Re: False allegations of child sexual abuse by children are rare
krp
"childadvocate" <smar...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:8f6ea0ce-eb41-417b...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
It is difficult if not impossible to "plant" a false memory of abuse.
�The hypothesis that false memories can easily be implanted in
psychotherapy (Lindsay & Read, 1994; Loftus 1993; Loftus & Ketcham,
1994; Ofshe and Watters, 1993, 1994; Yapko, 1994a) seriously
overstates the available data. Since no studies have been conducted on
suggested effects in psychotherapy per se, the idea of iatrogenic
suggestion of false memories remains an untested hypothesis. (Memory,
Trauma Treatment, And the Law Brown, Scheflin and Hammond (D.
Corydon), 1998, W. W. Norton 0-393-70254-5)
and no, I am not anyone DN or anyone else but CA. Our styles are
totally different.
Yes Michelle, I know. However your claims that false memories are
impossible to "plant" (your editorial choice of words) is a false claim in
and of itself. The suggestibility of children has been documented in many
studies including those of Dr. Ceci at Cornell Dr. Maggie Bruck and many
others. Your open and shut claim is bullshit. You also ass/u/me that all
memory contamination only comes from deliberate attempts to implant false
memories. Sadly this ignores that in this field there are many extremely
strident "TRUE BELIEVERS" who have no recognition that their heavy handed
methods can and do contaminate children's memories. The kernel of truth to
the contrary data on memory is that you cannot plant a "whole cloth" memory
in a child easily. What IS common is memory distortion, which is merely
falsely coloring recall of real events. Turning a non-sexual contact into a
sexual one, or fostering a misattribution of who the perpetrator is. This
comes because there are so many POORLY trained forensic interviewers and so
many with a heavy AX to grind, like you.
freedom
>"childadvocate" <smar...@aol.com> wrote in message=20
>news:8f6ea0ce-eb41-417b...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
>It is difficult if not impossible to "plant" a false memory of abuse.
>
>psychotherapy (Lindsay & Read, 1994; Loftus 1993; Loftus & Ketcham,
>1994; Ofshe and Watters, 1993, 1994; Yapko, 1994a) seriously
>overstates the available data. Since no studies have been conducted on
>suggested effects in psychotherapy per se, the idea of iatrogenic
>suggestion of false memories remains an untested hypothesis. (Memory,
>Trauma Treatment, And the Law Brown, Scheflin and Hammond (D.
>Corydon), 1998, W. W. Norton 0-393-70254-5)
>
>and no, I am not anyone DN or anyone else but CA. Our styles are
>totally different.
>
>impossible to "plant" (your editorial choice of words) is a false claim in=
=20
>and of itself.
No, it isn't.
It's not possible to plant a memory of something which didn't happen. This=
is merely a tactic used by abusers such as yourselves, and the convicted
abusers you associate with, to avoid accountability for your actions.
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
The truth about Kenneth Pangborn of KRP Consulting, 3648 Cockatoo Drive,
New Port Richey, Florida
"Carol Ann you don't KNOW shit! Youy are LYING! ...... Jesus Christ you are=
one DESPICABLE CUNT!!!! ....Bitch you are GUTTER SLIME!"
--Kenneth Pangborn, from a usenet argument with a female debator,
highlighting his typical views on women
"Rumors about ken are true, he is a bad man. That is why both my mother and=
I ran out of there as fast as we could back in the late summer of 2002. He
ruined my life and my moms life....His business is a scam, as he is in the
rest of his life. He enjoys child pornography and was investigated for that=
as well....he'll call my mom 20 times a day until she answers...[Ken's
sister-in-law Rebecca Reilly] wouldnt come over to our house anymore
because of how he would talk to her and come on to her....and he had over
180 pictures of her on his computer"
--Ken Pangborn's daughter Megan
"Blood, breath or urine?"
--question to Ken Pangborn from a Florida police officer in November 2008,
during a traffic stop from which Pangborn was subsequently charged with
DUI**
"...beating [some kids] into a bloody pulp is the ONLY thing=20
that would get through to them."=20
--Ken Pangborn on child rearing
"If you call the police, I'll knock out all of your teeth, I'll cripple
you. I may go to prison for it, but when I get out, I'll be able to walk,
but you will still be a cripple."
--Pangborn puppet Greg Hanson of alt.support.child-protective-services **,
in a verbal threat to his girlfriend
** - this conclusion was reached via applying Ken and Greg's logic
Keywords: false allegations,sexual abuse,marital rape, date rape, sexual
harassment,child abuse,domestic violence,rape allegations,false allegations=
of child abuse,false rape allegations,false abuse accusations,false
accusations,recovered memories,child sexual abuse,abuse child,sexual
assault,child molestation,reactive attachment disorder,penile
plethysmograph,polygraph,attorneys,divorce,visitation,pedophiles, thinking
about hiring ken pangborn,florida trial consulting,florida false
allegations,child abuse,brianna bragg
More-keywords: KRP CONSULTING. False allegations of child abuse, false
abuse accusations, false domestic violence allegations help, false rape
allegations, abuse child, sexual abuse, child sexual abuse, false
allegations, false accusations, recovered memories, sexual assault, child
molestation, child sexual abuse, reactive attachment disorder, penile
plethysmograph, polygraph, trial consulting, jury consulting, jury
selection, jury voire dire, wrongful allegations, false child sexual abuse
allegations. Wrongful child sexual abuse allegations. Domestic Violence.
Rape. Marital rape. Date Rape. Confidence Rape.
Yet-more-keywords: ken pangborn,kenneth pangborn,barbara pangborn,barbara
sanciprian,palm harbor,tampa,attorneys,florida lawyers,florida
attorneys,tampa lawyers,tampa attorneys,trial consultant,trial
consulting,dui,domestic violence,vawa,abuse,3648 cockatoo,new port
richey,ernesto sanciprian,ernesto miguel blanco sanciprian,blanco
sanciprian,bryce carter,holguin,julio aguilar,yudith bacallao,raimundo
cabrera,ana hernandez chi,lixandro cordero,leandis diaz,al faisbuker,wendy
gil,armando capo ramos,george riveron,reinaldo rodriguez,lexis ross,liana
yisell alvarez silveira,madelyn tamayo,manuel toledo,thais valdes
Extra-keywords: Julito Sainz,craig clawson,lia yisell
krp
"freedom" <about...@aboutISkenApangbornFRAUD.com> wrote in message
news:09998540e8da8c6e...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
>>It is difficult if not impossible to "plant" a false memory of abuse.
>>=93The hypothesis that false memories can easily be implanted in
>>psychotherapy (Lindsay & Read, 1994; Loftus 1993; Loftus & Ketcham,
>>1994; Ofshe and Watters, 1993, 1994; Yapko, 1994a) seriously
>>overstates the available data. Since no studies have been conducted on
>>suggested effects in psychotherapy per se, the idea of iatrogenic
>>suggestion of false memories remains an untested hypothesis. (Memory,
>>Trauma Treatment, And the Law Brown, Scheflin and Hammond (D.
>>Corydon), 1998, W. W. Norton 0-393-70254-5)
>>and no, I am not anyone DN or anyone else but CA. Our styles are
>>totally different.
>> Yes Michelle, I know. However your claims that false memories are=20
>>impossible to "plant" (your editorial choice of words) is a false claim
>>in=
> =20and of itself.
> No, it isn't. It's not possible to plant a memory of something which
> didn't happen. This=
Is that your "EXPERT" opinion Moore? So do you claim to VASTLY MORE
knowledge than Dr. Stephen Ceci of Cornell who documents that children ARE
suggestible to memory contamination? DAVID DIPSHIT MOORE knows MORE? You
argue solely for the sake of argument. When are you going to LEARN how to
post properly without all the ASCII bullshit in your text? You know MORE
than Dr. Loftus? You probably THINK you do. Try reading Dr. Ceci's book;
"Jeopardy in the Courtroom" and see where YOU can prove him wrong with your
VAST learning. <snicker>
childadvocate
"planted." None.
http://childabusewiki.org/index.php?title=False_Memory_Syndrome
Planting False Childhood Memories in Children: The Role of Event
Plausibility – Kathy Pezdek; Danelle Hodge – Child Development, Vol.
70, No. 4. (Jul. – Aug., 1999), pp. 887-895. Stable URL:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1132249 This experiment tested and supported
the hypothesis that events will be suggestively planted in children’s
memory to the degree that the suggested event is plausible and script-
relevant knowledge exists in memory. Nineteen 5- to 7-year-old
children and 20 9- to 12-year-old children were read descriptions of
two true events and two false events, reported to have occurred when
they were 4 years old. One false event described the child lost in a
mall while shopping (the plausible false event); the other false event
described the child receiving a rectal enema (the implausible false
event). The majority of the 39 children (54%) did not remember either
false event. However, whereas 14 children recalled the plausible but
not the implausible false event, only one child recalled the
implausible but not the plausible false event; this difference was
statistically significant. Three additional children (all in the
younger age group) recalled both false events. Although this pattern
of results was consistent for both age groups, the differences were
significant for the younger children only. A framework is outlined
specifying the cognitive processes underlying suggestively planting
false events in memory.
"The hypothesis that false memories can easily be implanted in
psychotherapy (Lindsay & Read, 1994; Loftus 1993; Loftus & Ketcham,
1994; Ofshe and Watters, 1993, 1994; Yapko, 1994a) seriously
overstates the available data. Since no studies have been conducted on
suggested effects in psychotherapy per se, the idea of iatrogenic
suggestion of false memories remains an untested hypothesis. (Memory,
Trauma Treatment, And the Law Brown, Scheflin and Hammond (D.
Corydon), 1998, W. W. Norton 0-393-70254-5)
http://childabusewiki.org/index.php?title=False_Memory_Syndrome
The term False Memory Syndrome was created in 1992 by the False Memory
Syndrome Foundation (FMSF)[1]. It has been called "a pseudoscientific
syndrome that was developed to defend against claims of child
abuse."[1] The FMSF was created by parents who claimed to be falsely
accused of child sexual abuse.[1] The False Memory Syndrome was
described as "a widespread social phenomenon where misguided
therapists cause patients to invent memories of sexual abuse."[1]
Research has shown that most delayed memories of childhood abuse are
true[2]. In general, it has been shown that false allegations of
childhood sexual abuse are rare, with some studies showing rates as
low as one percent[3][4] and some studies showing slightly higher rates
[3]. It has been found that children tend to understate rather than
overstate the extent of any abuse experienced[3]. It has been stated
that misinformation on the topic of child sexual abuse is widespread
and that the media have contributed to this problem by reporting
favorably on unproven and controversial claims like the False Memory
Syndrome[5].
> No, it isn't.
>
> It's not possible to plant a memory of something which didn't happen. This
krp
There is no evidence that a traumatic memory of abuse can be
"planted." None.
http://childabusewiki.org/index.php?title=False_Memory_Syndrome
Planting False Childhood Memories in Children: The Role of Event
Plausibility � Kathy Pezdek; Danelle Hodge � Child Development, Vol.
70, No. 4. (Jul. � Aug., 1999), pp. 887-895. Stable URL:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1132249
What I find INTERESTING is that NOWHERE do we see the credentials for
Ms. Pezdek or Ms. Hodge within the article. HMMMMM, verrrrrry
interessssting! (Old line from Laugh-in) And then FUNNY thing they slip this
little tidbit into the article that Michelle is wuoting as her conslusive
proof....
"Although it is clear that some false events can be suggestively planted in
memory, it is not clear what factors affect the probbability of suggestively
planting false memories."
GAME - SET - MATCH!
"The hypothesis that false memories can easily be implanted in
psychotherapy (Lindsay & Read, 1994; Loftus 1993; Loftus & Ketcham,
1994; Ofshe and Watters, 1993, 1994; Yapko, 1994a) seriously
overstates the available data.
Elizabeth Loftus has been considerd the LEADING expert in the world on
the subject of human memory. Ms. Pezdek? Hodge? I am a bit amused as to WHY
nowhere in the article are we provided some clue as to who they are? Then
too I am curious as hell, Michelle, as to WHY you deliberately limited your
souce to only the first page of the article and didn't provide us with the
whole article?
Society
"krp" <kr...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4af94516$0$4873$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>
>
> Michelle as "childadvocate" <smar...@aol.com> wrote...
> >
> >
> > There is no evidence that a traumatic memory of abuse
> > can be "planted." None.
> > http://childabusewiki.org/index.php?title=False_Memory_Syndrome
> >
> > Planting False Childhood Memories in Children: The Role of Event
> > Child Development, Vol. 70, No. 4. (Jul. � Aug., 1999),
> > pp. 887-895. Stable URL:
> > http://www.jstor.org/pss/1132249
>
> What I find INTERESTING is that NOWHERE do we see
> the credentials for Ms. Pezdek or Ms. Hodge within the article.
> HMMMMM, verrrrrry interessssting! (Old line from Laugh-in)
In this case, your quibble turns out to be silly, Ken. Among
referreed journals like _Child Development_, it's common
to find the affiliations of the authors at the end of the article,
not on the first page. Still, despite that, you did bust Michelle
for peddling more of her Believe The Children bunk.
> And then FUNNY thing they slip this little tidbit
> into the article that Michelle is wuoting as her conslusive proof....
>
> "Although it is clear that some false events can be
> suggestively planted in memory, it is not clear
> what factors affect the probbability of suggestively planting false
> memories."
>
> GAME - SET - MATCH!
Yup. And look at this part that Michelle quoted (but
appears to have been something you snipped, Ken):
The majority of the 39 children (54%) did not remember
either false event.
Which means that 46% of the children _did_ remember a false
event, i.e. a false memory was implanted in them. Here's
some even more results from the very study Michelle cited:
...one child recalled the implausible but not the plausible
false event; this difference was statistically significant.
Three additional children (all in the younger age group)
recalled both false events.
The "implausible event" was "a rectal enema," something
one could consider to be a traumatic experience. So, again
Michelle is busted by the very paper she tries to use as
support for her, um, advocacy. Sheesh!
I suppose Michelle wants to retreat even further into
the incredible and suggest that since nobody has done
a study to replicate the experiences of, say, the children
in the McMartin trial fiasco (and nobody reputable ever
will because any such study proposal would be shot
down by the ethical review board of the institution or
the journal to which such a horrible study was submitted),
no one can say for absolutely certain beyond _any_
doubt (no matter how unreasonable Michelle's doubt
might be) that "a traumatic memory of abuse could
be planted."
Of course the real-world experiences of Janet Reno's
child victims of prosecutorial abuse in Dade County, FL
and children psychologically tortured by prosecutors
and abuse-seeking zealots claiming psychology credentials
in many other states offer compelling evidence against
just about every single one of Michelle's claims.
>> "The hypothesis that false memories can easily be implanted
>> in psychotherapy (Lindsay & Read, 1994; Loftus 1993;
>> Loftus & Ketcham, 1994; Ofshe and Watters, 1993, 1994;
>> Yapko, 1994a) seriously overstates the available data.
>
> Elizabeth Loftus has been considerd the LEADING expert
> in the world on the subject of human memory.
Yes, and her seminal paper on the subject of implanted
memories is commonly required reading in undergraduate
introductory psychology courses. _Forty Studies that
Changed Psychology_ by Roger R. Hock is on a lot of
Intro Psych assigned student reading lists. It includes
the famous Loftus paper.
> Ms. Pezdek? Hodge? I am a bit amused as to WHY nowhere
> in the article are we provided some clue as to who they are?
It's at the end of the article, Ken. Sheesh! (And cool your jets
so you don't get careless about what you snip.) That last quote
(beginning "The hypothesis that...") Michelle supplied is just
a strawman argument. Michelle doesn't bother to tell us the
criteria the authors of that quote used to define "false memories"
and "easily implanted." And that quote (apparently from
a textbook - for prosecution lawyers?) isn't from a refereed
source. It's just _advocacy_opinion_.
Plus, Michelle would like folks reading her sh*t to ignore
that she elides from 'cannot be easily implanted' to 'could never
be implanted in anybody' - no matter how acceptable of
a fashionable hysteria an adult interviewee is and no matter
how browbeaten a child might be. (There's lots of historical
examples of fashionable hysterias taking hold among adult
women; history that Michelle must ignore in order to cling
to her own abuse-is-everywhere hysteria.)
> Then too I am curious as hell, Michelle, as to WHY you
> deliberately limited your souce to only the first page
> of the article and didn't provide us with the whole article?
Ken, the more you quibble over nonsense, the more likely
you are to score an own goal for Michelle. (Hmmpf!)
She could have simply supplied the cite and had no one
bothered to check it out, gotten away with her attempt to
twist that Pezdek and Hodge paper into something it is
not. (It doesn't do anything to refute Loftus' work, rather
that paper _expands_ upon it!) The reason the link to
JSTOR shows only the first page of the article is because
JSTOR is a _subscription_service_. (Duh. Not everything
on the web is available for the taking. Some people want
to get paid for their work. Unbelievable, huh? ;-)
If one really must get the whole article, a trip to the
nearest university library should be enough. _Child
Development_ is a must-have journal for university
schools of education, psychology departments, and
child development programs. Most university libraries
subscribe to JSTOR or a competing online service
from which articles in major journals can be downloaded
and printed.
--
It ain�t what ya don�t know that hurts ya.
What really puts a hurtin� on ya is
what ya knows for sure, that just ain't so."
Uncle Remus
Andrew Usher
<snip>
I don't wish to quibble with most of your post - the recovered memory
nonsense really is dangerous nonsense, but:
> The reason the link to
> JSTOR shows only the first page of the article is because
> JSTOR is a _subscription_service_. (Duh. Not everything
> on the web is available for the taking. Some people want
> to get paid for their work. Unbelievable, huh? ;-)
The authors of research papers do not get paid for their papers. This
is a common mistake by those not familiar with academic practice. Most
if not all professors would be just fine with having their research
articles freely available to everyone but the journal publishers won't
allow it because of THEIR profit.
> If one really must get the whole article, a trip to the
> nearest university library should be enough. _Child
> Development_ is a must-have journal for university
> schools of education, psychology departments, and
> child development programs. Most university libraries
> subscribe to JSTOR or a competing online service
> from which articles in major journals can be downloaded
> and printed.
Unfortunately a university library may not allow guests to access
electronic journals, or at least not easily. You should take a USB
drive anyway, it's better than trying to print there.
This is one of the terrible things about the move to electronic
journals is that it's actually limited access for anyone not
affiliated with a university. There are some open-access journals, but
unfortunately they're still dominated by the for-profit companies. In
my opinion, universities should get together to force open access, at
least for all articles older than a few years.
Andrew Usher
Greegor
PERSONAL reasons to want to sell this stuff?
Diana actually wrote to one university
researcher and tried to argue them
into reversing their finding that ritual
stanic child abuse does not exist.
But she misrepresented WHO she was.
When they wrote back to her under her
real name, she got pissed and complained
that was unprofessional.
Apparently she wanted to conceal her very real
diagnosed mental illness and her legal history.
How professional would it be if the professor
acted on a complaint from a raving mental case?
By the way, Diana does post her letter where
she admits to the subterfuge but calls the
response unprofessional. I did not see her
original complaint letter or the professor's
response letter.
The professor's letter back to her would
be the most interesting, I think.
Not to detract from the academic results
but NBC did a demonstration that makes
suggestibility of kids blatantly obvious
and on film/video so that any lay person
can understand the problem.
By the way, that was not just about
implanted memories, but showed how
interrogating or interviewing the kids
about the blue man on the roof would
have the kids telling stories in a
"matter of fact" way about the blue man
on the roof by the 4th interview.
The kids pick up huge clues about what
the interviewer WANTS TO HEAR.
This is about kids interviews/testimony
USED IN COURT.
Another problem mentioned is that kids
are interviewed over and over without
cameras and THEN after many such
interviews the video camera is turned on.
Considering this situation, people like
Michelle and Diana (when she was
actually a CA CPS caseworker) are
extremely dangerous.
Please note that Diana apparently worked
for CPS in California but if you read her
material she frequently asserts that she was
working FOR THE COURT which is both
factually a deception and reveals her
dangerous intent in that regard.
It's common for CPS caseworkers to pose
as having expertise they DO NOT have,
but most of them are a bit too cagey to
PUBLICLY make such false declarations
of expertise.
Why does Diana repeatedly refer to her
past employment as a COURT something
or other when in fact she worked for CPS?
I strongly suspect that CA/Michelle/Diana
have a PERSONAL stake in the outcome
on this issue, likely in the case of
THEIR OWN perceived abuse there
was NO ACTUAL PROOF.
Since the original argument was about recovered
memories I would suggest that they didn't even
KNOW they were victims until it was ""extracted""
through hypnosis, and NOW they are unable
to cope with the idea they were DUPED by
abusive psychology.
Imagine the horror these people must feel
at the realization that they blamed their
own parents FALSELY of such terrible things!
No wonder some KOOK like Diana/Michelle/CA
would have some trouble accepting that
they were DUPED into believing some
fictional story of child abuse!
And what if they simply DELUDED THEMSELF?
Diana has clearly had other quite vivid DELUSIONS.
It's part of her record!
CA/Michelle/Diana, Was there ever any
actual PROOF of your abuse?
Or was it possibly just a bunch of brain rot
""extracted"" through suggestive interviews
or hypnosis?
Society
"Andrew Usher" <k_over...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f8573cce-f5eb-4b0e...@k13g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> Society wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>
> I don't wish to quibble with most of your post - the recovered memory
> nonsense really is dangerous nonsense, but:
>
>> The reason the link to
>> JSTOR shows only the first page of the article is because
>> JSTOR is a _subscription_service_. (Duh. Not everything
>> on the web is available for the taking. Some people want
>> to get paid for their work. Unbelievable, huh? ;-)
>
> The authors of research papers do not get paid for their papers.
The publishers of the journal and the operators of JSTOR
want to get paid. HTH
--
Mankind was born free, and is everywhere in chainstores.
Doktor Pete
childadvocate
In Pezdek's et al. study, only child one recalled the "implausible
false event." This memory, a "rectal enema," is quite different than a
memory of child abuse, where the stigma of disclosure is much greater
and the betrayal of the child by the adult is much larger.
In McMartin, even a majority of the jury believed the children were
abused.
http://ritualabuse.us/ritualabuse/articles/mcmartin-preschool-case-what-really-happened-and-the-coverup/
Behind the Playground Walls – Sexual Abuse in Preschools by Jill
Waterman, Robert J. Kelly, Mary Kay Oliveri and Jane McCord – The
Guilford Press – New York, London 1993 “In the most well-known case,
involving the McMartin Preschool in Manhattan Beach, California, two
juries from successive trials became hopelessly deadlocked and failed
to agree on a verdict after 7 years of investigation and trial. At the
press conference following the trial, 9 of the 11 jurors who agreed to
be interviewed indicated that they believed the children had been
molested, but they felt that the evidence presented did not enable
them to state beyond a reasonable doubt who had perpetrated the
abuse.” (p. vii) (Source: Los Angeles Times, January 19, 1990, pp. A1
and A22) “Tapes of Children Decided the Case for Most Jurors” Tracy
Wilkinson and James Rainey – Los Angeles Times p.A1 and A2 – 1/19/1990
chapter in book : A Tale of Two Communities” by Jane McCord
tunnels backing up the children's stories were found at McMartin
Archaeological Investigations of the McMartin Preschool Site,
Manhattan Beach, California
http://web.archive.org/web/20010123212200/members.cruzio.com/~ratf/McMartin.html/
The project unearthed not one but two tunnel complexes as well as
previously unrecognized structural features which defied logical
explanation. Both tunnel complexes conformed to locations and
functional descriptions established by children’s reports. One had
been described as providing undetected access to an adjacent building
on the east. The other provided outside access under the west wall of
the building and contained within it an enlarged, cavernous artifact
corresponding to children’s descriptions of a “secret room”.
Summit, R.C. (1994). “The Dark Tunnels of McMartin” Journal of
Psychohistory 21 (4): 397-416.
http://ritualabuse.us/ritualabuse/articles/the-dark-tunnels-of-mcmartin-dr-roland-c-summit-journal-of-psychohistory/
Parents and therapists began hearing children’s descriptions of
underground activities within months of their initial, more
conservative disclosures. Children described tunnels under the floor
of the preschool which led to an outside exit under the rabbit hutch,
and another underground passage to the neighboring building. They
explained they would be loaded into vehicles in the garage of that
building for transport to other locations of group ritual. They
described also a secret room accessed by the tunnels under the
preschool.
http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/NudistHallofShame/Eberle.html
Paul and Shirley Eberle: A Strange Pair of Experts
by Maria Laurina
Paul and Shirley Eberle wrote The Politics of Child Abuse, a book that
accuses mothers, mental health professionals, and prosecutors of
feeding children stories about sexual abuse. Since the book was
published by Lyle Stuart in l986, the Eberles have been cited as
experts in sexual abuse trials. They were featured speakers at a
conference of the Victims of Child Abuse Laws, a group formed to
protect accused parents.
What is startling about the Eberles’ reputation as ground-breaking
experts in the field is that their dubious credentials have not been
widely challenged. Paul and Shirley Eberle edit a soft-core magazine
in California called the L.A. Star that contains a mixture of nude
photos, celebrity gossip, telephone sex ads, and promos for The
Politics of Child Abuse.
In the 1970’s, however, the Eberles were also publishing hard-core
pornography.
----
Planting False Childhood Memories in Children: The Role of Event
Plausibility – Kathy Pezdek; Danelle Hodge – Child Development, Vol.
70, No. 4. (Jul. – Aug., 1999), pp. 887-895. Stable URL:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1132249 This experiment tested and supported
the hypothesis that events will be suggestively planted in children’s
memory to the degree that the suggested event is plausible and script-
relevant knowledge exists in memory. Nineteen 5- to 7-year-old
children and 20 9- to 12-year-old children were read descriptions of
two true events and two false events, reported to have occurred when
they were 4 years old. One false event described the child lost in a
mall while shopping (the plausible false event); the other false event
described the child receiving a rectal enema (the implausible false
event). The majority of the 39 children (54%) did not remember either
false event. However, whereas 14 children recalled the plausible but
not the implausible false event, only one child recalled the
implausible but not the plausible false event; this difference was
statistically significant. Three additional children (all in the
younger age group) recalled both false events. Although this pattern
of results was consistent for both age groups, the differences were
significant for the younger children only. A framework is outlined
specifying the cognitive processes underlying suggestively planting
false events in memory.
--
"one child recalled the implausible but not the plausible false
event...The "implausible event" was "a rectal enema," something one
could consider to be a traumatic experience."
"the children in the McMartin trial fiasco"
Andrew Usher
On Nov 10, 10:06 pm, "Society" <Soci...@feminism.is.invalid> wrote:
> >> The reason the link to
> >> JSTOR shows only the first page of the article is because
> >> JSTOR is a _subscription_service_. (Duh. Not everything
> >> on the web is available for the taking. Some people want
> >> to get paid for their work. Unbelievable, huh? ;-)
>
> > The authors of research papers do not get paid for their papers.
>
> The publishers of the journal and the operators of JSTOR
> want to get paid. HTH
That's what I acknowledged in my post, which you snipped. Why do they
more deserve payment than the actual people that did the research?
What are they contributing?
Scientific knowledge is rightfully the common property of mankind and
doesn't deserve to be hidden from the public.
Andrew Usher
Kent Wills
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>How obvious is it that Michelle or Diana have
>PERSONAL reasons to want to sell this stuff?
To whom do you direct this question, and why did you attempt to
answer before reading any replies?
In answer to your question, no very. Unless you know something
the rest of the readers don't appear to know, we know very little
about CA. Her motivations have never been made public. Certainly
I've not seen her claim any specific motivation.
I've only seen Diana post three times or less. Each post had
NOTHING to do with children, but some rant about alien conspiracies.
>
>Diana actually wrote to one university
>researcher and tried to argue them
>into reversing their finding that ritual
>stanic child abuse does not exist.
Some accessible references please with links, not just copy and
paste materials. I think everyone accepts that you think you're
exempt from any and all laws. You don't need to PROVE it again.
>
>But she misrepresented WHO she was.
>
So you've claimed. I note the proof is lacking.
>When they wrote back to her under her
How did a (singular) University researcher become they (plural)?
>real name, she got pissed and complained
>that was unprofessional.
If, as you claim, the researcher had her real name, where is your
complaint?
Do you also think the use of her real name was unprofessional,
presuming your claim is true?
>
>Apparently she wanted to conceal her very real
>diagnosed mental illness and her legal history.
It looks suspiciously as though you want to do precisely that.
Trying to avoid the need to be a victim status a psychologist
identified? The item I call "The Lisa Rant" mentions how a
professional psychologist identified this trait in you.
It stuck out with me because I made the same claim of you. Of
course, I lack the education and training of the psychologist, so my
"diagnosis" was, being kind to myself, lacking.
>
>How professional would it be if the professor
>acted on a complaint from a raving mental case?
Very, if after examining the materials the researcher, sorry, the
person in your latest psycho-rant has been promoted to professor all
of a sudden, found s/he was incorrect.
>
>By the way, Diana does post her letter where
>she admits to the subterfuge but calls the
>response unprofessional.
Yet you've been UNABLE to post a link to it, even though I've
requested it of you a few times.
>I did not see her
>original complaint letter or the professor's
>response letter.
But you presume much from it.
Let's see the letter you claim you've seen, unless I've exposed
another of your lies.
>
>The professor's letter back to her would
>be the most interesting, I think.
It might well be interesting. Especially since it will, in all
probability, nullify all your innuendos.
>
>Not to detract from the academic results
>but NBC did a demonstration that makes
>suggestibility of kids blatantly obvious
>and on film/video so that any lay person
>can understand the problem.
They subjected kids to real trauma, and kids to fake trauma?
And tested the hypothesis you are putting forward?
Legally did that?
Please offer a verifiable cite, unless you're lying again.
>
>By the way, that was not just about
>implanted memories, but showed how
>interrogating or interviewing the kids
>about the blue man on the roof would
>have the kids telling stories in a
>"matter of fact" way about the blue man
>on the roof by the 4th interview.
>
Just as they will about the tooth fairy. Unlikely they would,
however, buy from any interviewer that the tooth fairy came and
molested them, don't you think? No matter how many times they were
told that the tooth fairy did it?
Let me, and everyone else reading, know when you find TRAUMA
implanted by interview.
The blue man story is just a story like any other. Nothing
remarkable about the blue man on the roof.
>The kids pick up huge clues about what
>the interviewer WANTS TO HEAR.
Yes, they do. Now prove your claim that they are fed false
memories of TRAUMA. Unless your claim is nothing more than another of
your MANY drug induced pathological lies, of course.
>
>This is about kids interviews/testimony
>USED IN COURT.
Yes it is, and that is why interviewers are very careful not to
do the things you claim they do.
If they do as you claim, offer the proof. If they do not, and
you're simply lying in the pathetic hope of getting parents to trust
you so that you can sabotage their cases with CPS, you'll not be able
to offer any proof.
>
>Another problem mentioned is that kids
>are interviewed over and over without
>cameras and THEN after many such
>interviews the video camera is turned on.
Prove it, unless you're lying.
>
>Considering this situation, people like
>Michelle and Diana
So you accept CA (Michelle) and Diana are not the same person.
That's good news, Greg.
>(when she was
>actually a CA CPS caseworker) are
>extremely dangerous.
You are the dangerous one here. You try to deal in absolutes.
There are none in human affairs.
What kind of diversion are you running and why? Serious
questions.
I think you are still trying to get parents to believe you'd be
on their side in any dealings with CPS.
Using your own posts, I've been able to PROVE you're nothing more
than a CPS shill. The gig is up. Only the very foolish would follow
any advice you'd given.
And if they are foolish enough to follow your advice, they
probably shouldn't be allowed around children. At least you'd be
performing a small service to the world.
>
>Please note that Diana apparently worked
>for CPS in California but if you read her
>material she frequently asserts that she was
>working FOR THE COURT which is both
>factually a deception and reveals her
>dangerous intent in that regard.
>
So when you leave certain critical details out of referring to
your own history, like your two convictions for BEATING your ex-wife,
you are doing so to deceive. Got it.
>It's common for CPS caseworkers to pose
>as having expertise they DO NOT have,
>but most of them are a bit too cagey to
>PUBLICLY make such false declarations
>of expertise.
Let me see if I understand. They pose as, but do not publicly
declare. Can you explain how that works and what significance that
would have?
You are posing as an expert on this issue, publicly, but offer NO
credentials yourself. Your information is often based on, according to
you, CPS manuals, but CPS workers, and juvenile court works often
have, in addition to any phantom manuals, a few years of experience,
and ongoing professional development and often college degrees in
their field.
What do you have?
>
>Why does Diana repeatedly refer to her
>past employment as a COURT something
>or other when in fact she worked for CPS?
You have proof she never mentioned working for CPS? You are
aware that a worker that opens a case because a they are a worker for
the court and must respond to the judges requests, right?
Why do you create these elaborate lies via innuendo, Greg? Do
you really think the readers are that stupid?
>
>I strongly suspect that CA/Michelle/Diana
>have a PERSONAL stake in the outcome
>on this issue, likely in the case of
>THEIR OWN perceived abuse there
>was NO ACTUAL PROOF.
I strongly suspect, from your own claims about yourself, that you
have a huge personal stake in creating a diversion concerning your
long periods of time alone with Lisa's little six year old girl in the
bathroom while she showered.
Your steamy rhetoric reads very much like known child molesters.
Have you been alone with other children while they were showering, or
have you backed off since the state of Iowa has found out about you
and, if you are telling the truth, placed you on Iowa's Child Abuse
Registry?
I note that dispute numerous requests, you've NEVER offered proof
that you're on the registry. Did you lie when you made the claim? If
yes, please explain why. If no, please present the proof.
>
>Since the original argument was about recovered
>memories I would suggest that they didn't even
>KNOW they were victims until it was ""extracted""
Double quotations (quadruple if you follow British rules of
grammar) still mean nothing at all.
Since I explained this to you, I have to wonder why you continue
to destroy your own writings by using them.
>through hypnosis, and NOW they are unable
>to cope with the idea they were DUPED by
>abusive psychology.
>
>Imagine the horror these people must feel
>at the realization that they blamed their
>own parents FALSELY of such terrible things!
You shot yourself in the foot, metaphorically speaking. The
incidence of such accusations being false would be extremely small
precisely because of this parental love factor.
>
>No wonder some KOOK like Diana/Michelle/CA
>would have some trouble accepting that
>they were DUPED into believing some
>fictional story of child abuse!
You have extreme trouble with the truth.
Trouble with lies, if they are lies, is common for everyone, not
just CPS workers. You serve as a great example. Many times you've
been exposed in lies because you forget what you've claimed.
>
>And what if they simply DELUDED THEMSELF?
>
They might start listening to the CPS shill know to us as Gregory
Scott Hanson?
>Diana has clearly had other quite vivid DELUSIONS.
>It's part of her record!
>
Are you saying that her moment by moment experiences are all
delusions and she has no accurate factual interactions with others?
That opens the door to YOU having the same thing going on. You do
understand that you exhibit strong signs of being mentally disturbed,
do you not?
You are constantly speaking in terms of insinuations and innuendo
and positioning yourself as a victim or a victims advocate by exposing
those that you believe are victimizing you.
And very rarely do you produce anything like proof when asked for
it. The few occasions when you've been seen to do so you come up with
sources as cobbled together nonsense from people with much the same
personality disorders you exhibit on-line.
You have even done a considerable amount of victim blaming. In
fact you've done it to families coming to find support and information
at ASCPS.
It's just the sort of thing I would expect of a CPS shill such as
yourself.
>CA/Michelle/Diana, Was there ever any
>actual PROOF of your abuse?
Early in your post you make it clear you've accepted Diana is not
CA (Michelle). Now you make an assumption without proof that they are
the same person.
Pick a lane.
You'll not be the least embarrassed, as normal people would be
and are, to discover that yes, indeed, a great majority of child
sexual abuse allegations are based not JUST on the testimony of the
child. They are based on witnesses, both lay persons (witnesses
without any professional training) and professionals, the people that
gather forensic evidence from physical injuries, cultures of sexually
transmitted diseases, DNA matching of semen samples to the alleged
perp, and PREGNANCY of the female victim (if old enough to conceive a
child) with, yet again, DNA matching.
You'd brush all that aside to play your "poor little me," a
helpless victim of others and the system.
Do you still blame Lisa's little girl for turning on you and
getting you reported? Oh wait, you've offered NOTHING in the way of
proof that you've ever been reported for child abuse. That's a part
of your cover so that people won't see you for the CPS shill you are.
>
>Or was it possibly just a bunch of brain rot
>""extracted"" through suggestive interviews
>or hypnosis?
It's said anything is possible. More so if you create the
circumstances in your question without determining they are true. You
cannot know they were subjected to suggestive interviews (In your mind
asking for the truth, if it goes against you, is suggestive) or
hypnosis.
If you'd left out the innuendo of "bunch of brain rot," you could
have asked a perfectly valid question that was not rhetorically loaded
to out you as a little self serving, pro-CPS shill you are.
What if you are addressing someone that is in fact a victim?
This is the same sort of language you have used with families new
to ASCPS -- blaming them for being a victim of your favorite faux
villain that serves you so well, your precious CPS.
You can't possibly be so stupid as to NOT understand how you
serve CPS when you do these attacks. Oh wait, you do. You're all for
CPS, as your own posts have proved.
Title: ST VS GREGORY HANSON
(DOB 05/22/1959)
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT 04/10/1996
Comments: CT 1 OWI 1ST
OTHER CITATION 04/10/1996
Comments: CT 2 SPEED
Disposition Status
GUILTY PLEA/DEFAULT
"That's the chick, but not the pic, zipperhead!"
Greg Hanson proving his bigotry towards Asians, or proving he's so
stupid he thinks I'm Asian.
MID:<c6bac3f6-7a0e-4bf8-8ddd-d77bccfc6...@p49g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal/msg/395db830731df54a
http://www.rsdb.org/search?q=zipperhead
Me: "I suspect your stalking is due to the use and abuse of illegal
drugs, Greg. Is the reason for your stalking the members of
alt.friends due to the use and abuse of illegal drugs?
Gregory Scott Hanson, wife beater and child abuser: "Of course."
"My family's case is for Neglect, but we are treated
in virtually every regard as child abusers, marked on
the Child Abuse registry, for example."
-- Greg Scott Hanson telling Usenet he's a FOUNDED child abuser.
Message-ID: <35120b16.04011...@posting.google.com>
" ... But there ought to be conferences and studies on how to curb
minority overpopulation, repatriate minorities abroad, imprison more
minorities, increase use of the death penalty and divest minorities of
the power they have usurped over us in recent years. That would
address the most pressing problems of our day. ... "
April 2000, Gregory Hanson
http://www.nationalist.org/ATW/2000/040101.html#Hanson
Path:
news.datemas.de!newsfeed.datemas.de!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!postnews.google.com!y21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Greegor <gree...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups:
misc.kids,alt.support.foster-parents,uk.people.parents,alt.support.child-protective-services
With the Christmas season upon us again, my stepdaughter was launching
into her usual tirade of "I need this" (Nintendo 64 games, Pokemon,
videos, Rhianna CD, etc.) After enduring a trip through Kmart, I
was at my wits end. I took the kid home and filled the bathtub with
water. Then I dunked the brat's head under the water and counted out
a full minute, with her flailing her arms. I brought her up and she
gasped for air. When she'd caught her breath, I asked her, "When you
were under that water, did you 'need' Nintendo? Pokemon? Rhianna?"
She shook her head. "What were you thinking about?" I
prodded. She told me "I was thinking that I needed air."
"Now you know the difference between 'need' and 'want'" I exclaimed
triumphantly.
--a true story
Greegor
womanGoddess
> Kent, You are a moron.
Coming from a guy whose mental faculties are severely hampered by his
illegal drug abuse, you calling Kent a moron is highly ironic.
Moe
Eternal FOREVER KNIGHT fan
" A vampire cop? REALLY?"
"http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/blies.htm
Know your scum--- http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
Kent Wills
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Kent, You are a moron.
If I am, you should have no trouble countering the points I
raised and you snipped. That will be a win for you.
If, as is clearly the case, I am not, you'll never be able to
offer anything to counter what I presented. That will be another in
the LONG list of losses you've had in your life.
Which will it be? Will you counter the points I raised or prove
once again that I was and am correct when I state you're a pro-CPS
shill?
The choice is yours to make.
krp
"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:svjnf5tjv286o05p2...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:25:08 -0800 (PST), Greegor
> <gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Kent, You are a moron.
>
> If I am, you should have no trouble countering the points I
> raised and you snipped.
Nobody HAS any problem refuting your BULLSHIT, Wills you just make lame
excuses for that you are so STUPID.
Kent Wills
wrote:
>
>"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:svjnf5tjv286o05p2...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:25:08 -0800 (PST), Greegor
>> <gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Kent, You are a moron.
>>
>> If I am, you should have no trouble countering the points I
>> raised and you snipped.
>
>Nobody HAS any problem refuting your BULLSHIT,
Then why have you and Greg NEVER been able to do so?
>Wills you just make lame
>excuses for that you are so STUPID.
Yet I consistently PROVE I'm your intellectual superior.
"you are reading Moore's SELECTIVE material that is HIGHLY edited."
Kenneth Robert Pangborn claiming in misc.legal that David Moore can
and does edit Google's Usenet archive.
Message-ID: <n9Sfm.1372$nh2...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>
Society
>
> "Society" <Soci...@feminism.is.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> The publishers of the journal and the operators of JSTOR
>> want to get paid. HTH
>
> that did the research? What are they contributing?
"Deserve" doesn't mean what you think it means, Andrew Usher.
What are the publishers (paper or electronic) contributing?
Lessee, access to interested readers, subscribers, editing,
printing, mailing, operating a web site with a database, and
a whole bunch of other stuff "the actual people that did the
research" and seek to disseminate said research find easier
to pay someone else to do.
> Scientific knowledge is rightfully the common property
> of mankind and doesn't deserve to be hidden from the public.
I disagree. I am not morally required to give up anything I learn.
If I cast pearls before swine, I expect at least a pork chop
in return.
--
From each according to his abilities,
to each according to his needs.
Karl Marx, _Criticism of the Gotha Programme_
krp
>>>>Kent, You are a moron.
>>>
>>> If I am, you should have no trouble countering the points I
>>> raised and you snipped.
>>
>>Nobody HAS any problem refuting your BULLSHIT,
> Then why have you and Greg NEVER been able to do so?
Look TARZAN - you can stand there feet wide apart beating your chest
claiming you have never lost all you want. Shall we start with your claims
regarding your allegatuion that I was "BOOTED" out of ASTC? When I refute
your "SHIT" you merely rephrase is claiming I couldn't pay. When I refute
that you change again. Yet the FIRST POINT you made wa sthat I was kicked
out. Which by now everyone knows was just more of your psychotic BULLSHIT!
>
>>Wills you just make lame >excuses for that you are so STUPID.
> Yet I consistently PROVE I'm your intellectual superior.
You remain a legend solely in your own mind, Kunt!!!!!
Greegor
> "Kent Wills" <compu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:dvpnf5dsnuun9ddlq...@4ax.com...
>
> >>>>Kent, You are a moron.
>
> >>> If I am, you should have no trouble countering the points I
> >>> raised and you snipped.
>
> >>Nobody HAS any problem refuting your BULLSHIT,
> > Then why have you and Greg NEVER been able to do so?
>
> Look TARZAN - you can stand there feet wide apart beating your chest
> claiming you have never lost all you want. Shall we start with your claims
> regarding your allegatuion that I was "BOOTED" out of ASTC? When I refute
> your "SHIT" you merely rephrase is claiming I couldn't pay. When I refute
> that you change again. Yet the FIRST POINT you made wa sthat I was kicked
> out. Which by now everyone knows was just more of your psychotic BULLSHIT!
>
>
>
> >>Wills you just make lame >excuses for that you are so STUPID.
KBW > Yet I consistently PROVE I'm your intellectual superior.
KRP > You remain a legend solely in your own mind, Kunt!!!!!
I think Kent plays too many fantasy games
or watches too much fantasy TV.
We already KNOW about Moe's fantasy world.
She's an expert on criminology 'cause she's
a TRUE CRIME fan! LOL
She must also be an expert on vampire cops.
Kent Wills
CONsulting, "Kenneth Robert 'legally insane alcoholic'[1] Pangborn"
<kr...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:dvpnf5dsnuun9ddlq...@4ax.com...
>
>>>>>Kent, You are a moron.
>>>>
>>>> If I am, you should have no trouble countering the points I
>>>> raised and you snipped.
>>>
>>>Nobody HAS any problem refuting your BULLSHIT,
>
>> Then why have you and Greg NEVER been able to do so?
>
> Look TARZAN - you can stand there feet wide apart beating your chest
>claiming you have never lost all you want.
That's not the claim I've made.
It's true I've never lost to you or Greg. That's because you are
both reduced to lying, as you prove next.
>Shall we start with your claims
>regarding your allegatuion that I was "BOOTED" out of ASTC?
I made no such claim. I did ask if the reason you weren't a
member was because you couldn't afford the dues.
You never did answer.
>When I refute
>your "SHIT" you merely rephrase is claiming I couldn't pay.
I asked, I didn't claim.
You freely admitted that you were not a member at the time I
asked the question, so you can't even claim I was being deceptive in
my question.
>When I refute
>that you change again.
How does your drunken mind think you refuted a question?
Especially since you've never answered it.
>Yet the FIRST POINT you made wa sthat I was kicked
>out.
I made no such claim.
>Which by now everyone knows was just more of your psychotic BULLSHIT!
Whereas I never made the claim, your lie fails. Again.
Given how often you FAIL with this tactic, I have to wonder why
you continue to use it.
>>
>>>Wills you just make lame >excuses for that you are so STUPID.
>
>> Yet I consistently PROVE I'm your intellectual superior.
>
> You remain a legend solely in your own mind, Kunt!!!!!
Given your extremely low intellect, being your intellectual
superior makes no one a legend in any way. Many down syndrome people
will be able to display a greater intellect than you've been able to
show.
"Miranda was a STUPID WASTE OF TIME AND DID NOTHING!"
-- Kenneth Robert Pangborn of KRP Consulting and The A-Team.
[1] According to his own claims.
Kent Wills
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>Wills you just make lame >excuses for that you are so STUPID.
>
>KBW > Yet I consistently PROVE I'm your intellectual superior.
>
>KRP > You remain a legend solely in your own mind, Kunt!!!!!
>
>I think Kent plays too many fantasy games
>or watches too much fantasy TV.
I don't play any fantasy games, and watch very little TV.
>
>We already KNOW about Moe's fantasy world.
Which has what to do with your lying in a futile attempt to
distract from more of Pangborn's lies being exposed?
>
>She's an expert on criminology 'cause she's
>a TRUE CRIME fan! LOL
>
If you think so. She's never presented such.
>She must also be an expert on vampire cops.
Since you clearly aren't aware, the show was and is fictional.
Get off the drugs, Greg. Seriously.
krp
>>>>>>Kent, You are a moron.
>>>>>
>>>>> If I am, you should have no trouble countering the points I
>>>>> raised and you snipped.
>>>>
>>>>Nobody HAS any problem refuting your BULLSHIT,
>>
>>> Then why have you and Greg NEVER been able to do so?
>>
>> Look TARZAN - you can stand there feet wide apart beating your chest
>>claiming you have never lost all you want.
> That's not the claim I've made.
Sure it is TARZAN!
> It's true I've never lost to you or Greg. That's because you are
> both reduced to lying, as you prove next.
Hello Mr. POT!
>>Shall we start with your claims regarding your allegation that I was
>>"BOOTED" out of ASTC?
> I made no such claim.
You did repeatedly for a week while I played ROPE A DOPE with you. You
were HOWLING until I posted the link to show I was STILL a member. Then you
changed your claim from that I was "BOOTED" because of racism and sexism, to
your FACT CLAIM that I couldn't afford the dues. You always have a fallback
BULLSHIT position, Kunt. You are INCAPABLE of admitting you are wrong.
> I did ask if the reason you weren't a member was because you couldn't
> afford the dues.
> You never did answer.
No Kunt you STATED that as a "FACT" suggesting you had some form of
PROOF of your psychotic claim.
>>When I refute your "SHIT" you merely rephrase is claiming I couldn't pay.
> I asked, I didn't claim.
YoU CLAIMED it to be a FACT!
> You freely admitted that you were not a member at the time I
> asked the question, so you can't even claim I was being deceptive in
> my question.
Oh, yes I did - - DOPE..
>>When I refute that you change again.
> How does your drunken mind think you refuted a question?
> Especially since you've never answered it.
It wasn't a question Wills, it was a CLAIM OF FACT.
>>Yet the FIRST POINT you made wa sthat I was kicked out.
> I made no such claim.
You not only claimed I was kicked out, you claimed WHY. (Racism and
sexism.) Stated as "FACTS" which you suggested that you were in posession of
to support your claims.
>>Which by now everyone knows was just more of your psychotic BULLSHIT!
> Whereas I never made the claim, your lie fails. Again.
> Given how often you FAIL with this tactic, I have to wonder why
> you continue to use it.
But you DID in fact make the claim VERY DOGMATICALLY. Your strident
claims certainly suggested with an extremely heavy hand that you had
firsthand knowledge of the claims you were making. You weren't satisfied to
claim I was kicked out, you went on to claim WHY. Like you ALWAYS DO when
you are trapped with your lies, you try to lie your way out of having been
exposed for the liar you are Wills. I waited for ALL of the gang of 4 to
join in. Moore started it, and like his obedient little lap-dog, you
immediately joined in adding your own flavor to the soup then came mindless
Moe and finally Danny Sullivan. All 4 of you were orgasmic with what you
THOUGHT you had on me. How long did it take to clean your keyboard, Wills?
Kent Wills
wrote:
>Paddling down the river of insanity comes along
>"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:fgaqf5l7g584l3m9a...@4ax.com...
>
>>>>>>>Kent, You are a moron.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I am, you should have no trouble countering the points I
>>>>>> raised and you snipped.
>>>>>
>>>>>Nobody HAS any problem refuting your BULLSHIT,
>>>
>>>> Then why have you and Greg NEVER been able to do so?
>>>
>>> Look TARZAN - you can stand there feet wide apart beating your chest
>>>claiming you have never lost all you want.
>
>> That's not the claim I've made.
>
> Sure it is TARZAN!
>
Offer the proof, unless, of course, this is just another of your
MANY pathological lies.
>> It's true I've never lost to you or Greg. That's because you are
>> both reduced to lying, as you prove next.
>
> Hello Mr. POT!
Cite one time when I've posted any lie. Just one.
And citing/referencing any lie you or Greg have posted won't
count, since it would be your lie.
>
>>>Shall we start with your claims regarding your allegation that I was
>>>"BOOTED" out of ASTC?
>
>> I made no such claim.
>
> You did repeatedly for a week while I played ROPE A DOPE with you.
No I didn't. Prove otherwise, unless you've been reduced to
lying.
>You
>were HOWLING until I posted the link to show I was STILL a member.
I asked if you weren't a member because you couldn't afford to
be. That's it. That's the totality of my question.
You can lie about it all your alcoholism (unless you lied about
that) demands. The truth will remain the truth.
>Then you
>changed your claim from that I was "BOOTED" because of racism and sexism, to
>your FACT CLAIM that I couldn't afford the dues.
I asked if that was the reason.
Are you so drunk you think asking a question is the same as making
a fact claim? Serious question.
>You always have a fallback
>BULLSHIT position, Kunt. You are INCAPABLE of admitting you are wrong.
>
How is a question wrong? Oh sure, if the question was in some way
deceptive, it could be wrong. Since you admitted you weren't a member
when I asked, there can be no deception in my asking.
BTW, you still haven't answered. Your inability to answer
suggests that you couldn't afford the cost associated with membership
at the time. It's not proof, of course, but it does give reason to
suspect that is the reason.
>> I did ask if the reason you weren't a member was because you couldn't
>> afford the dues.
>> You never did answer.
>
> No Kunt you STATED that as a "FACT" suggesting you had some form of
>PROOF of your psychotic claim.
I've done no such thing. Prove otherwise, unless you would rather
admit you're lying.
>
>>>When I refute your "SHIT" you merely rephrase is claiming I couldn't pay.
>
>> I asked, I didn't claim.
>
> YoU CLAIMED it to be a FACT!
Unless you're lying, you'll offer proof.
>
>> You freely admitted that you were not a member at the time I
>> asked the question, so you can't even claim I was being deceptive in
>> my question.
>
> Oh, yes I did - - DOPE..
At least you are able to admit I was being honest in my question.
>
>>>When I refute that you change again.
>
>> How does your drunken mind think you refuted a question?
>> Especially since you've never answered it.
>
> It wasn't a question Wills, it was a CLAIM OF FACT.
>
Why do you lie?
>>>Yet the FIRST POINT you made wa sthat I was kicked out.
>
>> I made no such claim.
>
> You not only claimed I was kicked out, you claimed WHY. (Racism and
>sexism.) Stated as "FACTS" which you suggested that you were in posession of
>to support your claims.
>
I made no such claim.
Prove I did, unless, of course, you're lying.
>
>>>Which by now everyone knows was just more of your psychotic BULLSHIT!
>
>> Whereas I never made the claim, your lie fails. Again.
>> Given how often you FAIL with this tactic, I have to wonder why
>> you continue to use it.
>
> But you DID in fact make the claim VERY DOGMATICALLY. Your strident
>claims certainly suggested with an extremely heavy hand that you had
>firsthand knowledge of the claims you were making. You weren't satisfied to
>claim I was kicked out, you went on to claim WHY.
I asked about why you weren't a member.
Perhaps in your drunken stupors you misunderstood what I wrote.
>Like you ALWAYS DO when
>you are trapped with your lies, you try to lie your way out of having been
>exposed for the liar you are Wills. I waited for ALL of the gang of 4 to
>join in. Moore started it, and like his obedient little lap-dog, you
>immediately joined in adding your own flavor to the soup then came mindless
>Moe and finally Danny Sullivan. All 4 of you were orgasmic with what you
>THOUGHT you had on me. How long did it take to clean your keyboard, Wills?
>
Only your drunken mind can see my asking if the reason you
weren't a member was because you couldn't afford to be one as a
statement of fact.
No one suggested why you weren't a member. I asked.
David thought you were kicked out. While it's still possible you
were and then reinstated, this isn't too likely. I've seen nothing
from him stating why you would have been kicked out.
Dan pointed out that he thought you forgot to pay your dues on
time. This is certainly possible.
I asked if the reason was because you couldn't afford the dues.
Not a fact claim present, outside your drunken stupors. Feel
free to prove otherwise, unless I'm 100% correct and you are just
presenting more drunken lies.
"And you RULE OUT that it could be MOORE my biggest
fan and GAY lover."
Kenneth Robert Pangborn, of KRP Consulting and The A-Team, LYING
and claiming David Moore is his gay lover. Message-ID:
<_MlOj.598$pH4.7@trnddc06>
watcher
> "childadvocate" <smar...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:8f6ea0ce-eb41-417b...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
[...]
> Yes Michelle, I know.
Your stalky obsession is showing.
Neil Brick of Smart News, has had the smar...@aol.com email address for
well over a decade.
http://www.mail-archive.com/ct...@listserv.aol.com/msg104515.html
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/neil-brick-neil-brick/a/657/731
krp
"watcher" <imawa...@post.master> wrote in message
news:14zeokr25r031$.dlg@post.master...
> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 07:57:24 -0500, krp wrote:
>> "childadvocate" <smar...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:8f6ea0ce-eb41-417b...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
> [...]
>
>> Yes Michelle, I know.
>
> Your stalky obsession is showing.
>
> Neil Brick of Smart News, has had the smar...@aol.com email address for
> well over a decade.
Interesting. Does he appear in other forums pretending to be a woman?
Greegor
w > Your stalky obsession is showing.
w > Neil Brick of Smart News, has had the smartn...@aol.com
w > email address for well over a decade.
KRP > Interesting. Does he appear in other
KRP > forums pretending to be a woman?
I still think childadvocate is Diana Napolis.
She is famous for use of sock identities.
Diana also RECENTLY used a fictitious
name since she got sprung in her attempt
to get the University researcher to
reverse his results.
Diana considers herself a child advocate.
krp
"Greegor" <gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b8e9a52a-44dd-4951...@u20g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
Well I was convinced it was Michelle Devereaux a woman with wildly
alternating views on repressed memories. One minute believing she was
abused, then believing in falser memories and back to believing she was
abused again. You need a score card to see what she is today.
watcher
> KRP > Yes Michelle, I know.
>
> w > Your stalky obsession is showing.
> w > Neil Brick of Smart News, has had the smartn...@aol.com
> w > email address for well over a decade.
>
> KRP > Interesting. Does he appear in other
> KRP > forums pretending to be a woman?
>
> I still think childadvocate is Diana Napolis.
Definitely not. He's been fighting with people on a feminist list serve for
the past year and puts himself forth as some sort of self-styled RA
researcher. Here are some older articles of his.
Excerpt from RA survivor conference:
http://ritualabuse.us/mindcontrol/how-cues-and-programming-work-in-mind-control-and-propaganda/
My name is Neil Brick and today I will be speaking about How Cues and
Programming Work in Mind Control and Propaganda as well as how to avoid
these cues. I am the editor of the SMART newsletter and sponsor of the
Ritual Abuse, Secretive Organizations and Mind Control Conference held in
Connecticut near Bradley every summer in August.
Excerpt from:
http://www.rickross.com/reference/satanism/satanism86.html
Neil Brick, himself an alleged survivor of ritual abuse, says his
self-discovery of past lives began about 10 years ago during a troubled
part of his life. "My whole life was very dysfunctional," Brick says. "I
was always tense, always holding my emotions in very tightly. I had a lot
of life issues -- could not hold a job, had a failed marriage, drinking."
Only after straightening his life out and seeking psychological help did he
become aware of his past life. Short in stature, Brick says that "the
government kept me small so that I could easily fit through ducts and
crawlspaces when I was on missions."
He claims to have recurring memories of his part in assassination missions
behind the Iron Curtain. Estranged from his family, Brick says he blames
his parents and others for allowing his abuse.
"I have not been in touch with my family for quite a while," Brick says.
"My belief is that my family is still in the group, possibly for financial
reasons."