From[Bill Williams 19 March 2004 5:40 PM CST]
[From Bryan Thalhammer (2004.03.19.1505)]
I think Bryan is confusing a capacity to fight back from the
characteristics of a bully. At least this is the way I see it.
I fully agree that the CSGnet has not sometimes been a
civilized forum. Some people Ed Ford, Tom Bourbon, and
Greg Williams were in the past considered valuable
members of the CSG community. Now, I've argued fairly
consistently with at least Tom Bourbon and Greg Williams
that they shouldn't let people being abusive drive them
out of CSG.
Now, it isn't necessary to be abusive in defence of one's
self and respond in kind, or even in excess when one is
attacked. As people are pointing out, Martin Taylor doesn't
do this. Good for Martin. I obviously am not Martin, and
I find that when someone describes someone whom I
respect, especially Keynes, or even to an extent poor ole
Ludwig Von Mises in unfortunate terms, or treats me
disrespectfully such as tell me to stuff it. or in ways that
appear to me at least to be dishonest that I enjoy making
a mess of their minds. Even Martin has expressed an
opinion that I am good at this. I don't really think that I
necessarily have to, but talk trash to me, and I have
found I have the capacity to talk trash in turn. I'm not
really very good at talking trash, but then the people on
the CSGnet are, at least all that I know about, basically
white bread ninnies so my rather limited trash talking
capacity serves well enough.
Basically it is just a matter of applied control theory.
Throw a few switches (that is change a few reference
levels and systems concepts) and you could do it
too. Think of it as a kind of sand lot poetics. The
important thing is don't get too emotionally involved
and lose your cool. And, it really is a contest that
involves the ablity to maintain the proper attitude in
high waves and dirty water. Then when someone like
Bill Powers says something like you've never contributed
anything that is worthwhile to CSG, with the proper
attitude switched on, what you hears is something
like "Bill Powers is running out of useful things to
say that I might find painful. No one is going to
actually believe that Williams has never actually
contributed _ANYTHING_ to CSG. Powres knows
that this isn't true, and when he calms down he is
the one that is going to be disturbed-- because he
lost his cool in public, and probably violated his
self-concept in the bargin.
You may not appreciate this the way I do, but I
think that I have learned something valuable from
the experience on the CSGnet. If you work at it a
little bit, it is I am convinced possible to reduce one's
emotional vulnerability to what other people say
about you. And, the capacity to endure and
continue to think in a hostile situation is a good
thing. Can such a capacity be used in a way that
is unethical-- well sure. Have I done so on the
GSGnet? Well, not everyone involved is of a single
opinion about this, and I think that is all I want to say
about that at this point.
I would encourage you to as they say "dialog" with
people who are of a very different opinion about the
meaning of recent discussions on the CSGnet.
You see what has been going on in terms of
"wrecking" other people see what has been happening
in very different terms.
Bill Williams
···
________________________________
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet) on behalf of Bryan Thalhammer
Sent: Fri 3/19/2004 3:07 PM
To: CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: What is CSG for?
[From Bryan Thalhammer (2004.03.19.1505)]
Final word on this. We are being awfully generous to some folks who are not
being generous at all. PCT aside, this group's ethics aside, there is a
certain point beyond which it is simply not ethical to allow bullies (we
have had our share) to continue wrecking the discussion here. I know I have
not been a great contributor, but let me tell you I have been controlling
for a forum where someone like me can post and not get grand-standed by one
of the bullies. That being said, there are ways to solve this matter. And it
may not be pretty, but consider the lack of generosity, graciousness, and
wisdom that we have had to put up with. It is foolish to think we can
passively let bullies get away with character assassination. That is just
not civilized!
So, I disagree then with Shannon and Michelle only in that after a time,
civilized people have to enforce the rules that certain individuals cannot
seem to enforce themselves. I have tried to argue for a change in toleration
of bad behavior. I want to post, discuss, learn, and have my arguments
rigourously and vigourously gone over. Shannon and Michelle, please post an
argument, a proposal, or the abstract to a paper on PCT.
I propose a "moderated" forum, one where the contributors "moderate
themselves" according to a code of behavior and ethics we can all agree to.
If a certain set of individuals acts outside of this code, let us privately
counsel them and determine how we can have a win-win situation. If they
continue to act against the best interests of the group, then we are not the
baddies if we escort them outside. Simple PCT.
--Bryan
-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu]On Behalf Of Shannon Williams
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 10:17 PM
To: CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: [CSGNET] What is CSG for?
Great Post!
Michelle Ivers (2004.03.19.8.35 EST)
If you really want to discuss PCT, then do it. No-one is holding your
fingers to the keys and 'making' you respond to comments you class as "ad
hominem attacks".