On Jun 8, 7:19 pm, Transremaxculver <transremaxcul...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Even if this were true which I doubt, there is no logical connection > between the issues you cite above and the issue which you now involve > yourself here. It seems to me that you are unable to recognise and > account for your emotional reaction to Monica, and how this colours > your view of an issue which is not so simplistic as you have again > demonstrated that you think it to be.
That is a spot on assessment of exactly what is going on. Several people have tried to gently point this out to him, but he either has very poor insight into his own behavior or doesn't care. Silly me for trying to have a rational discussion with him on this topic when he has no intention of doing anything but finding ways to attack me and all because of a list serv disagreement that occurred two and a half years ago where I dared to disagree with a statement Steven Hassan made to CNN.
There was one thing I found highly amusing, though, about Dennis' latest response. He actually considers usenet a reliable source of information. I've looked at the relevant usenet groups and have found very little other than spam and smear campaign postings on them and nothing on this topic. I get my information from library database searches and government and legal documents, not usenet.
Monica Pignotti <monica.pignotti....@gmail.com> wrote: > He actually considers usenet a reliable source of >information. I've looked at the relevant usenet groups and have found >very little other than spam and smear campaign postings on them and >nothing on this topic.
So she chooses our little newsgroup to spam her self-promotional material. All the while claiming ...
WE'RE NOT WORTHY! D _______________________
"Scientology does not dissuade members from seeking out medical attention or getting any medication." - Monica Pignotti, PHD
"At this point, if we could go back in time and get rid of the internet altogether, I would be all for it." - Monica Pignotti, PHD
"If you don't stop pointing out my hypocrisy, I'm gonna tell Steve Hassan on you." - Monica Pignotti, PHD
On Jun 9, 4:33 am, Dennis Erlich <infor...@informer.org> wrote:
> Monica Pignotti <monica.pignotti....@gmail.com> wrote: > > He actually considers usenet a reliable source of > >information. I've looked at the relevant usenet groups and have found > >very little other than spam and smear campaign postings on them and > >nothing on this topic.
> So she chooses our little newsgroup to spam her self-promotional > material. All the while claiming ...
> No. No axe to grind. I am simply amusing myself by pointing out her > self promotional hypocrisy.
You know, I try really hard not to take sides in the quarrel between you and Monica. FWIW, you are right at the top of "ars participants that I would like to have a beer with" (aptiwlthabw for those who enjoy acronyms). But I think you are naive about the health care system, and and I think that naivete contributes to your animosity towards Monica.
I guarantee that Monica's vocal criticism of abusive "treatment" antagonizes more people than kooks like Federici. There are entrenched authorities in the educational, treatment, and legal communities who are threatened by criticism from people like Monica. If Monica is anything, she is self-demotional. The entrenched authorities do *not* want to confront the issues she raises, because they have long been complicit in the abuse she is exposing.
While it is a relatively recent development (ie since she abandoned TFT), Monica has become a vocal advocate of evidence-based treatment. I have long advocated the same thing, but I'm just a noisy guy with some basic critical thinking skills. Monica has a legitimate PhD and she has achieved real credibility within the academic community that influences both legal and public perception. Both need to change before the abuse Monica and others decry will ever be eliminated. Monica is trying to influence that. That is a Good Thing, regardless of whether or not you consider it on-topic for ars.
Unfortunately, as long as the courts and uncritical corners of academia are willing to accept people like Federici as experts, Joe Public is going to assume that they know what they are talking about. The courts, the academics, and Joe Public, are wrong.
The reality is that abusive credentialed quacks promise easy solutions to difficult problems, and Joe Public assumes that the they can't possibly be abusive quacks because abusive quacks couldn't possibly be credentialed. Many years ago, several years *before* you were raided, I had the misfortune of working with an abusive credentialed quack in Canada. My complaints about him eventually drew the attention of the Toronto CCHR (who decided the quack-in-question *must* have either been a psychiatrist or supported by psychiatrists when in fact the opposite was true), and one thing led to another and I'm still here.
My abusive credentialed quack, like Federici, did not understand that RESTRAINT IS NOT TREATMENT. Restraint is by definition coercive and nonconsensual. Treatment is neither. There is no reasonable definition of treatment that includes restraint in any form, even without the risks associated with prone restraint. Note that I am not suggesting restraint is never appropriate. But I am stating that restraint is absolutely *never* treatment, no exceptions. Without even considering the recognized risks of prone restraint.
Monica has been dragged through the courts for taking a principled stand against Federici and people like him, who want people to believe that coercive, nonconsensual restraint *is* treatment. You of all people here must surely understand the impact that the whole legal process has on one's life. You *must* know that there is much more to this than responses to a few kook posts on ars. Monica is not engaging in self-promotion, at least not now. Anything but.
Monica has been trying to look beyond your longstanding animosity. Please try to do the same.
Gee, an actual cohesive post on the off-topic subject Professor Pignotti keeps spamming here. Thanks for the simple elucidation John. I agree with all the salient points you made except about Monica.
I'm not bothered at all by her challenging a dangerous practice. I'm bothered by the fact that she thinks so little of usenet and ars in general, and yet continues posting off-topic rebuttals here to stuff no one reads anyway. She says she's looked at the on-topic newsgroups and found them lacking in substance. So why TF doesn't she put her important content into them and make them a useful source of info. She thinks ars was an important source of information on the cult before I arrived? No. She needs to do the effing work and quit putting down the newgroup, while continuing to spam it with off-topic posts. No, John. She chose to spam up ars with her crusade. Let her take her good works (if any) to the appropriate newsgroup and stick to the subject of scientology here.
Besides, she's a raging hypocrite and I intend to point out her obvious hypocrisy which she displays generally in every post.
John Dorsay <restimula...@gmail.com> wrote: >On 6/8/2011 6:32 PM, Dennis Erlich wrote: >> No. No axe to grind. I am simply amusing myself by pointing out her >> self promotional hypocrisy.
>You know, I try really hard not to take sides in the quarrel between >you and Monica. FWIW, you are right at the top of "ars participants >that I would like to have a beer with" (aptiwlthabw for those who >enjoy acronyms). But I think you are naive about the health care >system, and and I think that naivete contributes to your animosity >towards Monica.
John, I'm sure that more children are killed or injured by not wearing their seatbelts than by prone restraint. But that doesn't mean I want to see bunches of seat-belt post in ars either.
D _______________________
"Scientology does not dissuade members from seeking out medical attention or getting any medication." - Monica Pignotti, PHD
"At this point, if we could go back in time and get rid of the internet altogether, I would be all for it." - Monica Pignotti, PHD
"If you don't stop pointing out my hypocrisy, I'm gonna tell Steve Hassan on you." - Monica Pignotti, PHD
John Dorsay <restimula...@gmail.com> wrote: > The entrenched >authorities do *not* want to confront the issues she raises, because >they have long been complicit in the abuse she is exposing.
That may very well be true, John. But remember, restraining out-of-control children (or people in society for that matter) is as old as humans. If practitioners consider it a "treatment" rather than a temporary solution to a potentially destructive person, that's a bit strange to me. But it still could make sense. So where's the massive other side to the argument which the establishment supposedly is defending against Monica's <snicker> whistleblowing.
There must be another side to the argument. I don't want to have to be the one to take it tho. So why not post her shit to the appropriate newsgroup and see if it adds any actual CONTENT to usenet. I submit she's detracting from the on topic content here with her stupid rebuttals to unseen troll posts, all the while putting the newsgroup and usenet in general down, down, down.
That's hypocrisy to me. D _______________________
"Scientology does not dissuade members from seeking out medical attention or getting any medication." - Monica Pignotti, PHD
"At this point, if we could go back in time and get rid of the internet altogether, I would be all for it." - Monica Pignotti, PHD
"If you don't stop pointing out my hypocrisy, I'm gonna tell Steve Hassan on you." - Monica Pignotti, PHD
On Jun 9, 12:49 am, Dennis Erlich <infor...@informer.org> wrote:
> John Dorsay <restimula...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The entrenched > >authorities do *not* want to confront the issues she raises, because > >they have long been complicit in the abuse she is exposing.
> That may very well be true, John. But remember, restraining > out-of-control children (or people in society for that matter) is as > old as humans. If practitioners consider it a "treatment" rather than > a temporary solution to a potentially destructive person, that's a bit > strange to me. But it still could make sense. So where's the massive > other side to the argument which the establishment supposedly is > defending against Monica's <snicker> whistleblowing.
Were this anyone else but Monica, would you even care enough about the issue to play devil's advocate?
> There must be another side to the argument. I don't want to have to > be the one to take it tho. So why not post her shit to the > appropriate newsgroup and see if it adds any actual CONTENT to usenet. > I submit she's detracting from the on topic content here with her > stupid rebuttals to unseen troll posts, all the while putting the > newsgroup and usenet in general down, down, down.
Cause, you know the 6+ months of her not answering the trolls did soooooooooooooo much to stop them /eyeroll. While this issue IS off topic, this is the same crap that the cult of Scientology does to it's critics. Do you blame the critics of scientology when they are Fair Gamed?
> John, I'm sure that more children are killed or injured by not wearing > their seatbelts than by prone restraint. But that doesn't mean I want > to see bunches of seat-belt post in ars either.
Fair enough. But I am not aware of an organized anti-seatbelt lobby claiming that children will be saved by not wearing their seatbelts.
As I said, I have direct experience with abusive, credentialed quacks. My abusive credentialed quack had organized naive families to lobby for government funding to financially support his abuse. Many people like Monica tried to raise public awareness, and to goad the health authorities into taking action to protect the victims of his abuse, but to no avail. By a complete fluke, I happened to work with the abusive credentialed quack, and I also happened to be a casual acquaintance of one of the closest advisers to the provincial premier of the day. I contacted my acquaintance, who knew me well enough to take my descriptions of the abuse I witnessed seriously, and the abusive credentialed quack was soon out of business.
But *many* people who should have been much more able than I to get the government's ear tried and failed to do so. It was *only* because of the fluke of a personal connection that I succeeded where they had tried and failed. If not for that fluke, I believe the quack would have built a large and lucrative business that did little more than abuse vulnerable people behind closed doors, beyond the scrutiny of the authorities and with the naive support of desperate families.
Unfortunately, this is not an exceptional story. Abusive credentialed quacks prey on desperate families and vulnerable individuals. The stories are as disgusting as the worst of the cult. Remember Raoul Lopez?
There is a whole government-sanctioned "health-care" industry in the US and Canada which consists of people like Federici exploiting desperate families of vulnerable individuals. There is a particularly disgusting subgroup that preys on the severely autistic. Some search terms that will give you a taste are "Matthew Isreal", BRI, IARET. People like Israel are attempting to gain broad government sanction and funding for something they call "Applied Behavior Analysis". The presentation of ABA is quite benign. In some cases ABA might even be useful, I don't know enough about it to say that this is never the case. But at the end of the day ABA is the justification for atrocities such as this. http://tinyurl.com/65alj4t
Please don't misunderstand me. I am not defending Monica personally, nor am I taking her side in your quarrel with her. But I am supporting the stance she has taken against Federici. You obviously don't have to agree. But, just as you are free to express your views on the matter, I am free to express mine. And I am quite sure we agree about that :)
On Jun 9, 1:36 am, John Dorsay <restimula...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/9/2011 12:24 AM, Dennis Erlich wrote:
> > John, I'm sure that more children are killed or injured by not wearing > > their seatbelts than by prone restraint. But that doesn't mean I want > > to see bunches of seat-belt post in ars either.
> Fair enough. But I am not aware of an organized anti-seatbelt lobby > claiming that children will be saved by not wearing their seatbelts.
Yes, exactly. Once again, Dennis could say the same thing about Scientology. There are far more people killed from not wearing seatbelts than from Scientology. Does that mean that it is not a valid cause to speak out against? I doubt he would think so. It seems to me he is being very selective here and just doesn't want to believe that I just might be doing something of value here. And yes, the organized lobby for not banning prone restraints does have a vested interest. There is a whole industry built up around these so-called safety containment trainings.
> As I said, I have direct experience with abusive, credentialed > quacks. My abusive credentialed quack had organized naive families > to lobby for government funding to financially support his abuse. > Many people like Monica tried to raise public awareness, and to goad > the health authorities into taking action to protect the victims of > his abuse, but to no avail. By a complete fluke, I happened to work > with the abusive credentialed quack, and I also happened to be a > casual acquaintance of one of the closest advisers to the provincial > premier of the day. I contacted my acquaintance, who knew me well > enough to take my descriptions of the abuse I witnessed seriously, > and the abusive credentialed quack was soon out of business.
That's very good to know. Congratulations.
> But *many* people who should have been much more able than I to get > the government's ear tried and failed to do so.
That's very true. Here in the US there were many parents of autistic children who were lobbying to get prone restraints banned in schools by the passage of the Keeping Students Safe Act, which so far has failed to pass. As a result, children are still being prone restrained in schools in many states and some are being injured and deaths have continued. As for private therapists, they are still free to do whatever they please. The only law even close to banning this is Candace's Law in Colorado, but all it does is ban rebirthing therapy, not other forms of restraint. It does not ban the prone restraint proposed by Federici in his self-published book.
>It was *only* > because of the fluke of a personal connection that I succeeded where > they had tried and failed. If not for that fluke, I believe the > quack would have built a large and lucrative business that did > little more than abuse vulnerable people behind closed doors, beyond > the scrutiny of the authorities and with the naive support of > desperate families.
> Unfortunately, this is not an exceptional story. Abusive > credentialed quacks prey on desperate families and vulnerable > individuals. The stories are as disgusting as the worst of the cult. > Remember Raoul Lopez?
Very true. At least with Scientology, no one is credentialed or licensed and so it is seen for what it is by all but the true believers. What is particularly of concern is that many of the people using these dangerous techniques are licensed and all too often their boards seem to be looking the other way. This is a classic example of a real-life Milgrim experiment, obedience to authority and anyone who questions this gets hit with a smear campaign (I am not the only one, just look at the smear campaign against others who have spoken out -- Federici sued 5 people and a non-profit). The good news, if there is any, is that there is a growing awareness in the mental health profession that self-proclaimed therapy gurus who believe they are above question, are not any longer and are increasingly being challenged. Federici is far from being the only one this applies to.
> There is a whole government-sanctioned "health-care" industry in the > US and Canada which consists of people like Federici exploiting > desperate families of vulnerable individuals. There is a > particularly disgusting subgroup that preys on the severely > autistic. Some search terms that will give you a taste are "Matthew > Isreal", BRI, IARET. People like Israel are attempting to gain broad > government sanction and funding for something they call "Applied > Behavior Analysis". The presentation of ABA is quite benign. In some > cases ABA might even be useful, I don't know enough about it to say > that this is never the case. But at the end of the day ABA is the > justification for atrocities such as this.http://tinyurl.com/65alj4t
> Please don't misunderstand me. I am not defending Monica personally, > nor am I taking her side in your quarrel with her. But I am > supporting the stance she has taken against Federici. You obviously > don't have to agree. But, just as you are free to express your views > on the matter, I am free to express mine. And I am quite sure we > agree about that :)
Fair enough. Thank you for being smart enough to give the validity of this cause priority over any other disagreements or conflicts we might have had, as well it should be.
> On Jun 9, 12:49 am, Dennis Erlich <infor...@informer.org> wrote:
> > John Dorsay <restimula...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > The entrenched > > >authorities do *not* want to confront the issues she raises, because > > >they have long been complicit in the abuse she is exposing.
> > That may very well be true, John. But remember, restraining > > out-of-control children (or people in society for that matter) is as > > old as humans. If practitioners consider it a "treatment" rather than > > a temporary solution to a potentially destructive person, that's a bit > > strange to me. But it still could make sense. So where's the massive > > other side to the argument which the establishment supposedly is > > defending against Monica's <snicker> whistleblowing.
> Were this anyone else but Monica, would you even care enough about the > issue to play devil's advocate?
Yes, exactly, Kat. He wouldn't give it a second thought, were this anyone else.
> > There must be another side to the argument. I don't want to have to > > be the one to take it tho. So why not post her shit to the > > appropriate newsgroup and see if it adds any actual CONTENT to usenet. > > I submit she's detracting from the on topic content here with her > > stupid rebuttals to unseen troll posts, all the while putting the > > newsgroup and usenet in general down, down, down.
> Cause, you know the 6+ months of her not answering the trolls did > soooooooooooooo much to stop them /eyeroll. While this issue IS off > topic, this is the same crap that the cult of Scientology does to it's > critics. Do you blame the critics of scientology when they are Fair > Gamed?
Dennis might be interesting to know that I carefully reviewed the other side to the argument and had a thoughtful discussion of its merits. This only goes to show that he is jumping to unwarranted conclusions without ever having actually read my blog and the arguments I have presented.
On Jun 9, 12:49 am, Dennis Erlich <infor...@informer.org> wrote:
> John Dorsay <restimula...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The entrenched > >authorities do *not* want to confront the issues she raises, because > >they have long been complicit in the abuse she is exposing.
> That may very well be true, John. But remember, restraining > out-of-control children (or people in society for that matter) is as > old as humans. If practitioners consider it a "treatment" rather than > a temporary solution to a potentially destructive person, that's a bit > strange to me. But it still could make sense. So where's the massive > other side to the argument which the establishment supposedly is > defending against Monica's <snicker> whistleblowing.
> There must be another side to the argument.
This proves you have not read my blog and are jumping to unwarranted conclusions that support your intent to attack me. My style is to intentionally seek out the very best arguments from the "other side" and discuss that. I did that on my blog. I presented the very best arguments in favor of not banning prone restraints.
>I don't want to have to be the one to take it tho. >So why not post her shit to the > appropriate newsgroup and see if it adds any actual CONTENT to usenet.
We've been through this before. You seem to be about 15 years out of date of you think meaningful discussions on topics like this still occur on usenet. Usenet is not where these kinds of things usually get thoughtful discussions. The "appropriate" newsgroups are full of spam and do not discuss this topic. I have discussed it on many other forums on the internet.
> I submit she's detracting from the on topic content here with her > stupid rebuttals to unseen troll posts, all the while putting the > newsgroup and usenet in general down, down, down.
It's not a matter of putting usenet down. It's recognition of the facts at hand that anyone who looks at usenet can readily see. It is not the place to have a meaningful discussions anymore. My repeated attempts to have them with you are a case in point.
> Gee, an actual cohesive post on the off-topic subject Professor > Pignotti keeps spamming here. Thanks for the simple elucidation John. > I agree with all the salient points you made except about Monica.
> I'm not bothered at all by her challenging a dangerous practice. I'm > bothered by the fact that she thinks so little of usenet and ars in > general, and yet continues posting off-topic rebuttals here to stuff > no one reads anyway. She says she's looked at the on-topic newsgroups > and found them lacking in substance. So why TF doesn't she put her > important content into them and make them a useful source of info. She > thinks ars was an important source of information on the cult before I > arrived? No. She needs to do the effing work and quit putting down > the newgroup, while continuing to spam it with off-topic posts. No, > John. She chose to spam up ars with her crusade. Let her take her > good works (if any) to the appropriate newsgroup and stick to the > subject of scientology here.
> Besides, she's a raging hypocrite and I intend to point out her > obvious hypocrisy which she displays generally in every post.
> John Dorsay <restimula...@gmail.com> wrote: > >On 6/8/2011 6:32 PM, Dennis Erlich wrote: > >> No. No axe to grind. I am simply amusing myself by pointing out her > >> self promotional hypocrisy.
> >You know, I try really hard not to take sides in the quarrel between > >you and Monica. FWIW, you are right at the top of "ars participants > >that I would like to have a beer with" (aptiwlthabw for those who > >enjoy acronyms). But I think you are naive about the health care > >system, and and I think that naivete contributes to your animosity > >towards Monica.
> John, I'm sure that more children are killed or injured by not wearing > their seatbelts than by prone restraint. But that doesn't mean I want > to see bunches of seat-belt post in ars either.
Repeatedly calling me a "hypocrite" is about the only form of rebuttal Dennis knows. It's called the Tu Quoque fallacy which is a form of ad hominem. I am actually consistently practicing what I preach. No one, in my view, is above valid criticism, whether it be Steven Hassan or Ronald Federici or any other so-called "expert". You seem to think I am a hypocrite because I object to the extremely virulent personal attacks that have been leveled against me, many of them containing complete fabrications. That is very different from my asking you very valid questions about your ministerial credentials. The fact you cannot seem to see the difference speaks volumes. I am not a therapy guru and I openly invite anyone to challenge me on my actual ideas and if they want proof of my credentials, I will gladly provide it. If you want to discuss with me the best arguments in favor of not banning prone restraint, I will be glad to discuss these with you. I have carefully examined them.
Of course, I don't put Steve Hassan in the same category Federici as far as my depth of concern over practices, but what they do have in common is that both seem to feel that they are above challenge and actually having discussions with critics and both are claiming that their approaches are effective and superior to other approaches when there is no published research comparing their approaches to other existing approaches, to support that. For example, there is no evidence that Steve Hassan is any more successful as an exit counselor than Rick Ross, Carol Giambalvo or the others, nor is there any evidence that his post-cult therapy is any more successful than that of other therapists. In fact, there is no evidence that people who go to a "cult expert" therapist are any better off than those who do not. Steve Hassan's claims are based on his "experience" and I challenge that.
Talk about hypocrisy for a cult expert and the self-proclaimed America's Leading Exit Counselor who couldn't seem to deal with my simple questions and challenges, but had to bring in Dennis Erlich to attack me (this is according to the list serv moderator).
> > No. No axe to grind. I am simply amusing myself by pointing out her > > self promotional hypocrisy.
> You know, I try really hard not to take sides in the quarrel between > you and Monica. FWIW, you are right at the top of "ars participants > that I would like to have a beer with" (aptiwlthabw for those who > enjoy acronyms). But I think you are naive about the health care > system, and and I think that naivete contributes to your animosity > towards Monica.
> I guarantee that Monica's vocal criticism of abusive "treatment" > antagonizes more people than kooks like Federici. There are > entrenched authorities in the educational, treatment, and legal > communities who are threatened by criticism from people like Monica. > If Monica is anything, she is self-demotional.
You got it, John. Calling me "self-promotional" as Dennis has done is ludicrous when I am obviously just the opposite. I have no illusions about this. I have alienated a number of people. If I had wanted to promote myself, I would have chosen a nice, safe area and kept my mouth shut through graduate school. I have no doubt that some of my criticisms, both on the internet and what I have published, have upset a number of people. I do it because for the good of the profession and for the public good, there are people who need to be challenged and it if upsets them, too bad.
>The entrenched > authorities do *not* want to confront the issues she raises, because > they have long been complicit in the abuse she is exposing.
Unfortunately, that's true. As Federici himself pointed out in the recent litigation, some of the defendants tried to file complaints with his state board, thus far, to no avail.
> While it is a relatively recent development (ie since she abandoned > TFT), Monica has become a vocal advocate of evidence-based > treatment. I have long advocated the same thing, but I'm just a > noisy guy with some basic critical thinking skills. Monica has a > legitimate PhD and she has achieved real credibility within the > academic community that influences both legal and public perception. > Both need to change before the abuse Monica and others decry will > ever be eliminated. Monica is trying to influence that. That is a > Good Thing, regardless of whether or not you consider it on-topic > for ars.
> Unfortunately, as long as the courts and uncritical corners of > academia are willing to accept people like Federici as experts, Joe > Public is going to assume that they know what they are talking > about. The courts, the academics, and Joe Public, are wrong.
> The reality is that abusive credentialed quacks promise easy > solutions to difficult problems, and Joe Public assumes that the > they can't possibly be abusive quacks because abusive quacks > couldn't possibly be credentialed. Many years ago, several years > *before* you were raided, I had the misfortune of working with an > abusive credentialed quack in Canada. My complaints about him > eventually drew the attention of the Toronto CCHR (who decided the > quack-in-question *must* have either been a psychiatrist or > supported by psychiatrists when in fact the opposite was true), and > one thing led to another and I'm still here.
> My abusive credentialed quack, like Federici, did not understand > that RESTRAINT IS NOT TREATMENT. Restraint is by definition coercive > and nonconsensual. Treatment is neither. There is no reasonable > definition of treatment that includes restraint in any form, even > without the risks associated with prone restraint. Note that I am > not suggesting restraint is never appropriate. But I am stating that > restraint is absolutely *never* treatment, no exceptions. Without > even considering the recognized risks of prone restraint.
> Monica has been dragged through the courts for taking a principled > stand against Federici and people like him, who want people to > believe that coercive, nonconsensual restraint *is* treatment. You > of all people here must surely understand the impact that the whole > legal process has on one's life. You *must* know that there is much > more to this than responses to a few kook posts on ars. Monica is > not engaging in self-promotion, at least not now. Anything but.
> Monica has been trying to look beyond your longstanding animosity. > Please try to do the same.
Thanks for trying, John. I doubt this will change his mind. I have never seen anyone as perseverant as Dennis Erlich when he gets a bee in his bonnet.
Monica Pignotti <monica.pignotti....@gmail.com> wrote: >This proves you have not read my blog and are jumping to unwarranted >conclusions that support your intent to attack me. My style is to >intentionally seek out the very best arguments from the "other side" >and discuss that. I did that on my blog. I presented the very best >arguments in favor of not banning prone restraints.
Why tf would I go read about something that's off-topic to my interests? I read this newsgroup because it interests me and I'm knowledgeable on the subject. I have little to no interest in Monica's campaign until it get's situated into the correct newsgroup.
Besides, I'm so sure she presented the "very best arguments" on the other side, just as she did when she attacked Hassan over the word "any" in his 10 second CNN statement. Or when she trashed me personally and my ministry rather than admit that she was wrong about his statement.
Somehow I don't trust her to present the other side properly.
D _______________________
"Scientology does not dissuade members from seeking out medical attention or getting any medication." - Monica Pignotti, PHD
"At this point, if we could go back in time and get rid of the internet altogether, I would be all for it." - Monica Pignotti, PHD
"If you don't stop pointing out my hypocrisy, I'm gonna tell Steve Hassan on you." - Monica Pignotti, PHD
>> The entrenched >>authorities do *not* want to confront the issues she raises, because >>they have long been complicit in the abuse she is exposing.
> That may very well be true, John. But remember, restraining > out-of-control children (or people in society for that matter) is as > old as humans. If practitioners consider it a "treatment" rather than > a temporary solution to a potentially destructive person, that's a bit > strange to me. But it still could make sense.
Strange to me too. But it is also true. It's how Matthew Israel started out. From the article I linked to in a previous post:
"On July 17, 1981, at BRI's sister school in Northridge, California, staffers restrained 14-year-old Danny Aswad face-down on his bed. Aswad died in that position. The autopsy report concluded that he died of natural causes, but the state of California placed the school on a two-year probation anyway. In 1982, the state's Department of Social Services filed a 63-page legal complaint alleging abuse at the school. The complaint claimed, among other things, that BRI withheld meals; showed staff how to hide students' injuries from regulatory agencies; and, strangely, encouraged students to act out for a film crew, the footage to be used later to demonstrate how the children had behaved before BRI. Later that year the state reached a settlement with BRI in California. The school couldn't use anything more punishing than a water spray. The state also forbade Israel—who says he'd turned over control of the campus before Aswad's death—from stepping foot on the Northridge property. But this, too, was not the worst of it."
It gets *much* worse. I think this article should be required reading for anyone who thinks Monica's criticisms are out of line. Be forewarned. It's long. And it's scary. And it's depressing. And it's true. http://tinyurl.com/65alj4t
> It gets *much* worse. I think this article should be required > reading for anyone who thinks Monica's criticisms are out of line. > Be forewarned. It's long. And it's scary. And it's depressing. And > it's true. http://tinyurl.com/65alj4t
I should add that there is a fatal error in the author's attempt to end the article with a balanced summary. He cherry-picks successes. There is not, to the best of my knowledge, any well-designed research showing that positive outcomes such as those described at the end of the article are anything more than anecdotal support.
> > It gets *much* worse. I think this article should be required > > reading for anyone who thinks Monica's criticisms are out of line. > > Be forewarned. It's long. And it's scary. And it's depressing. And > > it's true.http://tinyurl.com/65alj4t
> I should add that there is a fatal error in the author's attempt to > end the article with a balanced summary. He cherry-picks successes. > There is not, to the best of my knowledge, any well-designed > research showing that positive outcomes such as those described at > the end of the article are anything more than anecdotal support.
> Same with Federici et al.
Yes, but this is more mainstream, unfortunately. The Judge Rotenberg Center is a shameful blemish on the mental health profession indeed, in my opinion and yet they are supported by the mainstream and even have promotional booths at conferences put on by prominent professional organizations. I was at such a conference a few years ago and stopped by their booth, which handed out glossy brochures that show a lovely residential center and hand out free pens, rather than the discuss the shock machines. What this center is doing goes against everything the ethical practice of behavior analysis stands for in my opinion. They do use the same form of argumentation and rationalizations that Federici, Heather Forbes and their supporters use, though, that they are doing these cruel practices out of "love" ignoring the fact that there is no good evidence that they even work.
There is some good news, though about this. Recently, the founder of Judge Rotenberg Center was forced to resign:
> What this center is doing goes against > everything the ethical practice of behavior analysis stands for in my
Maybe it's changed since I encountered the abusive credentialed quack I mentioned previously. That was before Lovaas renounced the nastiness (which I did not even know had happened until I read this article), and I have not followed it much since.
However, at that time, several academic champions of ABA formed an organization with the harmless-sounding name of the International Association for the Right to Effective Treatment (IARET), which you can read about at http://www.autcom.org/articles/EffectiveTreatment.html if you are not familiar with it.
"Research" justifying abuse was little more than smoke and mirrors. When I started reading it, my first thought was of an old Consumer Reports comment describing the "research" denying the dangers of tobacco. I felt like I was walking through a hall of mirrors. The same few "researchers" always referenced the same few articles from each other. Results were praised and blindly accepted without even minimal scrutiny of experimental design, never mind any attempts to replicate. But it met a loose definition of peer-review, so it was accepted by people who did not understand that the procedures used by these guys were intended to inflict pain.
> opinion. They do use the same form of argumentation and > rationalizations that Federici, Heather Forbes and their supporters > use, though, that they are doing these cruel practices out of "love" > ignoring the fact that there is no good evidence that they even work.
> On 6/9/2011 11:24 AM, Monica Pignotti wrote: >> What this center is doing goes against >> everything the ethical practice of behavior analysis stands for in my
> Maybe it's changed since I encountered the abusive credentialed > quack I mentioned previously. That was before Lovaas renounced the > nastiness (which I did not even know had happened until I read this > article), and I have not followed it much since.
Evidently little if anything has changed. According to The Behavior Analysis Association of Michigan, "An individual is entitled to effective and scientifically validated treatment. In turn, behavior analysts have an obligation to use only those techniques that have been demonstrated by researchers to be effective, to acquaint consumers and the public with the advantages and disadvantages of these techniques, and to search continuously for the most optimal means of changing behavior" which is right out of the IARET handbook.
> Why tf would I go read about something that's off-topic to my > interests? I read this newsgroup because it interests me and I'm > knowledgeable on the subject.
What subject is that Reverend? The cultivation and trafficking of illegal schedule 1 narcotics? Since you signed away your rights to criticize Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, and David Miscavige - for money; you are not under contract to not talk about your narcotics syndicate are you?
-- "... Where as many of us at one time idolized your fight against the cult, these days we see how much of a sham you are." - Yaakov, a high school teacher, to Rev. Dennis Erlich of the inFormer Ministry [marijuana] Collective (May 15, 2011).
> > On 6/9/2011 11:24 AM, Monica Pignotti wrote: > >> What this center is doing goes against > >> everything the ethical practice of behavior analysis stands for in my
> > Maybe it's changed since I encountered the abusive credentialed > > quack I mentioned previously. That was before Lovaas renounced the > > nastiness (which I did not even know had happened until I read this > > article), and I have not followed it much since.
> Evidently little if anything has changed. According to The Behavior > Analysis Association of Michigan, "An individual is entitled to > effective and scientifically validated treatment. In turn, behavior > analysts have an obligation to use only those techniques that have > been demonstrated by researchers to be effective, to acquaint > consumers and the public with the advantages and disadvantages of > these techniques, and to search continuously for the most optimal > means of changing behavior" which is right out of the IARET handbook.
I don't know about that organization. The behavior analysts I know focus on positive reinforcement and are completely repulsed by the misuse of behavioral analysis as punishment of the kinds used by the Rotenberg Center. They use positive reinforcement first and if they do use punishment, it would be something like a time out or taking away a reward, not physically invasive punishments like electro shocks.
> I don't know about that organization. The behavior analysts I know > focus on positive reinforcement and are completely repulsed by the > misuse of behavioral analysis as punishment of the kinds used by the > Rotenberg Center. They use positive reinforcement first and if they do > use punishment, it would be something like a time out or taking away a > reward, not physically invasive punishments like electro shocks.
(a) The behavior analyst always has the responsibility to recommend scientifically supported most effective treatment procedures. Effective treatment procedures have been validated as having both long-term and short-term benefits to clients and society.
(b) Clients have a right to effective treatment (i.e., based on the research literature and adapted to the individual client).
> The ones I know don't use the kinds of punishments that are used at > the Rotenberg Center.
Are you saying they use different punishments, or are you saying they don't use punishments at all? If the latter, they are probably violating their "Treatment Efficacy" standard. If you have the chance, please ask them about their views on the use of aversives, what they think about their certifying organization's position, and where do they draw the line if they think aversives are sometimes acceptable. I'm curious. And you might be surprised by their answers.
On Jun 9, 8:56 am, Dennis Erlich <infor...@informer.org> wrote:
> Monica Pignotti <monica.pignotti....@gmail.com> wrote: > >This proves you have not read my blog and are jumping to unwarranted > >conclusions that support your intent to attack me. My style is to > >intentionally seek out the very best arguments from the "other side" > >and discuss that. I did that on my blog. I presented the very best > >arguments in favor of not banning prone restraints.
> Why tf would I go read about something that's off-topic to my > interests? I read this newsgroup because it interests me and I'm > knowledgeable on the subject. I have little to no interest in
Then why participate in the discussion in the first place if you're not interested? Come on, now. There are many off topic postings in this NG that you say nothing about, but you focus exclusively on mine, neglecting to take to task the people who originated the threads in the first place. Clearly, it is not being off topic that is the problem for you. If that were the case, the problem would easily be solved by kill filing my name as others have done who don't want to see it. But you know good and well it's not about that. It's about your agenda to continuously attack me in any way you can rather than discuss the topic at hand. Thanks for that admission. I feel sad for you, Dennis, that your life is such that coming on here and attacking an activist who is already the target of a massive internet smear campaign, is what amuses and entertains you. What does that say about you as a human being? I'll leave that to each person reading this to decide.
> Monica's campaign until it get's situated into the correct newsgroup.
We've been through that a zillion times. There is no "correct newsgroup" because little occurs on most newsgroups except spam and flame wars. Again, you are way behind the times and act as if this is still the 1990s when decent discussions did occur on usenet. Those days are gone, Dennis. Most people have moved away from usenet to various list servs and discussion boards. ARS is somewhat of an exception to this because sometimes there are some decent discussions, but that is getting more and more rare, even here.
> Besides, I'm so sure she presented the "very best arguments" on the > other side, just as she did when she attacked Hassan over the word > "any" in his 10 second CNN statement.
It was not an attack. It was a disagreement that he inappropriately took personally when it was not a personal attack. It was a disagreement with his statement. Instead of discussing it with me, he refused to participate in the discussion and brought you in instead. That is what I consider to be highly disrespectful behavior on his part and I called him out on it. This is no different from what one would encounter in a cult when the cult leader is challenged. In contrast, the attacks on me have been very personal and not responsive to the issues I raised.
>Or when she trashed me > personally and my ministry rather than admit that she was wrong about > his statement.
No, that was not personal. I asked you about your credentials. At first you failed to respond, but then when Jim Martin pointed out that my questions were valid, you finally answered them that your only ministerial credentials come from Scientology and by your own admission, you are still on file with the state of California "that way". I was not "wrong" about Steve Hassan's statement. His statement was inaccurate and I stand by that and I think when people make statements like that to the media, they lose credibility because they are so easy to refute by providing counter examples. This is why people like Dr. Drew when they get the opportunity to interview ex- cultists, warn them not to exaggerate. There are plenty of very real things to expose about Scientology. No need to exaggerate and make generalizations that are not valid.
> Somehow I don't trust her to present the other side properly.
Fine with me. You are ignorant on the topic at hand and are in no position to judge anyway whether or not I have. My peer review system has accepted a number of my writings for publication and so according to them, I have.
> > I don't know about that organization. The behavior analysts I know > > focus on positive reinforcement and are completely repulsed by the > > misuse of behavioral analysis as punishment of the kinds used by the > > Rotenberg Center. They use positive reinforcement first and if they do > > use punishment, it would be something like a time out or taking away a > > reward, not physically invasive punishments like electro shocks.
> (a) The behavior analyst always has the responsibility to recommend > scientifically supported most effective treatment procedures. > Effective treatment procedures have been validated as having both > long-term and short-term benefits to clients and society.
> (b) Clients have a right to effective treatment (i.e., based on the > research literature and adapted to the individual client).
> > The ones I know don't use the kinds of punishments that are used at > > the Rotenberg Center.
> Are you saying they use different punishments, or are you saying > they don't use punishments at all? If the latter, they are probably > violating their "Treatment Efficacy" standard. If you have the > chance, please ask them about their views on the use of aversives, > what they think about their certifying organization's position, and > where do they draw the line if they think aversives are sometimes > acceptable. I'm curious. And you might be surprised by their answers.
I'm saying that they first use positive reinforcement and only resort to punishment if the positive stuff doesn't work, but even then, they don't use the harmful punishments. They just use things like time outs or taking away a privilege, which are punishments, but not abusive ones. The kind of torture used at the Rotenberg Center is not empirically supported.
> On Jun 9, 4:52 pm, John Dorsay<restimula...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 6/9/2011 4:26 PM, Monica Pignotti wrote: >> > They are certified by this organization:
>> (a) The behavior analyst always has the responsibility to recommend >> scientifically supported most effective treatment procedures. >> Effective treatment procedures have been validated as having both >> long-term and short-term benefits to clients and society.
>> (b) Clients have a right to effective treatment (i.e., based on the >> research literature and adapted to the individual client).
>> > The ones I know don't use the kinds of punishments that are used at >> > the Rotenberg Center.
>> Are you saying they use different punishments, or are you saying >> they don't use punishments at all? If the latter, they are probably >> violating their "Treatment Efficacy" standard. If you have the >> chance, please ask them about their views on the use of aversives, >> what they think about their certifying organization's position, and >> where do they draw the line if they think aversives are sometimes >> acceptable. I'm curious. And you might be surprised by their answers.
> I'm saying that they first use positive reinforcement and only resort > to punishment if the positive stuff doesn't work, but even then, they > don't use the harmful punishments. They just use things like time outs > or taking away a privilege, which are punishments, but not abusive > ones. The kind of torture used at the Rotenberg Center is not > empirically supported.
Well, the JRC has its own method of calculating empirical support. In essence, it works like this.
1. Record the frequency of targeted undesired behaviors in a controlled environment to establish a baseline.
2. Consequate targeted undesired behaviors.
3. Record the frequency of targeted undesired behaviors that occur after the victim has associated the behavior with the consequence, while the victim is aware of the possibility of further consequences.
4. If the frequency has not reduced, increase the severity of the consequence and return to step 2.
5. Otherwise, claim empirical support.
Sorry if I'm sounding thick, Monica. I was careless with my use of terminology. Punishment is a consequence that causes a behavior to occur with less frequency. It can be negative (ie the withdrawal of something, such as a reward), or positive (ie the addition of a stimulus). Positive punishments are commonly known by their proponents as aversives, and of course they are widely used at the JRC. It sounds like the behavior analysts you know limit themselves to negative punishments.
But positive punishments are a core component of behavior analysis, and this is what the doubletalk from the bacb.com web page is addressing. There are certainly far less extreme forms of positive punishment than those used by the JRC, but they are still aversives, and as far as I know lack any credible empirical support. Therefore I take the perhaps extreme position that any form of positive punishment is unacceptable. The bacb disagrees, and indeed the standard I quoted requires behavior analysts to include positive punishment in their repertoire. This is what I was talking about, and why I was curious about the views of the behavior analysts you know.
