The introductory file, that is sent out to new members, reads as follows:
As outlined in the list description this list is concerned to offer both a
forum for the discussion of Personal Construct Psychology, in terms of the
theoretical and methodological concerns of this discipline, and an analysis
of the relationship between this discipline and other perspectives within
the social sciences. Beyond this there are no firm guidlines as to how this
list should proceed. List members should feel free to initiate discussion
of any areas they feel will be relevant to the list.
Nowhere in this description is there mention of pursuing personal and
acrimonious attacks upon other members of the list, supposed 'leaders' of
movements, or any other persons ...
Now, while I accept that the PCP community often seems as though it is a
tight-knit group (involving discussions of who was trained by Kelly, or who
was trained by someone who was trained by Kelly) I have never found it's
practices alienating. Nor have I felt excluded from the group. I am not a
mainstream PCP person but appraoch Kelly's works as something that I can
utilise, draw from his insights, etc etc. I set up the PCP group a few
years ago, and since then have attended one PCP conference (NAPCN in
Indianapolis). At this conference I was welcomed by the well established
members of the community (inclding Bob and Greg, Jim Mancuso, Jack
Adams-Webber etc etc) and had many pleasant and useful discussions with
these people (and everyone else who was there). I have enjoyed my contact
with the group and feel as though a number of constructive dialogues have
been established between this community and other areas within academic
psychology.
In short, while Bill may feel he has some legitimate grounds for concern
regarding his treatment at the hands of the PCP brigade, I feel as though
his case is a personal matter that does not reflect the current practices
of this community. Nor is it relevant to the aims of this discussion list.
In other words, I would request that this 'acrimonious' debate be halted
(at least in public - perhaps Bill can continue his discussions with Bob in
private).
I mentioned aboce that there 'are no firm guidlines as to how this list
should proceed' - this does not mean that people can ruthlessly pursue
their own agendas at the expense of other members of the list. With this in
mind I would ask that these discussions be continued elsewhere. I should
also state that, under extreme circumstances, I would (in consultation with
other members of the group) consider removing people from the list who
persist in acting innappropriately. I have no wish to act as a censor or
guardian to this list but will do so if necessary ...
I would like to finish by reiterating Bob's comment in his open letter to
Bill - 'while I remain open to including you [Bill] in any legitimate
exchange on matters of shared theoretical, methodological, or applied
interest, I will not aid or abet the kind of vindictive personal agenda for
which you have misused this mailbase over the past week'.
David Nightingale (co-owner)
____________________________________________________________________
David Nightingale
Lecturer in Social Psychology
Division of Psychology & Biology Fax: 01204 399074
Bolton Institute of Higher Education Voice: 01204 528851
Deane Road International: +44 1204 528851
Bolton BL3 5AB (UK) Email: D.J.Nightingale@bolton.ac.uk
We should not pretend to understand the world only by intellect.
We apprehend it just as much by feeling. Therefore, the judgement
of the intellect is, at best, only the half of truth, and must, if
it be honest, come to an understanding of its own inadequacy. Jung
____________________________________________________________________
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%