Re: Important Follow-up Message

John,
        You have already told us that the NPR support thing was a
hoax--several times, and with glee.   Enough already.

        Moreover:

On Fri, 12 Apr 2002, John Eshleman wrote:
>
> A couple of points should be made:
>
> 1. Whether or not someone supports NPR or not, a message about it has
> no more to do with behavior analysis than, say, were someone to post
> a message urging support for the John Dillinger Died for You Society
> (see Shea & Wilson, 1975 for extensive coverage of this vital Society).

        It is neither wise nor supportable to divide topics into
those that have to do with Behavior Analysis and those that have not.   To
show or assume some relevance to the main purpose of this list?   Yes.
To sort things out as Eshleman implies? No.   (Who, if not behavior
analysis, would study the matters that Eshleman judges irrelevant?)
        By the way, the NPR thing was relevant on the assumption,
certainly on my part, that by and large participants in this list are
socially caring people, and that this issue--if it were true--would be one
they would care about.
......

> 3. What's incredible is that in spite of several messages delibertely
> written by me to point out the hoax, there are still people hitting
> Behav-An with the same letter.... This goes to show that...

        Could it be that there are some people on this list who do not
heed John's dicta as tightly as he might wish?  Perhaps that is what it
goes to show?
.........
> 4. "At least their hearts are in the right place."  Yes, perhaps, but one
> wishes their minds were as well.

        Well, as the first victim to pass this hoax to this list (an
offence for which, as soon as I received John's correction, I wrote to
apologize) I wish to respond:
        I say nothing of my mind and leave that for others to judge.  But,
the hoax was passed to me by a friend whose mind is, judging by all
behavioral evidence, excellent.   He is a past editor of JEAB, and a
leading contributor to empirical research and theory in behavior analysis.

        I am tempted to add that perhaps John's mind *momentarily* was not
quite where it should have been when he wrote the remarks on which I
comment here, but I cannot:   I do not know whether, as an ardent
supporter of "behaviorology", he thinks he has a mind.   If not, the
question of where it is would be moot.
Peter Harzem