Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon.
Switch to the new Google Groups.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
alt.religion.scientology
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Message from discussion Smear Campaign against Whistleblower Monica Pignotti Continues
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Monica Pignotti  
View profile  
 More options Jun 9 2011, 7:54 am
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: Monica Pignotti <monica.pignotti....@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 04:54:11 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Thurs, Jun 9 2011 7:54 am
Subject: Re: Smear Campaign against Whistleblower Monica Pignotti Continues
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On Jun 9, 12:03 am, 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.

> 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.

 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2012 Google