From [Marc Abrams (2004.08.25.0957)]
Like John Kerry, people on this list are imploding.
[From Bill Powers (2004.08.26.0717 MDT)]
Rick Marken (2004.08.25.2000) --
>I would prefer either a well moderated CSGNet, where smear posts from
>_anyone_ are simply not allowed, or a completely unmoderated CSGNet.
I like half of your suggestion, which is to add "smear posts" to the list
of criteria that the moderators will consider. I would extend it to
include
all smears, not just of the person who posted an idea, but the person who
originated or promoted it. So I wouldn't be allowed to refer to Mises as
"that old Fascist" (unless he proclaimed himself to be a Fascist, and was
in fact old), and you wouldn't be allowed to denigrate the Pope or
President Bush.
If we keep adding criteria, of course, this will turn into a "well
moderated list," but I suggest that we approach that extreme cautiously.
I assume you both mean things like this tidy set of posts. My current
comments will be in brackets. Since Bill P does not receive my posts he
can't possibly respond to this.
[From Bill Powers (2004.01.02.0846 MST)]
When it comes to explaining theory, Marc, you are a terrible writer. Your
ideas are disorganized and inconsistent, and you seem to skim the surface
without seeing the crucial details you are leaving out, or seeing how one
paragraph contradicts another. Your ideas about brain organization are
lifted out of textbooks which simply echo proposals that have been around
for a century, which I knew about when I wrote B:CP, and which I rejected
as implausible and much too sketchy to constitute any sort of theory of
behavior. The fact that you are learning about these ideas for the first
time, and reading about them in books with recent publication dates, does
not mean that they are new to everyone in this discussion, or even very
many of them. And the fact that they are printed in books does not make
them correct or even "modern."...
While you have no obligation to adopt PCT or HPCT or control theory in
general, I should think that you would want to avoid ridicule by at least
learning what the theory you are trying to improve on says. Rather than
doing that, I should think you would fare better simply by focusing on your
own theory (which Bruce G. refers to as MACT, trying to hint that you are
pretty far from PCT or any other kind of CT).
You may think that all these remarks are uncalled for and that you have
made a very different impression on others listening in or participating in
this discussion. If you are right and I am wrong, I want to know about it,
and if it's the other way around I suppose you would want to know about it,
too. So I ask all onlookers and participants to render their verdicts here.
Is my opinion of Marc's recent communications off the track or inaccurate?
Do any of you see a coherent theory of emotion or behavior or experience
arising out of what Marc has been proposing? I will apologize and subside
if I have misconstrued what is going on. But I can't just let it go on
without voicing my protest.
[To this 'challenge', CSGnet responded with _TWO_ in favor, and _THREE_
against and I never got the apology Bill P. promised, just silence.
I don't see the intent here to help constructively. I see a person trying to
attack a line of thinking he does not approve of because he feels that I am
'competing' with him and that we are not working toward the same ends. Rick
(below) of course provides some additional key insights into how I may
improve my contribution, or ways of thinking about things.
If you look at the archives _this_ kind of response is the norm, _not_ the
exception in the way both Rick and Bill deal with ideas that either one do
not approve of, and unfortunately, CSGnet is the poorer for it. _Not_
because my or anyone else's ideas are in fact any good, but because the
intent is to cut of any attempt to explore the possibility that an idea
might have some validity.]
[From Rick Marken (2004.01.02.1300)]
Bill Powers (2004.01.02.0846 MST)--
So I ask all onlookers and participants to render their verdicts here.
Is my opinion of Marc's recent communications off the track or
inaccurate?
Do any of you see a coherent theory of emotion or behavior or
experience
arising out of what Marc has been proposing?
No.
Happy New Year
Rick
···
-----------------------------
Btw, how is Thalhammers alternative PCT Yahoo site working out for the
politically correct? Any lessons learned from that attempt?
Marc