re: PCP List (Important)

Dave Nightingale (
Tue, 5 Mar 1996 10:50:34 +0000

In response to Devi's and Bob's recent postings (and a realisation that I
stated my case in rather black and white terms):

(short bit of Devi's posting)

>But I do feel that both the renewed vitriol on Bill's part, and David's
>proposed solution to it, are both for _very_ different reasons wrong.

As I said in my earlier posting ' I have no wish to act as a censor or
guardian to this list'. In fact, I don't really feel as though I have (in
this instance) the right to do that - however the debate continues. If it
was a case of a list member blatantly abusing the list, e.g. using the list
to advertise his or her own commercial products, then I would quite happily
remove the person. In this instance things are by no means as clear cut. I
(personally) feel that Bill has abused the spirit of this list. It isn't
that I think the content of his concerns are innapropriate (concerns which
have been echoed by other contributors) but, rather, his style. While
academic groups may implicitly or explicitly exclude people from their
group a concern that this has occured does not (IMO) warrant a vitriolic
attack upon particular individuals in what is essetially a public forum.

As Devi says, where should we draw the line?

My call for the discussion to continue elsewhere was, perhaps, a little
hasty (at least in the way I initially formulated it). Having established
this list (irrespective of who now 'owns' it - and I would agree with Devi
that the list, if owned by anyone is owned by all of us) I feel a
responsibility towards it and its members. I haven't participated in many
of the discussions in the last 12 months (being busy with other more
pressing matters) but I do have a responsibility to ensure its continued
success (or at least I feel as though I do). Perhaps I am indulging in some
form of parental discourse - concerned that members are arguing
unproductively and fighting amongst themselves. In this sense I would agree
with Bob with we should find some common ground from which to move forward
as I don't believe that the debate will be resolved successfully if it
continues as it started.

In conclusion, I stand by my original (but now amended) statement that this
discussion (IF IT CONTINUES ACRIMONIOUSLY and at the level of personal
abuse) should be continued elsewhere. Hopefully, this will not be the case.

Hoping this answers Devi's (and others) concerns regardig my draconian
solution :-) Dave

Perhaps Bob's posting sums it up:

>Bill Chambers' recent posting enjoins us "to come together in
>colleagial discourse about the fundamental assumptions
>of contrasting points of view. Historically, those who
>agree to do this, tend to find common ground and
>successfully elaborate their joint core ventures. Showing
>our ability now to do this- even after so much pain and
>acrimony- will demonstrate to all that we Personal
>Construct Psychologists really are onto something

>I couldn't have said it better. Let's get on with the program.

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:

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