Re: The reprehensible behaviour of David Nightgale

James Mancuso (
Tue, 07 May 1996 22:23:53 -0700

Geoff wrote:

> I vote to reinstate Bill, and suggest we engage with him only on
> matters of mutual concern where like the rest of us he can make a
> valuable contribution to the debate.
> Geoffrey Blowers

I might very well agree that all of us CAN engage someone with
Bill's intentions on our own terms. Unhappily, however, this net had
evolved into one of the nonsense nets which one can easily find
elsewhere. The exchanges had very little to do with substantive matters,
and there seems to have developed a set of respondents who were very
willing to play into the nonsustantive material which W. Chambers sought
to extend.

I have been having trouble with my e-mail.. I think that one of
my previous messages failed to be transmitted. In that message, I
suggested that those who had an interest in the "history" of W. Chambers
involvement with those who have attempted to elaborate Personal Construct
Psycholgy should ask W. Chambers to send copies of papers he had
submitted to journals, etc., along with reviewers comments on those
I would not suggest that an interested party should request the
reviews from the reviewers. That might prove unethical, but if W.
Chambers wished to offer copies of those reviews, that would be his
In short, if he has a gripe, then, he should produce the evidence
for his basis of the gripe.

We all know that the review process is not something which
represents a possible ideal, but there has not been a more useful
Further, in this day of very easy transmission of information,
anyone who feels that his work should have a forum, does have easy access
to all kinds of fora.

In effect, I am not of the opinion that an unethical act has been
committed by asking W. Chambers to take his gripes elsewhere.

Jim Mancuso