Many, including myself, have nothing to do with ten years ago. I am
offended by your attacks on Lois who was listening and took some abuse and
social risk to converse with you on this net.Quite a few "lurkers" were
obviously listening and reading your ideas through this discussion. They
have been discounted. More than a few people spoke up for your right to
speak. You were given that right and I believe you should now use your time
and this forum in the present more effectively. We have heard the
accusations and the anger and it is now old news in this fast moving
electronic media Let us move on to the new and the neglected ideas as this
is the place to speak up. Bad past situations may make it difficult to trust
but...
If knowledge is war and you are in it for the long run as you have said, ten
years is not a long time for an idea to sit regardless of where or what you
have been through in the mean time. I was supportive and have talked with
you at length. I thought and hoped you would allow your ideas to be heard.
I probably will be flamed for all of this and you may feel I have betrayed
you if I criticize you. It seems a conveniant defense (this anger) but you
must take responsibility for your self and how you have alienated me through
your behavior. I am in a neutral position where I wish to stay and hear all
points of view. I do not appreciate shunning and I do not appreciate
unjustified flaming and intimidation. That is what is occurring now. I am
nearing where I can not and will not tolerate your ideas because of the
presentation. I have an awfully high level of tolerance developed through
years of work with adolescents.
Good ideas are often lost for lack of a coherent speaker. Please get it
together now or squander your fair chance to be heard. I believe some sort
of apology is in order at this time for out of bounds behavior for the
current context of conversations in which you have been included. You have
behaved rudely during the middle of your own conversation to which I was
listening!
I want the ideas heard. I appreciate Larry Leitner's comments. I
appreciate James Mancuso. Bob has spoken some. No one is discounting you
any more on this net. It is you who is now trampling and disregarding others
with disrespect. It is now you who is acting as if you are above everyone and
with no need to listen to other points of view. It is you who is
discouraging divergent views being expressed. It is you who is insisting
upon one view being expressed (anti or at least band-wagon-neutral talk). It
is you who now wants to shut out those well published authors from
discussion. I do not want any one out of this discussion. It is now you who
has ticked me off for causing ideas not to be heard. I have tried to be
impartial. I have been reading and listening
You have been listened to adequately but seem to flame some people with out
personal regard and to distrust everyone often without a shred of tangible
evidence. I want debate on the death threat but consider neither you, Bob
Neimeyer, nor Alvin Landfield to be the people who should test the idea of
the death threat. You have bias. Your ideas are known.
New replication studies need to be conducted with new data collected by
scientists not affiliated with any "camp" to test the reliability of the
measure using predictions based on both theoretical beliefs. Testing and
reinterpreting new independent data seems to be what is required. This
would be far more useful perhaps the continued descriptions of commonalities
in grids between groups of people so often produced in grad studies.
Will this be done ever or is the death threat index so obscure now that it is
seldom used anyway and has become discredited any way. I thought it was
suspect a while ago.
It may not be near as important a phenomenon as it has been presented here.
I think quite a few people can go through life without ever using this
index. Sometimes what seemed to be so important at one time (10 years ago)
was not so important to the field in the long run and becomes irrelevant.
History judges that. I know the article you referred is not the defining
piece for me for Bob Neimeyer. I have never read it.
History has also shown the power of Kelly's work to spark new debate and to
continue to have utility in my work.
It will now be for you to decide how you will be heard in the present context
and whether your ideas are heard and listened to outside of the Geogia woods
now and in the future. If the ideas are stuck forever there, it will be
because of you and will have nothing to do with Bob Niemeyer or any one else.
John Fallon
Thresholds Rehabilitation Center
Chicago, Il, USA
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%