> The "not a Kellian" comment is surely a red herring: I should have thought
> that an openness to contributions from a great variety of viewpoints will
> be valued by a discipline which subscribes to constructive alternativism!
> And so, as a person who's always attracted by the possibilities of a debate
> between two viewpoints, I'm interested.
HOW ABOUT IT, DEVI? YOU v/s ME and BOB v/s BILL for total control of the
next few years of advance via "Advances in PCP". WHILE BILL BATTLES THE
'BANDWAGON' ET AL. I AM WILLING TO PARRY THE EUROPEAN DECISION MATRIX --
A GENEOLOGICAL TREE ON WHICH SURELY HANGS A CULT OF PERSONALITY....
> My problem is that I'm not quite sure which viewpoints Reid would like to
> see debated.
> If he means a debate between Bob Neimeyer and Bill Chambers, I really don't
> see that either represents the "opposing forces" which would provide for an
> exciting discussion.
> Bill Chambers builds models (death threat or mandala grids) about which he
> offers a reasoned monologue so long as the responses remain within his own
> terms and so long as his ownership is repeatedly acknowledged.
> Bob Neimeyer responds with saintly restraint when the _completely
> unrelated_ ad hominem attacks by Bill Chambers step beyond the bounds of
> taste and reason.
> There aren't any opposing forces here, IMHO; they merely run in parallel,
> and that, only because Bill eventually manages to turn any sort of
> discussion, relevant or not, into veiled, or blatant, attacks on Bob!
> Well, there have been many Internet-based debates and indeed complete
> conferences on competing, and complementary themes, in which debate in real
> time has occurred. There was a most interesting ongoing debate on
> positivism versus constructivism under the heading of "The Big Five" in
> this very newsgroup, to give a low-key example. I'm not sure quite what
> ground-breaking excitements Reid is offering us in the present context!
> Ho hum. Maybe these comments sound a little sour because of the way in
> which Reid presented his earlier comments about "the good old boy network".
> In brief, he said that it functions partially by an exclusion of
> >access to "membership" and publication to those who are not believers;
> and he feels that it blights careers
> Well, that's certainly one way of putting it; but why choose to look at it
> in this particular way? Why taint the process with the negative
> associations involved in calling it a grouping of "good old boys"? Why talk
> about the refereeing process in terms of "blacklisting"? Why choose a word
> like "trust", with its connotations of personal vulnerability and betrayal?
> As several contributors have recently pointed out, the rejection of a paper
> submitted to a journal is no great matter; it seems to me that only someone
> who is convinced of his or her Divine infallibility will object if the
> occasional submission to a journal, or a conference, gets rejected.
> So, if my reaction is a crabby one, it's because of the loaded language.
> I would put this issue differently, and in neutral terms: _every_
> discipline runs conferences, journals, and debates in which the relevance
> and weight of contribution are assessed against the objectives and values
> shared by that group. _All_ of us have been rejected by reviewers (and for
> some of us, myself included, that includes rejection by the reviewers of
> the _Journal of Constructivist Psychology_! )
> What's the big deal? Can't we move on to other things?
> Kindest regards, Devi Jankowicz.
DEVI, reading through the sheer "suck-up to Americanos big-time and
you'll get somewhere as a constructivist of record" in your recent post,
I shudder and pose the question that you managed to get into the American
Psychologist: WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO GEORGE KELLY?
I'll give you a hint: like Elvis Presley, you know, he's a WORMFEAST !
With warm wishes. Hemant
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%