>From Abd:
Regarding the following psychological analysis: ... > How does Krivit pick which PhDs to believe? I think > it's obvious. He is constitutionally disposed to fight > for the underdog, the minority, the "rejected." It's been my experience that analyzing the psychological predilections of others in a public form such as here is a dubious profession. Granted, I suppose you could say that I'm guilty of having done something similar when last year I critiqued a radio show where Krivit was interviewed - and I guess one could surmise that my vortex-l critique of that interview may have contributed to the suggestion that it would be best all-around if I resign as a member of Krivit's BoD. The two of us didn't always see eye-to-eye on various topics. Eventually, I resigned. We both moved on. Abd, what do you really know about Mr. Krivit psychological predilections other than the speculation you have laid down here? Having conducted countless phone conversations with Mr. Krivit in the past, including one full day of face-to-face discussions conducted in a conference room with other BoD members, I have to tell you point blank that your psychological profile of the star witness is exceedingly shallow to say the least. It's one dimensional. I wish had the power to lock the two of you in the same room and throw the key away until the both of you could at least openly acknowledge to each other's face where the other person's perceptions are coming from. From where I stand, neither one of you have very much of a clue as to the other person's modus operandi. I find much of your scientific analysis relevant and worth pondering. OTOH, I'd recommend you lay off the psychobabble analysis. It accomplishes nothing other than generating more unfounded hyperbole and juicy drama. Stick to the scientific analysis. In the end that's your strong suit. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
