Bill's description of the series of steps and thought processes which take
place here seemed fair to me. And the solution he offered also seems
responsible...especially if there is some frustration whith where these
strings of posts lead and how the issues are handled. I have often thought
about this concept of "convincing" people PCT is the way to go, and am
pleased to discover that a number of the participants on the net realize
there is no way to belive anyone here will "make" someone else "see the
May I offer some alternative reactions?
When someone says "that's nice," I usually sense a fustration on their part
that I am not able to comprehend what they are saying...or that what they are
telling me is too far above my level of comprehension. Maybe there is no
need to say that at all? As alternatives, "Thanks for explaining your
view..." or "I think I see what you are saying. (followed by a question of
The other possibility I see to get out of this sequence Bill described might
be for the "already-convinced" to only answer specific questions posed.
Often times, the tendency is to automatically refute an argument or offer
resons why PCT is so superior, when people don't ask. How could anyone
quarrel with answers to questions they have asked?
The only other recourse would be to ask your own questions in return. Why
respond to statements with anything other than a question, when, if Bill is
correct, that statement will not cause anyone to change their mind or
understand PCT any better? I guess the exception to this is people who want
to learn (like me) and will read and not be bothered by "telling."
Real easy to tell who these folks are, right? They are the ones who, when
asked <Now can we talk about PCT?> say YES!!