>Gary,
---snip----
>After many years of being abused for dispassionate research, I came onto the
>net with a mission. I want to blow the whistle on the Kelly cult. When I am
>through on this little PCP net, I am going to take my message concerning PCP
>to other psychology newsgroups. My arguments against the Kelly cult have only
>been strengthened by the PCP net response to me. They have responded from the
>purview of guilty spoiled little girls, not as scholars.
---snip---
It is now clear that Bill will not desist until he is satisfied that he has
done some irreperable damage to what he terms the 'Kelly Cult'. Leaving
aside the validity of his desire to do this (I find I cannot comment upon
his feelings regarding the way he perceives he was treated) it seems as
though a number of innocent bystanders are likely to suffer in the process.
Bill appears to target those people he sees as riding-on-the coat-tails of
Kelly, influential members of the PCP culture etc etc. I don't include
myself as part of the PCP mainstream (it appears as though Robin Hill
doesn't either) and nor, I imagine, do a large number of other people on
this list (including, possibly, the 40-50 people who have left in the last
few months). Is it Bill's aim to attack these people as well, people who no
doubt share his beliefs regarding the validity of PCP, it's use as a
theoretical and methodological stance within psychology? I would hope not
...
'When I am through on this little PCP net' - what does Bill mean by this? I
presume he means that when he is satisified that enough harm has been done.
Bill, it isn't going to happen. I, for one, am not going to change the ways
in which I utilise PCP, my own orientation towards Kelly's work etc etc.
You stated in a previous message:
>Some of you do not like getting the messages that Dr. Tooth and Rahel
>Meshoulam and others of Devi's coterie are returning to me. Mr. Nightingale
>just sent me the message that if I do not stop returning them to the PCP net
>then I will be removed from the net and it will be closed so that I can not
>rejoin. He knows what is going on and this is his cowardly way to rationalize
>censorship. He lacks the intellectual ability, knowledge, and integrity to
>shut me up rationally but as a PhD candidate he does not want to appear to be
>anti-intellectual. So he has let the bandwagon's gestapo contrive a way to
>shut me out. He and the rest of the Kelly Cult must be very proud of
>themselves, but I do not know why. How do people believe their own lies?
3 points: By what criteria am I judged to be a member of the 'supposed'
Kelly Cult? and 2) why do you think that my lack of a doctorate would
influence my behaviour in any way? Are you claiming some special status for
yourself as Dr. Bill Chambers? And finally, you suppose that I lack the
intellectual ability, knowledge, and integrity to shut you up rationally -
it doesn't strike me that this debate has anything to do with rationality -
it seems to me to be an irrational vendetta. Do you think that there are
any rational ways that I could shut you up?
To return to my earlier point (as it seems as though, once again, I am
being sucked into yet another 'slanging match) I think that Bill's actions
will, at best (for him) only serve to annoy rather than damage his targets,
but will also alientate and distress a lot of people who may have gained a
consdierable amount from being a part of this forum.
Stop firing on the civilians ...
A pampered not-yet doctor (I'd rather be a dangerous girl though ... :-)
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%