[From Kenny Kitzke (2001.11.12)]
<from Mary Powers 2001.11.11]>
Nice to see you are feeling well enough to post again, Mary.
<At which point Kenny said, "I hope the net can stop putting Kenny's
behavior in their nutshells for a while..." and followed that in a later
post with a sign-off to Bill, "Best to you and Mrs. Nutshell". Both remarks
suggesting that he was rather pissed off. But why at me rather than Dag?>
I wish to confirm how utterly wrong your interpretation truly is. I was not
angry at you or Dag. In fact, had you presented the whole context, instead
of a selected snippet, I actually said just the opposite and also included a
"big smile" as the record shows:
Kenny said:
I hope the net can stop putting Kenny's behavior in their nutshells for a
while and return to the normal "model" and "science" format dealing with PCT
while I take another hiatus. That is what should be on this net anyway.
Right? I can't understand why Rick keeps going off on tangents about the
Bible or how he perceives people on the net and their weaknesses. But, I
could guess. 8-))
Best to all and I am not angry with anyone, just concerned about helping my
son right now.>
<I get the feeling that "putting something in a nutshell" means something to
Kenny other than the conventional meaning that it was very concise, taking,
in this case, two short sentences to say what could have taken several
pages. Rest assured, Kenny, what I was saying was in that nutshell was
Dag's statement, not you - you are much too large 
- nor was there any
suggestion that your behavior belongs in a nutshell (because it is nutty?).>
Wrong again, Mary. I thought you meant it seemed like a concise statement
and that you agreed with what Dag wrote. Why do you as a PCTer insist on
guessing for what purposes others are controlling? Why not ask rather than
declare? Actually, had your comment suggested my behavior was nutty, it
would have been funnier and understandable, but I did not make that
connection.
<And I said "Yay, Dag. The whole thing in a nutshell".>
I did take you to mean "Yeah, Dag," as when a sophomore cheerleader cheers
for her senior football fullback when her hero scores a touchdown. Just what
was "Yay, Dag" supposed to convey, Mary?
Now, let's look at Dag's nutshell that so swooped you off your chair.
<Dag said, referring to things Kenny has written, "I
cannot remember that you have discussed religion in terms of PCT. You
prefer to discuss PCT in terms of religion".
Note that "I cannot remember." Dag has no facts. It is a cute quip or dig
though. I did not take it seriously and did not respond. I already noted in
a post to Bill Powers (Mr. Nutshell to you, it's a joke Mary, even if it
seems like satire) that if there was a way to discuss my religion in terms of
PCT, I would do it on a religious forum with people who profess my religion.
But, I don't even know quite what Dag means anyway. Perhaps he could discuss
his religion in terms of PCT and enlighten us with more expanded nutshells?
If you or Dag want to stick to what I have actually written and make comments
on that, it might be worthwhile to discuss it. I have compared in a written
study paper two explanations of human nature to see how they are similar or
dissimilar: the one presented by A, Bill Powers and B, the one presented in
the Bible. Is that the same or different from discussing A in terms of B and
vice-versa? I don't have a clue what Dag actually means in his nutshell.
And, for Dag to tell me what I "prefer" is preposterous and seems contrary to
what I have been able to understand about PCT as a proposed superior life
science.
<If Dag had said PCT keeps getting discussed in terms of Topic X, Y, or Z,
rather than Topic X, Y, or Z being discussed in terms of PCT, I would still
have congratulated him on putting it in a nutshell. This is the entire
issue of people coming to PCT with their own agendas, looking at it through
their own glasses, as Rick has described it, instead of looking at their
field from the PCT point of view, with PCT glasses. There are the various
perspectives and agendas of conventional psychology, of "modern" control
theory, of people whose idea of control theory has been filtered through
William Glasser, etc., etc., and a religious point of view is just like all
the others _in that respect_.>
This helps me understand your Yay, but I found the "own agenda" remarks by
Bill at the conference shocking. I could not believe my ears. Bill Glasser,
or conventional psychologists, were not at the conference and may publicly
mention Bill and PCT in non-endearing terms. I am not aware of anyone at the
conference who does not respect both. Nor is it a crime or sin or sign of
insincerity to have something other than PCT as a higher goal in your life
(even if Bill doesn't) and no matter how much Bill wishes everyone had his
goal at the top of their agenda for life to still enjoy the people and
presentations at the conference. Bill Williams was worth the trip alone.
<I did not think "Mrs. Nutshell" was particularly funny, mainly because that
and your previous nutshell remark suggests to me that (if you did
understand it) you prefer to laugh off my endorsement of Dag's comment, and
also to ignore the content of what he said. Anything rather than taking us
seriously, it seems.>
Since the joke may seem to have been on you, I can understand that, but it
was not mean spirited. I was mostly trying to let you know that I saw your
endorsement, even though I did not respond to it. And, I did not respond
because you did not ask for a response from me.
If you or Dag would like to expand on the "content" using things I have
written, rather than on things not remembered or on what you think I prefer
to do without ever asking, I'll do my best to take your input seriously and
respond. But, if my Christian beliefs are the issue that so concerns you,
why not lighten up, or dialogue privately?