···
–
BP Earlier; I’m not really
interested in your complaints about or attacks on Rick any more than I am
interested in his complaints about or attacks on you. What you said there
is just another personal attack, as I see it. Is this retaliation number
1,354 for retaliation number 1,353, or have I lost count?
KK: Your statement seems in conflict with your behavior when you
questioned Rick as to why he characterized me as, or potentially as, a
Nazi.
BP: Yes, I commented on that contradiction, too. I’m trying to follow my
own advice but don’t always succeed, as indicated in the next section you
cite:
BP earlier: I occasionally come
down on him for something he has said, but I consider doing that a
mistake and most often manage to keep it to myself.
KK: My perception is that when you come down on him he eventually
backs away from his accusatory statements towards other CSGNet
participants or their views of social, political or religious
issues.
BP: Permanently? Not that I have noticed.
KK: I don’t view that as a
mistake. It is a self-policing way to make CSGNet a more science
focused group.
BP: If I police someone else, that’s not self-policing. It’s
participating in a conflict between people.
KK earlier: For me, they do NOT
advance PCT science. They only advance Rick’s personal view of how
he would like to perceive the world.
Does that disturb your personal view of how the world should
be?
KK: No. It disturbs my view of what would welcome new
participants and keep older ones on the Net and posting their
observations and questions about PCT.
BP: And that’s not part of your personal view of how the world should be
(or is)?
BP earlier: To whom are you
complaining?
KK: To the participants on CSGNet. It is a self-control
request to have Rick, and everyone else, avoid personal references for
perceptual variables in the areas of social, political or religious
areas. It is done all the time with advising the group’s preference
for the time and person header. Being silent when
“Republicans,” even the President, is called an a__hole, does
not make this look like a professional, and scientific
forum.
BP: What have the participants on CSGnet said so far about your request
to have Rick avoid personal references? I haven’t noticed any
ground-swell of support for your position. Nor have I seen any particular
influence by Rick in persuading others on CSGnet to agree with his
opinions if they didn’t already degree. Maybe he wants to see you thrown
off of CSGnet.
BP earlier: Do you want the CSG
to have a vote and throw Rick off the island?
KK: I don’t like voting. But, if a number of members objected,
or remained silent, when such personal issues within social, political or
religious variables are brought up, I believe a consensus would build
that Rick could observe that these issues are best taken to other
venues. If no one responds, or objects to the content, it might
cause the offender to try a new means for advancing PCT
science.
BP: There’s always the problem of enforcement. I don’t think that anyone
who objects to Rick’s communications has been prevented from stating an
opinion on that subject. If you want to call for a vote to eject Rick
from CSGnet, go ahead. You might get a majority, in which case the
minority would probably move, with Rick, somewhere else.
BP earlier: Are you calling for
a thunderbolt to take him out?
KK: Is that an insult? Is that what you think I
want?
BP: I think you want him out of your life, but don’t want to be the one
who leaves. That’s an internal conflict, the sort that arises out of
interpersonal conflicts. Conflicts tend to escalate. I don’t know where
you set your limits, or whether you would apply different principles in
this sort of case than what you would recommend for international
affairs.
BP earlier:
Am I supposed to be the policeman
and tell him to quit picking on you, or whoever it is this
time?
KK: Yes, basically, you and others who wish to keep focused on the
science of PCT rather than the correctness of personal reference
perceptions.
BP: OK, that’s simple then. No, I will not be the policeman. You can, of
course ask someone else to be the policeman, or try being one
yourself.
KK: I would add that a
private complaint would probably be more appropriate.
BP: that’s a good idea. Try it.
BP earlier: Exactly what action
are you hoping to initiate here?
KK: I am hoping that your well-written expose on personal comfort
versus scientific discoveries would be acknowledged by all or most of the
participants on CSGNet. A Net consensus would form, and be
expressed as off-base when, especially new visitors, unaware of that
consensus, start to debate the merits of how the universe began, when
mankind originated, animal rights, birth control rights, or who this
Creator was that our forefathers envisioned gave citizens of the USA
their inalienable rights. Take it somewhere else to raise you
comfort.
BP: It seems to me that those subjects are of legitimate concern to
scientists. Are you concerned with changing the manner in which debates
are carried on, or is what you want to change the subjects that are
allowed to be debated? Someone who merely spouts animosity toward those
who think differently is out of line, in my opinion, as is someone who
returns the animosity doubled. That problem can be addressed in various
ways – personal communication, as you suggest, being one. But even
personal communication won’t work if you bully instead of trying to
persuade. And trying to ban subjects of discussion will, if you succeed,
leave you with less than you started with. You might end up having CSGnet
all to yourself.
BP earlier: Whatever it is, I’m
not going to do it for you. If you want PCT science to be done, by all
means do it. And yes, I an addressing all that to Rick,
too.
KK: Understood and fair enough. I have been applying PCT to
management and leadership for a decade. I was not the first and
won’t be the last. Dag’s Soldani article is a good foundation for
applying PCT for improved business results. It seemed like science
to me.
BP: It takes two people to have
an interpersonal conflict. Do the arithmetic.
KK: That is 1 + 1 = 2? I think I get
it.
What I had in mind is that 1 + 0 = 0. One person can’t have an
interpersonal conflict.
Best,
Bill P.
Best,
Bill P.
“Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.”
The Wizard Of Oz
"Convince a man against his will;
He’s of the same opinion still."
Embroidery by Grammy Alice