PCT, or CSGnet?
Why do you think you represent the views of the group?
My pushing back against your disturbances on this net is driven by the error I
am experiencing because of the way the promotion of PCT is being misrepresented
by your posts. Marc, it is really all based in salesmanship, or your lack of
finesse in what you call persuasion. If anyone suggested to me that salesmanship
or persuasive speech was imbued in insults, ad hominems and vile language, I
would go elsewhere to obtain what I needed. (The foregoing all written while
hearing some nice Poulenc piano works, no rage, no nothing
).
So far, YOU are the one with the Ad hominem attacks, NOT me.
You have not presented ONE argument that I made about PCT that you can refute. In fact my friend that is the reason for your very rage and ‘PROFESSIONAL’ ‘concern’.
I’m shooting holes threw a theory you have a VERY large personal investment and stake in and you just can’t take it.
You can’t take the heat personally or PROFESSIONALLY. Probably because your academic or ivory tower existence is based on the viability of PCT.
I feel your pain.
As said before, stay tuned, Marc, but be sure that everyone is watching, should
you break your word not to engage in ah hominems, insults or however you regard
the vile way in which you have been treating people in general on this forum. I
want to believe you are a mensch, Marc, but I sense smoke ‘n’ mirrors here, and
I know better. 
You are the one who needs to understand what the word ‘mensch’ means as well as what an Ad hominem attack is.
NO one responded for your call to arms Bryan, NO ONE.
In this post you answered NONE of my questions nor did you make an attempt at getting a dialogue going with me, just more of the same carping on how I say things.
When you can actually come back and show me a fallacious argument and are willing to discuss it on the basis of the idea rather than on how I said something, you and I have NOTHING to discuss.
Okie dokie,
OKIE DOKIE
regards,
Marc