Dear CSG Netters,
Regarding [ Abrams (991204.2226) ]
Sanctimonious? Wow!! I dunno, I had planned this as a final private note,
but given the importance of what we are trying to achieve with the PCT
research project, I thought I would show how "passion" misdirected can take
us away from our goal. Thus, I felt that a little high-fidelity feedback
from the CSG environment to the control sytem in question might be a good
parting comment for the moment.
In my earlier note, I must have been Testing the Self as a Control System
(apologies, Dick), and not truly aware how my self-declared standards of
behavior were thoroughly disturbing to the writer's CVs! *8-?}
Accordingly, the writer input energy to his environment, but must have
forgotten that I was a living control system (ouch!). In the following, you
can see how, to the writer quoted, he makes me ballistic* as any child's
_kick_ ball:
···
------
* non-living, non-control system.
from [ Marc Abrams (991204.2226) ]
Concerning my point: <Here, he cut his nonpareil insult to me, showing
only my lame *8-?, request for politeness! See Thalhammer (991204.2050
CST) for my complete text.>
Prude/Miss Manners: "If the shoe fits wear it."
Rude: "If it offends I am truely sorry, but it's who I am (and want to be)."
PCC: "Excuse me?"
Golden Rule: <He cut that, too. Major world ethics traditions notwithstanding.>
_My_ Opinion: "What you 'appreciate' and don't is none of my concern."
Ad Hominum: "It ain't a g-ddamn School Lab."
Main players: "Big of you. It's BS like this that make me want to throw
up. What a sanctimoniuous bucnch [sic] of @#$%@%."
I really prefer not to be coerced in such a non-PCT manner, which CV is
driving my efforts here, I guess. Moreover, if we want to achieve our
goals, I see no purpose in pounding our colleagues randomly about the head
and ears. It may be thought to be fashionable these days to heap abuse on
those we disagree with, but I believe this is counterproductive and
essentially debases our discourse. I want the writer to know that I have
standards for behavior in public, and I would like to exchange my views in
a forum free of (at least) such ad hominum attacks ('cause such intelligent
people oughta be able to do better!!!). Leave such breaches of logic to the
politicos. So, with this, you can see the CVs I maintain. *8-?/ I guess I
had to attempt to offer some corrections to my perception of myself
on-line, in order to reduce my error. I realize that some control systems
out there may not perceive this as anything more than out-of-date
goody-two-shoes prating. But I see other, more compelling, evidence that
the CVs I am maintaining are perceived and able to be affected, according
to reference levels that are shared by more people than just myself...
I broke my word about not posting further this last time, but apparently I
was still experiencing some surplus error in my perception of my public
self-image. Since I am generally confident about my system image and
principles, I will now get back to the grind.
Peace,
Bryan (and now, away.....!)