# Take Control

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/take-control/11012>\
**Category:** CSG1996\
**Created:** [February 2, 1996, 8:01pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/take-control/11012 "1996-02-02T20:01:45Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Richard\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/9fc348/32.png) [@Richard\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Richard_Marken)\
**Post date:** [February 2, 1996, 8:01pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/take-control/11012/1 "1996-02-02T20:01:45Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (960202.1200)]

Bill Powers (960201.0500 MST) --

> All this would be unnecessary if EABers would say "influence" when they  
> mean influence and "determine" when they mean determine, and release the  
> term "control" to mean the result of the operation of a closed-loop  
> negative feedback system. Then I could go back to using reasonable  
> language and everybody would be happy again.

Bruce Abbott (960202.0955 EST) --

> Fat chance! After 50 years of usage the current meaning of the term in EAB  
> is pretty well established.

Then EABers simply reject the conventional use of language. They have gone  
beyond being passive non-scientists to being active obscurantists. Can you  
blame anyone for not wanting to have a conversation with these people?

I think it's time to take "control" back, now. The new words don't seem to  
have helped much, as proof of which I offer:

Me:

> Hans, does the environment spontefact behavior?

Hans Blom (960202e) --

> Herewith I declare that I refuse to participate in discussions that  
> use words that I'm not reasonably familiar with.

Thanks. Your answer couldn't have been clearer. Now I know exactly what you  
know about the phenomenon that we have been calling (temporarily, I hope)  
"spontefaction" but that everyone else, except EABers and others with an  
agenda, calls "control".

Best

Rick