John Price & the Pornographer 2
John M Price PhD
[ This is a repost of the following article: ]
[ From: "MC" <mca...@instanet.com> ]
[ Subject: Re: John Price & the Pornographer 2 ]
[ Newsgroups: sci.psychology.psychotherapy ]
[ Message-ID: <7cdeop$j3i$1...@remarQ.com> ]
I don't know who you are, Janet Neumann , or why you feel obligated to
attack me. But you certainly do not know the facts. A few of her comments:
<your compassion for your "research subjects" is compelling and I'm sure
they all benefited from their contact with you. Golly, how lucky can a
girl get?>
<so, you have been researching the mentally ill under the guise of real
CIA experimentation, kind of duplicitous, don't you think>
<This is a good thing that you are not a psychotherapist, due to your
lack of basic empathy and compassion for people who are suffering. I
can imagine treating these "sad individuals with some modicum of
decency, after all they are people with feelings who opened up to you,
probably trusted you and helped you write your short story, which I hear
you never fulfilled your contractual obligations on. Just took another
trusting soul for a ride and called them stupid more or less, for
trusting you.>
Look, Janet...I am a writer. I was pursuing a theory which I finally had to
admit was probably wrong-headed. Pursuant to this theory, I interviewed
people. That's it. I never pretended to be a therapist, a scientific
researcher, or anything of that nature.
I am sorry the theory turned out to be impossible to substantiate. It ain't
easy to admit you're wrong, and making that admission to myself was truly
wrenching. But it was the testimony of the alleged "mind control victims"
themselves that convinced me I was almost certainly barking up the wrong
tree.
Before I confessed to myself that "Controllers" was probably incorrect, I
tried my best to be both polite and sympathetic to the unhappy people I
interviewed...most of whom sought ME out. As Mike Coyle (who also had to
drop this line of research) will confirm, these claimants are appallingly
demanding and difficult individuals.
They would call at all hours, taking up very much of my time; they were very
demanding, and they talked incessantly, never letting me or anyone else have
the luxury of a completed thought. These sad and lonely folk took up so very
much of my time that my S.O., the woman I loved best and longest, cited
their intrusiveness as perhaps the main reason for our break-up.
The "victims" were, in fact, controlling and shrewish and demanding and
ceaselessly manipulative. I usually felt victimized by them! They would
berate me if I wasn't there at the exact moment they called, or if I
couldn't come when they summoned me. Of course, they would fly into a tizzy
fit if ever I suggested that their word wasn't sufficient to establish
difficult-to-believe assertions. They could never stand the suggestion that
further verification was needed.
They often promised proof; it never came. Instead, I listened to their
hyper-emotional fits, much discussion of "remote viewing," and endless
paranoid rants about members of their family, etc. They described dreams and
visionary experiences as though they were real.
And they often immediately treated me as some sort of care-giver, a role I
never wanted or encouraged.
Worst of all, even when I was nothing but friendly, they would almost
invariably attack me -- accusing me of spying on them, or worse, controlling
the "microwave" devices which they believed were assailing them.
Back when I was trying to lend these folks a sympathetic ear, they would
often give me threatening calls, along the lines of "Turn it off! Turn off
the beam! Stop the voices in my head! I KNOW you're the one doing this to
me!" Hell, they made me responsible for DREAMS they had about me.
I have even looked down the wrong end of gun, held by a woman I knew to be
unstable. Very often, I feared for my life. I STILL have reason to fear one
particular "abductee," whom I have tried only to help.
No human being should put up with the shit these "victims" (who are really
victimizers) routinely dish out to anyone who comes into contact with them.
I am not a masochist, and I just got sick of getting disgusting treatment
from people I had tried to hear out sympathetically.
Eventually, the rationalizations had to stop, and I had to admit that these
people have no exterior enemies. They are simply insane.
Even after I announced that I had changed my views, they would not stop
trying to contact me! The only way to get these people out of one's life is
to express oneself forcefully. I am sorry, but they compel the issue.
(Incidentally, if you any interest in reading the actual letters I have
sent, with Dan's schizy additions excised, I will send copies.)
<There you go again with the MI crap, if you don''t believe such cases
exist, why spend 10 years of your life studying them. We could have had
a genuine researcher in your place.>
What, I was taking someone else's place?
Hey, I never held anyone back from jumping into the pool. If, say, Helmut
Lammer wants to pursue this research, fine! I think he's fooling himself,
but both his country and mine are free...
I suspect that you consider yourself a "victim," Janet. You certainly leap
to the same conclusion they usually leap to. Now hear this: I AM UNDER NO
OBLIGATION TO YOU OR ANYONE ELSE. Got it? Stop talking as though I "owed'
you something other than my honest opinion.
You ask: "why spend 10 years of your life studying them"? It took me
substantially less than ten years to understand that my interview subjects
were delusional. And how did I come to this conclusion? By interviewing
them! How else could I find out?
When I entered the field, I truly wanted to believe in my theory.
Unconsciously, I rationalized away all the massive evidence of psychological
instability in these people. I had a Mulder-esque desire to believe that
some massive conspiracy was at work.
It was the "victims" themselves who convinced me otherwise. They just didn't
persuade me that there was anything real to their tales.
Incidentally, the book (not a "short story, as you refer to it) was
cancelled by the publisher, Adam Parfrey --- after he threatened my life.
And it was a very serious threat. (It was recorded, fortunately.) Adam
himself turns out to be a poorly controlled diabetic -- so very poorly
controlled that he has lapsed into comas -- he is also an abuser of drugs,
up to and including heroin. If you know anything about diabetes and drug
abuse, you know that this is a recipe for highly unstable behavior. This is
why he has "heard" me say things I never said. This is also why he has a
long history of threatening people.
Listen, if you really want to hear some outrageous "Adam" stories, call
"Amok Books" in Los Angeles. Ask for Ken. I think they are still in
business. Those folks know him of old.
<The letters you post are pretty sad. They depict a woman who was
married and had severe problems. You chose to enter into this
relationship because and I paraphrase, being a man with the usual
hormonal excesses, she was so sexy, etc., etc. I think you need to
take care of that testosterone excess and take responsibility for
entering into the relationship. I will not comment any further on your
choice to take advantage of a person that needed help.>
First: *I* did not post the letter that started all this. Dan Rightmyer did.
Like most other usenet abusers with mental problems, he refuses to
acknowledge the difference between private and public posts.
I can assure you that Lauri and her husband were angry at Dan for posting
that letter. The February 1998 post I re-printed in response was already a
matter of usenet record. I needed to establish that Lauri's problems were
far from "mild," hence her untrue statements, which I could scarcely let
stand unrebutted.
You dare to aver I took ADVANTAGE of her...?!? Do you have any idea how many
sleepless nights I spent trying to talk her out of suicide? Do you know how
much work I missed on her behalf? Did I not say that both she and her
husband credit me with saving her very LIFE?
I did not know she had such severe depression and substance abuse issues
when I entered the relationship, but once these problems reared their head,
I tried to be as helpful as possible. I am sorry that the strain eventually
became too much for me...but after all, I am not her husband.
An open marriage may seem "seedy" to you, and certainly I never before had
become involved in such an arrangement. But in point of fact, there are many
thousands of couple who have such marriages, and you are in no position to
judge them. I met the husband beforehand; it was all very civilized.
By the way: If you consider Dan Rightmyer a paragon of virtue, you should
know that he once had a long-term adulterous affair with a woman whose
husband did NOT consent. The marriage broke up. Later, of course, he decided
that the lady was part of the Great CIA Conpsiracy against him.
But of course, Dan is a major hypocrite. He berates me for operating a
pornographic site...which I do not. I wouldn't mind one day doing so: Sex
between consenting adults hardly bother me, and there's a lot of money to be
made. I have indeed done much graphics work for the adult industry
(packaging, designing soft-core web sites, etc.); that's never been a
secret. I've also had plenty of "respectable" clients in my career as an
artist -- including TSR, Llewellyn publications, Warner books, etc.
Dan fancies himself to be something of an artist, and has also done
illustration work for the sexual fetish market. The only difference between
him and me is he lacked talent, and could not make a living doing
illustration work -- and has never, to my knowledge, sold a single piece of
artwork OUTSIDE the sex business. He makes his money selling dope, and is
hopelessly addicted to his product.
Dan is posting a lot of old crap, which I responded to sufficiently on July
16, 1997. Well, at least he has retired his insane assertions that I slept
with my mother and broke my brother's arm -- both of which "data points"
came by way of a "source" which was a complete figment of his sick
imgaination. (If not, Dan -- NAME HIM!) Tom Porter did not believe Dan's
insane tirade...which is why Tom remains my friend, and considers Dan to be
a nut. So did Tom Davis, last time I spoke with him.
Oh, one last word about Brian Zeiler, also quoted by Dan. Brian, whose
incessant paranoid rants on the UFO newsgroups have caused more than one
person to doubt his sanity, claims he never called me a spook. Here are
Zeiler's own words, quoted in the above-cited post:
> To the uninitiated, this is Martin Cannon, the mind-control conspiracy
> proponent who bashes mind control when he's in front of Congress.
> It's true! In other words, he's yet another transparent, behaviorally
> inconsistent operative.
Of course, I have never testified before Congress or any other body. Brian
Zeiler is a fantasist. As is Dan Rightmyer. And if we consider it damnably
"inconsistent" to admit belatedly that one's theory was wrong, then all
progress must give way to blinkered arrogance.
I hope this is the last time I will have to deal with these crazies. If they
continue making bizarre accusations, I can only say: Consider the source.